Yes, this is fairly obvious

Usually, men’s sexual activity is limited by how often women will consent to sex – but there is a natural experiment that shows what would happen if it was limited by how often men consent. That natural experiment is, of course, the lifestyles of gay men. “If you look at gay men and women,” says Fleischman, “you’ll see that gay men have a lot more partners than gay women do.” Having to gain consent from a man is a far lower bar to clear, she says, than gaining consent from a woman.

I wonder, is there anyone who wouldn’t agree with this observation?

45 thoughts on “Yes, this is fairly obvious”

  1. I wouldn’t disagree at all, and in fact this is entire consistent with the predictions arising from Donald Symons’ seminal work on the evolution of human sexuality.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    Unity – “I wouldn’t disagree at all, and in fact this is entire consistent with the predictions arising from Donald Symons’ seminal work on the evolution of human sexuality.”

    Not merely entirely consistent with. It is what Donald Symons actually says. He did look, in 1979, at what Gay men and women did. He deserves to be cited even though he often isn’t.

    It is surprised how much people hated him at the time. And I assume still do in the right circles.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    “If you look at gay men and women,” says Fleischman, “you’ll see that gay men have a lot more partners than gay women do.”

    Lesbians’ sex lives are so lacking in sex within a relationship much less with other people, that they refer to the Lesbian Bed of Death – Lesbian couples often stop having any sex at all. Many are so offended by this self-evident fact (at least it has become so over the objections of a great many people) they have re-defined sex to include things like cuddling.

    Mind you, Dr Fleishman needs to stop hanging out with quite so many Gay men:

    Dr Diana Fleischman, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Portsmouth, puts it simply: “If a man has sex with 100 women in a year, he might have 100 babies. If a woman has sex with 100 men in a year, she might have one baby and a very sore bottom.”

    Not quite sure she has grasped the basics here.

  4. Isn’t “might” such a very useful word?

    Almost as useful as the lawyers’ phrase “Is it possible that …?” Of course it is sodding possible. Just very, very unlikely.

  5. SMFS:

    Symons’ seems rather more ignored than hated these days, largely, I suspect, because he produced a very thorough and very carefully constructed argument that, unlike most of the pop evo-devo you see kicking around, doesn’t overclaim on its findings.

    Like Darwin, in his time, Symons is incredibly difficult to argue against even if you really don’t like his conclusions.

  6. In my younger days, I knew more than one hardcore leftist woman who went ‘lesbian’ while sneaking back to the hated men for some good lovin’ as required.

  7. SMFS,

    Well, she said bottom, but I’m sure she knew what she meant.

    It’s the biggest thing that people who complain about double standards don’t understand – there’s a logical reason why we attach high status to men who can screw lots of women, and low status to women who screw lots of men. Women have to be more selective because they can only reproduce once a year, where in theory men can reproduce dozens of times in that period.

    The flipside of this attitude is that men call each other wankers as an insult in a way that women don’t. It’s socially acceptable for a woman to have a vibrator in a way that male sex toys are viewed as weird.

  8. There are a great number of points that could be made about all this. One in particular is a complete lack of interest in the sexual act itself; I commented at length on this in the Chivers thread, so anyone interested, scroll down. That’s nobody then, heh.

    Another point ought to be made about lesbians though; firstly that a significant cohort of lesbians in feminism have declared themselves so for ideological reasons rather than because they actually fancied women- Julie Bindel being a modern example, and the likes of Sheila Jeffries and Andrea Dworkin being the type species. Both of them were heterosexuals who developed a kind of heterophobia, or phallophobia perhaps. With no actual emotional drive to fancy women, it’s not surprising that their actual “lesbian” sex lives would be negiligible or non-existent.

    There is also an element of mechanics. Lesbians have particular problems due to having sockets but no plugs. Gays have both a plug and a socket, even if it’s the non-reproductive socket. A lesbian can use a dildo for penetrative sex, but the wielder of it feels literally nothing physical; oral sex on a woman is a considerably more arduous task than on a man; even masturbating a partner is much more effort for the one doing it. I think here of one partner of mine who had great difficulty achieving orgasm. She could, but I had to apply a virtually military level of planning and commitment. By contrast, she could get me off with a minute of rubbing with her top off, should she want to. Effectively, a sex life predicated on offering masturbatory relief to each other is bound to produce more “oh, I can’t be bothered with all that effort, let’s watch Eastenders” ennui.

  9. Having found myself once in the middle of a small but absolutely packed gay club in Phuket at about 2am (I was with my wife, who was one of 2 women in the club: she knew most people in there), the thing that made me feel most uneasy was the utter, utter lack of restraint between the men and, erm, the men. Not in the sense they were trying it on with me (they weren’t), just that nobody was playing the role females usually do by at least pretending to play hard to get. God it was weird. They all seemed to be enjoying themselves though. And each other. I didn’t stay long.

  10. Well, she said bottom, but I’m sure she knew what she meant.

    maybe she just hangs out with public schoolboys.

