Will there be a cause-effect here?

One of the saddest aspects of 21st Century male-female relationships is the “hooking up” culture — a concept that takes the love and affection and commitment out of male-female relationships, and just turns them into insta-sex moments.  There is every reason to believe that this new culture is especially damaging to women, who seem to be hard wired to connect love and sex.  Ironically, though, feminists tout it as some wonderful equality thing, even though the only person who would approve of it wholeheartedly, and who has been advocating it for 50 plus years, is Hugh Hefner.

Putting aside the ramifications for women (all negative, I think), it does occur to me that there might be one somewhat weird byproduct of this hooking up culture, and that is a lessening in the number of gay men.  My theory arises from the premise that, at least according to Kinsey, while some men are entirely heterosexual, and some entirely homosexual, there are guys in the middle who can go either way, depending on the opportunity offered.

Growing up in San Francisco in the wild 70s, I concluded that a lot of the gays in San Francisco were guys who could go either way, depending on cultural norms, and who chose gay sex because of the availability of unlimited, emotion-free sex.  In the old days of male-female relationships (before gays came out of the closet), unless you wanted to pay for it, getting sex meant investments of time, money and emotional energy.  Even if you (the guy) didn’t feel a loving emotion for the girl, you’d better pretend there was one if you wanted her to put out.

For those who valued orgasms more than relationships, though, and who weren’t squeamish about gay sex, the bathhouses were a dream come true.  With a little help from drugs (poppers, I think), it was entirely possible to have dozens of emotion-free sexual contacts in a single night.  In other words, the gay bathhouses made the fantasy of unlimited sexual encounters entirely feasible, and thousands of men embraced it — to their eternal, HIV-ridden regret.

Under the new hook-up paradigm, those men who are sexually open to going either way, even though they prefer women, and who enjoy the male fantasy of sex without the burdens of commitment and emotions, finally can have it all.  They can stay on the heterosexual side of the street, but get all the “no-strings” sex they want (and without having to pay for it either).  Of course, aside from the fact that this culture seems to be very, very, very damaging to young women’s psyches, I also fear another HIV-ridden regret cycle, one that will be especially hard on women, who seem to be more vulnerable to the virus.

Hat tip:  Suek

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Ymarsakar says

    Imagine something more powerful than HIV, Book. The imagination is the limit when it comes to God and Nature testing our fitness to call ourselves self-aware beings.

    For those who valued orgasms more than relationships, though, and who weren’t squeamish about gay sex, the bathhouses were a dream come true. With a little help from drugs (poppers, I think), it was entirely possible to have dozens of emotion-free sexual contacts in a single night. In other words, the gay bathhouses made the fantasy of unlimited sexual encounters entirely feasible, and thousands of men embraced it — to their eternal, HIV-ridden regret.

    Do you know what role these people played in Ancient Society, Book? Ancient as in times where everything was muscled powered. They fulfilled the role known as cannon fodder. These were the expendable guys you sent out on hunting, exploration, and diplomatic quests knowing that most of them will die, leaving you the strongest of the group to integrate back into your tribe or nation.

    These are your young hot headed warriors out to “prove” themselves because sex and women were the only things that mattered to them. It was their “prime motivator”. It was only with life experience that they eventually learned to discipline themselves, or maybe all the ones that didn’t learn to so died.

    Now that we have gotten out of the hunter gatherer cycle, all these expendable individuals are hanging around with nothing to do and nobody to weed them out. The military won’t have them because they would have to learn discipline and skills unrelated to the motivation of sex. Yet they continue to call the US military the last refuge of the “cannon fodder” and the “college drop outs”.

    These people are worse than sheep. Sheep, at least, have a use. These are like the diseased sheep you know you have to cull to keep the disease from spreading to the others.

    I am a very strong proponent of equality in this field. It doesn’t matter if it is gay sex that motivates people or free love or any other gross physical pleasure that people just got to have. They are all the same to me.

    What separates human beings from animals is our ability to choose. If your only choice is to do what your instincts tell you, can you really expect me to treat you like another self-aware and sentient human being? Self-discipline has costs, most notoriously the pain of fighting your own instincts, but for people who want to fulfill the potential of humanity, there is no other better choice.

