Female Sexual Power

by Featured Guest on February 2, 2012

By Henry Laasanen

“Female Sexual Power” is the title of my book (2008, in Finnish only!) and part of the title of my master thesis (2006) in sociology (Female sexual power: The critique of feminist equality paradigm). This article is an introduction to the ideas of the book.

The book received a very angry response, especially from women and feminists. I was labeled as a “basement wanker who couldn’t get laid”. Bashing me (argumentum ad hominem) was more important than fighting my arguments (I received bashing like this first comment against Roy Baumeister).

Finland’s biggest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, has a board of 100 “intellectuals” who declared, by majority vote, that women don’t have more sexual power than men.

My book has the same basic idea as Catherine Hakim’s book “Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom”, but I draw different conclusions (note: my book has nothing to do with Jessica Valenti’s book with a similar sounding title). The starting point of my (and Hakim’s) theory is that men want more sex than women. In economic terms you could say that there is much more demand for female sexuality than for male sexuality.

The old saying “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is right. Men need women more than women need men. And feminism has succeeded in reducing female dependency of men still further.

Scientific backbone of the theory comes from the Baumeister and Vohs article “ Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions” (2004). Thet theory is build by combining evolutionary psychology, social exchange theory, economic theory of sexuality and Emerson’s power-dependency theory.

There is an old (2005) discussion of female sexual power in Alas-blog, which you may find interesting.

The critiques of the theory

The idea of  female sexual power gets lots of criticism. Two main critiques come from opposite directions. Some people (usually men) say, that “while the theory is very true, the idea of female sexual power is not a great scientific breakthrough, because it is self evident. Everybody has known it for ages” ( one that kind of critique in English is here).

Other people (usually women) say the opposite: “The idea of female sexual power is bullshit. Women want sex as much as men. And even if the idea of female sexual power is somewhat right, it’s not a real or useful form of power.

For me the idea of female sexual power is at the same time (1) self evident and (2) important. It’s important because it brings the female power in to the scientific and political discussions. It’s important to the men’s movement, because it shows that patriarchy is not the only gender power structure in the world.

You can say that female sexual power is part of the “common knowledge”, but common knowledge has not much value, until it’s written as an scientific theory. You cannot fight feminist science with common knowledge.

Men want more sex than women

Comment sections (in Hakim’s book discussions) are filled with the politically correct claim, that women want sex as much as men. The claim is untrue.

There are lots of studies of sexual desire, and all of them point in the same direction: men want more sex than women. Men want sex faster, with more partners and they want more casual sex.

Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety: Tests From 52 Nations, 6 Continents, and 13 Islands.

“This study provides the largest and most comprehensive test yet conducted on whether the sexes differ in the desire for sexual variety. The results are strong and conclusive – the sexes differ, and these differences appear to be universal. Men not only possess a greater desire than women do for a variety of sexual partners, men also require less time to elapse than women do before consenting to sexual intercourse, and men tend to more actively seek short-term mate ships than women do. These sex differences are cross-culturally robust and statistically significant regardless of whether mean, median, distributional, or categorical indexes of sexual differentiation are evaluated. These sex differences are robust and significant regardless of the measures used to evaluate them.”

If you don’t believe in scientific studies, you can make your own experiment, like Simon Owens. He wanted to find out, how hard it was to get laid using Craigslist. Here are the stats on how many people responded to each person.

New York:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 165 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 9 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Chicago:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 200 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 6 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Houston:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 54 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 10 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Sadly, for a heterosexual male it is easier to find gay partners than female partners.

Amanda Marcotte has claimed many times, that women want sex as much as men. She has attacked the straw man argument “women don’t want sex“. No one has claimed that women don’t want sex; women just want much less sex than men. And women’s sexual desire doesn’t create the same kind of demand on the market that men’s sexual desire does.

Benefits and costs

Sexual power has two main dimension: benefits and costs. A person with sexual power gets benefits and possibilities; a person without sexual power gets costs and reduced possibility.

The person with sexual power (for example beauty pageant contestant) has possibility…

  1. …to have sex whenever and with whoever she wants.
  2. …to marry up.
  3. …to make money through prostitution.
  4. …to feel sexually desired, get invitation to parties and so on.
  5. …to get benefits in worklife.

The person without sexual power (typically a man without status, looks, and money or PUA skills) has the possibility to choose…left or right hand.

The person without sexual power has a choice between 2 main costs:

  1. The psychological costs of unwanted celibacy.
  2. Costs of getting sexual relationships.

The choice is same kind as the choice between PUA and MGTOW. If he chooses option number two, he faces different costs:

  1. Search costs (going through bars, writing in internet dating sites and so on)
  2. Marketing costs of learning PUA skills.
  3. Investing costs (raising your market value by getting money, muscles, status and so on).
  4. Psychological costs of getting rejected.
  5. Opportunity costs (he could do something else pleasant instead of chasing women).

Whatever you do, there is no escape from costs, because biological sex drive is the root cause of the costs. MGTOW lifestyle offers no solution, because it brings the costs of unwanted celibacy.

Gender structures in the society

The third important dimension of female sexual power lies in its structural effects. Have you ever wondered why…

  1. …female romantic sexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality, while men’s sexuality is sick and perverted?
  2. …women’s magazines dominate the official politically correct sexuality, but PUA guides are morally questionable?
  3. …men are the more disposable sex?
  4. …men must usually make the first move in the relationships and risk the rejection?
  5. …men must pay on dates?
  6. …laws are against men’s behavior and not against women’s behavior?

The answer to all those gender structures lies in female sexual power. Women’s sexual resource (Erotic capital) manifests itself in gender structures that are beneficial for women.

It’s also possible to explain female sexual power structures in society by using Marx’s terminology of  “gender classes“, if you put women in the position of the bourgeoisie (sexual capital) and men in the position of proletariat. The male-female relationship becomes as a system of exploitation, where women get the surplus value of men’s work.

Marx has also the concepts of base and superstructure. Base is the women’s sexual domination in the base of mating market, which produces the women-friendly ideologies (women’s sexuality is good, men are disposable sex…) in the superstructure.

Theories in the book

DOUBLE AND TRIPLE PAY THEORY: Women can get income from (1) their own work and from (2) men’s work. Therefore, it is not adequate to compare only work wages – you have to take all the income into account. And there is also the triple pay theory. Women get much more welfare benefits from the state. So, if you want do economic comparison between men and women, you must take account of women’s triple pay.

WOMEN’S LIFE STRATEGIES: Women have more available life strategies than men: (1) The wife strategy; (2) The blond strategy (prostitution, modeling, short relationships with wealthy men…); (3) The feminist strategy (make your own money and advance feminist politics); (4) The glamour feminist strategy (combining the sexual power and work life power). Women can use those strategies opportunistically in different phases of life.

FINNISH LEVEL THEORY OF MEN: In Finnish discussion the alpha-beta terminology is not the standard. Instead we have level theory, in which men are divided in 3 levels: higher, middle and lower level, depending on the sexual success (idea is similar to rich, middle income and poor). The problem with alpha-beta terminology is the double meaning of words: alpha and beta refer to the certain types of men – dominant and submissive, but sexual success doesn’t always go hand in hand with the types: beta can have lots of sexual success.

PORN IS MORE EQUAL THAN ROMANCE: Think about it. In mainstream porn everything is equal: no one has clothes, man is in the top, woman is in the top, woman gives blowjob, and man gives cunninlingus…Romance is very unequal. Cinderella is very poor, the prince owns everything. And when they marry, Cinderella gets huge economic benefits.

WOMEN’S SEXUAL MARKET VALUE AND RELATIONSHIP MARKET VALUE ARE VERY DIFFERENT: Women’s sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value, which means, than women can get high quality partners to short sexual relationships, but she have to lower the bar for longer relationships. For men thing are just the opposites. If a man want just sex (now, today), he must usually settle for the much lower quality partner than himself.

MARKET VALUE THEORY’S 7 THESIS:

  1. Market value is the potential demand for the person in the sexual marketplace. 
  2. Market value predicts the quality of the persons partners.
  3. If partners have same level of market value, relationship has good chance of lasting long.
  4. Women’s market values are generally higher than men’s market values.
  5. Women’s sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value.
  6. Women arrive at their market value peak younger than men.
  7. Men’s market values are more spreader than women’s market values.

{ 132 comments… read them below or add one }

Joe February 2, 2012 at 12:13

Mostly correct, except:

- MGTOW does not necessarily mean celibacy.
- You have omitted the “sexy sons” evolutionary drive built into female selection, which is part of hypergamy (mating “up” in the sexual marketplace). It is this which is at the root of the difference between alpha and beta: women find men preselected by other women to be more attractive, hence a few men (alphas) will find women throwing themselves at them, and wanting lots of sex with them whereas far many more (betas) will experience sex-famine exactly as you discussed above. So men tend to either find lots of women wanting them, or more or less none*. There’s a stat out there (which I have yet to track to source) that says something like 80% of women who have ever lived have extant offspring, whereas only 20 (or 40)% of men who have ever lived have extant offspring.
(*Single PUAs response: imply preselection, e.g. by wearing a wedding ring when they go out to bars.)

Further, I think it’s worth taking time to observe the difference in RANGE of what the two sexes generally find attractive, most men have a strong type (or types) and fetishes that can vary a lot from one man to another. See the rainbow variety of male-oriented porn.
Comparatively, most women are very, very predictable re. what physical kind of man they are attracted to, and . In fact it can generally be summed up as:
tall(er than her), ok looking, medium/athletic/muscular, clean shaven. (NAWALT).

Evolutionarily men show greater variety in all characterics e.g. the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women c.f. the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women – we are nature’s gamble. Women are nature’s safe bet, they cluster more tightly around the norm in all characteristics.

Men = r strategy. Women = k strategy.

tl;dr
I agree with your thesis that sex differences between men & women are at the root of much of the structure of society.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 2
Snark February 2, 2012 at 12:27

Men’s sexual desires are more immediately intense than women’s.

But the baby rabies are still more powerful.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 0
Torrero February 2, 2012 at 12:27

“The old saying “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is right. Men need women more than women need men.”

I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion… society will crumble in 24 hours without men maintaining, constructing, discovering and innovating. Women can’t even protect their own safety without men’s fearless nature and strength. Woman-dominated familes and societies are rotting from the inside, without men, there is no civilization.

Are you serious, OP?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 94 Thumb down 14
Zorro February 2, 2012 at 12:44

1. You took on Roy Baumeister? Don’t fuck with eagles if you don’t know how to fly. I’ve followed Baumeister’s work for over 15 years. If Tyson is your first sparring partner, you’ll learn humility fast or your career is over.

2. “The old saying “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is right. Men need women more than women need men.” Shark jumped. If you seriously believe that, you are a brain-dead assclown of epic proportions.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 39 Thumb down 32
piercedhead February 2, 2012 at 12:45

“– we are nature’s gamble. Women are nature’s safe bet…”

A great way of putting it. I usually think of us as Nature’s R & D department, and women as Nature’s Production dept.

It’s this division of risk that powers our evolution. It answers what I would consider the primary question: “Why are there two sexes?”.

The observable difference between the sexes, and the wider spread of capabilities that men demonstrate, in everything they do, makes it clear that we are indeed Nature’s gamble. It’s why we exist. Ideologies that deny this will ultimately be exposed by this deficiency as fundamentally wrong.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
Carnivore February 2, 2012 at 12:52

I agree with Torrero. Whether the society be well-ordered or dysfunctional as ours is, there’s a give and take between the sexes. One cannot do completely without the other. That still leaves open for discussion, of course, which sex gives more and which takes more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Anonymous age 69 February 2, 2012 at 12:53

OP says something about common knowledge means nothing, sorry if I misquote. It must be stated as a scientific theory. Is that another way of saying only university liberals can know anything?