    It’s socially acceptable for a woman to have a vibrator in a way that male sex toys are viewed as weird.

    This has never occurred to me before, but you’re absolutely right. Likewise, women looking at porn = kinda cool and liberated, men ditto = quotidian at best, if not a bit laughable in a sort of “hur hur, he done a wank” way.

    Another thing which occurs which must be connected is that straight girls lezzing it up is, again, filed under ‘kinda cool and liberated.’ Straight men gaying it up is viewed as ‘a bit odd’ at best, if not revealing some deep-seated issues.

  11. And of course the ultimate:

    Women – multiple orgasms
    Men – premature ejaculation

    There really should be a law about this. Something should be done.

  12. No. I’m not leaving it at that. The subject’s too important. It’s a matter of fundamental equality. There should be massively funded research. Studies. Needing volunteers.

  13. Politically incorrect interpretations:

    Men prefer women who are sexually enthusiastic; any sort of sexual behaviour by women (lezzing, wanking, etc) thus increases her desirability.

    Same sex male activity, OTOH, is sending a quite different message, which is that they are making do with boys because they are insufficiently alpha to get a girl. Historically, most male-male activity has been a substitute for absent access to females; particularly in the tribal “warrior brotherhoods” which were generally quite ghey, because the young (not yet alpha) males within them had little access to females. Being the “bottom” doubly so. Thus, it reduces male desirability to women. As does wanking, for the same reason.

  14. To put it another way, in women these activities say, “I’m a goer”. In men, they say, “I’m a loser”.

  15. @Ian

    makes sense, sure you’re right.

    What would be interesting would be how the gay man dem view men with sex toys, men watching porn &c. Is it suddenly fine, I wonder, or are you still a loser? Given that ‘access to girls’ is no longer the defining criterion?

    Equally, I’m convinced</i? the tribadists view straight girls lezzing it up as AN ABOMINATION AND TREASON.

    I'll have to ask.

  16. @Interested:

    “In my younger days, I knew more than one hardcore leftist woman who went ‘lesbian’ while sneaking back to the hated men for some good lovin’ as required.”

    Indeed, as a lesbian colleague of mine once so adeptly put it, “It’s like an itch you can’t scratch”. Happens all of the time because as Ian B so delicately and humorously puts it “women are all sockets and no plugs”.

    Sometimes all a woman needs, even a lesbian one, is a good, hard plug!

    There is of course a downside to the heterosexual tapering off of sex after marriage. Put simply, there would be a lot less wandering off if the woman at home would put out. I suspect the heterosexual divorce rates would plummet if such a sea change in female sexual output could be managed.

  17. @Ian B:

    “Same sex male activity, OTOH, is sending a quite different message, which is that they are making do with boys because they are insufficiently alpha to get a girl.”

    Speaking as a massive faggot, this is not primarily true, at least not for the men that I have known and pleasured. A man, even a gay man is rarely a substitute woman. Certainly there are those who purposely seek out the “chick with a dick” type, but that is a small room in a very large mansion.

    For the vast majority of gay men they are turned on by masculine (albeit often youthful) characteristics. The greatest thing about gay men is that they are always horny or come on at the flick of a switch, or the twitch of a dick if you prefer.

    Whereas if a woman isn’t in the mood, it’s like pushing water uphill.

  18. Sorry John, I didn’t mean that gay men are looking for substitute women, rather than that is the social signal which straights get. Non-gay men indulge in male-male activity in the absence of women (prisons, public schools, etc) so gay male acts are not a positive signal to straight women. I did not intend to imply that gay men are gay because they can’t get girls.

  19. I once knew an actress who was thoroughly lesbian and proud; regulation haircut, the works. Except when drunk. She had a particular penchant for inviting cab drivers indoors at the end of the journey. She drank a lot. She had had three abortions as a consequence.

    Even I ended up in bed with her once, though <Roly Birkin Voice> I was very very drunk at the time</Roly Birkin Voice>.

  20. There is of course a downside to the heterosexual tapering off of sex after marriage. Put simply, there would be a lot less wandering off if the woman at home would put out. I suspect the heterosexual divorce rates would plummet if such a sea change in female sexual output could be managed.

    The question that remains to be objectively addressed regarding this is why it occurs, not least because it’s politically incorrect to talk about it honestly, or even admit to such a thing, or that it is a problem, at least outside of wry commentary in the snug bar.

    Part of the problem is an assumption hardwired into our culture (yes, a social construct) that the female sex drive is contingent on other factors i.e. “the relationship”, so the general dismissal that “something else is wrong with the relationship”. This is of course advantageous from a Princess Feminist perspective, since it can be used to cause the male into endlessly jumping through hoops to become more compliant with the Princess’s expectations, in the hope he will get more nookie.