    Freedom! people say. It is Freedom! that America was born from. No, America was born from the fires of killing and dying in order to ensure humanity progresses to something better than just animal behaviors. Freedom is the means by which humanity self-evolves, but freedom is not a goal in itself. It is not a good in itself. Anarchy is freedom, but it is not a “good freedom”.

    People forget this at their peril. If it is not people like me who will punish them, it will be something from Nature or Murphy, HIV or otherwise.

  2. Mike Devx says

    Seems to me we’ve managed to take the European idea of sex – that a man and a woman can engage in casual sex, without commitment, as an appreciation of each other and still maintain their dignity – and turn it into something cheap and near-pornographic. An exercise in selfishness and immediate personal gratification, a soulless scratching of an itch.

    At least the Europeans still VALUE it. For us it’s becoming a toss-off, like a trip to the corner 7-Eleven.

  3. Charles Martel says

    I read an interesting take on male and female pornography a few years ago that may provide one insight into the consequences of the hook-up culture.

    The writer said that the formula for both forms of porn was to take a member of the opposite sex and equip him/her with your own sex’s libido.

    Thus, for men the ideal porn woman would be an endlessly nasty and willing partner who looked at sex the same way men do. In short, you’d be shagging a feminized form of your best buddy.

    For women, the ideal porn guy was not only equipped with a six-pack and the world’s most considerate sex organ, he was also into commitment, gift giving and long walks on the beach. In short, he was your BFF with a set of balls.

    Either sex’s fantasy lay is just that — a fantasy. But if one of those fantasies becomes the norm, the other sex loses out. In our case, the male fantasy has won hands down — women are now sluts who must pretend that endlessly casual sex is a really bitchin’ thing.

    Of course the female porn fantasy has been totally buried. How many co-eds do you know who’ve run into guys who not only like to date but are even willing to learn a girl’s last name before jumping her bones?

    This is the triumph of the radical feminists, who as a class of people are as lacking in intelligence as the black night in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Even as their acolytes are bleeding from deep, deep wounds to their souls, they’ve declared victory in the never-ending war against the patriarchy.

    It is to weep.

  4. highlander says

    Charles, I believe you nailed it. I wonder if that doesn’t also explain why radical feminists declare men unnecessary — they have, at least in their own attitudes, become men and therefore see no need for another man around the house.

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    MikeD, I think that you read way too much into the European state of mind about sex. Casual sex is casual. Cheap sex is cheap. Doesn’t matter what side of the pond you are on.

  6. Ymarsakar says

    The Europeans see sex as just another trade. Something to be taxed, something to be part of the community or the commercial realm. I do not have too much experience concerning the origins of such things. Suffice it to say that Europeans look down on American “prudishness”.

    We, however, look upon them as children who can’t handle self-defense or violence. What kind of adult can’t kill or defend him or herself? That’s not an adult. That’s a cog, a slave, or a serf.

    Since Europeans see sex as just another recreational thing, their value on it as a societal building mechanism and reproduction tool is not as strong as here in America. Obviously the Europeans have less “stress” about it, just like we have more stress on guns and gun control than the Europeans do. But that is because we place more importance on such matters. Guns are important. Sex is important, both to individuals and to the health of the society at large. To Europeans, guns have one solution: ban them. To Europeans sex is one thing: recreational.

    That may be less stressful, certainly, but it is not survivable in the long term. Notice the difference there.

  7. Danny Lemieux says

    Throughout my life, I have seen several cases of people that descended into casual sex because of peer pressure, loneliness, horniness, weakness,..etc. and I have seen what it has done to their self-esteem and ability to form committed relationships with others. It leaves them broken in spirit. It leaves a coarseness and a void that, frankly, most “nice” people learn to avoid and to teach their kids to avoid. It’s not if the neighborhood rake or slut can flip a switch that makes them able to day, “I’ve changed and I will be good now”. Hah!

