A survey of men who seek gratification through commercial sex services – either porn, or prostitution, or lap dances or any other commercial sex showed that rather than men seeking sexual gratification as rutting animals – modelled on the Dworkinian view of men as subhuman; men’s motivation to seek commercial sex is based on the human need to be recognized as desirable. This runs contrary to the populist notion of male sexuality as debased, inferior and pathological.
Socially, men are expected to validate women’s value as objects of sexual desire by exhibiting attraction, affection, and deference, but at the same time, men are also expected to weather a culturally normal climate of pre-emptive rejection. Further men must pass tests of fitness, financial and physical, to ‘prove’ the worth of their desire. All of these expectations validates the feminine fantasy of hyper-desirability; desirability beyond the humanly possible.
The self validation of women and girls by rejection of positive male attention is expressed in hundreds of small, socially normal gestures and practices. De-escalation of male initiated social contacts. Two messages or more required for a single call-back. Voice message left, but only a text message returned. All these variations on ‘playing hard to get’ reflects a normal social protocol in which men, on whom the onus has always been to initiate social contact, have to make a more overt effort than that which is returned, even when the woman in question desires that contact. This establishes a climate in which men automatically assume a low level of ongoing social rejection. This is normal across our culture, and masculine complaint can be easily punished through the censure of “wimp”, “sissy” and similar minor insult.
Feminine attire which puts secondary sexual characteristics on display is standard in casual clothing as well as evening attire or less formally “party clothes”. The obvious purpose of such clothes being to amplify the wearer’s overt feminine sexuality and command attention. Conversely, although all men are expected to respond with positive attention, only those passing the feminine test of high status or conspicuous wealth are allowed to express their stimulated attention. This is the social levy exacted, but only returned to those males overtly demonstrating their utility as dispensers of upward social mobility and feminine access to resources. Men expressing the attraction or desire socially assumed of them also risk censure if such expression is mis-timed, too overt, or for any reason, not reciprocated.
This elaborate, confusing dance becomes much simpler in the lens of manufacturing hyper-desire. The more obstacles a man must overcome to express his desire the more the woman feels desired by the man.
Romance novels can be reduced down to a simple formula in which female desirability inspires grandiose acts of self-sacrifice on the part of the male. The men in romance novels are ‘eyeballs and actions’, empty ciphers that exist only to illuminate the hyper-desirability of the female protagonist.
In fact this whole system, from shaming of male sexuality as debased through the expectation that men weather rejection without end in order to manufacture hyper-desire for women to it’s vetting of which men are allowed to desire—excludes men from a fundamental human need—developed through eons of evolution as pair-bonders—the feeling of being desirable.
In discussions of female sexual objectification for the purpose of marketing to man, the usual language describing imagery of women usually refers to “tits and ass”. However, research from the Center for Behavioural Neuroscience in Atlanta[1] shows that depiction of the feminine gaze is key to male attraction to such images. It is, in fact, the sexual agency of an attractive woman, as expressed through a direct gaze towards the male subject that lights up the male’s reward response system. [2] When an attractive woman is presented as a ‘sex object’ her gaze averted and herself unengaged with him—his reward system is unresponsive.
To put it simply, men look at porn to feel sexually desirable. Men pay strippers to get positive, sexualized attention from women. Men use prostitutes to feel like whole sexual beings.
It is, in fact, the basic human need to feel not only loved, but sexually desired turns out to be what drives the use of commercial sexual services by men. Most women are aware that being a woman does not detract from their sexual desirability; most men are acutely aware that being a man most certainly does. In that context male sexual fantasies revolve around male sexuality simply being desirable. Porn can be likened to the fantasies of an impoverished developing nation—it’s people imagine a world with abundant and plentiful food. Romance novels are, on the other hand, the fantasies of a prosperous nation—sprawling McMansions, yachts, vacations to the Caribbean.
In this context the social censure against men’s self medication for the psychic wound inflicted on them by women’s thirst for hyper-desirability is just as morally bankrupt as a prosperous nation sneering at the ‘base and animalistic urges’ of an impoverished nation for food and clean water.
We starve men, then shame them for their hunger and then when they reach for what little food is within their grasp, we smack their hand away.
[1] http://www.science20.com/news_articles/gender_and_porn_where_men_and_women_look_first
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE&feature=player_detailpage#t=2743s
2 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Reed:
Turbo:
Suzanne McCarley:
tallwheel:
Excellent and insightful article.
‘Men pay strippers to get positive, sexualized attention from women.’
As this is my job, I can confirm this. Most clientele of strip clubs are married or divorced men deprived of enjoyable female company. Also, I have observed the attitude of many co-workers that men should worship the ground they walk on because they are sexy and the men are gross. Men at large are falling for this nonsense, in and outside the strip club.
You two nailed it. Its quite heartbreaking to consciously admit it. The fact that this is “normal” in western society is reprehensible. It is as if we have been brainwashed by the media and politicians into a state of permanent sexual anastesia. These type of relationships are emotionally bankrupt. A permanent state of distrust is sown between men and women. The fact that it is pre meditated and ruthlessly implemented for the last 50 years all for profit and politics disgusts me. Welcome to The Matrix!
Very good article.
Note – weather = whether and “Men Movement” Men’s Movement? Women’s Movement. Please feel free to remove this when updated.
A very good and compassionate article.
“Men use prostitutes to feel like whole sexual beings.”
This was something that struck me a few years back when I first encountered punternet – a UK based resource for ‘escorts’ with ‘field reports’, contacts and a forum. The most popular working girls seem to be those that offer a Full Girlfriend Experience and the field reports cover things like whether the woman was friendly and pleasant. Though I don’t doubt this is only a part of it, it wasn’t what I would have expected of the punter scene.
I’d been pretty dismissive of friends and colleagues that I knew sometimes went to escorts ( at about 20 or 21 years old it all seemed a bit sad and desperate) until I’d checked out the site they used.
A little older and wiser now, and knowing how many married men in particular are sexually held to ransom, I don’t judge – I accept.
I think biology has a lot to do with things. The No. 1 aim with sex is procreation. Females tend to dress sexily to attract a male. Gay/lesbianism is just a variation of the heterosexual desire, but with the basic impulse of procreation still built in. In men, we are constantly producing sperm which may be unhealthy to store for long periods, so nature has created a natural labido which demands we express the stuff one way or another. We are not being perverted to look at porn or indulge in sexual fantasy. These are perfectly normal and healthy in order to stimulate the male libido.
