Plymouth and the news

[Payyourwaymate]

Truth be told, I think the sexual revolution has truly liberated the men at the top that have access to resources to get sex from women. Now men with resources, have the chance to attain have sex lives previously only literal kings could have with harems etc.

For anyone that thinks I am talking nonsense with this statement. I will use the existence of this very site as an example. I would take a fair guess that the demographic of men on this site do not decend from royal families, are high status celebrities or are in extremely notable positions of power to be able to punt normal priced WGs and still go about their lives with not much ruckus.

Members on this site have come out as being married, in a relationship or single. Turn back time 100-500 years where there was no technological revolution in terms of internet, or sexual empowerment where now it's empowering for women to commoditise themselves and provide sexual services falling into economic market dynamics and not the "patriachal" societal judgement dynamics of men having access to sex.... I would say the majority of us would have never had to opportunity to have access to dozens or hundreds of women sexually. It would have been get married, have a couple of reckless flings that could result in a shotgun marriage or fuck destitute prositutes. Only men in power had access to mistresses, concubines and harems 100 to thousands of years ago. This is to clarify. All it takes now is to have some money to have the equivalent sex life of a man that had harems and the like hundreds to thousands years ago. If this is not sexual liberation for men then I do not know what is. It's just many men do not see this, which is perhaps a good thing, nuclear families would fall into oblivion if every man was living hedonistic bachelor lifestyles filled with sex.

[Marmalade]

Read the book and it is an incredible compelling argument. I can't believe it was shelved as incel territory. It's a perfect description of gender dynamics in the present time.

I have had a glance at the pdf which you kindly posted — thank you. 

I’m inclined to your statement that the whole thing is merely a hypothesis — and in the loose sense of the word rather than a scientific hypothesis. I’ve only got as far as the first few paragraphs but it is splattered with the sort of academic-sounding leaps of logic that give Julie Bindel a run for her money!

The author immediately equates the Sexual Revolution — a historically recognisable social movement — with a supposed “Utopia” and the author’s idea of what a sexual utopia for men would be, most of which is not related to factual analysis of the Sexual Revolution.

The author then compares it to the French Revolution. This is the logical parallel of invoking Hitler as a comparison for any envisaged wrongdoing. It creates a vivid, compelling mental picture for the reader even if utterly inappropriate, as it is in this case.

My youth was spent in the tail end of the sexual revolution. It was a time of empowerment for men and for women (although I was mostly too shy to take advantage of it).

The basic dynamic of of sexual relations is one of power. The receiver, either a woman or a male taking the passive homosexual role, has the ‘power’ to accept the male into the game of intercourse. (Exceptions such as rape are a false dichotomy since there is no mutual union between the partners). Power is always with the woman. The male courtship is to persuade her to exercise that power in his favour.

Prior to the sexual revolution, women were culturally inhibited from satisfying their desires. Contraception and a more libertarian attitude freed them the worry of pregnancy or being seen as social pariahs. They indulged their sexual desires more freely, encouraging men or even taking the lead. In effect, it was a normalisation — one that resulted in vastly more sexual opportunities for men and women. People had more sex.

Before the sexual revolution, sex was largely within marriage, and often not very much if that!

It wasn’t complete: social mores still dissuade women from taking as many partners as they want, when they want, or are also afraid of the numbers of abusive men.

Incels just add to the problem.

There’s a natural pecking order in sex, as in nature. Women want strong, healthy nest-builders, protectors, with good genes. But they also want other, non-material things, especially once their basic Maslow urges have been fulfilled. Companionship, intellectual stimulation, wit, demonstrations of thoughtfulness, kindness, attention. We’ve all seen a good-looking woman with an ugly guy and thought wtf?!! I don’t mean very wealthy guys. We know they answer. The woman feels a ‘bond’, that the man ‘understands’ her, that she ‘trusts’ him and so on. It’s not something that most young men learn naturally and it’s not taught in schools: though it could be: after Masters & Johnson, ballroom dancing for instance allows a man to learn how to make a woman feel good, respectfully and persuasively!

