More evidence that women want to have their cake and to eat it too. Also, media pushing for men to be cucked

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member
More evidence that women want to have their cake and eat it too.

Source: The Bored Sex

The Bored Sex

Women, more than men, tend to feel stultified by long-term exclusivity—despite having been taught that they were designed for it.

Andrew Gotzis, a Manhattan psychiatrist with an extensive psychotherapy practice, has been treating a straight couple, whom we’ll call Jane and John, for several years. They have sex about three times a week, which might strike many as enviable, considering that John and Jane—who are in their 40s—have been together for nearly two decades. Based on numbers alone, one might wonder why they need couples counseling at all.

But only one of them is happy with the state of play. And it isn’t Jane.

“The problem is not that they are functionally unable to have sex, or to have orgasms. Or frequency. It’s that the sex they’re having isn’t what she wants,” Gotzis told me in a recent phone conversation. And like other straight women he sees, “she’s confused and demoralized by it. She thinks there’s something wrong with her.” John, meanwhile, feels criticized and inadequate. Mostly he can’t understand why, if his wife is having sex with him and having orgasms, she wants more. Or different.

Despite “fears of seeming sex addicted, unfaithful, or whorish” (Gotzis doesn’t like these terms, but they speak to his patient’s anxieties, he explained), Jane has tried to tell John, in therapy and outside of it, what she’s after. She wants to want John and be wanted by him in that can’t-get-enough-of-each-other-way experts call “limerence”—the initial period of a relationship when it’s all new and hot. Jane has bought lingerie and booked hotel stays. She has suggested more radical-seeming potential fixes, too, like opening up the marriage.

Jane’s perseverance might make her a lot of things: an idealist, a dreamer, a canny sexual strategist, even—again channeling typical anxieties—unrealistic, selfish, or entitled. But her sexual struggles in a long-term relationship, orgasms and frequency of sex notwithstanding, make her something else again: normal. Although most people in sexual partnerships end up facing the conundrum biologists call “habituation to a stimulus” over time, a growing body of research suggests that heterosexual women, in the aggregate, are likely to face this problem earlier in the relationship than men. And that disparity tends not to even out over time. In general, men can manage wanting what they already have, while women struggle with it.

Marta Meana of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas spelled it out simply in an interview with me at the annual Society for Sex Therapy and Research conference in 2017. “Long-term relationships are tough on desire, and particularly on female desire,” she said. I was startled by her assertion, which contradicted just about everything I’d internalized over the years about who and how women are sexually. Somehow I, along with nearly everyone else I knew, was stuck on the idea that women are in it for the cuddles as much as the orgasms, and—besides—actually require emotional connection and familiarity to thrive sexually, whereas men chafe against the strictures of monogamy.

But Meana discovered that “institutionalization of the relationship, overfamiliarity, and desexualization of roles” in a long-term heterosexual partnership mess with female passion especially—a conclusion that’s consistent with other recent studies.
“Moving In With Your Boyfriend Can Kill Your Sex Drive” was how Newsweek distilled a 2017 study of more than 11,500 British adults aged 16 to 74. It found that for “women only, lack of interest in sex was higher among those in a relationship of over one year in duration,” and that “women living with a partner were more likely to lack interest in sex than those in other relationship categories.” A 2012 study of 170 men and women aged 18 to 25 who were in relationships of up to nine years similarly found that women’s sexual desire, but not men’s, “was significantly and negatively predicted by relationship duration after controlling for age, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction.”

Two oft-cited German longitudinal studies, published in 2002 and 2006, show female desire dropping dramatically over 90 months, while men’s holds relatively steady. (Tellingly, women who didn’t live with their partners were spared this amusement-park-ride-like drop—perhaps because they were making an end run around overfamiliarity.) And a Finnish seven-year study of more than 2,100 women, published in 2016, revealed that women’s sexual desire varied depending on relationship status: Those in the same relationship over the study period reported less desire, arousal, and satisfaction. Annika Gunst, one of the study’s co-authors, told me that she and her colleagues initially suspected this might be related to having kids. But when the researchers controlled for that variable, it turned out to have no impact.