It’s safer to induge in porn than engage in a relationship. That is the message that is internalized by young males. They learn that commitment to a woman can be very dangerous. The dice are loaded and act as a deterrent to young males marrying. It’s a self preservation thing. Porn and sex clubs turn out cheaper than divorce, being criminalized due to her hatred or psychosis, and paying child support for a kid you have no right to see.
We starve men, then shame them for their hunger and then when they reach for what little food is within their grasp, we smack their hand away.
PUT A FUCKING PULITZER ON THAT!
This article was outstanding. Way to go, JtO, and TyphonBlue! This is evidence of the phenomenon that Paul referred to in “Four Brothers in my Inbox”. The two of you are like an MRA Voltron who as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I hope to see more collaborations in the future. I think Paul and GWW would make a formidable team too. Please keep up the excellent work!
This sounds right to me. Back when I could afford to go to a strip club now and then, my favorite dancer was the one who came up to me one night with a big smile and said “you look like fun! let’s do a couch dance.” From then on I only went there when she said she’d be working.
American gender-feminists have been empowering themselves, at least for the last 20 years, by inflaming the public with what some would call “manufactured statistics”.
The full consequences of American Gender-feminists “Empowering” themselves at the expense of the rule of law, at the expense of basic constitutionally protected due process; are still being understood.
Hello “American” from The Spearhead (now commenting as “re-construct”). Please remember that Dr Elam has limited patience with repetitive screeds about gender raunch and pork bloating – as do we all.
It must suck to be a man in today’s world. I’m sure glad I dodged that bul-oh wait…never mind.
“Also, I have observed the attitude of many co-workers that men should worship the ground they walk on because they are sexy and the men are gross.”
That’s always been a big mystery to me. How the hell could anyone call themselves heterosexual while finding the opposite sex “gross” and inferior?
It’s also a completely nonsensical attitude,the reverse of what you’d expect. Sure,a man may scratch his balls in public with no self-consciousness whatsoever,but at least rotten blood isn’t pouring out of them.
Are men any more gross than women? Not by a long shot,from the logical perspective. Dirt and sweat wash off,menstruation doesn’t.
Of course, I see this as just a fact of life not confirmation of a belief that “women are gross”.When I’m having sex with a woman,the fact that she menstruates only enters my mind in the peripheral sense of “Better not get this one pregnant,I can’t afford being shaken down for money right now.”.
It can’t be that women on average are both attracted to men and find them repulsive. Either women are lying about sexual attraction to minimize the man’s worth or elevate her own, or women are incapable of expressing the same kind of emotional intimacy toward men that we display toward them and every relationship or marriage is a complicated bit of pageantry meant to deceive us into foolishly sacrificing ourselves and our resources on their behalf.
Both options are just different flavors of shit sandwich. I’d love to find out it’s the former, but wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the latter is true. If that is the case,then the feminist ideal of the “self-sufficient woman” is a laudable idea,and in fact should be compulsory. Unlike the feminists,however,I would send the charlatans packing with nothing more than what they walked in with, giving them a hearty “Godspeed” and perhaps a jaunty crooked little salute as they walked out of the door. None of this faux-independence
malarkey,thank you very much.
“How the hell could anyone call themselves heterosexual while finding the opposite sex “gross” and inferior?”
Most women find the vast majority of men to be inferior. They rarely even notice the ones who don’t fit their standards (“Why aren’t there any good men out there?”) but when they do they are annoyed at their very existence.
JtO, Typhonblue – 1, gender feminism, white knightism – 0
And then when it seems you really are desired, it comes as a sort of shock to your system.
I’ve patronized the GFE escorts, and even if it was pretend for the money, it didn’t matter. It feels great if you can suspend reality for an hour – - after all that’s what men and women engaged in sex do every day.
Men don’t go to strip clubs to “watch naked women” grind a brass pole. They go to be treated nicely by pretty women, even if it’s pretend.
This is how desperate men are for positive female attention. It’s damn sad. Women of the “sex worker industry” are heroes in my opinion. I regard them very highly as compassionate and humane individuals providing a badly needed service.
Women could wipe the entire sex trade off the face of civilization, if they’d simply be more pleasant.
You got that last sentence abso-fucking-lutely correct Keyster. If women could just bring themselves to honestly love and care for men (without the self serving contempt and hatred) the sex industry would dry up like a raisin. As it stands now, their future looks incredibly bright and profitable.
I’m imagining how many freshly minted, chubby little female liberal arts graduates we’ll see this Summer chock full of empowerment and mock elitism, with a shine for men only when she is sufficiently drunk or when it’s advantageous to her. Compare this image with a prostitute or stripper who could care less what you do for a living, but know how to respond with a wink and a smile. Even if it is as genuine as Hitler’s diary, I know which one I’d rather spend time with.
It’s a thin line isn’t it?
Men are absolute, unmitigated fools for female sexual power. Our drive to mate preceeds every other urge, including life, limb and food.
Women know this and use it, while disrespecting us for being such idiots for them.
This is what’s behind the movement for men to transcend female sexual power – - IOW grow the fuck up!
“To put it simply, men look at porn to feel sexually desirable. Men pay strippers to get positive, sexualized attention from women. Men use prostitutes to feel like whole sexual beings.”
More likely, men look at porn to feel desire FOR ‘hot’ whores. The point here in looking at porn, is NOT to observe sexually desirable men as models for male sexual attractiveness but to go find more attractive women. Men pay for what they can’t attract based on their own phallic power…that is positive sexualized attention from women. Men use prostitutes to buy something personal that is never intended to be sold bought and sold as a commodity because they cannot attract female sexual power directly with their own.
Male sexual desirability to women will probably always involve some sort of hero worship since women can and never will be able to do what men do as well as we do. Therefore, what men need to do is to cease offering male courage unconditionally just as women have ceased offering female ‘love’ unconditionally. In the case of feminist women, what is offered in return for unconditional male courage is unconditional female hate…and that’s primary reason for the FTSU rage we feel. A little sexual hate from males (disgust, rejection, contempt) back for feminists is already going a long way toward destroying the ‘f’ word…to the great consternation of gender bigots. Were more men willing to resist the siren call of the nearest Juicy Couture whore in general, we’d see a wholesale shift in this particular power balance.
Men also need to focus directly on battling female sexual vice rather than doing violence to other men for hypergamous status. By better understanding the means/methods with which women use sex as a weapon, men are in a far better position to battle the other sex effectively. As soon as one figures out how to combat female vice (non-violently)…jealously and the need for associated male on male violence fade away. And happily that leaves some very frustrated women behind…those covertly murderous little fucks who benefit from intentionally inducing sexual jealously in the first place.
