Tags
battle of the sexes, call girl, casual sex, commitment, dating, feminism, gender, love, marriage, prostitution, red pill, relationships, sex
Last week we discussed the topic of sugar daddy/baby relationships and what they reveal about gender relations when viewed through a red pill lens.
Today I stumbled across a blog by a former call girl who describes her career choice quite candidly, and in a way that challenges a lot of the commonly held stereotypes about the profession.
In this post she asserts there’s really little difference between a call girl/John relationship and a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend one except call girls are openly and honestly acknowledging it’s an exchange of sex for resources with one key difference — unlike with dating or marriage, with a call girl the exchange is guaranteed.
In fact she hints that’s exactly why “good” women object so strongly to prostitution: because it puts the exchange many such women don’t want to admit right out there in the open where it makes those who want to pretend it’s (and they’re) not like that extremely uncomfortable.
It’s an interesting insight as far as inter-gender relations, even if I am not so sure myself that it always boils down to the simple equation of a woman gives a man what he wants (sex and/or babies) in exchange for what she wants (provision and/or protection.) And actually in this post, she says similar, and goes into the topic of transactional sex and marriage further. Interestingly, she speculates that it is the idea that all sex should be based on true love/feelings and should never, ever be transactional that is behind many a divorce today.
Once again, like with the sugar post, I am not advocating women choose (or not choose) to become call girls or for this to get into a discussion about morality or virtue. What I am more interested in is the question — is all male/female sex basically a transaction on some level?
Perhaps this is why, or at least partly why, women’s right activists and feminists advocate for a woman’s right to have sex for free with anyone they choose without “slut shaming” but will in the next breath take a hard line against actual whoring, saying it’s always about oppression and victimization? (Not that it sometimes isn’t.) Is that not a contradiction?
Perhaps they equate free/casual sex with independence and sex in trade for money or provision/protection (like marriage) as dependence? Or do they object because it somehow reveals something about the feminine imperative they would rather not be out in the open?
Are modern women trying to blur the line between sex and resources because they want to be able to exercise their option to get the goodies and NOT make the trade? (For example, in the sexless marriage.) Or to exercise the option to make the trade, when they want to, minus goodies? (For example, to be able to have casual or no strings sex without the social judgement of days gone by.) To have a sort of sliding scale approach, where some guys “pay” nothing while others “pay” dearly, based on how attracted she is to him? (the AFBB model) Or are they simply trying to get an upper hand in the gender balance, exploiting their options as fully as possible while at the same time trying to limit men’s?
Her argument brings to mind an old saying once commonly said by mothers to daughters, which (in a seemingly opposite but perhaps similar way) feminists rally against because it also hints at this transaction nature of sex. “Why would he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?”
It’s an interesting topic to ponder, I think. What do you think — is sex between women and men basically always about a transaction? And if so is that a fair exchange, or not?
(And if you did not click on the link and read the post that this post is in response to before, I highly recommend you do so before commenting whether you agree with her or not, just for purposes of discussion.)
Redpillgirlnotes,
I saw something last night that said that about ninety percent of escorts’ business comes from married men. No doubt, this has affected the outlook of the linked blogger.
I used to watch a lot of Tara Palmatier and her advice to men was simple, if it gets transactional, run away, run away fast.
I think that the overwhelming percentage of wives are using sex as a reward/punshment tool to to control the marriage. They shouldn’t but, I think Artisanal Toad would point out that this is the downside of monogamy for men.
My personal opinion is that it is very wrong for women to do this.
That’s a good point Fuzzie, she is coming at this viewpoint from a certain lens. I am certainly not advocating women use sex as a manipulation tool within romantic relationships. As she says in her other post I link to, transactional sex doesn’t always have to be “bad” or even always in the woman’s favor. For example, she recommends that in marriage women not only have “love sex” but also “duty sex” without acting like it’s a duty, to meet his needs and honor her side of “the deal” even when she’s not necessarily in the mood. Maybe less married men would visit escorts if so?
I would agree with you and Tara 100% in the case that it is one way transactional, always and only in HER favor, he should run. If it’s give and take, I think there is a place for it.
What do you think — is sex between women and men basically always about a transaction? And if so is that a fair exchange, or not?
All sex is a transaction, but it need not involve material or financial goods/services at all. I can honestly say that I’ve never paid my FwB for sex, nor has he ever paid me. Our sexual transactions are pleasure for pleasure. Sexual satisfaction for both of us is mutually assured whenever we can get together, because that is simply how our relationship works. So, in it’s simplest form, it can be considered a transaction, though not like that of a prostitute or call girl.
As for a fair exchange, I try to make it as equal as possible given his masculine limitations. I can have 6 or more orgasms per session, whereas he can only have 2 at most. But he assures me that this is more than adequate, so in the end it would seem it is fair to both of us.
