Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Why women hate sluts (and love being one)

Even the most hardcore feminist will agree that female sexuality gets suppressed in our (and other) culture(s). In other words, there is a discrepancy between actual female desire (how bad and how often women want it) and societal norms (what is seen as normal).

It boils down to a myth that managed to survive and flourish in our enlightened times: Men want more (dirtier/raunchier) sex (partners) than women.

This has tremendous consequences for society. This assumption is the very basis of the common belief that men are supposed to bring more to the table than women. Men are expected to be successful in their jobs, make money, own houses and cars and provide other material means (dinner dates, movie tickets, gifts, a place to host) for the women he has sex with. If men would realize how much more women enjoy sex (at least with some men) than they do themselves, they would ask for all these favors in return - and not the other way round.

If a woman keeps having sex with a man, she will ask for even more. She will push for more of his attention and time, seek advice and ask for little favors such as opening doors for her or moving/carrying heavy stuff - and ultimately blackmail the guy for "commitment" (i.e. law enforced monogamy) to ensure exclusive access to his resources.

By artificially limiting sex (such as holding out for the first few dates), men are forced to believe that they have to put all these extras on the table in order to get to sleep with a woman, since there is no other way to get there other than fulfilling these societal expectations.

The obvious downside for women is that they have to suppress their own sexuality in order to keep up the illusion of "valuable sex".

And this is where the above conspiracy seems to fall apart. It is unlikely that each and every woman will adhere to these unspoken rules. And if some women stop adhering to the paradigm of sexual scarcity, these women would have an obvious advantage in the mating market: they could freely chose (the best) men for themselves, since they do not ask for anything in return for sex - and who wants to pay more than necessary? This advantage alone should be a strong incentive for women to drop their "hard-to-get" act.

So, what is the reason for the phenomenon of ubiquitously suppressed female sexuality then?

The above scenario can still hold, if it is not an actual conspiracy held up by individual women who enable the status quo. Instead, it could be a cultural phenomenon that gets passed on from one generation to the next. It is conceivable that some women (either by chance or after conscious reflection) realized that if they establish a social norm of sexual restriction, man will start to treat them (and other women) better.
Instead of just restricting their own sexuality, they started to brand all women who would fail to adhere to the norm as "sluts" - lesser beings who are supposed to be shunned. No woman then failed to restrict her sexuality. The price of losing the (social) support of the group was way too high.

The price of restricting fen=male sexuality was high for men, yet not unbearable. Plus, it makes sense for men to rather chose a less promiscuous woman if he is forced to give out so many resources. Forced to "commit", men started disliking sexually uninhibited "sluts", too - and thus the norm proved a viable strategy to enable both genders to live (and procreate) together. This is simply what happens during the process we call cultural evolution.

Over the centuries rules on how men and women are supposed to act became more and more part of how children were raised, laws (and religious texts) were written. With enough time passed, this norm will seem so "natural", it will seem bizarre to question it.

Yet, women will always be conflicted by contrasting their own sexual desire to the suppressed sexuality of what others seem to live (and what they are told to do, too). Ironically, this will help to foster the existing paradigm. Being forced to restrict themselves, women will be even more restrictive to others.

Or could it be that all of this is wrong and that women would be putting out freely if there wouldn't have been man-made restrictions?

After all, men suffer from paternity uncertainty and therefore could benefit from restricting their partners sexuality. And, if women really are (even) more sexual than men, wouldn't society turn into Sodom and Gomorrah, if there wasn't any control over their desire? Don't men use religion, double standards (slut/stud) and even genital circumcision to restrict female sexuality? Isn't that what the sexual revolution was all about? Didn't feminism free women from this male restriction?

Science reveals objective data, but is always restricted by current social norms. Thus, it is remarkable that psychologist Dr. Roy Baumeister and a colleague (more of this guy tomorrow) braveley freed themselves from any "politically correct" presumptions, and studied the actual evidence for each of the above hypothesis.

In their study "Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality", they went out and reviewed data Data "on cross-cultural differences in power and sex ratios, reactions to the sexual revolution, direct restraining influences on adolescent and adult female sexuality, double standard patterns of sexual morality, female genital surgery, legal and religious restrictions on sex, prostitution and pornography, and sexual deception."