On that note: it’s time for US to start reading COSMO every bit as closely as the babes do. Imagine were we to get as wise to their games as they are at reading our minds/bodies…to do vile sexual vice on us. This is tedious work but to stay blind to girl games is suicidal these days.
And finally, genuine male desirability comes from doing/being what males love to do/be….rather than selling one’s soul for pennies on the dollar to do what women now force us to do to ‘buy’ sex from them. Men who have something going on inside are always irresistible to women. That work demands courage rather than looking at porn or seeing prostitutes…which merely poisons the priceless male spirit even more.
Primal, this is great, par excellence.
Thanks Perseus…glad you’ve got a mind of your own…and nice to see that you are engaged in the questions. Also, we’ve got to get beyond the victim mentality here. When we constantly harp on how bad we have it but not on what we WILL do to turn the tables we begin to resemble feminists…and THAT is no compliment to us.
ThoughtCriminal,
“How the hell could anyone call themselves heterosexual while finding the opposite sex “gross” and inferior?”
Hypergamy, plain and simple. Men’s reproductive prerogative is to conceive far more offspring than they can raise, only supporting the “best” of them. Women’s prerogative is to be extremely selective in the choice of mates, since each woman can produce far fewer children than each man.
A man who is an “unsuitable” (weak, inadequate) mate IS repulsive to a woman, in an intimate situation. Women naturally recoil from sexual intimacy with “the wrong man.” This has become a huge issue in modern society because almost everything is now set in a sexualized context. Back when most women didn’t present themselves as sex objects to ALL men, friendly non-sexual interaction was possible, even commonplace between women and the men in whom they had no sexual interest. These days women force the issue. We no longer display our sexuality only to men in whom we’re interested (thus inviting their attention exclusively) we display it to the whole world. We openly invite attention from men whom we will reject, putting them in a no-win situation. Men can no longer retain their dignity by having “platonic” relations with women; they must now declare their desire or be presumed gay, leaving themselves open to blatant degrading rejection.
This dynamic has always existed, but it’s highly exaggerated now, because modern women act and dress provocatively, forcing men to openly address our sexuality, even in “non-sexual” situations. It’s a power play and its cruel and disgusting.
“This dynamic has always existed, but it’s highly exaggerated now, because modern women act and dress provocatively, forcing men to openly address our sexuality, even in “non-sexual” situations. It’s a power play and its cruel and disgusting.”
Yes, it’s covert sexual violence used to torture males and is CELEBRATED as empowerment by Slut Walking feminists the world over. The reverse, overt male violence used to terrorize females has been totally condemned thanks to false feminist ‘rape culture’ hysteria. That leaves us utterly castrated in the war between the sexes.
Thanks JtO..and T.B.
I have felt the truth of that many times in my life.
(But that is only because I am am misogynist who objectifies women.)
Fascinating. I always enjoy these pieces which help give me a new outlook on the way of the world and thus better prepare me to deal with it.
Typhon Blue, yer understanding, and articulation are exceptional.
I concur more with Charlie Sheen’s slant. Often it’s about paying prostitutes to go away. This is not a cold, callous, or selfish perspective but rather, quite the opposite. Often, men hate messing with women’s heads, and paying a woman to go away after sex establishes a common ground of understanding and fairness where both parties know the terms and what is expected.
Seems about right. Women always seem fascinating and intriguing when sexual tension is in the air. After the itch is scratched there may not be any real attraction or connection left. At that point some men must suffer from an unbearable desire to ask the woman to leave. For them a business arrangement would be quicker to get into and quicker to get out of.
Paying women to go away…now THAT I agree with!
This is not entirely correct. While this is well-established in the context of female hypergamy theory, it only holds true in more traditional or conservative contexts. Within the context of casual sex, however, a large component of female sexuality is about “throwing it away” (violation, rape fantasies), and a factor of randomness enters into women’s choices… and, in this context, the only reason that a “nice guy” might find it difficult to get laid is because he finds it difficult to overcome his inhibitions. And his inhibitions provide feedback that spooks the woman and ultimately inhibits her from serving further. And so “supplicating betas” never learn to realize how easy it is to take the opportunity when it presents itself to them on a platter. This is the only reason why a sizeable proportion of women finish up with genetically inferior, immature midgits, misfits and criminals. We really need to get over this myth that women are selecting for the best in men. You just need to read the PUA literature available on the internet, to realize that there is another important dynamic at work. Disarming women is crucial to scoring, and being a brain-dead, drunk, groping troglodyte is one way of achieving this. On the other hand, spooking them with your own inhibitions is the surest way of ensuring an extended drought.
**sigh** Game, eh?
Game can be quite useful. Understanding how something works (or doesn’t work) can help a lot, even if you have decided not to use its powers for evil.
I read about game, learned what it was about, but stopped trying after a weekend of putting it into practice. The person I became when I tried to use it, that person was not me. If the price of getting a woman is to turn my weekends into a job, and make me loath myself, the price is too high.
“The person I became when I tried to use it, that person was not me. ”
There it is! That’s my reason.
Atlas, Steve, very true. If you want it badly enough and you incorporate the requisite game, the rest is easy. You just have to want it badly enough. But do we really want to go there?
“Disarming women is crucial to scoring, and being a brain-dead, drunk, groping troglodyte is one way of achieving this. On the other hand, spooking them with your own inhibitions is the surest way of ensuring an extended drought”.
Fascinating point about “spooking them with your own inhibitions”. I totally agree. But losing out with a woman who can be “spooked” by a man not wanting to take her in a sloppy drunk one night stand might not be a big loss, especially if you’re into long term relationships and prefer not to sleep around too much. If that’s you then it’s good she got away. You don’t want to waste your time on someone with different values.
As for “brain-dead, drunk, groping troglodyte” you say it like it’s a bad thing. I’m no PUA but isn’t making physical contact (groping) and avoiding overly complex conversation (brain dead) a GOOD thing when hooking up? If so the brain dead trog is actually “the best” she could select because he understands “that moment”. Therefore is it really “throwing it away” or is it selecting the best candidate for “Mr. serve my needs right now and at least until I sober up let me believe I’ve found a great guy”. Just a thought thrown out there.
Why would any civilized man want to be a brain-dead, groping drunk? To receive validation from these kinds of women? That’s the problem with pua game. Adapting one’s behavior to make it contingent on what women think of you is fundamentally immature.
LOL … different strokes. If you’re rough, hard drinking man with absolutely no desire to either be “civilized” OR mature, could the Venusian arts help you do a better job at what you’re inclined to do anyway?
