Man is a question; woman is an answer. The mistake women make today is to offer themselves as answers before being questioned. – José Bergamín
For several decades the idea that men are “afraid of commitment” has been a feminist shibboleth – despite the fact that it flies in the face of normal women’s experiences. In my experience and that of most women I know, men nearly always say “I love you” first and it’s women who shun commitment; I’ve received dozens of marriage proposals in my life, but only accepted two. The male-commitment-phobia myth dates to the late 20th century; in both fiction and personal accounts written before that it’s always the man depicted as expressing his love, serenading beneath the balcony, proposing multiple times before his inamorata finally says “yes”, etc. The truth of the matter is that men are only afraid of commitment to the same degree as women are: namely, they fear committing to the wrong person. But rather than admitting that the reason men wouldn’t express love or pursue marriage with them might be their fault, many feminist writers of the last quarter of the 20th century elected instead to blame it on the men.
It isn’t that all feminists have obnoxious personality traits which turn men off to them (as MRA-types might claim), nor that men are “afraid of strong women” (as radical feminists might claim). I doubt anyone would disagree that I’m a strong woman, and I’ve been beating men off with a stick for almost 30 years. The problem is that feminism stupidly encouraged women to act in a way that turns men off. Women who say “I love you” first are like women who ask men out or propose sex; they come across as needy, and many men are turned off by it. A woman who is too ready to express love or give away sex for free triggers a reaction in a typical man’s brain that “something must be wrong with her or else she’d be more aloof”; he’ll probably accept the free sex, but won’t be interested in anything else. This recent article shows that men usually profess love first, and explains why it’s so:
The [phrase] “I love you” is symbolic as it represents romantic devotion; a desire to bring the relationship to a higher, more serious level…A common perception is that men are likely to exercise caution in the use of such words while women, who are thought to have stronger feelings of love, are likelier to be first to profess love…Yet a study…by…Norman Li [of Singapore Management University]…found that men are more likely to make the first move. Furthermore, the onset of sexual activity also influences how a recipient might react to a three-worded confession as such. In their paper “Let’s Get Serious: Communicating Commitment In Romantic Relationships”, [Li and two co-]authors said that an evolutionary perspective has been “particularly fruitful…in accounting for the costs and benefits underlying specific patterns of romantic behaviour” and based their hypotheses from several principles in economics and evolutionary biology…
The first principle…considered…is parental investment, which states that because reproductive success is the primary driver of natural selection, the biological sex that makes the greater “minimum obligatory investment” (typically females) in conceiving will tend to be more…choosy than the other sex…because women have more to lose than men by making poor mating choices, they have a stronger motivation to choose carefully and wisely…“sexual intercourse represents the core event for which parental investment pressures are relevant…Meeting a romantic partner’s parents may feel like a big step in a relationship, but it plays a comparatively minor role in terms of the minimum obligatory costs a person must expend in fertilisation and child rearing,” [the authors said]. And because committed, long-term relationships often involve sexual activity, “confessions of love may be used to achieve sexual access by (truthfully or insincerely) announcing long-term romantic interest.”
This assessment suggests that men will be relatively more interested in seeking this access at the outset of a relationship, led the authors to hypothesise that men would likelier confess love first…A series of surveys…about perceptions of romantic relationships…[were used] to test the hypotheses…[and] 70 percent of the couples reported that it was the man who had confessed love first…contrary to the belief that women might be more keen to pledge love and commitment, it is, in fact, men who are more likely to do so first – albeit to encourage sexual activity. Women, on the other hand, may prefer to delay such expressions until they have evaluated their partners satisfactorily…
While the common perception may be that women tend to feel happier than men when they are told “I love you” for the first time in a relationship, an evolutionary-economics perspective suggests otherwise…“If love confessions are bids for sexual access, then women should respond less positively than men to confessions that occur prior to the onset of sexual activity in a relationship…In relationships in which sex occurs before love is confessed, they should be more motivated to seek investment, potentially in the form of commitment,” they wrote. This would mean that women should feel more positive about receiving a post-sex than a pre-sex confession of love while men are likely to respond better to pre-sex confessions as they may perceive them as “signals of sexual opportunity” …survey results…showed that male respondents exhibited less happiness in response to hearing “I love you” after sex had occurred in a relationship versus before sex…[while] female respondents showed a higher level of happiness when they are told “I love you” after sex…
Here we have another “dog bites man” thing; any woman who believes that other women set great stock in professions of love which come prior to first sexual contact is either virginal or delusional. Before sex, “I love you” might simply be a ploy to get in one’s pants; if, as the song says, he still loves you tomorrow, that’s meaningful.
The reason so many feminists sabotage their relationships from the outset is that they are hampered by a deep misunderstanding of the power dynamics of such relationships. A woman who wants the appearance of “equality” might try to “take the lead”, which as in dancing is very disruptive if her partner expects to play that role. So he gets a bit turned off by it and (consciously or unconsciously) cools toward her, and she responds by chasing harder which spooks him more. The more she tries to lead the more he imitates one of the Beatles running from screaming fans, so she goes off and writes a stupid article for some women’s magazine stating that “men are afraid of commitment”; eventually so many feminists do the same that the myth is established even among impressionable women whose personal experiences are exactly the opposite. The saddest part of all this is that, though many feminists want to believe that being the aggressor in a relationship is a position of strength, it’s actually one of weakness; which position is stronger, that of the soldier running up the beach or that of the defender in his machine-gun emplacement? But some feminists are so completely invested in believing that men have the advantage in everything that they abandon their positions of strength in one of the areas where women hold the high ground, and then wonder why they keep losing battles.
One Year Ago Yesterday
“The First Time” discusses men who opt to use honest cash rather than dishonest professions of love to obtain their first sexual experiences.
A very large portion of these feminists are not, in fact, interested in relationships with men; the ones who are so insistent that women take men’s attitudes and therefore assume male power on an equal basis (under the delusion that all things Male were powerful) are often lesbians.
One of the reasons why so many women seem to be saying things that are so poisonous to heterosexual relationships is, point blank, because they have no perspective on heterosexual relationships: they are either neutral to them, or negatively predisposed. They don’t need men, not do they want them.
This explains why the seemingly anti-sex attitude of many feminist activists. Even if they’re heterosexual they’re often inspired by women who are at best disinterested in male companionship, if not repulsed by it.
It’s dangerous for heterosexual women to take their dating or mating cues and strategies for mating and building intimate relationships with men from other women who are actively set against mating with men at all.
And this summarizes much of the reason many women are disillusioned with feminism: it’s shockingly not delivered what they thought – or assumed – it would. The men didn’t blithely walk along and play ball.
Horror of horrors, the men actually reacted as independent beings, with their own interests – and were not just tapestries onto which women could weave their desires.
And then the bosom of feminism still refused to offer any succour, just blaming men over and over – because much of feminism is at best neutral to, if not hostile to, the presence and participation of males at all.
It makes sense when you view it this way.
While some of the prohibitionists Maggie excorciates aren’t exactly lesbian, but rather almost sexless (I think of one Australian, for example, of ill repute), many are uninterested in heterosexuality as a continuing concern – unless it’s entirely on a woman’s terms, only in her interests, and wholly scripted to serve her interests. Should a man’s interests be served, this is fine, but irrelevant. Family courts are the same: Who gives a damn if 50% of a family is disowned on a regular basis: they’re men.
At best, irrelevant. At worst, a pox on womankind. This is the attitude of a movement that has been hijacked by narcissism and a core of lesbian ideology. Not to say the practitioners are lesbians; but for straight women to look to lesbians for mating strategies is insane.