    My own view is that this is incorrect; the missing understanding is that for men, all sex is good (so long as it is not an outright physical failure); for women it is not. Their bodies are designed to rate male virility (for want of a better catch-all term) and encourage her to copulate with males who pass the fuck test and not to do so with those who don’t, by a straightforward pleasure reward system.

    Inadequate, dissatisfying sex for a woman is, at best, boring, and, at worst, heartbreaking. A woman who marries for “relationship” reasons- for love- thus starts to see the sex as a burden and becomes avoidant. If we presume that evolution but the pass mark of the fuck test fairly high (not much point having a test if you don’t) then we might speculate that this applies to a majority of relationships. Which is why men are paranoid about performance, size etc, and “was it good for you?” and porn always shows women thoroughly enjoying it, and women fake orgasm, and so on.

  21. @Ian B:

    Remember – When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

    On the matter of declining sexual output of women, I think it is more basic than that. We’re wandering around in bodies that were designed the environment of our stone age ancestors, specifically to be fucking at 12 and dead at 30.

    We’ve now reached the point in most of the western world where most people aren’t even married by the age of 30, so it is hardly surprising that women encounter loss of libido, poor conception, etc. since her stone-age physical hardware is wired to prepare her for death or at best grand-motherhood.

    I’m pretty sure the feminine hormonal roulette wheel doesn’t help either.

  22. John Galt-

    What hole am I in? Not sure what you mean. I think my suggestion regarding female libido is at least a factor, I’m not trying to imply it is the only one.

  23. Sex-droop marriages: What about the standard Chateau Hartiste explanation (supposedly out of evolutionary biology)–that women want to shag Alpha males (as the same have the most resources at their command to ensure the survival of offspring) but have to settle for beta males as not enough alphas to go around. When times were much harder than now the women had no choice but to stay but now they can kick the beta over. With alphas women do put out and will strive to maintain sexual activities.

  24. Ecks-

    That’s basically what I’m saying. The difference is, how you define “alpha”. Everyone in the evo-devo camp currently thinks it’s all social status; I’m arguing that what matters is physical status.

    In the paleolithic, cavelady looking for an “alpha” was looking for physical characteristics that would lead to social alpha status; the big healthy guy who can beat all the other cavemen and become Big Man. The more civilsed we got over the past few thousand years, the more social and physical alpha status diverged; now the Big Man might be an old, weedy bloke with business or political or whatever skills. But her body still wants a physical alpha.

    So, she marries a social Alpha tycoon, and as soon as he leaves the house, she’s fucking the pool boy (to be stereotypical).

  25. Hence the saying “Alpha fucks, beta buck$”.

    In short the prototypical Alpha (brain dead jock) gets to screw the ladies in their prime (18-30), but won’t commit to them when the reach their 30’s and the whole package of physical beauty, ability to conceive, etc. begins to deteriorate (aka “The Wall”).

    At this point the poor sad little Beta who has spent his youth doing all of the socially praiseworthy things (school, college, good job, etc.), gets the remnants of the girl from her 30’s onwards and the financial burden for any children.

    Regardless of whether they’re actually his or not, after all, even when she’s married, Alpha still fucks.

    The poor beta gets to work his arse off to an early grave, pays for her and her kids and as compensation for his effort might get laid twice a year at Christmas and on his birthday.

    Whether you believe any of the above is up to you, but it is the interpretation of events in certain back waters of the Manosphere.

    Personally I suspect it is only true in the middle bits of the US.

  26. >So, she marries a social Alpha tycoon, and as soon as he leaves the house, she’s fucking the pool boy (to be stereotypical).

    Having had a colleague who worked as a pool boy in a holiday resort, it is a stereotype with a real core.

  27. J Galt-

    I think that particular manifestation is a particular phenomenon, particularly of the current Anglosphere. It’s amazing how many furious Betas you find posting in the manosphere that complain (a) they can’t get any but (b) they won’t fuck sluts who are “easy”. Which is pure comedy gold.

  28. So Much For Subtlety

    Unity – “Symons’ seems rather more ignored than hated these days, largely, I suspect, because he produced a very thorough and very carefully constructed argument that, unlike most of the pop evo-devo you see kicking around, doesn’t overclaim on its findings.”

    One of the nice features of Amazon these days is if you look for a book, it recommends others. Usually books that have cited the book you first searched for. I recommend it for DS book. You get the usual socio-biology quoting him very approvingly, and Steve Pinker, but you also get feminists who are less than pleased. The other factor is I think no one takes those people all that seriously any more. Since Dworkin, I think we have all got the joke and moved on.

    The Stigler – “Well, she said bottom, but I’m sure she knew what she meant.”

    I am sure she did too. As I said, fewer Gay friends ….

    Besides, two a week would make anything sore? Well obviously if it was me, you know, no problems, but most men?

    “It’s the biggest thing that people who complain about double standards don’t understand – there’s a logical reason why we attach high status to men who can screw lots of women, and low status to women who screw lots of men.”

