# Being frustrated that you can't get laid ≠ misogynist



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

as a gay man, this hardly applies to me, but I've noticed a trend of calling guys "misogynistic" and "entitled" simply because they are frustrated that they can't get laid. this is ridiculous. going without sex sucks, and they do not need to justify being frustrated by it. it doesn't mean they feel like they have a right to it, that they're entitled to rape women are that they're bitter against all women for not letting them fuck them. we would all do best not to jump to conclusions sans the availability of more evidence


----------



## EyesOpen (Apr 3, 2013)

Agreed that that conclusion should not be immediately given. However, many times I see this frustration paired with degrading and mean comments towards women. Whether that's mysogonistic or not..idk. But it's sometimes more than "wow it really fucking sucks that I'm having trouble getting laid. I wish I could find a great woman to take to bed." It's more like "women are cold and bitter teases that won't let me put my dick in them because they think they are sooo much better than me and women can go fuck themselves".

It's not the case EVERY time...but I've seen it even around here sometimes. Again, I'm really not all that up on the vocab surrounding stuff like this enough to call it mysogonistic or not but yeah. And I don't think I've seen the "mysogonistic" response given to someone who is just straight sad/frustrated about not being able to get laid. It's the other type. But I don't pay close attention so idk. Just the impression I get.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

I think even those who make mysoginistic statements aren't "genuinely" mysoginistic, it's just sour grapes over something they can't have. In my experience true mysoginist don't have any trouble getting women because they don't have any respect for women which means they can use every trick in the book to get laid whereas a decent guy would refrain from a lot of PUA style tactics.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

True, they aren't always misogynists. But it's usually not terribly hard to separate the men who are having a bout of frustration from the men who legitimately feel a sense of entitlement. 



flummoxed said:


> I think even those who make mysoginistic statements are "genuinely" mysoginistic, it's just sour grapes over something they can't have. In my experience true mysoginist don't have any trouble getting women because they don't have any respect for women which means they can use every trick in the book to get laid whereas a decent guy would refrain from a lot of PUA style tactics.


There is some truth to this. That's why most women I know have had to develop a finely tuned BS detector. The men who respect you the least are often the ones who will tell you anything you want to hear. Which is highly unfortunate, because it becomes very difficult to trust any man. And there absolutely are good men out there. Nobody wants to be a jaded pessimist who assumes the worst of everybody, but you also can't leave yourself open to manipulation. So, yeah it's tough. It's usually the guys who lay it on thick that make me the most mistrustful. More often than not, they're the misogynists.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

EyesOpen said:


> Whether that's mysogonistic or not..idk. But it's sometimes more than "wow it really fucking sucks that I'm having trouble getting laid. I wish I could find a great woman to take to bed." It's more like "women are cold and bitter teases that won't let me put my dick in them because they think they are sooo much better than me and women can go fuck themselves".


Yeah... I find it's much more productive to pay attention to _why_ people are speaking and mostly disregard _what_ they actually said. A little counterintuitive, but I've found it makes communication much more efficient.

When someone loses in Monopoly and says "I hate Monopoly" they don't mean that they actually hate Monopoly. They just mean that Monopoly frustrates them. If you respond to them as if they said "Monopoly frustrates me" you'll have a better time of it than if you respond as if they said "I hate Monopoly."

Though I can see how this would be a difficult feat of charity if you yourself _were_ Monopoly.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

BlackDog said:


> There is some truth to this. That's why most women I know have had to develop a finely tuned BS detector.


Keyword: women

That's why people like this usually go after "girls" who are inexperienced when it comes to relationships.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

It's true. Therein lies four separate topics.

Frustration 
Sexual intimacy.
Entitlement.
Misogyny

It's not hard to see HOW people can jump to those conclusions. Misogynists definitely do feel entitled which are shared issues of both sexual intimacy and entitlement.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> Though I can see how this would be a difficult feat of charity if you yourself _were_ Monopoly.


Lol, yeah that's part of the problem I think. Monopoly isn't usually a sentient conscious being. God, wouldn't that be awful? 

This frustration also has the potential to trigger a vicious cycle. The man can't get laid, so he gets frustrated. The more frustrated he gets, the harder it is to get laid. Rinse and repeat. As the misplaced hatred or animosity towards women grows, the more women react negatively to them. Which only confirms their beliefs. 

And yeah, I know, not all men, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't understand the connection between misogyny and entitlement. Wouldn't you not want anything physically to do with someone/something you hate?


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

flummoxed said:


> Keyword: women
> 
> That's why people like this usually go after "girls" who are inexperienced when it comes to relationships.


Ooooh so that's the reason my obviously angry and bitter Red Pill acquaintance only went after girls 25 and younger. That makes so much more sense.

Whether it's coming from true misogamy or just frustration, it isn't a smart way to act. Women don't like angry, bitter men so acting like this is only going to ensure that a man never gets laid.

Which, in turn just makes him bitch more and get even less attention. Eventually he'll start to believe their own bullshit when the truth is that by this point, they have no one to blame but themselves.

It's a painfully self-perpetuating issue.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> as a gay man, this hardly applies to me, but I've noticed a trend of calling guys "misogynistic" and "entitled" simply because they are frustrated that they can't get laid. this is ridiculous. going without sex sucks, and they do not need to justify being frustrated by it. it doesn't mean they feel like they have a right to it, that they're entitled to rape women are that they're bitter against all women for not letting them fuck them. we would all do best not to jump to conclusions sans the availability of more evidence[/QUOT]
> 
> This sounds like transference. Being angry at women because they won't give up the goods isn't on women, it's on the person who won't put in the work in order to make them worthy of it.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Fumetsu said:


> Whether it's coming from true misogamy or just frustration, it isn't a smart way to act. Women don't like angry, bitter men so acting like this is only going to ensure that a man never gets laid.


Well, presumably he doesn't act that way to girls he is interested in right? Most Red Pill types I know try to pretend to be "alpha" when talking to women and only cry to their friends. As the friend of many such guys I just find it annoying, especially since I'm not getting laid either, but at least I'm not bitching about it (this post notwithstanding).



tanstaafl28 said:


> This sounds like transference. Being angry at women because they won't give up the goods isn't on women, it's on the person who won't put in the work in order to make them worthy of it.


This sounds like the, "just world fallacy". Assuming men who can't get the goods deserve to be alone is just as much a cognitive bias as the one that Red Pill types are portraying. Many people are alone because they are physically unattractive, lack social skills or don't have the economics means to compete in the sexual marketplace. While they technically "deserve" to lose in a Social Darwinist view of the world that isn't exactly a very enlightened and liberal point of view.



Fumetsu said:


> It's a painfully self-perpetuating issue.


Definitely true. Even if they don't become misanthropic women haters they will at the very least have their self-confidence shattered which is a very bad thing for a man trying to court women as self-confidence is one of the biggest things a woman looks for in a man.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@flummoxed

Not so flummoxed after all? 



> This sounds like the, "just world fallacy". Assuming men who can't get the goods deserve to be alone is just as much a cognitive bias as the one that Red Pill types are portraying. Many people are alone because they are physically unattractive, lack social skills or don't have the economics means to compete in the sexual marketplace. While they technically "deserve" to lose in a Social Darwinist view of the world that isn't exactly a very enlightened and liberal point of view.



