This so perfectly captures the unspoken sexual dynamic. Except...
"A woman who needs lube faces no such shame, in fact it’s implied the man didn’t do a good job if she’s not wet"
This part doesn't ring true for me, and I wonder if other women would agree? Becoming wet is part of the female performance, and failing to do so feels terribly unsexy (which renders the whole encounter doomed!). It's such a huge part of female eroticism, and certainly plays into the worship element: driving a man wild over how wet you are - there's no sexier feeling! Failing to become wet feels like failing to be the sexy. It diminshes the female power. It's a source of anxiety for sure, and though I'd agree no where near the pressure of the male erection, it definitely brings about feelings of shame when not achieved.
I really appreciate you sharing this. Candid expressions like this are very valuable and I enjoy listening to them. I'd also be curious if other women have this degree of self-consciousness and sexual confidence from getting wet and internalize it not occurring as a personal failure rather than more externalize it on the man.
Yes, @danielle is correct. It absolutely is a performance metric and you know he will be disappointed if it doesn't happen and hence consider you "not good in bed" for exactly the reasons you just have...because he isn't getting the ego boost he desires. And MANY women sneak into the bathroom to apply lube secretively before sex for exactly this reason. It's the equivalent of popping a Viagra. This is also why women fake orgasms...bc we all know the number one way for a guy to not think the sex was that great is he thinks he didn't make you come. None of this goes against your point, which is that women's main "performance" is just of being intensely aroused and into it. That's exactly what porn actresses get paid to do.
yeah agree, this all corroborates the performance element. you guys don't moan like that when you masturbate by yourselves. if her reaction to his actions aren't there it's kind of the hallmark of uninspiring sex
on an aside: not once have I judged a woman for any dryness. I wonder if the kind of women who would even find and read this essay has a bit of a selection effect for a more introspective and self-aware one that would lead them to be more self-conscious about it.
I think it probably selects for women who seek out and devour all information that could possibly amplify their powers and ability to dominate, rule over, tantalize, and enslave men by making them fall in love with them lol. Who are also the most likely to be self conscious and calculating about everything, including everything sexual, in their quest for power. ;) Or maybe what you said.
I am so glad “the number one way for a guy to not think the sex was great” concluded with the ACTUAL answer and not another "men are so selfishgrosshorny name." I guess the winds of change are blowing us all.
This is so bizarre. Lube is just gross from a sensory / texture point of view. It feels yucky. It could never be confused with a naturally wet pussy.
Also, getting wet decreases friction and thus decreases sensation - while a little is necessary to prevent chafing and allow movement, it's not a performance metric, but rather something that decreases sensation. We like it better when there's less wetness.
you called correct discourse 'bizarre' then proceeded to share the most thoroughly bizarre, comically wrong thing I have encountered in a very long time. it's so disconnected from reality I'm kind of speechless. that last sentence in particular should be framed and put in the hall of fame of "things straight men have never said".
I entirely agree with your point. However, I'd suggest that dmitry argument is contained in the fact that wetness occurs naturally for a healthy woman who is *actually* aroused by an attractive man (rather than e.g. one playing the long game with a suboptimal sexual partner by simulating attraction but failing to match its physical requirements). Healthy, young--and so fertible humans (men and women)--should never face any impairment to their sexual functions in presence of an attractive and mutually interested partner, lest substance abuse or stress is involved (the latter should naturally run contrary to the apriori here). Absence of arousal of one's partner leads to questioning that said-partner is actually attracted. Such implication can be received with indifference, as much as it can be hardly bearable for the ego. This is individual and context-dependent. However, as far as their polygamous preferences/mating strategies go, men can more readily get over it than women.
This assessment is obviously based off heuristics, so I want to acknowledge that there might be other reasons that could prompt dryness (e.g. phase of cycle and others I would not myself be aware off). But as far as only a very few of us are trained doctor/experts, this is the type of rough heuristics the lay(wo)man uses to assess those situations and, therefore, also those that end up making our culture around sex and mating.
Absolutely agree. While fortunate to remain very attracted to my husband of 26 years, sometimes that shit just fails to materialze. It's not his fault or even mine really but that doesn't stop either of us from feeling some level of responsibility/shame.
I would be interested in hearing more about your (you women's) perspective on this, especially "female power." Though I'd not given his quote much credence, perhaps Msr. Wilde was right after all.
