A price you want to impose on men only. Even a good man wants sex. It being current year odds are the girl is going to have casual sex with someone. By your proposal it'll just be with some other guy. You're asking good men to be martyrs. Pretty unreasonable. At the end of the day, best deal or no deal. Patriarchy is the only solution
A price you want to impose on men only. Even a good man wants sex. It being current year odds are the girl is going to have casual sex with someone. By your proposal it'll just be with some other guy. You're asking good men to be martyrs. Pretty unreasonable. At the end of the day, best deal or no deal. Patriarchy is the only solution
Being a man of some experience, I doubt "It being current year odds are the girl is going to have casual sex with someone." Statistically, it's much more likely the average is that she's going to have sex with someone and though the immediate bargain is that it is casual, she's fishing for a relationship just as much as he's fishing to do it again next weekend.
But the concept that good men are asked to be martyrs is true, although it's also true in regard to acquiring other people's unattended valuables. Then again, good men have always supported the police in order to keep bad men in line.
Well, both men and women are paying a price already when people are nervous and afraid for different reasons. I don't think people would have less sex if they were a bit more shy when meeting someone new. Instead I think the market would be more equalized. Now the pushy men take huge market shares. It's no good when sexual pushiness is the only way to express desire.
But you are right that the idea is useless if all or most women expect casual sex. There has to be a change of culture where both sexes know the rules. If women don't know that the patient guys are patient because they are high-quality, then they will just be suspected of not desiring their date. Not good for anyone.
Patriarchy in the sense of the rules you mention that used to exist which have not since liberation, for example. You say there has to be a change of culture yet put all of the onus on men. Even if all of the onus is to be on men to restore patriarchy, if wouldn't be in the manner you describe.
Then I think that voluntary patriarchy super light could be a good idea. And I really don't think it is possible without the participation of both sexes. People of both sexes need to give something up. If women don't agree that it is a good idea to postpone sex for a few weeks, then the suggestion would be completely pointless.
Is this the idea (expressed in the manosphere?) that readily available contraception allows females to costlessly indulge their appetite for sex with high status males?
Or is it an expression of a high female sex skew at some USA university campuses putting males in to the high value/high demand side. ie where the in-demand males can set the terms of the engagement?
I'm actually more curious why (In NZ) fewer young men and women are in relationships or having casual (nonrelationship) sex than say 20 years ago.
A price you want to impose on men only. Even a good man wants sex. It being current year odds are the girl is going to have casual sex with someone. By your proposal it'll just be with some other guy. You're asking good men to be martyrs. Pretty unreasonable. At the end of the day, best deal or no deal. Patriarchy is the only solution
Being a man of some experience, I doubt "It being current year odds are the girl is going to have casual sex with someone." Statistically, it's much more likely the average is that she's going to have sex with someone and though the immediate bargain is that it is casual, she's fishing for a relationship just as much as he's fishing to do it again next weekend.
But the concept that good men are asked to be martyrs is true, although it's also true in regard to acquiring other people's unattended valuables. Then again, good men have always supported the police in order to keep bad men in line.
Even if she's fishing for something else, she still gave it up without receiving the thing.
Well, both men and women are paying a price already when people are nervous and afraid for different reasons. I don't think people would have less sex if they were a bit more shy when meeting someone new. Instead I think the market would be more equalized. Now the pushy men take huge market shares. It's no good when sexual pushiness is the only way to express desire.
But you are right that the idea is useless if all or most women expect casual sex. There has to be a change of culture where both sexes know the rules. If women don't know that the patient guys are patient because they are high-quality, then they will just be suspected of not desiring their date. Not good for anyone.
What is patriarchy in this context?
Patriarchy in the sense of the rules you mention that used to exist which have not since liberation, for example. You say there has to be a change of culture yet put all of the onus on men. Even if all of the onus is to be on men to restore patriarchy, if wouldn't be in the manner you describe.
Then I think that voluntary patriarchy super light could be a good idea. And I really don't think it is possible without the participation of both sexes. People of both sexes need to give something up. If women don't agree that it is a good idea to postpone sex for a few weeks, then the suggestion would be completely pointless.
What else can men (the bulk of men, not the few men all the women would prefer if they had their druthers) give up?
Difficult question. You mean in general? Then I say computer games. That was high on my wish list for a partner at least.
"all or most women expect casual sex"
Is this the idea (expressed in the manosphere?) that readily available contraception allows females to costlessly indulge their appetite for sex with high status males?
Or is it an expression of a high female sex skew at some USA university campuses putting males in to the high value/high demand side. ie where the in-demand males can set the terms of the engagement?
I'm actually more curious why (In NZ) fewer young men and women are in relationships or having casual (nonrelationship) sex than say 20 years ago.