I think that if sex turns into a transaction that resembles a reward/punishment, or worse, a literal tool over the other partner, the running fast and far should commence immediately.
That’s a good point Tarn, the exchange doesn’t always have to be about money or tangible goods, a mutual exchange of pleasure is also a “transaction.” I think the key word is MUTUAL whatever the exchange. Relationships where all the advantages are in either her or his court are rarely good.
In the case that one of you is not in the mood for sex but the other is, what happens then in your case?
@ Fuzzie or maybe a better way to put what I am trying to get at here into words is that in marriage, for example, for a woman to expect a man to provide and protect while she denys sex longterm (I am not talking about here and there, but like the majority of the time) would that not be akin to a call girl taking payment and walking out, or a John not paying after the deed is done? It’s not a “transaction” if only one side is getting their needs met.
Of course, this entire conversation is being viewed through the lens of “Women don’t need/crave sex as much as men”, which is untrue for some. For example, my FwB and I have similar libidos when all is well. However, he suffers from clinical depression and has responsibilities to his job that cause further stress and loss of sleep. Thus there has been many a time when he has bowed out on a “date” or sexual session because he wouldn’t be able to relax enough to truly enjoy it.
If we were married, would it be on him to still have “duty sex” with me? Others may say yes, but I’d say no. It is extremely physically and mentally frustrating when you want to pleasure your partner and they keep declining…but on the other hand, would you really want sex with a loved one if they honestly couldn’t enjoy it? Obviously I still crave sex with him everyday, so much that it drives me a little insane, but I don’t want that sex if it isn’t offered with a full willingness. I’d rather go without and just take care of myself for those weeks/months instead of making him feel even worse for not sharing his body with me.
Perhaps those with other experiences can tell what they did to get through dry spells within their relationships.
In the case that one of you is not in the mood for sex but the other is, what happens then in your case?
I have never not been in the mood. Even if I currently have a pounding headache, or just got off a 14 hour shift, or got over the flu only 1 day ago…I will never say no to sex. In our 9 years “together”, I have never rejected his advances.
Unfortunately, he has rejected mine a fair number of times. Typically this happens during the winter months, due to stress, responsibilities to family members, and a noticeable increase in his depression (a combination of seasonal affective disorder and the fact that his parents both died between October-January, so those are difficult months for him).
What do I do?
Honestly, I deal with it. I try to provide comfort in whatever manner he needs (a shoulder to cry on, getting him small gifts, making his favorite foods and dropping them off at his workplace, answering the phone when he calls at 1am just to be there for him, etc). I know that eventually things will get better, just like they do every year. On the rare occasion he wants sex, I am so all over that! But…well, let’s just say I am a master at selfloving in the meantime.
@ Tarn true, I can see that. I don’t mean to imply women don’t like sex, in my case that’s not true at all! And yes it is a stereotype to imply men want sex more often than women, bc this too is not always the case. I am also not saying anyone should do anything against his or her will, or that it’s ok to expect that, and certainly it’s not ok to force it. Without being too TMI, I actually get as much pleasure from giving pleasure, as getting it. So in the case my partner is in the mood but I was not, unless I was really sick or there was a good reason, I would willingly give them the love and affection they desired and be totally ok with doing so. And if I am honest I guess I would hope for the same in return? Maybe not all the time, but most of the time. In my marriage there were long dry spells on his side of things, and so maybe I am coming from it from that angle. It was incredibly painful and felt like a huge rejection to be married to someone who didn’t seem to be physically attracted to me. In his case, I think it was more about his fear of losing control and being “pussy whipped” than it was about me (and he would even say flat out he would not be pussy whipped) and looking back on it it’s possible he was also struggling with depression and/or his drinking was playing a role in his low libido, but to be denied love, affection, affirmation, and attention by one’s mate is IMHO incredibly cruel, especially when in a relationship where it is agreed there isn’t a legitimate option to seek that elsewhere. And it wasn’t because I let myself go or anything, heck that guy had me in the prime of my life (19-35)! So because of that experience I guess I get what men in sexless marriages feel, because I have felt that myself.
I tend to think of a marriage as a long term relationship, and the term relationship has many connotations… Hooking up with an escort, not so much. It is over simplifying greatly to compare the two, unless you married an escort? 🙂
Relationships have their ups and downs and many other factors that can effect them. Maybe your wife has a migraine or the flu and doesn’t she really feel like putting a dick in her mouth lol. But an escort, unfortunately, it would be her job to do so.
While not yet equal, by a long shot, women are also making great strides towards financial independence in most western cultures. So pretty soon she isn’t going to need your cash and you better think of some better ways at being a catch that don’t involve opening up your wallet kids 🙂
…but to be denied love, affection, affirmation, and attention by one’s mate is IMHO incredibly cruel,
Agreed. If sex is missing due to legitimate medical issues, that sucks a lot but it’s at least understandable.
