S/O Resentment by Men of Easier Access to Sex by Women

[Anonymous]

Married guy here. I'm going to go a different direction, and take issue with the underlying assumption. I think this changes with age.

In my late teens, 20's, and perhaps early 30's, I agree the women had the power in dating / relationships. I can remember some of my friends who got laid a lot by beautiful girls when we were younger. But as time has passed, a couple of things have changed:

- Intelligence, drive, and career success started becoming more important. Early on, all the women wanted to sleep with the star athlete. Removing those who get paid to play, a lot of those guys are now welders, working construction, or power washing bridges for the state (I still keep up with a lot of my former teammates). Many of them weigh over 300 pounds. The guys that were bright and went to good schools, then went on to successful careers all of a sudden started getting interest from women who wouldn't have looked twice 10 years earlier.

- Men start to die / get disabled / get incarcerated. Men are more likely to engage in risk behavior (including crime). This is one of the causal factors for all the studies showing more eligible women than men in major urban areas looking for a mate.

- Nature starts to affect looks (for men and women) starting anywhere from one's 30s to 40s. It has been covered ad nauseam here, but men have a structural advantage wrt aging's effects on their looks.

- Marriage starts to remove people from the pool that are best suited for long term relationships. I think women are more likely to look at a partner's long term potential (for obvious biological reasons) than men. When choosing who they want to sleep with, I agree a man's criteria (even one with high standards) are simpler and shallower.

- Men highly value youth in selecting potential partners, women do not as much. You can change a lot of things, but you can never make yourself any younger.

I think if you are a reasonably attractive person in reasonably good shape, man or woman, you will have access to sex (including one night stands) if you drop your standards enough. Personally, I have really high standards; I've never so much as kissed a woman I wasn't attracted to, much less slept with her.

The older you are (I noticed it happening around 30), the more the dynamic changes from heavily biased toward women to heavily biased toward men. I know beautiful 38 year old women dating very normal 44 year old men, because the super handsome or successful 38 year old men are all either gay, married, or want to date beautiful 28 year old women.

I'm not saying any of this is fair, or right, just things I've observed.

[Anonymous]

This whole stupid thread comes down to 1 basic fact of biology: Men (on average) have MUCH larger libido than women (on average). Therefore, women almost never pursue sex: their drive is not powerful enough, and why should they when surrounded by pursuing males.

The counterbalance is that women (on average) have a MUCH greater need to "relate" than men (on average). What I mean by "relate" here is to be in a relationship, to talk, communicate, to have non-sexual intimacy with a male.

Hence, as was stated earlier: women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Men offer to be in a relationship to gain access to sex; women offer sex to gain access to a relationship. In this way, all is balanced and fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a high cost of living city like D.C., you are competing with your resources for the attention of women who are spending a lot of time, energy, and money on themselves to make themselves more marketable for jobs and for men. Step up your game and make and spend more money for those women. Or move to a lower cost of living area where women are not as interested in money or status.

Ah, be rich, be a prince.

Women in other regions, say Latin America, find reasons to date and have sex with men. You might not check all the boxes at first, but they'll at least give you a shot and they'll look for a man's positive qualities.

On the other than, English speaking white women, specifically Americans, looks for reasons to not date nor have sex with men. Talk to much, not have the right job, not have the right education, not have the right resume, maybe too much around the waste, not wear the right clothes--American women will find any excuse to not date a man--as long as they first get his money.

[Anonymous]

I don’t disagree with the idea that the tables turn around 32-33 in favor of men and that, overall, men have more advantages. That said, it is normal that some men and some women recognize that attractive women may use their attractiveness to achieve substantial advantages at work. This does not have to include actual sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, her husband sounds attractive, that's why he didn't have to campaign hard to get women into bed.

I'm married to a former Playboy centerfold. How does that sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a high cost of living city like D.C., you are competing with your resources for the attention of women who are spending a lot of time, energy, and money on themselves to make themselves more marketable for jobs and for men. Step up your game and make and spend more money for those women. Or move to a lower cost of living area where women are not as interested in money or status.

Ah, be rich, be a prince.

Women in other regions, say Latin America, find reasons to date and have sex with men. You might not check all the boxes at first, but they'll at least give you a shot and they'll look for a man's positive qualities.

On the other than, English speaking white women, specifically Americans, looks for reasons to not date nor have sex with men. Talk to much, not have the right job, not have the right education, not have the right resume, maybe too much around the waste, not wear the right clothes--American women will find any excuse to not date a man--as long as they first get his money.

Anyone see the episode of Kimmy Schmidt where the college kid throws a tantrum and calls his mom because Kimmy won't have sex with him? That's what this guy reminds me of. "Mommy, a girl thinks I'm not special!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a high cost of living city like D.C., you are competing with your resources for the attention of women who are spending a lot of time, energy, and money on themselves to make themselves more marketable for jobs and for men. Step up your game and make and spend more money for those women. Or move to a lower cost of living area where women are not as interested in money or status.