So-called ‘incels’ (in my opinion) are either unwilling to accept their situation or unwilling to learn and practice the skills to improve it. Evolution will hopefully forget them.

[Marmalade]

All it takes now is to have some money to have the equivalent sex life of a man that had harems and the like hundreds to thousands years ago. If this is not sexual liberation for men then I do not know what is.

… and which fits neatly into “satisfying her Maslow needs”. Or as per my earlier comment (for which I cannot take credit), “some women want a poem, some want a cheque”.

In the broadest sense of course. Most p4ps want cash not a cheque! Or some want payment “in kind”. Or just dinner. Similarly (although I have got laid once by reciting a poem!) the ‘poem’ includes any sort of effective sweet talk and chat up.

[Marmalade]

Plenty to chew on here: External Link/Members Only

TL;DR frustrated chump couldn't with get the hotties from Instagram

True. Most psychopaths I imagine are at a similar disadvantage. Admittedly his parenting didn’t help: but there’s a time we have to evolve beyond one’s genetic inheritance and conditioning. If he had fed his fucked-up brain with Mills & Boon, or even James Bond, instead of nurturing his fucked-up-ness, he might have had a reasonably satisfying miserable relationship with a bland checkout girl from Lidl, then moved on to something more polished, or at least in the process learnt some self-respect. A competent and good-natured prostitute (I like to think such rare specimens do still exist!) might even have helped him past his obsession with his unused willie.

But he didn’t. We can’t ‘save’ everybody. Some, regretfully, fall short of nature’s prototype for a ‘human being’.

[Payyourwaymate]

I have had a glance at the pdf which you kindly posted — thank you. 

I’m inclined to your statement that the whole thing is merely a hypothesis — and in the loose sense of the word rather than a scientific hypothesis. I’ve only got as far as the first few paragraphs but it is splattered with the sort of academic-sounding leaps of logic that give Julie Bindel a run for her money!

The author immediately equates the Sexual Revolution — a historically recognisable social movement — with a supposed “Utopia” and the author’s idea of what a sexual utopia for men would be, most of which is not related to factual analysis of the Sexual Revolution.

The author then compares it to the French Revolution. This is the logical parallel of invoking Hitler as a comparison for any envisaged wrongdoing. It creates a vivid, compelling mental picture for the reader even if utterly inappropriate, as it is in this case.

My youth was spent in the tail end of the sexual revolution. It was a time of empowerment for men and for women (although I was mostly too shy to take advantage of it).

The basic dynamic of of sexual relations is one of power. The receiver, either a woman or a male taking the passive homosexual role, has the ‘power’ to accept the male into the game of intercourse. (Exceptions such as rape are a false dichotomy since there is no mutual union between the partners). Power is always with the woman. The male courtship is to persuade her to exercise that power in his favour.

Prior to the sexual revolution, women were culturally inhibited from satisfying their desires. Contraception and a more libertarian attitude freed them the worry of pregnancy or being seen as social pariahs. They indulged their sexual desires more freely, encouraging men or even taking the lead. In effect, it was a normalisation — one that resulted in vastly more sexual opportunities for men and women. People had more sex.

Before the sexual revolution, sex was largely within marriage, and often not very much if that!

It wasn’t complete: social mores still dissuade women from taking as many partners as they want, when they want, or are also afraid of the numbers of abusive men.

Incels just add to the problem.

There’s a natural pecking order in sex, as in nature. Women want strong, healthy nest-builders, protectors, with good genes. But they also want other, non-material things, especially once their basic Maslow urges have been fulfilled. Companionship, intellectual stimulation, wit, demonstrations of thoughtfulness, kindness, attention. We’ve all seen a good-looking woman with an ugly guy and thought wtf?!! I don’t mean very wealthy guys. We know they answer. The woman feels a ‘bond’, that the man ‘understands’ her, that she ‘trusts’ him and so on. It’s not something that most young men learn naturally and it’s not taught in schools: though it could be: after Masters & Johnson, ballroom dancing for instance allows a man to learn how to make a woman feel good, respectfully and persuasively!