    I have seen this both in my European family, where the mores you cited are indeed rampant, and in American families, where society seems to be split on these values. I saw how it made once very nice people discover the difficulty in creating long-lasting relationship and how marriages were rent by by inevitable infidelity (leopards don’t change their spots very easily). Often, I see the effects bubble to the surface in couples that are in their 40s and 50s, and the price on their kids is devastating.

    Casual sex behavior often (usually?) translates into loose behavior in marriage and weakened the bonds between man and wife. In Europe, their prevalent sexual mores (among other reasons) have led to a collapse in family structures in more than one country (UK, France, Italy, Sweden…), not to mention plummeting birth rates.

    Of course, visiting Americans wouldn’t ever get to see this because Euros, as all people, don’t display their dirty underwear to strangers at social events. They, like everyone, maintain facades for those gullible Americans too socially inept to know that it is considered to be very impolite to question Europeans about family and social issues.

    I do know that I have observed the marital relationships between devoutly religious couples (in America and France) and those born in extramarital-come-marital infidelities and it’s an easy choice as to which I would uphold as a model for my kids.

    So, to the point, my B.S. radar tends to go critical when I hear self-serving Americans loftily proclaiming how Europeans are so much more sophisticated than we when it comes to sexuality. Their sexual values are a big part of what is destroying them today. Not to worry though, the Islamicists will soon be able to give them an entirely new set of family values to cherish, willingly or not.

  8. Tiresias says

    Funny how the wheel turns. We do become our parents.

    It seems to me that this is about the sixth or seventh time in my life the subject has come around – new name each time; “hooking up,” pardon me – but the lament and the subject thereof remain the same.

    The introduction of the pill was going to have a horrid effect on the humanity of humanity – and maybe it did. I came of age in the 60’s, decade without quality control anyway, and we were, I suppose, pretty damn loose. (“Loose.” Jeez, we were locutionally challenged then, too.) In our day it was “free love,” and it was, I guess, just one of a number of things for our elders to bitch about: there being a war we weren’t serious about winning; hair growing to startling lengths, skirts shrinking to startling lengths, a smell rather like burning rope prevalent in the air around schools, and by late in the decade jackasses like Bill Ayers running around. (Had he not been a revolutionary hero he’d have been well on the road to being completely passed over by “free love.” It’s probably why he became a revolutionary hero: to get some now and then. Otherwise forget it: even female sexual revolutionaries had some standards, and didn’t like green teeth, a total absence of muscle mass, those who did without baths, etc.)

    I digress. Nowadays the only thing that’s changed between “hooking up,” “free love,” and the numerous other forms there were every few years in between is that we’re our parents age, and looking at it through eyes a trifle more jaundiced than once they were.

    You can trace these outbreaks of sexual adventuring by perusing old covers of Time and Newsweek by the way, they faithfully track every ripple in the road. Highly oriented to sex, those two.

    I don’t know what it all means, I’m just musing here; but it does seem as though this is a conversation in which I’ve participated before. I do know I’ve heard on more than one occasion that the current (“current” being whenever we’re talking about, not necessarily right now) excessive enjoyment of the reproductive process spells the approaching end of everything. Yet here we still are.

    Are we coarsened? We are if you think such activity is coarsening, yeah. Are we more coarsened than we would have been by paying for it? Interesting question – and one to show a little care in addressing, ladies. There are those lads who would argue that men always have to pay for it, one way or another. (Flowers, dinner, the theatre, a flick, a good seat in Madison Square Garden – is this paying for it? Being no philosopher I have no opinion; but plenty of people do!)

    There was an argument I can recall from the dim past that casual sex was, at long last, really equality of sex: sex that didn’t have to be paid for. Girls were simply being honest and saying: “You don’t have court me, I’m just as horny as you are!”

    Dunno – lots of musing going nowhere, but it’s stimulated by the fact that this conversation’s been had so many times before, not just in my life but going all the way back to Socrates’ bitching about the rowdies and hobble-de-hoys he was surrounded by in his day!

    Very little’s new.

  9. Ymarsakar says

    Helen mentioned that gays were more “spiritual” than the people she was or knew.