Torrero is correct. The OP university liberal is a product of his own culture, which is as a university liberal with all the hoaxes and fiction which are a part of a culture based on taxpayer money and no production.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 9
Rmaxd February 2, 2012 at 12:56

A mans variety for the vast different types of women, is because sexual objects, due to testosterone stimulates the same portions of our brains used for cognitive problem solving

Essentially we find sexuality as something to be found & explored, which is why alot of men prefer pictures of chicks with clothes on

While women are turned on by a mans status & wealth & the size of his wallet & his eventual child support payments

Women live & breath status whoring, just look at the preferred language of feminists everywhere … shaming language, designed to status whore

Women status whore everything, theyre kids, theyre clothes, theyre miniskirts, boyfriends, husbands, house, all massive forms of status whoring

You can see plenty of chicks status whoring her kids in the mall, especially their daughters … hell even their dads get in the act, white knighting & throwing sweet sixteen parades for their precious feminist slut … as the sixteen year old walks around in a miniskirt with her pubescent tits hanging out of her t-shirt

They also use the same status whoring, as pussy passes, in divorce its always what about the children … or the various woe is me pleas …

It always boils down to theft of the children the mans paid for decades, & theft of property

Women value status whoring & social status over sexuality & rational

Hence milfs, & sixteen year old sluts status whoring their tits & ass, & their illegitimate bastards in tow …

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 6
Omnipitron February 2, 2012 at 13:01

‘I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion… society will crumble in 24 hours without men maintaining, constructing, discovering and innovating. Women can’t even protect their own safety without men’s fearless nature and strength. Woman-dominated familes and societies are rotting from the inside, without men, there is no civilization.’

I agree as well, sure feminism has made women even less dependent on men, but the ironic thing is that it’s doing so with the resources and infrastructure that men build and maintain. A woman’s replacement for a man is the Government’s handouts or muscle to make a man pay. A man’s replacement for a woman is at the end of his wrist.

Really not sure where you got this idea OP, but the rest of the article seems interesting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
keyster February 2, 2012 at 13:04

“Instead we have level theory, in which men are divided in 3 levels: higher, middle and lower level, depending on the sexual success (idea is similar to rich, middle income and poor).”

If only the cost was just psychological for lack of sex, it would be easier. There is also a much more distinct social cost for lack of sexual success. You are ranked in status by your peers, not just financially, athletically, etc., but by whether you’re getting laid regularily or not, (purchasing sex from a prostitute doesn’t count, and may even be viewed as worse.).

The Free Range Man; who consciously eschews the female, who is never “seen” with one, or known to never have been with one (as in once married, now divorced), is deemed a social pariah of sorts and will have difficulty succeeding in career aspirations. He will not be invited to mixed social gatherings, as he doesn’t “fit in” with the crowd.

He will be shut out of “proper” society, disenfranchised and branded as “odd” or “weird” and of course a “loser”. He will spend his free time trolling Men’s Rights blogs and endlessly pontificating about theories and opinions on matters no one else will listen to him about, because they think he’s “insane”.

Can a young man find it in himself to accept and deal with the social cost vs. the risk of marriage? …because once you take the Red Pill, there’s no going back. Either one is a serious commitment to a “life style”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 6
NWOslave February 2, 2012 at 13:40

A womans sexuality is her ability to arouse a man. In a healthy society a woman acts sexual for one man. In a debased, declining society women dress and act like hypersexual animals in heat at all times while demanding men to be in control of their desire to act on womens hypersexuality at all times.

Intentionally and repeatedly subjecting a male animal to a female animal in heat and then yanking his leash and beating him down would be considered sadistic and cruel. A person that did that would considered mentally deranged, in need of therapy. Yet modern women delight and demand the right to do exactly that to all men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 103 Thumb down 8
dejour February 2, 2012 at 13:44

Great post! I like this more academic look.

Also – to the people disagreeing, I think some of the issue is that the original poster is Finnish – a few of his sentences are unclear. But, also some seem to have poor reading comprehension.

@Joe: Baumeister is the source of the 80% / 40% number. It’s also just an estimate – it could be 60%/30%. There is really only evidence of the 2:1 proportion. The idea was that if you look at people’s genes there is evidence that we have twice as many different female ancestors as male ancestors contributing to our current gene pool.

@ Zorro: OP was agreeing with Baumeister. He said that he received unwarranted critique’s of his work similar to the unwarranted critiques Baumeister has received. (My guess is he provided the link because it is in English, wheras the critique’s of his work are in Finnish).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
AfOR February 2, 2012 at 14:04

I can only speak as I find, and I find that “studies” can be made to say anything you like, and are only ever conducted when the truth is not wanted.

In my experience, if there is anything in it, wimminz want to fuck AT LEAST as much as men, perhaps wimminz want different THINGS out of sex, or SEE IT in a different way, but they want to do it and do do it AT LEAST as much as men…

Wimminz do not need an erection or viagra to fuck, remember that….

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 13
Rocco February 2, 2012 at 14:08

Which is why in mature, where women have less of a monopoly on sex, through use of the force of law and custom.

South east asia and south america come to mind as places where women can practice prostitution and men don’t feel trapped into having to sign the faustian bargain that is marriage today.

So, I’m just haggling about the price.

You guys should check out the brew ha ha over at The Harvard Crimson, a professor their wrote and editorial in favor getting rid of due process for men in sexual assault cases on campus and Pierce is handing her her hat.

The comments are very pro-mrm.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/2/harvard-rape-false-accusal/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3
Anonymous February 2, 2012 at 14:20

“– we are nature’s gamble. Women are nature’s safe bet…”

This is a very interesting turn of phrase and perhaps true in a biological sense but human society aims for higher things than genetic utility. In a godless world psycho-sexuality can be stripped down to simple genetic advantage and disadvantage. But it is not a godless world, thankfully, and a significant proportion of humans are more powerfully guided by things like grace, mercy, justice, faith, honour and compassion.

I appreciated Henry’s article a lot but I can’t help but think it foolish to promote the idea that men are nature’s gamble, even though it may be true. What of those who nature designates as losers? How do they feel about that? Human success (as opposed to animal success) takes many forms, so who on earth is qualified to determine what makes a man a ‘winner’? Nature is merely the baseline condition, sexual success the lowest common denominator.

Mitochondrial DNA, which is only found on the X-chromosome, is the toughest material in the human body (i.e. it has remained largely unchanged in our entire genetic history) so it will always prevail in a biological competition. Mother Goddess vs Father God. Do we really want to be cheering on Mothers side?

Hypergamy is a conniving bitch. Let’s create worth in men rather than encourage others to play dice for her favours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Omnipitron February 2, 2012 at 15:02

‘But, also some seem to have poor reading comprehension.’

How about you read that part again, compadre

‘The old saying “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is right. Men need women more than women need men.’

Not true whatsoever, and men believing that it could be is the issue why so many are accepting crap behavior from women in the first place.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 3
Alphabeta Supe February 2, 2012 at 15:05

“– we are nature’s gamble. Women are nature’s safe bet…”

This is an interesting turn of phrase and probably true in a biological sense, but do we really want to be cheering on Mother Nature’s side? It may be the lot of the male to be nature’s gamble, but a man is human, and human worth extends far beyond nature. Humans aspire to higher things like grace, honour, mercy, justice, faith, compassion etc which are beyond the physical realm. In a sense, the MRM and Feminism are the same eternal battle between Mother Nature and Father God. Science worship has given Mother Nature the opening she’s been looking for and now she’s going for the jugular (feminism).

Eve Ensler’s “The Future is Girl” imagines a future in which Mother Nature prevails – i.e. Mother Goddess overthrows Father God. The problem of course is that Mother Nature’s dictates are the baseline human condition while Father God’s are the aspirations, so the triumph of nature means the future is retrograde.

By entertaining Mother Nature ideas like the quoted phrase above, we are encouraging men to see themselves as dice-players in a game they will always eventually lose. Even for those with a lucky streak the house will always win. The narrative should focuses on our aspirations so that we can create worth rather than merely respond to it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
MRA February 2, 2012 at 15:11

Didn’t you know, the WNBA is subsided by the NBA, so men working for women poor income, the Women Professional Soccer leagues suspended the 2012 season, this would happen to many women division who doesn’t take money like the WNBA, for these women is hard to get a job due to their lack of womanhood, many are tall, butch, unattractive, that is the differences between a model who start acting or a actress who start doing singing.

“women’s magazines dominate the official politically correct sexuality, but PUA guides are morally questionable?”

Can you get a women magazines who is about the chemical used is batteries dildos? no, women don’t care about how something work and this apply to sex too, they don’t know how hard economically is for men to take a woman to a dinner, they don’t care where the money come from as soon as she get what she wants, why do you think women date drug dealer? because they have a bunch of money without hard working and spend it like water and they go from one to the next.

Just fallow the money.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Tony February 2, 2012 at 15:51

The only sticking point is the “men need women more” thing. Its the other way around.
Men want women more then women want men. (arguable)
Women need men more than men need women. (fact)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 4
will February 2, 2012 at 16:14

The craiglist example screams hypergamy as when a man looks for sex its like he is telegraphing “beta male” to the woman as it indicates he is not in high demand as he is not “alpha” and hence have to look for sex at craigslist.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
freebird February 2, 2012 at 16:19

It’s a trade union,Team woman,it must be the raw power that enables such solidarity.An uberclass of red-assed baboons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Rebel February 2, 2012 at 16:46

I think that women can get as horny as men. They want sex as much as men do. Perhaps in a slightly different way, but I’m not even sure about that.

Check bonobos and love birds: the females of these two species are so horny that their males dare not leave them for one minute, lest the female fuck with everything that carries a penis.

Don’t believe everything the feminists are saying as true: most are lesbians anyway.

Rest assured that women want to fuck just as much as you do: they have been carefully taught to conceal it.

Speak dirty words in their ears and feel the stream of juice flowing out from the cuntie, just to prove it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 14
Lyn87 February 2, 2012 at 16:53

“Society will crumble in 24 hours without men maintaining…without men, there is no civilization.”

Two thumbs up.

I had this discussion with my wife last week. I told her that if every adult woman suddenly disappeared into thin air, leaving only grown men and children, society would be radically different, but modern industrial civilization would go on. However, if every adult man suddenly disappeared into thin air, modern industrial civilization would cease to exist within 48 hours, to be quickly followed by a massive die-off, and the drastically reduced population that survived would be quickly reduced to living in grass huts.

She thought about it for a minute then conceded that I was correct.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 5
Uncle Elmer February 2, 2012 at 17:01

“Sadly, for a heterosexual male it is easier to find gay partners than female partners.”

Ain’t that the truth. I have literally had to run from the queers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
Jalmari February 2, 2012 at 17:02

It’s really hard to explain yourself in english, Henry is doing pretty good job, but it is much easier to talk about these things on your mother tongue.

So give Henry some slack. My first language isn’t english and these things are hard to explain when you are talking about difficult issues. You are using on your comments really hard words to understand. I’m just learning what hell means ,PUA, MGTOW etc..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
fmz February 2, 2012 at 17:07

Its just twat. It has no inerent power.

The power is in men rolling over an subsuming his innate and superior power for a can of fish.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
namae nanka February 2, 2012 at 17:18

Review of “Shavenballs’, a novel based on similar premise by Norway author Mads Larsen.

I have only read the Norwegian version of the book, so my review is based on this.

Let me first explain a thing or two about Norway. In Norway women are the holy cows of society. Women have so many exclusive rights because of their sex it is ridiculous. Earmarked leadership positions in all status jobs, earmarked scolarships, earmarked stimulus packages and so on.