So-called ‘incels’ (in my opinion) are either unwilling to accept their situation or unwilling to learn and practice the skills to improve it. Evolution will hopefully forget them.

Yes, I agree in the statement that it can be seen as a hypothesis and is not really backed by stats and sources as various other links I have posted in the past. I still think it is relatively compelling in describing the dynamics which are currently present between genders though.

In relation to your point in relation to the sexual revolution that people eventually had more sex, I can agree with that to an extent; however, at the current time I do not believe this is true for the majority of men now. The reasons I have stated in previous posts and also you have referenced in relation to Maslow needs needing to be fufilled in what women look for with men. I believe that with social media increasing the scope for people to connect, this has allowed both genders and in particular women to become more material focused in maslow hierachal needs in terms of resources and attraction. You can also see this narrative pumped with movies where the main female lead is swept up by a rich attractive man that somehow understands all her wants like 50 shades of grey that was such a big hit. Normal guys are not like the male lead in 50 shades of grey. You see people putting their best foot forward on social media in terms of demonstrating their potential to satisfy material surface level requirements. I have never really seen any male putting their best foot forward in terms of intangible attributes which are more personality based, those that do have not really seemed to have any demonstratable success in terms of securing sex, not a relationship. In relation to a non attractive man being with an attractive women, sure they may have a potential greater ability to bond with the woman which I have personally seen myself so do not disagree, but more time than not in older age ranges...they also have money or some form of material success.

In reference to your point in young men not being taught how to respectfully woo and create a bond with women. In terms of securing sex, I honestly think incels do not care about this, infact...I think a lot of men perhaps do not care about this. I can be honest and say I am not one of them who does not care for "wooing" it's a waste of time for me, hence I pay for sex in terms of pure efficiency  . I do agree with you that this is not taught in schools etc. Also, I would reference again social media for the decline in the abilities for genders to be able to communicate in a two way level of potential companionship, intellectual stimulation etc. In the past you would physically have to go to social gatherings and actively meet people. Now, not so much and in social gatherings now people are still stuck on their phones and not really interacting. I have also stated many times in the past that social media is slowly turning everyone into narcissists with people thinking everything is about themselves and they are the "main character" so genuine two way conversations with active listening and responses are declining in quality. It's more now, look at me, this is me, this is what I have to say and not how are you? I think social media is the main variable which what you describe in your time of gender relations which was not present which allowed for a different experience for the men in your times.

Some incels I have seen in forums in the past did actively try to improve; however, it is in a surface level manner in relation to your statement with maslows need for physical attraction and resources. In forums they have actively discussed having plastic surgery and improving their physical appearance as much as possible. Their main emphasis is not that their personality does not enable them to get women. It is that the "cards they were dealt" are so bad and there is nothing they can do to change their lot. I do agree with your statement that incels can be unwilling in general to accept their situation, but some have tried to learn how to overcome but came to the conclusion that surface level attraction is what matters, not intangible personality matters...which I believe in terms of trying to secure sex is true, not a relationship though.

In terms of evolution forgetting them, this is difficult because now there is a greater percentage of young men not having sex in general. It is very easy for a man now to suddenly find himself an "incel" in terms of not having sex without "paying", but not having the ideology of an incel. It's a much harsher environment for men now, far different from the perhaps free start up of the sexual revolution that you refer to that people in general had more sex.

I do agree with your overall statement. I just believe the playing field has completely changed, it is no surprise to me personally there are angry incels these days and I am sure men in my age range would share the same sentiments.

[Payyourwaymate]

… and which fits neatly into “satisfying her Maslow needs”. Or as per my earlier comment (for which I cannot take credit), “some women want a poem, some want a cheque”.

In the broadest sense of course. Most p4ps want cash not a cheque! Or some want payment “in kind”. Or just dinner. Similarly (although I have got laid once by reciting a poem!) the ‘poem’ includes any sort of effective sweet talk and chat up.