Heaven knows this planet is full of brain-dead drunks to whom women aren’t attracted. It’s not that we’re attracted to jerks, it’s that we’re attracted to male dominance. Game does two things at once; it shows a facade of dominance while it teaches dominant behavior. In many cases this actually builds and reinforces a man’s natural dominance. (Which is likely a real shock to his brain, as society has been coercing him to suppress his dominance since pre-school.)
Game works because a dominance display automatically triggers the female hypergamous instincts. It makes us drool even when we know it’s an act; our response is utterly primal and it overrides our rational assessments of “What A Good Man Is.” Women absolutely crave dominant men.
PUAs use Game to exploit female nature; “nicer” men can use a modified version of it to trigger and maintain long-term attraction. (Do you read http://marriedmansexlife.com/ ? He explains it far better than I can.)
I agree with you Suz. But I’d extend my argument to the extent that women have difficulty understanding men. They wouldn’t know an interesting man if they fell over one. So women rely on extreme cues and make ridiculous inferences (rationalizations) as to what constitutes “manly”. They equate brain-dead with “tough”, and adolescent immaturity with “sexy”. They rely on superficial criteria and take their cues from social proof and the opinions of their friends. But most importantly, they spook when they are put on the spot and some sort of rapport or conversation is expected of them. And so while they don’t actively hate “nice guys” (how could they, they don’t understand men), said nice guys don’t get given the opportunity. That’s why disarming is so important in the execution of game. That’s why the onus is on the man to have a sense of humor. Women need to be unspooked. Sofia conducted her own research where she masqueraded as a man in online dating, and was surprised that as a man, she felt pressure to always be “on”. She gets it. Women don’t have that pressure, they only need to turn up, and it’s always the performing seal with his bag of magician’s tricks, the one who can bother with being “on” all the time, that gets the gal – no skill required, just dedication and perseverence. And to what end? To be validated by a bimbo.
There are very specific and substantial reasons why in European countries, insofar as they’ve averted the toxins of the Idiotsphere, women are much easier to communicate with.
Thanks Codebuster, for elaborating. “But most importantly, they spook when they are put on the spot and some sort of rapport or conversation is expected of them”
- makes perfect sense, and it’s a rather subtle point – easy to gloss over. But it actually needs a huge red arrow pointing to it, because “don’t spook the bimbo” is an example of good concrete advice in the sophisticated use of Game. The mix of Alpha and Beta behaviors shows confidence rather than off-putting arrogance. Impressing a bimbo may not be worth the trouble, but makes good practice for impressing everyone else. It says, “I’m so comfortable with my status that I lose nothing by showing a little Beta.” It also isn’t necessarily fake, like continuous chest-thumping. It’s a social skill that can be learned, just like when to use which fork.
“Don’t spook the bimbo.” I like that. Great title for a book or article. lol
“PUAs use Game to exploit female nature; “nicer” men can use a modified version of it to trigger and maintain long-term attraction”.
Great point. But part of Game seems to be playing the odds by quickly cutting losses and moving on if the target is too difficult. This emphasizes that although Game increases the odds of men achieving a certain outcome, women (as men) aren’t completely predictable and feminism can still poison a woman to make his desired outcome less likely. In other words even if Gaming your “long term attraction” works can it ever be a complete inoculation against feminism?
“can it ever be a complete inoculation against feminism?”
No it can’t. Increased odds aren’t necessarily good odds. Good odds will only come about when feminist laws change.
Game tells men to 1) find out what a woman wants and 2) give her exactly that. That isn’t being dominant.
What women want in men is dominance. Dominance is the ability to acquire all kinds of resources.
Most women aren’t smart enough to know the difference between artificial dominance and real dominance, so game works. You may have noticed Game doesn’t teach men to act meek, submissive, gentle, or anything remotely resembling weak. Since most PUAs don’t really have what it takes to become “Wolf Alphas,” (or they’re just not interested) it’s usually an act, an artificial display of dominance.
Most Gamesmen are PUAs who use Game to get laid. However, if you separate Game from most of its proponents, you’ll see that it’s a useful tool for men who want to develop and display whatever dominance they already have. This is an utterly foreign concept to modern Western men, because they have been taught from birth that male dominance is a defect.
Learning to do something better is not about changing who you are, it’s about developing your own real potential. Only Omegas think that’s a bad idea, because they have so little potential to develop.
Really enjoying your work, Suz. Very insightful, biting perspective.
So this brings us full circle. Feminism at its base is a demonization of male dominance, conducted through the vehicle of appeal to intellectualism, empathy, compassion and the ‘goodness’ in man.
Female reproductive nature selects explicitly for dominant men.
Synthesis: through appeal to our most humane nature, feminism compels men to actively exclude themselves from the gene pool and fulfillment of their biological imperative.
Thank you, divine feminine, for honoring the trust, faith and compassion that I placed in you. I ask of you one last parting favor- to correct me in my err if ever I should falter and burden you with such faith again.
Cheers
Suz, could you break down ‘dominance’ a bit? I have been interested in how females perceive the sort of ethereal trait of ‘dominance’, particularly in complex society. It seems quite a transient trait- financially dominant, physically dominant, authoritatively dominant, aggressively dominant, socially dominant, intellectually dominant, situationally dominant, admirational dominance, cult of personality dominance .. etc.
Further, the perception of ‘dominance’ seems to incorporate substantial triangulation. For a male to overtly dominate a female might not be successful. The female apparently uses some social cues or measures to identify relative dominance within a group, but then also ultimately wants that dominance to be exercised over her in a variety of fashions.
I wonder on your thoughts.
Here’s my question. If women want ‘dominance’ in men, what makes them entitled to it?
@ Typhon
That’s a great question, Blue, I like that.
Perseus, an important dimension of dominance is the thug-victim relationship where the victim can only respect someone if he negs, bullies or puts her down somehow. At a fundamental level, the provided-for sex has a primal awareness that she is not worthy of respect in the same way that the provider sex is. So her subconscious reasoning (the subsconscious narrative that she runs her life with) if a man supplicates and puts her on a pedestal, is, “what’s the matter with him if he thinks I’m so great? I’m just a dumb, provided-for bimbo who has never learned to do anything on her own merits or take responsibility for anything.” That is to say, women’s esteem issues can be largely attributed to their provided-for baby status, and it is their esteem issues that have them shrinking away whenever they are treated respectfully or equally.
“Here’s my question. If women want ‘dominance’ in men, what makes them entitled to it?”