Their finding was conclusive.

"The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage."

There have always been men who understood what was going on.

This knowledge gives these men enormous power over women.

These men reverse the paradigm by restricting their own sexuality, thus creating scarcity on the other end of the supply line.

Knowing that women only pretend to be free of (tremendous) desire until they receive a certain amount of attention/time/dates/kisses/exclusivity from the guy, they will refuse to give them what they want. Instead they are the ones demanding before sex can happen.

You might expect that women will stay away from guys who do not put put easily. After all, they want sex, and they get much more on top of that from other men.

Somewhat surprisingly, it is the complete opposite that happens. Women are drawn to such men. Up to the point where they would do anything, literally anything for a guy who is that hard-to-get (it is interesting to note, for example that pimps use that very technique to lure women into prostitution).

There are many reasons for that, some of which I outlined in my previous post on "nice guys".

Women assume that guys who demand from the woman instead of offering to her in order for intercourse to happen must be of higher value/status. And while women are interested in receiving whatever they can receive from men in exchange for sex, they are ultimately interested in having sex (i.e. receiving sperm) from the best possible men out there (the one who is choosy because he gets so many women and whose babies will be like him).

18 comments:

  1. Its mainly just religion in the west.

    We were told "fornicators and adultrurous, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven", and everything followed forewinth.



    I do have to note however, that Julius Ceasar described in his book, "The Conquest of Gaul", that among the Germanic tribes, that it was "perfectly scandalous" for the 20 year olds to be be caught together even though they bathed in full sight of one another. Weird that.


    If a society becomes secular, there is no real reason for sexuality to be restrained by either sex.

    ReplyDelete
  2. you're posting faster than i can read.

    so before i read up on these two new posts, a shameless plug to my "feeling desirable?" survey for ladies and gentlemen:
    http://stagetwo.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/feeling-desirable/

    it would be cool to get enough responses to actually be able to compare women and men in terms of how desired they feel for sex and love...

    --stagetwo

    ReplyDelete
  3. If a society becomes secular, there is no real reason for sexuality to be restrained by either sex.

    Though I have tremendously enjoyed the empowered woman's free sexuality, I take two objections to the statement.

    Seen from the average joe, there are two issues with free sex.

    1. When women are totally free to choose, they will sleep with the top dogs only, having no interest in men who rank same as themselves. so free sex for Average Joe is still a scarcity.

    2. When women commit, studies show that after a few years (jokingly once she eats the wedding cake), her sex drive diminishes. As eleven said, after a few bangs women will want commitment. So Average Joe is again in scarcity even if committed (in his mind commitment = abundance, while it is the opposite). In this case, the sex being free and abundant before him, for every man but him is a legitimate problem.

    So, the female selection divergin only on the top, and the dwingling sexual appetite once she gets the commitment, make the free sex argument not too appealing to the Average Joe.

    And an alpha?

    Will he commit to a free-sex woman, if he indeed commits, for the sake of children?

    Women will restrain sex sooner or later, to the man who deserves sex most.

    It is in their nature.

    Society, game, religion etc, all are somehow trying to balance this ultimate power of having the supply.

    The men holding the supply? Few.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here I go for a long one, i think:

    Even the most hardcore feminist will agree that female sexuality gets suppressed in our (and other) culture(s).
    ...
    It boils down to a myth that managed to survive and flourish in our enlightened times: Men want more (dirtier/raunchier) sex (partners) than women.

    This has tremendous consequences for society. This assumption is the very basis of the common belief that men are supposed to bring more to the table than women.


    One can say the only price that a woman pays for this suppression is the inability to openly have sex with every man who gets her wet.

    The price that men pay, besides the added difficulty (due to females wanting power and or status and or excitement etc) of finding casual sex, is continuous need to support the woman financially, emotionally, protect her with his life, do the tedious physical jobs, romance her, woo her, and all that.

    In the end, women cannot bang around, but men will have to invest with their lives for the possibility of a bang.