    I thought this was an interesting example of the “noble savage” type of thinking where you glorify societies that eat hand to mouth as if they are some kind of ideal for humanity.

    In reality, barbarian cultures have high rates of murder, death, famine, and child mortality. That’s not very “noble” in the end.

  10. suek says

    Re: the gays are more spiritual thing…

    >>I thought this was an interesting example of the “noble savage” type of thinking where you glorify societies that eat hand to mouth as if they are some kind of ideal for humanity.>>

    That’s an interesting take…I was more inclined to the “In short, he was your BFF with a set of balls.”

  11. Charles Martel says

    A writer named Phillip Wylie wrote a book in 1952 called “The Disappearance.” The premise was simple:

    One day all women disappear from the earth.

    One day all men disappear from the earth.

    The story spans a year telling what happened on each earth; the one without men and the one without women.

    One day, at the end of that year, all the women reappear on the earth and all the men reappear on the earth.

    The book gets especially interesting when men and women sit down to compare notes.

    The men tell of incredible loneliness and feelings of worthlessness because there is nothing to defend or protect. Wiser heads arrange it so that male aggression does not break out into brigandage or civil war, so the all-male society expends a lot of energy exploring earth and entering space, as well as plunging into theoretical science that might explain the women’s disappearance and somehow bring them back.

    Of course there is an explosion in homosexual sex and daredeviltry, both self-destructive forms of behavior that the absence of women has exacerbated.

    The women report that while they were able to maintain the infrastructure without men, they found themselves lacking both the general interest in it or the creativity that would have allowed them to improve upon it. Because they were less temperamentally inclined to violence or adventure, they had fewer problems containing or thwarting aggressions that might have ripped them apart.

    They, too, were lonely, lamenting that a sort of spirit or inspiration had left the world. Even with the increase in lesbian relationships, they said there were no great passions outside of their children. Even the attempt by women scientists to find a solution to the disappearance of men seemed almost forlorn.

    Admittedly, Wylie trafficked in some grand stereotypes. But there were large grains and strands of truth in his fiction. Men or women, left only to themselves and lacking the opposite sex, aren’t really complete. Purely male or female cultures become abnormal and unbalanced — look at the Taliban or radical feminists, for example.

    (Yes, I know radical feminists consort with males. But we’re talking about males that have been so thoroughly housebroken and wussified that they might as well be [radical] women.)

  12. 1Lulu says

    I work with many teenage girls suffering from exactly the kind of new cultural expectations you describe. As the old saying goes, “girls give sex to get love, guys give love to get sex.” There is much heartbreak, pregnancies, and abandonment. And they are young, young.
    Any of you gentlemen want to write a male point-of-view essay I could share with these young women that could help them believe that is ok to not be forced into having sex (I don’t mean rape, I mean peer-pressure induced force that is undesired but consentual).

  13. suek says

    Lulu…

    That is sad. I think it takes a young woman until they’re about 25 till they get the self-confidence to assert themselves. Some never do.
    Society used to protect them – either by chaperones or at least the stern expectations of family and society. Thanks to women’s lib, they’re now on their own and defenseless, imo.
    The problem is that you have to convince the young women that when young men tell them how wonderful they are, how they are the one and only, it’s just a bunch of baloney. The young men do indeed mean everything they say – it’s just that it only lasts until someone else catches their fancy. It’s a matter of “if you can’t be with the one you’re love, love the one you’re with.” And who wants to accept that they _aren’t_ the most wonderful one and only in the young man’s life? We all like to think we’re special, super, bright, good looking, fabulous personality…etc etc etc.

    I’d push the “do you expect to marry this young man?” line. Every relationship is going to result in either marriage or a terminated relationship. If the young woman _expects_ the relationship to end, it won’t be so devastating when it does. And if she has marriage on her mind, she’ll soon learn how marriage minded the young man is. Usually the answer is going to be “are you nuts? I’m too young to settle down and get married”. Ok…so the relationship is going to end at some point. That’s ok…maybe she’ll learn to look for the signs of the impending ending. The only trick is to get good enough at detecting the signs that she can end the relationship before he does! Then she’ll feel in control instead of helpless…

  14. Ymarsakar says

    Is that what you meant by “hand to mouth”? Who’s hand to who’s mouth?