All this is of course because men are BAD and supposedly have all the power in all levels of society, including male-female relationships. Then along comes Mads Larsen and puts on paper what every man (except Brad Pitt) feels every time he goes out trying to meet a girl – that this simply isn’t true. In fact, when it comes to the most important part of life, sex, women have ALL the power. The power to have sex whenever they want, wherever they want, with whomever they want.

This of course led to an uproar from the feminist side of society, and acknowledgment from everybody else.

The cat was out of the bag and it changed the official Politically Correct Norwegian view about men, women and sex forever.

I’m sure it is as interesting a read in English as it is in Norwegian. Check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Shavenballs-Mads-Larsen/dp/1445777037

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Jalmari February 2, 2012 at 17:25

When prostitution is legal women dont have so much sexual power over men. I think that men have to almost always pay for sex, one way or another, it isn’ always money.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
namae nanka February 2, 2012 at 17:28

Regarding WNBA, from savingsports council’s blog that publishes various news posts and issues that show the real side of Title IX, now even elementary schools aren’t safe for boys.

Now, K-5 boys and girls will be split as the district revamps its program to remedy years of “Title IX equity issues,” or unequal opportunities for girls.

But there’s a twist.

If a school can’t field enough players for both a boys’ and a girls’ team, neither team will be allowed to compete in the eight-game season that begins in January.

http://savingsports.blogspot.in/2011/12/elementary-schools-new-front-of.html

Individual schools have attempted to remedy the situation by offering girls the ability to play on co-ed teams (there were only two schools with all-girls teams). Aimee Zundel, the school district’s solicitor, also conceded the point that regional girls’ teams were a possibility. Yet instead of providing reasonable solutions, she opted with this one, consequences be damned.
Ultimately, the district decided to go with the recently announced rule, which officials realize will have the potential to limit boys’ ability to play basketball, she said.

“We understand that, but the real motive was to provide an incentive for schools to really work to recruit girls.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Omnipitron February 2, 2012 at 17:32

“Sadly, for a heterosexual male it is easier to find gay partners than female partners.”

“Ain’t that the truth. I have literally had to run from the queers”

Precisely, let me fill you in on something that I came across on that trainwreck called ‘Jersey Shore’. Pauly D took a girl home because she was ‘down to f@ck’. He did his business, and then called a cab for her the next day. While he was out of the room, she stole a chain of his and then she left.

Why you ask?

She returned the next day stating “Oh, I took this by accident and I left my shoes here!”

Ahem, that sound like men need women more to you? My point from me previous post was this; a man’s BI is much easier to meet than a woman’s. Yes most men may not ever have that sort of skill, but for a man to learn game and apply it is a CHOICE!! Women have no such choice available to them. A man can meet his BI by simply getting off with a woman without committing to them so I have no idea where anyone who is even remotely aware of the red pill even considers that men need women more.

My sister had mentioned on Facebook last year that she knew a female friend who had actually shacked up with another female simply for company as she couldn’t find a man for herself. I don’t know the exact stats on just how many women may be engaging in this sort of behavior, but I have to ask everyone on The Spearhead how many men they know who have shacked up with another guy simply because they have no other choice?

The reality of the matter is that men don’t need women nearly as much as women need men which is why MGTOW is even possible. There is no such thing as a woman going her own way.

Here’s the deal, Patriarchy was constructed to harness a man’s resources, this protected the the interests of both men AND women!! I guess that the powers that be realized full well what it was that men valued in women and gave them the leverage to get the biggest bang for their buck. Women benefit far more from marriage than men ever will but by telling men ‘you want to ride, you best put a ring on it’ it gave men an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Without the ‘safety net’ of civilized men, women where a on a boat without a paddle. If one needs to really consider the real deal, they need to look no further than the Black Community. Black men aren’t wandering the streets looking for a black woman because they have no other choice in order to survive. They are doing whatever else and it’s black women who are wondering where all the ‘good’ black men are.

It all comes down to what can be lost. What does a man lose by not committing to a woman for life? We all know the answer to that one. What does a woman lose by not committing to a man? In the interim, they lose nothing, but that is only because we still have the inertia from previous men opting in to society. If and when that ever stops, “I am woman hear me roar” will be a thing of the past!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4
namae nanka February 2, 2012 at 17:42

“but sexual success doesn’t always go hand in hand with the types: beta can have lots of sexual success.”

Off Roissy’s site, I think the distinction was that unlike alphas, betas don’t engender attraction in women, and unlike omegas don’t repulse them. They can make for good providers and are not creepy enough to drive women away.

As for which sex really wants sex, it is really instructive to note how the gender-equality countries(rather women-oriented countries) are marinated in culture of sexual liberty, while patriarchal nations like Islamic middle-east keeps it out of the view.

“Mitochondrial DNA, which is only found on the X-chromosome, is the toughest material in the human body”

Mitochondiral DNA comes from the mitochondria of the mother’s egg. It’s the most primitive material in the human body, and resembles bacterial genome. On the other hand, the Y-chromosome is most different from the one found in chimps.

Males have more X-linked recessive diseases, since they have a single X chromosome, while females have more X-linked dominant diseases by 2 to 1. The shameless feminists spin it to say that females are not weaker because less of them die due to genetic or genetically-induced problems than boys .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Jalmari February 2, 2012 at 17:49

Women can find man if they want, but their standards are too high. Almost every woman think that they deserve at least Brad Pitt. But what are these women bringing to the table ? Very often absolutely nothing.

Woman are saying that good men are hard to find. Well, good women are even harder to find. I really think that western women are spoiled rotten.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay February 2, 2012 at 18:54

My sister had mentioned on Facebook last year that she knew a female friend who had actually shacked up with another female simply for company as she couldn’t find a man for herself. I don’t know the exact stats on just how many women may be engaging in this sort of behavior, but I have to ask everyone on The Spearhead how many men they know who have shacked up with another guy simply because they have no other choice?

Just living together or is one a dyke? The “she can’t find a man” talk may just be status whoring by denigrating others behind their backs.

I think the concept is actually pretty smart, instead of having a woman at your place just get a male roommate. You get the cost benefits of living with someone (my experience tells me that living with women usually is more expensive than living alone) with none of the drama and you have someone to hang out and drink beer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
3DShooter February 2, 2012 at 19:08

“The book received a very angry response, especially from women and feminists. I was labeled as a “basement wanker who couldn’t get laid”. ”

Ahh yes, the shaming language, but I have a favored retort – “My palm has never DEMANDED child support extortion, your point is???”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Avenger February 2, 2012 at 19:09
Joe Zamboni February 2, 2012 at 19:30

Thank you Henry Laasanen for sharing your research with us. Very interesting. The more that we men understand the biological, sociological, and cultural reasons why women have so much power, the more empowered we will be to come up with successful antidotes to the current poisonous feminist situation. I don’t care if women want sex more than men, or vice versa. What I am interested in is how I can reclaim my power from women. To have my eyes opened further about previously-taboo topics, such as what exactly is the nature of the sexual power that women have over heterosexual men, now that is empowering.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Jalmari February 2, 2012 at 19:30

“Take a look at this wacko”

Yes, these kind of wackos are everywhere. And some people think that this kind of shit is funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jalmari February 2, 2012 at 19:41

Well you can try it if you don’t believe that woman have sexual power. Go to the bar and try hook up some woman, it aint so easy, you have to do all kind of bullshit if you want to have sex.

Well, woman don’t have to do nothing and they get man all the time, even the ugliest women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian February 2, 2012 at 19:44

“Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle”

That may be the case. However, if the fish would like some cock from time to time…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Krauser February 2, 2012 at 20:04

Just spotted this in today’s Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9058018/Children-win-access-to-fathers.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Factory February 2, 2012 at 20:14

Heres the thing….

Women like sex, a LOT. Women will do damned near anything for you if you make them cum hard enough. And they will put up with all manner of shit if I means getting well and truly railed every night.

If you think women don like sx as much as men, you suck in bed. Honestly, ask any woman ( not your S/O)….

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 30
codebuster February 2, 2012 at 20:17

Discussions on who has the stronger sex drive (men or women) always bother me. In our own cultures, we are immersed in a sea of porn and glamour constantly reminding us of our alleged “needs”. Unless we can control for this, like go somewhere where where the relentless drip-feed of a porn/glamour culture is non-existent, and then compare results, the conclusions made about western men as needing sex more than women are going to be out-of-kilter and hugely skewed. I also notice that while the survey was conducted across a broad sweep of cultures, the overwhelming proportion of the samples were college students, and this immediately raises the question… how independent were the samples from western influences? College students of all sorts of countries (including third world) typically entertain naive impressions of what the west stands for, and often aspire to going there, maybe even to indulge in western debauchery.

I’ve got a theory that women don’t know what a sex drive is until they “discover” it. This is sharply at odds with men, who’s member has been getting in their faces at even the most inconvenient of times, from the time they reached adolescence. So adolescent males don’t discover their sexuality so much as it begins to intrude into their everyday lives.

The bottom line is this. Female sexuality, when realized in all its potential, might even be far stronger than men’s. Women can appear to have a lower sex drive than men only because, by comparison, it is rarely tested. A woman can live out her entire life in virginal ignorance and, should she survive the influences of peer pressure, she won’t feel that she is missing out on anything. However, should she ever cross certain thresholds, whether by force or by her own curiosity, she might discover nasties and acquire addictions for them that she knows she has to keep secret, because she knows that “normal” women will despise her and ostracize her for it. Female sexuality is potentially dangerous, and a conspiracy of silence is inevitable among the initiated. We should not judge our estimations of female sexuality from among the boring, self-satisfied, provided-for bimbos that constitute modern womanhood. I don’t think they have a clue.

My previous comment on TS provides further clarification of what I’m getting at.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
codebuster February 2, 2012 at 20:20

@Factory

Agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Omnipitron February 2, 2012 at 20:33

‘Just living together or is one a dyke? The “she can’t find a man” talk may just be status whoring by denigrating others behind their backs. ‘

I will look it up and see. The deal was that women where ‘switch hitting’ because they had no choice. My sis had linked an episode from some women’s talk show where this topic was brought up. The tagline was that older women where having an issue finding good men so some where dating other women since they had no other recourse.

Once more, please tell me which gender needs the other in a case like this?

You’re right on the money Art, a man alone saves much more money than he does if he ever commits. This is the problem with the status quo, men need to learn to have the guts to demand some rights when it comes to marriage if that is what they are after. Men make all the dreams of the women in their lives come true, they have every right to demand that their own needs be met.

Men also have the luxury of turning down any women they deem not good enough and seeking a better model. The issue is that most men, the vast majority of men don’t exercise that right!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Rebel February 2, 2012 at 20:42

@Just Some Canadian
“ However, if the fish would like some cock from time to time…”
It’s the other way around…:Cocks like fish.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that chickens like cocks?

LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Aharon February 2, 2012 at 21:02

“The starting point of my (and Hakim’s) theory is that men want more sex than women. In economic terms you could say that there is much more demand for female sexuality than for male sexuality.”

Yet for many people, sex and a relationship are part of the interactive package. Men may want sex generally more than women (though most adults and teens know plenty of nymphomaniacs). Women generally want more of a relationship than men (though again many exceptions are known).

When it comes to the supply and demand for pure sex, yeah women have the upper hand. When it comes to the supply and demand for relationships and commitment men who want one/will provide one probably have the upper hand. Getting into a relationship with a modern feminized woman is an action men are increasingly avoiding (and men are increasingly aware that women lie about not being a feminist and not believing in divorce etc). Men are also increasingly aware of how a girlfriend and/or wife can ruin their life for-ever with a false DV and rape claim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Aharon February 2, 2012 at 21:07

BTW, to add to my prior post: prior to a legal married state (marriage 2.0) men may have more sway in a relationship unless the guy is a submissive wimp and the woman a dom bitch. Once married or pregnant, the woman has most of the relationship control.