To have your partner deny even base affection and little affirmations of love is something different entirely. To deny sex and physical intimacy when there is no good reason to is likewise cruel.
Sex is not a tool or weapon!
@ Love, yes I agree it is oversimplifying a bit. Most of the time an escort/John thing is for a short time period only, unlike an ongoing relationship. Good point. And I agree too that just like men probably don’t want to feel like they are only good for their wallet, women don’t want to feel all they are is a sex toy. There’s got to be a lot more to it than that in a marriage/relationship, unlike in the cut and dry escort/John exchange.
While not yet equal, by a long shot, women are also making great strides towards financial independence in most western cultures.
It’s not the main topic of the post, but I’m curious as to why you’re of the opinion that women are not yet able to be financially independent? I’ve lived alone since I was 17. I’m 31 now. I’d say that’s pretty independent, considering I don’t rely on family or government for help with my bills or student loans…
So pretty soon she isn’t going to need your cash and you better think of some better ways at being a catch that don’t involve opening up your wallet kids.
Many men are already great catches, regardless of the size of their wallet. I can name numerous friends and acquaintances who would be fantastic boyfriends or husbands. My own lover is frickin amazing, and he has far less disposable income than I do.
Tarn likes to share much she does
I didn’t say anything bad, Yoda!
Women like to tell much they do
Women must really let it all out in the confessional they do.
It’s not my fault you’re so “boring”, Yoda. 😉
I’ll remember trigger warnings for next time… 😛
I haven’t been Catholic for a long time, but the confessional is probably not the place to talk about being frustrated due to your partner’s seasonal depression. Unless you know something I don’t…? 😕
Yoda,
We need the girls to talk, especially if they are telling the truth.
Tarn,
I am sorry to hear that about your FwB. Now all that is past, I hope that you make up for lost time. 🙂
Redpillgirlnotes,
I am afrid tha yu and Tarn may be exceptions. I think that most wives are taking maximum advantage of this tool and, as a consequence, killing their marriages.
Tarn,
I am sorry to hear that about your FwB. Now all that is past, I hope that you make up for lost time. 🙂
Heh. I also hope it’ll be in the past soon. January isn’t over yet, you see. I do appreciate your comment though, and am aware that other commenter friends of ours are in worse/longer-term celibate situations. Most of us could use more loving, which is not how things are really meant to be.
I think that most wives are taking maximum advantage of this tool and, as a consequence, killing their marriages.
This sounds true in the manosphere, Fuzzie. Our friend Blurkel could certainly attest to it. I do wonder though, if all of these particular women learned to wield sex as a tool via their mothers/aunts (like he says) or if there are other significant “teachers”?
@ fuzzie I hope it’s not most, that would be sad 😦
And it’s important to keep in mind the experiences that lead men to the manosphere are usually bad ones, so it’s heavy on the bad stories for that reason. Not many happily married men in the sphere, hopefully there are more out there in the general population but we just don’t hear about that bc no news is good news? I know I share stories that illustrate the bad relationships more than the good ones. W the good ones, there’s less to tell except it’s going ok!
Tarn and RPG,
The manosphere may only be a small part of it but, I think that it is far more t he norm than the exception. What the manosphere has done is allow men to talk amoungst themselves. The realization is dawning that “It is not just me”.
It is sad.
Yes that is also true, Fuzzie. I am sure there are many men also suffering in silence, trying to make the best of a bad situation. 😦
RPG,
We really need a collective solution. I don’t know where to begin.
I think it’s a little of both.
The manosphere is basically a place for learning, improving oneself, and above all, venting about the lies or dishonesty (intentional or non) that affects menfolk and the women in their lives. This isn’t just wives, btw…it entails girlfriends, coworkers, other relatives, teachers, and so on. So yeah, the stories are gonna be mostly sad and angry, because you don’t stay in the manosphere if you’re in a wonderful, nearly perfect, generally happy relationship. Unicorns are hard to find, and much of the ‘sphere is made up of guys who have woken up to find that most of said mythical creatures are actually just horses with cardboard cones taped to their foreheads. (Notably, the definition of a Unicorn can change according to the individual male in question. I’m a Unicorn to most MGTOW or “beta” men who don’t want to fake “alpha” traits just to get treated like a person. I’m *not* a Unicorn to Tradcon or patriarchal men, who are usually pissed I don’t want to play house and prefer being a breadwinner. However, Bloom might be a Unicorn to them.)
While I don’t know if I’d say it’s a majority of men, I absolutely think it’s more than anyone should be comfortable thinking about. The solution still comes down to eliminating the use of sexual or financial manipulation, deceit, and deliberate miscommunication in male-female relations.