    Funny, Danny ; )

    No, I meant hand to mouth in the simple category of hunter-gatherers. Their only food was whatever they could reach by hand or could carry. They weren’t farmers, with grain silos full of stored food, for example.

    Any of you gentlemen want to write a male point-of-view essay I could share with these young women that could help them believe that is ok to not be forced into having sex (I don’t mean rape, I mean peer-pressure induced force that is undesired but consentual).

    The only kind of men that like easily pressured women are weak willed individuals out looking for an easy conquest. If you want true integrity in a man, then you had better look for men who expect women to have standards.

    For example, women who break under pressure from peer groups will be seen as targets by men. Those women are easily manipulated, so why wouldn’t men do the same? It only motivates men to treat them worse.

    It is about strength, in the end. Both physical and mental. If you don’t value these things, if you are dependent, then your happiness will always depend upon others. And usually they will always let you down unless you are lucky.

    There’s nothing I can say that will get people, women especially, to put value in strength of will and such things as honor or integrity. Just as there is nothing I can say that will motivate a man or woman to learn violence to defend themselves from criminals. Either they have this desire and motivation already, or they don’t. All I can do is to point them in the right direction. Theirs is still the primary task of traveling the path.

  15. says

    “The only kind of men that like easily pressured women are weak willed individuals out looking for an easy conquest. If you want true integrity in a man, then you had better look for men who expect women to have standards.

    For example, women who break under pressure from peer groups will be seen as targets by men. Those women are easily manipulated, so why wouldn’t men do the same? It only motivates men to treat them worse.”

    Y, I think you are on to something very profound there.

  16. Ymarsakar says

    Most of it is from personal experience, Book.

    On the average scale of aggression and violent impulses, for men, I would rank somewhere at just above average in aggression with an outlier at times exceeding the top most boundary for socialized and civilized men and another outlier at the bottom rank close to pacifism . “Average” aggression, however, means just that. An average. If you have 10 episodes of backing off from social confrontation and turning your back and 10 episodes of taking out a hammer and cracking a person’s brain case open, then you would be “average” but only due to statistics. It would not be a healthy kind of average. I backed out of numerous social confrontations, but not because I lacked aggression. It was because I was too aggressive that I didn’t trust myself or my reactions if I had let the fight continue. The choice of not fighting and turning your back and ignoring things was easier, but of course, they are not the best solution against some people. Inevitably, I would be pulled into a fight, of my own choice at that.

    We all know there are men who are at the bottom quartile in terms of aggression. Society called them “nice guys” or “losers” or just push overs. For whatever reason, they don’t got it. Non-aggressive non-entities would fit their description. And for the other side of the coin when it comes to males, we have your serial rapists and murderers and Islamic Jihadists. One has too much and the other has too little. Both have problems, but society tends to exacerbate the problems of those with higher, not lower, aggression.

    For women, of course, there is the same kind of spectrum, but it functions slightly different. Women don’t think the same way as men, so their behaviors will be slightly changed. But suffice it to say, that most women fall on the below average criteria in aggression. They don’t like confrontation and they don’t feel comfortable with confrontation (just look at how many internet female bloggers dropped out due to harassment, same with female politicians).

    It is popularly perceived that women find ways to get around confrontation by hinting at things and then getting upset that you don’t “get it”. It is one source for why there have been pop culture books written about “Men are Mars and Women are from Venus” and how “you can’t understand the language of women” and various things like that. It isn’t really true, but people act like it is.

    Now, a man who is non-aggressive and nice and isn’t possessive has often been called an “ideal” of sorts when women want fathers and husbands. For lovers and boyfriends, of course, women naturally gravitates towards aggressive men or “bad boys”. This, naturally, creates the prototypical stereotype of a woman marrying a successful businessman for the money and then taking on a “bad boy” lover on the side. Or women constantly falling into the grips of abuse relationships.