I've not considered myself all that liberal. Enlightened...well that remains to be seen. Women have a right to choose just as men do. Men don't have a right to violate them without permission.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I've not considered myself all that liberal. Enlightened...well that remains to be seen. Women have a right to choose just as men do. Men don't have a right to violate them without permission.


Not really my point here, but I'd point out that in many countries sex is considered a human right to which everyone IS entitled to and the government actually pays for prostitutes to perform sexual services on the disabled who cannot get them otherwise. Many human rights organizations have actually endorsed sex as a human right and called for the decriminalization of prostitution.

The Surprising Way the Netherlands Is Helping Its Disabled Have Sex - Mic
Buying Sex Is a Human Right? Amnesty International Endorses ‘Decriminalization' of Prostitution


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Cagnazzo said:


> I don't understand the connection between misogyny and entitlement. Wouldn't you not want anything physically to do with someone/something you hate?


I think some men resent women because they desire them, but don't feel desired in return. As a result, they project a lot of negative qualities onto them or try to reduce them to their bodies. They hate that they want them.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

flummoxed said:


> Not really my point here, but I'd point out that in many countries sex is considered a human right to which everyone IS entitled to and the government actually pays for prostitutes to perform sexual services on the disabled who cannot get them otherwise. Many human rights organizations have actually endorsed sex as a human right and called for the decriminalization of prostitution.
> 
> The Surprising Way the Netherlands Is Helping Its Disabled Have Sex - Mic
> Buying Sex Is a Human Right? Amnesty International Endorses ‘Decriminalization' of Prostitution


Which I have no problems with. A business transaction is, after all, a form of consent.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Which I have no problems with. A business transaction is, after all, a form of consent.


But should the government pay for it for those who cannot afford it like they do for other things deemed human rights like food and shelter? Anyways, that's way off course here.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't see what entitlement has to do with it. Never have I heard someone say that they simply deserved something other than those commies in Europe.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I don't see what entitlement has to do with it. Never have I heard someone say that they simply deserved something other than those commies in Europe.


Never met a poor black person have you eh?

EDIT: Or a rich white kid ironically.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

flummoxed said:


> But should the government pay for it for those who cannot afford it like they do for other things deemed human rights like food and shelter? Anyways, that's way off course here.


No, I'm not a big fan of socialism. I also don't mind derailing threads all that much. A little divergence is always interesting.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Stultum said:


> 'Stuff


Whatever. It seems totally viable for someone who just failed a driver's test to walk away calling the proctor a "fucking idiot". That stuff happens every day.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> But should the government pay for it for those who cannot afford it like they do for other things deemed human rights like food and shelter? Anyways, that's way off course here.


As far as I understood the Dutch article, the disabled people on benefits don't get special benefits to be used on sex workers per se, but if they choose to use their benefits check to pay a prostitute for sex, there's nothing stopping them. Not that there is anywhere. Once the benefits money has entered their account, a welfare person can spend that money on booze, drugs, strippers... And then visit a foodbank if they don't have enough left to buy food until the next welfare check.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Cagnazzo said:


> Whatever. It seems totally viable for someone who just failed a driver's test to walk away calling the proctor a "fucking idiot". That stuff happens every day.


Why would anyone need to know how many exact feet of distance you are supposed to keep between your vehicle and an emergency vehicle and how would you even accurately be able to gauge that??

To me, anything beyond about 30 feet could be any distance; 50, 100, 1,000

Why is feet is so hard


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

Just want to point out that generally the anger isn't directed at women per se, it's directed at the dichotomy between how women are portrayed by society and how they actually are in reality. Many young men feel, "lied to" by the portrayal of women by the movies/books/their mom. In fiction you always see the strapping young lad winning over the girl with kindness and intelligence. Imagine the surprise of the socially inept young man who has seen this his whole life when faced with the Sex and Relationships forum (or reality) and seeing that what turns women on isn't really chivalry and a doting lover but rape fantasies and being physically and emotionally dominated. That can be very confusing to the naive young man's sense of morals which may lead him to assume women are morally bankrupt in other ways as well that he was never told about.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Fathers should keep that shit real with their sons cause no one else will. Mine just kept asking me if I got a girlfriend yet, from 400 miles away. Where my guidance, pops??? Now I have to get it from neo-nazis on the internet!


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

I find it strange how enthusiastic some feminists can be with nerd-bashing. Makes it all seem like something else is really going on. 

If any bitterness is ever expressed, it will be met by at least some with scorn. The most popular and annoying response is "..and that's why you don't get laid / have a girlfriend / etc." No, it isn't. As if the only men who get laid have all the correct attitudes toward women. Ha. Haha. Oh man, that's rich. It's really in all likelihood because the guy is physically small, not terribly charismatic, has obscure interests and isn't that popular, and has more beta than alpha qualities in general. It would be like if some really ugly girl complained that no guys are ever attracted to her and expressed some bitter sentiment, and their response was "..and that's why you don't have a boyfriend." Except guys don't really do that. I don't think any of them are under the slightest illusion that a girl can be a horrible person and get all the sex she wants, as long as she is hot. A lot of girls, maybe not all, seem to be under this magical illusion that as long as a guy is 'who he is' and whatnot, he will find love. That's simply not the case. A lot of guys are just here on this Earth to watch helplessly, despite raging desire, as others effortlessly get fulfillment in gratuitous abundance. That's nature. I guess the least people can do is not add insult to injury. That's a real painful situation.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

flummoxed said:


> Just want to point out that generally the anger isn't directed at women per se, it's directed at the dichotomy between how women are portrayed by society and how they actually are in reality. Many young men feel, "lied to" by the portrayal of women by the movies/books/their mom. In fiction you always see the strapping young lad winning over the girl with kindness and intelligence. Imagine the surprise of the socially inept young man who has seen this his whole life when faced with the Sex and Relationships forum (or reality) and seeing that what turns women on isn't really chivalry and a doting lover but rape fantasies and being physically and emotionally dominated. That can be very confusing to the naive young man's sense of morals which may lead him to assume women are morally bankrupt in other ways as well that he was never told about.


I'd elaborate but I don't have the time.

Suffice to say, we don't like what these movies have taught young men either.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Amine said:


> I find it strange how enthusiastic some feminists can be with nerd-bashing. Makes it all seem like something else is really going on.
> 
> If any bitterness is ever expressed, it will be met by at least some with scorn. The most popular and annoying response is "..and that's why you don't get laid / have a girlfriend / etc." No, it isn't. As if the only men who get laid have all the correct attitudes toward women. Ha. Haha. Oh man, that's rich. It's really in all likelihood because the guy is physically small, not terribly charismatic, has obscure interests and isn't that popular, and has more beta than alpha qualities in general. It would be like if some really ugly girl complained that no guys are ever attracted to her and expressed some bitter sentiment, and their response was "..and that's why you don't have a boyfriend." Except guys don't really do that. I don't think any of them are under the slightest illusion that a girl can be a horrible person and get all the sex she wants, as long as she is hot. A lot of girls, maybe not all, seem to be under this magical illusion that as long as a guy is 'who he is' and whatnot, he will find love. That's simply not the case. A lot of guys are just here on this Earth to watch helplessly, despite raging desire, as others effortlessly get fulfillment in gratuitous abundance. That's nature. I guess the least people can do is not add insult to injury. That's a real painful situation.