You begin in your little corner of the world, Fuzzie. Same as all of us have to.
@ Fuzzie, I am not sure how to effect a collective solution. Change begins with a single step. A butterfly’s wings flapping in Brazil can change the world. 🙂 And I agree, start where you are and expand from there as Tarn suggests. That’s a big reason I do this blog, I had my eyes opened thanks to others sharing their learning, I hope me sharing mine will in turn help others along their own path. And it helps me too, as I grow from reading the comments and thinking about things from all these different perspectives 🙂 Win-Win!
Maybe the answer is to go far away and feed hungry bears.
At the most fundamental level, sex is a transaction.
-> Sperm transferred from man to woman.
-> Ovum dedicated to the sperm of one man.
-> Woman’s body dedicated to one man’s child for nine months.
-> Man supports and protects woman for nine months.
-> Woman’s life slightly hampered by presence of child for 13-18 years.
-> Man’s resources redirected to his child for 13-18 years.
The act of reproduction is transactional. The institution of marriage is contractual. She gives her time in the form of her bodily energy. He gives his time in the form of his labour-earned resources.
Sex can be a great tool for bonding, for unwinding and for fun. But take contraception away and the transaction taking place becomes pretty obvious.
@super, well said — that really is what it boils down to. And as a mom, trust me a child more than slightly inconvienences life, as lovely as they also are. Reproducing literally changes life as one knew it ever more in mostly positive but as someone who loves her sleep but has been sleep deprived for so many years bc of having kids, also some less positive ones (but it’s absolutely worth it!)
Of course it is a transaction. Nothing in life worth anything is free. Fair is relative, because value is subjective. Making the most of what you have is the closest to fair you get.
The Shadowed Knight
As a single parent with full custody, and sole provider, of a child I will say I whole heartedly disagree. After the first few months, raising a child is hardly an inconvenience at all. Certainly far less inconvenient than a job. If I had the luxury of giving up either part of the equation I would certainly give up the provisioning before I gave up the care taking.
“…is all male/female sex basically a transaction on some level?”
Yes. There is no question about this. Male chimps are known to offer “gifts” to female chimps to win their sexual favor.
It is shown in human behavioral studies that the very first thing a woman gauges about a potential suitor is his net worth. Does he dress well (i.e., not cheaply)? Does he have a nice car? Is he willing to spend money on me, or does he hesitate? He hasn’t finished delivering his come-on line and he’s either in or out already.
He then has to start working on her wedding plans. How much is he willing to pitch in to the fund for this bacchanale? Will there be an expensive honeymoon? How big a house can he afford to buy me? And so on.
In past times, the likelihood that he’s gotten laid yet were minuscule. Yet he’s expected to commit thousands of his current and future earnings toward the purchase of her sexual access while courting.
Currently, young women tend to deliver if the early questions are met with satisfactory response. They aren’t sure about a wedding anymore, as many grew up with hostile parents and divorce. Not wanting this for themselves, they are willing to let the Good Times Roll and take their chances, all the while looking for that better offer who can complete the list later.
Economic conditions will force more of this divestment of the past as fewer males will make enough to actually own houses. Communal living is becoming the norm as employment isn’t steady or remunerative for most. And forget about kids! Even if the parents are grown up, can the same be said for the roommates?
Therefore, openly selling sex is a much more honest transaction. The price set establishes whether the client can pay, and at what level of involvement. If a woman is only willing to offer oral sex, she can still make a lot of money across a weekend, and have plenty of customers. Both participants walk away satisfied and without future entanglements.
Replies:
@ Tarn
“I do wonder though, if all of these particular women learned to wield sex as a tool via their mothers/aunts (like he says) or if there are other significant “teachers”?”
I can attest that the answer is both. My own MIL openly praised her DIL in my presence for using sex like this. Others get their lessons from reading pop literature and/or the usual list of feminist suspects.
@ Bloom
“Not many happily married men in the sphere, hopefully there are more out there in the general population but we just don’t hear about that bc no news is good news?”
My observations indicate that happily married = Blue Pill. Unless a man is turned off by his wife (see: Coolidge Effect), he ends up settling for what she deigns to give him. As I understand things, that screams Blue and not Red.
@ Fuzzie
“What the manosphere has done is allow men to talk amoungst themselves. The realization is dawning that “It is not just me”.”
Brother Bear speaks wisely. While I knew from comments made by my peers that my problems weren’t rare, having a place to discuss them was a revelation. This is the only current option we men have to changing things.
My parents divorced, an uncle on my father’s side was divorced twice, my mother’s side has six or seven, I have seen neighbors divorced, and more friends and acquaintances than I can remember have been divorced or otherwise suffered at the hands of women. It was nice to know that I was not alone.
