The Bogus Two Rules of Desire (a.k.a. the Shorter No-Sex Class Paradigm)

Posted by figleaf on Fri, 2009-01-30 11:29

Photo by Flickr user vcutmlsca. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Via VCU Tompkins-McCaw Library Special Collections Flickr account. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Over the years I've written hundreds of entries for my "no-sex" class category.  Without ever feeling I'd gotten it exactly right.

Then one day I got a brainstorm and streamlined it to two basic, bogus, but amazingly deeply ingrained rules.

 

  1. It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.
  2. It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.

 

Discussion: At least in contemporary western society every gender-related ill derives from some combination of items #1 and #2.

The minor issue that neither rules #1 nor item #2 are true about humans isn't the flaw in my argument, it's the point! (In particular if the were true society wouldn't perpetually exhaust itself trying either to enact, persuade, enforce, or prove they were.)

[* Sounds weird I know but remember, when each of the big three western-civilization-influencing religions were established women were believed to be tempters -- cloistering, covering, and other forms of impoundment were not designed to protect the virtue of women but the virtue of men. And lest we think we've outgrown all that see also all versions of "she was asking for it" victim blaming. --fl]


Tags:

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-30 19:32.

Homophobia? #2

Um, and #1, too. Last time I checked, lesbians exist.

[Hi Daisy! Yeah, I wrestled with whether to include examples at all, since I'd said it was "shorter no-sex class." But then I started and naturally (since I said it explains *everything* which was only *mostly* hyperbole) where ever I stopped I'd have been leaving everything else out. :-) But what I meant by that is that the *disproportionate* prejudice against gay men vs lesbians is explained by #2. Meanwhile, as PattyCake says, "lesbians" are "hawt" because it's "not really sex without Teh Cock." And side B of that record is the very real prejudice against real, out, non-fantasy lesbians comes out of #1. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. --fl]

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-30 20:05.

re: Daisy, yes, but THEY'RE HAWWT.

Also, FL: Yum.

Also.

[Yup, the "they're hawt" remark comes in under #1 (if I hadn't been trying to make it *really* shorter the next element, call it #1b, would have been "Women can be sexualized but never sexual." Also, glad you liked the photo, even more glad to see you breaking rule #1! :-) Thank for your kind words, PattyCake! --fl]

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-30 20:09.

Re-reading my comment, it's harsher than I intended; overall this is a kick-ass post.

[No, that's totally fine, Daisy. I'm sure I missed quite a few other quandaries but I bet if you boil them down enough they'll still fit under #1 or #2 (ok, ok, or maybe the #1b I added after PattyCake's comment.) Thanks! --fl]

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-30 20:52.

You get an A+ for being so concise. I gotta learn that skill.

But now that I've said that ... can we stir the pot and complicate things a little? :-) While I totally agree that rules 1 and 2 are entangled with every problem you list, I don't think the causal relationship is equally straightforward in every case. For instance, unequal pay doesn't derive *solely* from your two rules. It also derives from human greed under patriarchal circumstances. The sex/no-sex system helps pin people into roles that reinforce the distribution of material goods, including capital, preferentially to certain men. It also offers certain consolation prizes to the rest of the men who don't get to be economic or political bigwigs.

In other words, patterns of causation are more complex. But I fully agree that you see some *very* interesting patterns when you pare down your ideas to this level of abstraction.

Cool post. (And I'm feeling *just* good enough this evening to be distracted by the photo.)

[First of all Sungold, I'm busily hoping that your MRIs come out well!!! Second, I agree that the two rules don't account for all exploitation, period, but I do think they account for gendered resistance to equal pay for equal work. Rule #2 says men can't be desired sexually, for which the conventional alternative is deemed to be economic advantage. Inverting something as benevolent-sounding as "men have been traditionally paid more because they've traditionally supported a wife and family" turns up "women have traditionally been underpaid to keep them dependent on men." Thanks! --fl]

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-02-01 02:24.

I agree with sungold. Excellent and concise distillation of the issue. But it doesn't address why we've evolved these cultural values. Who benefits anymore by maintaining the two premises you have enumerated?