    (I am foregoing alpha beta discussion here, as in the end, if no alpha will take her, the woman will mate long term with the beta, still making him pay through the nose)

    Simple:

    Women would not put sex on a scarce supply, if there was no benefit to them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. z.g.,

    Youve highlighted two very TRUE things, but you complained about them.



    You stated this:
    1. When women are totally free to choose, they will sleep with the top dogs only, having no interest in men who rank same as themselves. so free sex for Average Joe is still a scarcity. ----------


    Thats exactly what happens in clubs on Friday and Saturday nights across America, Europe, and Asia. The "fix" is unfortunately, the ageing process. Women tend to age much worse than men, and the hotties at 22 are oft pretty fugly at 42, and will crawl on their hands and knees for the same men that they used to not give the time of day to. The problem is, that they are past breeding age by this time or the window is very short. They NEED to be told this and realize it in their brains. At 30, its time to -really- settle if you want kids, your looks will be fading very hard very soon. Cosmetics commercials and celebreties have them convinced they will be hot at 50 (and therefore mystically still able to give birth), but they wont. Average women know that very hot men will sleep with them, even if its just a quickie and they wont even bother taking them on a formal date. They'd rather be treated like trash from a big, great looking man, than be treated like a queen from an average guy in their twenties. Thats just the way it is. When we started looking for mates in clubs, it was inevitable that things would revert to the above situation. Its human nature. They can work and can have a apartment or house without a man's help now, so there is no need to settle when they are young. They get tired of working, and are losing their looks, by their late thirties and thus THEN want to finally settle. The thing is, most of the guys they spurned have "settled" themselves at that point leaving the former 6-8's who are now 4-6's relatively few options.

    2. When women commit, studies show that after a few years (jokingly once she eats the wedding cake), her sex drive diminishes. As eleven said, after a few bangs women will want commitment. So Average Joe is again in scarcity even if committed (in his mind commitment = abundance, while it is the opposite). In this case, the sex being free and abundant before him, for every man but him is a legitimate problem.

    So, the female selection divergin only on the top, and the dwingling sexual appetite once she gets the commitment, make the free sex argument not too appealing to the Average Joe.-------------------------------------------------------------------------This would all change if divorce laws and child support laws were fair. If joint custody were mandated (unless you truly abused the kids or something) with NO CHILD SUPPORT, and only half the marital assets were split from the marriage date until the divorce date and no more (I.E. she doesn't get half that big downpayment you saved up for years that you put on your house before you bought it, or half your 401K that you saved up years before you met her), THEN MEN WOULD HAPPILY DIVORCE cold fish wives with only moderate financial reproccusions. As it stands now, they stay in marriages with wives who are no longer trying for them because they will get financially ruined in court, and they know it, threatening their ability to ever even retire, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Youve highlighted two very TRUE things, but you complained about them. "

    So?

    What if I complained. If that is the price of stating something, that most men are never told, then be it.

    Ok, have to admit, am still affected by the speech women put on me, by the society's pressure on me.

    I am a wanted bachelor, so I am accused of using women by doing the same thing they do with the drunks.

    It does not stop me from doing what I do, but hearing women babble and rabble all the time still pisses me off.

    So I come across as complaining.

    right now the situation is this:

    Sexual power is on woman's side.
    Law power is on woman's side.
    Society's favoring is on the woman's side.

    And, if an Alpha commits, he will face these three powers also, unless he risks losing the kids, and half his worth.

    So it is his imperative, his duty, to carefully select something which was rare, honest and faithful to begin with.

    The only thing I can do besides complaining, is play the field, get what I want, shut my ears to the nonstop babbling of females who want more from me, accusing me, shut my eyes to the non-stop brainwashing about "nice gets the girl" - I am guilty of this, just a week ago went again gentleman on a woman, tuning down the sexuality... Mistake -, do what I do without openly harming anybody.

    The hardest thing is to shut my ears to the women doing one thing with a lesser man, and then accusing me of doing same, and so on...

    Educating other men?

    I almost gave up on that. I let them roam in their matrix, waiting for one day to be a captn-save-a-ho to an attractive woman, or settle down for a woman that objectively ranks way lower than them.