TB, great question. In simple terms, they feel entitled to it because they can. The long answer: It’s the performing seals that are so eager to perform for a few scraps of fish that creates the expectation in these women for more of the same. Culture. A man who does not comply with the same rules, if he’s not willing to compete with the other performing seals, then he simply has to do without… or go to another culture in another part of the world.
@ Codebuster
This is inspired, my friend. Codebuster, indeed. You’ve nailed what I have been keenly suspicious of. Do you have a site?
Perseus,
“So this brings us full circle. Feminism at its base is a demonization of male dominance, conducted through the vehicle of appeal to intellectualism, empathy, compassion and the ‘goodness’ in man.”
Exactly. That’s at the core of what’s wrong with feminism: the belief that since we’re rational beings capable of choice, we can actually choose to override human biology. Feminists actually believe that “gender is a social construct,” the biology of which goes no farther than body parts. It denies the physiological nature of our brains. It denies instinct. It’s dead wrong, and everybody suffers for it.
*
Dominance is nothing more than the ability to dominate ones environment. A dominant man can provide food and shelter for his children and the women who bear them. A highly dominant man can provide surplus – that’s the guy every prospective mother needs to father her children. She want them to survive. Dominance a balanced combination of everything masculine – physical strength, intelligence, ambition, leadership (of men and women), practicality. If we still lived in caves, we’d all understand this. Dominant men would create and raise strong children, with much more success than would non-dominant men. It would be obvious. The more complex society becomes, the farther away it drifts from this understanding.
The modern world’s future simply does not depend on the kind of men who led mankind from tribes of a few dozen, to nations of billions. (Yay surplus resources!) Frankly, I think the modern definition HAS become ethereal. It’s a lot like modern morality – whatever you want it to be. I know very few people who share my understanding of it, even though I try to base my understanding on the survival purposes of human instinct. For example, I disagree with Codebuster’s “thug/victim” analogy. In a primitive era, a man could not afford to degrade his wife. They depended on each other’s loyalty. The woman who bears and raises his child should be almost as valuable to a man as the child itself. (Did early men pander to their wives’ irrational demands and kiss their asses? I highly doubt it. For one thing, “married” women watched single women suffer and die for lack of male protection – they couldn’t take their husbands for granted and they knew it.) The thug/victim relationship is counterproductive to survival because a frightened, injured, helpless wife can’t be much of a mother, and that’s (sorry, ladies!) her primary purpose. A possession as valuable as a good wife/mother, would be protected from harm at all costs.
I also see thugs as more domineering than dominant, and they have a sociopathic need to control their victims, even to the point of annihilation. Domineering behavior is capricious and destructive, dominant behavior is stable and productive. *whew!*
Typhonblue,
“If women want ‘dominance’ in men, what makes them entitled to it?”
The short answer is: Nothing. They’re not entitled (no more than men are entitled to mate with the “best” women.)
But they are instinctively driven to seek it and compete for it. And in a world that women have arranged so that they benefit the most from “surplus survival resources,” they have become hideously spoiled and believe they’re entitled to it. They’ve also deluded themselves into thinking that it’s readily available to them, like everything else. Remember, feminism has spent the last 50 years teaching little girls they can be anything and have anything. All they have to do is stamp their dainty little feet and demand it. “Earning” it with duty and virtue (an equally unsuccessful venture) was sooo 19th century! (You knew there was going to be a longer answer, didn’t you?)
“Do you have a site?”
Perseus, I have an ancient site that has been going for a loooong time, way back before there was anything you could call a men’s movement (last updated 2005). Could do with a fair bit of updating. You can find it by googling “anti-sexism for idiots”. I’ve been thinking of getting back into it when I find the time. Easier said than done.
“Women absolutely crave dominant men.”
This seems to create hotter sex for women too. Fifty Shades of Grey is selling like hot cakes to both the filthy old mothers in the Mommy Porn category and too young hotties too. The reason seems to be that dominant men with whips are able to destroy the female ego temporarily thus the making the sex better.
Could someone speak to what is going on here?
Once again, Dworkin’s Ghost, fuck your lying self.
Mwahahaha!
James is making a killing giving women a tiny taste of precisely what we’ve been insisting we don’t want. And yet we can’t seem to get enough of it! How can that be? Could it be that at first we were lying, and now we don’t even know we were lying?
“Fifty Shades of Grey” is “9 1/2 Weeks,” starring *moi* instead of Kim Basinger. I can still hear the echos of feminist shrieks of protest emitted when that story became a movie.
I laugh. And I laugh some more.
(@Primal: We don’t want men with whips to destroy our egos, but we’ll take it if it remotely resembles the benevolent dominance we do want. It’s why REAL battered wives keep going back for more.)
I’m genuinely curious about the ego destruction thing because it keeps coming up in different places. The concept seems to be that when a woman becomes egoless under sexual sadism, sex is hotter for her since her ego doesn’t get in the way of the connection. Can you shed some light on what’s going on here?
Primal,
“I’m genuinely curious about the ego destruction thing because it keeps coming up in different places.”
I honestly don’t know, but it seems counterintuitive. Now I want to look into it. On the one hand, I don’t doubt that anyone’s inflated ego will prevent a strong connection. Yet an “egoless” woman probably doesn’t connect well either. (Besides, who wants to sleep with her? With NO ego, a woman is useless.) Maybe it takes a an exaggerated form of dominance to connect with an exaggerated ego.
Could it be Stockholm Syndrome? Boot Camp style indoctrination/dependence?
View http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571222/ for some thoughts on the foundation for this. It’s very confusing for me too. And Keira Knightly is of very little interest to me when she’s being whipped but something seriously twisted is going on here because that kind of thing made her character get ‘all wet’ in the film.
The movie appears to explore the psychological damage done to her by childhood trauma. It’s certainly a real phenomenon, but it’s abnormal. While I’m all for busting up accepted paradigms, I’d hesitate to believe anybody who suggests that this masochism is anywhere near the foundation of normal female sexuality.
Women who NEED it are damaged, even though many “normal” women LIKE it (within limits) as fantasy role play. Like most “rape fantasies,” the desire is not to be beaten or degraded by a scumbag, it’s to be TOTALLY possessed/dominated by a man who is strong enough to preserve his possessions. As common as rape fantasies are, VERY few of them involve being raped by the kind of twisted (emotionally non-functional) sociopaths and psychopaths who commit real rapes in the real world. Same with masochism; most “S&M submissives” don’t really want scars, bruises, broken bones, and the possibility of fatal injury.
Only the truly, deeply mentally ill get pleasure from what can actually destroy them. In those cases, I think it validates the fact that their egos are already “destroyed.”