Hugs,
rg

[Hey RG! Who benefits is an interesting question, one that I think is summed up in the closing line traditional marriage ceremony... at least the English-language ones: "you may now kiss the bride." First of all that just lives and breathes rule #1 (why wouldn't *she* want to kiss the *groom?*) it also answers best the question "who benefits." The answer is obviously the family, with quite a bit of backing from church and state. Which in the long tradition of real "p" patriarchy makes sense: families arranged weddings, gave away brides, and did so only after establishing that the groom had value beyond his sexual (or any other kind of) attractiveness to the bride. Of course patriarchy in the industrial and post-industrial eras have lost a *huge* chunk of the social organization of real patriarchy... which I think is what a) makes rules #1 and #2 even more egregiously obsolete but also b) makes the still very powerful but ultimately empty residue of patriarchy so particularly vicious to women and so reducing of men. Which is why I'd really like to subvert the paradigm in the first place. Thanks! --fl]

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-05-29 07:05.

Sexual desire is natural. We can never stop to discuss about sex.

dontlookanyfurther.com

Undez

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-06-03 00:11.

Dang, you look goooooood. drool.

Submitted by 2682 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-06-03 23:17.

I think I have another one. Have you noticed that most of the porn, strippers, etc. targeted towards het women has really muscular men, usually without any other body types represented? This is really weird, considering I've met very few women who thought "bodybuilder" was the sexiest body type. I'm sure there are lots of them, but if they were trying to hit the "core market", I'd think they'd mostly hire men who have more realistic body types -- most of the women I know prefer something in the range of a bit slim to a bit chubby. But, if society says that being sexually-desired is a feminine trait, and that feminine men are undesirable, then I guess picking men who are hypermasculine could be the employers' way of compensating. Of course, then all the women who aren't into gym bunnies, but still like the porns, opt for the written stuff, and society says, "LOOK! WOMEN AREN'T VISUAL! MEN AREN'T GOOD-LOOKING! WOMEN LOVE ROMANCE AND HATE SEX*! LOLOLOL." And then I smash my head against my desk.

* According to my local librarians and bookstore owners, anything not classy enough to be erotica is a romance novel, even if it's all sex and no romance. 'Cause it's written for women, you know, and us women love that romance. Circular logic FTW.

I found this via Pandagon and

Submitted by Nancy (not verified) on Thu, 2010-01-21 11:16.

I found this via Pandagon and I want to offer my compliments – this is exactly true and elegantly succinct. Thanks!

Hello Figleaf, Love this

Submitted by DanceDreaming (not verified) on Fri, 2010-03-05 06:01.

Hello Figleaf,

Love this post, very well stated. One odd note at a commenter above(names seem to have poofed). I’ve personally looked at a certain amount of porn. The guys seem to be actually kinda varied. Or at least, it seems to be a good mix between the ‘gym-bunnies’ and the ‘ordinary blokes’. Though in the latter case there doesn’t seem to be any effort to make the guy seem at all attractive. Which might simply be a continuation of you notion. But I generally think a bigger reason for ‘girls don’t tend to like porn’ is that most porn has a degrading element to women, kinda skips over any actually interesting foreplay, and generally doesn’t look like something that most women would get much enjoyment out of. But this causes the same circular reasoning.

Admittedly I haven’t seen a

Submitted by Perverse Cowgirl (not verified) on Thu, 2010-03-11 00:37.

Admittedly I haven’t seen a whole lot of porn, and what I’ve seen has been mainstream, but I can say that the reason I don’t like porn (so far) is that the women don’t orgasm (or even attempt to fake it). They moan a lot, but at the same pitch the whole way through – no crescendo.

When hetero humans watch hetero porn, I think most of us are identifying with the performer who’s the same sex as us. This is why guys have an obsessive need to see the dude ejaculate and why I get frustrated watching what, to me, amounts to some woman being endlessly teased without ever getting off.

Plus, of course, barely any foreplay, and any cunnilingus I’ve ever seen is just a brief precursor to intercourse. I’ve seen tons of scenes of women-tongue bathing some guys’s cock for 45 minutes at a time, but never of a guy lovingly lavishing oral attention on a woman until she orgasms. At most, dude goes down just until the chick seems like she’s really getting into it, then abruptly switches to p-in-v and gets himself off. If a guy did that to me in real life, I’d want to bitch-slap him. I’m sure as hell not going to watch this asshattery and get off to it.

Maybe stuff with amateur real-life couples is better. I sure hope so.