Kudos to this writer. This is the best essay on human sexuality I have ever read: well thought, and well written. It makes explicit, in ordinary yet well crafted language, what I believe most adults come to understand subconsciously during their lives; hence the sort of cognitive dissonance (if that's the right term) produced in us by being constantly subjected to post-modern "theorizing" on human nature, which "theorizing" is no more than a deliberate, simplistic negating, solely for the shock effect, of millennia-old, cross-cultural understanding of human nature. And while homosexuality and other non-heterosexuality are significant factors in human civilization, and deserved to be treated respectfully and decently by heterosexuals, the plain truth is that the male-female sexual dynamic is the essential (as in essence, a term the writer uses well) force governing human social life. Well done!
When I say moan, I mean the equivalent of what you and your sisters do. I'm not saying men should be silent, I've been complimented many a time on my grunts. I know you all love a good gruntful thrust. No need to be stoics about it.
But like, picture a man moaning the way you do. I am very doubtful you'd be into that the way we're into hearing you.
Damn that was good. so perfectly articulated. These observations, once simply accepted as facts about the natural world, have been called into question for so many years that a thorough explanation of this kind is required, and very welcome.
To the women who are self-conscious about..lubriciity, I would say that it’s never occurred to me to judge a woman on that basis. Rather, I might take it as a judgment of MY performance - but more likely would by somewhat indifferent. I think for most men it is a mysterious and unpredictable ecosystem and not worth trying to manage :)
I agree, really not once have I judged a woman for any dryness. I do take it more as a proxy for me. I wonder if the kind of women who would even find and read this essay has a bit of a selection effect for a more introspective and self-aware one that would lead them to be more self-conscious about it.
This is great and I think is true, also the images are amazing 🌹!
The line ‘women are born’ made me then think of its sequel ‘women give birth’. And this second part I’ve thought about a lot when trying to reflect upon my own desire. This second part is probably of less interest to men and rightfully, his job already done to some extent. Post ejaculation.
I have basic understandings of reproduction, but if a woman’s desire is not only to receive but to gestate then there is this whole 2nd dimension, the internal phase. I’ve even observed this on the plane of art (as I make art). I want ‘the thing’ but then I really want to do something to the thing, to make something of it once I’ve got it. “Give a woman a house, she’ll make a home” sort of logic.
This can manifest as frivolity I think, seemingly decorative none-substantial actions, ‘fluff’, because it isn’t lead by that masculine goal oriented movement but rather a ‘tending to’ and ‘fussing over’ (what I’d see as gestational practices).
And reading your work now, I wonder to what extent current feminism has gotten caught in this second phase of creation. No longer interested in the first phase of receiving, but rather in a highly defensive stage of pregnancy unwilling to give birth. Unwilling to reciprocate and give back to man. The internal space becoming a sort of gate kept territory, reflected in the institutions she inhabits. Emphasis on in/out, on cancelling and ejection etc. and the seemingly gender neutrality of this, sexlessness of this, could be symptom of a holding onto this stage possessively, given sexual difference and its maturity require birth, separation, (separation from the mother). It’s like the ‘She’ of our culture does not want to give birth but despite herself she is pregnant
what a fantastic observation. I completely agree with your framing and conceptualization of the give/take, provide/gestate, and interplay between the two poles. you made a similar great comment in another essay that displayed a kind of internal recognition and comfort with the complementarity and necessary contrast of the sexes. you can tell when someone is in denial or made insecure by it by overt chauvinism for their sex and completely unidimensional narrative about The Other.
I view your assessment as a top-down description of the dislocation, depicting the more micro-scale behaviors that lead to fractures; here is my bottom-up, environment-based articulation of what produces it (degrees of feminism touched on towards the end):
I too have noticed these same factors. I have known a couple of male subs in my time, and they always seemed to have both very strange relationships with their mothers, and a real difficulty in finding relationships with women.
Women by and large do seem to fit into the M/s dynamic even if in a “soft” way.
My belief is that in pure evolutionary terms, the only thing that matters is reproducing. Reproducing and having your children survive long enough to reproduce themselves. Past that anything is possible in our development.
We adjusted to this reality as a species. We go against it at our own peril.
OK, so most men are naturally dominant, & this is for mostly biological reasons. All women are naturally submissive, & this is for biological reasons.
This is all true.
This doesn't imply a prescriptivist opinion on gender roles, as traditionalists say it does. Traditionalists frequently use variations on the same argument you are making to argue that we SHOULD conform to gender roles, as is their ultimate aim & agenda.
But I don't believe that logically follows.
You're accurately describing normal heterosexual sexual & romantic dynamics. More modern people who have "vanilla" desires-
ie straight men who are sexually dominant in a "normal" (not, like, a pedophilic, paraphilic, gore fetish, or other extreme dominant) way & straight women who are sexually submissive in a "normal" way (sexually submissive but wouldn't tolerate something as socially unacceptable or extreme as the guy who wants to tie her up upside down and make her watch clown porn all day for his hyperdom fetish-
& desire a long term monogamous relationship as their ideal end goal-
Would be best off listening to you on this, internalizing what you're saying, etc.
But the minority (~30%?) of men who aren't "vanilla" or close enough to it- & to a much lesser extent women (the # of actually sexually dominant or truly lesbian women is extremely low, truly sexually submissive straight men outnumber truly sexually dominant straight women 100 to 1, gay men outnumber lesbians 2 to 1 & "true" lesbians are probably outnumbered by truly gay men more like 10 to 1) don't need to listen to this or conform as it would not actually bring them true satisfaction or meaning to do so.
You say "women are the gatekeepers of sex & reproduction, men are the gatekeepers of commitment & violence".
This is half-true. Women are the gatekeepers of sex & reproduction, men are the gatekeepers of violence, basically. However, I doubt the claim that "men are the gatekeepers of commitment". This seems like a complementarian way to get men to lie down & accept the current dynamic, like "oh, it's equal after all".
No, men aren't the gatekeepers of commitment- HIGH VALUE MEN (top 20%) are the gatekeepers of commitment- while nearly ALL women, even low value women, are the gatekeepers of sex & reproduction. So it's not comparable.
The bottom 80% of men are not sought after at all in post-2008 Western society, so they don't really have the opportunity to actually "gatekeep commitment" in a comparable fashion to the way women gatekeep sex & reproduction.
While that WAS true HISTORICALLY and under PATRIARCHY (that men gatekeep commitment), and still IS true in much of the third world, in the West today, IN PRACTICE, women, even LOW VALUE WOMEN, actually gatekeep sex, reproduction, AND RELATIONSHIPS/COMMITMENT. If a woman divorce rapes a man, his life is over. The "bottom" 80% of men cannot afford to be picky about which women he commits to if no woman wants him to begin with. His sexual market value has been deflated/made so low that he is DESPERATE- he HAS to take what he can get.
Yes, in the 1950s West, men were the gatekeepers of commitment & violence, while women were the gatekeepers of sex & relationships. Men still gatekeep violence I would say (though they aren't allowed to do so as explicitly as they once did), but they do NOT gatekeep commitment or relationships in the post-2008 Western dating market.
WOMEN gatekeep relationships, commitment, sex for 80% of the male population (this isn't true under enforced monogamy patriarchy), AND reproduction- essentially entirely MONOPOLIZING IT ALL in the post-2008 West.
You're describing the historical norm under patriarchy, but matriarchal societies, & gynocratic societies like our own (there is a difference between matriarchy & gynocracy, matriarchy is rule of Earth mothers with grunt males- it is grounded in tradition & pro-natalism that is sustainable but eternally stagnant in geographic isolation as it can't defend against patriarchal invaders while gynocracy comes at the end of empires & is inherently unsustainable & antinatalist, collapsing into barbaric patriarchy again eventually every single time & will do so again unless transhumanism manages to create post-scarcity & abolish human biology itself via technology) have systems where women essentially monopolize not only sex & reproduction, but relationships & marriage as well.
As far as “every woman is a little gay” I think the study fails to clarify whether women react w arousal to the image of other women as a result of the internalization of objectification. Women are sold beauty and sex appeal so much that becoming sexy and beautiful or identifying with women whom society tells us are beautiful and sexy removes inhibition and allows us to view ourselves as desirable more easily. Men are not sexually objectified across (American) media nearly as much and even hetero women do not view them as sexual objects in the same way we’re encouraged to view women. I’d argue it can be more a sign/icon of sex than genuine sexual attraction.