Here’s a thought taking it a step further: Stockholm syndrome and boot camp-style indoctrination initially “break down” the individual ego/identity. They then build it back up into a stronger “attached” identity. The end result is an ego that is satisfied with its new status, and that status can actually be higher than it was previously. So even if the new identity is a submissive one, it’s not necessarily a destroyed ego.
Does that make any sense at all?
Men treating women badly seems to turn LOT’s and LOT’s of women on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhCTqX7JAQI&feature=fvsr but not so much the reverse. And as feminist Laura Kipnis reiterates in The Female Thing women prefer beasts. It is a real hoot when the personal contradicts the political so deeply but I still just don’t quite get the underlying need that is filled here. Let’s keep it an open question shall we?
Open question, OK because there are always variables. Keep two undeniable things in mind, though. Instinct makes women crave dominance. Modern culture makes women crave attention.
This just made me remember an debate I had with my mother about the inherent inequality of the dating game in regards to the demands made on men. I said I though that it was unfair that it was always the male who had to continually prove his affections, through being romantic, taking her out and opening doors etc. to this my mother replied ” because she wants to know that he likes her!” and all I said in response to this was, “yeah but what abut him?”. She stopped and had to think, the argument was over.
Andy bob, i rarely address you directly, unlike you almost perversely tailing me. But when you speak for all MRA’s and say “We all have a low tolerance for yer using the terms “gender-Raunch community” ect, ect, I must call you out simply on yer arrogance alone. Anyone who claims to speak for all MRA’s has some inherent pride and arrogance problems.
I have tempered my usage of the term “perverts” and “Gender-raunch” to accommodate those that get defensive when i use those terms, But i will add, i don’t believe you are in any way the new spokesman for MRA’s.
Great article!! Yes men are shamed for there sexual needs and desires. Truth be told, we are shamed for everything we enjoy. I have been victimized as well as witnessed this on more occasions than I can recall. I say this, FUCK EM ALL. If they cant acknowledge our value or needs then they can take the train. Life is so much simpler when you have options.
Wow.
“The men in romance novels are ‘eyeballs and actions’, empty ciphers that exist only to illuminate the hyper-desirability of the female protagonist.”
“…shows that depiction of the feminine gaze is key to male attraction to such images. It is, in fact, the sexual agency of an attractive woman, as expressed through a direct gaze towards the male subject that lights up the male’s reward response system. [2] When an attractive woman is presented as a ‘sex object’ her gaze averted and herself unengaged with him—his reward system is unresponsive.”
Swirl that around in your head …
Thank you, Blue and JtO.
I have long been acutely aware of the intense and wicked impact of that feminine gaze, but somewhat naively depersonalized its affect and attributed it largely to 1) male perception of female sexual yearning conferring ripe fertility and 2) submission to his successful display of ‘virility’ and ‘fitness’. My male ego protections would never have led me to this more human reason, simply to feel sexually desired …
To clarify, I note that a female gaze expressing submission is not particularly effective. Whereas that expressing active volitional desire elicits intense response- the whole ‘fuck me’ thing. As it turns out, I got needs too, bitch! ; ) Choke on your dildo, Ghost of Dworkin.
Now where do you think the bastions of female supremacy and princess entitlement are getting heretical notions like this:
“Love is recognizing that it’s not your partner’s job to make you feel alive, fulfilled, or complete; that’s your job.”
What Is Love?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-paul/what-is-love_2_b_1446105.html
MR rising.
Great article.
Porn can be likened to the fantasies of an impoverished developing nation—it’s people imagine a world with abundant and plentiful food. Romance novels are, on the other hand, the fantasies of a prosperous nation—sprawling McMansions, yachts, vacations to the Caribbean.
Saying men go ga-ga over sex with women just to “procreate” is like saying humans salivate over fine dinners merely to “feed” themselves. It misses the poetry in life.
The real question is: Why did feminists screw the pooch?
Coeds in the Sixties were given the Pill. That SHOULD have ushered in Eden II. Recreational drugs abounded and pregnancy was preventable. Yet instead of making love, feminists convinced women to make war on men. Instead of savoring good times they climbed chandeliers to poop in punchbowls.
Why?
What did females gain by demonizing men? Do they really think a society can long endure when half the population is demonized for being “human”?
What feminists didn’t see was that ultimately they would, like Shakers, cease to exist.
Over time, men suffering real harm (false rape-DV-etc. charges) grow to resent females. That means less men marrying…and less women having children.
The results?
* Single women raising kids without fathers (with predictable damage to the children’s emotional and economic futures).
* Wealthier folks (with eduction and money) having fewer kids and more careers, thus not reproducing enough to overcome mortality rates.
* More and more men choosing not to marry or even date women.
Ergo, in few decades, immigrants who value “family” more will take over demographically. It’s already happening in Japan and Russia and elsewhere.
Insane, but true.
Again, it’s like the Shtup Fairy handed women the key to happiness. They could now get college degrees and do doggie any time, anywhere, with anyone at-will… then get married and have kids and career. All they had to do was be nice to men, treating them with respect and equality.
But no. Male-hating fembots convinced normal women that, despite reality, men must live longer, happier lives…and THAT JUST WASN’T FAIR!
So where are we today? Involved, at long last, in the very gender war feminists said they didn’t want. The “backlash” feminists preemptively bellyached about is finally commencing. Goddess knows men have been patient enough!
The social pendulum is swinging back… with a vengeance. Because feminists never sat down with compassion-humility-comity to find out what men wanted changed in the Social Contract. Now, having derided men with apparent impunity for decades, the shite is hitting the fan.
It won’t be pretty. Still, I suspect not a few men will smile during the Poo Payback.
It’s like when the uppity princess from highschool– who thought her flatulence was ambrosia– waddles into her 25th reunion and instead of men’s heads turning, their stomachs do.
When females live by their looks, they socially/love-wise die by them, too… as their flesh fades. Such lasses shouldn’t be surprised at 45 when lads treat them like they treated 14-year-old boys “back in the day.”
With dismissive, deserved contempt.
“Saying men go ga-ga over sex with women just to “procreate” is like saying humans salivate over fine dinners merely to “feed” themselves. It misses the poetry in life.”
Poetry doesn’t slay, dress, cook, or preserve (for future meals) the mastodon. It enriches the lives of people who were born because men go ga-ga over sex with women just to “procreate.” without the underlying, and very powerful, need to reproduce, there would be no poets.
The cart may be full of things we adore, but it follows the horse. Or it sits until it and its contents turn to dust.
QFT, Dear Auntie. That’s one of those classic statements that has to live on.