Actually, anti-prostitution

Submitted by Thaddeus Blanchette (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-13 15:26.

Actually, anti-prostitution is also often an expression of rule #2.

Many of my foreign male client informants here in Rio de Janeiro claim that they like the feeling of being desired that the prostitution scene in this city often creates. Of course, this is ignored by our local antis who speculate that foreignclients are all being motivated by a need to express their power over women…

I don’t get the connection to

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-04-28 04:21.

I don’t get the connection to date rape. I think that most forms of sexual violence are about power, hidden under the claim that “she wanted it” – so, not-#1 and not-#2
Could you explain your point, please?

At my fellow Anonymous above:

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2010-05-09 16:20.

At my fellow Anonymous above: Think of that guy in “Animal House” who pretended to be a woman’s boyfriend in order to have sex with her. He seemed to presented as a sympathetic (and simply pathetic) character who just couldn’t get sex any other way, the poor thing.

Hey figleaf, hope you still

Submitted by Sam (not verified) on Sun, 2010-06-27 18:40.

Hey figleaf,

hope you still read comments to your older posts.

I’ve occasionally been on your blog through links, but I’ve never really read anything beyond what was linked to. Turns out that was probably a mistake ;). I particularly like the way you try to parse cultural and social conflict as a variety of consequences following from mistaken double binds for female and male sexuality/desire. Back in last Autumn, Clarisse Thorn started a now epic thread (http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/manliness-and-feminism-the-followup/#comment-795) about manliness and feminism in which I advanced a similar idea about the consequences of social value assignments to female and male sexuality and the thus necessary conception of sexuality as a value exchange in which one partner constantly gains and one partner constantly loses value except if that sexuality is given transcendence by an intervening social or psychological factor, say marriage or love. I got this from reading David Foster-Wallace’s “Brief Interviews With Hideous Men”, interview #28.

I’m going to quote my comment from the thread with respect to your theses and their applicability with respect to the cultural phenomena you mention as deriving from them in the “current West” and would really like to hear your opinion about the additions –

You say : “It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.”

That’s because of all the value wrapped up social concepts of female sexuality, having desire of her own would be hard to deal with for the social structures built upon this notion (as a consequence of #2 below, I’d say). But something has changed “in the current West”.

It is simultaneously required, inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire”

I parse Foster Wallace with respect to double binds for women today as – the expectation to be sexually liberated and assertive. The expectation to honor the “good girl vs slut” dichotomy partly due to a still slightly different biological risk/reward ratio due to position in human procreation, placed in an age-old and feminist reinforced discourse of male sexuality as latently sociopathic in which sexuality for a woman means being taken advantage of, at least on some level. All sexual pleasure with men is thus tainted (as being at least potentially exploited), not liberated. She’s “losing value” everytime she has sex unless the sex is happening in a socially condoned way or by the way of love as a transcendent force with a built-in narrative of overcoming social forces since the dawn of ages – as Foster-Wallace puts it – “Meaning that what they’re really going to want is some way out of these responsibilities. … experience a passion so huge, overwhelming, powerful, and irresistible that it obliterates any guilt or tension or culpability they might feel about betraying their perceived responsibilities.”

Problem is – men have a hard time providing the passion for the way out because, well – their sexuality isn’t valued on par with a woman’s sexuality. I think it’s not so much that it is inconceivable that they be sexually desired, as you propose, but that their desire is socially devalued because it is considered at least latently sociopathic and in need of social control (previously by controlling access to female sexuality, now by directly policing male sexuality) – adding, as we discuss at length in Clarisse’s thread, a particular problem with respect to one of your bullet points – “Men who initiate are studs”. In the current – feminist/postfeminist West, there also is a third intervening factor with respect to men, in my opinion:

“It is simultaneously required, inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.”

as initiating without being desired will automaticall reinforce the problematic notions of male sexual sociopathy because of an assumed lack of mutuality and consent.

While women are socially considered to constantly lose value having sex men constantly act in the paradigm that we’re gaining value from her, but the price is dealing with our potentially poisenous touch and the feeling that we are taking more than we’re giving when we’re sexual.

And because of the still predominant mating sequence with a male initiator, this creates a circular problem: Men/initiators need to be able to see through all this and understand that she still expects us to initiate and create the passion needed for her to get through the double bind barrier allowing her the kind of passion and radical acceptance of our sexuality, which seems to be the only way it can be liberated from being considered exploitative by her and ourselves.