Many women want monogamy. It’s a cozy arrangement, and one our culture endorses, to put it mildly. But wanting monogamy isn’t the same as feeling desire in a long-term monogamous partnership. The psychiatrist and sexual-health practitioner Elisabeth Gordon told me that in her clinical experience, as in the data, women disproportionately present with lower sexual desire than their male partners of a year or more, and in the longer term as well. “The complaint has historically been attributed to a lower baseline libido for women, but that explanation conveniently ignores that women regularly start relationships equally as excited for sex.” Women in long-term, committed heterosexual partnerships might think they’ve “gone off” sex—but it’s more that they’ve gone off the same sex with the same person over and over.

What does it all mean for Jane and the other straight women who feel stultified by long-term exclusivity, in spite of having been taught that they were designed for it and are naturally inclined toward it? What are we to make of the possibility that women, far from anxious guardians of monogamy, might on the whole be more like its victims?


“When couples want to remain in a monogamous relationship, a key component of treatment … is to help couples add novelty,” Gordon advised. Tammy Nelson, a sex therapist and the author of The New Monogamy and When You’re the One Who Cheats, concurs: “Women are the primary consumers of sex-related technology and lubricants, massage oil, and lingerie, not men.”

Of course, as Jane’s example shows, lingerie might not do the trick. Nelson explains that if “their initial tries don’t work, [women] will many times shut down totally or turn outward to an affair or an online ‘friend,’ creating … a flirty texting or social-media relationship.” When I asked Gotzis where he thinks John and Jane are headed, he told me he is not sure that they will stay together. In an upending of the basic narrative about the roles that men and women play in a relationship, it would be Jane’s thirst for adventure and Jane’s struggles with exclusivity that tear them apart. Sure, women cheating is nothing new—it’s the stuff of Shakespeare and the blues. But refracted through data and anecdotal evidence, Jane seems less exceptional and more an Everywoman, and female sexual boredom could almost pass for the new beige.

t’s not uncommon for women to let their straight partners play in a “monogamy gray zone,” to give guys access to tensional outlets that allow them to cheat without really cheating. “Happy ending” massages, oral sex at bachelor parties, lap dances, escorts at conferences … influenced by ubiquitous pop-cultural cues, many people believe that men need these opportunities for recreational “sorta sex” because “it’s how men are.” It’s how women are, too, it seems.

Women cannot be pigeonholed; the glory of human sexuality is its variation and flexibility. So when we speak of desire in the future, we should acknowledge that the fairer sex thirsts for the frisson of an encounter with someone or something new as much as, if not more, than men do—and that they could benefit from a gray-zone hall pass, too.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Gee, if you culturally push men towards emasculation, women tend to find them less sexually attractive, what a shock.

Gee, relationships are hard work, and once the novelty wears off and you start settling into that work, it's easy to lose the initial excitement, what a shock.

Gee, if you've been culturally pushing women to be more sexually aggressive, that affects some of them. What a shock.

Gee, when you're working a job where only people who think they have a problem come to see you, you are probably seeing a disproportionately large number of people who have a problem. What a shock.


Given I'm a 'wizard' who is waiting for marriage to have sex (even if I struggle with lust), I'm not exactly an authority on what does or doesn't make for a healthy sex-life long-term. It's still not hard to see obvious signs of hard leftists taking statistical exceptions or examples of people deliberately deluding themselves as justification for trying to warp society to fit heir own ideological appetites.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Ahh so women lack discipline is his conclusion? Because the entire article is a long winded way of saying that. Love isn't only a feeling it's also a set of duties and obligations. It requires hard work and sacrifice this should be obvious. That it's Apprently not is a damning indictment of our culture.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Or polyandry for that matter(not that the few societies that practice polyandry are in any way feminist).

The idea that women are naturally promiscuous though is not an old idea per se. Its just becoming a more and more popular one.

A dangerous one too, if left unchecked. There is a reason why whorish behavior is condemned.

This sort of advocacy seems to more about destroying the family and creating even more women who spend their twenties and thirties running promiscuous lives and then by the time they hit forty they have multiple STDs and mental problems.

What a bizarrely long winded way of advocating for Sharia Law.
Maybe...the Islamic world has a better understanding of why women's sexual urges must be restrained and regulated. Hmm...
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
This sort of advocacy seems to more about destroying the family and creating even more women who spend their twenties and thirties running promiscuous lives and then by the time they hit forty they have multiple STDs and mental problems.