The Shadowed Knight
Hi Bloom, I’m on personal internet restriction so I haven’t been around much. 🙂
I’m of the opinion that all human interactions are essentially transactional (to one extent or the other). We don’t usually think about it, though. I have expectations, others have expectations of me. And I prefer it that way. I’m not a tumbleweed and I don’t wish to raise tumbleweeds.
Let’s pick an example outside of my family…the last couple of weeks I’ve been helping out an elderly lady recovering from “cellulitis”. She was in the hospital for almost a week and then sent home. This woman is 91 and in (otherwise) very good condition. I think she’s very lucky the hospital didn’t kill her. Anyway, her “cellulitis” got worse and the daughter (who has anxiety issues) needed someone to help clean and change bandages. Over time, it became pretty clear to me that this wasn’t an infection at all, but more of an inflammatory skin condition. I think she was misdiagnosed and given a bunch of IV antibiotics, and the adjunct prednisone was what reversed it. When the prednisone stopped, the issue came back.
Anyway, we’re still trying to figure out what’s going on but the bloodwork backed my suspicions. I get a great, great deal of personal satisfaction helping this woman and trying to figure out what is wrong with her. If I fix her, I will feel like a million bucks. That would be better to me than fifty orgasms. In the meantime, seeing her suffer and not getting better actually causes me emotional pain. Our relationship is transactional, even though no money is exchanged. They are very grateful to me, and that’s enough for me.
There is a division between social norms and market norms.
Imagine, for example, going over to a relative’s house for thanksgiving dinner and it’s wonderful. Then Uncle Buck gets up to leave with his family and pulls out his wallet and says, “That was great! Okay…this meal was worth, like, probably twenty dollars a plate. Here’s our portion.”
It would seem weird and awkward for a reason. People are conditioned (I’m quite certain not just socially, but there’s probably a biological aspect to this, too) to see a distinction between commercial exchange and social exchange.
Just to add: Per escorts/ prostitutes, that is obviously a market exchange (unless and until a person “dates” this escort/prostitute in the social sense without the assumed monetary exchange).
I’ve heard mostly good things, but all of the escort market exchanges I’m familiar with are extremely, extremely expensive. Prohibitively so.
Yes. There is no question about this. Male chimps are known to offer “gifts” to female chimps to win their sexual favor.
Which is why it would seem we’re closer to chimpanzees than bonobos, at least from this social perspective.
My own MIL openly praised her DIL in my presence for using sex like this. Others get their lessons from reading pop literature and/or the usual list of feminist suspects.
Yeah, I recall that story. Nevermind “giving the milk away for free”…I wonder how many cows are bought only to have the milk supply dry up (without reason)?
It is shown in human behavioral studies that the very first thing a woman gauges about a potential suitor is his net worth.
Not physical attractiveness? That’s typically the first thing you *can* notice about someone. After all, you can’t see someone’s financial status but you can see their eyes, chest, hair, arms, etc. The very first thing I thought regarding my partner (as we were first being introduced at the game table!) was “Wow. He has highly kissable lips.”
I’m confused as to how net worth can be the first hurdle a man has to get over. Are they taken from dating site surveys, where a guy can elect to put in his income alongside his profile pic? Or are these studies done after the participants had gone on a few dates and they see how willing to split the bill/pay the other person is?
Do prostitutes clean the house or make meals or take care of your kids? Prostitutes can deny sex just like wives and refuse to do business with a man.
Prostitutes can also give freebies and date men.
@ liz
I’ve been on blogging boredom.
Hi Gamer. 🙂
“I’ve been on blogging boredom.”
It’s good to take a break every now and then.
Just to highlight my perspective further:
All of us are performing a moneyless but still transactional exchange right now, participating here. We communicate here because the exchange (of ideas, and so forth) means something to us.
Hi Liz!
*ahem* I agree.
That is all. 😀
Hi Tarn! 😀
Just thinking further (and then I’m locking up my internet bar for the day and throwing the keys into the bushes).
I think you can actually tell a great deal about a person by what he/she values (which is what motivates them when engaging in a transactional exchange, essentially).
Here is a recent example:
Amy Schumer recently excoriated a 17 year old for taking a photo with her and tweeting (twittering?) the caption, “Spend the night with Amy Schumer. Guess I’m not the first guy to be able to say that.”
He later deleted it, apologizing profusely as Amy and her mass (along with the masses) shamed him for being so sexist and attempting to demean her with a quip that was exactly along the lines of the “I’m a fat whore” schtick on which her entire empire was built.
Pretty defensive, I’d say unreasonably so at first glance. Until you factor in the fact that she actually is a fat whore, which means intrinsically she has lowered her own value, so perhaps this reality has led to that reflexive defensiveness which is self awareness.