Hi Sam, I think I may have

Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2010-10-18 18:13.

Hi Sam,

I think I may have inadvertently addressed the way out of the requirement dilemma you raised in this post about the Yale frat boys who got busted for chanting “yes means anal.” Bottom line in that post is that yes, men are required to be desirable… just desirable in ways other than sexual. So status, achievement, money, car, even general attitude works, just not bootiliciousness.

fl

    Ah, sh*t, only saw

Submitted by Sam (not verified) on Mon, 2011-02-21 10:34.

 

 

Ah, sh*t, only saw that now.

fl,

I'm not sure why you think that's a way out of the dilemma - in fact, I'd say it's a reformulation of the problem, as it's showing that the exchange nature and value assignment is supposed to be due to "comparative advantages" in different aspects of desirability (status vs sexuality) that conforms neatly to the classis dating paradigm, not due to "variance seeking" within the same dimension, ie, sex is "paid for" with equally valuable sex, status exchanged with status . You're basically stating why it is in both women's and men's interest if men have, on average, higher social status than women so both can see the exchange of value as beneficial.

Now, that may be the case or not, but if so, or rather - to the extent that it is, it is posing a monumental inherent barrier to achieving actual gender equality: our own desires. I don't know how high that barrier is, or to what extent is has innate features, but as far as the cultural aspects are concerned, I'd say it is paramount to come up with ideas to reduce the imbalance. Women/ more women have more social status now than in most parts of known human history, but there is still the problem you (and I) described above, leading to scarcity of female sexuality and giving it a higher social value that must be balanced with a "payment" in another currency, just as you explain. But, as I believe, it is *that* imbalance, *that* male payment, that leads to individual and social incentives that are shaping the world as we see it - subtly, but powerfully.

I'm afraid I don't think that's a way out of the dilemma...

Just to be clear, I think

Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2011-02-21 16:13.

Just to be clear, I think we're in agreement.  Specifically I'm not *endorsing* other forms of desirability.  Instead my complaint is that men are permitted all sorts of not actual-physical-desirability forms of "desirability."  But that's part of the problem, not any solution at all.

It's perfectly fine, by the way, to be "desirable" for virtues other than visual appeal, just as it's fine to be considered visually appealing.  What's not so great is when, say, accomplishment is deprecated in women (and only women) and visual appeal is deprecated in men (but only men.)

If that doesn't make sense let me know and I'll give it a closer reading when I'm not perishing of this stupid cold and/or chest infection.

Thanks, Sam,

fl

    Hey fl, hope you're

Submitted by Sam (not verified) on Tue, 2011-02-22 14:13.

 

 

Hey fl,

hope you're feeling better already!

 

"What's not so great is when, say, accomplishment is deprecated in women (and only women) and visual appeal is deprecated in men (but only men.)"

 

agreed. But that's a discoursive minefield, in my opinion. It's important to note the imbalance, but it starts to become problematic when noting this turns into attempted (politically motivated) policing of individual desires (as an impediment to some hypothetical collective action).

The “woman as temptress”

Submitted by whitehound (not verified) on Wed, 2010-08-04 03:59.

The “woman as temptress” thing is a red herring. Judaism has a kind of bouncy attitude to sex and has always been very keen on female sexuality. Jewish women have always been able to divorce their husband (or rather, have a rabbi order their husband to grant them a divorce, with severe sanctions if he refused) for failing to keep them sexually satisfied. Traditionally there was actually an official scale of what were considered to be reasonable sexual demands a woman could make on her husband according to how tiring his job was, and if he failed to live up to it and she wasn’t willing to put up with that, she could dump him and get another. I believe the minimum requirement, for a man with a physically exhausting job, was once a week.

The reason for the very severe attitude to adultery in Judaism is, in fact, because divorce has always been so easy for Jews. If you fell in love with someone other than your spouse, you were supposed to divorce your spouse and marry your lover, and if instead you carried on an affair it must be for some dishonest reason such as not wanting to lose the spouse’s income.

I’m sorry to say it, as a pagan myself, but the misogyny and fear of female sexuality in Christianity and Islam comes from the ancient Greeks and the Romans, not from Judaism. I was told by somebody who had made a study of it that the Greeks’ ingrained dislike of women came about in part because the philosopher Xenophon was married to an appalling woman, and he reasoned from the particular to the general, assumed all women were as venal and stupid as his wife and made scorn for women an article of philosophical faith.