Men:
Marriage Strike, boycott chivalry, ghost, consider a vasectomy, MGTOW.
Go Zeta and Go Free Range Men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Art Vandelay February 2, 2012 at 21:09

The deal was that women where ‘switch hitting’ because they had no choice. My sis had linked an episode from some women’s talk show where this topic was brought up. The tagline was that older women where having an issue finding good men so some where dating other women since they had no other recourse.

Yeah that’s pretty weird. Kind of defeats the whole “homosexuality isn’t a choice” rhetoric, at least for a lot of lesbians. But given that it’s on TV probably also a load of bullshit. Did they put a positive spin on it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 21:18

Rebel: “I think that women can get as horny as men. They want sex as much as men do. Perhaps in a slightly different way, but I’m not even sure about that.”

By “men wanting more sex” the idea is, that men want sex faster in relationship, with more partners and more casual sex.

That creates the demand on the sexual marketplace.

You could say, that “women want sex really bad”, if the man, place and the time is right, but that has’t much to do with the demand in the marketplace. It creates demand only in the bedroom.

Theory of sexual power is focused in the marketplace demand, not in the bedroom demand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 21:37

Torrero: “The old saying “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is right. Men need women more than women need men.” I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion… ”

Many have critizised my conclusion. My idea is that…

1. Single women can live happily for years without man. If she wants casual sex, she can have whenever she wants. She is not dependent in pleasing men in any way.
2. Single men become depressed without women. Their lifespan is short and their social circles are limited. Suicides, alcoholism and so on.
3. Single women don’t have men in their minds all the time. Single men think of getting women very often or watch porn… Single man’s head is full of women, but single woman’s head is full off herself.
4. Women can have children on her own. The welfare state (men indirectly) pays.
5. Women can have divorce and keep the children and the house. Man is not essential.
6. Men have to first a) get a woman, b) keep her happy to have chance of a family with children.
7. Welfare state as a substitute husband. Men’s money goes via welfare state to the women’s pockets. Women have no need to find a real husband to feed her. Single mothers do fine (at least here in Finland).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 4
ZoeSexton February 2, 2012 at 21:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 43
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 21:44

I keep blog in Finnish, where I write about advanced ideas of sexual market value theory.

In the first post is picture…

http://www.huoltamo.com/blogit/kaikki/henry-laasanen/seksuaalisen-markkina-arvoteorian-lahtokohdat/837

…from the Symons (1979) book, that illustrates the spread of sexual power between sexes.

Here is another graph…

http://defaultuserblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/dating-graphs-ii/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 21:50

Zorro: ” You took on Roy Baumeister? Don’t fuck with eagles if you don’t know how to fly.”

I was trying to say, that based my work to Baumeisters work. So I am his follower.

He has lot of splendid articles and the book “Social Construction of Sexuality” is very good (recommendation).

Joe: “MGTOW does not necessarily mean celibacy.”

You I right. A bit of oversimplification from my part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 21:58

Anonymous: “OP says something about common knowledge means nothing, sorry if I misquote. It must be stated as a scientific theory. Is that another way of saying only university liberals can know anything?”

I have heard a lot of critizism of “zero-research”, because “everyone knows the theory without researching.”

But equality politics and gender politics ae based on research that is produced by women’s studies. They are not interested in common knowledge.

By producing a scientific theory there is possibility to find a better alternative to the theory of patriarchy.

The theory itself is not “nuclear science” – It’s simple logic of supply and demand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Rocco February 2, 2012 at 22:00

That’s the thing Laasannen, are men really lonely and drink themselves into an early grave.

Men don’t live as long as women, but with women taking up bad habits their catching up fast. Overall, I would posit that men are just as healthy married or not, or the difference was significant it would be obvioius, but it’s minor nor non-existent in studies.

Men are now happier than women.

While some things may be biological, like the urge to merge, most cultures on earth do not expect men and women to be forced, like Hanna Rosen did to her family on national video, to hang out every evening and pretend to care about the same things.

Most cultures don’t even let men and women sit together in church. And through out history men lived single and went from wench to wench….no one likes to admit it but even 150 years ago the secretaries honor could be bought for the price of a good dinner in any city in the U.S. I have read.

No, men may be better off hanging out with other men but one of the first things feminists did 150 years ago was target male gatherings effectively eliminating our right to free association…mens clubs were targeted for destruction.

Men and women are partners in running life, but do we need partners any more? And even if we did, women have shown that they are not interested in men, just money.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Rocco February 2, 2012 at 22:02

btw, the mens clubs I’m talking about were called bars and pubs and were men only, that’s what prohibition was about. My grandmother told me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 22:15

3DShooter: “The book received a very angry response, especially from women and feminists. I was labeled as a “basement wanker who couldn’t get laid”.

Ahh yes, the shaming language, but I have a favored retort – “My palm has never DEMANDED child support extortion, your point is???”

The same kind shaming language still comes all the time. They say that I wrote to book, because I was angry for the sake that I could’t get laid. And that becomes from people, that know nothing about me.

Intestingly, in english market value theory is usually introduced by people like Roissy, who is PUA. From my point of view market value theory is a PUA theory, not a “angry wanker theory”.

And intrestingly, Catherine Hakim got same kind of responces…

http://mediastudiesisshit.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/erotic-capital-the-se

“…even Catherine Hakim’s eyebrows are shocking. She’s so lacking in the erotic capital she exalts, who in their right mind would pay any attention to her research.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Henry Laasanen February 2, 2012 at 22:22

codebuster: “The bottom line is this. Female sexuality, when realized in all its potential, might even be far stronger than men’s.

You could be partly right, but…

…that kind of “strong desire” don’t produce extra DEMAND on the marketplace.

Women with strong desire don’t flood chat rooms, sex dating sites or bar with their lust.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
Rocco February 2, 2012 at 22:25

OT

We often talk about what feminists have planned next because they seem quiet and, like in Australia we are learning, they are plotting.

In this very interesting peace they make the point that our prison system has effectively become concentration camps for men and that we are reachinng Stalinesque level.

http://nplusonemag.com/raise-the-crime-rate

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Big Daddy C-Master February 2, 2012 at 23:41

Those saying women don’t like sex as much, don’t know the power that the mighty alpha cock holds over them. They pretty much destroyed society to be “independent” just to get their hands all over it. How many guys who were utter losers have had tons of women approaching them and begging for sex? These guys have no money to take. Women love sex, just with a small percentage of men. Whereas men want a large percentage of women, but they won’t die if they don’t get it.

Women will have their fun in college riding the super-cock carousel, and then feel bitter when it is over. Women will cheat without second thought with alpha cock, and do it on vacation outings like spring break. Women want sex, so when a woman tells you “I don’t like sex much…” they mean they don’t want it with *you*, I just had to break that code down. Women are biologically hardwired for it. This is why women will stay with abusers, and even chase after serial killers who they find charming.

Men love sex, but we do no such thing, we can move on and put our time into something else, besides poon. Women think about looking great and appealing… but only for the top 10% in money, status, looks, etc.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
Rocco February 2, 2012 at 23:45

Here’s an article indicating 40% of women have to have a drink an the first time having sex with someone and that 6% of women have never had sex when not drunk, even in marriage.

This is the reality. With the new laws they are imposing, all heterosexual sex is dangerous or illegal.

“Researchers, who surveyed 3000 women aged 18-50, found on average they slept with eight men, but were drunk with at least five, and on two occasions couldn’t remember the man’s name the next day.

Four out of 10 had been tipsy when sleeping with a partner for the first time.

The study found 75 per cent of women liked to drink before getting into bed with their husband or boyfriend, and 6 per cent had never had sex sober.”

http://www.articlesaboutmen.com/2011/03/women-need-to-be-drunk-to-have-sex-study-911/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Rocco February 2, 2012 at 23:51

OT

Major win MRM. All republican senators from the senate judiciary committee voted against sending the VAWA to the full senate for a vote.

It was 10 democrats, 8 republicans, all republicans voted against and this means the VAWA is no longer a bipartisan but is solely a democratic boondogal…the rats are leaving the ship.

From the blog Feminsts Majority:

http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/02/vawa-reauthorization-passed-by-committee-on-party-line-vote/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FeministDailyNews+%28Feminist+Daily+News%29

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 3, 2012 at 00:02

Women think about looking great and appealing… but only for the top 10% in money, status, looks, etc.

The strange irony is that all too often they don’t finish up with the “best”. The menagerie of losers, degenerates and nondescripts that transition through some women’s lives has to be seen to be believed. Men should never make the mistake of thinking that women’s choices are “smart” and “informed”. Women have their ideals and their fantasies, but they are too ready to compromise them in order to receive the freebies that come with being provided for. There is nothing about women’s choices that should intimidate men. Women are still as hokey as our mothers ever were. Women wouldn’t recognize a true alpha if they fell over one. Also, they all-too-often confuse a groping troglodyte as being macho alpha. Truly, they often haven’t a fucking clue. Women are fickle, and they have trouble making up their minds. A large part of Game is about tapping into their ignorance and making up their minds for them. HL is entirely correct when he points out the three tiers of male role and that betas also get chosen (the alpha/beta dichotomy being a false one). Generally, women are not choosy at all. It is the ease with which they are removed from the market that creates the illusion that they are somehow “choosy”.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5
codebuster February 3, 2012 at 00:24

Further to my last comment. Men need to stop projecting their intelligence onto women. Women do not make choices the same way and according to the same terms that men do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Avenger February 3, 2012 at 00:54

“Researchers, who surveyed 3000 women aged 18-50, found on average they slept with eight men, but were drunk with at least five, and on two occasions couldn’t remember the man’s name the next day

So that proves Rocco that females are not the really big sluts you sex starved manginas imagine they are if 8 was the total number of men the girls in the survey slept with and since the ages ranged up to 50 that’s likely a lifetime total.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14
Emma the Emo February 3, 2012 at 01:40

Yeah, women have lower sex drives.. They just don’t have as much testosterone. They don’t tend to like sex for the sake of sex either, unless the guy is extremely hot (and men are capable of having sex for the sake of sex with women who aren’t as hot). Women are more picky. That’s why you can’t sell sex to random women, they have no use for it. Or even give it as a gift (unless you’re extemely hot..).
However, in a relationship with someone a woman really loves and lusts after, she often becomes very sexual, which is why it looks as if women “want sex as much as men”. But it’s not the same.
Women might have more sexual power in general, but in a relationship a man’s sexual power might become equal to the woman’s.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 35
Henry Laasanen February 3, 2012 at 01:55

Emma the Emo: ” Women might have more sexual power in general, but in a relationship a man’s sexual power might become equal to the woman’s.”

You have right idea. Sexual power in the marketplace is very different phenomenom from the sexual power inside the relationship.

Inside relationship sex is only one of many ways pertners are dependent of each other. And “using” sex as power tool has many problematic features.

However, partner with higher sexual market value has more options outside relationship. That puts pressure on the partner with less sexual power to do more effort on the relationship – otherwise partner might exchange to better option.

So, the marketplace has indirect effect in the relationships.

Here in Finland it’s usual for Miss Finland to upgrade his next door boyfriend to the successful ice hockey player after the beauty pageon win.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Opus February 3, 2012 at 02:00

If the author is, as his female and other critics claim, ‘a basement wanker who can’t get laid’ then they rather undermine, I would suggest, their rejection of the assertion that women (rather than men) have sexual power.

