Xbtusd on the "price" of sex, and how guys pay it
Default_friend predicts "The coming wave of sex negativity", which is another way of saying, "Women will try to lower the 'market price' of sex by reducing supply", and xbtusd has some thoughts about how that interacts with the "sex positivity" movement, to the extent it really exists, and most of this post is his:
There's an embargo on saying "not all sex is good for women," that you can think critically about how sex affects women, without being right wing or "sex negative." It therefore becomes easy to be discredited as "not getting it" if you make any critiques of women's sexual choices (and, perhaps, by implication, the choices of men). Because of the rules of liberal discourse, only women can weigh in on this debate in most media platforms; fortunately, you are not reading "most media platforms" right now. The women-only rule silences 50% of the population, and any woman who doesn't agree with the pro-sex feminist take gets lumped in with the anti-sex religious nuts. A clever strategy, and yet it hurts us all when we can't have honest conversations.
I think Default_Friend sees that discourse vacuum as harmful to women, and, simultaneously, that the narrative asserting "more and more sex for women is the only way to be empowered" is disingenuous. She'd like to see that conversation evolve: I feel like she's pretty coherent in her worldview and consistent in her challenges to the current feminist narrative. She'd likely agree women are the worst slut shamers, and she'd understand why.
She also understands that an unlimited supply of pussy devalues it (you can hear some of the implications in her conversation with Delicious Tacos), and so she's trying to get women to wake up to that fact: restrict the supply of pussy not by slut shaming, but by being more conscious of why you have sex and who you have it with. If you have sex because, "empowerment," you're an idiot, but you don't realize it. Think harder and you'll get better results.
The feminist narrative has always been that men are the root of all women's problems. For quite a while women have been shadowboxing against invisible enemies. The cartoonish feminists think men are evil. They burned their bras in protest of…. what exactly? How many dudes are upset about the new braless culture sweeping America's hippest cities? I say Viva la Resistance! One has to wonder, when you see your supposed enemies cheering you on, is it possible you duped yourself into doing what they wanted in the first place? Do they ever question why their putative enemies are so pro the feminist agenda?
Roy Baumeister clued me in to the idea of a "price of sex": and in my mind, it is the ONLY thing that matters. Contrary to the feminist narrative, I am happy to celebrate anything that lowers it. Conservative women get this, and most liberal women don't, although, arguably, the current effort to make women unaccountable for their sexual decisions is a change in the basic liberal woman worldview.
Redpill Dad has another view,
In my next salvo against sex negativity happening anytime soon, it seems to me that what we call "sex negativity", is really women either hitting epiphany or having had a negative sexual experience with guys, or not getting the sort of guys they want. Understand, female sexual strategy is either: have sex with desirable males and gain provisioning from either that male or others, OR stop other women from having sex with desirable males. This is why WOMEN, not men, are the absolute worst slut shamers. The problem is that another woman's emotional reaction to epiphany or having had a bad sexual experience isn't to not have sex--it's to have sex as quickly as possible with as high a quality man as they can and hold on to him.
Women view the world emotionally, and react to the world emotionally, and, because of this, they often have no real point. They'll do what men permit or encourage them to do, and they'll often follow whoever they perceive the leader to be.
Women NEVER experience the sexual marketplace in the way men do. NEVER. They cannot possibly conceive of what it's like for a man to have to prove himself and BECOME SOMETHING. Chicks just are. This is also why they like arguments about equity and fairness and fall so easily in line with cancel culture and SJWism. They just want to follow the rules and get along and whatever they are, they are, so they'd just as soon have things equal and not have to compete. For women, the direct competition is sorta over.
I differ a bit here with Red Pill Dad: for women, the great competition is in securing long-term commitment from high-status men. Women will also have fun short-term sex for the same reasons men do.
Redquest here. I strongly pitch the narrative that "more sex is fun" to women, and the free sex club + non-mono book talks about how and why guys should do just that.
Somewhere in the vicinity of 5 - 20% of chicks love uninhibitedly f**king around, for whatever reason, and they're going to keep the "market price" low, plus, chicks suffer from sexual boredom too, some argue even worse than men. I have a slightly different view, that many people want what they don't have, so the hedonistic adventurers get tired of that and yearn for stability, while the stable couple gets bored and yearns for adventure. Something like sex clubs + non-mono attempt to walk that line.
That said, a lot of men (and women) lack basic sexual politeness/courtesy, which involves simple things like letting her sleep over, comforting her after f**king, not ghosting, all the stuff that leaves chicks feeling good about themselves even after they've been f**ked, or even after the guy breaks up with them. Yes I know that women do the same bad behaviors, and often worse behaviors, it doesn't matter though, what are you, eight years old? Because someone else does it, doesn't mean you should. You want to create and facilitate positive-sum interactions, and the best parts of game allow a guy to do that (the worst, darkest parts of game culture almost achieve some of the stereotypes about guys who consciously practice pickup). Overall, game and sex are skills that can be improved with deliberate practice, but a fair number of chicks really strongly dislike that fact and will attack it in moral, sermonizing terms.
I think the wildcard around sex culture is STI vaccines, because, seriously, these are coming, for example a gonorrhea vaccine. I know a lot of hedonistic adventurers who slowed their f**king around after a mild bout of STI inconvenience, and STIs slow the overall market velocity, because of the need to present test results in order to achieve many scenarios. MRNA approaches are likely to be applied to STIs as well. If they work, expect to see humans shift towards a more bonobo-like sexuality. Already, it's surprising to me when women require condoms. Using condoms is smart, I will add, and I am not arguing what I do is smart.
Technology is the wildcard in so much human behavior, because technology changes incentives and the facts on the ground. If not for antibiotic cures to almost all common STIs, and reliable birth control, we'd still be closer to 1900 sexual mores, ethics, and practices, than 2021 mores, ethics, and practices. Cryptocurrencies also allow sex to be paid for more easily outside the cash and conventional, regulated finance economy, which is another topic for another time but linked to this topic.
Overall I don't think women as a group are going to change hookup or promiscuity culture, by moving away from casual sex, but I've been wrong about things before. A lot of guys lack masculine energy and drive, so if they can't be bothered to chase chicks, that could also harm hookup culture. Regarding, "If you have sex because, 'empowerment,' you're an idiot, but you don't realize it. Think harder and you'll get better results," I think most chicks f**k, at least at first, cause the guy is hot and they want to, and not too many are going to wait. Plus, if they do wait, a lot of the top-most guys will find a girl who won't, so a girl who wants to get guys at the top of her range is going to f**k fast.