    And one is hard, while the other is easy. A man who slept with 100 women in a year has done something very hard indeed. He has shown something about his attractiveness. Which is why we do not give the same status to men who sleep with 100 prostitutes in a year. A woman who sleeps with 100 men in a year is just not choosy at all. I agree totally, this is not a double standard. It is a fact of life.

    Ian B – “Effectively, a sex life predicated on offering masturbatory relief to each other is bound to produce more “oh, I can’t be bothered with all that effort, let’s watch Eastenders” ennui.”

    Yeah but how does that differ from any other sort of sex? Heterosexual married sex for instance. At some point sex is about relief as well as emotional intimacy. Women can do both, even if they are lesbians. But lesbians soon stop.

    John Galt – “Sometimes all a woman needs, even a lesbian one, is a good, hard plug!”

    Well I don’t like the sort of people who say these sort of things, but I can’t help notice that Susan Faludi went from writing bitterly about how fashion magazines oppressed women to how men got the sort end of the stick in the modern world. The fact that her book on how terrible it was be a man was enlivened by a picture of her very buffed young construction worker boyfriend had, I am sure, nothing to do with it. In the same way Naomi Wolf went from being marginally sane if bitter, to being freakin’ batsh!t certifiable, writing about how she had a best friend in Jesus and felt empowered by shopping, once she married a good Jewish boy and settled down in the suburbs.

    Some times, it seems, it really does just take a good man.

    “There is of course a downside to the heterosexual tapering off of sex after marriage. Put simply, there would be a lot less wandering off if the woman at home would put out. I suspect the heterosexual divorce rates would plummet if such a sea change in female sexual output could be managed.”

    I don’t think men wandering has anything to do with the divorce rate at all. I would put this firmly on the men. They are not getting sex and they are getting served with divorce papers because they are no longer desired. They soften up as they get older. Their wives stop desiring them and then they get shafted by the system. If they continued to be the sort of men their wives desired, they would be getting more sex and their wives would not be divorcing them.

    Ian B – “This is of course advantageous from a Princess Feminist perspective, since it can be used to cause the male into endlessly jumping through hoops to become more compliant with the Princess’s expectations, in the hope he will get more nookie.”

    But that doesn’t disprove there is something wrong with the relationship. Just that this particular solution is not the right one. The idea that women are unhappy so men should abase themselves so that women will come to love them more is absurd in itself. But the relationship can be failing for other reasons without doing so for this reason.

    “Inadequate, dissatisfying sex for a woman is, at best, boring, and, at worst, heartbreaking.”

    Except what is inadequate, dissatisfying sex? If you’re the sort of man she likes it doesn’t matter if she enjoys it or not. She will enjoy you enjoying it. If you’re not the man she married then six hours working on her orgasm is not going to help.

    John Galt – “We’ve now reached the point in most of the western world where most people aren’t even married by the age of 30, so it is hardly surprising that women encounter loss of libido, poor conception, etc. since her stone-age physical hardware is wired to prepare her for death or at best grand-motherhood.”

    Except women are having sex at 12. They are not waiting until they are married are they? They are doing precisely what their prehistoric cavemen bodies are telling them to do.

    Which means that even Christian women are not even remotely constrained by Biblical teachings when it comes to respecting their husbands and not sleeping around.

    Mr Ecks – “What about the standard Chateau Hartiste explanation (supposedly out of evolutionary biology)–that women want to shag Alpha males (as the same have the most resources at their command to ensure the survival of offspring) but have to settle for beta males as not enough alphas to go around.”

    I think the other explanation is more likely – that men stop being quite so Alpha. They slack off. They become more comfortable. At a certain age, they don’t want to be chasing girls around bars all night long. They want to come home to a warm and comfortable bed. With slippers. And so as they are not the men they used to be, their wives do not love as they used to either.

    The solution is to go to the gym, get a better haircut and flirt with every young girl you can – right in front of your wife if possible. Women want to think they have a man who can get other offers. They don’t want to think he is boring and middle aged. Look at Hollande. He is boring. He looks like a retired accountant slash kiddie fiddler. But since he started bonking a doable 40 year old, his numbers with women have gone up.

    Western men are simply too nice.

  29. Except what is inadequate, dissatisfying sex?

    That which generates sufficient physical pleasurable sensations.

    If you’re the sort of man she likes it doesn’t matter if she enjoys it or not.

    Oh, but it does.

    She will enjoy you enjoying it.

    Oh no she won’t. She’ll get more and more annoyed at having to lie there while you enjoy it, until she stops lying there. Except maybe on your birthday. If you’ve been good.

    If you’re not the man she married then six hours working on her orgasm is not going to help.

    That depends on whether the man she married was good in bed or not. If you never were, you probably never will be. If you were and now you aren’t, see above.

    People have sex, and people includes women, because it is enjoyable. If it’s not enjoyable, they avoid it, just as they avoid anything else that ought to be enjoyable but turns out not to be, like watching Doctor Who. You start off thinking it’s going to be great, you keep watching, eventually the ennui sets in as you realise that it was crap this week because it will always be crap, and you stop watching and do something else.