Honestly, I think these sorts of ladies are the types who are into a sort of "Independent Woman" syndrome

They want to feel "young" and "successful"

To be "young" they have to get to enjoy all those years being some lady multiple guys'd want

To be "successful" they have to be really rich through their own jobs or at the very least just making enough money to get by and aren't being "tied down" by kids who'd make it so that they would have to spend less time on work for said kids

They don't want to "grow up" and have a family, they want to maintain an illusion of them being both "young" and "successful"

Sometimes even if they actually fail at being both.....ladies like Zoe Quinn definitely don't look "desirable" and are barely really "successful" or even plain ACTUALLY successful, without a combination of nepotism and threats of possible accusations
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
"Islam is right about women". For some reason saying this enrages the left.

Best way to troll a person is NOT to use outright insults and mean stuff, it’s to get them “trapped” in something that would make them realize they were played or can’t exactly say something without embarassing themselves and being confronted with things they don’t want to admit
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
The idea that women are naturally promiscuous though is not an old idea per se. Its just becoming a more and more popular one.
Really? Men are polygamous by nature. It's not hard for men to have sex to different women. Women need connection or feelings towards men when making love. It's not instant. Unless, you're a whore and you do it for money. Or you're indoctrinated to believe that acting like a pig like men is smashing the patriachy and makes you superior to men.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Or you're indoctrinated to believe that acting like a pig like men is smashing the patriachy and makes you superior to men.

Probably this

Remember, even guys have also been indoctrinated and are as Ya Boi Zack refers to as "Childless Weirdoes" and end up being creepy weird man children themselves

Sexual and Romantic relations aside. I am of the belief that men and women who've been sorta indoctrinated into this idea of "progress" and this dream of being "young" also don't really have much in-terms of actual positive and caring feelings towards others, or simply put really have friends or are good friends to others. Might all be low functioning sociopaths of a sort

You can be single and childless and NOT be a possible sociopath
 
Last edited:

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member
What a bizarrely long winded way of advocating for Sharia Law.
Lol, so you're saying that a mainstream media source aka left leaning is calling for Sharia?

Nah, its saying that this is how women are and men should just accept being cuckolds.

Ahh so women lack discipline is his conclusion? Because the entire article is a long winded way of saying that. Love isn't only a feeling it's also a set of duties and obligations. It requires hard work and sacrifice this should be obvious. That it's Apprently not is a damning indictment of our culture.

Honestly, I think these sorts of ladies are the types who are into a sort of "Independent Woman" syndrome

They want to feel "young" and "successful"

To be "young" they have to get to enjoy all those years being some lady multiple guys'd want

To be "successful" they have to be really rich through their own jobs or at the very least just making enough money to get by and aren't being "tied down" by kids who'd make it so that they would have to spend less time on work for said kids

They don't want to "grow up" and have a family, they want to maintain an illusion of them being both "young" and "successful"

Sometimes even if they actually fail at being both.....ladies like Zoe Quinn definitely don't look "desirable" and are barely really "successful" or even plain ACTUALLY successful, without a combination of nepotism and threats of possible accusations

Its basically confirming what MGTOW have been claiming for years.

We are biologically hardwired differently men and women.

Men care about sex when it comes to Adultery whereas for women, its apprently emotional parts that they care about.

And this is cause men don't want to be cuckolded into raising someone else's child whereas for women, they don't want to lose the male they are with who is giving them resources.

MGTOW or redpillers in general state that women want a unicorn aka an Alpha male who can also provide but those either don't exist or in short supply hence they get a beta male who they can extract resources from and they have sex with the alpha male who they really desire.

This is all subconscious, instinctual. Not something they plan cause women are hardwired to have dual mating strategy. Basically, beta male for resources but alpha male for genes so women follow these instincts but don't have kids.

There is also that we are a serial species basically, we are tied together only for enough time until kids can walk. After that, all the honeymoon feelings aka limerence disappears which leads to couple breaking up to then pair up again with others and the cycle repeats.

The idea that women are naturally promiscuous though is not an old idea per se. Its just becoming a more and more popular one.
Maybe just maybe this old idea was never wrong and all that is happening is that science is finally realizing what old societies knew for centuries or thousands of years?

At least thats how MGTOW would see this as
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Lol, so you're saying that a mainstream media source aka left leaning is calling for Sharia?

Nah, its saying that this is how women are and men should just accept being cuckolds.





Its basically confirming what MGTOW have been claiming for years.

We are biologically hardwired differently men and women.

Men care about sex when it comes to Adultery whereas for women, its apprently emotional parts that they care about.