I’m pretty sure the thinner and hotter and younger Amy ten years ago would have taken the comment with humor and grace. But now, she has become insecure and more invested in her “strong, independent, I choose to have sex with only the best…when I’m not drunk…” persona. Her persona and the ego she has invested in it has taken on higher value. So now we’re seeing a difference in the transactional exchange (of public words, in this case).
“Spent the night”…not spend, above.
Yay Liz, welcome back! Good to see you!
A 17 year old guy? Wouldn’t that be statutory rape? That makes Amy more than a fat, drunk, slut — it makes her a rapist and a peodiphile if the same standard that would be applied if a man her age slept w a 17 yo, would it not? Hummmm
@ zero please don’t take that the wrong way, kids are a blessing for sure and I agree w you I’d rather spend the day w them than as a cog in the wheel of some corporate machine for sure 🙂 sorry if my comment came off as negative…
“Making the most of what you have is the closest to fair you get.”
WELL SAID!
I think it would depend on the state, Bloom.
In my state, the age of consent is generally labeled as 17 for most purposes. Here’s the actual laws on the books:
In New York State, a person who is under age 16 but older than 13 years old can consent to sex with a person who is no more than 4 years older; the crime of the 3rd degree rape only happens when a person over the age of 21 has sex with a person who is under seventeen years old or younger and that person can or may be punished with up to 4 years in prison. The younger the victim is, the more severe the punishment. Note that this means if you are 13 years or younger, you cannot legally consent, regardless of whether the other person is the same age or not.
Hi yourself, Liz. [wry grin]
I’m not sure that ideas are that valuable a commodity. Women want attention from me, to be admired by all, and to be desired by attractive men. Men can bring the currency of attention, admiration, and their desire to the bargaining table. Men are fools to give that currency away for free.
Women bring sex, for the most part. If sex isn’t in the picture, then what do women bring on blogs? Men don’t care about women’s attention unless it leads to sex. We also don’t care if women admire us. We only care if women desire us sexually and it results in sex.
“It’s about the sex, stupid.”
NB: There are a very few women who bring interesting questions to discuss.
lol, “women want attention from men”–not just me (I’m not that narcissistic, hah)
She’s 34. But sounds like he meant they spent the night at the awards together, not in bed. http://www.syracuse.com/celebrity-news/index.ssf/2016/01/amy_schumer_albany_teen_film_critic_lights_camera_jackson.html
However he failed the shit test miserably, too bad he didn’t respond in a ZFG manner… He could have launched his status as a critic rather than tucked tail and went down in self flaggalating shame. Too bad, he needs the manosphere!
@ Liz
I’d like the usual from your internet bar.
As I think about this further, while the article claims Amy was offended by the slam to her character, if one looks at the photo I bet she was actually defending her smv — he’s several points lower than her so ewwwww…. Of course she has to clarify there’s no way in hell, not funny. Had he been a point or two a over her, I wonder if she would have gushed some coy response instead?
Hi Bloom. Thanks. 🙂
Serving you the regular, Gamer. (pours and pushes the beverage your way). 🙂
“As I think about this further, while the article claims Amy was offended by the slam to her character, if one looks at the photo I bet she was actually defending her smv — he’s several points lower than her so ewwwww…. Of course she has to clarify there’s no way in hell, not funny.”
Only because she doesn’t feel secure in her SMV.
If she did, the 17 year old’s quip would have been kind of sweet, and she would have responded with humor and grace (like Mae West would have done).
I agree with this. If their SMV had been equal or his higher, the response would’ve likely been very different.
As it is, I see her current personality as a cover up for very low self-esteem. She cares too much about what others think. My SMV is what it is. Not everyone finds my body type attractive, and an adult accepts that. It’s when people like Amy (with an external locus of esteem) shame men for personal preferences that the trouble starts.
A big thing with Amy is that she is fat and she knows that. She is not unattractive, even though she is carrying about forty or fifty extra pounds around. I think that if she were to lose that, she has the body and face to be quite pretty. I think that she knows that, too. She gets defensive because he is pointing out her lowered attractiveness, plus he is a buttpussy, plus she is getting near her sell by date. Being Jewish and part of a big political family, I wonder how much baggage she is carrying from her upbringing, in combination with the approach of the Wall.
The Shadowed Knight
If sex isn’t in the picture, then what do women bring on blogs?
The same as guys…just ideas and conversation. After all, everyone online is a dude unless they specify otherwise…hence the “tits, or gtfo” prevalent in gamer/geek forums. Prove you’re a woman via photo evidence, or just grow up and stop asking for people to treat you like a special snowflake.
