Nature works this way:
- Women value men according to each man’s potential or actual worth in fulfilling her hopes and dreams for home and family. Men value women in three stages: first for conquest, then for sexual availability, and finally for support in carrying out his missions in life.
- Men respond to how and why females act as they do, what females value, and what females expect in order for men to have frequent and convenient access to sex. Females are thus empowered to mandate female-friendly and supportive behavior in males. But do they?
Modern women short-circuit these Nature-based interactions and ignore centuries-old lessons. They lay claim to masculine-style sexual practice as their due and ‘right’. However, the consequences work against women, teens, and even pre-pubescent girls.
Females practicing masculine-style sexual freedom empower males to escape responsibility and obligations for what each man sees as her greatest asset: first time sex with him. Female sexual freedom also damages relationship permanence:
- If she’s so cheap and easy for him, she must also be the same or easier for other men. This dampens any extraordinariness he may have perceived in her before conquest.
- She gives readily, and he takes easily after paying attention to little but sex. Men escape proving themselves worthy of such women.
- Less proving their worth as potential husbands means no social pressures build to favor the female gender, to make females more respected generally. This emboldens and hardens male dominance, which women so eagerly criticize. But worse, it also means less respect earned by women breeds more abuse and violence against them.
- Frequent and convenient sex with no pressure to learn something new reinforces that men need not change for women or a woman. This makes men even more unchangeable, more difficult to civilize, ‘tame’, and domesticate.
- Men not successfully pressured to ease up on their natural aggressiveness and sense of independence produce less reliable men—at least as women consider them for domestic life.
- Less pressure, minimal testing, and lower qualifications for worth to females means that fewer men become qualified for sustained relationships.
- Fewer qualified men means women spend a lot more time picking, choosing, ditching, and either putting unworthy men back in the parade or marrying Mr. Wrong. Mr. Good Enough becomes much harder to find.
Masculine-style sexual freedom promotes these things: Men go from conquest to conquest to conquest. Women become his ex, another’s ex, and yet another’s ex. Children go from uncertainty to pain to misery on parental breakups and witness no examples for doing differently in their adulthood.
So true! I see this pattern even with first kiss as the marker (as opposed to sex).
I have an ex bf with whom I never had sex and he always respected my boundaries. He broke up with me on good terms because “it was a bad time in his life”. We always say hello and act polite. However, I can tell he’s bothered when he sees me. Two of his friends have mentioned that he said “we never had sex because she’s a virgin”. I wonder why he’s bothered when he sees me because he’s the one that broke up with me. Could this have to do with the fact that he couldn’t “conquer” me?
Your Stunningness Anonymous,
Yes, it has to do with failure to conquer. Seeing you rattles his self-confidence; you proved to be the better competitor. If you’d like him back, act more than polite. Act friendlier and you’ll probably see his confidence rise and your attractiveness to him return. If not, we’re both wrong.
Guy
I never thought of it “rattling his confidence” because I made it pretty clear from the beginning I am prude, so I figured why would he feel defeated about it?
But I gather from this blog, and from his friends mentioning our lack of sex, that guys still try even if you act like a prude. So what you said makes sense. The only thing that doesn’t match up is that it was very sudden. One day everything was golden (and it wasn’t like he wasn’t making progress, he was) and the next day, “I’m too busy”. It doesn’t make sense to me why he would quit while he was still making progress…
However I do not have a male brain, so I’m going to trust that you (and all of my platonic male friends) are right
.
Your Spriteliness Anonymous,
As a competitor, virtually any reminder of a defeat makes a man uneasy. You all competed and he lost, and he may regret having given up so fast. It could cause discomfort when he sees you.
But as to his sudden dumping you, I have a strong suspicion. I bet his buddies shamed him for hanging with a gal that won’t put out. He probably complained about his frustrations and sought tips to overcome your resistance. (Look out for one or more of them to start moving in on you, if for no other reason than hope to go where he couldn’t. )
If it happened as I suspect, he wasn’t gentlemanly. Both his self-respect and respect for you, if present to sufficient levels, would have made it non-mentionable and nobody else’s business.
Also, if it happened as I suspect, he isn’t Mr. Good Enough. Too low levels of self-respect and respect of you bode ill for any permanent relationship.
Guy
“But as to his sudden dumping you, I have a strong suspicion. I bet his buddies shamed him for hanging with a gal that won’t put out. He probably complained about his frustrations and sought tips to overcome your resistance. (Look out for one or more of them to start moving in on you, if for no other reason than hope to go where he couldn’t. )”
Yup, sounds spot on. One of the friends said to me, ” you flirt for three months and then don’t hook up”..I’m sure my ex was shamed by that guy…and the other friend, as you suspected, tried to bribe me to kiss him.
Thanks again for your wonderful insight!
As a man, I tell you that both you and the moderator got this all wrong. The root problem wasn’t that your boyfriend felt defeated by not conquering you. It was that he didn’t control the situation. A man who takes charge feels like a man. If he had made the decision to not have sex before marriage, then he would have been in control and felt very much like a man.
All men have an adequate outlet called jacking off. Too many of us don’t use it like we should. Instead, we submit to our own sex drive instead of forcing our sex drive to submit to us. If your boyfriend had been the one to take charge of the sexuality of the relationship and forced his own sex drive to submit to himself instead of a woman forcing his sex drive to submit to her, then you two may very well be still together. As it turned out, it may be best that you don’t have a relationship with a man who won’t take charge of the relationship’s sexuality by taking charge of his own sex drive.
If what Will Coats is saying is true (universally true, as his post seems to imply), then that would mean that:
Waiting for marriage is not a possibility unless the man solely decides it is a possibility, lest he feel he is not in “control”…
…Which would then negate this whole idea of “competing” for conquest…
…Which would mean that a woman has no control over dictating the price of conquest…
…Except in what I suspect are rare cases of a man concluding on his own that he wants to wait…
…Rare, because this would be in conflict with the male Nature…
…Which then makes the pool of available men who are worthy (of me, at least) very very very small…
…Which is a sad prospect :/
Your Highness Girl,
Your logic chain is faulty because you misinterpret Will Coats’ claim. He describes a way by which a man can make himself feel sexually satisfied while accepting a woman’s demand for chastity until marriage. It’s universal only in the potential that’s available and only if a man’s satisfied sex drive also satisfies his willingness to mentally let his potential bride get her way and wish.
It’s also the rationalization of someone overly fixated on the ways of living sexually. The pool of available men for you is much larger than you envision. As I pointed out elsewhere, “Men marry for the PROMISE they see in a woman for supporting and helping in their future endeavors. Self-interest always outweighs love to the male nature. Women can successfully intertwine love and self-interest but men need the proper stimulus, THE PROMISE HE SEES IN HER.” Regular sex is a byproduct in the scheme of life that makes men marry women.
Guy
I think I prefer Sir Guy’s outlook
“… Men go from conquest to conquest to conquest. Women become his ex, another’s ex, and yet another’s ex….”
There is no way anyone could argue that this is isnt TRUE!
Still rather put out with an older man who has served much in our church, counciled with many couples and people, married for many years, five children and three grandchildren and some woman from the past “stabbed his wife in the back” as you put it by stealing him away from his family. The pain is so deep and embarrassing and the crack in marriage ripples … even through my family. These comments here are so true. Thank you for your insight. It gives me strength and I can quietly say a few things to my daughters and granddaughters in hopes of bettering their lives thus the lives of our sons in society. Our own oldest son was left by his wife seven years ago and he’s gone from one conquest to another but basically blames me for the way I brought him up. But in our house we serve the Lord. Time, love, fasting and prayer … the love of the Lord will bring him around. I’ve been insensed as to how women behave over these many decades.
Your Highness Lorraine,
Welcome aboard. It’s good to have your comment.
You may find interesting daily posts 880 and 881. They don’t alibi but explain causes and effects about your ‘older man’ and the other woman.
As to your son, the article posted today (#890) just happens to partially explain his behavior.
Guy
I sort of feel like this could be true, because a guy I knew from highschool ran into me alomost three years ago, and his best friend and my best friend kinda hit it off so needless to say I had to go on a few double dates. From then on he kept texting me and calling me for two years*not every day or wven every week, randomly), we hung out a few times just the two of us , but I never really had any feelings for him. This last August I finally got together with him, letting him know i wasn’t looking for a relationship just being friends. He was completely ok with the no relationship thing since apprently he wasnt looking for it either (and hadnt had a gf since we were in highschool). The problem is I started having feelings for him… we’ve been “hanging out for 4 months off and on and now I feel like I want something more yet his dependable non flaky side has seemed to take a serious change. Since we started “hanging out” in august that seems to be the only thing we do vs going to the gym or movies together. At this point I feel like it would just be a waste to mention my feelings for him, it seems to me that men are able to keep hooking up with the same person for months and have absolutely no problem seperating there feelings from that . the whole conquest then sex is so true..It’s just confusing!!
Your Highness Confused,
Welcome aboard. Pretty women are always welcome here.
Incidentally, if you have a problem and seek some response, you’ll have to be more specific. The last two sentences leave me confused. Also, ‘hanging out’ and ‘hooking up’ seem to either be the same or different.
Guy
Guy – you think that female sexual freedom is a bad thing and I totally agree with you – but does that apply to men too? my conundrum is that I want to save myself for my husband, but I think i would want him to be sexually experienced. Is that somehow hypocritical of me?
Thanks for providing a wonderful place to get insight into this sort of thing.
Your Highness Sharmain,
Of course it isn’t hypocritical. The male nature promotes sexual freedom. As I’ve posted in one of the daily posts, hoping or waiting for a male virgin works against the female nature.
Guy
sorry I’m Sharmain (see above post)
“Men value women in three stages: first for conquest, then for sexual availability, and finally for support in carrying out his missions in life.”
Sexual Availability (stage 2) and Support in Carrying Out His Mission (stage 3) both occur within marriage. And for me, so does Conquest (stage 1). So that means the man must see promise for Stage 2 and 3 before he even gets to Stage 1 (conquest after marriage). Yes?
Your Highness Girl,
YES!
Guy