Ah, be rich, be a prince.

Women in other regions, say Latin America, find reasons to date and have sex with men. You might not check all the boxes at first, but they'll at least give you a shot and they'll look for a man's positive qualities.

On the other than, English speaking white women, specifically Americans, looks for reasons to not date nor have sex with men. Talk to much, not have the right job, not have the right education, not have the right resume, maybe too much around the waste, not wear the right clothes--American women will find any excuse to not date a man--as long as they first get his money.

Anyone see the episode of Kimmy Schmidt where the college kid throws a tantrum and calls his mom because Kimmy won't have sex with him? That's what this guy reminds me of. "Mommy, a girl thinks I'm not special!"

That’s not a rebuttal, cat lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole stupid thread comes down to 1 basic fact of biology: Men (on average) have MUCH larger libido than women (on average). Therefore, women almost never pursue sex: their drive is not powerful enough, and why should they when surrounded by pursuing males.

The counterbalance is that women (on average) have a MUCH greater need to "relate" than men (on average). What I mean by "relate" here is to be in a relationship, to talk, communicate, to have non-sexual intimacy with a male.

Hence, as was stated earlier: women are the gatekeepers of sex, men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Men offer to be in a relationship to gain access to sex; women offer sex to gain access to a relationship. In this way, all is balanced and fair.

Yes to this. I don't think it's "unfair" that women have easier access to random sex than men just like I don't think it's "unfair" that my lovely long hair blows in the wind and your short hair doesn't. Neither is something I care about at all. I am in a happy, healthy marriage and have great kids and a great home and yes, I sleep with my husband, and all is good. I'm not about to cash in my "free easy sex" card at the next truck stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a high cost of living city like D.C., you are competing with your resources for the attention of women who are spending a lot of time, energy, and money on themselves to make themselves more marketable for jobs and for men. Step up your game and make and spend more money for those women. Or move to a lower cost of living area where women are not as interested in money or status.

Ah, be rich, be a prince.

Women in other regions, say Latin America, find reasons to date and have sex with men. You might not check all the boxes at first, but they'll at least give you a shot and they'll look for a man's positive qualities.

On the other than, English speaking white women, specifically Americans, looks for reasons to not date nor have sex with men. Talk to much, not have the right job, not have the right education, not have the right resume, maybe too much around the waste, not wear the right clothes--American women will find any excuse to not date a man--as long as they first get his money.

Anyone see the episode of Kimmy Schmidt where the college kid throws a tantrum and calls his mom because Kimmy won't have sex with him? That's what this guy reminds me of. "Mommy, a girl thinks I'm not special!"

That’s not a rebuttal, cat lady.

Wasn't supposed to be, dude-who-can't-get-laid-in-this-country.

And no cats, just have a smokin' hot husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a high cost of living city like D.C., you are competing with your resources for the attention of women who are spending a lot of time, energy, and money on themselves to make themselves more marketable for jobs and for men. Step up your game and make and spend more money for those women. Or move to a lower cost of living area where women are not as interested in money or status.

Ah, be rich, be a prince.

Women in other regions, say Latin America, find reasons to date and have sex with men. You might not check all the boxes at first, but they'll at least give you a shot and they'll look for a man's positive qualities.

On the other than, English speaking white women, specifically Americans, looks for reasons to not date nor have sex with men. Talk to much, not have the right job, not have the right education, not have the right resume, maybe too much around the waste, not wear the right clothes--American women will find any excuse to not date a man--as long as they first get his money.

Anyone see the episode of Kimmy Schmidt where the college kid throws a tantrum and calls his mom because Kimmy won't have sex with him? That's what this guy reminds me of. "Mommy, a girl thinks I'm not special!"

Nailed it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't supposed to be, dude-who-can't-get-laid-in-this-country.

And, of course, this is part of the problem: teaching guys that their self-worth depends on how often they can get laid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't supposed to be, dude-who-can't-get-laid-in-this-country.

And, of course, this is part of the problem: teaching guys that their self-worth depends on how often they can get laid.

yes let’s make sweeping statements that have no basis in truth and scream about the sexist world we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't supposed to be, dude-who-can't-get-laid-in-this-country.

And, of course, this is part of the problem: teaching guys that their self-worth depends on how often they can get laid.

He's the one who made a big deal over how awful American women are because they won't sleep with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't supposed to be, dude-who-can't-get-laid-in-this-country.

And, of course, this is part of the problem: teaching guys that their self-worth depends on how often they can get laid.

He's the one who made a big deal over how awful American women are because they won't sleep with him.

Still - you want a world where men view women as something other than sex trophies, don't ridicule men for being unable to put notches on their bed post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't supposed to be, dude-who-can't-get-laid-in-this-country.

And, of course, this is part of the problem: teaching guys that their self-worth depends on how often they can get laid.

He's the one who made a big deal over how awful American women are because they won't sleep with him.

No, the original statement is more along the lines that American women won’t sleep with anyone who doesn’t have a Tesla.