Straight women need to deal with men, in positive and negative ways. And love them or hate them – men are, in the final analysis, not women. Dismissing them and the rest of heterosexuality is a bad idea.
Unless, of course, PIV sex (Penis in Vagina) sex is to be made illegal, or something. De-normalized? Is that what they want these days?
In the first wave of feminism, there already were those advocating for a large class of celibate women. Despite being accused of being lesbians, many were not; spinsterism was promoted by the likes of Christabel Pankhurst and others.
Even those who accepted being partnered with men were still trying to minimize or eliminate coitus. Wolstenholme Elmy was against sexual intercourse for any reason other than reproduction; a position consistent with certain fundamentalists. In the old-fashioned language of the time, she objected to the “degradation of her temple to solely animal uses”, which has evolved into the contemporary term “sex object”. Certain neofems today even claim to have trained their males to do without “PIV”.
…or to do without it with THEM, which can’t be all that much of a sacrifice. I’d lay odds 69% of those dudes are seeing escorts regularly.
I’d bet almost all of these men are elsewhere getting their fix. And of course, were they caught, they’d be called misogynistic for being cheaters, or for engaging in heteronormative sexual relations.
The distinction between fundamentalist anti-sexual rhetoric and anti-sex feminist rhetoric is pretty faint.
If they can afford them. $300 is a serious chunk of change for a lot of guys. For some guys it’s the same as me buying a Big Mac, but for a lot of guys it’s like me, well, spending $300.
Dear Sailor B, this is 1 reason why women like me are needed. The men poor in $’s deserve sex as much as the rich men. It’s not true that all men can afford streetwalkers. I find it very upsetting that the men poor in $’s are invisible to some, i.e., never talked about. Also upsetting and disgusting is when they are talked about in demeaning ways. Unfortunately, with some (snobs and proud of it) much of the value of men is seen as how many $’s they have and how much they can be used for profit and to get gifts, etc. This is pushed by the WONDERFUL (eyeroll) world system. ###*** the world system.
I could afford an occasional streetwalker if I gave up either cable TV or Internet. But lots of guys are poorer than I am.
Yes, some are poorer than you and they deserve sex also. The ideal to me is that no one ever have to specifically pay for sex and I’m proud of how I’ve practiced that and my belief in that will never change. I’m glad to help you save up $’s to see whores as I want you to be as happy as possible. Some things that make you happy I don’t want part of overall like you don’t want part of some things that make me happy also. This is the freedom of choice we both deserve.
Wasn’t Andrea Dworkin’s husband a closet case?
He was gay. Nobody even knew they were married until after she died; they kept it secret.
So his “closet” wasn’t that he was gay, but that he was married? To a woman?
Exactly. Weird, huh?
You know – this is a subject I never really thought much about but it’s interesting. I thought maybe I was an “exception” to most males until I read this. Aside from hookers and a couple of one-nighters – where the girls actually asked me to come home with them, all of the women I asked out or dated were women I thought might be “the one”. I mean seriously – I’d see a hooker at the drop of a hat for sex, I never felt the need to go out and “hunt” women simply for quick sex. So when I looked for women – I was always looking for someone special.
There was one gal who asked me out though but I wasn’t put off too much by it. What put me off was when she asked me to marry her about two weeks later. I should have run like hell but the girl was simply a freak sexually – and I learned something new from her every day. I could have made a life with that girl had we stayed in bed forever. I would have died of a heart-attack at some point but with a smile on my face.
Anyway – I told her to “slow down” on the marriage thing but, in my mind – that was enough for me to be convinced not to ever allow myself to marry that girl. I should have told her that very moment – but I did like her a lot, even though she was strange – and I still dream about the sex we had for the six months we were together.
It all ended when we went on deployment and I didn’t write her. When I returned to Hawaii … she had already married a Machinist off another Submarine. Funny though – when we set the maneuvering watch for entering Pearl Harbor coming back – I had to put on my Dress Whites – first time I had worn them since we left for deployment. I eased the pants on – and there was something in one of the front pockets.
She had put a pair of her panties in my pocket for me to find. She was an incredible girl.
I would say that men don’t fear commitment so much as hey fear monogamy. The strong male desire for marriage and progeny has been well understood for a long time and is well-represented in our cultural heritage. Jane Austen’s most famous line from Pride and Pejudice revolves around this. Shakespeare’s play always revolve around men trying to get married.
It’s no accident that as women have had more options in life, in terms of career and reproduction, the age of marriage has increased. When women can afford to wait longer to settle down, they do.
I think that what bothers men is not the idea of commitment but of exclusivity — i.e., if I marry this woman I will never get to see another woman naked again. It seems like most men who cheat have no intention of leaving their wives, which a commitment-phobe would; the want some variety. This is why prostitution and pornography are so vital — allowing men to satisfy those urges without wrecking commitments.
Very well said! 🙂
Hal,
I disagree. I agree there are SOME men who like variety in women even after marriage. But there are MANY like me who only want ONE woman in our lives. Men like me have NO PROBLEM with commitment and my 23 year track record proves that point.
So I would ask that you also please acknowledge there are PLENTY of men who have NO PROBLEM being with on woman all our lives. Men like me are quite sick of being characterized as one of the “men” who are would be cheaters. If I wanted to cheat I would have. I had the chances.
One thing that I am really disgusted with about western women is how you give absolutely no credit AT ALL and no reward AT ALL to men who remain faithful. This is despite the fact MOST WOMEN will tell a man that being faithful is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the relationship.
In my own personal case? I have been so HATED ON despite the fact I was widely acknowledged as one of the best husband and fathers BY MY OWN WIFE AND FATHER IN LAW AND STEP SON that I now advise young men to do pretty much the OPPOSITE of what I did.
I tell young men that being a beta, provider, husband, father, wage slave, loser SMUCK is the WORST thing they could do with their lives and I POINT TO MY COURT DOCUMENTS TO BACK THAT UP.
Many young men are taking my point. No matter HOW GOOD us men are you women denigrate us. Well? Guess what? If you denigrate and vilify men for long enough they will say “f*** it, I might as well be the bastard they tell me I am because there is no reward for not being that bastard.”
Women HATE on me now for the things I say. I point out that I have had so much HATRED spewed at me for so long that more women HATING on me is like water off a ducks back. I have MORE and BETTER friends than I had when I was “married with children”. My life is FAR better. So taking a bit of HATRED to save the lives of young men is just fine by me.
How about a bit more acknowledgement for those men who ARE great fathers and husbands? How about some rewards for them? How about the protection of the law for them? Until ALL the fathers who have been criminally victimised by women have their day in court I will tell the lads.
“No commitment…..EVER!”
You make a very good point. I had a wonderful faithful husband who worked hard, was a brilliant dad and was perfect in every respect as a husband should be. I couldn’t stay because I am a commitment phobe. He has even supported me as a friend since while I crash from bad relationship to bad relationship. I love him so much but I do not deserve him, fortunately he has helped me in every way possible and I count him as my best friend. Years ago we went through an excruciating split because I did a runner.
As a consequence I live with guilt and cannot find a decent relationship, usually because I sabotage them or choose someone I can keep at arms length.
I want to apologise to you and men like you. You are fully justified in your response but I cannot explain why women like me do the things we do. I sincerely hope that you find someone worthy of your love. Unfortunately women are as restless and distracted as some men. Your reactions are understandable, you did everything you could to be a good partner and it was thrown back in your face. This can happen to some women too.