This is great.  And as a

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-17 11:06.

This is great.  And as a female who has always, above most things in life, appreciated beautiful men, it's refreshing.  I often feel rather alone as the only woman who frequently tells men how good looking they are, and openly turns my head when they walk down the street.  So if I exist, I'm sure there are others around too.  I have always disliked hearing both genders say that women are just "aesthetically more pleasing".  For me that is very untrue; I personally don't find women attractive at all - but I enjoy looking at men the same way I see men portrayed as looking at beautiful women, and I always have.

Girls don't even like sex so

Submitted by Bone (not verified) on Wed, 2011-07-13 00:14.

Girls don't even like sex so this is ficticiously irrlevant.

Thank you! I've always said

Submitted by figleaf on Thu, 2011-07-14 10:07.

Thank you! I've always said the Two Rules are almost exclusively a male belief. You're kind of making my case for me! What's funny is that most women (and girls over about age 14-17) almost never agree with you. Like men and boys there may be kinds of sex they don't even like, and certain people they don't like having sex with. And sure, some women, like some men, don't like sex of any kind at all. But not enough (at all!) to make a blanket statement like "girls don't even like sex." The good news is you can't even say "girls don't even like sex *with you*" because in my experience in the big wide world for every Jack there really is a Jill for whom he's her dream sex partner. The only thing I can say is that you're almost certainly going to miss her, and all the rest, if you start with the assumption that no girls ever do. --fl]

Girls don't like sex because

Submitted by Bone (not verified) on Thu, 2011-07-14 23:58.

Girls don't like sex because they always do everything in their power to avoid it. Think about it. If girls like sex they would actually want it. In any demographic there are a thousand horny guys to even one horny girl (and I'd say she's being tricked into it anyway). Sure women use their femine ways to trick and trap a guy, but all she really wants is for him to -want her- not -get her-. Girls are wired to be admired. Maintaining sexual scarcity is her ace in the hole. Yes that hole. What she really wants is a picket fence, a figure head and emotional security blanket (aka punching bag). Girls don't like sex becasue they know deep down if they didn't have a vagina men would not be interested in them. The pigs. Women deep down despise the pigs that men really are. Hate them. Sex is the ultimate objectification of her hole. Not her soul.

So those rich old widows and

Submitted by snobo (not verified) on Wed, 2011-07-20 21:02.

So those rich old widows and divorcees who pay for hot young gigolos make perfect sense then.

I think both of those rules,

Submitted by Peter K (not verified) on Sun, 2012-01-22 18:53.

I think both of those rules, while remaining pretty true are not as true today and in today's society then they have been in the past. Older generations play the shame game in pretty much all aspects of their sexuality but I think with the advent of the internet and the changing norms and mores in the English speaking world they are becoming more and more obsolete every day,

In the past if an older man admitted he found 'teen girls' (legal age of course) to be attractive he was a dirty old man, a twisted old pervert. And if a woman admitted that she not only had sex but enjoyed and maybe even sought it out then she was a whore or a slut. However, more and more often people of almost any sexually appropriate age feel comfortable discussing what they enjoy doing and watching.

Hi! Awesome post and I hope

Submitted by His Divine Madness (not verified) on Mon, 2012-05-28 08:26.

Hi! Awesome post and I hope you still reply to comments.

I have a question about the phenomenon of male "sex symbols". Orlando Bloom, Brad Pitt, Ian Somerhalder, the dudes from Supernatural, etc.

These men are obviously desirable and although you could argue that they are rich and famous, that does not seem to be the quality that women admire in them.

Am I mistaken about that and the wealth and fame are a much more important part than I realized? Is there some way this fits into the "intolerable" part of Rule #2? Or is this simply a subversion of the rule?

Hey, I call them *bogus*

Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2012-05-28 12:39.