I will believe that men’s sexual power is equal to that of women when there are as many male prostitutes as there are female, and where the gigolo instead of seducing and flattering the woman over an extended period, performs (or gives a hand-job) to get rid of the woman within half-an-hour.

This is the best article here for a while and publication of an English translation of the book is now a matter of some urgency.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Henry Laasanen February 3, 2012 at 02:27

dejour: “Great post! I like this more academic look.”

Opus: “This is the best article here for a while and publication of an English translation of the book is now a matter of some urgency.”

Thanks for the compliments. :-)

If I could get a publisher, I wouldt translate shortened “popular” text versin of the theory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
codebuster February 3, 2012 at 02:30

That’s why you can’t sell sex to random women, they have no use for it.

You bet women have no use for purchased sex. Being desired is integral to the female sex drive. A woman who has to resort to buying sex is essentially annihilating the very attractiveness that is integral to her sex drive. Logically, it is self-defeating and is guaranteed to snuff out the very first stirrings of arousal that a woman might hope to satisfy.

Outside of a loving relationship, receiving payment for sex is more likely to arouse a woman than receiving nothing at all or worse, having to pay for it. Receiving payment for sex is a measure of a man’s desire and therefore a measure of the woman’s attractiveness, and this resonates with her sex drive. Oftentimes the cash itself can be merely incidental to the sex act, or even entirely irrelevant. Sometimes, rape fulfills the same objective, bringing the warm glow of satisfaction to both parties. It is no accident that rape often features in women’s fantasies. What rape and a man paying for sex have in common is the man’s sexual desire and a woman’s longing to be desired.

But women paying for sex? Forget it. It is antithetical to everything that the female sex drive stands for.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
shiva1008 February 3, 2012 at 02:33

Emma – that’s called “opinion stated as fact.” If you want to make a convincing argument, try using logic and inference next time. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Budnick February 3, 2012 at 03:48
Migu February 3, 2012 at 03:51

All we need to do is not cooperate.

It’s already working. Why even sit down at a negotiating table?

Sex with various women. Even a Burger flipper can afford a prostitute once a week. Some whores are cheap and good looking. $40 date can usually get you laid. You will burn out, but this is good, now you want as much sex as women. Same thing happens in a LTR. You just get sick of sacking her after awhile.

Kids? You can buy them too, plenty of women will take a payoff. Plenty of places where it’s legal.

A mother to nurture children? You can buy one of those too.

So long as you don’t enslave yourself to any one female via contract or co-habitation, you can actually have your own children, at least until schoolage. Once that happens the state will probably assume custody and it will likely win. A divorce without a marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Nico February 3, 2012 at 06:29

Very interesting.

I agree with almost everything.

I’m not surprised you received angry answers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Pops February 3, 2012 at 06:57

However, in a relationship with someone a woman really loves and lusts after, she often becomes very sexual, which is why it looks as if women “want sex as much as men”.

Yet, research has shown that within marriage and long relationships, women are more likely to lose interest in sex. Men practically never have greater sexual power.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12
The Big Daddy C-Master February 3, 2012 at 07:03

@ Codebuster.

I don’t necessarily disagree women aren’t very smart with their sex or time window, though they tend to be very consistent on the guys they choose, that’s why 10% of men are getting 90% of women. Alphas aren’t just knuckledragging thugs, they are also politicians, successful and attractive businessmen, pastors, and other guys who aren’t criminals. I just used the poor thug to make a point. Women are attractive to physically dominant men, just like they are attracted to financially dominant men.

What they all hope for is some rich and handsome guy (just look at the ads they put out, a businessman who keeps himself up like me would never touch one). They play around sleeping their way up, and eventually burn out their one true asset, time. Their looks fade and they go on to the beta. Very dumb, but it shows how much power the alpha cock has over them. Having girls competing over you can be more headaches than anything, when it starts to create drama. I don’t believe in paying for sex, nor do I need to. I do however believe in peace and lack of drama.

Women get really bitter when desirable guys go off the market, they hate that they can’t get the dream man they were told about. Guys like me are busy building wealth and enjoying our freedom doing whatever, including sex if you wish to, to bother chaining ourselves to something like that which has no purpose to men, especially men with options.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Peter South February 3, 2012 at 07:32

It’s funny how such a large percentage of men are “basement wankers who can’t get laid”.

Yet, there are very few women who can’t get laid (by anybody) .

That should tell you something.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Peter South February 3, 2012 at 07:36

@ Avenger

“So that proves Rocco that females are not the really big sluts you sex starved manginas imagine they are if 8 was the total number of men the girls in the survey slept with and since the ages ranged up to 50 that’s likely a lifetime total.”

Asking women questions about the number of partners they’ve had is not a valid way of gaining that information unless a polygraph is given.

If a woman got so drunk on more than one occasion that she didn’t even remember the guy’s name you can bet that happened many, many times in her life.

And yes there are many women that need to get high or drugged to have sex , it’s pathetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Aharon February 3, 2012 at 08:08

“Women might have more sexual power in general, but in a relationship a man’s sexual power might become equal to the woman’s”.

@Emma the Emo,

Agreed. Thanks for your comments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
Anonymous age 69 February 3, 2012 at 08:40

Men are willing to “pay” more for sex because that is what they have been taught they must and should do. We are all products of our own cultures, something I have learned in depth while living in Mexico.

MGTOW proves that millions of men can work to different rules simply by choosing to.

I am well aware in my youth any woman who offered me sex would have received sex. I theorize I would have even done incestuous acts if the offer had been there. Fortunately it was not. I was brainwashed that women were the sex gate-keepers, which meant if a woman opened the gate, I was supposed to go in without thought. I had to learn differently with maturity. I suspect most young men are pretty much the same, which is part of what boards like Spearhead can change.

Most of men’s social education historically came from women, and so what men thought and did was female generated. Boards like Spearhead serve a purpose of giving young men the male viewpoint so they can be free of servitude to women.

In many cases, we married our first wives because she was the first woman to show an interest in us, which we thought meant she loved us. She did not. She wanted our paycheck.

The evidence shows that in the USA young men who “hear the words” learn to control their desires, and seek other things in life.

All those women in their 30′s who are whining they can’t find a man are proof of this.

Women are manipulators. They do not seek sex as aggressively as men do, not because it means less to them, but because they don’t need to seek it aggressively. Sex finds them up to about 350 pounds.

I have learned a lot about women here in Mexico, away from any serious feminist influence. For example, I noticed young women were almost never allowed to go in a car with a young man. I asked a cousin if men were that aggressive and dangerous. He laughed and said, no, if they drove by a “four hour motel” it was more likely to be the girl who suggested stopping in for a quick one. Parents here well know that, so they keep a tight rein on their daughters.

The point here is the writer is describing his culture, still run by women and manginas. It matters not what most men think and do. YOU can choose to free yourself from those bad laws; social rules; and mores.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
Aharon February 3, 2012 at 08:56

Some good news from across the Atlantic:

“Children win legal right to see both parents after divorce”
‘Children are for the first time to be given the legal right to have a proper relationship with both their parents after a divorce, The Telegraph can disclose’.

“Ministers are particularly concerned about boys growing up without a strong male influence”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9058018/Children-win-legal-right-to-see-both-parents-after-divorce.html

— Finally, the negative social impact of feminist inspired misandry are becoming so terrible that even politicians can no longer ignore the problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Aharon February 3, 2012 at 09:02

“MGTOW proves that millions of men can work to different rules simply by choosing to”.
“It matters not what most men think and do. YOU can choose to free yourself from those bad laws; social rules; and mores”.

@Anonymous age 69,

Great comments throughout your entire post. Thanks for writing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Anon February 3, 2012 at 09:26

Congratulations for opposing feminism publicly in their own media. While I disagree with some of your ideas, your goals are the same goals pursued by the MRM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price February 3, 2012 at 09:58

If I could get a publisher, I wouldt translate shortened “popular” text versin of the theory.

-Henry Laasanen

I could publish it in paperback and e-book if you want. Global distribution, too (Europe, Oceania and Americas). It’s my sideline work, and I have a business account with the printer/distributor I can use whenever I want. Very little overhead, so risk is insignificant.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
Omnipitron February 3, 2012 at 09:59

‘Many have critizised my conclusion”

You’re right in the fact that women no longer need men, but you seem to forget that men are the ones who keep this whole shebang going op. There is no need to negotiate with women in this new paradigm mainly because of the fact that it’s currently unsustainable. I don’t know what it’s like in Finland, but while single mothers may not suffer too much there, it causes issues here.

Crime and delinquency increases which strains the government purse

What I’m saying is that at the end of the day, it matters little what the current status of women needing men is. Saying that we need to deal with it is like telling a pro athlete that his inflated salary will last into perpetuity. It won’t and they will have to adjust when their playing days are over.

MGTOW, is how men are dealing with it which also starves the beast by looking after themselves and no longer dealing with women. This is the reason why your idea seems sound, but isn’t necessary, men will never be in a position where they have to deal with a Hanna Rosin ‘End of Men’ scenario.

I do applaud you for coming down and lending a helping hand to the MRM, though, we need all the assistance we can get.

One more thing to add;
Couldn’t find the video to the episode where Elisabeth Hasselbeck made a statement in regards to older women becoming lesbians due to a lack of men, but here is a blog entry and a radio show discussing it.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Elisabeth+Hasselbeck+says+older+women+turn+lesbians+for+lack+of+men.-a0233008580

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sYh4mDsMso

There are a ton more hits, all one has to do is google Elisabeth thinks women turn lesbian due to lack of men and look at all the results.
We joke about it here in the MRM about the lack of options foolish or older women have but when you think about this happening in reality, it takes on a far different tone. As I said, my sister knew of a friend who did just this, and of course any sane person will dismiss it as anecdote.

However, as I stated in a previous post, how many men have even considered making such a choice? It doesn’t matter that this may be the only anecdote you have ever heard, the point is that women may even have to consider such a choice in the first place! When you look at a buddy who is middle aged and sleeps with women 15 years his junior,(without committing to them) understand that it sends gigantic ripples through the dating market and reduces the choices women have.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Omnipitron February 3, 2012 at 10:05

‘But women paying for sex? Forget it. It is antithetical to everything that the female sex drive stands for.’

Well put, on top of that women, while a woman is young she doesn’t have to pay for it. If a woman wants sexual attention, she drops by the club and sends a signal. She takes home the guy she likes the best or dislikes the least and they get it on.

If (when?) a woman get’s to the point where she would have to pay for sex, that is a direct shot at her perceived value. That as a person who used to be valued and could pick and choose, to be in a position where someone having sex with you could be considered a privilege, that now you are reduced to paying someone to get your rocks off is a very large slap in the face.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni February 3, 2012 at 11:21

Great discussion here… Unfortunately, many young American men are now convinced that they are inferior to the women they date because the women have such great sexual power. It is true, that the women do have more sexual power, if you focus only on the initial stage of the relationship. But as the relationship gets underway, the men have significantly more relationship power than the women. That is because the women want a long-term relationship more than the men do. So it is no wonder that women, coming from their emotional needs, would push for marriage, commitment, etc. (of course there are also other reasons for this push, such as being able to have children, get social approval, get financial benefits, etc.). We need to educate young men about their relationship power, and how they can use their relationship power, so as to blunt the apparently overwhelming influence of greater female sexual power.