In the article, she pretty much ignores the whole question of attraction, or lack of same. There’s not much question that women are attracted to men from whom they instinctively think they can get something, for themselves and/or their future children…resources, protection, status, or simply “good genes”…but IMO there is a big difference between a woman who is physically genuinely attracted to a man, even it’s just because he’s her boss and has a nice car and was on television lately, and a woman who is not physically attracted to the man (say, he’s just the same as the man above, but he’s really really ugly, or the immune-system chemistry match isn’t there) but PRETENDS to be attracted so she can get money, promotions, etc. I guess you could call both cases prostitution, but in the first case the “prostitution” is at the instinctive level, and in the second it is conscious and cold-blooded.
That’s a really good distinction, Anon Al.
@ anon al, good point! Thank for adding that. Big difference!
Yes, in essence sex is a transactional interaction on one level or another.
Liz,
Good to see you!
Amy Schumer was cuaght slumming and that’s what it’s about. She should be embarrassed. I think he hit a little close to home.
Getting back to the original post, the more we talk about transactions and conditions, the less room there is for acceptance.
Fuzzie,
Transactions aren’t necessarily bad. Every social interaction between men and women, or men and men, or women and women, can be viewed as a “transaction”.
Friendships (when done right) are mutually beneficial “transactions” of being there for each other, and sharing times of enjoyment. Done incorrectly, one gets fair weather friends.
Marriages (when done right) are mutually beneficial and complementary “transactions” of unconditional love, resources, sexual access, and strong support for the family. Done incorrectly, there is abuse and manipulation.
Friends with Benefits (when done right) are mutually beneficial “transactions” mixing friendship and noncommittal sex. Done incorrectly, there is disregard for one person’s satisfaction and emotional manipulation.
Transactions are not inherently bad when both sides are better off for having them. When only one side profits, that is indicative of misuse.
@ tarn I would agree. There are good transactions, and bad. Win-win is good, win-lose is bad. And then there are gradations in long term relationships -sometimes (hopefully mostly) win-win, but sometimes one partner is weaker and for a time it may be lose-win or win-lose. And in very long term relationships it likely cycles thru all possible combos w time. However any relationship that is continual win for one at the loss of the other is imbalanced.
Fuzzie, do you not know any, not one, example of a mutually benificial relationship in your real life surroundings? I know there are a lot of bad examples, but there are success stories too, and we can learn much from them I think.
Fuzzie will have a mutually beneficial example when I buy him a lunch this summer in exchange for his delightful ursine company during said meal.
😊🐻🍻🍔🍯🍗🍦
Tarn,
I am salivating over the prospect of a steak dinner and, it’s not anywhere near ugust.
On second thought,it’s hard to get around conditions imposed in relationships.
These little videos are gold. I think the smaller Bloomette would agree.
Transactions assume a form of exchange. While hookers prefer money (because it’s their job) women in general prefer drama. Just about every form of transactional exchange with a woman is enhanced by drama, thus revealing it to be the true medium of exchange. The right kind of drama gets a woman more attention and they love that.
This is why doing the dishes or the laundry actually means the husband gets laid less, but injecting a bit of drama into the wife’s life (flirting with the waitress at a restaurant) will get the husband laid if he knows how to handle it right. After she melts the phone lines telling her girlfriends about it, she’s somehow in the mood for sex later.
The attention a woman gets when commenting on blogs and all the drama that occurs when somebody goes off on her and white knights comes to her rescue is like a catnip-crack combination for them. That’s also why trolls are usually gamma males, men who are very female in their emotional reactions. The drama and attention are addictive.
@ toad I would agree that many women today exchange sex for drama. I had not realized this before but now that you say it…. Interesting.
So what is the currancy value of drama? Is that a good barter? Or are women making this deal selling themselves way short?
Hummm…..
Fuzzie, it will be fun to meet in August. 👍
Gencon this year is Aug. 4-7, but I’ll be flying in on the night of the 3rd. Badges go on sale this Friday, and hotels on Sunday…The guys and I are all gonna be hunkered down online trying to get the better rooms downtown, lol.
Can’t wait! I’m even selling off some of my Magic collection, so spending money won’t be as much of an issue either! 😀 👏 💸🎲
Better start thinking of where you want to eat, Fuzzie bear!
Or are women making this deal selling themselves way short?
Definitely. Drama makes women more paranoid, suspicious of others, more prone to reading between lines that don’t exist, and…craving more drama. It’s a vicious cycle I see with my sisters and mom, as well as some of my female coworkers. Better to look for contentment than troubles. Avoid those who bring drama into your life…they usually are not worth it.
Drama for sex????
Yikes!!!!!!
Men like peace and quiet.
Tarn,
I have never met a commenter collegue in person. It does sound like fun.
Indeed Tarn, drama is overrated for sure. Most gals I know who thrive on drama have little else going on in life. Kinda sad, really!
@fuzzie exactly! A classic case of projection????