Gods above, there are so damn many of those “uppity princesses” in the fem-centric society of today. I’ve even encountered a few of them among the “working girls” of one third-world haven of manlihood that I’ve visited in years past. God grant us surcease from their venom.
> “What women want in men is dominance. Dominance is the ability to acquire all kinds of resources.”
For himself? Otherwise he’s just her glorified gofer. Most likely it’d then be a match made in Hades. Turds of a feather and all.
Insecure cupcakes, taught to not like sex, do indeed tend to “need” men to “persuade” them to do what both sexes want. Only these days, the laws are such that if she regrets the sex it’s shitters for Svengali. She can claim rape the next day if she drank, slept soundly during the act, was overcome by unbreached flatulence, or most anything. She needs piffling proof to profoundly harm das PUA.
She can also pinprick (!) his condom or stuff it insider her post-coitus, bear a child, and ruin the “manly mesmerizer’s” life.
Too many half-wit PUAs learn too late that the law, and the law-of-averages, is against them.
What do PUAs think of women, anyway? Their advice seems so calculated and contemptuous. Like a salesman boasting to his buddies, “I’m gonna make that rich bitch by a gross of my useless medicines!”
Do PUAs pick their male friends the same way?
Women who are easily manipulated can easily turn vengeful and/or be toxic pump-and-dumps.
I’m not saying “hold out for marriage,” just that it seems wiser to meet women doing something one innately likes (dancing, painting, jogging, wine-tasting, etc.). You know, a recurring activity where one gets to know them better. Otherwise, especially these days, a guy risks resentment-fueled rape-DV-harassment charges. Or herpes. Or worse.
Also, a female who needs to be “dominated” is a child or coward, certainly not a woman who knows what she wants. Why play her games? Why treat her like a retard? Life is too short.
Alas, too many guys settle for women who demand they jump through fiery hoops to get what both parties want. It’s supplicating, really, excused as superior sussing: “Hey, I know what makes her tick!”
Right. You put her on the “Attention Pedestal.” Spend time figuring out how to spring her locks. Then think YOU are in-control.
Finally, we never see/hear of PUA failures. Nor the actual females they rate (aside from those paid to act in their videos). It’s so dubious. I mean look at the supposed “pickup” king: David DeAngelo. He appeared in a photo with his new wife. She might be a 100 spiritually, but looks about a 3 physically. Plus she and the Grand-Poobah-of-PUAs look to be dallying with a metrosexual guy of dubious carnal intent.
WTF?
It’s like buying all the books of someone named Escoffier only to find out he’s Pakistani, lives on burnt hotdogs, and lacks taste-buds.
The more I hear about actual PUAs, the more they seem like socially-challenged former dorks hellbent on payback, thinking it grand karma to boink autistic-impaired-defective females.
Auntie Pheminizm, Magnificent.
I see poetry here. Not the abstract deep and meaningful and lovingly bucket hurled medieval bilge splattered on a wall and smeared into shape with an electric sander. The market of that stripe is well and truly cornered by the mentally deficient, the mentally troubled and the ignorant.
No, your lucid rhythm and rhyme is appreciated by me, and if so then it’s the exact opposite for the feminists who chance upon it. (See above description of 3 mental states)
This David DeAngelo dick whirled PUA I’ve not heard of, as the whole PUA thing for me is so boring the last yawn I had from it put my face in a brace for a month.
It’s interesting to hear you say he’s been bull nose-ring led to a wedding cake with only two two people on it. For PUA cadets and pimple plastered nerds next in line, the shock and disappointment must be as it would if Edmund Hillary found a Pizza Hut on Everest.
Ned Kelly, a bush-ranger and hero these parts said just before the gallows dropped him: “Ah, Such is life.”
His last words of acceptance inspire me sometimes when I need it, and I think he’s right.
Life is bristling with letdowns and reverse surprises and utter confusion. There’s so much of it about we need canoes to raft it just to keep sane.
Crap weather at a BBQ, a mate nicking your DVD’s, vandals crapping in your shed, politicians, cracked eggs in the cardboard, a blind date revelation of Ms Michelin Man, an empty chocolate box that smells great, angry neighbours with rocks, radio commercials through a fog horn, a dog with an itchy bum skidding on a carpet and these are the tiniest ones around.
No wonder the existence of frowning muscles.
Feminism is the real list, and all the others are a footnote on it.
My thinking for some time now is that while it’s very much life’s great disappointment there is a change in the weather. Soon it will be us who will be more than just an annoyance for the feminist. We are climbing daily up their aggravation list and they hate it.
For the first time ever they are rubbing their eyes and not their hands.
We have front row seats good men and women. It’s great to watch this show and the curtain is opening.
> “What women want in men is dominance. Dominance is the ability to acquire all kinds of resources.”
For himself?
No. For his offspring. Any good woman can EARN the “right” to tag along for the ride. Oddly enough, women are designed to want the same benefits for their offspring.
“The more I hear about actual PUAs, the more they seem like socially-challenged former dorks hellbent on payback, thinking it grand karma to boink autistic-impaired-defective females.”
I agree. However I give them credit for being smart enough to use anthropologically sound tactics to achieve their non-productive ends. In fact those tactics work so well, PUAs can routinely boink a far better class of females than the one you describe.
> “In a primitive era, a man could not afford to degrade his wife. They depended on each other’s loyalty.”
Huh? That seems to be guessing. Who knows what it was like then? Maybe things were more communal, not everyone living in isolated condo caves. Not all birds mate for life.
Also, some think primitive people didn’t connect sex with kids appearing thereafter. The guy might have thought the births had nothing to do with him.
It’s like assuming guys today act on caveman instincts. How would we know?
Awhile back guys were expected to know how to feed and care for horses. Today, most young men don’t know where the term “horsepower” comes from per their car engines. So while we can poetically compare the two, neither might know how or what the other feels…or even care.
One COULD say they look for gas today like their ancestors sought oats then for mounts…but is that true? Is that how either experienced it. Does a modern guy fixing tires think like his great-grandfather did horse-shoeing? WE might make the comparison, but might be wrong.
We see a woman “respond” to a guy we think is a jerk. But is he? Maybe she thinks he’s a gentleman. Or maybe she’s shy and just glad he came over to her, doing most of the talking. Or maybe her father abused her and she thinks love is rough. Or maybe she’s pissed her “nice” ex dumped her and now she’s going to walk on the wild side. Or any number of other interpretations. How can you have one PUA approach if you don’t know her inner viewpoint?
Our trying to figure out others’ interactions is matched by THEIR doing the same.