    I think I still hold on to the idea/illusion that woman is a grown up creature whose spoken intelligence is worth following, which makes me still listen to their babbling.. Inevitable then, get pissed. I, rightfully so, want to deal with a grown up person...

    Once I loose that, what do I do? Look at a woman and see a brainless child in a grown up's body?

    Which they behave like most of the time...

    (the upper three paragraphs are just brainstorming)

    So, I complain... But the complaining also comes with radical actions and thoughts.

    The complaining is put into action in my life, good or bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. z.g. wrote:


    "It does not stop me from doing what I do, but hearing women babble and rabble all the time still pisses me off.

    So I come across as complaining.

    right now the situation is this:

    Sexual power is on woman's side.
    Law power is on woman's side.
    Society's favoring is on the woman's side.

    And, if an Alpha commits, he will face these three powers also, unless he risks losing the kids, and half his worth. "





    --------------------You hit the nail right on the head. Thats not complaining, its simply stating the truth. Tell some women when you get the chance. Women have a Herculean ability to shield out any truths that upset their *emotional* prejudicies. Women use feelings as legitimate reasons for their actions, while guys use their logic and reason. Thats why the world would be full of grass huts if women ran the whole thing because those of them who are utterly logical like men are, are in the minority.




    Post Scriptum: Youre quite right about the alpha males being in the same boat. When the hottest guy at the bar settles for a chick, after two kids and a few years, she can put him in the same rough financial/legal spot everybody else is in. Thats why so many of the guys with game (Roissy in DC) aren't getting married, but delay it until their late 30's or even 40's. This of course causes women to complain like never before. They cannot have their legal cake and eat it too. It severely curtails the birthrate though, to sub-replacement levels.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tell some women when you get the chance. Women have a Herculean ability to shield out any truths that upset their *emotional* prejudicies.

    This is true for most issues where there is a difference between the mail and female view.

    Take for example the points I made about promiscuous women being not a viable option for long term relationships, because of the inevitable price that is to be paid on the woman's sexuality.

    Because sex is so easily attainable by women, and because sex is just sex, they will not accept the issues a man will have for the free distribution of sexuality - out of a relationship - that is.

    And as in a relationship now we got "love" to take into consideration, it is of course normal that the woman will take sex as special, and thus will need to feel special (i.e. blank check) to have sex with the man.

    Thus, what kind of animal is the man comparing just sex with sex in relationship. Disgusting pig.

    Not once will a woman put any consideration onto the man's feelings or wishes, because.... because it is her sexuality, and how come he judge her choices..

    Now, about his aspects of his life, friends, wallet, work, career, hobbies etc, these are of course a woman's concern because now they are in a relationship.

    Other than giving birth, from what I see, most women are in the "give me give me give me" mode, when there is a relationship.

    Even if it is part of nature, women have lost so much of their feminine input into a relationship that these things they ask for, once balanced, once necessary, and once deserved, are not so anymore.

    today it is a one sided trade, and the man's desires and needs are nowhere on the consideration list.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shouldve been

    Tell some women when you get the chance. Women have a Herculean ability to shield out any truths that upset their *emotional* prejudicies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. wrote this to stage two, thought I'd also post it here,

    A few days of thinking and I cannot come to a conclusion, so I will ramble here.

    See, I do not want to directly say women are attracted to evil, but experience and literature shows that evil is chosen in a higher rate by women then good.

    Maybe it is a collateral result. I always say women's selection is disfunctional.

    - women will say it is not. some men are good for sex, and some are . so we chose wisely. they will say that, but what they do not see is that the men who are suited for relationships also want sex and are denied it. And relationship = investment, sometimes lifelong

    Unless we are talking about a minority of attractive women who are traditional, and since we are not interested into women who want to settle down with a provider due to her clock, we are talking about sexually active attractive females, say till 35.

    What is the prime attractor to these women?

    Money? Looks? humor? Status?

    Except the well fitting sexual son hypothesis, and not wanting what they want to have but can't have - this translates into a man being a challenge, there is one thing that turns these women on:

    Excitement.

    Are we talking about excitement from extreme sports?
    Excitement from running?
    Excitement from heated debates?