And this is cause men don't want to be cuckolded into raising someone else's child whereas for women, they don't want to lose the male they are with who is giving them resources.

MGTOW or redpillers in general state that women want a unicorn aka an Alpha male who can also provide but those either don't exist or in short supply hence they get a beta male who they can extract resources from and they have sex with the alpha male who they really desire.

This is all subconscious, instinctual. Not something they plan cause women are hardwired to have dual mating strategy. Basically, beta male for resources but alpha male for genes so women follow these instincts but don't have kids.

There is also that we are a serial species basically, we are tied together only for enough time until kids can walk. After that, all the honeymoon feelings aka limerence disappears which leads to couple breaking up to then pair up again with others and the cycle repeats.


Maybe just maybe this old idea was never wrong and all that is happening is that science is finally realizing what old societies knew for centuries or thousands of years?

At least thats how MGTOW would see this as
Maybe the idea that women's sexuality was too important to be allowed to run free was understood for thousands of years, but now that we have abandoned that we are seeing what unbridled women's lib as imagined by fucking Alester Crowley actually looks like.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
The difference is in personality-alpha males aren't always rich and rich ones are of course limited. They don't always make the best husbands or fathers.

Weaker males do. A woman wants her offspring to have the best genes possible. So the argument is that she will happily take a man who can provide, gives a stable and loving environment for her children, etc... but will have the children of stronger more genetically "fit" men. She thus gains the benefits of a male who is a better breadwinner/father and a male with superior genes(whether that be physical(which it often is) mental, or in terms of robustness or adaptability).

So goes the theory anyway.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
The difference is in personality-alpha males aren't always rich and rich ones are of course limited. They don't always make the best husbands or fathers.

Weaker males do. A woman wants her offspring to have the best genes possible. So the argument is that she will happily take a man who can provide, gives a stable and loving environment for her children, etc... but will have the children of stronger more genetically "fit" men. She thus gains the benefits of a male who is a better breadwinner/father and a male with superior genes(whether that be physical(which it often is) mental, or in terms of robustness or adaptability).

So goes the theory anyway.

Aye, I've seen the theory.

Once upon a time, a man was considered the lord of his own domain, even if his domain was just his own home, own farm, or whatever. That was something that could be treated with respect. Some people still hold to this idea and concept.

It's sad how many people no longer even think of such things, much less try to live it out.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
The problem especially for weaker males who aren't say The Rock or Brad Pitt in their "fitness" have is, "why should I invest my life into children that are not mine?"

That is the heart of why women's sexuality has been regulated throughout history. And why men have been allowed to wander more.

Its not just that cuckolding is humiliating to some nebulous toxic masculinity infused pride, its a waste of one's resources and time. Hell, there are men who get off on being humiliated or get aroused at the thought of their wives/girlfriends cheating, this is more to do with the inversion of their pride(or lack thereof), as a means of titillation. Even the most degenerate cuck(I mean the guy who watches his wife have sex with another more masculine guy), won't want to raise the child of the other guy.

And no self respecting man would ever be the above. And even if you weren't self respecting and you literally got aroused watching your wife cheat-you don't want to spend the money and time raising another man's child. That's true with most if not all self professed cuckolds. "Sure fuck my wife, its hot but no kids" because kids ruin the fun and bring reality back into it.

Being tricked into raising another man's child is basically throwing your life down the drain. Which is precisely why this sort of behavior amongst women was condemned and often dealt with harshly.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
The difference is in personality-alpha males aren't always rich and rich ones are of course limited. They don't always make the best husbands or fathers.

I think specifically when it comes to personality

Strong=/=Nice & Mellow aren’t always the same

Strong might actually for these ladies be about “bad boys”
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
I think specifically when it comes to personality

Strong=/=Nice & Mellow aren’t always the same

Strong might actually for these ladies be about “bad boys”
Not really you can tottally be alpha without being a "bad boy". Bradd Pitt isn't a bad boy not is Tom Cruise as famous exapmles. What's happening is quite simple. "Bad boy" is synonomous with criminal whether that be a biker,banger,or whatever. The lifestyle itself self selects for alpha's. Because you will be consistenly challenged usally physically. At that point{points} you have to stand up and fight even if you lose. Otherwise best case scenario is your out of business as you just lost respect. Worse case is you get killed{maybe even by your own guys} because you proved your weak. So basically it's not "most alpha's are bad boys". Instead it's "most bad boy's are forced by necessity to be alpha".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top