    In reality, nature demands that women pick both a protector (someone who can fight for what is his) and a provider (someone that is stable, socialized, civilized, nice, and doesn’t abuse her). Now, mostly, that kind of ideal is only ever present with military families. It is more prevalent there because of the role of the military and the kind of men that gets drawn to the military and the kind of women that has what it takes to be the wife of a military servicemember.

    So what this has to do with weak willed women is very simple. It has to do with me, in a very narcissistic fashion. Before I studied TFT, I was only ever afraid of men larger and bigger than me, or more numerous, or wielding guns and knives and what not. Some of this was cultural, in that Hollywood culture teaches you, via movies and pop shat, that this is what can hurt you. Some of it was just common sense. If all you had to work with was strength and speed and what not, then the bigger stronger guy will win, obviously. Even if you are weaker than him but faster than him, all he has to do is to land one hit and you are out for the count. And then things will go downhill from there. Even when I was in that state of mind, I was not afraid of women physically. I had this assumption that they, because they are weaker physically, pose far less of a threat to me. After I had some training in Target Focus Training, it became very clear to me that all these things I was afraid of before? None of it mattered. For women, though, they are still physically weaker in terms of strength than me, on average (a very important point here), yet they are potentially capable of the same amount of damage output (number of people killed in X number of seconds within Y amount of distance). But still, even though they are “potentially capable”, they are still limited by lack of aggression, lack of a willingness to fight, and a lack of willingness to kill. For some reason, hormonal or whatever, women in a fight or flight situation tend to FLYYY not fight. Even self-defense classes for women teach them to stun, shock, and hit a man and then run like the wind.

    So, what does this have to do with anything? It has to do with a simple fact: the fact that I could harm, hurt, and incapacitate any woman I can reach, even easier than I could do so with men. This is a power I have and it is not provided by an external tool like a gun, or the law, or authority. It would be ridiculously easy to take my bare hands and hurt any woman I chose to. It’s like when you are standing on the ledge of a tall mountain looking down into a hundred + meter valley and your brain shoots this idea to you out of nowhere “why don’t you jump down there and see how the fall feels”. I know people here have experienced this, where you were balancing on the edge and the wind was blowing and you got this thought out of nowhere for you to do this, do it now. For most men, and women, they have this assumption that it takes something other than their bare hands (or something like several black belts in karate) to effortlessly control other people, who may be bigger or stronger than they. They don’t get this “idea” shooting out of nowhere when they see strangers. I do. I get it all the time. It is actually part of TFT training, to actively think about dismantling people you meet on random in every day life (to get your brain in the right OODA cycle loop). But, even though it would be ridiculously easy for me to do such things, I refuse to do so. And I would refuse to do so even if there were no legal repercussions for my actions. I wouldn’t say the same about falling off a mountain if I knew I wouldn’t crater on the ground at the end. I might actually take the fall, but it would depend on my certainty of safety, of course. That, of course, is an interesting but irrelevant diversion.

    Why is it, you think? Why is it that I feel a physical revulsion at the thought of harming the weak (the non-guilty weak), smashing them into the ground, and making them beg for mercy, even while at the same time knowing that there is an exulting feeling of power and mastery to be had? Because there is nothing proud in defeating the defenseless. There is no honor and no glory in slaughtering women, children, and defenseless and beaten men. No Pride. They are easy targets that you can get satisfaction from, but they are not a real challenge. You would only be hurting them for your own pleasure, and that way lies the animal.

    Men will do some stupid stuff for pride, let me tell ya. Armies are built upon pride. Pride is often what gets units to die to the last man, for turning their back and running is more physically painful to them than feeling the knives and spears of the enemy in their body. That is the kind of dedication and perseverance you can have to rely upon. If women want that kind of trait, either they will have to date a lot of Marines and infantry grunts (good luck given their limited numbers), or they are just going to have to try to find such traits among civilians.