How often are women literally just lying there during sex? My sex sample sized is skewed because I’ve only had sex with my wife, but there’s a lot of movement involved with both of us. Hands, hips, tongue, maybe she’s not moving quite as much as me, but it’s pretty close. I thought that was normal and just laying there like a dead fish was a sign of someone being bad at sex?
she is alive and breathing, so she is literally moving. 'lying there' does not mean a literal dead body's amount of activity.
she is not however directing the action nor is she doing any of the physical acts that require stamina. I went to great lengths to emphasize the physical performance element for men, the theatric/lustful performance element for women.
I think femdom isn't an inherently effeminate thing, if we're talking about less extreme kinds like having the woman on top doing cowgirl or something. If you have the power whether because of your sexiness of charisma or whatever else to make a woman sexually perform for YOU that just shows how desirable you are, and being that desirable should be the goal of any man. Admittedly I am myself too weak to make women have that kind of desire for me, but it's what I would consider to be the ideal of sexual success rather than being in the position of having to please women for them to offer you sex.
I find myself agreeing here. Having a woman sexually perform for you is a signifier of attraction, and the performance itself need not be contained to submissive positions for her. In fact, it goes as far as accepting things that would otherwise appear as natural repellent.
Tbh I gotta wonder if this is just cope for a lot of guys because they know they're not high value enough to be able to be in the position of the more desirable person who gets to judge the other. I know I'm not high value enough for that but I'm not gonna pretend to enjoy my low sexual status either.
Many words. After the first third one question in my mind: WHY do you think is that so? I mean, beyond the evolutionary perspective aka the theory of different amount of parental investment.
This so perfectly captures the unspoken sexual dynamic. Except...
"A woman who needs lube faces no such shame, in fact it’s implied the man didn’t do a good job if she’s not wet"
This part doesn't ring true for me, and I wonder if other women would agree? Becoming wet is part of the female performance, and failing to do so feels terribly unsexy (which renders the whole encounter doomed!). It's such a huge part of female eroticism, and certainly plays into the worship element: driving a man wild over how wet you are - there's no sexier feeling! Failing to become wet feels like failing to be the sexy. It diminshes the female power. It's a source of anxiety for sure, and though I'd agree no where near the pressure of the male erection, it definitely brings about feelings of shame when not achieved.
I really appreciate you sharing this. Candid expressions like this are very valuable and I enjoy listening to them. I'd also be curious if other women have this degree of self-consciousness and sexual confidence from getting wet and internalize it not occurring as a personal failure rather than more externalize it on the man.
Yes, @danielle is correct. It absolutely is a performance metric and you know he will be disappointed if it doesn't happen and hence consider you "not good in bed" for exactly the reasons you just have...because he isn't getting the ego boost he desires. And MANY women sneak into the bathroom to apply lube secretively before sex for exactly this reason. It's the equivalent of popping a Viagra. This is also why women fake orgasms...bc we all know the number one way for a guy to not think the sex was that great is he thinks he didn't make you come. None of this goes against your point, which is that women's main "performance" is just of being intensely aroused and into it. That's exactly what porn actresses get paid to do.
yeah agree, this all corroborates the performance element. you guys don't moan like that when you masturbate by yourselves. if her reaction to his actions aren't there it's kind of the hallmark of uninspiring sex
on an aside: not once have I judged a woman for any dryness. I wonder if the kind of women who would even find and read this essay has a bit of a selection effect for a more introspective and self-aware one that would lead them to be more self-conscious about it.
I think it probably selects for women who seek out and devour all information that could possibly amplify their powers and ability to dominate, rule over, tantalize, and enslave men by making them fall in love with them lol. Who are also the most likely to be self conscious and calculating about everything, including everything sexual, in their quest for power. ;) Or maybe what you said.
much to unpack here Kate. all of it a little unsettling, and a little arousing.
I am so glad “the number one way for a guy to not think the sex was great” concluded with the ACTUAL answer and not another "men are so selfishgrosshorny name." I guess the winds of change are blowing us all.
Be the change you wish to see in the world by being forthright and sincere, and letting that valence attract what it may.
This is so bizarre. Lube is just gross from a sensory / texture point of view. It feels yucky. It could never be confused with a naturally wet pussy.
Also, getting wet decreases friction and thus decreases sensation - while a little is necessary to prevent chafing and allow movement, it's not a performance metric, but rather something that decreases sensation. We like it better when there's less wetness.
you called correct discourse 'bizarre' then proceeded to share the most thoroughly bizarre, comically wrong thing I have encountered in a very long time. it's so disconnected from reality I'm kind of speechless. that last sentence in particular should be framed and put in the hall of fame of "things straight men have never said".
I have sensory sensitivities and specific kinks so what I like in bed is idiosyncratic to me.
That said, it's pretty common for guys to not feel as much when it gets too wet. It does decrease friction.
The "bizarre" thing was women applying lube without telling the guy, as though he couldn't tell the difference from the texture and viscosity.
I entirely agree with your point. However, I'd suggest that dmitry argument is contained in the fact that wetness occurs naturally for a healthy woman who is *actually* aroused by an attractive man (rather than e.g. one playing the long game with a suboptimal sexual partner by simulating attraction but failing to match its physical requirements). Healthy, young--and so fertible humans (men and women)--should never face any impairment to their sexual functions in presence of an attractive and mutually interested partner, lest substance abuse or stress is involved (the latter should naturally run contrary to the apriori here). Absence of arousal of one's partner leads to questioning that said-partner is actually attracted. Such implication can be received with indifference, as much as it can be hardly bearable for the ego. This is individual and context-dependent. However, as far as their polygamous preferences/mating strategies go, men can more readily get over it than women.
This assessment is obviously based off heuristics, so I want to acknowledge that there might be other reasons that could prompt dryness (e.g. phase of cycle and others I would not myself be aware off). But as far as only a very few of us are trained doctor/experts, this is the type of rough heuristics the lay(wo)man uses to assess those situations and, therefore, also those that end up making our culture around sex and mating.
yes, well said.
Absolutely agree. While fortunate to remain very attracted to my husband of 26 years, sometimes that shit just fails to materialze. It's not his fault or even mine really but that doesn't stop either of us from feeling some level of responsibility/shame.
I would be interested in hearing more about your (you women's) perspective on this, especially "female power." Though I'd not given his quote much credence, perhaps Msr. Wilde was right after all.
Kudos to this writer. This is the best essay on human sexuality I have ever read: well thought, and well written. It makes explicit, in ordinary yet well crafted language, what I believe most adults come to understand subconsciously during their lives; hence the sort of cognitive dissonance (if that's the right term) produced in us by being constantly subjected to post-modern "theorizing" on human nature, which "theorizing" is no more than a deliberate, simplistic negating, solely for the shock effect, of millennia-old, cross-cultural understanding of human nature. And while homosexuality and other non-heterosexuality are significant factors in human civilization, and deserved to be treated respectfully and decently by heterosexuals, the plain truth is that the male-female sexual dynamic is the essential (as in essence, a term the writer uses well) force governing human social life. Well done!
I really appreciate that. thank you for reading and sharing these thoughts.
Thank you kindly.
When I say moan, I mean the equivalent of what you and your sisters do. I'm not saying men should be silent, I've been complimented many a time on my grunts. I know you all love a good gruntful thrust. No need to be stoics about it.
But like, picture a man moaning the way you do. I am very doubtful you'd be into that the way we're into hearing you.
Not sure what this means. Moaning how? Why do you think she wouldn't be into it?
Why wouldn't you be into it? I'm confused.
Beautifully written. This clarifies my deep seated belief that one of the core qualities that most turns me on in my woman is eagerness.
I feel the same. and thank you.
Going to try this. Thank you.
I def recommend having sex to all my readers. well worth trying it.
A mitzvah.
Damn that was good. so perfectly articulated. These observations, once simply accepted as facts about the natural world, have been called into question for so many years that a thorough explanation of this kind is required, and very welcome.
To the women who are self-conscious about..lubriciity, I would say that it’s never occurred to me to judge a woman on that basis. Rather, I might take it as a judgment of MY performance - but more likely would by somewhat indifferent. I think for most men it is a mysterious and unpredictable ecosystem and not worth trying to manage :)
thank you.
I agree, really not once have I judged a woman for any dryness. I do take it more as a proxy for me. I wonder if the kind of women who would even find and read this essay has a bit of a selection effect for a more introspective and self-aware one that would lead them to be more self-conscious about it.
Exactly, the good ones
the sexiest thing I've read in a while. quite literally.
This is great and I think is true, also the images are amazing 🌹!
The line ‘women are born’ made me then think of its sequel ‘women give birth’. And this second part I’ve thought about a lot when trying to reflect upon my own desire. This second part is probably of less interest to men and rightfully, his job already done to some extent. Post ejaculation.
I have basic understandings of reproduction, but if a woman’s desire is not only to receive but to gestate then there is this whole 2nd dimension, the internal phase. I’ve even observed this on the plane of art (as I make art). I want ‘the thing’ but then I really want to do something to the thing, to make something of it once I’ve got it. “Give a woman a house, she’ll make a home” sort of logic.
This can manifest as frivolity I think, seemingly decorative none-substantial actions, ‘fluff’, because it isn’t lead by that masculine goal oriented movement but rather a ‘tending to’ and ‘fussing over’ (what I’d see as gestational practices).
And reading your work now, I wonder to what extent current feminism has gotten caught in this second phase of creation. No longer interested in the first phase of receiving, but rather in a highly defensive stage of pregnancy unwilling to give birth. Unwilling to reciprocate and give back to man. The internal space becoming a sort of gate kept territory, reflected in the institutions she inhabits. Emphasis on in/out, on cancelling and ejection etc. and the seemingly gender neutrality of this, sexlessness of this, could be symptom of a holding onto this stage possessively, given sexual difference and its maturity require birth, separation, (separation from the mother). It’s like the ‘She’ of our culture does not want to give birth but despite herself she is pregnant
what a fantastic observation. I completely agree with your framing and conceptualization of the give/take, provide/gestate, and interplay between the two poles. you made a similar great comment in another essay that displayed a kind of internal recognition and comfort with the complementarity and necessary contrast of the sexes. you can tell when someone is in denial or made insecure by it by overt chauvinism for their sex and completely unidimensional narrative about The Other.
I view your assessment as a top-down description of the dislocation, depicting the more micro-scale behaviors that lead to fractures; here is my bottom-up, environment-based articulation of what produces it (degrees of feminism touched on towards the end):
https://thedosagemakesitso.substack.com/p/biofoundationalism-iv-masculine-because
(and I'm really glad you like the art, I enjoy making it)
Thankyou, I look forward to reading this 🙏
I too have noticed these same factors. I have known a couple of male subs in my time, and they always seemed to have both very strange relationships with their mothers, and a real difficulty in finding relationships with women.
Women by and large do seem to fit into the M/s dynamic even if in a “soft” way.
My belief is that in pure evolutionary terms, the only thing that matters is reproducing. Reproducing and having your children survive long enough to reproduce themselves. Past that anything is possible in our development.
We adjusted to this reality as a species. We go against it at our own peril.
Good!
OK, so most men are naturally dominant, & this is for mostly biological reasons. All women are naturally submissive, & this is for biological reasons.
This is all true.
This doesn't imply a prescriptivist opinion on gender roles, as traditionalists say it does. Traditionalists frequently use variations on the same argument you are making to argue that we SHOULD conform to gender roles, as is their ultimate aim & agenda.
But I don't believe that logically follows.
You're accurately describing normal heterosexual sexual & romantic dynamics. More modern people who have "vanilla" desires-
ie straight men who are sexually dominant in a "normal" (not, like, a pedophilic, paraphilic, gore fetish, or other extreme dominant) way & straight women who are sexually submissive in a "normal" way (sexually submissive but wouldn't tolerate something as socially unacceptable or extreme as the guy who wants to tie her up upside down and make her watch clown porn all day for his hyperdom fetish-
& desire a long term monogamous relationship as their ideal end goal-
Would be best off listening to you on this, internalizing what you're saying, etc.
But the minority (~30%?) of men who aren't "vanilla" or close enough to it- & to a much lesser extent women (the # of actually sexually dominant or truly lesbian women is extremely low, truly sexually submissive straight men outnumber truly sexually dominant straight women 100 to 1, gay men outnumber lesbians 2 to 1 & "true" lesbians are probably outnumbered by truly gay men more like 10 to 1) don't need to listen to this or conform as it would not actually bring them true satisfaction or meaning to do so.
You say "women are the gatekeepers of sex & reproduction, men are the gatekeepers of commitment & violence".
This is half-true. Women are the gatekeepers of sex & reproduction, men are the gatekeepers of violence, basically. However, I doubt the claim that "men are the gatekeepers of commitment". This seems like a complementarian way to get men to lie down & accept the current dynamic, like "oh, it's equal after all".
No, men aren't the gatekeepers of commitment- HIGH VALUE MEN (top 20%) are the gatekeepers of commitment- while nearly ALL women, even low value women, are the gatekeepers of sex & reproduction. So it's not comparable.
The bottom 80% of men are not sought after at all in post-2008 Western society, so they don't really have the opportunity to actually "gatekeep commitment" in a comparable fashion to the way women gatekeep sex & reproduction.
While that WAS true HISTORICALLY and under PATRIARCHY (that men gatekeep commitment), and still IS true in much of the third world, in the West today, IN PRACTICE, women, even LOW VALUE WOMEN, actually gatekeep sex, reproduction, AND RELATIONSHIPS/COMMITMENT. If a woman divorce rapes a man, his life is over. The "bottom" 80% of men cannot afford to be picky about which women he commits to if no woman wants him to begin with. His sexual market value has been deflated/made so low that he is DESPERATE- he HAS to take what he can get.
Yes, in the 1950s West, men were the gatekeepers of commitment & violence, while women were the gatekeepers of sex & relationships. Men still gatekeep violence I would say (though they aren't allowed to do so as explicitly as they once did), but they do NOT gatekeep commitment or relationships in the post-2008 Western dating market.
WOMEN gatekeep relationships, commitment, sex for 80% of the male population (this isn't true under enforced monogamy patriarchy), AND reproduction- essentially entirely MONOPOLIZING IT ALL in the post-2008 West.
You're describing the historical norm under patriarchy, but matriarchal societies, & gynocratic societies like our own (there is a difference between matriarchy & gynocracy, matriarchy is rule of Earth mothers with grunt males- it is grounded in tradition & pro-natalism that is sustainable but eternally stagnant in geographic isolation as it can't defend against patriarchal invaders while gynocracy comes at the end of empires & is inherently unsustainable & antinatalist, collapsing into barbaric patriarchy again eventually every single time & will do so again unless transhumanism manages to create post-scarcity & abolish human biology itself via technology) have systems where women essentially monopolize not only sex & reproduction, but relationships & marriage as well.
As far as “every woman is a little gay” I think the study fails to clarify whether women react w arousal to the image of other women as a result of the internalization of objectification. Women are sold beauty and sex appeal so much that becoming sexy and beautiful or identifying with women whom society tells us are beautiful and sexy removes inhibition and allows us to view ourselves as desirable more easily. Men are not sexually objectified across (American) media nearly as much and even hetero women do not view them as sexual objects in the same way we’re encouraged to view women. I’d argue it can be more a sign/icon of sex than genuine sexual attraction.
How often are women literally just lying there during sex? My sex sample sized is skewed because I’ve only had sex with my wife, but there’s a lot of movement involved with both of us. Hands, hips, tongue, maybe she’s not moving quite as much as me, but it’s pretty close. I thought that was normal and just laying there like a dead fish was a sign of someone being bad at sex?
she is alive and breathing, so she is literally moving. 'lying there' does not mean a literal dead body's amount of activity.
she is not however directing the action nor is she doing any of the physical acts that require stamina. I went to great lengths to emphasize the physical performance element for men, the theatric/lustful performance element for women.
Well if they are good girls and lie still like I tell them, then often hehe.
I think femdom isn't an inherently effeminate thing, if we're talking about less extreme kinds like having the woman on top doing cowgirl or something. If you have the power whether because of your sexiness of charisma or whatever else to make a woman sexually perform for YOU that just shows how desirable you are, and being that desirable should be the goal of any man. Admittedly I am myself too weak to make women have that kind of desire for me, but it's what I would consider to be the ideal of sexual success rather than being in the position of having to please women for them to offer you sex.
A woman being on top is not in any way "femdom". Dominance is not found in the sexual position, it's found within the dynamic and who exerts agency.
I find myself agreeing here. Having a woman sexually perform for you is a signifier of attraction, and the performance itself need not be contained to submissive positions for her. In fact, it goes as far as accepting things that would otherwise appear as natural repellent.
Tbh I gotta wonder if this is just cope for a lot of guys because they know they're not high value enough to be able to be in the position of the more desirable person who gets to judge the other. I know I'm not high value enough for that but I'm not gonna pretend to enjoy my low sexual status either.
Many words. After the first third one question in my mind: WHY do you think is that so? I mean, beyond the evolutionary perspective aka the theory of different amount of parental investment.
forget this