Hey, I call them *bogus* rules for a reason! Wealth and "status" wise those guys from Supernatural are just one step up from the Dukes of Hazzard. Orlando Bloom plays blacksmith apprentices and elves. Brad Pitt is personally wealthy but since before he was well-known he's tended to play low-power doofuses. I think they're just considered handsome/hunky and... now that I think about it just consider that I *invented* the two rules and I'm still making judgment-based excuses about how women find Bloom, Pitt, and the Supernatural guys attractive "anyway!" Memes that uphold them run deep but the two rules really are bogus. Men really are desirable for themselves and not because of their wallets or medals, women really do desire men directly and not just for access to their money or status. Thanks, HDM. --fl

Hi, I know what you mean. I

Submitted by His Divine Madness (not verified) on Mon, 2012-05-28 14:27.

Hi,

I know what you mean. I am aware that the rules are bogus, but I have to admit that I have them internalized pretty deeply, unfortunately.

So, straight-up subversion. That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

The rules are not really

Submitted by Bone (not verified) on Mon, 2012-05-28 19:34.

The rules are not really bougus. Men are FAR MORE interested in sex than women which gives women the power to say no. Women will NEVER give up this power so they will always have less of an interest; and can even biloigiclaly peform sex with out being the least bit interested in it. No, I stand by my premise that wone don't like sex - they "put up" with sex, but don't really like it.

Bwahaha. I know it seems

Submitted by figleaf on Tue, 2012-05-29 06:14.

Bwahaha. I know it seems that way. The trick is the more you believe women never get horny the more facts you can find to back it up. But I've got a two-word reply: vibrator sales. And four words to backup my assertion that women's "lack of interest" in sex is a social "fact" rather than a biological one: laws against vibrator sales. Once you notice there are more vibrators sold in America than cell phones, except where it's illegal to buy or sell them, it becomes a lot easier to see why the two rules you and a lot of other equally normal, average, good people are invested in are nevertheless 100% bogus. Another tidbit? Where in the world are women least "interested" in sex and therefore have the most "power?" How about Afghanistan and east Tennessee (where I'm from) and other places where women's fathers and brothers or other... um... men in authority can drag them into the street and murder them for so much as flirting? Remember, the key to the rules is that it's not just inconceivable but *intolerable* for men to be desired or for women to have desire. No matter how you look at it, the two rules are "true" only in the same way it's true that a 35 mph speed limit makes it impossible that a car can go more than 35 mph on that road. So. If you want to keep believing rules like those are true you have to start asking yourself what the hidden benefits to you are and whether they outweigh the obvious costs both to you and to the women in your life. Start asking *those* questions and it doesn't take very long at all for you to start saying WTF. Just like I did. Just like a lot of other men and women have. --fl

These are "facts" to me

Submitted by Bone (not verified) on Tue, 2012-05-29 09:14.

These are "facts" to me becasue that's how all women treat me. If I were to believe that girls like sex, then it would flyinthe face of ever single interaction I've ever had with the opposite sex. How many concurrent rejections does a guy need to validate what's happening? IF girls were horny I would know it because I've tried and they're not horny. Never never never never never are they horny, ever! It's all an elaborate facade to trick and trap a guy into a relationship that she wants to control and get 'manly attention' from. If she didn't have to have sex to get this protector and provider to help her, she would be happier FOR SURE.

But that doesn't mean that

Submitted by Christina (not verified) on Sat, 2012-09-15 07:32.

But that doesn't mean that ALL women dislike sex, just that the ones you have met don't want to have sex with you.

The only thing this "proves"

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2013-02-16 15:43.

The only thing this "proves" is that women find you offputting and don't wanna fuck you.  OR, that you haven't met the right woman yet...but I have to say, at this point your conviction that chicks hate sex is probably making them not want to sleep with you (and yes, a person can sense that attitude in a guy even if he's not saying anything outright).

I'm a chick, and a huge horndog.  But your attitude would make me run screaming even if I thought you were the hottest guy alive.  Here's one reason why: a dude who believes that the act of sex is entirely for his benefit (because Women Don't Like Sex) is probably not even gonna try to make it fun for me - just stick it in and pump away until he's done.  Which means I won't especially enjoy sex with him.  So it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Meanwhile, I currently have three friends with benefits - each of whom caught my eye specifically because he talked a lot about loving to give his partners pleasure.  These guys assume that women are horny - and they want to use that to the best possible advantage!  And this is why I love fucking them so much.

Seriously.  Picture the shoe on the other foot for a minute.  Would you want to sleep with a woman who truly believed you wouldn't even enjoy it?  Why in the world would that be appealing?

User login