    A lot of the stuff I have covered is uncomfortable. People don’t want to think about it. Aggression and the sex drive and all that stuff is too much for them when combined. We used to have taboos on these subjects and now people think they are “liberated” because they can talk about sex and sex and more sex. But there’s a lot of stuff men and women won’t talk about. It’s too private. It’s too societally unacceptable. Hell, look what happened to Larry Summers. You don’t want to end up like him. And what he spoke about wasn’t even very private to begin. It was kind of obvious.

    If women want strong men, who can stay by them or not stab them in the back when they have children or problems or when they grow older, then they need to find the men who can control themselves. Men who can control themselves are men who have turned the instinctive male need to “hunt women down” (and that is exactly what it is when striped of societal niceties) for sex into a more positive societal outlet. This is just the plain truth. Men who don’t want to control their urges or desires or emotional problems will inevitably pick on weak targets. And women tend to be pretty weak targets, all said and told. I didn’t make it this way, so you can’t blame me. But you can change it, if you are a woman. You don’t have to be weak or to be perceived as weak and a target. There are many ways to do so, many ways not to be taken advantaged of.

    You may find that alpha males will respect you more, as a woman, if you can stand your own ground. Only somebody, like in Sharia, who lacks self-confidence, needs several wives that they can beat and sexually abuse to feel like a man. Alpha males want strong alpha females. That is how it is when you look at basic human society. Look at the frontiers, like Alaska. Women’s equality is far higher there than it ever was in the civilized parts of America. Look at American history when new states, to be accepted into the Union, had to strip the voting rights away from their women. That’s cause women, strong women, were equal partners with the men when survival was at stake. Everybody had to pull their weight, cause nobody is going to save your arse if your wife leaves you hanging or your husband leaves you hanging. These people did so even though pregnancy left women effectively helpless. Think about that for a second.

    Men will not refuse to go to bed with an attractive women, with young unattached men and even older attached men. But it still don’t mean men will respect those women afterwards. They don’t need such women, since there happens to be a lot of em (and given the disparity of the sexes on college campuses, women are starting to outnumber men). If they don’t need you, why then will they come to love you or respect you?

    This is what I mean when I said “men that like easily pressured women”.

    Seriously. I don’t know how much human beings can sacrifice before we hit rock bottom. We have sacrificed our dignity. We have sacrificed our ability to do things for ourselves, instead having to rely upon everybody else. We have sacrificed our duty to protect ourselves and our families, instead relying upon police and hocus pocus government crap. What are we going to sacrifice next? Our lives? Our sacred honor? (Oops, that one is already gone, mostly) There is always euthanasia.

    Eventually this Ponzi scheme has to fall.

  17. says

    “Hookup” culture is devastating for young women. You can read about it here: Unprotected by Miriam Grossman. The author is a physician at a major university health center, and has LOTS of experience.

    Very similar perspective some years ago from a young woman who watched, and lived with, the girls being devastated. A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit.

    If there are some young women you care about, you might go to
    http://www.cblpi.org/senseandsexuality/ and get them a copy of the brochure being put out by the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute – it is EXCELLENT.

  18. Iron Dreamer says

    Just about every negative comment I’ve read about this “hooking up” lifestyle discusses why it is bad for women. What I do not see is much discussion about how it affects men. I can see arguments about why hooking up is good for men:

    – A man’s desire for sex can be more easily satisfied. This reduces his sexual frustration, and increases his happiness.

    – Men often get trapped into bad marriages. Their wives, having achieved their desired marital and maternal status, stop caring about their husbands’ needs, while maintaining a parasitic relationship with their husbands’ status as provider. When sex is more easily available to men, women’s ability to entrap men into marriage is decreased, reducing male marital devastation.

    From a male perspective, hooking up may be a healthier alternative than commitment. If the choice is then between male happiness and female happiness, why should men care more about the latter?

  19. iconoclast says

    “girls give sex to get love, guys give love to get sex”—maybe so, but for women, love and desire seem closely tied to the acquisition of money, possessions, and prestige. A woman is unlikely to fall in love with a low-status male if a higher-status male is available to her. This has been true in all cultures and at all time periods.