Here’s an example: I broke up with my current girl-friend four times. She never broke up with me, but took me back each time I broke up with her. In the process of the breakups and coming-back-togethers, I established, without any doubt, that I have significant power to dictate the terms of our relationship. If she doesn’t please me, I’m out of there. Things are now on a more even-footing from the standpoint of man-woman obligations and expectations. Notice that I did not get married, or have a child with her, because if I were to do either, then I would lose a great deal of my relationship power. It is the cultivation of, and exercise of, this relationship power that holds great promise, and it is in part why I consider myself a follower of the MGTOW lifestyle.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Darrell February 3, 2012 at 13:20

I thought this photo of some artwork aptly describes how men are looked at today by feminists and manginas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darrell February 3, 2012 at 13:21

Here is the website photo. Somehow didn’t transfer the first time.

http://xmarkjenkinsx.com/mini_trashers.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mike Diver February 3, 2012 at 13:36

Rocco February 2, 2012 at 22:02
btw, the mens clubs I’m talking about were called bars and pubs and were men only, that’s what prohibition was about. My grandmother told me.

True story! The history channel had a history of Prohibition which covered from the early temperance leagues, the anti-saloon leagues, and Carry Nation through the end of prohibition and beyond. They stated that the end of prohibition did nt bring back the saloon, which was what women objected to. Saloons were male preserves where women were not welcome or allowed. Post prohibition is what we have now; women and men drinking at the same places. The issue was not drinking it was the male perogative to get away from the bitches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Mike Diver February 3, 2012 at 13:59

codebuster February 3, 2012 at 02:30
That’s why you can’t sell sex to random women, they have no use for it.

You bet women have no use for purchased sex. Being desired is integral to the female sex drive. A woman who has to resort to buying sex is essentially annihilating the very attractiveness that is integral to her sex drive. Logically, it is self-defeating and is guaranteed to snuff out the very first stirrings of arousal that a woman might hope to satisfy.

Not true. There are a large number of male prostitutes/giggelos in places like Turkey, Domnican Republic, Jamaica, and other sunny beach vacation locations. They just don’t stand at street corners and turn 10 tricks a day. They have to fool the women into thinking that it is really a holiday romance. they sell the romance as much as the sex, but they wouldn’t get far without providing the sex. Luckily for the men of these places it is easy to fool these women. They want to be fooled.

When men hire a prostitute in these far off vacation destinations like Thailand and Philippines they call it the GFE (girl friend effect). The difference is men are not stupid enough to fool themselves. Men know what is happening, and just enjoy the illusion for what it is. Google “My Mohammed is Different”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
deeby February 3, 2012 at 14:19

“Woman are saying that good men are hard to find. Well, good women are even harder to find.”

1:5000(0). Well, there’s some good women to be picked up. Been
there, done that. Real diamonds found and joined and I’m not alpha. Regular women living middle-age life, woman victim-realm and animal biology… it’s hard for them to be “good women”. I can understand women so I don’t hate them or even call them like some players.
I don’t play with gentle human creatures.

For me life has been interesting lecture. Real good women aren’t
problem for anyone. Good woman standing besides. She’s like phantasy creature whispering your own fantasies to your ears wanting to know how much you can love her…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Omnipitron February 3, 2012 at 14:29

“Not true. There are a large number of male prostitutes/giggelos in places like Turkey, Domnican Republic, Jamaica, and other sunny beach vacation locations. They just don’t stand at street corners and turn 10 tricks a day. They have to fool the women into thinking that it is really a holiday romance. they sell the romance as much as the sex, but they wouldn’t get far without providing the sex. Luckily for the men of these places it is easy to fool these women. They want to be fooled.”

I see that, good point. It isn’t that they want to be fooled, they NEED to be fooled. The men have to profit from a woman’s rationalization hamster. As men, we know the deal, we like sex enough with a young and pretty girl and some are willing to pay for it. There is no rationalization nor pretending that it’s something which it isn’t. As some have heard before; “You don’t pay for a hooker for sex, you pay her to leave.”

So there you have your correct assertion; even Anna Pasternak and some of her ilk had gone on a vacation where they could indulge in such an experience and she says so herself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1203076/Is-ONE-straight-kind-solvent-single-man-40s-left-Britain.html

She too had called it something different, and couldn’t call it paying for a man’s company. The stark truth obviously too much for her and ‘sisters’ to bear.

I say again, imagine being a person who used to turn down many a man and then have to resort to PAYING one to get what you used to take for granted? Gotta realize that to consider that this is the only way you can get your rocks off, and will be for the remainder of your life as you can’t turn back the clock is very painful indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Tom936 February 3, 2012 at 14:32

The old saying Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle is right. Men need women more than women need men.

In terms of dating, sure. But in terms of inventing, building and maintaining civilization, it’s the other way around.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Soren February 3, 2012 at 14:38

But there is one desire that men tend to overlook, and that’s
approval from other men.
It shoots men in the foot when they chastise other men for not getting sex, then high five the next guy for doing whatever it takes to get laid.
Which gives sex demand and power.
Those chastised men become manginas sacrificing themselves and others to for the chance to have sex.

MGTOW is not celibacy, its the pursuit of whatever you want that doesn’t require you to sacrifice your true authentic self for some false facade. Sex is not a priority and requirement for self-esteem, MGTOW has a “I can take it or leave it” attitude towards sex, not a complete rejection of it.

MGTOW options:

Math
Science
Technology
Art
Music
Writing
Commerce
Sports
Combat
Sociology
History

Master one, capitalize, prioritize the rest.
For your own self-discovery.

“Could you imagine the look on the fisherman’s face as he dangles the worm infront of the fishes face, and that fish rolls its eyes , and swims away” – kevin

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
fmz February 3, 2012 at 16:08

“Here’s an article indicating 40% of women have to have a drink an the first time having sex with someone and that 6% of women have never had sex when not drunk, even in marriage.”

In the Australian state of New South Wales, an intoxicated female is automatically deemed incapable of legally consenting to sexual acts. IOW, she has been raped if sexed while intoxicated. But, of course, an intoxicated male is not deemed incapable of legal consent. There is no legal standard for measuring intoxication. It could be one drink or passive smoking of canna8ees.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 3, 2012 at 19:16

@Mike Diver

The dynamic of MMD is completely different to the sort of transactions that take place with female prostitutes. MMDs are still all about tapping into the woman’s desire to be desired. You even say as much (women want to be fooled), though it seems that you are not appreciating the significance of how the two types of prostitution are entirely different.

@Big Daddy

that’s why 10% of men are getting 90% of women.

Where the phuk does this come from? It’s not what I’ve seen. By my rough estimation, 80% of women are partnered with predictable dweebs and reliable providers, variously assorted across alphas, betas and omegas. So maybe 10% of men are getting 90% of the 20% that are left over. I’m not too sure what this means and I’m not too sure that it’s something worth celebrating.

Women notice “types” of men, men who stand for something, men who have a label affixed to their foreheads. Women who revert to conventional stereotypes (businessman, lawyer, politician, soldier, fireman, etc) choose better than “liberated” women who are exercising their inner whore to go with the first troglodyte that gropes them. But these conventional stereotypes still do not necessarily represent intelligent or astute choices on the part of women so much as they provide them with a “ready-reckoner” that places their choices within reasonably predictable, safe bounds. Proximity is more important than any of the other factors (proximity enables other choice strategies, such as social proof, getting to know someone, etc, to play out). When women exercise their inner whore and go beyond the bounds of proximity or convention, their choices, for the most part, tend to the ridiculous. But even women’s conventional choices are fairly arbitrary, very easy to dispense with. Even a weak-chinned buffoon masquerading as a successful stamp collector will occasionally get laid. Any man who thinks that the validation that he receives from women is worth bottling is a chump. To contemporary women, a man is a utility device, nothing more. A woman will fawn over her newly acquired utility device as surely as she does with any other, be it a new refrigerator or a new sports car or a new lounge suite. And just as these devices get old very quickly, so too will he.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Doug February 3, 2012 at 20:04

Men desire sex from women.
Women desire attention from men.

Attention comes first and men give it up, way to easily.
The same way a tree that falls and no one is around to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound.
A good looking woman walks down the street but no man is there to witness her, she is not attractive, as with sound, attraction is an experience.
No woman can know her self through herself she only knows herself through how other people see her. She is “water”, undefined and takes the shape of what ever environment she is in. Male attention is what is what defines her, any attention bad, good, hatred, love.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
sestamibi February 3, 2012 at 20:27

Well, of course it’s “common knowledge”, right from the beginning, as told by the allegorical tale of Adam, Eve, and the apple back in the Garden of Eden, and other stories of Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, et al. A late former colleague put it more succinctly, making a representation of a vagina with thumbs and forefingers, stating : “This rules the world.”

I won’t go into any more detail, other than to say that everyone reading this blog surely is familiar with the concept of “cheap sperm, expensive eggs”. Female sexual power is biologically based and is immutable.

If that were it, we wouldn’t waste our time complaining about something we can’t change anyway. But what has happened in the last 50 years is something quite different as women have accumulated substantial power in the economic and political spheres. Under the ancien regime, if women didn’t like you, you didn’t get laid or get to breed. Nowadays, if women don’t like you, you starve to death or spend the rest of your life in prison.

That has to change. If it doesn’t peacefully, it will do so violently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire February 3, 2012 at 22:56

Females are always more sexually valuable than males.

BUT having value and being in control of that value are two different things.

Throughout most of the animal kingdom the females do NOT select their mates (and thus have no sexual leverage).

The males simply fight each other and the winner has his way with the female (whether or not she has a headache) get it?

What changes this is if a condition appears that makes the males unable or unwilling to fight for sexual access. (so that they have to start negotiating)

In the case of flying birds it’s the unaffordable cost of battle damage to a precision flying machine.

In the case of our ancestors it was the continuous culling of the stronger men by the masses of weaker ones kept alive by an abundant food supply.

see
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-and-why-feminism-happened.html
for more detail on this

With more and more weakling males sucking up to females for sex (i.e. an army of puppets and mouthpieces for team vagina) how could they not eventually take over?

I believe it is by this process that men gradually went from being protectors of their property (the females) for HIS benefit to being a property of the females that protects them for THEIR benefit.
You see as the weakling males begin to outnumber and thus threaten the stronger males the most alpha-ish dudes slowly re-invent themselves.
From harem lord to white knightism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Henry Laasanen February 3, 2012 at 23:14

evilwhitemalempire: ” Throughout most of the animal kingdom the females do NOT select their mates (and thus have no sexual leverage). The males simply fight each other and the winner has his way with the female (whether or not she has a headache) get it?”

Yes. In the nature benefits and costs are in balance. Males fight each other and females get pregnant.

In human life females chooce in the free market, so winning other males does not guarantee anything to a man. And women don’t come pregnant agains their will. So women have much more benefits than costs.

If we didn’t have any kind of contraceptives or abortion, women’s benefits and possibilities would be greatly redusced. Then the talk about female sexual power might be disputed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Journey February 4, 2012 at 01:37

Henry. I respect you because with your book you’re trying to put out your point of view for others to agree or disagree with. But I feel sorry for you because the people who will respond most are the self-ordained guardians of the truth. And they don’t tolerate heathens.

Their world view is the patriarchy, all power is men. They as women are essentially powerless struggling along as the strong women they are under the oppressive phalic system. That’s it, and if you’re not with that then they have to help and educate you. Or deal with you.

So when you come along all open minded and start talking about obvious and real female power in human relations they don’t like that. It intrudes on their endless plucky struggle of the oppressed and seems to point to one of the obvious balances in nature. Abusing and dismissing you is a lot easier than engagaing your beliefs so that’s what they do.