Oh come on, you're being too harsh. They'll get their chance with them, though they'll be divorced, broke and in their 40s with a child, but hey! It's love!


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> Keyword: women
> 
> That's why people like this usually go after "girls" who are inexperienced when it comes to relationships.


it's true, and where i live a lot of men do go for actual girls. there's an epidemic in my city right now of older men (like 30-40 year old men) getting involved with 16 year-old girls for some reason, lots of whom i know personally, and the men treat them like shit and use them because they know that girls that age are so easily manipulated.

as someone who used to get involved with much older men myself when i was at that age, i can say with some degree of confidence that there's no good reason a man that old should want to involve themselves with a girl that young.



flummoxed said:


> Just want to point out that generally the anger isn't directed at women per se, it's directed at the dichotomy between how women are portrayed by society and how they actually are in reality. Many young men feel, "lied to" by the portrayal of women by the movies/books/their mom. In fiction you always see the strapping young lad winning over the girl with kindness and intelligence.


it must suck. as a woman, i'm equally angry with the way women and relationships are portrayed in the media. it tends to create unrealistic expectations in men of various aspects of my personality, individuality, and wants/needs. it's a shitty situation for both genders.



> Imagine the surprise of the socially inept young man who has seen this his whole life when faced with the Sex and Relationships forum (or reality) and seeing that what turns women on isn't really chivalry and a doting lover but rape fantasies and being physically and emotionally dominated. That can be very confusing to the naive young man's sense of morals which may lead him to assume women are morally bankrupt in other ways as well that he was never told about.


well, you lost me there. even here on the forum (which is a pretty terrible place to gather data for generalizations of any type of person), where we do have a good number of women who are into rough sex, i would never get the impression that women are generally turned on by rape fantasies and domination.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Does anyone actually think just being frustrated equals being a misogynist?


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Does anyone actually think just being frustrated equals being a misogynist?


Frustrating isn't it?

So much so that I'm feelng a sudden hatred of women.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Stickman said:


> Frustrating isn't it?
> 
> So much so that I'm feelng a sudden hatred of women.


You better not be cock blocking me here or I'll also feel a sudden disgust for women!!!


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Amine said:


> I find it strange how enthusiastic some feminists can be with nerd-bashing. Makes it all seem like something else is really going on.
> 
> If any bitterness is ever expressed, it will be met by at least some with scorn. The most popular and annoying response is "..and that's why you don't get laid / have a girlfriend / etc." No, it isn't. As if the only men who get laid have all the correct attitudes toward women. Ha. Haha. Oh man, that's rich. It's really in all likelihood because the guy is physically small, not terribly charismatic, has obscure interests and isn't that popular, and has more beta than alpha qualities in general. It would be like if some really ugly girl complained that no guys are ever attracted to her and expressed some bitter sentiment, and their response was "..and that's why you don't have a boyfriend." Except guys don't really do that. I don't think any of them are under the slightest illusion that a girl can be a horrible person and get all the sex she wants, as long as she is hot. A lot of girls, maybe not all, seem to be under this magical illusion that as long as a guy is 'who he is' and whatnot, he will find love. That's simply not the case. A lot of guys are just here on this Earth to watch helplessly, despite raging desire, as others effortlessly get fulfillment in gratuitous abundance. That's nature. I guess the least people can do is not add insult to injury. That's a real painful situation.





Convex said:


> Oh come on, you're being too harsh. They'll get their chance with them, though they'll be divorced, broke and in their 40s with a child, but hey! It's love!


All of this real talk is getting me all hot and bothered.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

mhysa said:


> as someone who used to get involved with much older men myself when i was at that age, i can say with some degree of confidence that there's no good reason a man that old should want to involve themselves with a girl that young.


Because they have sexier bodies, tighter pussies and they give it up much more easily...

Oh, you meant no non-creepy reason?

But I actually have met some 30-40 year old men who had for whatever reason become emotionally stunted at a teenage level who one might legitimately be able to say we're emotionally and intellectually compatible with a teenager even though they obviously aren't physically.


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

flummoxed said:


> Because they have sexier bodies, tighter pussies and their give it up much more easily...
> 
> Oh, you meant no non-creepy reason?


oh my god please stooooooop ;____;


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

Sporadic Aura said:


> You better not be cock blocking me here or I'll also feel a sudden disgust for women!!!


You want a fight to release your frustration?

Prepare for a cock fight!!


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

flummoxed said:


> Because they have sexier bodies, tighter pussies and their give it up much more easily...
> 
> Oh, you meant no non-creepy reason?
> 
> But I actually have met some 30-40 year old men who had for whatever reason become emotionally stunted at a teenage level who one might legitimately be able to say we're emotionally and intellectually compatible with a teenager even though they obviously aren't physically.


How is that less creepy?


----------



## Stickman (Sep 30, 2012)

mhysa said:


> oh my god please stooooooop ;____;


That's wat he means. See, a 16 year old wouldn't say that.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

flummoxed said:


> I think even those who make mysoginistic statements aren't "genuinely" mysoginistic, it's just sour grapes over something they can't have. In my experience true mysoginist don't have any trouble getting women because they don't have any respect for women which means they can use every trick in the book to get laid whereas a decent guy would refrain from a lot of PUA style tactics.


I disagree.

Most of the most misogynistic men I have met think that they shouldn't use "PUA tactics" because they see women either as lesser than them or on some imaginary pedestal. They think that they're being virtuous, when they're really underestimating both the intelligence of women and their ability to figure out what they like and don't for themselves. (Maybe some like PUA tactics. I mean it works so well for a reason right? Is the misogynist or the not misogynist more likely to think that's it's because women are all impressionable innocent idiots, hhhmmm?? Ladies like getting laid too - even if a ring isn't present. Lol. It's not Victorian England). That's all true disrespect for someone as a human being imo.

I think a lot of these guys _want_ something that they can't have. As soon as they can have it it's meh. I call mommy issues, personally. Girls get degraded for daddy issues constantly, but there is a reverse lol.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Stickman said:


> You want a fight to release your frustration?
> 
> Prepare for a cock fight!!


I shall not be defeated!


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Starflakes said:


> I didn't read through this whole thread so maybe somebody already said it but...
> 
> There's nothing misogynist whatsoever about saying, "I feel sexually frustrated."
> However, when someone says it like this, "I can't get laid" it has other connotations. In our culture, in movies and tv, the phrase "getting laid" comes up in many scenarios where women are not being honored/respected as more than just an object of lust.
> ...


Thread necro, but ...

[email protected], you hit it spot-on.


----------



## Starflakes (Sep 13, 2009)

g_w said:


> Thread necro, but ...
> 
> [email protected], you hit it spot-on.


What's thread necro? It sounds bad O_O is uh....is something going to explode now? *ducks behind brick wall*


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Starflakes said:


> What's thread necro? It sounds bad O_O is uh....is something going to explode now? *ducks behind brick wall*


(@g_w chuckles to himself softly.) No worries; a thread necro is when one responds to an old (dead, hence 'necro') thread long after the fact.

it can be kind of embarrassing or funny when someone on PerC replies to a thread with advice about a specific dating question "How can I tell if they like me? Should I contact them back or ask them out?"...when the thread is two or three years old. :laughing:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Starflakes said:


> I didn't read through this whole thread so maybe somebody already said it but...
> 
> There's nothing misogynist whatsoever about saying, "I feel sexually frustrated."
> However, when someone says it like this, "I can't get laid" it has other connotations. In our culture, in movies and tv, the phrase "getting laid" comes up in many scenarios where women are not being honored/respected as more than just an object of lust.
> ...