    If you come home from work and tell your wife you got a big promotion, she is much more likely to want sex with you that night–and infinitely more likely to have an orgasm–than if you tell her you lost out on the promotion. This is her automatic success-recognition circuitry at work.

  20. Ymarsakar says

    Women climb the social ladder through their men and men climb the social ladder by getting rid of their competitors.

    There’s “freedom” for ya. People claim we are free, but we are not, really. We are still tied to our ancient evolutionary instincts and behavioral patterns developed over millions of years. This is not freedom, but it can be an opportunity to acquire freedom.

  21. suek says

    >>A woman is unlikely to fall in love with a low-status male if a higher-status male is available to her. >>

    Survival of the fittest. Females mate with successful males. In other species, the males do physical battle in order to mate or find favor with the females. In humans, the contest is some sort of measurable success – the type depends on the culture. In ours, it’s usually financial success. It seems to me that men who are successful have a strong competitive drive, not necessarily a love of money. The more drive, the greater the success, and the more likely a woman will be drawn to them. Then the stupid women short circuit the whole thing by using birth control or having an abortion. So much for survival!

  22. Mike Devx says

    Danny #6 and #8,

    I definitely accept your better and broader experience with those from European cultures. If your evidence suggests that they widely suffer from the same negative effects of casual sex that we do, I am on board with you.

    Back around ’92 or ’93, I experimented with casual sex to figure out what this gay thing in me meant. That meant six events over a year and a half – which qualified as quite a lot of “casual” for me at least, if not for others. I label it casual primarily because there was no emotional quality nor commitment to it at all – and that was enough to leave me feeling dispirited and crushed over the meaninglessness of the casualness of it. It left me feeling utterly cheapened. I knew then that a deep emotional commitment was an absolute requirement of mine, and anything casual was simply out because it was too destructive to my spirit.

    I haven’t found anyone yet to share that deep emotional commitment that I require, and if that leaves me to live the life of a celibate monk, then so be it. I’m at peace. I won’t recommend it as ‘The Way’, since I may be blessed with a much lower libido that makes my kind of life peaceful and rewarding compared to someone else whose libido would leave them frustrated. (I say “blessed”, because it allows me to easily live my life in accordance with my convictions.) It works for me. I simply won’t accept a substitute for a real thing, when the substitute harms me psychologically. For me it’s a very easy call.

    I might have a different take on things if I spent every day in a maelstrom of sexual frustration. (“Gotta have it, gotta have it, gotta have it NOW, this itch is driving me CRAZY!”) I don’t know.

  23. suek says

    >>Isn’t that so much better?>>

    Now Y. That’s _negative_ selection. Choice of a mate is a _positive_ selection.

    Besides…have you seen what happens to a breed of dogs when they become the most popular breed? If you knew what you were doing, positive selection might be a benefit, but the fact is that circumstances are always changing, and we humans don’t really know what the heck we’re doing.

  24. Ymarsakar says

    and we humans don’t really know what the heck we’re doing.

    Ah. So sad to hear you have lost your faith. But I believe 4 years of Obama will restore your faith in his humanity.

  25. Mike Devx says

    >> but for women, love and desire seem closely tied to the acquisition of money, possessions, and prestige. A woman is unlikely to fall in love with a low-status male if a higher-status male is available to her. This has been true in all cultures and at all time periods. >>

    Proof of the ultra-materialistic culture we live in!

    I like to think that some women have the hots for their guy because, over and over, he proves he can do anything and fix anything around the house. Proving his ultra-competence in that arena rather than just the arena of the high dollar figure.

    But the vast majority of us are captives of the cultural miasma in which we swim. Glory to those who can break free and see through their own unprogrammed eyes!

  26. Ymarsakar says

    Proving his ultra-competence in that arena rather than just the arena of the high dollar figure.

    They are the same thing. Women are hard wired to find stable partners that can support them when pregnant and with children. That means they need a father that is worth a damn and can provide for the family.

    Hrm, half the reason Clinton and all the other wives “stood by their man” was probably because their “man” had provided them the bacon for so long. They believed nobody else could provide them near as much, certainly not bribes from reporters wanting the “real scoop”.

Leave a Reply