I don't think women in general would want sweet talk or chat from a man they deemed physically unattractive to be honest. They just deem the man a creep for having the audacity to try to chat them up, more so take the man approaching them as an insult in terms of "wow is this what I attract?". This is where money and material provision would be able to compensate; so in terms of securing sex yes the payment will be complete. However, for an emotional bond at a deeper level money and material provision is not enough.

[Marmalade]

Thank you for your replies. You make a very good point about social media – which I think is largely a very negative force. Facebook was invented, was it not, by a guy who felt unable to communicate with people face to face? It took me quite a long time to care about any particular woman as a person first rather than as a woman, and when I did I realised it was a way of 'wooing' (which is not really a very good descriptive word) and also a nice way of socially interacting even if it didn't result in sex.

(What follows is my own experience as a man of very average looks who I think you might say has been fortunate with non-p4p). Women have a filter, and I think one of them is not so much "I could sleep with this guy but not with that other one": it's more like "could I remotely imagine sleeping with this guy" which will include a very broad swathe of men. When I see a woman I have a similar filter but only switch it on for a second or two, to tell myself if I could remotely fancy sleeping with her. Then I switch it off and concentrate on listening to her signals, make my body language, tone of voice, match what I feel will make her comfortable, maybe make her laugh, make her feel she's having fun. I'm completely genuine about it and don't spend money (beyond a first round or a taxi). I look after my choice of clothing and grooming cos women care about those things and they feel good anyway. I basically let her chat me up and make her feel good about it. The objective is for both of us to have the sort of fun we each want which hopefully might include the same. Always respect and always make her feel free to make the sort of decisions she wants.

I don't go after film star types, but I used to have a buddy, a wingman, who would. He would do it just for kicks and get us dates with amazing women that we saw (He was black, not that attractive, I would say less attractive than me). He was streets ahead of me. But I studied what I did and what seemed successful and what didn't. I then went through hours and hours of Ross Jeffries videos and tapes to polish my technique. I don't mean I'm that good, though I could show a lot of guys what they do wrong.

Where I strongly agree with you is the way not only social media has made many women feel more closed. They, quite reasonably, feel they have to take all sorts of precautions before speaking to anybody, as there is so much publicity about unpleasant men and the added danger on social media of meeting someone you don't know. This has been exacerbated by the MeToo campaign, which has in itself done a lot of good in exposing guys who want to control women but also made many women on the whole feel resentful or unjustifiably paranoid towards all men. So yes, it is harder. We have to recognise that, recognise how women feel and are justified feeling like that, and make them know they are safe, and safe to have fun. How to get back into it? I wouldn't rule out social media, but I think staying off p4p for a break and staying off porn and wanking for a break can help. I think until those outlets are junked (even temporarily) it's hard to get into the mindset of really talking to a woman. But p4p is better than knocking yourself out.

[cotton]

In relation to your point in relation to the sexual revolution that people eventually had more sex, I can agree with that to an extent; however, at the current time I do not believe this is true for the majority of men now.

Back in the nineteenth century London was swarming with uneducated , unenlightened poor working class women for whom prostitution was a normal and common practice, figures like 50,000 are given against an overall population much smaller than it is today.
I guess it means if you are talking about wether more women have sex voluntarily just thru personal choice or wether simply more women have sex including thru being habituated to prostitution due to their low circumstances as in olden days.
Sexual equality and the dynamics of sexual interaction swinging in favour of women may have resulted in women being able to pick and choose who they have sex with but it does not mean there was more sex overall - just that now it is the women who hold the whip hand and choose who gets to have sex and not the blokes , result being nowadays if your an ugly bloke theres no hope for you.

[Payyourwaymate]

Thank you for your replies. You make a very good point about social media – which I think is largely a very negative force. Facebook was invented, was it not, by a guy who felt unable to communicate with people face to face? It took me quite a long time to care about any particular woman as a person first rather than as a woman, and when I did I realised it was a way of 'wooing' (which is not really a very good descriptive word) and also a nice way of socially interacting even if it didn't result in sex.