I don’t wonder if we shouldn’t have some kind of contract (instead of marriage), say for 2 years or something so that we can negotiate a way back into personal relationships. If not I fear that men and women will just continue to misunderstand and abuse eachother.
I hope you find some peace and happiness in your life, sounds like you deserve it.
“Many young men are taking my point. No matter HOW GOOD us men are you women denigrate us. Well? Guess what? If you denigrate and vilify men for long enough they will say “f*** it, I might as well be the bastard they tell me I am because there is no reward for not being that bastard.”
This is very true. Like it or not, when a woman ceases to have sexual relations with her husband/partner, that action says clearly: “I don’t care about you anymore, and your wants and needs are not important”.
People lie with their mouths, but their actions tell the truth.
Like Maggie says : if you own a dog, you are, by the act of buying it, accepting responsibility to meet it’s needs for the life of the dog; if you don’t meet it’s needs, dont’t blame the dog for getting it’s needs met elsewhere.
While Peter is very vociferous in his approach, the current situation with gender relationships is shit: women seem to have a sense of total entitlement, arrogance and selfishness; then get all butthurt when their poor behaviour gets called out.
Seriously, ladies, if you don’t like the backlash, grow up and be adults; it’s a mutually beneficial arrangement, not an excuse for you to take the piss.
I’ve been with girls like that.
A) Marring them, um, no. B) But remarkable people.
I hope they thought the same of me: A and B, not just A.
Good point on prostitution and porn . It provides an outlet so families aren’t destroyed.
On the other hand, you can just very carefully cheat. If you’re smart enough.
There is no such thing as “smart enough” when the needs and desires of another human being are concerned. If a man doesn’t know up front exactly what a woman’s motive for giving him sex is, there’s a very high chance it’s going to be something that will interfere with his relationship.
Which is exactly why I won’t “cheat” with an amateur.
For me, a hooker is the “variety” with a clean “getaway”. I never thought of it that way when I was single but I do now.
I enjoyed this article, Maggie – but the one I really want to see …
Is the one that addresses this …
A man cheats …
A. With an old flame or
B. With a hooker
In my perception – the wife will always be more pissed off if he cheats with a hooker – even though that’s simply a carnal diversion that doesn’t involve him giving his heart or love to another woman. However, if he cheats with an amateur – there’s always some level of emotional attachment – or outright love.
So why would wives be more “forgiving” of the man if it’s with an amateur – even knowing that the monogamous emotional love he had for his wife is compromised … when it isn’t anywhere near compromised with a hooker?
Not in my experience; every woman I know would be angrier if it was an old flame (like, relationship-destroying anger) than a hooker. Emotional intimacy is much more threatening to most women; the “hooker is worse” thing seems to be a late-20th century growth fueled by agenda-driven articles in women’s magazines making absurd claims about the “meaning” of dalliances with whores.
This may be true, but my SO would be more upset with the very notion of prostitutes: I would be an Evil Man. There’s a chance if it was an old GF, it was because I was just confused or sentimental or whatever, but clearly I still respected women.
We’ve had this discussion because this has happened.
When I met her, she was of the opinion that having sex with a prostitute was rape, or worse.
Now, she just thinks it’s disgusting.
And to get that far, she’s had to undo 20 years of training in various schools.
It’s true: The readings she did for her degree spoke of all of these subjects in this manner.
That’s exactly the point I’m making; such thinking isn’t natural to women. They only believe it after it’s been “spun” by neofeminists as indicative of some deep misogyny. Imagine if some especially evil cadre of neofeminists decided as a really freakish practical joke to convince women that fishing was a sign of latent homosexuality, and that guys who went fishing were “really” sneaking off to be with male lovers. If women read and believed this, they might indeed freak out upon discovering tackle boxes in their boyfriends’ closets, but that wouldn’t mean women naturally hate and fear fishing.
Well, my cousin is going through this now …
He cheated with an old flame – and she was deliberately “casual” enough with affair that it was discovered. He had to tell his wife, before someone else did.
So she kicks him out of the house … for two weeks with the approval of his parents. Everyone comes down on this guy like a ton of bricks for this ONE TIME he made a mistake during like – 15 years of marriage? However, after basically prostrating himself on the altar of remorse and begging publicly for forgiveness from GOD – he’s now allowed back in the house to sleep in the basement. Eventually he’ll be back in the fold (no pun intended).
His Mom – all distraught, came to me. I won’t hear from some of my relatives for years but they will fuckin call me up when something sinful happens that they can’t deal with. I guess they figure Sailors have committed every sin on the planet and so I’m a useful resource when such occasions arise. I’m kind of the “black sheep” like this.
Anyway – I tried to tell her about the male mind and how we look nice and squared away on the outside – but inside we’re thinking of all the dirty things we’d like to do to the last woman we talked to. She actually got this part – she’s 70, so she should know something of men. Anyway – during the conversation, I asked her … “What if he had gone to a prostitute?”.
And she told me he would have been disowned from the family – do not pass go, do not collect $200.
LOL – I asked her … “Why?” Because, with a prostitute – he would have given “Mr. Happy to another woman he’s compensating – but would not have given any emotional attachment to her. As it stands – his old flame got “Mr. Happy” AND some level of emotional attachment – which I really believe needs to be reserved for your wife. This is the soul of monogamy for men … well, for me anyway. I’ve never had a problem “compartmentalizing” sex from love.
She told me that, she believed that a “weakness of the heart” is a lesser sin than a “weakness of the flesh” – and perhaps his old flame seduced him. LOL – I told her “No” … that he hasn’t had another woman for 15 years and he’s having problems with his wife sexually. He didn’t go to a prostitute because he’s under the mistaken impression also that doing so would be worse than getting with his old flame. So he gets with his old flame – for SEX – but becomes emotionally evolved in the process because – that’s the nature of that process.
My final advice to her was to talk to the wife and have HER make some overtures of forgiveness. Poor guy feels like shit – and how his wife treats him right now is going to affect how deeply his love for her returns. If he sees a loving, and forgiving side of her – he’ll be reminded of the reasons he wanted to marry her and that marriage will be forever stronger. She’s already seen how remorseful he is.
This almost happened with me once – I didn’t “cheat” in a carnal fashion with an amateur but came close and my wife caught me once. I was involved with the other woman emotionally – and she encompassed all my thoughts. My wife (who didn’t know at the time exactly how far I had gone physically with this woman) didn’t react by kicking me out of the house or going nuke on my ass, but rather – I saw a side of forgiveness and love from my wife that made me completely forget about the other woman.
They probably won’t take my advice though – so I predict more pain for my cousin. 😛
Dear Maggie, we’re in agreement here…Laura’s feeling faint now…lol. The ONLY problem Sailor Barsoom and I have ever had with our arrangement was from 1 of his ex-girlfriends. For some reason when we set up our original set of rules neither of us thought of “no exes” (hope I spelled that right). After the HELL that happened we put that rule in place. I have no problem with Sailor B seeing whores. But, to be honest, I don’t want to know about it beyond what him and I already share with each other (which isn’t much, just the basics of who we’re going to see and when, etc.) or be there with him (there’s only 1 thing I’d make an exception for as far as being there) because of how I feel about prostitution overall. It’s pretty much the same in my mind as not wanting to be around any drug use (only drug use I want anything to do with is for true health problems). It’s unthinkable for me to say to him “you can’t see whores”.
You mean, you DON’T want to be there when I eat a cactus? I’ll have to invite Tracy over.
Hhhmmmnnn…… Tracy as my trip sitter. Maybe not a good idea. 😉
You know I don’t want to be there, but do want to ask how it was for you after…including how Tracy did!