    Nope,

    We are talking about the excitement a man will give her.

    The drama he will create. The emotional rollercoaster he will put on her.. The swing between being desired and being unwanted.

    This turns her on.

    (In my opinion, if everything would be independent, the sexual son hypothesis would override this, but they are very dependent)

    What happens to good?

    Lets say there is an attractive man, he can be good, he can be not-good.

    Let's say there is a good man, he can be attractive or not in the attractive category.

    there is evil man, attractive or not.

    Good man who is not attractive is invisible or is a creep.

    Attractive man who is good will be either

    - Creep. Why is the attractive man acting in a good manner? he has the power, so why is he not using it, there must be something wrong.

    - Potential long term. He is attractive and he is good. Even though he would well fit the fucker category, he also fits the sucker category. Making him good makes him not so exciting but trustable (=no rollercoaster) in women's eyes, sadly the first two take priority. Thus this man will be reserved for relationships, and will not benefit as much from casual sex as,

    Attractive man who is not good.

    Besides being attractive this man by not being good will offer her drama. Will treat her not-good, and create the emotions she eneds to feel alive.

    Then we have:

    Not-attractive man who is not good. since these are also drama creating, these men tend to find audience also.

    Women, either by terming good as creep or long term, do not select these men (due to two different reasons) for casual sex, but readily go to the other group(s) for their flings.

    Thus even if I cannot fully say, women are attracted to evil, for sexuality,

    I can say they are not attracted to good, for sexuality,

    thus as many men good or bad want sex, the good ones will be denied sex, unless an investment is in place, and the bad ones get rewarded.

    And extremes create more excitement, the evil ones will be having women running after them, to please them sexually for free.

    In the end, even if women are not directly attracted to evil, evil is the one which is rewarded by women's attraction.

    The good, this or the other way, statistically has to pay for sex.

    Unless game enters.

    What you have got now are long term material attractive men short circuiting women by imitating not-good traits.

    When a long term prospect is acting like a short term one, women have no defenses against that,

    That is why they hate game.

    (Besides granting the "unworthy" access to their sexuality, once again due to a similar short circuit)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Exactly.

    This,

    "Besides being attractive this man by not being good will offer her drama. Will treat her not-good, and create the emotions she eneds to feel alive."

    .................is especially true. As long as a man makes a woman -feel- many things, excited, scared, embarrassed, euphoric, relieved, humor......then her circutry is designed to "feel" that he is attractive, even if those "things" would warn any rational person that he is bad news.



    A guy I knew who slept with about 600 women before finally hanging it up told me when I was 19 that:

    "EVERY WOMAN WANTS A BAD BOY SHE CAN TAME, AND EVERY GUY WANTS A GOOD GIRL HE CAN CORRUPT"

    ReplyDelete
  13. i think the crucial thing is emotional stimulation. you need not be evil, but you need to create a wide range of emotions. being good can restrict your freedom to do this -- especially if you construe it as manipulation. being nice is even worse: it means to have a need to smooth things out and minimize the emotional stimulation.

    so let me propose the optimistic hypothesis that it's not evil or badness itself that is attractive to women, but the emotional stimulation that goes with it. if this is true then we can be sexy without being evil in the least.

    a good guy needs to understand that he needs to play with her feelings so as to be emotionally stimulating. and he needs to learn to view this as the "emotional massage" it is, rather than as evil manipulation. like massage, it is only satisfying when it is intense -- close to the threshold of pain. women, much more than men, are emotional connoisseurs: appreciative not merely of the positive range, but also of the negative range.

    is there any evidence for a female sexual preference for evil that cannot be accounted for as a preference for emotional stimulation?

    --stagetwo

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gee, I had no idea that Elliott Rodger owned a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LOL! It's ALL prostitution everybody... DUH! And it's why prostitution is STILL this world's oldest profession... so obvious...

    ReplyDelete
  16. LOL! It's ALL prostitution everybody... DUH! And it's why prostitution is STILL this world's oldest profession... so obvious...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Get daily ideas and instructions for making THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS per day FROM HOME for FREE.
    SUBSCRIBE NOW

    ReplyDelete