Their taking a vote though on the validity of your argument shows just how threatend they are and how incredibly pathetic they really are at heart. They all vote together that you’re wrong lol, and then magically your views are invalidated! Because they’ve democratically voted it so. lol
It’s incredible isn’t it?. But then what they’re actually doing is saying we’ve found your input heretical and we’ve all agreed it’s not allowed from now on. Officially dismissed. Because it doesn’t suit our pure victim (apart from our heroic struggle) world view.
Pretty limited minded and tyrannical aren’t they?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd February 4, 2012 at 06:18

@Codebuster

Excellent posts Codebuster, your posts nail Henri Lasaans article to the wall …

Henri Lasaans data may be right, but the conclusions he comes to are wrong, & dont get to the core issue

Henri needs to research sociodynamics & sociobiology, atm hes basically just looking at the surface data with not much of a understanding why the data is the way it is

Ie why do women behave the way they do, in his research

As Codebuster points out, women do have a sex drive, but its with 20% of the men

Henri Lasaan needs to test for & account for the number of alphas & status & wealth, basically social indicators in his data

A womans drive is status & socially driven, once a mans proven his status is higher then hers, once the male has demonstrated his ability to raise her social status, she will become highly sexual far in excess of a mans sex drive

Women do NOT bond with men, women bond with the social persona of a male

Women are socially contextual, men are logical

Also Codebusters post on women sleeping with lowlifes & thugs is true, but they dont settle down with these men

What Codebuster is describing is the carousel, the parade of lowlifes & thugs the dumb bitch rides for 10 or 12 years, at the age of 20 before settling for a high status beta at the age of 30

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
jack February 4, 2012 at 07:36

Few people who discuss and study this subject of male vs female sex-drive seem aware of a major confusing variable in modern Society: drugs. I mean illicit drugs. Women in real life don’t behave like their sisters in porn movies – except when they’re high on some (hard) drugs. Women who do hard drugs are every bit as addicted to casual, no-holds-barred sex than horny men. Behind every genuine story about a genuine nympho lies a drug story in 90% of the cases. Hence, by the way, the persistent ban on such drugs because they upset the usual role of females as the reluctant sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
shiva1008 February 4, 2012 at 08:04

It’s difficult to assess how desirous a person is of something when they have easy access to it. I get hungry twice a day, but since I live in a prosperous industrialized society, food is something I regularly have access to.

Similarly, women have constant easy access to sex from puberty to menopause. Many men have to go without at various times. So comparing the sex drive of men and women in unregulated western society is like comparing how hungry a kid in Ethiopia is, who has no dependable access to food, to how hungry a person is in an industrial society. They’re both just as hungry, but the fortunate ones don’t even have to make an effort to fulfill their need.

I would argue that women are more lusty than men, because their speech and behavior is more centered around sex. They just have to hide it because women’s status is still tied to some level of chastity. Women spend more energy dressing up and applying makeup. They are constantly interested in relationship gossip, who’s dating who. Most women would crumble up and die if they didn’t have a man who was at least interested in them. It’s vital to their very sense of self. Men can find interest in abstract topics like philosophy and art, whereas women are more centered on reproduction. In my observation, women are more grounded in their conversational topics. They like to talk about kids, people, eating, sex, all basic things, and rarely will you hear them talk about abstract subjects. Their mind is never far from sex because they don’t have the intelligence to go beyond everyday reality.

To summarize, the main reasons why women act like they don’t care about sex are:

1) They can get it without putting in any effort
2) Being perceived as slutty hurts their social status (particularly among women)

To truly assess the lust inherent in the female psyche, you would have to observe them in a society where access to sex was limited like in a tribal setting. The current rigged system does not afford an opportunity to observe women in balance with nature (the localized, tribal setups that the state of nature prefers).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
shiva1008 February 4, 2012 at 09:21

Notice how Emma, who claims that women are not desirous of sex, still puts up a picture of herself. There is really no reason why we should care what she looks like, but to try and attract men is so ingrained in the female psyche that they do it without even thinking about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Sheldon Walker February 4, 2012 at 10:47

Women don’t have as much sexual power as the author claims. It is that point of view that put men in this predicament in the first place.

Women have sexual over a particular subset of men which made this whole feminism thing possible. Pussy-begging, white-knighting betas. They’ve never had prospects for pussy so when the opportunity arises for them to get a piece of tail they will jump at it with abandon, Regardless of how their pussy-begging affects other men. They will tolerate antagonistic, hostile behavior just to have some female company, regardless of the affect it has on other men or future generations. These desperate men are just glad to be near some pussy.

This is the reason why women in the greater zeitgeist prefer a castrated, insecure, sycophantic, yes-man. They don’t want a human being who could potentially challenge their fantasy reality. They want an accessory, he is like a bracelet or purse to them.

On the other side of the spectrum you have men with more alpha tendencies. Alpha protectors, not alpha providers. Who don’t tolerate bad behavior, won’t compromise his person views or philosophy for some pussy, because to him it has never been an issue it has always been plentiful in his life so for that reason he see’s no need to sell out for female company. The unfortunate thing is there are a lot more pussy-begging betas then there are alphas and thus this destructive belief that women have all the cards when it comes to sex has become inculcated in the general male psyche.

Pussy is the most plentiful resource in the world next to water, just because a few particular men don’t know how to get it doesn’t mean that’s the way it is.

A man can approach as many women as he wants his options are exponential, A woman has to adorn herself and hope a man becomes interested enough to invest in bedding her options are linearithmic dependent on if men choose to approach her are not, and if after the initial approach they wish to invest any effort into maintain a relationship with her.

Artificial scarcity has been created and the desperate men out there are buying it. Part of taking the red pill is acknowledging that the manufactured artificial scarcity is an illusion. Like most things created by the current virulent destructive form of feminism, but I digress.

Reality is not determined by the number of people who refuse to believe it. It can’t be changed no matter how loud people scream and muffle their ears.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Gemma February 4, 2012 at 11:33

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 22
Gemma February 4, 2012 at 11:39

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26
The Big Daddy C-Master February 4, 2012 at 11:44

@codebuster.

You’re talking about women who commit to men later in their years when their time runs out. Which is exactly what I’m saying. This is when they are in the last desparate throws like a fish out of water and do anything to get back in the tank.

Women in their youth and prime are still going to the top 10% of men, because they can. They often have daddy paying the bills, so they need no money yet. Look at any area with huge amounts of single mothers, these women are often getting knocked up by the same small number of men. Marriage was created to simply redistribute women (like the government redistributes money) to men.

I never said that women were “smart” with how they choose men, they just do what their biology tells them to do. But the average man isn’t exactly a genius either. Even after knowing the apparent risk of what girls can bring, or what certain girls can bring. They still bang, move in, or marry these women because they feel it is the only way they can get laid. And for most men, chaining themselves to a woman is the main way they do get laid, if you aren’t in the top 10%, going for women is harder work.

Women still have some traces of social wiring in them and pressure, so they often won’t be open about this, but they will do it on the side and behind the scenes. Look at all the girls in college “having their fun” or all the girls on facebook with half naked pictures everywhere. Those pictures are for a small number of men. Also look at the percentage of women with STD’s compared to men, they have them in much higher numbers. Because there are a large percentage of women sharing a small percentage of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
sestamibi February 4, 2012 at 18:33

Gemma, you haven’t got a clue as to why women are picky. It has nothing to do with numbers of partners or social approbation. It has everything to do with finding the best genetic material for their offspring. Of course, what constitutes the “best” genetic material these days is quite questionable, but that is what happens when women have complete freedom over that choice, as Whiskey has pointed out numerous times.

Social stability absolutely requires that such ability to choose be greatly circumscribed. Otherwise we will wind up like China.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
fmz February 4, 2012 at 19:27

That wimminz think paytreearkee invented contraception and abortion to give them power speaks for itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
fmz February 4, 2012 at 20:36

They have higher s-eggs-you’l value and unfortunately for them, eggs-ponentially higher rate of de-prick-iation.

Just be thankful that you are not a woah-minz.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Omnipitron February 4, 2012 at 23:15

Sheldon Walker’s post hits the nail on the head. If you look at things purely from a sexual standpoint, of course women come out on top. However, and this is where you need to take another look Henry, is that men are willing to trade their resources for sex from a woman.

That’s where your premise falls a little flat, thinking that sex in and of itself is the only ways men and women interact.

In reality, women hold sway of their sexual appeal for only a very short amount of time (nothing new there) and men are willing to pay for it with their resources be they for a lifetime (commitment) or just a night or two (prostitution). Women don’t pay for something THEY can be compensated for!!

No, women are seeking something else, (another thing you have missed in your premise) they seek the resources of men in exchange for their sexual appeal.

Since women’s appeal has such a short time limit, Emma the Emo’s statement about a man’s power increasing over time is theoretically accurate. A 45 year old man still may hold some sway in the SMP, a 45 year old women has little to none, we all know that the man can still trade up in a sense but the chances of a the woman finding a breadwinner better than her husband (unless he’s had a string of bad luck) is slim to none.

This is the reason why Henry, so many men have issue with your statement that men need women more. Your stance is too myopic and ideals based on too small a topic to make such a conclusion. That would be like saying that boxers are the very best fighters on the planet but intelligent people could see full well that not every fight between two men happens in a sanctioned boxing ring with approved referee’s enforcing the ‘no hits below the belt’ rule.

Once you factor in what men and women negotiate for with each other, and what both parties are looking for you can see fairly easily that the fish and bicycle statement is nothing other than bravado. Your statement in regards to the Finnish Beauty Queen and the hockey player proves it if you take a deeper look. Why would a newly crowned beauty queen trade up from her ‘boy next door’ to a star on the national hockey team? Is it that sex with the Hockey Player will simply be better than her acquiescent little neighbor boy?

Maybe, but I would wager that because with her newly acquired status AS a beauty queen, something which appeals to men and something MEN ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR, she can therefore attract the attention of higher status males. These higher status males are looking for her attractiveness (where your premise starts) but your beauty queen is looking for THEIR attractiveness (where your premise ends and where it needs just a little more work).

Your beauty queen isn’t looking for a sexy man, she’s looking for a more SUCCESSFUL man, with more resources, or status to leverage for her higher sexual rank. By missing out on this Henry, you are essentially making the very same mistake that our friendly neighborhood feminists are who think that the family man gravy train will last forever. If you look back on your post about the idea of WHY men need women more, I will state again, without men’s investment, every reason why women seem independent will dissipate.

I once more thank you for your addressing the men’s movement, but once more, however, you simply need to keep in mind the trade between the sexes. Women and men don’t trade sex between each other, the trade between the genders is a woman’s sex for a man’s resources.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Emma the Emo February 5, 2012 at 10:14

shiva1008,
I didn’t say women don’t want sex. They don’t want sex for the sake of sex. Also, my avatar, like many people’s, is just a picture of my face. There would be nobody reacting to my picture if I was ugly or a man. I’m not even striking a sexy pose! This indirectly shows you admitted I was hot, and female power exists. Nothing to do with me, lol. I did nothing to make it happen.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20
Rmaxd February 5, 2012 at 10:25

@Emma the Emu

Women want sex for the sake of sex with ALPHAS & socially approved men ie rich & wealthy, deadbeats & loosers

Get your head out of your ass …

Women are socially contextual, & socially status driven

Theyre social ladder climbers, hence their ability to divorce a man of 10 years & children, for some thug

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Abides February 5, 2012 at 10:31

When it comes to the supply and demand for pure sex, yeah women have the upper hand. When it comes to the supply and demand for relationships and commitment men who want one/will provide one probably have the upper hand

The post and all comments are from my point of view completely wrong and misguided because they talk about sexual power alone, or sex and commitment, and other fully misleading distinctions.

Women behave completely differently when what is at stake is sex or reproduction. That’s what matters.

Plenty of people like the post author cannot make this simple distinction and it entirely invalidates their arguments.