Krulac,
A woman in love will be *devastated* if you cheat with an “old flame,” and very rightly; but she’ll often forgive an encounter with a professional.
A seducer, a real bounder, an inveterate cad — such a man can still escape the worst corruption — if he never cheats.
I don’t fuck married women or women with boyfriends, and I leave a woman if I feel an overwhelming need for strange.
Sometimes I’ll tell a girl at the outset that, when I travel, I may see someone. They’ll accept it, seemingly, until they’re in love and suddenly permission is revoked.
A man who loves the company of women and the pleasure of women is fated to a complete and bitter knowledge.
I saw a great film recently: Fernando di Leo’s “La Seduzione.” Very instructive.
I agree with almost everything you say – and it’s complete illogical conundrum.
In my first post, above – I talk about a girl I used to date who was a 100% “freak” sexually. She actually gave me permission to “cheat” on her – but only in certain ports. It was totally her idea too – she brought the conversation up. For instance, she told me I could “fool around” in the Philippines – but not Australia. She believed I could not fall “in love” with a brown skinned woman – but I would be a hazard around white ones and she told me this. Although I think brown skinned women are beautiful – she had read me correct on that.
Soooo – that was her, trying to limit the “damage” of the male sex drive. She was placing women I might fall in love with – off limits to me while leaving the entire universe of other women free and fair game. Certainly an unconventional approach – but logical. It was one I could live with anyway.
But she was the only one that ever cut that kind of deal with me.
All the rest of the women I’ve dated – pretty much insist that you give them your complete emotional love – and also demonstrate that love for them by conquering the “animal male” in you. Oh and also, if you marry an older woman – she’s likely to lose interest in sex well before you do – but it’s still not acceptable to unleash the gorilla in you when that day comes.
This makes no sense to me. I could take up heavy drinking, and chain-smoking and eat a lot of rabbit food, maybe buy a colored jersey and some tight shorts and a funny helmet and ride a bike up and down the highway – and completely destroy my male hormone levels – and then conquering my “animal male” would be a lot easier. That, however, doesn’t prove my “commitment” to the woman I love in any useful fashion. And – wasn’t being a “cute horndog” who totally melts at the sight or scent of a woman part of the reason she was attracted to me in the first place? It has to be.
The only thing you can do – is find a woman who’s like the freaky girl I mention above – and, I don’t care what Maggie says – but those women are few and far between. Well, they’ve always hidden from me anyway, except for one. Or, you can “submit” and find an acceptable way to chemically castrate yourself – so that you can play by the rules with certainty. Or … you can just go out and be careful about what you do and keep that part of yourself hidden. It’s sad, but it’s living at least.
But – here’s the deal. I don’t think you can really keep things hidden from a woman – they are too fucking smart. Oh sure – you can eliminate the evidence and leave no trace, but she’ll still jedi-mind-trick read your eyes and your mind and KNOW what you’re up to. If she doesn’t say anything to you about it – it’s probably because she’s “okay” with it as long as it isn’t in her face or isn’t being performed in a manner disrespectful to her … and she’s not required to react to it because she has no direct knowledge of it and you haven’t admitted anything. “See no Evil” kind of thing.
Dear n/a, I love that you’re open with saying you have restrictions on who you’ll have sex with. I have restrictions also. I won’t have sex with legally married men (including separated men) and/or men who are single but don’t have an arrangement with their girlfriends, fiances, etc. Unfortunately, I compromised a few times in the past on the married man thing. I’ve never done it again, though, and have resolved to never do that again. I want to speak up (it’s very needed on here and other places onilne also, unfortunately) for the women like me who won’t have sex with EVERYONE who answers their ads (I used personal ads in the past to meet sex friends), who won’t interfere in any marriages and/or relationships, who don’t WANT a new husband, fiance, etc., and set things up to avoid too much emotional attachment. I never once contacted the wives of the few married men I saw. I purposely BROKE OFF CONTACT FOR GOOD with these men and told them WHY. The most times I saw these men were less than 5 in 2 cases. The others I only saw once and that was less than 3 men. I’m very thankful they were understanding and never contacted me again. IF I met their wives by some chance thing I wouldn’t lie to them. I’d tell them what happened. But, I’d also emphasize how I handled the situation. I’m not with you on “A man who loves the company of women and the pleasure of women is fated to a complete and bitter knowledge”. Things don’t have to be that way and sometimes aren’t (thank God!). Open relationships CAN and DO work. Sailor Barsoom and I are proof of this as we’ve had 1 for years. Please know I’m not saying these things always work. But, I say: never give up trying to make them work and never give up on finding a woman who will want an arrangement.
I wanted to add that with the few married men I saw I never said “leave your wife”, “stay with your wife but we’ll hide what we’re doing” or “I’ll be your mistress”. All of these things make me feel literally nauseated. Also, being a fundamentalist Christian (1 who does have some problems in the sexual area, I’ll glady admit) isn’t the only reason for me having restrictions on who I’ll have sex with. We fundamentalist Christians are so sick and tired of this ###*** being thrown on us: you’re only against ______ (fill in the blank) because you’re a fundamentalist Christian”. WRONG in at least a few cases, including mine. I have restrictions for many reasons and some of them are secular, i.e., have nothing to do with religious beliefs. We non-whore women who can be and sometimes are sexually wild need to defend ourselves against the constant negativity about us. We’re sick of it and should be. I listed some of the ###*** about us earlier this week on another entry so won’t go into that again. 1 reason I’m glad I made my goal of no longer hiding who I am sexually (I worked towards meeting that goal for a long time) is it’s given me the motivation, etc., to speak out against the constant negativity. Not all of us non-whore women are threats to relationships, etc. I’m not alone in this either before I hear the “you’re an exception” ###***. Even if I were the only non-whore “wild woman” in the world who’s not a threat to relationships, etc., I’d still count as the # of individuals who have changed the world for better and worse is huge. Thanks for listening.
“Fundamentalist Christian”
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Laura beats head against wall…yes, they do mean what I think:
http://www.victorious.org/chur21.htm
I fit the “5 points” listed on the above. Before I hear any screaming about the author’s comment about “politically correct” I don’t agree with it…wink…too tired to look for the winking head code…smile.
“For this reason, fundamentalism may no longer be a term which accurately conveys what orthodox Christians really believe.”
It isn’t that you left fundamentalism, Dahlin’, it’s that fundamentalism has left you. It’s like the Dixiecrats didn’t change what they believed in, and so they left the Democratic Party. What happened was that the Democratic Party changed what they stood for (are lost the South for a generation… or more), and so the Dixiecrats left.
It makes me sick that there’s now 2 definitions of fundamentalism. It’s tragic. The preachers that fit the definition of “new fundamentalists” I won’t support in any way including not setting foot in their “churches”. There are still preachers that are practicing what’s called “old fundamentalism” and exposing the “new fundamentalist” heretic preachers. Thank God for them! They disprove the popular lie that all fundamentalist preachers are the same.
My SO would be enraged if I was with a prostitute. On the other hand, an ex lover who was attractive – that’s oddly understandable for her.
Weird, but true.
I’ve heard the same from others. There’s a general hatred – not dislike, but hatred – of prostitutes among many women in relationships.
Exploring the reasons for that would be interesting.
All the women that I know (and myself) would be much more devastated by a hook up with an old flame. Old flames can very easily become threatening to your relationship with your man. Same with a co-worker.
A one night stand with a prostitute or a while traveling with someone you’ll probably never see again? Okay, I’m mad, but hopefully, I don’t have to worry about you falling in love with her and leaving me.