  30. erratum-

    “That which generates sufficient physical pleasurable sensations.”

    Should be something like “That which does not generate…”

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “That which generates sufficient physical pleasurable sensations. … Oh, but it does. … Oh no she won’t. She’ll get more and more annoyed at having to lie there while you enjoy it, until she stops lying there. Except maybe on your birthday. If you’ve been good.”

    Well I can see how that would work. But let us suppose two men here. One is Nigel. A nice plump middle age charted accountant from Swansea. The other is Juan, a muscular, tattooed, Venezuelan kick boxer she met on a cruise last year. It doesn’t matter if Nigel puts in six hours of attempting to please the wife. She won’t care. On the other hand, she will tremble at the sight of Juan. Even if he is done in sixty seconds or less. She will come back for more. Not because of the sex per se, but because he is exciting. She is looking at the entire package, not just the sexual act.

    “That depends on whether the man she married was good in bed or not. If you never were, you probably never will be. If you were and now you aren’t, see above.”

    Ultimately it has so little to do with you though. Sex starts and ends inside her head. If you bore her, it is irrelevant what you do. And pretty much it is if you excite her too.

    “People have sex, and people includes women, because it is enjoyable. If it’s not enjoyable, they avoid it, just as they avoid anything else that ought to be enjoyable but turns out not to be, like watching Doctor Who.”

    But the sex itself is not the be-all and end-all of the sexual act. You’re being, what’s the lesbian term, phallocentric. Everyone knows make up sex is often good. Not because you have suddenly become better, but because the context has changed. Anger pushes some of the right buttons.

    Take a girl to a boxing match. You won’t change. But she will.

  32. SMFS-

    Of course there is lots of psychology, we are psychological beings. And appearance is important. Ultimately though, all these things package together into whether or not the act itself is enjoyable. But-

    On the other hand, she will tremble at the sight of Juan. Even if he is done in sixty seconds or less. She will come back for more. Not because of the sex per se, but because he is exciting. She is looking at the entire package, not just the sexual act.

    Initially, she will tremble at the prospect, not least because she expect our kickboxer to be physically impressive. After several bouts of 60 seconds, she will start to reappraise the situation.

    There is a major problem here- a lot of men in the “Game” “Movement” are as bad as the “relationship” mongers; this deeply rooted belief that womens’ sexual responses are entirely contingent on other factors, whether it be “the relationship” or a male’s social alpha status. This simply is not true.

    Remember Angie Dickinson’s humorous appraisal of her nookie with JFK (America’s most eligible male at the time); “the most memorable 60 seconds of my life”. He was a lousy fuck. She was not impressed.

    The evidence is before our eyes. Women ruthlessly appraise the performance of men. They care an enormous amount about the quality of the act itself. Female sexual pleasure is designed by evolution to be elusive; the reason for that being to test the quality of males in order to enable the female to choose who to have sex with again.

    The interesting thing (to me anyway) is the blind spot the Game Guys have over this; they are ranking their own level of awesome by the number of “pulls”. By using their awesome alpha powers that they learned on a blog, they can always get another girl tomorrow (is the idea, anyway). But the question of whether a man is really “alpha”, rather than good at false advertising, is whether the girl wants to fuck him again. And again. And again. And no amount of lowering your voice an octave and reading chatup lines from your memorised crib sheet is going to affect that if she was lying there thinking, is it in yet?

    The reality is that humans are based on stable relationships and (I think you might agree at least on this) society doesn’t work well without them. So we need to understand what makes them work, and that includes sexually. The couple that plays together stays together, and in the absence of nigh impossible divorce, the couple who last did it some time last year probably won’t. Sex is a cause, not an effect.

  33. Just to add-

    And yes, it is a phallocentric (or gyno-phallocentric, or something) act. Dworkin et al were right about one thing; fucking is the central act of the relationship. It was just all their conclusions from this that were wrong.

  34. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “Initially, she will tremble at the prospect, not least because she expect our kickboxer to be physically impressive. After several bouts of 60 seconds, she will start to reappraise the situation.”

    She may. Especially if she decides that he is effeminate. But then again she may not.

    “There is a major problem here- a lot of men in the “Game” “Movement” are as bad as the “relationship” mongers; this deeply rooted belief that womens’ sexual responses are entirely contingent on other factors, whether it be “the relationship” or a male’s social alpha status. This simply is not true.”

    Well, entirely? Largely I would have no problem with.

    “Remember Angie Dickinson’s humorous appraisal of her nookie with JFK (America’s most eligible male at the time); “the most memorable 60 seconds of my life”. He was a lousy fuck. She was not impressed.”

    She said it was the most memorable sixty seconds of her life. That is pretty darned impressed. Remember that there is a backhanded compliment to herself here – she was so hot he could not contain himself. But still the most memorable minute of her life. The stress in that sentence is important.