The complication stems from gender socializations. We force men to be assertive and women passive. So women resent not being able to go directly for the gusto…and men get angry about having to read minds and “earn” affection/attention.
It’d be easier if “people” knew themselves and were free to act. They’d know what they wanted and go for it.
A guy would see a girl he liked and approach her. If she said No he’d believe her and not feel ashamed. He’d not feel he could have done more to win her because she would know what she wanted and be free to express it.
Likewise she could approach a guy knowing he wouldn’t diss her for being assertive. If he said No he’d not be playing games, just genuinely not be interested. She, too, would feel unashamed and unresentfully move on to meet someone else.
They’d both be spared wasted time, energy, and hurt feelings, focusing on what they themselves wanted, trusting the other was, too,
Instead, both sexes now do what comes unnaturally. Too much is built on pretense and manipulation. From the guy’s perspective, it’s not enough to know what HE wants; he has to figure out what she wants, too… knowing she’s socialized not to say.
So it’s an endless guessing game, pretending what’s going on isn’t.
“It’s like assuming guys today act on caveman instincts. How would we know?”
Really? Do you know what an instinct is? It’s a biologically “programmed” behavior (or urge to behave in a specific way) that is innate to a species. So, YES. Guys today act on caveman instincts, because human instincts haven’t changed in the few thousand years since we were all cavemen.
Or do you subscribe to the “blank slate” theory – all nurture, no nature? Feminism sure does.
*
“Huh? That seems to be guessing. Who knows what it was like then? Maybe things were more communal, not everyone living in isolated condo caves. Not all birds mate for life.”
Guessing, based on decades if not centuries of anthropological observations, and backed up by brain chemistry and common sense.
Of course things were more communal in primitive times! People had to cooperate and share to survive. The difference between then and now is that modern “communes” have access to more technology and surplus (provided by others) which encourages parasitism.
And spousal loyalty was paramount. Here’s why:
Males can reproduce at a much greater rate than females, so great that the survival rate of their children is necessarily low – no man (without the support of a large society/workforce) can feed, clothe and shelter the thousands of children he can conceive. He devotes his resources only to a favored few, to ensure that they reach adulthood.
Why would caveman Bob devote his resources to the children of a disloyal unsupportive wife? If she’s not devoted to him, those children might well carry another man’s DNA. If she’s rebellious and contrary, she might neglect and endanger his children to prove him wrong. If she disrespects him privately, she undermines his confidence, thus undermining his ability to provide. If she disrespects him publicly, she diminishes his social status, undermining his ability to lead (and a better leader is usually a better provider.)
These behaviors are a part of human nature (look around you) and they are detrimental to species survival. A modern woman can afford to behave this way because if she alienates “Bob,” she and her children won’t starve, but a primitive woman knew her children’s survival depended on a good provider. Hence, hypergamy – the instinct to seek out and attach oneself to the highest ranking man she can get. And high rank = dominance.
Women’s brains are designed to respond positively to displays of dominance, but since feminism has trained us to believe male dominance is bad, we no longer really know what it is. We see a display of “strength” and our subconscious minds tell us to get our hands on that man’s sperm. Our conscious minds then find ways to rationalize out attraction to the behavior, even if we’re pretty sure it’s fake. Your statement: “We see a woman “respond” to a guy we think is a jerk. But is he? Maybe she thinks he’s a gentleman. Or maybe she’s shy and just glad he came over to her, doing most of the talking. Or maybe her father abused her and she thinks love is rough. Or maybe she’s pissed her “nice” ex dumped her and now she’s going to walk on the wild side. Or any number of other interpretations. How can you have one PUA approach if you don’t know her inner viewpoint?” is a textbook example of this rationalization.
*
“Not all birds mate for life.”
That’s a non-issue. Red herring. Straw man. Species survival doesn’t depend on mating for life. It depends on mating until the offspring can fend for themselves.
If you want to understand human human behavior, unencumbered by the variables afforded by technology and surplus, learn about anthropology, endocrinology and evolutionary psychology, and “animal” behavior.
That we have the intellectual capacity to choose our behavior, should enhance our survivability, but it has become a gift that we can afford to misuse because we don’t have to devote our every waking hour to staying alive.
Yeah, societal expectations surrounding sex are harmful to both men and women. Men are forced to exert huge amounts of energy pursuing women and are constantly exposed to rejection. Women are forced to wait to receive that attention and are shamed and belittled when they are assertive about their sexuality. Most of the insights expressed in this post would fit very well in mainstream feminist thought (though they might need a little more compassion for how these societal expectations affect women; both sexes get a raw deal). You might consider looking into it….
Something I’ve noticed very often is even in romance novels when the woman finds the male sex object-it almost never can actually qualify as an actual person-just an empty shell to fill in for whatever fantasies the female lead may have-even if the woman is all over him and it is supposed to be a positive mutual attraction one of the most common phrases is that he is “sinfully sexy” or “sinfully male”-saying that any “male” sexuality is inherently evil and vile, and that a woman liking it is doing something unnatural. I have never heard of an equivalent phrase used to describe women that has that same connotation-that suggest even any or even the worst of female sexuality could be anything other than positive and enlightened. I haven’t heard any description of negative aspects of female sexuality other than porn stars, sluts or whores and that is usually with the implication that it was some man that “ruined her” and made her that way.
Well, romance novels are normally for women anyhow. Although I wonder, if they were written differently, would men read them?
I’ve read some on occasion when I was bored and lacked anything else to do, sometimes I stumble on the rare book/series that has good characters and isn’t the generic “man built like a greek god moves heaven and earth to please a random woman” crap that so many of them are, but if I see anything like “sinfully sexy” or other such tripe the book is returned/deleted immediately.
Would more men read them if they weren’t so offensive and stupid in general? Maybe, maybe not-they are frequently called “porn for women” and it is an accurate statement. The sex scenes in many of them get into a level of detail usually reserved for medical texts and are more full of smut that the average XXX theater. The lack of “picture porn” in them may mean that they wouldn’t attract the men that are conditioned since birth to be like sex toys-the “respond to any sight of a naked/slightly unclothed woman with instant full attention and arousal, as well as a willingness to step on and injure or kill anything that gets in his way” Probably the parts that I think are the “best/most romantic/sexiest” or whatever are the ones where it shows both of them being earnestly in love and fully trusting each other, and not shaming or trying to one up or take advantage of each other, nor the scenes where it goes something along the lines of “He kissed her bare stomach and left a line of fire in his wake” and where that inevitably leads to the “insert tab A into slot B” stuff where the book just devolves into literary porn.