Co-worker or old flame? No way. But then again, I live deep inside a red state, far from blue state and urban sensibilities.
When I had a woman “on the side,” Laura and I had lots of trouble. Damn near broke us up. She was an old flame. I really don’t think a hooker would have bothered her near as much, though she would’ve been curious to know how I could afford her.
Dear Sailor B, if your ex hadn’t been plotting evil ###*** behind my back and being a phony to my face it could have all been different. Thank God you had the decency to not join in with her wanting you to lie to me, etc. I find the whole thing very sad also. It wasn’t just upsetting. It was also sad. My fear for her ever since is she’s going to get physically attacked by someone in a relationship for pulling the same stuff she did with us. I’m hoping she’s learned how dangerous that can literally be and how it’s not worth the risk. If she’d just not proposed to you to lie to me over and over and join her in her other ###*** behind my back I think it’s possible you could still be seeing each other. I hope she learned from the whole thing. As far as hookers go, I’ll never buy the “they never interfere in relationships” ###***. I know better from doing a lot of reading in the true crime genre alone. The truth is non-whore women can also not interfere in relationships. I’m proof of this and have been for years. Not interfering in relationships isn’t a monopoly that hookers have. It’s not a monopoly with non-whore women either. There ARE non-whore women who mess with relationships. But, to constantly just put out the “gloom and doom” ###*** that they’re so risky, don’t ever get involved, etc. is totally unfair and plain arrogant. Can credit ever be given to the 1’s who don’t cause problems? If your ex had not done the plotting and other stuff (like wanting to go to every family event…I’m very thankful NONE of the people I saw ever pulled that 1) I would have been fine with you having her as a sex friend. I wouldn’t have had any problem with you seeing whores (and still don’t). I just don’t want to be part of that whole thing. There’s only 1 exception I’d make to this and you know what it is. Other than that, I don’t want to be there or be part of it in any way. As long as you follow our rules (just telling me the basic info) I can live with it. Just like as long as I follow our rules you can live with my choices. I’m thankful every day that no one I saw/am seeing has ever done what you ex did. That’s always a risk when you have an arrangement. I know now I was too strict in the past with non-sex socializing and am glad I’ve loosened up on that. You can be TOO cautious and that’s as bad as the other extreme (letting too much go on).
That’s always a risk when you have an arrangement. I know now I was too strict in the past with non-sex socializing and am glad I’ve loosened up on that. You can be TOO cautious and that’s as bad as the other extreme (letting too much go on).
So, if I understand correctly, you are moving from sex only friendships to something closer to friends with benefits? Where exactly should the line be drawn with respect to how much non-sex time you spend with them?
Dear gumdeo, if you don’t mind my asking, why are you wanting to know these things about the ways I have sex friendships (both sex only friends and friends with benefits)? I’m hoping it’s because you have an open mind towards non-whore women who help men out sexually.
Only to understand more about the dynamic underlying it, particularly since the FwBs I am familiar with tended to know each other first (often for a long time). And yes, I am favorable towards honest amateurs, and indeed, honest behavior everywhere.
Dear gumdeo, sorry for my late reply. To be honest, I’d prefer not using the term “amateur” about myself in conversation. To me it’s another “safe little category box” and I’m so sick of those I could scream for ages. I’ve only had 2 what I call “friends with benefits” relationships. The 1st was with Sailor Barsoom. We didn’t have sex for several months after we met because we lived in different cities plus I needed to do more recovery work before I was ready to have sex. When I visited him we had sex for the 1st time after our 1st formal date. I fell in love with him a few months later when he visited me. Before I fell for him I wanted a FULL relationship with him. He hugely impressed me for many reasons and he still does. I’m currently in a new friends with benefits relationship. I was monogamous for nearly 9 years by choice. I’ve found out that I’m what I call a “polyamory person” (my own label which are about the only kinds of labels on people I like) and “friends with benefits” relationships can be and are part of the many types of polyamory relationships. I love how in polyamory there’s so much freedom as far as what you make your relationships and what you name them. It’s very anti-“safe little category boxes”. I think it’s wonderful you’re for honest relationships. This is 1 of the things I love about polyamory: no lies and no hiding what you’re doing and total honesty is the standard. Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way and Sailor Barsoom is the same. We’ve followed these standards the whole time we’ve had an arrangment (which has been pretty much the whole time we’ve been together).
Dear gumdeo, sorry for my late reply. Personally I think it’s up to each couple how much non-sex time is spent with others. In the past with sex only friends I know now I was way too cautious about it. I’ve gotten less strict on that after my nearly 9 year break from sex only friends. Yes, I’ve moved from sex only friends to friends with benefits once again. But, due to limited time and other reasons I won’t be looking for the amount of friends I had in the past. I also want to leave the option open for only 1 new sex only friend (the kind I had in the past). Like I said above, I personally think it’s up to each couple how much non-sex time they spend with others. Sailor Barsoom and I have a set of rules on this and following it has worked great. Once we added the “never see an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend” rule things have been going great.
I thought you might have something to say on this.
I do wish you hadn’t gone back to the whole thing of “Not interfering in relationships isn’t a monopoly that hookers have.” We know that. Everybody knows that. Nobody is claiming that every single solitary non-hooker is aching to destroy a relationship. It’s more a thing of odds.
I I’m seeing somebody on the side who is seeing me for reasons other than “it’s my job,” it is more likely (not inevitable) that she will want me to herself. After all, she likes me enough to have sex with me. Now, she may be a woman who has sex without becoming emotionally involved, but she probably isn’t. There just aren’t that many women like that. Many who are take up a little profession called prostitution.
If I’m seeing a hooker in her professional capacity, it is less likely (though not impossible) that she will want me to herself. She doesn’t like me enough to have sex with me; she has sex with me because I paid her to. She is almost (almost!) certainly a woman who can have sex without becoming emotionally involved, or she won’t last long in the job.
Seeing a non-professional on the side does not guarantee that these problems will arise, nor does seeing (hiring) a professional guarantee that they will not. But those are the odds.
The race is not always to the swift, nor is the battle always to the strong. But that’s the way to bet.
Dear Sailor B, when nothing good is ever said and/or credit is never given to ANY group of people I’m going to speak out about it. I’m TIRED OF IT. You have no problem that I do this with the MVS. In fact you love that I do this with them. This ###*** hurts people and they’re tired of it. I know 1st hand how the MVS are tired of it. We SHOULD BE. It’s something I’m never going to let up on. It shouldn’t be needed to begin with. But, to just say that and not do anything but talk is living in wilfull denial and also a cop-out. It’s hilarious and sad to me that if you repeat stuff about certain groups of people you’re told basically: to shut up, quit repeating yourself; you’re treating everyone like they’re kids (lol…eyeroll); you’re too positive like Polyanna (actually that character is pretty wonderful and the book she’s in has been considered a classic for a long time) OR you’re too negative (you’re talking about the MVS again!). But, if you say the same things about groups that are favored then that’s the greatest thing in the world and keep up the good work! Favoritism anyone? Unequal standards? YES. The non-whore women who help men out sexually also and don’t cause them any trouble come from the same small group of women as whores do. There’s at least 2 groups of men that they help: the poor (you’re 1 of these) and the 1’s who don’t want to see whores. Yes, I know about the odds stuff, OK? I acknowledge there’s truth in it and always will. But what I’m tired of is constant “gloom and doom” talk, no credit ever given and no positives ever said. I just haven’t had an interest in this until the past few years because I was hiding my “wild woman” stuff and things related to it. It’s the same with the MVS, unfortunately. Some don’t even bother to talk to us and also wilfully ignore us and then have the nerve to make statements about what we do/how we grieve/how we recover/why we’re for death penalty and many other things like they actually know our reasons for doing/believing certain things. Incredible in its arrogance and presumption! There’s also the example of reading 1 thing about an MVS or group of MVS and then having the nerve to say you know exactly why they do and/or believe something. Just like the “Internet diagnosis” (eyeroll) I pointed out earlier today on here. Sorry, but my repeating myself to defend and speak up for the non-whore women who help men out sexually also isn’t going to end just like it won’t for the MVS and other groups.
You must do what you think is right.
“My SO would be enraged if I was with a prostitute. On the other hand, an ex lover who was attractive – that’s oddly understandable for her.
Weird, but true.”
That’s not ‘wierd’ or ‘odd’, it’s fucking INSANE.
Any kind of emotional bond between you and your ‘strange’ plays dice with your feelings towards your primary partner. (Nature, wanting your genes back in the mix, has no compunctions about it).
That’s a damn cast iron fact of male biological and instinctive sexuality; sate the sex drive, open up the social/emotional bonding. Any man immune to that process has to be an ice cold bastard.
The wrath at whores comes from the alpha female wanting to bitchslap the promiscuous competition; just like the young girls slutshaming and bullying in the schoolyard.
So, ladies, anytime you’re not banging your guy into the matress, you’re rolling the dice with your relationship. That’s just a fact you need to own up to.
You want an alpha male, this pattern of sexual behaviour goes with the territory: it’s your expectations that are wrong, not the biological facts.
Damn, it’s that “obligatory costs a person must expend in fertilisation and child rearing” part that got me. I just knew that was going to be my undoing!
Maggie,
I am recently discovered your blog and am almost caught up. My ex-girlfriend and best friend is playfully jealous of you. You are a character in our conversations. “Maggie says this, Maggies says that…” Thought you’d get a kick out of it.
Anyway I have a few random thoughts on this post:
1) Increasingly men ARE afraid of commitment or at least afraid of marriage. I know I am. Divorce laws are no joke. We all know that man can be financially ruined. Even cohabitation without legal marriage is becoming increasingly dangerous. The state is treating it more and more as if it were legal marriage.
So if women are interested in marriage, they should exert political pressure to change the laws. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen. But who knows.
2) Women CAN get commitment no problem. Just not from the men they want commitment from. We know that we descended from twice as many women as men (80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did). The dating site okcupid ran some numbers and discovered that “…women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium.”
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
When most women want a small group of the most attractive men there will be many disappointed women. Yet none of these women want to “settle.” That is until they start aging and losing their sexual market value. Then they call back one of the guys they rejected in their youth. But many of these guys are no longer interested. She snubbed him when she was young and pretty, so he snubs her when she’s older and less attractive.
There is a growing group of these men called Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). These men either become celibate, travel abroad to find a partner, or turn to hookers. And they tend to love their relationships hookers. No lies. Win win. So these men Maggie, are your natural allies.
As for me I am in the lucky group of the attractive males that most women are competing for. I won the genetic lottery and I ain’t complaining. I haven’t had to turn to hookers, but I would in a heartbeat. In fact, I am curious to do it a few times just to see what that experience is like. I never thought there was anything wrong with hooking, but I used to think that guys who went to hookers were losers. I don’t think that anymore.
It may be splitting hairs, G, but I would say that “fear of marriage due to legal entanglements” is not the same thing as the legendary “fear of commitment”. Lots of people are afraid to have kids nowadays for the same reason, but that doesn’t equate to an innate human fear of children. See what I mean?
It’s not splitting hairs at all. I was thinking the same thing.
In the past the less attractive men were able to offer women marriage in return for sex (oversimplification). Now that they increasing aren’t willing to offer marriage due to legal entanglements, they are increasingly off women’t radars. This leaves women competing for a smaller pool of men.
Well…yeah, but “attractive” doesn’t mean the same thing for women as for men; never has, never will. That’s why some phenomenally ugly (in an aesthetic sense) male celebrities have legions of female followers.
A female can offer a male her beauty (pretty face, hot body) and youth. Beauty = fit genes, Youth = ability to carry baby to term and propagate those genes.
A male can offer a female his beauty (handsome face, hot body) and resources (status and money). Again, beauty = fit genes, status and money = provide for the child(ren) and family to propagate those genes.
So men and women essentially want the same thing from each other: fit genes and ability to propagate them.
One mating strategy for a woman is to get both fit genes and ability to propagate them from the same man. In other words, marry a rich hunk who will provide for her. Some women manage this. The downside is that the rich hunk is almost guaranteed to stray from time to time. This carries the risk that he may decide to start a new family with another woman so the original wife loses some or all of his resources.
A woman also has the option of getting fit genes from one man (hot sex with the hunk), while getting the ability to propagate those genes from another male (cuckolded husband) or even a group of males (hooking). Some women adopt this mating strategy. The downside is the cuckolded husband might catch her cheating and withdraw his resources.
A man must get both fit genes and the ability to propagate them from the same woman. I supposed there is IVF, but you know, evolutionarily speaking.
The phenomenally ugly male celebrities offer poor genes, but a great ability to propagate them. This may be a worthwhile compromise for some women. Other women are unconsciously looking to cuckold them.
And finally he is a celebrity, which means many women are aware of his existence, so of course he will attract some percentage of them. He may only attract 1% of the females population, but 1% of 1 million is 10,000 females. An unknown hunk by comparison may attract 10% of the female population, but only 1,000 women are meaningfully aware of his existence. 10% of 1,000 = 100 females.
As an aside even the hunkiest of the hunks, the Brad Pittiests of Brad Pitts will only attract a small percentage of the female population because women have their types. Women evaluate male facial features (independent of handsomeness) and other attributes to screen for genetic compatibility. See:
http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/her-type/
It’s not about looks. I’m certainly no “Cary Grant” but I’m not Frankenstein either. I’ve always been “big” but certainly nowhere near fat. A fair amount of women I meet for the first time seem intimidated and don’t want to make eye contact. I’m just a big guy – Cops even give me the glare as if I’m going to cause problems. The women who don’t look me in the eye aren’t the women I’d be interested in anyway. I like the ones that look me RIGHT in the eye and enough have in my lifetime.
I never had a problem picking up girls if I wanted to, especially since my standards were never that high if it was just someone I was looking to “shag”. I can find something beautiful in just about any woman as long as she doesn’t have a mustache. 😀
But – here’s the deal. When I was a “young” man – I was looking for the one woman I could spend the rest of my life with. I knew I was not likely to meet her in a bar. I kind of figured that a lot of girls were out there looking for a guy they could do likewise with – so picking up those girls for a quick toss seemed to be an un-chivalrous endeavor. I never liked taking advantage of women. I always figured women were looking for something in compensation for the sex – and I was always good with that, I thought that was a fair deal and one that she ought to have the power to make. So if a woman sleeps with me because she’s looking for a lifetime partner – what does that make me if I know, going in – that all I want from her is one night of sex?
I just couldn’t groove on that – and still can’t.
Hookers want $$ in compensation for sex, not lifetime partnership – and if all I was looking for was sex – then I was all over that deal!
I think that’s an honest deal. That’s not the kind of deal a “loser” makes but one an honest man makes who respects women and their desires and doesn’t believe in “fooling” them otherwise simply to get their pants off.
You could put a gun in the hand of every woman I’ve ever dated – and put my face in front of that gun … she will not pull the trigger. I can tell you I don’t have a single woman who’s an enemy, save maybe one who used to send me bizarre Christmas cards with cartoon rats on them. She hasn’t sent those in awhile though.
Additionally, when I was young – I was learning my career and working hard to make a name for myself so I wouldn’t be a loser all my life. In my occupation, there was a lot of competition but few of them were willing to put in the kind of hours I was. Plus – I really “dug” my job and felt rewarded by doing it. I had no time to go on the hunt and “wine and dine” and be charming to women hoping for a payoff.
When I had free time – I had an hour or two … and a lot of “tension” to release. It took me 30 minutes to ride my Harley from my Submarine down to Moose McGillicuddy’s in Waikiki – and the rest of the night to find a “6” or a “7” who would take me home with her (and she had to take me home since I lived in a barracks).
Or – I could just ride 10 minutes up Nimitz Highway to the Pearl City Health Spa … plunk down some cash … have an hour and half of fun and conversation with an “8” (and her name was Michelle) … and be back on the boat and working all in about two hours or so.
I really thought the “losers” were the guys who watched the clock, then ran off the boat at 1600 to haul ass to Waikiki to find that “6” or “7” (tops) … then spend all night with her and try to figure out how to get back to the boat before the morning muster. Then, those girls would begin calling the boat and asking for those guys – even though they didn’t give them the phone number women look these things up. And then they have to find a way to “ditch” the girl … at which point some of those girls would then start calling the Commanding Officer to talk about how “perverted” one of his Sailors was, since she knew from firsthand experience. Some of the stories completely made up – some of the perversions, I’m sure, completely TRUE!
“So if a woman sleeps with me because she’s looking for a lifetime partner – what does that make me if I know, going in – that all I want from her is one night of sex?”
Uhmmmm… How do you know she wanted a lifetime partner in return? Unless a woman somehow conveys to you she wants X,Y,Z, what right do you have to assume that she wants a lifetime partnership with you? It takes time to really get to know a person. How can she know so quickly that she wants to spend the rest of her life with you?
And unless you explicitly state to a woman that you’re offering her X,Y,Z, what right does she have expect it? If you meet a woman in a bar and you’re hooking up and everything is mutually consenting, why should she expect anything more than a one night stand? It may or may not develop into anything more. If it’s important to her that it does, then let her withhold sex or inform you what her expectation are.
Even though I have no experience with hookers I can see how they can be the best option for certain guys. Even guys who can get girl otherwise may choose to hire hookers for convenience.
Right now I have more time than money, so I go out and meet girls for ongoing casual relationships (I prefer a 40 night stand to a 1 night stand :)). They get companionship and sex. I get sex and companionship 🙂
I will be experimenting with hookers in the near future. My main concern is that sex with a hooker won’t be quite the same as sex with a partner who is genuinely attracted to you. But maybe it will be. Or maybe the convenience and on-demand nature of it will make up for it. We’ll see.
Dear G, THANK YOU for pointing out that not all men want to see whores. These men deserve sex also. Like you, I prefer having an ONGOING sex friendship. It’s great to hear other real-life examples of men seeing non-whores who break those WONDERFUL (eyeroll) stereotypes, etc. about them. Thank you also for speaking up for honesty and open communication. I laid everything out on either the 1st date or 1st phone conversations I had with potential sex friends. This is 1 big reason I used personal ads in the past: you can put in there everything you want and don’t want. I’m glad you’ve had some good experiences and wish you the best in the future.
Hi Maggie,
I think this topic is one that women in general would do well to discuss among themselves. They are also well advised to listen to what us men are telling them.
In the book “Living Free in the Femnazi World” I created two affidavits for women so women could tell US what they were prepared to offer. One was lawful equality to a man, where all privileges must be renounced. Two was as chattel property to a man, and I mean real chattel property. THOUSANDS of women have seen these two proposed affidavits. NONE have completed one. ALL women members of the Australian Parliament were invited to complete one. NONE did. Women are simply not prepared to make oaths and keep them. Period. A mans word is his MOST important possession. A womans word counts for nothing, so women TELL US.
Add to that the FACT that 100% of the women in the Australian Parliament, the Irish Parliament, and the 250 women in the International Womens Club of Dublin condone and support the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft, child abuse, the theft of a mans house, the destruction of the mans company, the impoverishment of the man. Of ALL those women there is not ONE dissenting voice. NOT ONE. I have gone to a GREAT deal of trouble to PROVE THESE AS FACTS. I do not like that women ignore these FACTS. The lads do not like that women are ignoring these facts because I can assure you the lads are NOT ignoring them.
Now women are saying “men are afraid of commitment”. Are you KIDDING ME? No. We are not. We are afraid our children will be kidnapped and abused. We are afraid our houses will be stolen, our businesses destroyed. We are afraid we will be impoverished. We are afraid our very own families will turn on us and HATE ON US for having the temerity to demand women are treated as EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.
I have published virtually ALL my family court documents. I have published the video of my court meeting. I have been threatened with unlawful incarceration. I told those involved if they did so they would be killed. That includes a so called Judge. I told them in my own name. And guess what. In ALL THE WORLD there is only ONE woman actually doing what I ask her to do to assist me. ONE. So much for “equal”, eh?
I have been prepared to be robbed of everything I ever held dear. I have been prepared to turn my back on my own father and walk away from him. I have risked my life. And all to point out what a bunch of liars and hypocrites western women (AND MEN) are because they do NOT demand criminal women are prosecuted the same way they demand men who are rapists are prosecuted. I am telling as MANY young men about this as I can. Those lads are listening. In spades. The lads are realising they have been betrayed.
My community would have been very well advised to have offered me the protection of the law when I asked for it. Now I will expose the hypocrisy of men and women alike in that they DEMAND that men suffer criminal acts and STFU about them. Well? I am one man who will NOT SHUT UP. I am HATED ON by 99% of the people I know in the western world for doing so.
Note. I am NEVER hated on by people who live in Germany. They know what tyranny looks like and they do not want another serve of it. I say the SAME things to people I know in Germany and they 110% AGREE WITH ME. Shows you who is actually in the right about all this.
OT. Apparently women are not responsible for what they put in their mouths. Someone else must be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117736/Parents-student-19-died-downing-17-vodkas-drinking-party-sue-fraternity-bar.html
Here’s an interesting quote from a good paper, Maggie. You may want to download it and read it. It’s fascinating.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612029200200013
Fantastic text, I can’t cut and paste from a PDF. About hating prostitutes and basically sex.
Interesting conclusions.
Also:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612020000200235
Women who want the commitment of alpha males are always unlikely to get it; but if they can be satisfied with the beta male they will have as much commitment as they can handle.–
“Dozens of proposals, accepted two.”
Most women are not Maggie McNeill and many problems would be solved if women were to consider that the proposals fall off, typically, as a function of time.
And there’s always less time than we think.
What is a “Beta Male”?
I’ve read all kinds of definitions for that term and they are, frankly, hilarious. I just read the Urban dictionary definition on this and I’m still laughing at how ridiculous it is!
In my book, a “Beta Male” is a male who whines and complains about the world – but has accepted defeat and forfeited his freedom and destiny to some other power above him. But there is no other power above him on this planet.
I don’t think any woman would be happy with that kind of man.
I don’t care what government does, or what laws it makes on behalf of the Feminazis … they will not change the relationship dynamic I have with the woman I love. They will not change my behavior and especially not the way I think. I don’t think I’m particularly “unusual” in this thinking.