As to pure sex, women are just like twinks, ultimately, bodies with holes. Therefore if sex is disconnected from reproduction women are nothing special. Therefore the hetero “hookup culture” is essentially the same as the gay “bathhouse culture”.

When sex does not involve reproduction it becomes pretty obvious that the female sexual drive is as big or actually rather bigger than the male one, even if it is more variable. The male sexual drive is roughly constant but not very intense, the female one is very cyclical, and at the top much more intense than the male one (and while it is hard to compare, female orgasms are also much more intense than male ones).

It is not that one is always bigger than the other; they follow different trajectories, even if the peaks and the average of the female one are higher than the male one.

But the big issue is with reproduction, not sexual desire, and the big deals are big indeed:

– Traditionally sex involved a very large risk of reproduction, to the point that even today many make the silly mistake of confusing issues raised by one with the other. But they are wholly separate activities with separate issues.

– Reproduction involves 40 weeks of pregnancy, and thereafter years of childraising. That is very expensive and most women realize this and that all other women are in the same position and risk.

– Traditionally women therefore would require securing Male Parental Investment before running the risk of sex leading to reproduction. Because all women knew every other woman had the same issue, every one of them knew that being the first to put out without securing Male Parental Investment was a losing move, no matter how much their sexual desire was. Women were terrified of involuntary pregnancy before securing Male Parental Investment.

– Women don’t particularly care about relationship and commitment as such, and most don’t want to offer them; but they care a lot about securing Male Parental Investment when they want to get into (their own) reproduction.

– Men have always known that the father is never certain, and in particular attractive men have always known that women are extremely driven by sexual desire (for attractive men) and very ready to cheat on their partners, and therefore have been very paranoid about securing paternity.

Therefore the conclusion is that some men have sexual power (women want the cock, especially the cock of attractive men, especially during estrus), most men have the power to provide Male Parental Investment, and women have reproductive power and risks, as they control which men get to be fathers.

Women also had sexual power: if sex leads to reproduction, every woman had to repress her sexual desire until she secured Male Parental Investment, that men were scared of investing in promiscuous women, and knew all other women were in the same position, so they all had to repress desire, creating a scarcity of sexual access without Male Parental Investment, as the *last* girl to put out would get the investment from the rich man.

Now that women can control when they reproduce, or whether they reproduce, they can engage in sex without pregnancy risk, and therefore there is no reason to hold back, and the *first* girl to put out gets the cock from the attractive man.

It is a balance of desire versus fear for both genders, most extreme (higher desire, higher fear) for women, and there are several possible solutions.

In the western world up to some decades ago one obvious statistic is that 95% of women were virgins at marriage (to give a higher chance that at least the first child would be the husband’s), and very many women married quite early, to older men, as a direct consequence of the above.

What has really changed in the past decades is two things, one a dramatic drop in baby deaths, the other, and more directly relevant here, is the availability of technical means to separate sex from reproduction *for women*.

If sex is separated from reproduction then the “risk” part of women’s position disappears, and they can fully yield to their sex drives. And they do! Thus Cosmopolitan and the “hookup culture”. Nothing different from the wild fuckfest that was the norm (and largely still is) for the gay community, and for the same reason.

Interestingly right now because of child support laws only men run (indirectly of course) the risk of paying for involuntary (to them) pregnancies, and as a result many men are very careful with not getting their sex partners pregnant, to the point of being very careful of disposing of their condoms. Eventually this will evolve in somewhat reversed roles, where women will have to woo men for sex and commitment, and men will have to be careful about getting fucked by women too easily, as then they will suffer the consequences.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Emma the Emo February 5, 2012 at 10:54

Yep, women would sometimes have sex for the sake of sex if the man is so hot they just have to have him, and sex alone is great to get from him. Men are way more willing to do this though.

Sex for the sake of social ladder climbing is not sex just for the sake of sex.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 20
Abides February 5, 2012 at 13:59

«women would sometimes have sex for the sake of sex if the man is so hot they just have to have him, and sex alone is great to get from him.»

If he is really hot sure, but it can happen even if she is just real horny (and many girls are real horny in certain parts of their period). Plenty of girls make some average lucky because they just want a fuck, often just for validation. Also a girl wrote that vibrators don’t lick their tits, so she prefers random volunteers to get the full range of stimulation.

Plenty of girls just go through men for fun. The hookup culture does exist, even if perhaps it is less common in certain age groups and parts of the country.

«Men are way more willing to do this though.»

Only because of slow adjustment to changed situation.

Male culture hasn’t fully realized yet that the law makes Male Parental Investment inevitable even outside marriage, and they should be careful about the risk of sex leading to involuntary (for them) pregnancy, and female culture hasn’t yet fully realized that they no longer must secure Male Parental Investment before having sex, because involuntary (for them) pregnancy no longer is likely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug February 5, 2012 at 14:40
Ted February 5, 2012 at 14:54

@Doug

The guy in the video almost understands. “They… they aren’t going to be able to pay their bills!!!”

Yep

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sam February 5, 2012 at 17:02

@ Doug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=116w5U3QnbA
MGTOW WINNING!!!!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
piercedhead February 5, 2012 at 19:42

“If, socially-speaking, it is really only acceptable to me to have, say, 6 sexual partners over 5 years ( and this is the “limit”, or so my male friends tell me)”-Emma the Emo

You sounded quite sincere until this line. Really, since when did what any man think match what the women in your life think?

It may seem like a small point, but if you as a woman want to say anything to men who are used to being lied to from every angle, you must polish your act just that little bit shinier.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
SMC February 5, 2012 at 21:50

“Female Sexual Value.”

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/

And your word “power” should be “advantage”.

It is the reason men compete and why some men–the winners–have more than everyone else.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire February 6, 2012 at 00:44

on this issue of females not liking sex
who cares?
what difference does it make if they like it or not if you still pay for it? (and you will one way or another)
unless you think that making the personal observation/discovery of female lust suddenly, mysteriously changes reality so you can go out and bang whoever you please

heh, shrodingers pussy

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
bruno February 8, 2012 at 07:39

A very interesting book about this topic:
Sex-Ploitation, by Matthew Fitzgerald: How women use their bodies to extort money from men
http://www.revolucionantifeminista.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sex-ploytation.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno February 8, 2012 at 07:44

Women don’t need men?
That couldn’t be more wrong.

Men need women only for sex, while women need men for,… well, .. for everything.
If it was up to women, we would still be running around in the forest, dressed in grass skirts, and searching for roots and bugs to eat.

And women want sex, just as much as men want it, or even more.
Anybody who has had passionate relations with women knows that they have a sexual appetite and stamina much larger than men’s.

The difference is how women and men use their sexuality.

Because a woman has nothing to offer to this world, except her sexuality, she will leverage it to the highest price, and use it to get money, power and dominance over men.
She does this by purposely refusing sex, even if she’s very horny herself.
She will not admit that she wants it, because pretending that she doesn’t want it, that’s her power over men.
And because women first arouse men, and then withhold sex, to drive the price up, it seems that men want it more.

For men, sex is just fun.

For women, sex is everything.
It’s all they have to offer, that’s why they use it so selective, and make sex artificially scarce.
Without sexual attraction and manipulations, they are nothing.
And make us think that we want it more than they want it, that’s just to make their bargaining position stronger.

Sadly, most men don’t see this, and are very eager to submit themselves to women, even give them all the legal privileges they are accumulating more and more nowadays, and thus more and more promoting the illusion that women are strong and independent and don’t need men, while in reality this is all based on lies and manipulation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
zimmy February 10, 2012 at 06:11

As a couple of posters have already pointed out; women need men because virtually all of civilizations gifts (dwellings, transportation, computers, agriculture, engines, etc etc etc) have been invented by males for the benefit of both sexes.

If our world was traumatically affected by some catastrophic event (a Mad Max world) then the female dependence on men and the security they provide would escalate exponentially. Women would not be as sexually picky as they are now, and indeed, men would have to fend off constant sexual advances.

Women are the dependent sex and no amount of feminist indoctrination changes that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
fred hirt February 13, 2012 at 20:05

Really liked the sheer cleverness of the lead author. Yes, we all know about female sexual power but applaud his systematic exposition. Something unsaid is the following -males have to accumulate resources to be sexually successful and it is this that drives much of our consumerist society with all its folly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Jack February 19, 2012 at 01:13

fred hirt said “males have to accumulate resources to be sexually successful and it is this that drives much of our consumerist society with all its folly”

Indeed. I have a theory that economically successful countries can only be countries where pussy is expensive. Males in such countries have to compete like mad for pussy and create wealth in the process. And this would explain why black African countries get nowhere economically: women there price themselves so low that men have no incentive to compete.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Opus June 28, 2012 at 15:53

This is to comment on Omnipotron’s comment at 14.29 on 3rd Feb.

Whilst I agree with what he says, I think there is something further to be added. It is not merely menopausal women whose pulling power is rapidly declining who engage the services of a Tour Guide (aka Gigolo). Young women do it too.

Consider from her point of view the advantages:

1. She goes on holiday not just for the scenery but to enjoy herself. That is where a man comes in and if she is without a bf or wishes a break from her present lover what could be better.

2. Anonymous sex with no judgement made well away from friends and family who will happily believe your tale of an idyllic holiday but if you are to mention a man named Marco or Mahmoud no one will ever suspect that he is anything other than just a ‘boyfriend’ – he’s a tour guide, right! Consider by comparison the guy who returns from Pattaya speaking of his lovely holiday and a charming girl he met there called Pong and everyone will ask which pole he found her dancing round.

2. Alpha men do not need to be great lovers – that is to say they are not in the business of servicing the woman for the woman’s benefit – that’s why it is called pump and dump. The kind of sex they provide may well be selfish and short. The Gigolo however is not in it for his benefit and he will (hopefully) provide the woman with the best sex she could have (and bring along his mate if that is what is turning her on, too). Not the sort of thing you can do in Sheffield or Seattle without running the possibility of being revealed as the slut you are.

3. The cost is itself peanuts for any western woman who can afford a summer holiday in these exotic localles, so it won’t feel like prostitution; more like a tip.

4. By reason of the fact that a man cannot service as many woman a day as a female prostitute, he has little choice but to drag out the romance which as it happens is exactly what the woman wants.

For those considering Matrimony one additional question a man needs to consider putting to his intended is a question concerning her interest in travel. All women seem to love travel, but that is, usually merely an indication of a liking for casual sex. The euphemism for this sort of thing is Touring, but the type of touring (Sex) is omitted.

My view, is that whenever there is a payment made between a man and a woman for sex, then whichever way the money is moving it is (by reason of the woman having the universally valued commodity i.e. pussy) the woman who is the prostitute, and not the man. The men enjoy sex, of course, and may even genuinely like the woman, (they are ultimately seeking a green card after all) but the imbalance in the buying and selling powers of the man and his western client are such that the relationship is in my view abusive of the man. Were he able to acquire a regular job (and thus a native wife) it is unlikely given the emotional wear and tear – an emotional wear and tear a female prostitute will not suffer, by reason of the shortness and non romanticism of the encounter – he would be unlikely to take up the occupation of Gigolo. Gigolos fall in love with their clients, but must soldier on irrespective. It is an occupation which requires the man to be sufficiently old not to be an adolescent but not too old, say late twenties to early thirties. One can only do it for a few years. It is a high risk Aids job – as, if times are hard, he will be likely to service men too. It is an illegal job too and thus he will be in fear of the police, yet without perhaps being able to play a pussy-pass as women in a similar situation would be tempted to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zed October 20, 2013 at 03:56

All well, except “seduction” does not exist, while the PUAs are scammers, meaning, although it’s well explained here in terms of economy, you’ve no idea how attraction really works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: