Women Are Grown Children Who Need A Master

From Open Letter To American Men About Women, Love & Power, a man named Tom writes to the author:

I love my wife very much but in doing so I’ve become perhaps her servant (housework, childcare, sex) and less her man. I’ve always wondered that perhaps being a loving and stronger man would be better for her. Reaching to what you are perhaps suggesting is deep down her desire for a real man.

My problem has been that she is an alpha, and I love her even though I’m tired of the power struggle. I don’t want to go about this like I’m breaking in a horse. I don’t want to win every time. I want a partner.

But I feel like my actions of love are perhaps enabling. Then I feel like husbands I know who aren’t serving so much or some that are real ‘dicks’ have their wives clinging to them, and it sounds like the sex is good. Because although they might err on the side of being a jerk, if their firmness is demanding, respect seems to drive their woman closer.

I just wonder if she’d be happier if I lovingly put my foot down. I know how to do that with my kids, and I know they’re better for it. I wonder if that’s what I need to do for my wife, but then it seems like I’m treating her like a child. I just don’t know!

Here’s my advice to Tom and other men in the same quandary –

The thought that you should find an equal partner in a woman is arising from your idealistic conditioning. The notion that men and women are or should be equals – in marriage or otherwise – could not be more faulty.

Women are, generally speaking, physically weaker, intellectually poorer, and mentally unstable when compared to men.

Women are not equal to men, nor do they want to be treated as such. They won’t say it, but they reveal it all the time through sexual dynamics.

It’s in the nature of woman to be subservient to a dominant man. A dominant woman can’t be a happy woman.

A damaged woman (i.e. a woman plagued with feminist ideology) who can’t be tamed by a dominant man can’t give herself a happy marriage.

Don’t go by what women say, go by what they do. Tom has already observed that the husbands who are ‘dicks’ are happier in their marriage. What he needs to be certain about is that their wives too are happier.

Tom would benefit from reading this article. Just keep in mind one thing that the linked article is a guide to getting women’s love in the short term. It correctly describes women’s nature. However, when it comes to long term relationships and marriage, the right mix of assholery and niceness shifts towards more niceness and less assholery.

That said, a man must always be assertive and dominant.

In the context of marriage, I agree with Suzanne Venker where she says this:

Being dominant does not mean being a you-know-what. It is not the same thing as being domineering. What conveys dominance, notes Townsend, are three things: confidence, self-assurance and assertiveness. It is true most women do not want a domineering man, but neither do they want a man they can dominate.

..

What they’re looking for when they do this is a man who’ll provide and protect and assert himself—in other words, be a man in the traditional sense of the word—but who’s also good, kind (not nice, kind) and willing to change diapers and do dishes. She wants, in other words, a saint with balls. When a man becomes too accommodating, as in Tom’s case above, he loses his manhood. And that’s when the relationship begins to deteriorate.

Lastly, I will say this: In a happy marriage the man raises an additional child who is his wife, for women are grown children – not equals or partners – who need a master.

Working Men are Slaves, Working Women are Independent

When women say that they want to work to be independent, therein lies a difference between men’s and women’s positions in the modern society. Historically, men have been working because the society has been using them as providers and protectors, not because they wanted to be independent. The thought of being independent is fundamentally detrimental to the society’s interests.

Men work to provide for their dependents, which adds value to the society. Women want to work to be independent, which effectively negates the value. Unlike men, women want to work for themselves. After all, that’s what independence means. Most of the working and “independent” women declare shopping as their favorite hobby. That explains where their income goes. Men never said they were independent, because they never were. Nor have they cried for independence.

Most men hate their work, but do they have a choice? Who will run the society if they stopped working? One might ask oneself, who will provide for their family if men decided to be independent? If one’s answer is women, one could not be more wrong. A women would not even marry and form a family with a man who did not work to begin with. We don’t even need studies to prove this, just common sense and looking around. Thus, men don’t work because they want to be independent, they work because they have no choice.

A woman who is not interested in making a home, taking care of children, and maintaining communal ties is as useless to the society as a man who does not want to work.

How gender roles are formed

There are two important systems that shoulder every society. Economy and family. If either of the two is inexistent or fails, the society would not develop to begin with or collapse. In most basic terms, economy takes care of feeding people, and family system is necessary to increase/maintain the population. For a society to thrive the two systems must work in tandem. If economy collapses people would go hungry. In modern times it translates into difficulty in fulfilling the basic needs. If family system collapses it means reduction in marriage and birthrate and decline in population, along with loss of meaning in life and ennui in modern times.

It was not tyranny of men who chose women for the role of homemaker while choosing more “independent” life for themselves. It was so arranged because that’s what both men and women are naturally suited for. In the primitive stages of society when there were no desk jobs available and the environment was fraught with dangers, women could not afford to take on the role of provider and protector. They were best suited for domestic tasks while men worked with dangers of the environment to feed and protect their women and children. Men brought food, women prepared and served it to the family. Men built houses, women kept them in order and made them homes. Men fought wars to protect their community, women oiled communal ties. Men carried out the large scale tasks because they are endowed with the required fortitude and more strength than women. Women carried out the relatively smaller scale tasks, because that’s what they are best endowed for.

Men built and ran economies,  and women built and ran families. None of the genders chose their respective tasks, it just happened with nature’s arrangement based on respective strengths of the two sexes. Societies with any other arrangement would have perished, because as mentioned above for any society to thrive the economy and family system must work in tandem, and this was the only arrangement conducive to that end.

Once the wheels of the society are set in motion in direction of growth with a given arrangement, any deviation generates negative payoffs (in the form of problems) that create pressures for the deviating agents to re-align their paths to the mutual interests of the society. That’s why we say that the society pressurized women to stick to their original role to participate in the family system, and still pressurizes men to work to participate in the economy.

The title of this article says working men are slaves. Similarly, women in their traditional role must also feel the same way, that they are domestic slaves. Let me be clear, I used this terminology only to make women understand that if they feel like slaves confined to domestic tasks, the world is not bed of roses for men either.

This so called slavery for men and women is not bad. It is what makes the society and all the comforts that we enjoy possible. Real independence is not what it seems like. In jungle is one really independent, in the society one has to fit into the designed roles. The protagonist of the film Into the Wild (based on a true story) breaks free from the society to live independently into the wild. He is barely able to feed himself and is killed by the vagaries of nature. That is what real independence is like.

Women who abandon their traditional role in the society are narcissists in the same way men who want to loaf without working are. Both are a cost to the society.

The equality movement has done great disservice to the society by making women think that they were being oppressed and made slaves of by men who enjoyed all independence. It has made women dissatisfied with their role which is essential for the society to sustain itself.

Men and women in their traditional roles are like right and left wheels of the cart. The society can not run with two right wheels or two left wheels alone. We did not need women to take over men’s roles while abandoning their own.

As more women are “liberated”, families are disappearing. White Western women are among the most liberated in the world, and white population in the West is on decline. This heralds the collapse of human civilization.

Men have Stronger Sex Drive than Women

From Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence, by Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen R. Catanese, and Kathleen D. Vohs

The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found.

Strength of Sex Drive

Recent studies on uncontrolled and unwanted sexual thoughts underscore the conclusion that the male sex drive evokes more sexual thinking even if the person does not wish to have those thoughts. Byers, Purdon, and Clark (1998) found that male college students reported more intrusive, unwanted, and even personally unacceptable thoughts about sex than did college women (7.5 vs. 5.6 out of 20 possible sexually intrusive thoughts listed). Vanwesenbeeck, Bekker, and van Lenning (1998) developed a sexual compulsion scale with items such as “I think about sex more than I would like” and “I must fight to keep my sexual thoughts and behavior under control.” Men scored higher than women on this scale, indicating a greater sense of being sexually driven.

[…]

Data on spontaneous sexual arousal and desire reveal one way in which men seem to have a higher sex drive. Beck, Bozman, and Qualtrough (1991) found that men report more frequent sexual desire than women. Nearly all the men (91%) but only half the women (52%) experienced sexual desire several times a week or more. Their study also helped rule out the alternative explanation that women find it more difficult than men to recognize sexual desire, because men and women endorsed essentially the same indicators of desire.

Thoughts, Fantasies, and Spontaneous Arousal

Gender differences in sexual fantasy have been examined in many studies. A review and meta-analysis by Leitenberg and Henning (1995) concluded that men have more frequent and more varied fantasies than women. That is, men’s fantasies occur more often than women’s, include more different partners than women’s, and extend to a broader variety of sex acts than women’s (on an individual rather than a population basis—probably there is at least one woman who has had any given fantasy). These differences in fantasy suggest greater sex drive in men.

The variety in sex partners was the focus of a study by Ellis and Symons (1990). They asked people whether they had had sex with over a thousand different partners in their imagination. Given the relatively young age of their sample (college students), a very active and highly motivated imagination would presumably be necessary to achieve that high a tally. They found that men were four times more likely than women to report having imagined a thousand or more sex partners.

Thus, as compared with women, men think about sex more often, report more frequent arousal, and have more frequent and variable fantasies. These findings would be most consistent with a view that men have a higher sex drive.

Desired Frequency of Sex

Many findings suggest that men want sex more frequently than women. Ard (1977) reported a survey of couples who had been married for over 20 years. He found that “husbands continued to prefer intercourse more frequently than wives” (p. 274). In fact, wives consistently reported that they were quite satisfied with the amount of sex they had in their marriages, but men on average wished for about a 50% increase. M. Brown and Auerback (1981) likewise found that a majority of husbands (60%) but only a minority of wives (32%) said they would prefer to have sex more often.A more recent study by Julien, Bouchard, Gagnon, and Pomerleau (1992) found that husbands and wives agreed that the men were more sexually active and frisky. Even more relevant, Julien et al. (1992) found that men were more likely than women to report having less sex in marriage than they wanted. With a sample of couples ages 51 to 61, Johannes and Avis (1997) found that women were more likely than men to wish for less frequent sex than they were having, whereas husbands were more likely to wish for more frequent sex than they were having. A study of elderly couples in Sweden likewise found that men wanted more frequent sex than women (Bergström-Walan & Nielsen, 1990). Indeed, the authors of that study concluded that “men are significantly more sexual than women, in all ages and in all respects” (p. 289).

[…]

One reason that women may be less willing to engage in sexual intercourse is because of the possibility of becoming pregnant as a result. By biological necessity, women are much more invested in pregnancy and, thus, they may be reluctant to have sex because they recognize they will be the ones to suffer the consequences. Thus, for heterosexual couples, women’s weaker desire for sex could indicate cautiousness due to the possibility of pregnancy.

[…]

One large investigation that included a sizeable sample of same-gender relationships was the study by Blumstein and Schwartz (1983). They found that gay men had higher frequencies of sex than lesbians at all stages of relationships. Within the first 2 years of a relationship, for example, two thirds of the gay men but only one third of the lesbians were in the maximum category of having sex three or more times per week (the highest frequency category). After 10 years together, 11% of the gay men but only 1% of the lesbians were still in that category of highly frequent sex. At the other extreme, after 10 years nearly half the lesbians, but only a third of the gay men, were having sex less than once a month. Even that difference may be a substantial underestimate of the discrepancy in sexual activity: Blumstein and Schwartz reported that the gay men who had largely ceased having sex after 10 years together were often having sex with other partners, whereas the lesbians who had ceased having sex together had generally not compensated for this deficit by finding other sexual outlets. A lack of sexual desire and activity in women is reflected in the phrase “lesbian bed death,” (e.g., Iasenza, 2000) which has been coined to describe the low levels of sexual activity among lesbians in long-term relationships.

Similar conclusions emerged from an earlier study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), which did not limit its sample to people in committed relationships and is thus a useful complement to the Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) study. White homosexual men were more likely than lesbians (47% vs. 32%) to report having sex more than once per week. A similar difference was found among gay Blacks (65% vs. 56%).

Thus, evidence from multiple sources indicates that men want sex more often than women. This appears to be true in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships and at all ages and relationship stages. Table 1 summarizes the findings reviewed in this section. The pattern would tentatively suggest higher sex drive in men.

Desired Number of Sex Partners

Buss and Schmitt (1993) reported from several studies that men desired significantly more sex partners than women did. In reporting how many sex partners men and women would like to have over the next 2 years of their lives, for example, the men were on average hoping to have about 8 partners, whereas the women wanted approximately 1. Over the course of a lifetime, men wanted around 18, whereas women desired 4 or 5. Miller and Fishkin (1997) asked a sample of college students how many sex partners they would like to have over the entire rest of their lives if they were not constrained by any factors such as disease or laws. The mean response by the women was that they would ideally like to have 2.7 sex partners, whereas the men’s mean response was 64. Miller and Fishkin did not delete outliers from their sample, and in fact they noted that the difference in means was almost entirely due to the skew: The median was 1 partner for both genders. Thus, large numbers of young men and women aspire to having only 1 sex partner across a lifetime, but there is a minority of promiscuously inclined men that is much larger than the minority of promiscuously inclined women.

One may reject these studies as being merely hypothetical and insist on actual behavior. The same conclusion emerges: Men actually report significantly more sex partners than women, across all studies (e.g., Janus & Janus, 1993; Laumann et al., 1994). Unfortunately this difference suffers from being logically impossible, insofar as heterosexual intercourse involves one man and one woman (so the mean tallies of partners should be equal). Several studies have sought to explain this recurrent finding, and the answers converge on motivated cognition: Some men, but fewer women, tend to rely on estimating the number of sex partners and hence round up, whereas women are more likely to rely on trying to enumerate all prior partners, which tends to lead to occasionally forgetting some partners and hence to producing an undercount (N. R. Brown & Sinclair, 1999; Wiederman, 1997).

We note too that median differences are plausible, unlike mean differences. A few highly promiscuous women can have sex with many men. The median differences (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994) fit the view that the promiscuously inclined minority of men is larger than the promiscuously inclined minority of women.

In our view, the difference in the way people count sex partners is itself an indication that men want more than women. Men prefer an estimation strategy because it tends to yield a high tally; women prefer an enumeration strategy because it yields a low tally. Choosing strategies in that way enables men to come up with higher numbers than women, even though the means should be the same.

If our interpretation of motivated cognitive strategies is correct, it should be reflected in how people count marginal cases. Sanders and Reinisch (1999) provided relevant data on this. They asked a sample of students “Would you say you had sex if … ” and then presented a list of possible activities. Men and women agreed very closely that vaginal and anal intercourse constituted sex and that kissing did not, but they disagreed on the intermediate activities such as fellatio, cunnilingus, and manual stimulation of a partner’s genitals. Men were consistently more likely to rate those activities as sex than women. This fits the view that men desired to count those activities as having had sex, which would serve the goal of enabling them to think they had a higher number of sex partners.

Desire for multiple partners can lead to extramarital or extradyadic activity. Most studies of extramarital activity find that men report more partners than women, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships (Cotton, 1975; Lawson, 1988; Spanier & Margolis, 1983; Thompson, 1983). For example, Spanier and Margolis found that 26% of the unfaithful husbands had had more than three extramarital partners, as compared to only 5% of the unfaithful wives. Conversely, wives outnumbered husbands in the category of having only one extramarital partner (64% vs. 43%). The same conclusion emerges from studies of lesser infidelities, such as necking or petting with someone other than a steady dating partner: Men do this more than women (Hansen, 1987).

Another consequence of a desire for multiple partners would be engaging in sex with someone whom one has just met. Herold and Mewhinney (1993) surveyed singles bar patrons, who presumably are already selected for interest in meeting new sex partners, but even in that selected population they found that men were more likely than women to have had sex with someone they had met that same day. For example, when asked whether they had ever engaged in any sexual activity beyond hugging and kissing with a person who they had met the same day, 80% of men but only 59% of women said “yes.” When asked about sexual intercourse with someone they had met that same day, 72% of the men as opposed to 49% of the women said “yes.” The men were also significantly more likely to express a desire and expectation to do so again.Aquarter (25%) of the men but only 2% of the women said they always enjoyed casual sex.

Masturbation

Gender differences in masturbation are large and consistent. Women and girls are less likely to masturbate than men and boys (Arafat & Cotton, 1974; Asayama, 1975; Laumann et al., 1994; Sigusch & Schmidt, 1973), and some evidence indicates that males who masturbate do it more frequently than females (Laumann et al., 1994; Sigusch & Schmidt, 1973). Jones and Barlow (1990) found, for example, that 45% of men but only 15% of women reported masturbating at least once per week. Meanwhile, nearly half the women in their sample (47%) but only 16% of the men said they had never masturbated. Arafat and Cotton (1974) found women and girls were almost four times more likely than men and boys to say they never masturbated (39% vs. 11%). In a survey of German teenagers ages 16 to 17, Sigusch and Schmidt (1973) found that 80% of the boys, but only 25% of the girls, were engaged in masturbation during the past year, and boys averaged five times per month as opposed to once per month for the girls.

Willingness to forgo sex

The Kinsey studies (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953) noted a relevant gender difference. They obtained relatively thorough sexual histories from a broad sample of individuals. One of their major concepts was “total sexual outlet,” which referred to all sexual activity (often operationalized as total number of orgasms) in the person’s life, from all sources. They found that some women showed substantial fluctuations in total outlet. Thus, a woman might enjoy a full and active sex life for a period, then lose her partner and have no sexual activity at all for some time, and then resume active sex with a new partner. Kinsey et al. (1953) observed that such discontinuities were almost never found among men. More recently, Leiblum and Rosen (1988) confirmed that in-depth histories indicated that many
women seem to adapt easily to a complete absence of sexual activity during long periods of involuntary abstinence, unlike men.

The total outlet measure is quite relevant to the issue of total sex drive, because it combines all behavior relevant to the sexual motivation and avoids the potential confusion that could stem from substituting one kind of sexual gratification for another. The fact that women were more willing than men to do without sexual activity altogether supports the view that women are less strongly motivated to find some sexual gratification consistently across time. When men lose one source of sexual gratification, such as by breaking up with a regular sex partner, they apparently seek out a new one soon, or at least they step up the frequency of masturbation.

Emergence Sexual Desire

As it happens, though, most evidence indicates that boys commence sexual interest and activity earlier than girls. Women start having sex at a later age than men (Asayama, 1975; Laumann et al., 1994; Lewis, 1973; Wilson, 1975). For example, Asayama’s interviews with Japanese students during the late 1940s and 1950s found that half the boys had become quite interested in sex by age 15 and 90% had by age 19, whereas only 30% to 40% of the girls had become interested by age 18. Over a third of the boys had masturbated by age 15 and over 80% had done so by age 21, whereas by age 21 only 12% of the women had masturbated. Asayama concluded that the development of sexual interest “among females is rather slow while for males it is quite rapid” (p. 95). With an American sample, Lewis (1973) found that half (52%) the boys but only 16% of the girls reported having sex by the age of 17.

Even though girls pass through puberty earlier than boys, they report experiencing sexual arousal later, and in fact in multiple samples all the boys reported their first experiences of arousal prior to the age of 13, whereas most girls reported their first experience after that age (Knoth et al., 1988). Girls start having sexual fantasies later than boys (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995), and they are slower even to develop interest in sex (Asayama, 1975). Most studies find that boys begin masturbating earlier than girls (Kinsey et al., 1953), although recent data suggest that the discrepancy may be dwindling (Leitenberg, Detzer,&Srebnik, 1993; Smith, Rosenthal, & Reichler, 1996). In a national survey, girls reported a later onset of sexual activity than boys (Leigh, Morrison, Trocki, & Temple, 1994).

Seeking Versus Avoiding, Initiating Versus Refusing

Women initiate sex less often than men. A diary study by O’Sullivan and Byers (1992) found that men initiated sex about twice as often as women, although there was no significant difference in considering initiating sex. M. Brown and Auerback (1981) found that men initiated it three times as often as women during the 1st year of marriage, although the difference dwindled in later years. Byers and Heinlein (1989) found that over a 1-week period, men initiated sex about twice as often
as women.

[…]

Refusal rates outside of relationships do differ by gender. Probably the best data were provided by Clark and Hatfield (1989), who used an experimental procedure to investigate responses to sexual offers. Both men and women were approached by a moderately attractive, opposite-sex confederate and invited to have sexual intercourse that evening. Women’s refusal rate was 100% across two studies, whereas only 25% of the men refused.

Liking for Various Sexual Practices

Fewer sexual practices appeal to women than men. Laumann et al. (1994) offered their respondents a list of 14 sexual practices and asked whether they found each of them appealing. They reported only percentages, not significance tests, but these were extremely consistent: On 13 of the 14 practices, a higher percentage of men than women rated the activity as appealing, and the 14th showed no difference (“being forced by a sex partner” was rated as appealing by less than 1% of both men and women). The index summarizing the number of appealing practices yielded, not surprisingly, an overall significant finding that men liked more activities than women.

[…]

Even though a majority of married couples today practice both fellatio and cunnilingus, women find these activities (especially fellatio) less appealing than men. For example, Laumann et al. (1994) found that 45% of men but only 29% of women said receiving oral sex was very appealing, and a similar discrepancy was found for giving oral sex (34% of men, 17% of women). This difference caused the researchers to speculate that some women perform such acts more out of a sense of obligation than genuine desire (Laumann et al., 1994, p. 157).

Sacrificing Resources to Get Sex

[…] it is clear that men spend a great deal more money on sexual products than women. Men have paid women for sex throughout most of history and across many different cultures, but the pattern of women paying men for sex has been considerably less common and in many contexts nonexistent (e.g., Elias, Bullough, Elias, & Brewer, 1998). Even in societies where there have certainly been enough rich women to be able to pay for sex, the practice has been rare or nonexistent.

The same is true for pornography. Men spend considerably more money on pornography and erotica than women do, as all studies have shown (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994). To be sure, pornography is only one kind of sexual stimulus. A lack of interest in pornography does not alone signify a lack of interest in sex. Women’s magazines in recent years do offer information about sex, presumably reflecting a marketplace in which women will pay for such information.

Some might object that most pornography is more geared toward men than women. There are two reasons to dismiss this objection, however. First, several studies have found that women do have strong physiological responses to pornography and experience levels of sexual arousal that compare with men’s (e.g., Fisher & Byrne, 1978; also Heiman, 1977). It is thus clear that currently available pornography is amply arousing to women. Once they see it, they like it and find it stimulating—but women are simply not sufficiently motivated to seek out that kind of stimulation as often as men.

The other reason to dismiss the argument of gender bias in the sex industry is that if the market existed for a special, female-targeted pornography, it is highly likely that someone would have been willing and eager to make the millions of dollars that it would represent. In actual fact, the sex industry has tried repeatedly to reach out to women, but it has repeatedly failed (Abramson & Pinkerton, 1995). Playgirl was introduced to the market with considerable hoopla in the 1970s, but the appeal of seeing nude men did not sustain enough sales to make it successful (let alone even approaching the success of Playboy), and so it shifted away from male nudity as a major selling point. Viva, which alone among the female-targeted magazines featured pictures of male genitals, closed down after 3 years. The market was simply not there—unlike the male market for pictures of nude women, which has sustained an assortment of magazines for decades.

Favorable Attitudes Toward Sex

The person with the higher sex drive would be motivated to espouse more favorable attitudes toward sex.

Women have less permissive attitudes toward sex than men. Although they are equal on some things, generally women are more critical of promiscuity, premarital sex, extramarital sex, and various other sexual activities (Laumann et al., 1994; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, 1989; Wilson, 1975). Some of these attitudes, most notably favoring casual sex, produce gender differences that meet the statistical criteria to be called large differences (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Casual sex is conceptually important because it represents the opportunity to obtain sexual gratification without a high degree of effort, commitment, or investment, and therefore people with a high desire for sexual gratification would be expected to be most favorable toward such opportunities. Apparently, most of those people are men.

Prevalence of Low Sexual Desire

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is officially defined by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) as constantly low or absent desire for sexual activity or sexual fantasies, a condition that is distressing to the person and is not caused by a medical or substance abuse disorder. A recent review of hypoactive sexual disorder (Beck, 1995) highlighted differences in the prevalence of HSDD diagnoses as a function of gender. Significantly more women than men are diagnosed with HSDD, consistent with the view that women are more vulnerable to problems of low sexual desire. Beck (1995) noted that low sexual motivation is among the most common complaints in sex therapy. A study of over 900 clients who were being seen for a variety of sexual dysfunctions confirmed the frequency of the complaint, with 65% of all clients being diagnosed with HSDD. More germane to this analysis, 81% of those diagnosed with HSDD were women (475 women out of 588). Thus, women appeared to be more vulnerable than men to the problem of low sexual desire by a rate of about four to one (Segraves & Segraves, 1991).

Self-Rated Sex Drive

Mercer and Kohn (1979) included items asking people to rate the strength of their sex drive. Women rated their sexual urges as less strong than men rated men’s. Although one may question whether people have an accurate basis for comparing their own feelings against those of others, the results do point toward stronger sex drives in men. In studies of sexual desire among healthy people, men report higher levels of sexual interest than women, regardless of age. For instance, Beck et al. (1991) found this pattern among college students, Pfeiffer, Verwoerdt, and Davis (1972) found this pattern among middle-aged men and women, and Bretschneider and McCoy (1988) found gender differences in sexual desire in people ages 80 to 102. A study (Mehrabian & Stanton-Mohr, 1985) on emotions, sexual desire, and gender found uniformly greater sexual motivation among males than females across all emotional states.

Other Constructs

Our focus has been on the strength of the sex drive, which we defined as intrinsic motivation to engage in sex. To avoid overgeneralization of our findings, we briefly consider several other constructs (sexual capacity, enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation) that might seem to be related to the sex drive but that will not necessarily yield similar conclusions.

The first of these is sexual capacity. By virtue of the very biological structure of the sex organs, women have superior capacity to men. Women can copulate with more consecutive partners than men, can copulate for a longer period of time, and can achieve more orgasms during a single session than men can. We can think of no aspect of sex in which men’s capacity for sexual performance matches or exceeds women’s, other than the reliable incidence of orgasm. Orgasm is, however, arguably an index of pleasure rather than sexual performance per se, and indeed the potential orgasmic capacity of women undoubtedly exceeds men’s anyhow. Women clearly have a greater overall capacity for sex than men.

[…]

Orgasm may be taken as one measure of sexual enjoyment, but it is admittedly crude and incomplete, and certainly many people report enjoying sex without orgasm. Even if one does use it as an index of enjoyment, however, the results are mixed. Women are more likely than men to experience multiple orgasms during a single copulation, and women are also more likely than men to experience no orgasm during a single copulation (e.g., Laumann et al., 1994). Thus, women’s capacity for sexual enjoyment may have a higher peak than men’s, but across all sexual acts women’s average level of sexual enjoyment may be lower than men’s. Put more simply, women can occasionally enjoy sex more than men can, whereas men actually do enjoy sex more consistently than women do. Also, men probably experience more orgasms than women over a lifetime, especially if masturbation is included in the tally. Given the current state of knowledge, we regard the question of which gender enjoys sex more as unanswerable.

Are Differences Rooted in Biology?

[…] testosterone is one of the primary organizational and activational hormones that differentiates men and women. Although both women and men have natural supplies of testosterone in their bloodstream, the amount of testosterone varies significantly between the genders. On average, men’s blood testosterone levels are 1,000 nanograms per deciliter, whereas women’s blood testosterone levels are only one seventh or one eighth of this amount (see Dabbs, 2000; Mazur & Booth, 1998). Postmenopausal women have especially low levels of testosterone (regardless of whether menopause occurs naturally or as a result of surgical procedures). Most commonly, surgically induced menopause is the result of an oophorectomy (i.e., removal of the ovaries and adrenals) or hysterectomy (i.e., removal of the uterus).

Three Reasons for a Man Not to Fall in Love

Originally written in September 2013

“People should not bother about romantic love. Friendships and work are the things that bring most joy in life.” ~ Some dude on the internet

I think the above advice is truer than ever in the modern world which has largely become an unregulated sexual marketplace. Especially for young men today romantic love is downright pernicious. In this post I will give three good reasons for a young man to steer clear of romantic love. No, it doesn’t mean staying away from women or sex, just romantic love.

Reason # 1 – It is redundant

It is important to understand what romantic love is. Feeling romantic love for some woman does not mean that your destiny is tied with her, or she is your soul mate, or she is The One for you chosen by the universe or God or whatever. If one seriously believes in such bullshit than I would suggest some resources to learn about romantic love: Here, here, here,…

Romantic love is mating drive. For that reason I believe it’s a huge psychological cost to pay for sex today. Romantic love exists because in the evolutionary past sex meant producing an offspring whose survival was best ensured when the parents stayed together. Hence, the mechanism evolved which made the mating partners fall in love so that they could concentrate their mating energy on each other exclusively. That way while the mother would take care of the offspring, the father would protect them and bring food for them. This would not be possible if the mating partners didn’t feel attached with each other through “love”.

When we say it evolved, that means for those other partners who didn’t develop romantic love and attachment with each other and didn’t stay together to take care of the offspring, their offspring didn’t survive to carry their genes. So the people who developed romantic love got naturally selected in evolution and would have descendants. That is how evolution works. That is the reason we are wired to develop romantic feelings.

In our times, however, sex more often than not means pleasure, or fulfillment of bodily need – consciously keeping an offspring out of the way. Juxtapose this fact with the one mentioned above that the basic purpose of romantic love is the offspring’s survival. Now even when sex takes place for producing an offspring, the environment today is good enough for the offspring to survive without the parents being together.

This is not to negate the fact that an ideal family is a two parent family. Even though parents staying together is not necessary for the offspring’s survival today, it is till necessary for healthy upbringing of children. However, romantic love only serves the togetherness of mating partners in short term. Long lasting partnership can not be achieved with romantic love, especially on man’s part. Reason # 2 and # 3 will explain why.

Romantic love, therefore, is redundant. It no more serves the purpose in nature that it is evolved for, and rather disserves a man’s prospect of lasting partnership or marriage.

Reason # 2 – It hinders better pursuits

When in love, one becomes obsessed with the person of one’s romantic fixation. That is not a very healthy state of mind to carry.

Today we live in a world where we have many pursuits other than what the primitive men had. We live in a complex society which is built by virtue of man’s rationality, and consequently a man needs to be rational in order to function effectively within his social environment. When romantic love becomes an overriding obsession, it may harm one in studies or work by affecting focus, it can ruin a career,… or otherwise just not allow the person to grow in ways that will make him socially productive and successful – even that is a loss big enough. It’s a loss, because romantic love is not rational and serves no significant purpose other than providing temporary euphoria while incapacitating the person mentally to make rational choices about many an important aspect of life. When the person of romantic fixation becomes the center of one’s existence, it’s only natural that all of one’s life’s choices would not be optimal.

We don’t live in the same way that primitive men in the state of nature lived. Yes, romantic love did serve a purpose of securing the offspring’s survival in the evolutionary past but, for one, in the past there was no need for life-long partnership, marriage. Romantic love is not a permanent feeling. It wanes with time since it develops for the definite purpose of mating. The primitive men likely did not stay with their partners for life. That’s not the kind of society we live in, and I believe nor the kind that we want. We live in times where we have sophisticated needs from other human beings, and we have assigned roles to people get those needs fulfilled. Today we look for life partner not for mating or because we worry about the offspring’s survival but for the sophisticated needs that we have. These needs are peculiar to our kind of society, and can’t be fulfilled if we adopted the primitive lifestyle of when we lived in the state of nature.

Does romantic love help? Historically, in all religions and by all cultures romantic love has been condemned. It’s only very recently (probably after the growth of media, through romance novels, films, songs,..) that romantic love has come to be accepted as the valid basis for marriage. And it’s no wonder that marriages of the day are so fickle. Romantic love is not a valid basis for marriage. For it is only mating drive, and it is temporary. In almost all cases it would wane in a short span of a few years if not less. Marriage should be based on other, good reasons and practical considerations. Like matching thoughts and interests in partners is a solid reason to form a marriage than romantic feelings on which one has no control. Of course, along with good reasons when romantic love too exists, that’s an added advantage and there’s no harm in it. But marrying someone only based on romantic feelings is a recipe for disaster.

Life partnership is only one of the many spheres where romantic love doesn’t help.

To indulge in purely romantic love is to surrender whatever autonomy one has and leave oneself at the mercy of brutal natural/biological forces. For one doesn’t develop romantic love for reasons palatable to one’s mind, and one would lose the feelings in the same way too. Where the head doesn’t have a say, the indulgence is of animal nature. That’s why romantic love is such a waste of life for the creatures of intellect.

What about just the pleasure of being in love? It may not serve a purpose in nature it is evolved for. It may not even be helpful in forming a life partnership. It may hinder better and rational, and more worthwhile human pursuits. But then again, it may not be that harmful if one is lucky, one might think. The pleasure of being in love is perhaps second to none. Most people tend to disregard all advice just for the pleasure of love is so alluring. Here I want to caution men – especially the young men. Read on..

Reason # 3 – It’s a guarantee of failure with the woman

In the unregulated sexual marketplace, falling in love with a woman would likely guarantee that one will never get the woman one has fallen for. The reasons for this depressing fact lie in our sexual biology.

Women are sexually attracted to bad-boys with careless attitude. Narcissism, psychopathy, aloofness,… these are the traits that arouse women. A man with these traits is an alpha male. Women will not admit this, because admitting what truly arouses them would be to admit that they have a fucked up mind. Albeit it is not totally their fault, it is their biology. Women are attracted to such men because in the evolutionary past those traits conferred survival advantage on men, and those men would be better protectors of their women and children in the wild. Between an emotional, caring beta male and a psychopathic alpha, the letter was better equipped to win survival battles the nature subjected its creatures to. Hence, women who selected such men have got naturally selected in evolution and would have descendants. Today those alpha traits are not required, and are rather bad, negative qualities in men. But evolution doesn’t progress as fast as our world has changed. Women still fall for assholes out of their biological wiring.

The problem is when a man falls in love he stops being an alpha male. An alpha male is careless. Even when he loves he loves for himself, not for the woman. The woman never feels that she is the center of his existence. She always needs to be on her toes to please her alpha lover, with insecurity and looming fear of abandonment if she displeased him. This very insecurity excites her. In her deepest nature, a woman craves the rewards of the alpha male’s love to her endeavors. A man who gives his love to her without her working for it robs her of the romantic pleasure. She can not stay in love with such a man for long.

I read somewhere that once a woman gets the man’s heart, she would soon lose interest in him. It is true. A man who tells his woman how much he loves her has dug his love’s grave. Caring, dutiful, loving man is a beta male who is equivalent to an unattractive fat woman in an unregulated sexual marketplace.

To summarize: If one thinks that romantic love must serve a useful purpose in nature then no, it does not anymore. If one thinks romantic love may empower one in some way in the society, out the window goes that idea too. In fact, it will likely dis-empower one, cripple one’s rational prospects. If one thinks romantic love will give one blissful partnership with a woman one desires, alas, that may not happen either. Romantic love is out-and-out harmful today.

This post is especially meant for young men. One reason for that is because young men have most to lose by wasting their time on such a futile pursuit. Second reason is that the dynamics of sexual marketplace change after women reach the age of 30, more so after they cross mid-30’s, depending on the “market” conditions. As women grow older their SMV (sexual market value) declines and they look to nice guys to settle down with. For a nice guy who would find bliss in caring for, and dutifully loving his woman it may become easier to find “love” among the older women. So I think beta males who are past mid-30’s and in 40’s may find women they can show their love unrestrained. But then again, it’s always an unpredictable game. Too much show of love and care may ruin the relationship. It seems a modern man has to learn the game to be able to find proper balance of alpha- and betatude.

Note: In a regulated sexual marketplace, the picture is not so grim as I have painted here. Societies governed by traditional norms and religious wisdom still exist where beta males have a good chance. But the world is changing rapidly, and the future is the unregulated sexual marketplace where romantic love will be a disease, especially for men without the understanding of women’s sexual nature which is based on their biological imperative.

Regulated and Unregulated Sexual Marketplace

Originally written in September 2013

Since life is fundamentally about spreading one’s genes through reproduction, it is the primary goal of life. Rational beings may not have it their goal consciously, but in nature’s design it is the only goal.

Sex is a resource that women possess which men have to compete for (a facet of survival of the fittest game). A woman would be naturally selected by evolution to mate with a man who comes up as the best bet for the spread of their genes. That gives rise to the market mechanism in nature. And since the pursuit of sex is central to all of human life, the world of human beings can be viewed as sexual marketplace.

How market forces work in the domain of human sexuality is brilliantly explained in Sexual Economics by Roy F. Baumeister.

The forces of sexual marketplace are not human-engineered but natural, and hence are often detrimental to well-being of human beings as rational animals who have pursuits and goals apart from the nature’s evolutionary goals. The market, by objectifying humans, robs them of dignity and undermines everything that one values as a rational being. Hence, regulation of sexual activities is necessary to subdue the brutal market forces. Religions have historically been regulators of the sexual marketplace, but are losing the power and authority now.

Unregulated sexual marketplace

Unregulated sexual marketplace is a society in which sexual pursuits and activities of its members are not governed by religious norms or traditional values. Modern urban world is mostly transformed into one.

Contemporary mass media, technological “developments” and consequent changes in lifestyles are major factors contributing to washing away of traditional values, whereas scientific advances have long challenged religious worldviews. Although religions still have strong foothold, they hardly have any influence on the lifestyles of urbanites.

In market, survival of the fittest is the norm. The battle is always on, and there is no peace. Participants in market operate with relentless self-interest (as opposed to being cooperative) since market essentially is a place where one participates to get benefits for oneself – and that too more often than not short term ones since the life is finite.

In the unregulated sexual marketplace, romantic love would a disease, and marriage and family would be virtually non-existent. There would be few winners while most people would lose. And even those who win would have no peace of mind since sexual competition would always be on.

Unregulated sexual marketplace is a nightmare of human existence, though people living it may not know any better.

Raw Guide to Getting a Woman’s Love

Originally written in September 2013

To be loved by a man a woman has to be good looking and well behaved, womanly. To be loved by a woman a man has to be manly, which unfortunately means uncaring, narcissistic, psychopathic,.. asshole. This is the irony which makes romantic love a hopeless venture.

In an unregulated sexual marketplace (society in which sexual activities are not regulated by religious norms or traditional values) there are only two natural outcomes of a romantic venture: 1) Alpha male dumping the woman after draining her of sexual and emotional energy; and 2) Woman dumping the beta male after a while. (Note that this applies to the women aged up to 30-35. After that age in women it’s an entirely different ballgame.) The third, and unnatural outcome is through game. When beta-male-at-heart learns about woman’s sexual nature and projects himself as alpha male to get her “love”. Game.

The often-quoted maxim in the dating world – chicks dig jerks – is not unfounded. It is not merely a complaint of the beta males who haven’t been able to get women to love them, but a scientific fact.

A man is never to trust a woman who says she would love a gentleman. In matters of love a woman is not to be trusted even when she is not lying. Because a woman is constitutionally incapable of understanding herself as to what she wants. The problem is of conflict of instincts (animal nature) and reason (human nature). This conflict is ubiquitous in human beings, but in a woman animal nature more often than not gains the upper hand. A woman is poor at using reason. (That is also why perhaps we don’t see many women philosophers.) When a woman says she would love a gentleman who would take good care of her, she is not lying. She is speaking out of reason, and it is what she knows she should rationally want. The problem is her instincts. Her biology would reject a tender, caring beta male; and be highly titillated by a strong, uncaring alpha male. Such is her biological imperative.

An alpha male is by definition uncaring. They had to be. For the term alpha refers to the traits which conferred survival advantage on men when we were living in the wild thousands of years ago. A man with tender heart could not be an ideal protector in the harsh conditions of the state of nature. Strong, reckless, emotionless man would be better able to protect his woman. Hence, women are naturally selected by evolution to be sexually attracted to men with alpha qualities.

To borrow the wisdom of many a PUA, if one wants to learn a woman’s true preferences, don’t listen to what she says but observe what she does. When she speaks she does it out of reason (“I would love a gentleman”), but her eventual acts would be driven by her instincts (“fell for an asshole”). When you hear one saying that you should always respect women, beware, one might as well be asking of you to cut off your penis! Showing respect to women is the first step to betatude.

Do they really love assholes? A woman doesn’t love an asshole per se, she is drawn by qualities that an asshole possesses. Understand this. To appeal to a woman’s sexual nature one has to show behavior that does not come naturally in a caring man. To see women as garbage (of course, in a balanced measure) is a psychological modulation to get the rightly balanced behavior which would appeal to female sexuality. A woman’s mind is fucked up like that. Or rather, it’s not developed enough to give higher weightage to reason than animal instincts.

When you see a hot woman in love with a not-so-good looking man, note that the man is uncaring and overly self-confident (alpha male). He walks a step ahead of his woman, never a step behind. When they hug, he doesn’t rest his head on the woman’s shoulder but stands stiff and merely holds her while the woman wraps herself around him. He doesn’t look into the woman’s eyes and listen to her with undivided attention when she is talking to him. He doesn’t shower love-you’s and miss-you’s on the woman, but vice versa is true. You can tell by looking at them that the woman is not the center of his world but he is the center of the woman’s world.

Conversely, when you see a woman in love with an over-caring man (beta male) for a long period of time, note that the woman is fat and/or unattractive. A hot woman with good SMV (sexual market value) would soon reject – and/or friendzone – an over-caring man as beta male.

A woman wants to be loved not by the dutiful gentleman but by the dominant asshole.

The Female Biological Imperative

Originally written in September 2013

Am I a misogynist? I don’t know.

It is a well known fact that women are attracted to bad-boys. That makes it hard for any man placing high importance on the life of virtue to respect women.

Left on her own without any kind of social conditioning a woman with good SMV (sexual market value) would not choose an intelligent, respectful, dutifully loving, caring and virtuous man. Because they are beta male qualities. In the evolutionary past those qualities would not have conferred survival advantage on men. Men carrying those qualities would die out sooner than those carrying what are called alpha male qualities.

Alpha males are physically strong, emotionless, overly self-confident, lacking empathy, narcissistic, psychopathic,.. It is not a stretch to understand that unlike the beta traits mentioned above, these are the traits that correlate with the behavior which is necessary to survive in the harsh conditions of the wild state of nature.

It was to women’s advantage to choose alphas for mating partners. Women mating with alpha males would have better chance at survival and leave more progeny. Thus, evolution naturally selected women who would be attracted to alpha males.

But isn’t virtue all about fighting one’s nature and check harmful natural impulses and emotions by the use of rationality? What else is being human?

Most conflicts in our lives are due to the non-reconciliation between our nature shaped through evolution and the current living environment. Owing to rapid increase in intelligence our living conditions have changed faster than the pace at which evolution progresses. As a result we experience many impulses that served a useful purpose in the evolutionary past but are harmful today. For example, aggression in men. Since men’s role was to face dangers, aggressive men were more successful at survival in the state of nature, so evolution favored aggressive men. That is why men are more aggressive compared to women. However, today we are no more living in the conditions where men have to face such dangers that require them to be aggressive. Therefore, aggressiveness is a negative quality today. Calmness is generally considered a positive trait. Even though nature has made men more aggressive, virtue is to be able to remain calm.

Likewise, even though nature has shaped women’s biology to be attracted to bad-boys, virtue for women is to be able to love decent men and choose them for mating partners. Failing which a woman can’t be seen as virtuous.

Now we don’t live in the jungle. But like men are still more aggressive than women owing to their evolutionary past, women too have retained their nature. They are attracted to uncaring, narcissistic assholes. The fact that in the current living conditions these qualities may not confer any survival advantage on men (sadly) doesn’t matter. Calm, intelligent and virtuous men would be better able to provide for their women and the family today, and women understand this rationally. But they are biologically incapable of being aroused by such men, at least not so much as alpha males arouse them. That is the reason why compared to men, women in their prime suffer more internal conflict about selecting a partner.

I think it won’t be totally inaccurate to say that since the time we were apes women have not fully evolved to select a human being (a reason-oriented creature) for mating partner.

Civilization in large part owes itself to religions and their imposed restrictions on sexual activities (regulation in the sexual marketplace). In the natural conditions where women would only select alpha males for mating partners there is no possibility of the civilization as we see it today. Civilization has progressed so far because religions by regulating sexual marketplace made sure that women selected virtuous beta males as husbands who would stay committed for life and form families.

I am forming a thesis that it is difficult for men to be virtuous only because being virtuous has negative payoffs in the sexual marketplace. Since life is fundamentally about leaving behind one’s genes though reproduction, qualities that serve that goal the best in the sexual marketplace are naturally selected in organisms. By that reasoning, lack of virtues in men is attributable to women’s tendency to reject men with virtue under unregulated conditions. If virtue was an advantage in the sexual marketplace, that had to draw more and more men towards the life of virtue.

It is thanks to religions and traditional cultures that being calm, caring, loving, dutiful etc. came to be considered as being virtuous. And it is because they implemented mechanisms wherein women would choose virtuous men for husbands that we see men with those qualities around. Tradition, thus, gave incentives for men to be good. And gave good men the fortune of having a woman to love and create a family with.

Instead of bashing religions and traditional cultures of the past for restricting their freedoms, I think, women should be thankful to them. For they made women lovable and worthy of respect. Alas, but now and in the future where women have their freedoms, and there is no influence of religion on people’s lifestyles, and where traditional values are forgotten, biology will once again rule in the sexual marketplace.

Expect the decline of marriage, decline of family, rise of assholery in men, rise of sluttiness in women,.. The end of civilization as we know it is nigh. That is the female biological imperative.

I don’t hate women. I just am pro-civilization.