    “The evidence is before our eyes. Women ruthlessly appraise the performance of men.”

    Women ruthlessly condemn men they deem weak and seek a rationalisation for their backsliding, cheating and desire for a divorce. If a relationship is going well, she can accept almost any amount of poor performance and bad behaviour. If it is not, nothing will work.

    “Female sexual pleasure is designed by evolution to be elusive; the reason for that being to test the quality of males in order to enable the female to choose who to have sex with again.”

    Female sexual pleasure is entirely accidental. A freak of nature caused by the same gene conservation that gives men nipples. Female desire is necessary. Female pleasure is not. As you can see in Somalia.

    “But the question of whether a man is really “alpha”, rather than good at false advertising, is whether the girl wants to fuck him again. And again. And again. And no amount of lowering your voice an octave and reading chatup lines from your memorised crib sheet is going to affect that if she was lying there thinking, is it in yet?”

    That is true. But the evidence is that it is the nice married men who wouldn’t dream of cheating on their wives who are not getting sex. I agree the Game community is mostly fairly pathetic. Somethings cannot be faked. But the reality of women pining over some [email protected] who screwed them over twenty years ago is all too real.

    Take the Daily Mail’s favorite girl of the decade, Kelly Brook. Perhaps one of the most desired women in the UK. Who does she date? Men of violence – rugby players and MMA fighters. Well rugby players mostly. Zara Phillips. Could have a wide choice. Went for the rugby player again. I think this is a victory for the sociobiologists and not one for the marriage counsellors myself.

    If you buy into the Alpha/Beta distinction what is more Alpha – putting on your pants and moving on to the next girl or spending even twenty minutes of your time working to get her to orgasm? Which is going to have her begging you to stay?

    “The reality is that humans are based on stable relationships and (I think you might agree at least on this) society doesn’t work well without them.”

    Society needs them. We are not good at them. Which is why we should do as much as possible for force people to do what they do not want to do. Humans do not need stable relationships. Mortgages do. Children do. Marriage means men especially getting royally shafted.

    “So we need to understand what makes them work, and that includes sexually. The couple that plays together stays together, and in the absence of nigh impossible divorce, the couple who last did it some time last year probably won’t. Sex is a cause, not an effect.”

    But what causes them to play together? Not, I would think, whether the woman enjoys it or not. Whether she is afraid her man will leave her for someone younger and prettier? That is far more likely. She has to feel she has a prize. The only way he can do that is by constantly reaching for his trousers so he can make a quick break and on to the next bar maid. No fear, no desire.

  35. SMFS-

    She said it was the most memorable sixty seconds of her life. That is pretty darned impressed. Remember that there is a backhanded compliment to herself here – she was so hot he could not contain himself. But still the most memorable minute of her life. The stress in that sentence is important.

    It’s a put down, and always recognised and presented as such when repeated. JFK was notoriously rapid when fucking; Jackie sought advice from a doctor about it, and so on. Dickinson was saying he was plain awful. It’s an ironic sentence.

    Women ruthlessly condemn men they deem weak and seek a rationalisation for their backsliding, cheating and desire for a divorce. If a relationship is going well, she can accept almost any amount of poor performance and bad behaviour. If it is not, nothing will work.

    This is I think entirely wrong. Women review sexual performance because it matters to them. Men barely even have a corresponding concept of female performance. It’s men who are insecure about their sexual performance, not women. Women are insecure about their looks.

    Female sexual pleasure is entirely accidental.

    There is no prima facie reason to believe this; it is a conclusion one reaches if one also believes that female sexuality is contingent on other non-sexual factors. I’m arguing here that the actual basic evidence is in opposition to that. Evolution doesn’t fuck up that badly.

    Notably, female chimps (our closes relatives) have no female sexuality; it’s such an irrelevant act that the female may not stop eating while being mounted. Human females have an enormous and deep sexual response. This cannot be accidental.

    But the evidence is that it is the nice married men who wouldn’t dream of cheating on their wives who are not getting sex. I agree the Game community is mostly fairly pathetic. Somethings cannot be faked. But the reality of women pining over some [email protected] who screwed them over twenty years ago is all too real. Take the Daily Mail’s favorite girl of the decade, Kelly Brook. Perhaps one of the most desired women in the UK. Who does she date? Men of violence – rugby players and MMA fighters.

    That would depend on you considering “men of violence” to be the important characteristic. It makes more sense to consider that these females are selecting physically impressive males, rather than settling for somebody less impressive, wheezing away like a broken accordion on top.

    If you buy into the Alpha/Beta distinction what is more Alpha – putting on your pants and moving on to the next girl or spending even twenty minutes of your time working to get her to orgasm? Which is going to have her begging you to stay?

    Alpha/beta etc are (cautiously) useful descriptors of positions on the bell curve. If you’re most interested in racking up inseminations like a trainspotter, you should probably get the trousers on and straight back out on the Game. If you’re interested in having good sex, you might want fewer top quality women- maybe just the one alpha female- and take a bit more time.