So I don’t believe there are all these “armies” of “beta males” running around out there. I think that is Feminazi propaganda intended to discourage men. If there are “beta men” then there are certainly “beta women” … and I’ve not heard that term thrown about so much.
Krulac,
The beta male is the provider for whom women settle.
The alpha male is the one they want to fuck.
It would be very strange to encounter “feminist” propaganda from me, since I hate “feminism” with a deep hatred.–
The terms alpha and beta so loosely defined that they’re almost useless. But I get the gist of n/a is saying because it’s the same thing I’m saying 🙂
To put it plainly a woman can desire a man because he’s handsome and well built (physical attributes) or a because he has money and is willing to spend it on her. One compensates for the other and vice versa. Also the more physically attractive a man the less commitment women will demand from him.
Modern women want the who has it all: handsome face, great body, and a fat wallet. Anything else is called “settling.” Modern women demand more than the market will bear and then complain that men have a fear of commitment.
Since many modern women are being propped up by the state they often mange to out earn men or at least match men’s earning ability. This further diminishes the pool of men they find attractive.
I should note that many women earn a good living fair and square.
As the institution of marriage crumbles all of the women are competing for the top men: either the very physically attractive ones or the very wealthy ones.
The truth the many people overlook is that when women’s entry into the workforce was restricted men’s sexual market value was artificially increased. Today we have the opposite problem.
Following on from Maggie’s Singapore example, it was recognised early on in that country that as the women gained greater social and economic success, they became increasingly unwilling to “marry down” i.e. marry men of lesser education, and/or income than themselves.
This meant these women were faced with an increasingly smaller pool of eligible men the more they progressed in terms of their career and earning capacity, and more and more were remaining single (and childless) for their entire lives.
Their situation was made worse by the fact that most of the men were (and are) willing (even eager) to marry down.
I don’t know where you live, G, but that’s not what I see in the rural populace where I live. I see some serial monogamy, but nearly everyone is married by mid-twenties. Plenty of women marry men who are not a perfect ideal, and plenty of those women are also not a perfect ideal. Many women marry men, and remain stubbornly attached to them despite their man’s alcoholism or drug addiction or cheating or inability to hold a job for more than a week….
Plenty of these women support their men because they love them and that might be nothing but the truth. Some of it might be that these women are afraid to be alone. Some of it might be that they are re-enacting the unhealthy relationships that they saw as a child. But i assure you that none of them do it because they feel like an all-powerful modern woman supported by the government.
Gender roles are complex things and you can’t really generalize on a national or state basis. It seems like many of your experiences are very different than mine.
Isn’t this the “standard narrative” of sexuality? There is an alternative that says what we are now is a result of socialisation and brain plasticity. Have a read of “Sex at Dawn” by Ryan and Jetha — it’s well worth it.
It can’t be that standard; I haven’t heard of most of it until this post. There truly is such a thing as human nature, and while that nature is flexible, it shouldn’t surprise us to find that humans subconsciously apply sexual arithmetic just as koala bears and black widows do.
No I’m not accusing you of being a propagandist – I just think the term Beta Male is silly.
First of all – an ALPHA male in the human species IS a provider. I think of Bill Gates as being an Alpha male certainly – but I don’t envision legions of women laying about daydreaming of his adonis-cut form or longing to have sex with him. They will of course – because Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world.
Tommy Lee, the drummer of Motley Crue (I actually met Tommy Lee, and had the opportunity to talk to him for over an hour once) … now Tommy is the “Alpha Male” you speak of – legions of women throwing themselves at him. But Tommy Lee is, on the inside – a little passive child. In fact, feminazis could easily sell their entire catechism to Tommy Lee. He’s no “Alpha Male” by any sense of the term other than women wishing to be with him. I have no desire to be “Tommy Lee” – if I found myself in his body – I would have to “remake” him … I could make him better than he was … BETTER, STRONGER, FASTER!! 😀
Terms alpha and beta are borrowed from other animal species that have rigid status hierarchies. The biggest, baddest male, the alpha get his pick of the females everyone else gets the scraps. Human hierarchies aren’t nearly as rigid. Therefore you can’t really apply the terms alpha and beta to humans.
Correct, outside of a few isolated tribes there aren’t any “Alphas” in our species.
Interesting you mention isolated tribes: these social groups are closest to our hardwired instinctive sexual and social behaviours; however, we’ve *all* got those insticts built in.
A lot of behaviour is strongly incentivised by those instincts, which we are driven to obey at an unconcious level. Where our parental and social conditioning aligns with them, our conflicts of self-vs-other are low, and we experience “happyness” with our true sexual selves.
I think that our social conditioning, especially in women, is informing us that almost the entirety of our instinctive behaviours are “bad”. And, sadly, so much of that is, in the vernacular, a crock of shit.
Most women, when they are capable of honestly and openly communicating, evidence the same degree of sexual interest as men.
Lots of women, it seems, have intense conflict about their true sexuality, creating a prudish front that hides the truth, or become sexually repressed. In the face of more and more societal messages about the “badness of sex”; the degree of conflict with her honest and true sexual desires rises exponentially.
The common theme of women undertaking rape fantasies/stranger sex illustrates the subconcious instinct to mix the gene pool, even though society says “you should be faithful”. No wonder we’re getting fucked up, and over.
Maggie is a counter-example that suggest the rule : she’s very open about her sexual nature; that openness is what makes her a “natural prostitute”. The anti-whores hate her for that: they don’t have the stones, or the self-knowledge, so they attack.
I think they are sexually jealous and threatened by a powerful, selfconfident alpha female. The catfight bitchslap ensues. Especially for the feminists, who are the worst denial victims of all, having had the most powerful “sex is bad” socialisation/propaganda.
It’s no wonder that the young men (I’m an old goat at 49) of today are thoroughly confused by the mixed messages they get hit with.
Utterly off topic, but on The Young Turks right now they are talking about whether or not private for-profit prisons actually save the state any money. They don’t.
Men shun marriage because the whole nature of that “commitment” has changed in the last century, and all the changes harm men, whether or not they favor women.
I predict, and hope, that the current movement to legalize gay marriage will broaden to become a movement to let each couple (or group!) write their own vows and make only those agreements they find mutually helpful. If the law continues to stand in the way, people will innovate ways to successfully evade those laws.
Works for me. I’m not really a libertarian, but I’m a mix of that and what the Democratic Party claims they stand for. On marriage, I’m terribly libertarian, libertine, liberal.
It does now appear that the 2 sexes are so wary of eachother and marriage is extremely difficult in the modern world. I think we need to create new ways and contracts for having relationships so there is no longer the assumption that anyone can just put a ring on their finger and ‘rest on their laurels’ to coin a phrase.
[…] Fear of Commitment (maggiemcneill.wordpress.com) […]
My Lady, is it your opinion that people today are needier than they were in the past?
No, but people today seem more prone to buy into the unrealistic and destructive fantasy that one person can be everything to another person. Every time some stupid woman reels off this long list of all the things her husband is to her, I shake my head and give the relationship three years. Even a mother can’t be everything to her child, much less an adult to another adult.
My Lady’s final comment encapsulates my reasons for thinking that, in fact, people are needier today than in the past. People from more traditional societies (found throughout, say, Asia or South America) are socialized into extended kin networks; they have no need for a surrogate parent. Individualism brings freedom, but also loneliness. I consider myself fortunate indeed to have found a wife whom I can trust will stay with me!
Reblogged this on GFE Desires.
Fear of Commitment: Some b.s. created by those that aren’t willing to accept that their person of interest doesn’t want to participate in the relationship, in the manner that they want them to.
It really is, simple as that!!