(What follows is my own experience as a man of very average looks who I think you might say has been fortunate with non-p4p). Women have a filter, and I think one of them is not so much "I could sleep with this guy but not with that other one": it's more like "could I remotely imagine sleeping with this guy" which will include a very broad swathe of men. When I see a woman I have a similar filter but only switch it on for a second or two, to tell myself if I could remotely fancy sleeping with her. Then I switch it off and concentrate on listening to her signals, make my body language, tone of voice, match what I feel will make her comfortable, maybe make her laugh, make her feel she's having fun. I'm completely genuine about it and don't spend money (beyond a first round or a taxi). I look after my choice of clothing and grooming cos women care about those things and they feel good anyway. I basically let her chat me up and make her feel good about it. The objective is for both of us to have the sort of fun we each want which hopefully might include the same. Always respect and always make her feel free to make the sort of decisions she wants.

I don't go after film star types, but I used to have a buddy, a wingman, who would. He would do it just for kicks and get us dates with amazing women that we saw (He was black, not that attractive, I would say less attractive than me). He was streets ahead of me. But I studied what I did and what seemed successful and what didn't. I then went through hours and hours of Ross Jeffries videos and tapes to polish my technique. I don't mean I'm that good, though I could show a lot of guys what they do wrong.

Where I strongly agree with you is the way not only social media has made many women feel more closed. They, quite reasonably, feel they have to take all sorts of precautions before speaking to anybody, as there is so much publicity about unpleasant men and the added danger on social media of meeting someone you don't know. This has been exacerbated by the MeToo campaign, which has in itself done a lot of good in exposing guys who want to control women but also made many women on the whole feel resentful or unjustifiably paranoid towards all men. So yes, it is harder. We have to recognise that, recognise how women feel and are justified feeling like that, and make them know they are safe, and safe to have fun. How to get back into it? I wouldn't rule out social media, but I think staying off p4p for a break and staying off porn and wanking for a break can help. I think until those outlets are junked (even temporarily) it's hard to get into the mindset of really talking to a woman. But p4p is better than knocking yourself out.

I see fair enough, those are very valid points you make. In relation to helping to make women feel safe, I am not sure how that can be achieved; especially with sexual attraction involved. Imagine a not so attractive guy trying to convice a woman that is physically repulsed by him that he is safe to be around and really has no intention to make sexual advances in this day and age. I can imagine it may be difficult.

Do you reckon stopping P4P and staying of porn could help men? Personally, I'm not too sure, if I can't release, I'll just end up making stupid decisions and cannot focus. I think a lot of men have lost potential of improving their lives by chasing sex needlessly or in a manner which is not efficient for the sake of getting women the normal way. I have been around a lot of guys that had no problems getting girls, the time and energy they spent, even the time and energy I spent trying...not worth it.

[Payyourwaymate]

Back in the nineteenth century London was swarming with uneducated , unenlightened poor working class women for whom prostitution was a normal and common practice, figures like 50,000 are given against an overall population much smaller than it is today.
I guess it means if you are talking about wether more women have sex voluntarily just thru personal choice or wether simply more women have sex including thru being habituated to prostitution due to their low circumstances as in olden days.
Sexual equality and the dynamics of sexual interaction swinging in favour of women may have resulted in women being able to pick and choose who they have sex with but it does not mean there was more sex overall - just that now it is the women who hold the whip hand and choose who gets to have sex and not the blokes , result being nowadays if your an ugly bloke theres no hope for you.

Thank you for the information, that is very interesting to know. I imagine without contraception and measures to prevent potential STDs infections, the consequences for women and men were far higher in engaging in such behaviour than at the present time. In reference to your last point, I agree with you.

[Marmalade]

There’s some interesting posts on here. However the thread title is about some crazy fuck that neither fucked prossies nor civvies, so most members won’t read them. A new thread on sex since Victorian times, through the sexual revolution, paid and unpaid, might get more mileage.