    The only way he can do that is by constantly reaching for his trousers so he can make a quick break and on to the next bar maid. No fear, no desire.

    And this kind of statement is why I profoundly beleive we need an end to “battle of the sexes” rhetoric. Nobody ends up very happy if their relationships in life are predicated on manipulation and fear. If we believe that women only have sex because of other factors, that’s where we end up.

    I think on the one hand, what I’m saying here is at least very plausible. But it’s also unpalatable; men don’t want the insecurity (and the fact that men are insecure about performance is itself strong evidence); women are bombarded with propaganda that the physical pleasure is shallow and, as high moral beings that should be above that. Nonetheless, the simple assertion that women seek sex which is pleasurable- which is why men do it, after all, and why we do any of the other pleasurable things in life- and avoid that which is not, really ought to be the null hypothesis.

  36. Bear in mind also that for most of our evolutionary history, humans lived in small bands and tribes. Any male attempting to fuck a different nubile every night would run out in a month. If none invited him for a repeat performance, that’s his “Game” exhausted. Large urban environments with a theoretically unlimited supply of fresh partners are a very recent development.

  37. Surely contraception has a part to play in nookie fall off? Without it wifey would be pregnant or nursing, and the lack of sex would be understandable. Take the baby away, and there’s still no sex, but now it is obvious. Maybe contraception is exposing something that always happened?

  38. What you’re failing to understand is that men and women are both driven by biological imperatives over sex that govern how they behave and why they behave differently.

    Women understand that their beauty is their main asset in their attempt to attract the highest “value” genes for their children that is available. The problem we have in modern society is that these “values” are based upon the rules of the stone age when what was important was that Mr. Ugg (as opposed to Mr. Right) could protect the family from wild animals, other males and bring home the mammoth.

    Women understand that their beauty and virginity have a limited shelf life, so she needs to pair-bond with the highest value male she can attract with the resources she has available. Given that the cost of sex was high for a woman (in the absence of birth control), she needed to ration this as far as possible.

    From the perspective of Mr. Ugg, he wants to spread his genetic material as widely as possible. Thus his biological imperative is to fuck as many women as he can get away with. Since the cost of him having sex is effectively zero, he can do this if he can attract the women.

    Obviously this state of affairs could not support a society as long term stability and provision is needed for raising children, thus society created rules which effectively bound sex to only within the context of marriage and punished sex outside marriage (fornication and adultery) very severely.

    If you don’t realise this then read a bible or the news reports of westerners being arrested in Dubai for breaching strict immorality laws even during rape. Some countries still have civil and/or criminal sanctions for virginity fraud.

    “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people”

    – Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    In other religions, polygamy was used to serve as a social construct to keep the marriage that society needed alive against the diminishing sexual output of the women. If you could afford it, when not get a fresh new virgin teenage wife every decade or so, provided that you continue to support the older wives and their children.

    All of this worked rather well until the rules were relaxed to allow divorce to all and sundry. It got worse with the introduction of “no fault divorce” and we now have a state of affairs in the west where nobody cares who or how you fuck as long as it is within the legal parameters of age and consent.

    What defines Alpha’s and Beta’s? Sex does, those getting it and those not getting it, but ultimately it is governed by Briffault’s Law:

    “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”

    — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191

  39. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “This is I think entirely wrong. Women review sexual performance because it matters to them. Men barely even have a corresponding concept of female performance. It’s men who are insecure about their sexual performance, not women. Women are insecure about their looks.”

    I disagree with the first and agree with the second. Sexual performance is important for men. It only matters that he can get it up and get to the end. The natural male assumption is that women feel the same way. But let’s look at what women do when men are not involved – lesbians stop having sex. I have always wanted to say this, so I hope you don’t mind if I take my time and savour it ….. You are projecting your phallocentric assumptions on to the opposite sex.

    “There is no prima facie reason to believe this; it is a conclusion one reaches if one also believes that female sexuality is contingent on other non-sexual factors. I’m arguing here that the actual basic evidence is in opposition to that. Evolution doesn’t fuck up that badly.”

    It isn’t a f*ck up. Any more than men having nipples is. As Donald Symons pointed out, the females of most mammals appear to have the capacity to orgasm. But not in the sexual positions they usually use. It is latent. And of no interest. We have done this experiment too – Somalia and parts of Scotland prevented women from enjoying sex. Yet sex continued to take place. Children were born. It is not necessary.

    “Notably, female chimps (our closes relatives) have no female sexuality; it’s such an irrelevant act that the female may not stop eating while being mounted. Human females have an enormous and deep sexual response. This cannot be accidental.”

    They can have a sexual response. Remember that Paris Hilton answered her mobile phone and chatted during the act.

    “That would depend on you considering “men of violence” to be the important characteristic. It makes more sense to consider that these females are selecting physically impressive males, rather than settling for somebody less impressive, wheezing away like a broken accordion on top.”

    Heads I win, tails you lose. It is the same thing. Mike Tyson went to jail for sleeping with a girl he picked up by saying “I want to f*ck you, my Room Number is XXX”. And she came. You really think the fact that he could beat her into a pulp without breaking a sweat didn’t determine her response? How about the fact that Charles Manson has just got married. To a honey I am willing to bet.

    “If you’re most interested in racking up inseminations like a trainspotter, you should probably get the trousers on and straight back out on the Game. If you’re interested in having good sex, you might want fewer top quality women- maybe just the one alpha female- and take a bit more time.”

    You will never reconcile biology and late 20th century British society. One is our inherent flawed nature. The other is an entirely artificial and rapidly dying cultural product. Besides, it is not about me, it is about her. What is going to make her happier. Having a man who *could* put on the pants and leave, but chooses not to, is obviously the only choice that women want.

    “Nobody ends up very happy if their relationships in life are predicated on manipulation and fear.”

    Seems to be true for British divorce laws.

    “If we believe that women only have sex because of other factors, that’s where we end up.”

    I am not saying it is for other factors. I am saying that women have sex because they desire sex. They desire it with men who could get other women easily. They desire it when they are not secure. They do not desire it with their husbands who are faithful and loyal.

    Again look at what lesbians do when no men are involved. They stop having sex.

    “men don’t want the insecurity (and the fact that men are insecure about performance is itself strong evidence);”

    I agree. British men especially are far too nice. They want what women tell them they want. And find themselves half of a lesbian marriage. With no sex and a lot of chores. They want a warm and welcoming home. They get a bed sit post-divorce.

    “women are bombarded with propaganda that the physical pleasure is shallow and, as high moral beings that should be above that.”

    I have no idea what planet you are posting from but there is no way that this has been true for at least sixty years. If you looked you could not find anything other than the exact and literal opposite of every single word you say in every single newspaper and magazine in the land.

    “Nonetheless, the simple assertion that women seek sex which is pleasurable- which is why men do it, after all, and why we do any of the other pleasurable things in life- and avoid that which is not, really ought to be the null hypothesis.”

    I don’t mind if we start out from that position. It would fail because women have repeatedly shown that this is not what they want.

    Ian B – “Bear in mind also that for most of our evolutionary history, humans lived in small bands and tribes. Any male attempting to fuck a different nubile every night would run out in a month. If none invited him for a repeat performance, that’s his “Game” exhausted. Large urban environments with a theoretically unlimited supply of fresh partners are a very recent development.”

    I am happy to look at any small band and tribe you like. Chagnon went to Venezuela and proved that Yanomami who killed other men have a lot more children than men who did not. Both with their wives and the wives of others. He proved that men who hunted successfully had more children than men who did not. Both with their own wives and the wives of others. He did not show that anyone gave a flying f**k about the performance of any of the men.

  40. Bear in mind also that for most of our evolutionary history, humans lived in small bands and tribes. Any male attempting to fuck a different nubile every night would run out in a month. If none invited him for a repeat performance, that’s his “Game” exhausted. Large urban environments with a theoretically unlimited supply of fresh partners are a very recent development.

    That’s a good point.

  41. SMFS-

    Again look at what lesbians do when no men are involved. They stop having sex.

    No cocks. No “phallocentric” F-Test.

    And of no interest. We have done this experiment too – Somalia and parts of Scotland prevented women from enjoying sex. Yet sex continued to take place. Children were born. It is not necessary.

    And this is the point where unwittingly you’ve blown your own argument out of the water. If the female sexual response were an irrelevance, why would these tribes ever have started going to such extremes to eradicate it, by excising the sensory machinery that facilitates it? They are using crude surgery to abolish the F-Test. This supports my hypothesis- pretty much conclusively- rather than yours.

    John Galt-

    Bear in mind when you’re quoting Deuteronomy that due to a set of historical contingencies, pretty much the whole world outside the Far East and India is governed by a single religious tradition, the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic one, whose (religious) social and sexual mores began among a handful of marginalised pastoralist tribes.

    The Jews at the time were polygamists who have since largely become monogamists under European influence. Pastoralist polygamy is a reaction to a particular economic system, in which males form large family groups to cooperatively defend their herds. The women being the glue that binds those extended family groups together, they have to be fiercely controlled sexually.

    This intensity of control of females doesn’t fit well with other economies, which is why despite the fear of God, its hegemony in Europe (in particular) has always been very shaky. We don’t stone loose women to death. We write saucy novels about them.

  42. “We don’t stone loose women to death. We write saucy novels about them.”

    You make oi larf, Ian B.

    I’ve always fancied the idea of polygamy in principle (being a horny old bastard even of the faggot variety), but suspect the reality is different. I imagine that most men, instead of being lords of the household with sex on tap ends up being rather henpecked and put down upon by the multiple wives.

    Probably works for some, but not most I expect. Feminine jealousy and hormones being more sensitive and explosive than nitroglycerine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *