Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Do women really hold all sexual power?

There is a lot of bullshit in the mainstream media. I find it especially irritating when clearly subjective opinions are presented in an allegedly objective manner by people who have a hidden agenda. One such example is the claim that women have all the sexual power in the world. Of course they don't. (Hint: it's mutual).

There is a longer backstory behind this post, and it seems worthwhile discussing it openly. I recently took an online course in Behavioral Economics on Coursera. The teacher, Dan Ariely, is knowledgeable and also lovingly flippant at times. For instance, he started every lecture with an inappropriate joke, and plenty of the examples he used might have easily offended some people's sensibilities. As a bonus, there were guest lectures at the end of each week, given by professors teaching in behavioral economics or related disciplines like psychology.

In week 2, though, I saw some giddy woman in front of the camera, telling about her "research". She was making some rather daring statements, such as "women have all the sexual power", "women decide how soon in a relationship sex happens", or, my favorite, "men's sexuality has no worth". Of course, she referred to the mainstream media model of dating, according to which a guy has to wait three weeks before some chick will spread her legs for you. Needless to say, in her little world, this applies to "all women", and we as men are at their complete mercy.

I had a hearty laugh because I assumed Dan Ariely had put an actress on stage to drive the point home that sloppy reasoning quickly leads to absurd conclusions. I just didn't want to believe that a middle-aged woman with teenager-like antics and absurdly sloppy reasoning would really be a professor. The course was on irrational behavior in the context of economics or, more generally, decision-making, so it wouldn't have surprised me if she had been a mere actress, having had the purpose of cheering us up a little bit.

As it turned out, that woman was not an actress. Her name is Kathleen Vohs, and she's a professor of marketing at University of Minnesota. Here is the video, in case you are interested. Within the first few minutes you'll hear zingers like, "sex is a female resource", "men trade resources with women in exchange for sex", or the aforementioned "male sexuality has no value or worth". The video is about 20 minutes long. I nearly made it to the six-minute mark.

Even if you don't have the time to expose yourself to her drivel, the idea that we men are at the complete mercy of women when it comes to sex is probably familiar to you. In the video, one of the examples of the alleged sexual value of women was that some retail store offered women a 40 Euro voucher (real worth: close to zero) and a glass of champagne if they showed up topless. In my book, this is a case of complete lack of dignity if not of outright stupidity, though.

But let's get back to dating. In the course forum, one woman wrote what could have been taken from some feminist blog, Jezebel, or that disgraceful Manboobz blog:
To put it pretty crudely, a woman can get sex whenever she wants. There will nearly always be a man willing to (gosh, what is the right way to say it...) fulfill that need. However, a man can't always find a willing female partner. Again, this points to women holding most of the value of sex.
To my surprise, one woman replied to that, writing that she, "listened to that lecture and I thought my head was going to pop off.  [Kathleen Vohs] made so many generalizations about women and so many giant leaps in her conclusion". She also punched a hole in Vohs' argument by asking, "What happens to the theory of sexual economics when it is a homosexual couple?" But let's not get critical thinking get in the way of some feminist fantasy!

Does the theory of unlimited female sexual power make any sense to you, like the first commenter expressed it?

Sure, put some woman into a bar, and there will be some dude hitting on her. But will it be the kind of guy that makes her gina tingle? Women might have the perception that they have all the power because the social reality is such that the guy has to make a move and women can then lean back and make their pick. Expressed in more abstract terms, women trade activity for a restricted range of choices since they can only select from their actual suitors. However, put that woman in a bar and tell her to exert her "sexual power" by getting the hottest guy in the place, and her confidence will quickly falter.

Of course, if a woman stoops low enough, she might find some guy who is willing to have sex with her. Yet, it's the same with men. If you forget about your standards and are willing to go for the bottom of the barrel, you should find it pretty easy to get laid. Maybe start hanging out at "fat acceptance" meetings if you're really desperate. However, what you desire is not always what you can realistically expect to get. Millions of girls want to fuck Justin Bieber, but how many really get the chance?

If you are in the unfortunate position that you don't enjoy a reasonably high sexual market value, you can either force yourself to fuck some woman that only grosses you out (let us know how it was!), or you do the sensible thing and remain involuntarily celibate. Either that, or you pay for sex. Now imagine you are a woman who holds "all sexual power". She's in a club, wanting to get laid. She's a bit on the short side, her chin is far from feminine, and she's got fat in all the wrong places. Now she's doing her best to attract some guy. Sadly, she notices that all the hot guys don't even notice her, and the average ones, well, they all look so average to her. So what's she going to do? Having some more beers is one possible solution, since she knows that it will make her feel attracted to guys she's otherwise be repelled by. Or turning lesbian. Or simply avoid going to nightclubs. All three are common strategies.

Please comment below if you've got something to add or ask.


  1. There was another blog at the link below that asked a similar question.


    I wrote a fairly detailed answer there, and I'll reproduce the relevant parts below:

    All this is related to the whole bit about “male sexuality is worthless” (a thesis addressed even by academics such as Catherine Hakim in her book “Honey Money” about “Erotic Capital”). Hakim says it’s because “of excess supply at zero cost,” and what you term as “self-pitying men” learn it quickly because a man voicing his sexual interest in a woman he doesn’t know well (or even a women he knows well) is almost always grounds for a negative/hostile reaction. Another blogger going by the handle of Arpagus put it more harshly:

    “While women are extremely valuable sex objects, male sexuality is worthless or (usually) worse, having a negative value; there is no intrinsic value in the male body, unfortunately. Most men are sexually invisible or disgusting to most women while most men find most women at least somewhat attractive.”

    And how would these “self-pitying men” (I would prefer to call them chronically-underinformed; it’s not like they teach this stuff in First World public schools) learn different from the opinions you outlined? They feel cursed with their sex drives, pushing them to desire what they cannot get (since to them what drives female heterosexual desire is unfathomable), and opening them up to exploitation by “cockteases” and the like. To them, women have the power to choose and reject men at the drop of a hat with neither rhyme nor reason, or to choose the wrong man and torment other men who believe, justifiably or not, that they’d be a better pick. To them, women can shut down their sex drives at will with no ill effects or constant reminders of what’s being missed. After all, it’s not like sex-starved women actually broadcast their sexual starvation to men (indeed these men believe that since “women can get sex anytime,” sexual scarcity for women is nonexistent), and the trope of a good heterosexual marriage gradually becoming more and more sexless because of the woman’s disinterest is known far and wide.

    WIth such limited data, how can these “self-pitying men” come to other conclusions? Their sex drives torment them daily, the inscrutability of female heterosexual desire confounds them, the putative ability of women to quickly and happily reject any and every man who approaches her and go contentedly home to her vibrator to enjoy all the risk-free orgasms she wants–all these make them feel as though their sexuality is worthless and unwanted (not to mention grounds for criminal prosecution given how quickly false rape/harassment accusations get thrown about). And how could they think otherwise? What positive things has their sexuality done for them?

    What else could they think, other than that women are sexual misers who dole out scraps in exchange for whatever they want at the moment? Who exactly is publicly charged with teaching heterosexual men how to approach women, indicate sexual interest in non-creepy ways, how to handle rejection, and how to please a woman once the right one and the right connection has been found?

    That’s right, no one. And just as the sleep of reason brings forth monsters, lack of understanding in this arena breeds resentment and hatred from a hunger that ever demands to be satisfied, and yet curiously seems absent in roughly half the human species.

    1. "Who exactly is publicly charged with teaching heterosexual men how to approach women, indicate sexual interest in non-creepy ways, how to handle rejection, and how to please a woman once the right one and the right connection has been found?" <---- are you seriously for real? Why is the man's job to do all that, in 2015? ughhhh

  2. My comments and questions for this particular post:

    I'm surprised you didn't mention the case of Bar Refaeli and Leonardo DiCaprio when you debunked the "women have all the power in sex" bit. Millions of men would kill for a chance to bed Ms. Refaeli. But all her charms were unable to keep Mr. DiCaprio attached to her.

    There are places like China where sex-selective abortion has drastically increased sex ratios in favour of men, so the few remaining women have their pick. But when it comes to First World countries, the common perception remains that all average-looking-and-up women have the power in sex, because of how easily they can get it.

    The common perception also says that there's nothing quite so lacking any sense of logic or order as the "gina tingle" (and those who look for some shortcut to trigger this end up making PUA instructors richer). This has some basis in fact, because according to a study by the okcupid site, "women rate 80% of men as below-average-looking":


    Not a very good way to start things off. But now add all the "vibrators are better than men" jokes. Since they can give a woman sufficiently informed about her body all the risk-and-trouble-free orgasms she could ever want, what can a real heterosexual man possibly offer a heterosexual woman? The average healthy man's sex drive is troubling enough for him--women in the "common perception" seem to have no problem squelching their sex drives, assuming they have one in the first place, as I mentioned before. To go on a brief tangent, women also have more power to start families "all by themselves" via artificial insemination, or at least more cheaply than the male equivalent which requires egg donation and surrogate gestation.

    Without hard, accurate data, how is an average man in a first world country supposed to not feel that attractive women like to reject as many men as possible in a given evening/gathering? How is he supposed to not feel that attractive women would rather squish cockroaches and spiders with their bare feet than even entertain the thought of becoming sexual with him? How is he supposed to feel that his own sexuality, which can be like a hungry and screaming child attached to your back, has any value to attractive heterosexual women?

    I'm glad you're addressing this issue and am looking forward to your responses.

    P.S. About "turning lesbian": the experience of a certain British actress, Jackie Clune, is relevant here. You can read her reminiscences about her past as a lesbian before falling in love with and marrying a man in the following link below:


    She mentions how the heterosexual emotional dynamic is something she found much simpler and less bothersome than the ones she had with her lesbian partners. She pointedly doesn't mention whether she found sexual activities with a man better than those she had with women, aside from noting it was "gadget-free," but the common perception also says that "women know their own gender's bodies better than men," too. Yet another strike against men's sexual value to women.

    P.P.S. Are you going to write a piece on the manboobz.com blog too?

    1. Thanks for this extensive comment! The reason I didn't mention Bar Refaeli and Leonardo DiCaprio was simply because I didn't know about her. In fact, I spend no time at all looking up celebrities, and I don't pay any attention to new movies either. Judging from the Wikipedia article, Bar Refaeli seems to be quite an arrogant bitch:

      "In 2007 it was reported that Refaeli had married a family acquaintance and divorced him soon after to avoid military service in the Israel Defense Forces, which is mandatory for both men and women over the age of 18. The Israeli Forum for the Promotion of Equal Share in the Burden threatened to boycott the fashion chain Fox if they hired Refaeli, but the two sides reached a compromise in which Refaeli agreed to visit injured IDF soldiers on visits to Israel and encourage enlistment in the army.[47] Refaeli later stated, "I don't regret not enlisting, because it paid off big time. That's just the way it is, celebrities have other needs. I hope my case has influenced the army""

      I'm sure, Leonardo DiCaprio meets many hot women who are not so full of themselves.

      That women have the power to start families by themselves is also the effect of feminist policies. It seems that single mothers have no problem at all getting welfare, and there are even cases were women live off welfare entirely, thanks to two or three small kids. That doesn't help gender relations either.

      I made a note of the sites you mention and may discuss them in future posts. But don't hold your breath for an article on Manboobz. Ask me again once I'm done with Roissy.

    2. Bar Refaeli's little bit of draft-dodging might be viewed as a rational business decision if you remember that a female model's primary assets are her looks, which, unlike assets such as land, are fragile and perishable. The former is especially so in the rigours of combat--she wouldn't have had much of a modelling career if a stray piece of shrapnel or white phosphorous gave her a prominent scar on her face or deformed her skull, or if she became the victim of an acid attack, or if she was captured and left to the predatory whims of the OpFor. There's no lack of mutilated male soldiers in the historical record, but for her such an experience would have scuppered her modelling career before it really began. I'm surprised that the IDF didn't instead use her in a public relations or recruiting capacity, though--didn't various nations use women with good looks/voices to encourage men to enlist and/or to maintain morale both among forces in the field and the home population in both World Wars?

      The subject of this blog post is something I'd like thoroughly cleared up, because it's easy for heterosexual men to give up or to "turn to the dark side" via PUA practices if they believe, or are led to believe through whatever influences, that their sexuality is of no worth to attractive heterosexual women. What can one of these men anchor belief in the worth of their own sexuality to attractive women then, given all the negative factors I just mentioned?

      And yes, please make a piece on the manboobz blog once you're finished with Roissy.

    3. Of course her decision made perfect sense from a business perspective. However, the way she's phrased it is amazingly arrogant, "That's just the way it is, celebrities have other needs." Some decency would have served her well. Given that this is a statement she made in public, I wonder what kind of person she's in her private life.

      Yes, it is quite common that good-looking women are used to boost morale. Marylin Monroe's presence was well publicized, for instance. Here is a video showing her visiting troops in Korea:

      All a guy --- any guy --- has to do to realize that his sexuality has worth is putting himself in a situation were he is desired. This can be as simple as taking a trip to some third world country, and this is the angle the post-PUA crowd around Roosh promotes, or working on himself and specifically targeting women for which he is a good match for. Again, socio-economic considerations come into play, but they are probably inevitable. Still, if a woman is looking for a guy to meet certain criteria, she'll probably pick, ceteris paribus, the guy who's in better shape. Having a steady job and being lean beats having a steady job and being chubby.

      However, the sexual marketplace is competitive, and just like many women feel that they are invisible (despite feminist propaganda), so will many men have to come to grips with the fact that they won't have their pick among the hottest girls. Yet, given enough effort and the right circumstances, they should be able to get some interest from girls.

    4. Barring (get it?) a hidden camera's video or the like, I doubt incontrovertible evidence of Bar Refaeli's behaviour towards men she considers relationship material in private life will arise. But I wouldn't be surprised if what you say is true. Power can get to your head, and humility or even common courtesy doesn't come easily to those who are so used to being validated, sincerely or not, every minute of their waking lives.

      I would say that the "seek better broads abroad" bit is doomed to failure, much like you outlined with the "Pussy Paradise" hunt or websites like HappierAbroad.com that focus on this. But my original question remains: how can a basically-decent heterosexual man securely anchor belief in the value of his sexuality to heterosexual women? It could be a long and winding road before finding a truly good match, and keeping that belief is key to continuing the journey and not falling to the dark side of PUA.

      It's getting pretty difficult to do this, especially with all the negative factors I already mentioned.

    5. Frankly, I think the picture regarding dating in the Western world is gloomy. The previous social contract of taking a wife, raising a family and making a real effort to work things out has made way to a generation of women with an absurd sense of entitlement, can't handle money (look up consumer debt divided by genders), and are receiving an inordinate amount of legal power over the man (no fault divorce, custody etc.). I don't think I would have married had I lived in the USA.

      Your best bet would be to find a decent woman, and that's not quite so easy anymore. I wouldn't recommend anybody to get involved with single moms, single women around 30, and divorcees, but as you get older, those may be the only ones left to chose from for some men.

    6. "... a generation of women with an absurd sense of entitlement, can't handle money (look up consumer debt divided by genders), and are receiving an inordinate amount of legal power over the man (no fault divorce, custody etc.)."

      Seems like advertisers also recognized this trend (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmKHm1uJCPw): This spot for BKK Mobil Oil summarizes everything that's wrong with the "mainstream-women" today quite well, and I think the spot will be very successful because it tells women what they wanna hear.

    7. Thanks for posting this link. The video made me speechless. Too bad it's in German, otherwise I would have dissected it on the blog. You are right, it targets nothing but narcissist women. Sure, grrrls, go ahead and form a band, write a best seller, have a successful career, have three kids, marry twice,... What I found amusing was that the narrator said she was 26, and was fully focussed on the future, full of unrealistic plans. It's rare enough that she'd succeed at one of the goals (apart from the divorce part).

    8. Well, if you understand German you could translate it for us.

    9. "I think I'll do that." I'm really looking forward to that blog post, Aaron! BTW: The clip was produced by these folks http://www.ek-werbeagentur.de/

    10. Hi Aaron!

      This is probably the original inspiration for the clip mentioned above, judging from how the agency works (copying successful campaigns from other agencies and giving it a little twist / http://www.kununu.com/de/nrw/duesseldorf/pr/engelmann-kryschak-werbeagentur): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGs6K08vpW4
      As you can notice, the two clips match not only on a vsiual level they also carry nearly the same message...

  3. "Does the theory of unlimited female sexual power make any sense to you, like the first commenter expressed it?"
    It's economics ain't it, so it's all about pricing. Your willingness to pay a certain price (Nachfragepreis) and the price she's asking (Angebotspreis). If the prices are different you have to haggle or there will be no transaction. You meet in the middle most of the times.
    Conclusion of this paragraph: The Professor's drivel is pretty shoddy economics. Sorry, Professor.

    You pretty much got the rest.
    She can only ask a high price if the man is willing to pay it. (And why should a man in high demand pay a high price?)
    Willing to pay a high price are:
    a) desperate men
    b) guys who don't make her tingle and have to convince her sex is a good idea (rich men "game")
    c) men who follow "traditional dating" (It could be argued those men fall under category a) because they are desperate in the sense that they think women are above them)
    Conclusion: Sure women can extract ressources from those men but they don't want to - except if they are gold diggers [don't get me wrong, there are quite a few gold diggers around, but they don't want to have sex with a 60-year-old]. See first paragraph for the reason.

    Further undercutting the nonsense she's spewing: Men under category a) and c) do have the option to go for prostituion undercutting any lunatic price any woman may ask. Not more men are visiting prostitutes because they want a girlfriend, which is sex + x. X is what you seek other than sex, the relationship stuff.
    Conclusion: Not sex but (attractive) women who are able to pair bond, form friendships and emotional attachment are in high demand. So, again, Professor you really suck at this by confusing those two.

    1. Desperate men are also what keep the myth alive. I'll write about this in an upcoming post.

      The reason feminists and the mainstream media wage their war on porn and prostitution is that it undermines the perceived value of women for matters of sex. If it was generally possible to see prostitutes, I'm sure many men wouldn't bother hitting on girls to begin with. However, by declaring prostitution to be illegal, which happens to be the case in many countries, you artificially raise the price/perceived value of sex.

    2. A.S., please check out Catherine Hakim's book Honey Money which is an academic examination on the concept of sexual/erotic capital, which is held only by women, of course, as according to Hakim "male sexuality is worthless, because of excess supply at zero cost." Her main hypothesis is that if women work on being attractive and fashionable, they'll get "comped" because the men who control access to resources will gift her to try and win favours, but only so as long as they keep it on the level of the "cocktease."

      She also mentions the "male sex deficit" (which as I've explained has a bit more traction because of how there isn't a foolproof, side-effects-free way of squelching a persistent male sex drive).

      All this talk of price does put a damper on those happy folks who would rather that sex be part of a mutually-satisfying emotionally-involved relationship. Sadly there are vast amounts of people who aren't in such relationships, and so for us, price is an unavoidable fact.

      I think a quote from Joe Rogan is appropriate here:

      "Pussy is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of pussy in another dimension. . . . Dick isn’t even in the ballgame. There are no chicks alive willing to blow themselves up for dick."

    3. Thanks for the suggestion! I'll try to get a hold of that book. It's amusing what women who are in love with their vibrator are able to dream up.

    4. Could you tell me what made you think that the author of Honey Money is in love with her vibrator?

    5. That was just a jab at feminist authors in general. You shouldn't interpret it literally.

  4. Just as it is very easy for a woman to get laid by showing up at a bar, a guy can just pick up a phone and call an escort.

    I think Alek had made this point on some forum once, and I completely agree, that all this sexual power discussion of men and women is very theoretical.

    In reality, it's not easy for men or women to realize their power. It might seem easy in theory, but neither is it easy for guys to approach a bunch of women, make bold sexual moves or call an escort, nor is it really easy from a woman's perspective to get a quality guy.

    1. escorts are illegal in the USA. no comparison.

  5. "Sadly, she notices that all the hot guys don't even notice her, and the average ones, well, they all look so average to her. So what's she going to do? Having some more beers is one possible solution, since she knows that it will make her feel attracted to guys she's otherwise be repelled by."

    It's a little different. She's going to be indifferent if she get's drunk, the guys won't get any more attractive in her perception, though the end-result is going to be the same, she's going to fuck some random dude that she would otherwise find repelling.

    Of special interest to you might be this paper: "Clark, R. D., III & E. Hatfield. "Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers." Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 2 (1989): 39–55." (http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf)
    I'm not saying that this study is good or bad or isn't biased, but it's the one that is teached in psychology classes in this context.

    1. Thanks for letting me know about this paper. Based on my experience, I'm tempted to say that the hypothesis is nonsense. Women don't get indifferent. Instead, alcohol makes them hornier. I haven't had a look at the paper yet, but I strongly suspect a feminist undercurrent. Of course, a feminist sitting in her armchair can indulge in a feeling of superiority by writing that women merely feel "indifferent" by men. See, guys, they aren't horny, they just don't care about you!

      I'll study this paper on the weekend, though.

  6. When you take the logic of a specific field to another unrelated field, you generally end up with pretty hilarious results that only make sense to people devoid of any real-life experience (about that, I'd love to see a quantum physicist use his own paradigms on the mating issue, that would be something).

    Both sex have a huge sexual power over people of the opposite sex who find them very attractive and have no self-respect. Duh. The difference is that since it's the dude's job to approach, you will not immediately see the girls who want it with you. However, it quickly becomes apparent when a girl is starved for sex, and yeah, they are pretty common, even though they cannot express it the same way as we do.

    I was thinking about this issue the other day, and something also struck me: since, as somebody put it, most men find most women somehow attractive (not my case, but so I hear), the even if you admit that women as a whole have sexual power because of the dynamic where the guy has to be interested first for anything to happen, it doesn't mean that a girl, as an individual has such power, since she's competing with other girls. That's the huge glaring hole in this idiotic theory: since, according to non gender-influenced feminists, men will fuck anything that moves, every girls is competing against all the others, plus a few animals and maybe dead trees.

    Most guys have the experience of meeting a girl who is very keen, and they do exactly the same as women do: they stall a little, because that's what the human mind does when it thinks it has a ressource at its disposal: it focuses on getting more. The reason why guys feel they are at a disadvantage is that, because of the way they are used to express interest, the girl just focuses elsewhere. The issue is not that women as a whole have sexual power over pricing, or whatever retarded theory an agenda-driven social theorems nerds can come up with. The issue is that the way they go at it undermines their success, which might be related to their actual worth. If a guy is begging for sex in a bar, is it really that great to have sexual power over him?

    The experiment of telling girls to get the best guy, and not the drunk loser, is indeed a good one. If it was socially acceptable for girls to approach, we too would get a large share of unattractive desperate chicks approaching us, which we would not want to fuck. That wouldn't mean we can fuck quality. It would mean that if you are willing to fuck anything, chances that you will fuck something improve.

    Hey Kathleen, I also have financial power over bums. That definitely makes me a billionaire right?

    1. I doubt that most men find most women somewhat attractive. Previously, a survey by OKCupid was mentioned according to which women rate 80% of men to be below average looking, and why would it be any different if you asked men about their opinion on a random selection of women? I'd say that most women are completely invisible, and for her to be called "cute" she'd have to be, at the very least, in the top 30% or so looks-wise.