I could understand if you meant "that doesn't feel very intimate", but "dehumanizing?"....that's a bit over dramatic. without feelings of romance or intimacy of some kind, the base feeling of "I'm horny" is pretty shallow, but that has nothing to do with being "dehumanizing", it simply means "my instincts aren't satisfied".


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Everything is misogynistic these days.


----------



## eagles (Jul 13, 2016)

They should be frustrated with themselves and try to change their way of approaching women if it's not working out for them. When they go online with people who share those frustrations and start blaming women for everything that's going on with them, it'll eventually stick in their head and it's hard to change their line of thinking. Then it snowballs into them being a misogynist. It's stupid, same thing goes for some women who expect men to bow to their every need. It has to do with themselves, not the opposite gender.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

blackdog said:


> lol, yeah that's part of the problem i think. Monopoly isn't usually a sentient conscious being. God, wouldn't that be awful?
> 
> This frustration also has the potential to trigger a vicious cycle. The man can't get laid, so he gets frustrated. The more frustrated he gets, the harder it is to get laid. Rinse and repeat. As the misplaced hatred or animosity towards women grows, the more women react negatively to them. Which only confirms their beliefs.
> 
> And yeah, i know, not all men, etc, etc, etc.


iow: Mgtow.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> iow: Mgtow.


A lot of "MGTOW"'s claim to be such because they've, I dunno, transcended their sex drive or something. Like they don't even bother trying to get laid, let alone complaining that they can't. They will essentially equate sex to subservience and then convince themselves that they're better off sticking with their hand the rest of their lives. 

Former-nice-guy-PUAs are probably more likely to have gone through a "why can't I get laid?" phase, which led them to PUA culture. 

WRT the OP, there are misogynistic ways to go about it, but it's not inherently misogynist to be sexually frustrated. That is essentially like saying it's misogynistic to be horny (and then that'd extend logically to misandrist, if you're attracted to men and complaining you can't get laid). It would have to be a general hatred of women (i.e. misogyny) because you can't get laid. Or else the term is being applied to a definition other than "hatred of women".


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> A lot of "MGTOW"'s claim to be such because they've, I dunno, transcended their sex drive or something. Like they don't even bother trying to get laid, let alone complaining that they can't. They will essentially equate sex to subservience and then convince themselves that they're better off sticking with their hand the rest of their lives.
> 
> Former-nice-guy-PUAs are probably more likely to have gone through a "why can't I get laid?" phase, which led them to PUA culture.
> 
> WRT the OP, there are misogynistic ways to go about it, but it's not inherently misogynist to be sexually frustrated. That is essentially like saying it's misogynistic to be horny (and then that'd extend logically to misandrist, if you're attracted to men and complaining you can't get laid). It would have to be a general hatred of women (i.e. misogyny) because you can't get laid. Or else the term is being applied to a definition other than "hatred of women".





blackdog said:


> lol, yeah that's part of the problem i think. Monopoly isn't usually a sentient conscious being. God, wouldn't that be awful?
> 
> This frustration also has the potential to trigger a vicious cycle. The man can't get laid, so he gets frustrated. The more frustrated he gets, the harder it is to get laid. Rinse and repeat. As the misplaced hatred or animosity towards women grows, the more women react negatively to them. Which only confirms their beliefs.
> 
> And yeah, i know, not all men, etc, etc, etc.


My comment was specifically in response *to this quote*, not the thread topic.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> _
> 
> My comment was specifically in response *to this quote*, not the thread topic._


_

I know. They do tend to have a similar attitude towards women, I just don't think it's necessarily due to sexual frustration._


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I know. They do tend to have a similar attitude towards women, I just don't think it's necessarily due to sexual frustration.


That's not what I meant; what she was describing in her post seemed to be descriptive of MGTOW and other misogynistic typed movements - *not* that (hetero male) sexual frustration necessarily=MGTOW.

ETA: It's may also likely due to *emotional* frustration over being rejected, and again: NOT AT ALL SUGGESTING: that rejection *necessarily* leads to misogyny (or misandry or whatever the case may be).


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

God damn women and their shit

ammirite?


ammirite? 


God they make no sense, they are completely irrational and they're never satisfied no matter what you do and even if they are, they get mad at you for no reason and this whole time you thought they were okay. A lot of them do sorta of like assholes though, it is totally true. Well, sometimes. I swear to god, it is them most retarded thing.

I don't know how much I've cried over the female race but I can't go gay. I don't know what's wrong with me.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I met this young teenage girl, and it was horrible.

I don't know if I'm stunted or what, I wasn't sure how old she was at first and she looked way older.


----------



## Starflakes (Sep 13, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I could understand if you meant "that doesn't feel very intimate", but "dehumanizing?"....that's a bit over dramatic. without feelings of romance or intimacy of some kind, the base feeling of "I'm horny" is pretty shallow, but that has nothing to do with being "dehumanizing", it simply means "my instincts aren't satisfied".


It's not overdramatic in the slightest. 
But once again it's really just all about the *word choice*. The specific phrase "getting laid" brings up all sorts of negative connotations that are most definitely dehumanizing. One connotation is very dehumanizing towards men because it reduces their worth to how many women they can sleep with. And its' also dehumanizing towards women because the "get laid" mindset is all about taking what you want from someone. At least that's what we associate that phrase with anyway. 

"Had sex with"
"Had casual sex with"
"Slept with"
"Got physically intimate with"
"Fooled around with" 

They all have different connotations. I dunno about other people, but for me even "casual sex" doesn't have the same negative connotation that "getting laid" does.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Starflakes said:


> They all have different connotations. I dunno about other people, but for me even "casual sex" doesn't have the same negative connotation that "getting laid" does.


Because getting laid is like... Getting a cookie? Is that the source of the negative connotation? Not an activity you do with someone but a reward since it's a thing you get?


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> as a gay man, this hardly applies to me, but I've noticed a trend of calling guys "misogynistic" and "entitled" simply because they are frustrated that they can't get laid. this is ridiculous. going without sex sucks, and they do not need to justify being frustrated by it. it doesn't mean they feel like they have a right to it, that they're entitled to rape women are that they're bitter against all women for not letting them fuck them. we would all do best not to jump to conclusions sans the availability of more evidence


I fully concur, Sir Swordsman of Mana.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Starflakes said:


> It's not overdramatic in the slightest.
> But once again it's really just all about the *word choice*. The specific phrase "getting laid" brings up all sorts of negative connotations.
> 
> They all have different connotations. I dunno about other people, but for me even "casual sex" doesn't have the same negative connotation that "getting laid" does.


Yes this. This is where women specifically are associating the frustation with a sense if entitlement. Psychologically the phrase 'Getting laid' is all about, me and my penis and what I want. When I want to get laid I'm not caring about the other person I'm caring about the act nof sex and how its going to satsify me personally. Those are the kind of negavtive connotations associated with the phrase. The woman involved is not a person, she is a conduit for his personal satsifaction. It comes across as a purely selfish endeavour. It also sounds like he doesn't much care who he has sex with just the act of having sex is whats important. Who really wants to be a partner in someone's self centredness? And if you look at all the places in media where the phrase is used it's typically paired with the image of a self centred guy with few redeeming features. He isnt out there offering anything to the other person he just wants his own desire fulfilled. 

Now I'm not saying this is true 100% of the time someone uses this phrase, but they should consider its what that phrase is culturally attached to. If the same guy wrote I just cant find anyone to have sex with, its a whole different idea because we can more readily assume that perhaps there is something he's wanting to offer the other person in return for their involvement. 

The other part of this is when some guys go on and on about how sex is a 'need' for them as if women as a collective have some kind of duty to fulfill his need merely because he has it. There are lots of needs in the world, like money, shelter, food, companionship. And in none of those cases is it ever impled that someone out there must automatically fulfill these needs t
just because we have them. Its generally acknowledged that if we have needs them we must personally do what is necessary to fulfill them. If those needs involve other people then naturally its incumbent on us to be pleasing to those people and offer them something in return. 

The phrase I need to get laid, does not acknowledge that. Its a statement akin to child demanding something be given to them. 

So these are the reasons I see why many women automatically associate that phrase with entitlement and lots of other negative ideas.


----------



## Starflakes (Sep 13, 2009)

Tropes said:


> Because getting laid is like... Getting a cookie? Is that the source of the negative connotation? Not an activity you do with someone but a reward since it's a thing you get?


There's more negative connotations than the two that I mentioned, I just didn't feel like getting into all of them, but to answer your cookie question...

"I'm going to go out and get laid" sounds more like "I'm gonna go out and take a cookie from someone" or "I'm going to go out and have someone give me their cookie"

Whereas "I'm going to see if anyone is interested in casual sex" sounds more like, "I'm going out and see if anyone is interested in sharing a cookie"

The whole point I was making was purely about about semantics and nothing more. Guys who feel the need to express the fact that they are sexually frustrated should definitely feel free to do so. I was really just making a point about word choice associations and why people react negatively to that one particular phrase. And I don't think most people would react negatively to guys saying, "I feel sexually frustrated." Or at least I wouldn't anyway.

Edited to Add: @*EndsOfTheEarth* explained it pretty well in the post above this one. 

*To sum it up, a woman who calls it misogynistic is very likely responding to the phrasing and not the sexual need itself, which is indeed a valid need.*


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Tropes said:


> Because getting laid is like... Getting a cookie? Is that the source of the negative connotation? Not an activity you do with someone but a reward since it's a thing you get?


The trouble is, society itself has set up a no-win situation here. We've basically made sex a zero sum game. Women have been schooled to believe they must deny sex if they are to be valued and respected. There are plenty of guys on here still preaching that women are the gatekeepers of sex and that is how society should be. Well if you are a woman and you meet a guy with this mentality then you are in a no win situaiton. If you give him sex you have lost the ability to be respected by that same person because you did not act as denier of sexual favours and therfore you aren't respectable. That person will gladly take the sex from you then downgrade their opnion of you simultaneously. You see this mentality everywhere with guys categorising women as gf material or not and using her sexual activites as a method of sorting them. 

So if you are a woman and you give a man sex he is allowed to feel as if he got soemthing valuable. But you are not allowed to derive value from sexual activity because others (men and women alike) will dislike your availability and come to regard you as inferior because of it. Therefore women are taught to value relationship and devalue sexual activity while men are taught to value sexual activity. 

Its a world in which only one gender is allowed to enjoy the cookie while the otheer needs to hide the fact she likes cookies, or gives cookies, or is only allowed to enjoy cookies within the confines of an exclusive relationship. If men truly want to enjoy the cookie sharing freely then we all need to relieve women of this defacto job of being a denier of sex. While that is where a woman's value is partially derived sex will always be this zero sum game.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> There are plenty of guys on here still preaching that women are the gatekeepers of sex and that is how society should be.


I hereby welcome to gatekeeper torch. Problem solved.


----------



## Tsubaki (Apr 14, 2015)

From what I have generally noticed, sexual frustration can manifest itself in being misogynistic for a short time. However, that's more of a reaction based on frustration and helps them justify theit problems to themselves. Quite frequently, the people who get frustrated in that way are the ones who are generally fairly romantic and loving and are missing that part of sex more than just the phsical act. By saying "women are all just heartless sluts anyway", they can sort of feel better about the fact that they haven't been able to find a gentle and loving one in a while.

There are true misogynists around, but that generally manifests itself in another way. Someone who really holds that belief at all times will not let it get out of control like that and doesn't need to talk about it aside from a few comments from time to time.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> The trouble is, society itself has set up a no-win situation here. We've basically made sex a zero sum game. Women have been schooled to believe they must deny sex if they are to be valued and respected. There are plenty of guys on here still preaching that women are the gatekeepers of sex and that is how society should be. Well if you are a woman and you meet a guy with this mentality then you are in a no win situaiton. If you give him sex you have lost the ability to be respected by that same person because you did not act as denier of sexual favours and therfore you aren't respectable. That person will gladly take the sex from you then downgrade their opnion of you simultaneously. You see this mentality everywhere with guys categorising women as gf material or not and using her sexual activites as a method of sorting them.
> 
> So if you are a woman and you give a man sex he is allowed to feel as if he got soemthing valuable. But you are not allowed to derive value from sexual activity because others (men and women alike) will dislike your availability and come to regard you as inferior because of it. Therefore women are taught to value relationship and devalue sexual activity while men are taught to value sexual activity.
> 
> Its a world in which only one gender is allowed to enjoy the cookie while the otheer needs to hide the fact she likes cookies, or gives cookies, or is only allowed to enjoy cookies within the confines of an exclusive relationship. If men truly want to enjoy the cookie sharing freely then we all need to relieve women of this defacto job of being a denier of sex. While that is where a woman's value is partially derived sex will always be this zero sum game.


:S It's not a zero sum game and what's wrong with the idea of women being gatekeepers..? What society is this?


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> :S It's not a zero sum game and what's wrong with the idea of women being gatekeepers..? What society is this?


 I have explained why it is so. Men receive reward for sex in terms of personal satisfaction, being looked upon favourably by their peers and not being judged as promiscuous. I have yet to find a woman actively enjoying a lot of sexual activity outside of a relationship who receives the same treatment by her peers. In fact, I've yet to meet a woman who receives favourable recognition by her peers for having sex in any context. The consequences of engaging in sex for women are mostly (socially) negative. Perhaps you'd like to explain why it is not a zero sum game? 

The problem with women being perceived as gatekeepers of sex is as I have already explained. Her value begins to be derived from her ability or willingness to deny sex. A woman who does not deny sex, is seen as inferior. Therefore it restricts the sexual freedom of women who can now only engage in sex in socially acceptable ways (within the confines of a relationship for example) or she risks losing the respect of her peers and perceived societal value. Surely you are not about to deny that many men openly state they want a sexual partner who has a low number of sexual partners, or who is not promiscuous or overtly sexual? 

The other problem with it is that it also restricts the sexual freedom of men, women are motivated and encouraged to actively deny sex to men. Reducing the overall particpation rate and leading to sexual frustration amoung men. Women will even deny sex to men they very much want to have sex with for fear of being seen in negative light. So you have women withholding sex for arbitrary periods of time, or until certain conditions are met (exclusivity within a relationship). All of it based on fear. 

The other more subtle problem with it is the tacit implication that women are somehow responsible for the sexual behaviour of men. That adult males have no power of self control and are indiscriminate and therefore women must do this for them by denying access to sex. Not only is that totally insulting to men but it also leads to unconscious resentment towards women by men who see them as the deciders of whether or not he can have sex. We see plenty of this in the world as well. Acid attacks on women, sexual violence enacted upon women in all countries. Those horrible crimes do not occur because a guy is horny but because a guy resents or hates the woman in question or women in general and seeks power over her as a result. Why should women be put in the position of having to make sex scarce and breed this kind of resentment? What woman actually signed up for that role in life? 

I cant speak for you obviously, but I can speak for myself. I dont think anyone needs to be the gatekeeper of sex. I'm in favour of men having easy access to sex with willing partners because I do think it would ease a lot of unnecessary tension. I also believe that a lot of women would be more willing if they werent concerned about how having sex will change someone elses perception of them. Why is their even all this social taboo around the subject? I do believe that in the absence of these kind of social pressure and prejudice, people would act in accordance with their natures and the world would be better off for it. Look at all the other species on the planet, not one of them needs taboos around sex to function as a social unit. Some species are sexually indiscrimate, others pair bond. But none of them have hangups about it and start gender wars over it.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@EndsOfTheEarth Why do you say it's society that is like this, and that it's men why stupidly claim that biologically women are the gatekeepers? You do believe in evolution too, I'm sure, so wouldn't it be obvious that something as universal as this attitude is probably biological? Attitudes towards the "necessary severity" of "gatekeeping" has changed a LOT in the western world (basically because of science and legislation) but the biological evolution-based attitudes remain to an extent, they're inescapable. They're not something people are just conditioned into, but given that more than gatekeeping people like sex (evolution again), and given the opportunity to bypass the link between sex and having babies, the attitudes re women, men and sex will continue to shift.

Thank you very much for your posts, I'm starting to realize something about a lot of internet conversations that has bothered me a long time. I'm on mobile so my response is too brief but I do really appreciate your posts.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@EndsOfTheEarth It's not a zero sum game because the conflict of interest is not 100% (excluding use of force). Both sexes are looking for their own interest and what is optimal to them.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

By "is biological" I mean rooted in biology (evolution of the sexes and biological reality), but there's obviously lots of other factors that play a part.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

@Jamaia

I have a lot of problems with evolution based arguments specifically ones making anthropological claims that pre-date recorded history. Archeologists and anthropologists can only guess at what life may have been like prior to recorded history. There is very little actual evidence that explains the societal structure of these civilisations. Its natural for humans to look at current social stuctures and superimpose them onto the past making a lot of assumptions along the way. The truth is, no-one knows whether paleolithic man pair bonded, engaged in marriage or sexual abstinence practices or what their social structure was like. If we can't even go that far back we can hardly make evolutinary claims for why things are so. Evolution works in very long cycles not in the few thousand years which is all recorded history spans. Even bronze age civilisation is largely a mystery. 

My other problem with evolutionary theories comes from the origin of evolution as a field in itself. A lot of evolutionary theories were derived by looking at species other than humans, largely primates and other mammals in the 18th & 19th century. Which is odd considering how easy it is to study the human animal. But anyway. A lot of heralded experts of the day were aristocrats. Back then it wasnt possible for someone to become a thought leader from the ranks of the poor or because they were brilliant. Having an education and time to study things was the preoccupation of the wealthy who could self fund expeditions and research. Likewise having ones work published was a matter of paying for it. It wasnt peer reviewed or scrutinised or even if it was its highly likely people within your social circle would agree with you and tell you its brillant regardless. Back then the printed word held a lot of weight in peoples minds. Many of these theories were not properly questioned and because they sounded credible they gained traction. They then became the basis for our education system as we know it. So I hold a great deal of skepticism for any kind of evolutionary theory that was derived from this time period due to the climate in which it emerged. 

I have problems with people pointing to religious texts as proof or evidence because religious texts are human inventions designed for purposes that have long been forgotten but most likely as a form of social control. Nearly every religion has at its heart social control tenets and taboos. Its obvious that's what its all about. They could have been created for purely political purposes which isnt in my view any reason to be structuring society now upon them. 

Marriage and therefore chastity as a construct is entirely man-made and served primarily as a way to secure and allocate resources and social power in early civilisations. There really isnt an apparent evolutionary reason for it. For even if you do subscribe to survival of the fittest then it really doesnt matter how many men a woman has sex with. Only the fittest of the sperm will survive and impregnate her. So marriage isnt necessary for that. Her own womb design and the basics of reproduction ensure that she will only give birth to a limited number of offspring. Once pregnant adding more sperm doesnt change who she is pregnant to. The body doesnt release more eggs it concentrates on growing the one its got fetilised. 

Now given that and the relatively short life spans of humans in the ancient world I can see an apparent reason why a familial house would come to regard females as something of value and see the need to control her as a resource. Their own continuation depends upon it. Especially with a high child mortality rate. But that is even more reason to get rid of this system now. Humanity is not a struggling species, people are long lived and child mortality is at an all-time low. There is no real reason why archaic methods of resource control should apply a gender in the modern world. 

STI's, yes they exist. Yes they can be spread. They are also largely preventable and most of them curable. So that is also not a valid argument in my eyes for why women need to be in charge of controlling the sexual urges of men. Never at any time in history have we had more freedom to live acccording to our natures. But some people insist that we need these archaic customs that dont actually make much sense in the modern world.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

What you wrote about sperm and woumb and limited amount of offspring is exactly the basis for believing there's biological basis for women to be discriminate re who they have sex with. It's not speculation about societal structures. I recognise the reasons you pointed out that could lead to flawed reasoning, by being causes of bias, but I don't see how anyone can undermine the huge impact the basic reproductive differences must have had on us. It gas gotten muddy with social 'stuff', but the fundamental differences are clear anyway, woman can not (for her own good) have sex with as many as possible, a man can. Social implications are distorting this a bit but they cannot override this.

I agree the conditions in modern world lead to women being able to be less of a gatekeeper, and that is not a problem nor something yet to be seen, it us happening all around us, so your claims that there's no positive societal implications re woman having sex and no negative societal implications of man having sex seems outdated to me.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> @EndsOfTheEarth It's not a zero sum game because the conflict of interest is not 100% (excluding use of force). Both sexes are looking for their own interest and what is optimal to them.


Yes I agree. But i'm arguing that social mores skew people's behaviour when seeking what is optimal. Is a woman chaste because she truly prefes to be or because she fears a backlash of some kind? While the sexual stigma is not 100% it is large enough to shape behaviour in people to a very large degree such that they seek what is optimal according to things other than pure desire for sex. Ive no dount if social prejudice on this subject did not exist you would still have chaste people, selective people and indiscriminate people. But they would be that way because it reflects their preferences & internal moral compass not because society places pressure on them to act in a particular way. 

In practice pure zero sum games rarely exist but things like capitalist markets and this example display enough of the principle to draw a useful comparison.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@EndsOfTheEarth in my opinion you could get that by completely divorcing sex, reproduction and relationships, but in no other way. I don't think it would be the optimal route either (I mean something that would be GOOD for the society or individuals).

Why does it matter if she is being chaste for this or that reason, it's her internal conflict. She has interest in sex and she has interest in being selective and she has external reasons to behave a certain way. Even if you remove the external pressures the internal conflict remains. That's life.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> What you wrote about sperm and woumb and limited amount of offspring is exactly the basis for believing there's biological basis for women to be discriminate re who they have sex with.


But even if we accept that. In the modern world we now have the means to determine a pregnancy as well through birth control and elimination of a potential pregnancy after the fact. So why is chastity such a big deal in the modern world? Just because something was expedient in the ancient world doesnt mean it needs to carry through forever. We no longer insist on riding horses to get around because we've moved on from that and have better means now. My argument has always been that we should do whats relevant in our current society. Restricting sex may not actually be as relevant as it used to be. The reasons for it existing now are largely emotional, not biological. 



> Women can not (for her own good) have sex with as many as possible, a man can. Social implications are distorting this a bit but they cannot override this.


well two points. Im not suggesting women should have sex with as many people as they can. Im suggestinng they should have sex with as many peopple as they wish according to their own desires without social prejudice. Huge difference there. I never said we should divorce a desire for relationship or emotional attachment from sex. I said we should remove articial extnal pressures. Of course that does not mean that every woman will instantly become indiscriminate nor do I think thats the ideal here. 

My stance has always been that women are deciders of their own personal sexuality, and should not have that interferred with by adding societal prejudice to the mix. I fail to see how a woman will be internally conflicted about who she finds sexually desirable. Im fairly certain most women have a handle on that. Sure she may desire a relationship over casual sex, that then becomes a negotiation. 

Any why exactly can a woman not have sex as often as a man? I'm curious.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> But even if we accept that. In the modern world we now have the means to determine a pregnancy as well through birth control and elimination of a potential pregnancy after the fact. So why is chastity such a big deal in the modern world? Just because something was expedient in the ancient world doesnt mean it needs to carry through forever. We no longer insist on riding horses to get around because we've moved on from that and have better means now. My argument has always been that we should do whats relevant in our current society. Restricting sex may not actually be as relevant as it used to be. The reasons for it existing now are largely emotional, not biological.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Early pregnancy and abortion still has consequences, it's not "nothing". Restricting sex IS NOT as relevant today, BY FAR, as it used to be. (not shouting, would use bold if it was easier on mobile). I agree there are "residual attitudes" that can go, and they are going. I don't think turning the tables on sexual selection will be entirely pleasurable for women.

Her body and mind won't allow her to have sex with as many people as possible (unless she's unwell mentally or physically), the same is not true for a man.

Also, society and societal pressure is not entirely external to her. As a human she wants to be part of society and allows its influence. A society that has no influence is not society. That's life too. She's a human so she has the human conflicts to deal with.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Jamaia said:


> Her body and mind won't allow her to have sex with as many people as possible (unless she's unwell mentally or physically), the same is not true for a man.


I'm unfamiliar with this concept. Can you explain further. Reminder we aren't talking about having sex with as many people as possible. Only as many as she wishes. and I think we need to address the notion that men are inherently indiscriminate. I dont see much evidence that this is so. Sure some are but I actually think males can be every bit as picky if not more so than women. So women aren't the sole selectors.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I am single and a proud misogynist.

It feels good and that's what matters to me. Oh, the lust! Oh, the _power_! You are mine. Women are the ultimate prize in the game we all play.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> I'm unfamiliar with this concept. Can you explain further. Reminder we aren't talking about having sex with as many people as possible. Only as many as she wishes. and I think we need to address the notion that men are inherently indiscriminate. I dont see much evidence that this is so. Sure some are but I actually think males can be every bit as picky if not more so than women. So women aren't the sole selectors.


We were talking gatekeeping, gatekeeping is discrimination, restriction of "access", its opposition is seeking "entry" (without any or with some discrimination and selection, so the concept gatekeeping has at least two dimensions, quality and quantity) and that in it's simplicity translates to trying to have sex with as many as possible. If you are talking about being discriminate but less so, having sex with who you wish, that's still gatekeeping as long as someone is interested in having sex with you but you decline. (It's only not gatekeeping if no one wants to get in... That's why I said I don't think the turning tables is going to be entirely pleasurable.)

Men are gatekeepers to their sexuality as well, naturally (that's why it's not even near a zero sum game!), but it's not because of biological demands on reproductive level and I do think it's still to lesser extent than women. And there's social evolution (if you will) that affects both (distorting the impact of purely biological reproductive machines), but the underlying biological premise that prevails is that woman is the gatekeeper and man is the one seeking entry. Biological creatures of course do not exist in a vacuum, so what ever the evolution has programmed is affected by our environment and what is available to us. It's not that we always act according to just one command no matter what, it's <=> type of multidimensional reaction.

Edit... What was the thing I was supposed to clarify, hang on, I'll check... 

Yeah, her body and mind and his body and mind. Man's (should probs say male) body and mind will of course under certain conditions restrict him too, like if he is too tired (what was the phenomenon named after an US president..?). What is relatively normal indiscriminative (less discriminative) sexual behavior to a man would be manic or self-destructive behavior to a woman, if she went night after night from man to man in a bar just looking for a hook-up it'd be very strange and we'd be concerned for her mental health. If a man does that, it's a bit icky or sad or bad social skills, but he's not borderline insane to do it. I know this is controversial to say but I think this is true. But again the societal reality is affecting this and it's getting harder and harder to figure out the difference because in this time and age with contraceptives and all, being less of a gatekeeper is okay for women and subsequently or perhaps of other reasons too men can become more of a gatekeepers. (It's not black and white.)

And of course there has always been some societal payback for men to be restrictive, to not be fucking everything that moves, even if they biologically could. Which is were we started, you said it's not allowed for women to have sex (outside of a relationship, which alone is a huge adjustment towards more equality and more free sexuality), it's a zero sum game and cause of shame for women and pride for men, and I was disturbed that how can you say that. What you say is true to an extent, and the reason is that there are fundamental biological reasons to be like that still, that it takes some time for us to adapt to a new reality (but social evolution is very very fast and it is happening that women are being less discriminative and men are being more discriminative, because they can). 

I was actually thinking about this the other day, how hard it is now to relate to what sexual life must've been like for people at a time before contraceptives. Especially with sex having been such a taboo, they wouldn't have known much about the technicalities of sex.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Well its good to see we agree that the whole concept of women being gatekeepers is total BS. What it boils down is people of both sexes being selective in who they have sex with. But my argument was about the notion that women are the sole or major selectors in sex and the resulting negative judgements that come upon them when they fail to be selective according to societal norms. In effect both genders exercise selection but women are often judged based on their selections whereas a male is not. 

Im not convinced by your argument that a woman seeking casual sex is mentally ill, borderline insane. There wasnt any real justification for that conclusion other than your own\societies distaste for it. The fact that you then went on to characterise a man engaging in the same behaviour as merely sad while the woman was characterised as insane demonstrates to me the real prejudice women face with regards to their sexual behaviour. Your only reasoning for it was gender.

It again proves my point, women who fail to adhere to an expectation of being a sexual denier are seen as inferior. In your case, mentally insufficent, which is by far the harshest judgement I've encountered.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

No we don't agree it's BS and the example was bad but you misunderstood. She wasn't looking for casual sex, she was looking for casual sex without the gatekeeper attitude = trying to convince men to have sex with her and not having standards = trying to have sex with whomever. If she was a prostitute, trying to get customers is fine because it's obviously gatekeeping. I'll clarify when I get home.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Starflakes said:


> It's not overdramatic in the slightest.
> But once again it's really just all about the *word choice*. The specific phrase "getting laid" brings up all sorts of negative connotations that are most definitely dehumanizing. One connotation is very dehumanizing towards men because it reduces their worth to how many women they can sleep with. And its' also dehumanizing towards women because the "get laid" mindset is all about taking what you want from someone. At least that's what we associate that phrase with anyway.
> 
> "Had sex with"
> ...


semantics....


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> Well its good to see we agree that the whole concept of women being gatekeepers is total BS. What it boils down is people of both sexes being selective in who they have sex with. But my argument was about the notion that women are the sole or major selectors in sex and the resulting negative judgements that come upon them when they fail to be selective according to societal norms. In effect both genders exercise selection but women are often judged based on their selections whereas a male is not.
> 
> Im not convinced by your argument that a woman seeking casual sex is mentally ill, borderline insane. There wasnt any real justification for that conclusion other than your own\societies distaste for it. The fact that you then went on to characterise a man engaging in the same behaviour as merely sad while the woman was characterised as insane demonstrates to me the real prejudice women face with regards to their sexual behaviour. Your only reasoning for it was gender.
> 
> It again proves my point, women who fail to adhere to an expectation of being a sexual denier are seen as inferior. In your case, mentally insufficent, which is by far the harshest judgement I've encountered.


Okay, let me try again. It was a bizarre example and it's going to blow up on me but here goes. So, first, it wasn't about casual sex, it was casual sex the way some undiscriminating men sometimes do (quote from another post: "I just want to put my dick in a vag"), without the gatekeeper attitude. I didn't say she was mentally ill, I said we'd be concerned with her mental state. If she offered an explanation, such as "I'm doing it to collect material for my thesis" we'd ask her if the sacrifice is really worth it, maybe she could pick another study topic instead... 

At first I said: "--- the fundamental differences are clear anyway, woman can not (for her own good) have sex with as many as possible, a man can. Social implications are distorting this a bit but they cannot override this." I meant this as biological creatures who reproduce the way humans do, woman has never been able to try to get as much sex as possible without risking her chances of survival. A man has been able to try to get as much as sex as he can and the only risk to his survival is perhaps negative feedback from the environment for getting it on with the wrong ladies. And the way modern times are this has gotten blurred to an extent, but the main biological cause is still relevant.

Then you asked me things but changed the words around to mean something else, I just ignored that and expanded on the more simple statement of mine, with the bar scene case. It's based on there being a fundamental difference in biological level that translates as women being and subsequently expected to be the gatekeepers of sex. It wasn't supposed to prove anything. There are other levels where there may or may not be gender differences regarding sexual motivations, and I said men are the gatekeepers of their sexuality on many levels too, but not in this same fundamental level. The netto effect in my opinion sums up to women being the gatekeepers to sex in general. This difference was there before any social system that might have an impact on sexual behavior via taboos and parental roles and such. I've argued before that for humans to be this smart, we have had to have a social system that supports (mothers and) children (allowing and forcing us to get ever more smarter), and therefore sex and reproduction is at the core of what our social systems are for and I think it's fair to then presume the biological and societal guidance aren't in too much conflict regarding this issue.

Casual sex is fine these days in the western world, women aren't heavily judged for it. What judgment they do still face for being promiscuous is a result of old sterner attitudes plus still relevant concerns, all reflecting the biological differences. Casual sex is fine for a woman these days, casual sex to the extent of not knowing who her baby's father is however is not and I don't think should be (this may or may not be only societal impact, as the ability and importance of recognizing the father depends on the social structure). For a man casual sex to the extent of not knowing if he got someone pregnant or not is not ideal, but is acceptable any way. It is not double standard or misogyny, it's the direct result of the fundamental gender differences. It'd be foolish for society not to weigh in on this. Societal rules aren't usually very case-sensitive, so a woman who for example can't get pregnant would face the same societal wrath for failing to act like a gatekeeper (I explained what the opposite of gatekeeper is previously) even if the original reason for that societal norm isn't relevant to her biological or social system. What means failing to act as a gatekeeper varies, based on how much control on reproduction there is and how risky reproduction is. Modern times a lot of control, risk of reproduction also pretty controlled ~ loose attitudes: previously little control, very risky ~ sexual activity taboo.

I have three kids. Having them was not all fun and games. If they now after all this effort start dying on me due to their father being a lousy father or having shitty genes, that's a disaster for me in terms of reproductive success. For their father it'd obviously be a disaster too but clearly (!) less so, and having more offspring could literally be just fun and games for him. This would hold true even if I hadn't raised them myself or knew who their father was, the risk for carrying and giving birth to them was on me and not on him. This risk and loss might be balanced after a few years if he was the sole parent taking care of them after birth, but that is pretty extreme case for humans and I don't think it's customary anywhere to hand the kids over to the father. So, because having kids is such a drag, for me to fail being selective about who I risk getting impregnated by would be suicidal.

And I'm a result of long history of biological and societal evolution, and I think it's fair to suspect that similar problem was relevant to all of my ancestral mothers starting from the first mammal female. I think that both the biological evolutionary system and societal evolution have had to heavily address this risk or conflict of interest. It's of course stacked against the forces driving us to reproduce or have sex in the first place. There are social structures these days that even this gender imbalance out, and inventions that allow us to sometimes have sex without much risk of pregnancy, but the biological and consequently psychological mechanism hugely impacting our behaviour isn't up to date. Basically for the entirety of human existence this imbalance has been reality and even with all the aid of modern times it is still relevant today. Societal pressure on women is reflecting the biological pressures and it's inexcapable.

Now the external pressure can be lessened, and it is lessened, but it's not ever going to go beyond what is happening contraceptive wise. I said the only way to minimize the pressure would be to separate sex from reproduction and relationships, as long as they are tied together our biological reproduction motives to act certain way to optimize our reproductive success will affect how we go about sex too.

*

Phew that was long but I have one more thing to say and that's about why I think this is such a dividing issue. I'll get back to it later.

Oh one more thing, I can imagine that a bonobo like social system would allow women to be almost undiscriminating and have all the sex they want. In that type of system refusing sex has more severe implications than choosing who you have sex with. In a sense she's having all the males of the group father her babies, and it's the quality of the group that defines if she should mate with them (and the females pick a group to live in and accept new females into their group, so I guess females control the quality that way). But a bonobo group is finite in size, if a strange male comes by (they usually won't because males stay with their mothers) who is not in good shape, a female bonobo shouldn't throw herself at him because what would she do with sperm that isn't of good quality and with sex that does nothing for her social status. Where as the male might just as well mate with any female he meets, it's possible she gets pregnant and carries his offspring with no cost to him.


----------



## Starflakes (Sep 13, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> semantics....


Yeah, dude. That was my entire point. The whole time.


----------