      Also, you do get scads of unattractive women "approaching" you. They make poor attempts to signal their interest, step on your toes, rub against you as they walk past and whatnot. You just learn to tune this out in clubs, just as hot girls ignore ugly guys who approach them. But guys do have to make the move, while girls give "signals", which greatly limits the perceived negative psychological consequences of a rejection. After flipping her her three times and the guy not reacting, she can tell herself that she only flipped her hair because her neck was itching, while the guy, after getting shot down, will find it much more difficult to say with a straight face that he wasn't interested in the girl to begin with. However, PUAs had a nice take on that by telling guys to "practice approaches" and focussing on their routines, instead of the girls.

    2. "After flipping her her three times and the guy not reacting, she can tell herself that she only flipped her hair because her neck was itching, (...)"
      They look butthurt to me.

      I think the notion that women are in a really comfortable position rejection-wise is another one of those fairytales inexperienced scientists created - you know, just like some marketing professor*. The kind of scientist that never had a woman go all giddy on him.


      * I tried to watch the video yesterday but couldn't. She's so obiusly spewing nonsense and gloating about her womyn supremacy/power... a lot more than I can stomach.

    3. Actually, the OKCupid study I linked to said that male users rated women fairly evenly on the attraction scale, as though on a normal curve (unlike the severely skewed graph shown by women's ratings, which could be due to the "women have their types" phenomenon that the defunct seductionmyth website mentioned). Male users of the site usually reserved their messages for the top 30% according to the study, however.

      And depending on whom you talk to, women would rather go to a club to drunkenly revel with their friends than entertain any possibility of "getting laid" (which, again, "they can do anytime") by strangers. One humourous take on this phenomenon can be viewed here:


      I'm not sure I would positively respond to "indicators of interest" from women engaged in the sort of behaviour mentioned in the vid. I'm at a loss as to why the maker of the vid is so against women taking off their party shoes, however--what if they bring in comfortable flats to wear after they've had enough of the "fashionable but painful" ones?

    4. "most men find most women somehow attractive (not my case, but so I hear)"

      Is this really a commonly-held belief? I've never heard it before, and certainly neither I nor my friends would touch most women with a barge-pole.

    5. It's certainly a belief that is commonly spread in mainstream media. I don't think I knew any guy who would act like that, though.

  7. I'm the one of the comment above and there is something I find disturbing in this video: she seems very happy about the fact that women have plethora of low value guys coming up to them, it looks like she derives some personal satisfaction out of it. Am I the only one who has this impression?

    1. I had the same impression. To me it looks as if she gloating. That's how I imagine feminists to act when they discuss the shortcomings of men.

  8. Thanks for posting this, Aaron.

    A couple of months ago you and Alek argued ferociously against this very concept, you guys maintaining in the teeth of all logic and common sense that women choose and men are the chosen, with me pretty much taking the position you expres here. That episode badly shook my belief in yours and Alek's intellectual credibility, but I have since come to realize that while you and Alek are miles above most writers on these topics, you guys too have your blind spots, inflexible and illogical beliefs, and in the case of Alek often can't resist suppressing and censoring those who disagree.

    I am gladdened that even if you have illogical beliefs, you can indeed grow past them in the direction of greater honesty, logic, and common sense. That's impressive.

    Despite the fact that writers like you and Alek are far less "perfect" in terms of honesty and intellectual credibility than I at first wished to believe, you are the still the best thing out there. I've been mocked and insulted by you guys, but I still support you :)


    1. I don't have the time right now to look up the discussion you refer to, but if I remember correctly, the position was a bit different. Alek and me were discussing the case were a desirable woman gets approached, and the main point was that while the guy has to walk up to her, she then has to accept his advances or turn him down.

      However, in this article I talk about women in general, including those who don't have dozens of men coming after them. If no guy is interested in you, how can you hold sexual power?

    2. Actually George... The issue is that there are subtleties you probably miss due to lack of experience. So when we're arguing grays, you read "black, white, black, white" and see things that weren't written on the page.

      I'm not going to take the 15 hours of explaining to you the difference between this subject and the one you referenced, because if you think they're the same subject, you literally are "colorblind", and we're having a discussion about different colors.

  9. If it was socially acceptable for girls to approach, we too would get a large share of unattractive desperate chicks approaching us, which we would not want to fuck.

    This is in fact what guys experience in Thailand and the Phillippines.

    1. Good point! Thanks for mentioning this. It's pretty much the same in all third world countries.

  10. Great clarifying piece, I thought about this myself for quite some time and used to side with the "sexual economics"-argument… forgetting, that it's merely a construct all by itself. Thanks!

  11. Kathleen Vohs is the co-author in the classical paper: Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions


    ... with famous social psychologist Roy F. Baumeister.

    1. Entire academic fields can be completely wrong, and while I don't want to go as far as to denounce economics or psychology as a whole, I do think it's save to say that "sexual economics" is a highly questionable area of inquiry. The entire premise is flawed. However, as an academic you should at least have an open mind and not argue from the position of what you perceive to be a foregone conclusion. I've only skimmed the paper, but there are quite a few strong statements that are presented as fact, without justification at all. The most glaring flaw is that women aren't seen to be enjoying sex, and only have use for their sexuality as a bargaining chip so that they can extort the greatest possible amount of material resources from a man. This view is absolutely absurd. We've discussed this in the blog and comments, and you are welcome to contribute.

    2. I would go as far as to question quite a bit of the modern economics ideas, actually. Most of them do not stand actual real-world analysis. Even ideas which seem to make sense, like looking for your best interest, are heavily flawed since people do not seem to act rationally at all. This is something academics often miss: the irrational factor, the different set of values and varying perceptions. George Soros actually elaborates pretty well on this in his book "Alchemy of finance".

    3. I meant to say that there is very little in economics that's worth being salvaged. The assumption of the "homo oeconomicus", which is at its core, is nothing but an assumption, and a bad one. Likewise, the "market" is a fiction, too. Maybe you're familiar with the primitive mathematics that are taught in your standard macroeconomics course. Overall, the discipline is deeply flawed, just like psychology. We've been discussion economics to some extent on the forum, by the way. But speaking of psychology: it is normal that studies are conducted with a bunch of students, and then extrapolated to society. However, if you look at, say, the (in-) famous Stanford Prison Experiment, you can't help but ask yourself whether the results were what they were because elite universities tend to attract students who have been trained all their life to jump through hoops and who normally accept authority blindly.

    4. Your point on the fact that they used people prone to follow authority by principle is a very good one. I never thought about it, but it is indeed a point worth taking into account.

    5. In fact, a recent study put out an advert exactly like the one used to recruit participants for the original Stanford experiment. The people who responded scored significantly higher on the traits of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, machiavellianism, narcissism and social dominance. They also had lower scores for empathy and altruism, compared to people who responded to more neutral sounding ads.

    6. Incidentally, Zimbardo, the guy who ran that experiment, is the same idiot who nowadays bangs on about "The Demise of Guys". I don't know why he is so respected amongst the psychology community.

    7. I tried watching one of those videos, and it was one of the rare cases were I couldn't help but should "imbecile!" at the screen. Here's the talk, for anybody who's interested:

      In the talk he makes some sweeping generalizations, and some statistics certainly deserve close scrutiny, for instance the alleged success of women in education. For one, the educational system has been changed to benefit girls (guys just don't like to sit still, so they get Ritalin to take care of the problem), but it hasn't been quite so successful, because women then go on to predominantly enroll in bullshit subjects like communications, while in any serious subject men still dominate by a factor of ten to one, at the very least. I certainly can't remember having read many contemporary research articles when I was in graduate school that were written by women.

  12. So we could summarize George and Aaron's ideas as, "Women choose... among their available options"

  13. It's pretty much an undeniable fact widely accepted in academic circles. E.g. see here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201305/the-price-sex-women-rule-men-drool-the-markets-cruel

    Though of course you can deny everything if you use standard terminology with non-standard meanings ;-)

    1. Wait, there is a lengthy blog post discussing the issues, and dozens of comments, and yet you think you can just show up, referring to research we have discussed already and think this would impress anybody?

    2. They're just talking about the way things are now. The vast majority of people are not able to see beyond their own culture and era. But if you look at history women have not always had the upper hand. It's only due to the use of fossil fuels and industrialization, where physical strength has become less important, that women are allowed to enjoy their current elevated status.

      What can't continue, won't. The current societal setup is unsustainable. Right now we are seeing the peak of artificially leveraged female status. And this type of gloating is only hastening their fall back to more reasonable levels, because ultimately men have to endorse this type of setup, and a lot of younger men are waking up and are no longer willing to suck up to women.

  14. I guess according to you the Middle-East isn't a seller of oil, either :DD fantastic

    1. There is a big difference between an obvious economic transaction (money for oil), and framing a non-economic issue (male-female sexuality) as an economic one.

      Would you mind answering this question: How does sexual economics work in the case of gay men? On the one hand, "academics" like Kathleen Vohs claim that male sexuality was worthless, yet gay men act in a very competitive manner. The average gay man invests much more in himself for the attention of other gay men than the average heterosexual man does for the attention of women.

    2. This isn't the most relevant to this conversation, but what you said reminds me of how a certain Stephen Fry claimed that if heterosexual women truly liked sex, they would go "cruising" or "cottaging" like gay men do:


      And "men investing in themselves for the attention of women"? Isn't that concept something that keeps making PUA instructors richer, and often doesn't work?

    3. I'll have a look at that. However, does anybody who has had sex with maybe even just a few women truly believe that they don't enjoy it? Of course, there is the occasional prude who has absolutely no clue, but by and large women do enjoy sex quite a bit. Just imagine what it would mean for the human race if that wasn't the case. But since we're still around...

    4. To start, there's the fact that no one is publicly charged with teaching heterosexual men how to be proficient and caring sexual partners--we don't learn this in grade school, for instance. That's not a good start. And then you run into the reputation problems I mentioned earlier with men.

      You can start here with reading how Hookup Culture usually means that women in it get little or no pleasure out of it:


      You can also read a 2011 study showing how young heterosexual women are far less likely than men to achieve orgasm in heterosexual encounters:


      America, being the largest bastion for male circumcision in the First World, may also be inadvertently reducing the pleasure women get from intercourse:


      All this gives a whole new meaning to "[She] kissed a girl and liked it"--men might just not be an attractive option anymore for heterosexual women, and there has been research that demonstrates that women's sexual orientations are more malleable than men's.

      And aren't fertility rates in First World countries by and large falling to sub-replacement levels, excluding the influence from immigration? Strangely enough, some women with "baby rabies" and not enough money for artificial insemination (which is a costly process) are turning to "natural insemination," detailed below:


    5. The Daily Mail isn't what I'd call a reputable source. Also, that kind of "natural insemination" seems to entail some significant legal risks for men. (All new enterprises do.) It could well be that a woman would be able to successfully sue the guy for child support.

      I know about statistics according to which about a third of women are either unable to orgasm or have never had an orgasm. However, sex isn't just about the orgasm. She can still enjoy being bedded by a man without climaxing.

      Also, the malleability of women's sexual orientations seems to be a cultural artifact. Remember that in Ancient Greece men had open homosexual relations, and that there were established rules of conduct regarding how, for instance, elderly men had to court young boys if they wanted to get intimate with them.

    6. Yep, the following web article outlines how men can be pulled into child support regardless of "mitigating factors":


      There's also the case of strong proponents of hook-up culture who revealed that in their casual encounters they only rarely experienced orgasms:



      Orgasms for women may not be the be-all-end-all of sex, but I think that, like natural erections for men who don't normally suffer from ED, they may be better BS detectors than the women experiencing them are. The lack of them in these cases are good signs that they aren't truly attracted to the men they're bedding, not to mention how the majority of these men aren't involved enough to bother learning her body and how it best responds.

      As for women's sexual malleability, I've already linked you to the story of Jackie Clune. Apparently this has become common enough that there are books written about this phenomenon:


      Sometimes it starts earlier than you think, as outlined in the following anecdote:


  15. I will post an excerpt of a post I used when I responded to some posters here as to why I believe "women who initiate sex are MASCULINE and not very sexy" here is the excerpt:

    "Some people say only a woman can guarantee herself sex every night, because all she has to do is look sexy and the men will come calling. BUT what these men fail to realise is that women DO NOT WANT GUARANTEED SEX every night, what they want IS TO BE WITH A MASCULINE MAN...this proposition is actually MORE DIFFICULT than the one faced by MEN!!

    I won't recommend it but a man can merely rape a woman, so technically a man can guaranteed himself sex every night."...

    Women actually have no power AT ALL, unless you GIVE it to them. Even nature agrees with me.

    Notice how it is practically impossible for a woman to have sex with a man who has no boner. Is it impossible to have sex with a woman who isn't horny?

    Women become pregnant when the MAN climaxes. Does a women get pregnant if only she climaxes?

    women by NATURE are reactionary, they can only react to what men do.

    This is why MEN approach, this is why MEN must initiate sex, this is why WOMEN appear to have no responsibility when it comes to sex....they just react to what you do....this is NOT power.

    I've had countless sex with women who were not initially attracted to me. What happened?

    Also related (I think) is another post to a commenter on Sleazy's blog. Here's an excerpt:

    "...So many men complain about how Western women are bossy and masculine, but A WOMAN WHO INITIATES SEX IS MASCULINE.

    Think about it for a moment.

    A woman who is SMALLER than a man, PHYSICALLY WEAKER than a man, can potentially get RAPED and MURDERED by a man, can get PREGNANT by a man is going to initiate sex with a STRANGER which she has only met for a night?

    ...If you have to wait for a woman (who have LOWER sex drives BTW) to initiate sex, then you are her sex toy....and it won't be long until she is tired of you.

    If she is going to initiate sex (a form of control) what else is she going to initiate? What clothes you wear? What time you should see her? A woman who holds sex HAS POWER.

    A woman gets what is given to her, not gets what she wants."

    ...And finally back to the topic, again, ALL quotes were made by me:

    "...The last part in the quote...suggests you believe women CONTROL their choice of mates for a sexual relationship. If you believe this, then you are wrong.

    Women CHOOSE, but men control who they CHOOSE....So, ultimately men are the CHOOSERS.

    A normal woman with a masculine body shape and an ugly face will find it extremely hard to get with a successful man...and even if she did, the chances he isn't cheating on her are slimmer than if the woman had been attractive. Even though it is difficult for an ugly man it is EASIER for him to get with an attractive woman (especially if he is successful...it doesn't have to be money-wise). Because the way you look is LESS important for a woman...women ULTIMATELY want a man who can get their lives in order. Women are EASIER to manipulate, EASIER to deceive, EASIER to lead...because they are FEMININE.

    Men long for control...women long to be controlled. "Assholes" do a good job of this, however this doesn't mean "controlling women = abusing women".

    ...women on average are more "reactionary" than men. Notice how it is the woman that puts more effort in her appearance (clothes, jewellery, manicures, pedicures, hairstyles, hundreds times larger range of skin care products, anti-aging creams etc).

    A woman has to look good, because she doesn't really have anything else to offer. That's because women DON'T NEED to offer anything else. All a woman requires, is that she looks good and does what you tell her.

    Men need to do a lot, lot more. Because we are the head of the relationship. The dominant one, the stable one, the strong one, the decisive one etc, etc ,etc...."

    1. Absolutely awesome! This is indeed 100% true!

  16. The single difference between guys and girls is that the cultural norm that we have to approach makes it harder for us to rationalize away the fact that a girl did not like us. If we approach and she is not interested, we have no way to avoid knowing it. A girl who is not approached by the guy she wants can rationalize that he was gay, did not see her, etc...

    As soon as guys stop caring about women's view of them, they have the advantage, because, even though they cannot choose who will be interested (just like girls), they can approach who they like. That's why "assholes" tend to fare better: since they don't care about people's point of view, they can take full advantage of what being a dude offers. Notice how it always pisses girls off to see that a guy they rejected goes up to see another girls straight up. That's them losing their power and they hate that.

    The fun part is that this seems to be a recipe for success as a guy: don't care what other people think, and don't care about failing. Do it and learn along the way. It is a harsh way, but if you can adopt this point of view, it is a lot better than the female perspective which is to wait to have stuff handled to her and hope to marry a worthy dude in her few prime years. I wouldn't want to be a chick.

    Interestingly, there is also some kind of coherence between people who follow PUA and those who follow IM: they are all afraid of failing, and will stick to magic recipes in order to run away from the idea they might not be perfect. On the other end of the spectrum, people who fare well in their business and with chicks tend to be the exact opposite.

  17. The first time that I saw this claim that women hold all the sexual power, I just knew that something was wrong with that statement. It is shown to be nonsense by being mocked by reality.

    For example, many women, with “all sexual power,” are in relationships in which they are miserable and unhappy.

    Many women, with “all sexual power” have been pumped and dumped have been the community mattress, cum receptacle, with their STD infested pussies, are damaged goods find that no decent man would ever touch them with a long stick.

    Many women, with “all sexual power” but not man, and not even a child, are desperate that they can't find a man. Some of them have passed 30 and remain childless. They get more desperate as they get older, less attractive and less fertile. Some of these women, with “all sexual power” but no man nor child, as they approach late 30s and 40s, have taken the desperate step of paying $15000 to fertility centers to extract and freeze their eggs and inject themselves (ouch) with harmonies. This, in attempt to use their “all sexual power” to get a man to some day go to the fertility center, unbuckle his belt, pull down his trousers, bend down and jerk off in a petri disc to try to fertilize those near expired eggs.

    Many of these women take good care of themselves and look good, but the problem is they have “all sexual power” but complain that they cant find a man. How very interesting.

  18. "Thanks for posting this link. The video made me speechless. Too bad it's in German, otherwise I would have dissected it on the blog. You are right, it targets nothing but narcissist women. Sure, grrrls, go ahead and form a band, write a best seller, have a successful career, have three kids, marry twice,... What I found amusing was that the narrator said she was 26, and was fully focussed on the future, full of unrealistic plans. It's rare enough that she'd succeed at one of the goals (apart from the divorce part)."

    Why are those plans unrealistic?

    1. Are you a troll or just plain stupid? Sure, go ahead and write a best seller while you're climbing the corporate ladder and raise three kids with two husbands, and have a band on the side!

  19. "Are you a troll or just plain stupid? Sure, go ahead and write a best seller while you're climbing the corporate ladder and raise three kids with two husbands, and have a band on the side!"

    Oh. Okay. I see now. I thought the commercial was advocating to do one of those things, not all of them. Please don't jump to conclusions and call me stupid, though. I know that your blog gets overrun with trolls, but my question really was legitimate.

  20. Look it is fairly simple. Sex is about reproduction, and only young women are fertile. That makes young women scare and valuable. All men want to sleep with younger fertile women, meaning there are always more men, seeking a smaller group of women.

    Combine that with the fact that reproduction costs men very little, but women have to carry a child for 9 months. Then women are likely to be more picky in their sexual partners.

    The net result of this is that most women under the age of 35 can have sex anytime they feel like it. Very few men can, unless they are expectionally good looking or have another advantage like celebrity.

    The problem with most of the comments of above is you can't accept that humans are animals, which are governed by natural selection and evolution. You get outraged by how comments don't fit your idea of morality, when morality has nothing to do with it.

    1. As I understand your comment, you seem to be implying that men will sleep with any woman, provided she is under 35. That isn't the case. Most self-respecting men who are being honest, I estimate only consider a 7/10 or higher truly sexually attractive, or about 30% of women -- solidly above average. My point being, just as women have standards, so do men.

      I think it is reasonable to assume that from the least attractive to the most attractive men, they all desire the most attractive women, the same being true for women. I am aware that attractiveness has a subjective element to it, however, I do not think it is controversial to state that there is a general spectrum of attractiveness for both sexes; in other words, if I were to state that a woman is above average, most other men would agree, a few would say she was average, and hardly any would say she was below average. As a male, I am reasonably certain of this, and I am very confident that this is also true to a good extent regarding females, although I do not claim to be absolutely certain.

      Indeed, any female could potentially have sex whenever she felt like it -- provided she suspended all standards she has -- if she advertises herself aggressively enough. The same could be said for any male, if he is persistent enough at approaching women indiscriminately.

      Given, as you pointed out, humans are animals, we therefore only truly desire sex with the most attractive of the opposite sex. An 8/10 woman could indeed still have her pick of many men, and would naturally settle for the most attractive one that approaches her. Likewise, an 8/10 man (or just an attractive man if you don't like the 10 point scale) who approaches women he finds attractive can reasonably expect to get one of them, perhaps the same woman I mentioned in the last sentence. However, that same 8/10 man who knows he can get a woman he finds attractive, would never settle for a women below his standard, say a 5/10 woman (or an average woman). He would never even approach her. Likewise, the woman would not settle for the 5/10 (or average) guy when she can choose the 8/10 (more attractive) guy.

      To put it in more concrete terms, using your correct observation that most men desire young and fertile women, older men do compete with younger men for the most attractive women, whereas young women don't face nearly the same level of competition from older women. Being animals, male competition is normal. But that's okay, because the very existence of a competition implies that men, as is indeed the case, have a larger degree of control over their attractiveness relative to women, who fall into a more rigid hierarchy of attractiveness. A man who wasn't totally shafted genetically can improve his lot considerably if he works hard enough, say from average to above average, a 5 to a 7. A woman who isn't one of the 30% or so to be gifted with attractive looks can only do so much.

      Thus, as Aaron argues, women do not have a monopoly on sex. The reality is, most men are attracted to *attractive* younger women under 35, and a good deal of those men attractively pursue them and compete with one another in the process. Yes, only the best win, as in any competition. So, generally speaking, the most attractive men end up with the most attractive women.

      And then the average and below average women get a chance at the losers.

      The distinction that you failed to identify, I hope I have argued convincingly, is that both men and women have standards. Whereas men have to work hard to be the best, at least they have that option. So too do they have the possibility of competing for attractive women into their 30s and 40s, if they continue to work hard. Women have to play the genetic lottery and face losing odds. They have a little over a decade to enjoy their choice of attractive men before their looks begin to taper off -- that is, if they were one of the 30% or so fortunate enough to get top tier looks and thus actually manage to attract men they themselves find attractive. That sucks.

  21. I once read about the big deal that WAS "The Virginity Auctions". There were two women, one American and one non-American, and they were 20-somethings auctioning off their virginity in order to pay for their future careers.

    I'm a woman myself, so, apart from being jealous at first, I was shocked that so many men were making comments (about the American woman) like, "If she were a little PRETTIER, I might be willing to shell out that much cash!", and "Well, not for THAT much money...", etc.

    This article is pretty much spot on, with regards to the simple fact that...

    1.) If Justin Bieber walked into a bar, women would injure each other in a stampede, each woman trying to be the FIRST woman in that bar to have sex with Justin. Likewise, if Megan Fox walked into any American bar, the same thing would happen, except that it would be the men injuring each other for sex with Megan.

    2.) If Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton walked into any American bar, there'd be a stampede, too, but ONLY because a dozen idiots of each gender wanted to brag about something extreme (Like, say, sleeping with a presidential candidate) on Facebook.

    3.) If a fat, ugly, balding man walked into a bar with his fat, ugly, balding twin sister, they'd have to get SO PIE-EYED that by the end of the evening, they'd be able to THINK that they had had sex with actual PEOPLE, when, in REALITY, some wise-cracking moron had had his hound dog get it on with BOTH of them as a joke to entertain the other drunks as they stood smoking pot behind the bar around closing time.

    I always took the entire cultural phenomenon of "A woman's sexuality IS her power!" to mean that EVERY woman could be like Princess Jasmine seducing Jafar in order to get her way. I guess that I never really imagined Fat Helga trying that trick on a bar-full of men who weren't drunk ENOUGH to NOT want Kim Kardashian...LOL!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.