Back when a bunch of buddies and I were heavy into pranking, their wives all hated me. They were in awe of my wife for being able to put up with me and my wife always knew what was going on so she got lots of attention without lifting a finger.
The more fun I had with my buddies, the more of a pariah I became with their wives, the more attention and respect my wife got, and guess what I got out of it?
One night we waited until the Pentecostal tent revival turned the lanterns down low and they started with the dancing and speaking in tongues. That’s when we let about 40 snakes (non-poisonous ones) loose into the tent and let’s just say there was a *lot* of dancing and speaking in tongues after that.
The Pentecostals decided they were doing such a fine job of saving souls that Satan himself sent a plague of snakes to disrupt their efforts. There was a story in the paper, letters to the editor and the local gossip raged for a long time but we left zero evidence behind and had really tight opsec.
All the wives went into a tizzy over that op and I got laid 2 or 3 times a day for weeks afterward. Was she selling herself short? No, she already enjoyed sex but with all the drama it was like getting paid to go shopping with free money and keep everything she bought. No matter what happened, at worst she was a victim and she got lots of attention, knew all the details the other wives didn’t know and came across as an absolute saint for putting up with me.
Later, after we switched over to anonymous good-deeds pranking we got the wives involved and the results were predictable. The more drama the wives got the more sex the husbands got. Predictable in hind-sight I should say. At the time we thought the ops we were running were some kind of bonding thing.
Knowing what I know now, I don’t have to wonder what would have happened if we’d taken steps to fake a few close calls to add more excitement for the women. They wouldn’t need to know the local cops were already in on the deal and had agreed to look the other way, but all they’d have to do is drive by a few times to give things a whiff of danger. And maybe being forced to E&E afterward and hide somewhere cozy to keep from getting caught? Like maybe a hayloft that just happens to have a stack of clean saddle blankets within reach? They’d think they were living out a romance novel.
It would be interesting to set up a study to measure the effect of something like this because what I know from experience is that kind of thing is like a combination of catnip and crack to the women.
Sounds like good drama Toad!
As others have pointed out, that’s why amusement parks are popular with women. Excitement and thrills that put them into the right emotional state without danger or consequences. Not like the bad drama of the cops showing up at 2AM serving a warrant or looking for somebody who matches the description of your kids.
For the guys it’s a fun challenge but for the women a well-run op is an adventure and it follows the old rule of Game: Don’t try to change her mind, change her emotions.
If add drama to ones life one does need,
Then living life poorly you are
@ Yoda I find life provides plenty enough random drama on its own for me. Every day seems to be a crazy adventure, from stray animals suddenly appearing to people crashing into the ditch in front of my house to just trying to get two kids up and dressed and to school on time. Throw in a random quick turnaround writing job on top of running a farm biz. Sometimes more drama than I want! Lol. But better than the Kardashian style kind, IMHO.
RPG,
All the animals know to come to you.
I can see how getting the kids to school could be a challenge. 😉
Your drama is better.
If add drama to ones life one does need, Then living life poorly you are
Yup. Couldn’t agree more. Well said, Master Yoda.
But then again, introverts tend to prefer peace and quiet over “thrills”. And I think we’re typically outnumbered in the general public in that sense…
Bloom,
Sounds like you need a day or two off! If we ever meet, I’ll help with the chores and bring a variety box of Toblerone! 🍫
Tarn,
I am impresed. You could teach the boys lessons in how to charm.
Why is it that the red pill types always see sex as transactional? What does that say about the mindset that generates such perception?
“Liz,
Good to see you!”
Thanks, Fuzzie! 🙂
LOL that serpent story is classic, Toad!
“Why is it that the red pill types always see sex as transactional? What does that say about the mindset that generates such perception?”
I see every human interaction as transactional. What does it say about me? Beats me. I’ve always looked at life that way. It’s worked out pretty well for me.
I think understanding one’s own motivations is pretty integral to self awareness.
It’s good to pause and reflect from time to time and consider things like: What am I attempting to achieve from this behavior/interaction and what am I getting out of it?
It’s also interesting to consider why others are doing what they’re doing (which is part of empathy).
Like, when you sit in your car and contemplate the meaning of life while you watch the light go from red to green, to red again. Why all that honking?
(I kid, but on a more serious note I do observe the way many drivers react very angrily at others aroung them for what seems like trivial and unproductive reasons. That always strikes me as odd)
I agree Liz, I don’t get the idea behind road rage. I get it that commuting and being in traffic is frustrating and stressful. But some people seem like they are on the verge of postal! Scary 😦
Reom time to time, I would find myself in San Jose rush hour traffic. Having bears on my dashboard calmed my frustration. They weren’t impatient or worried.
still human,
I’m not a Red Piller, and I think all interactions between people (of all sexes and genders) are transactional to some extent, as I’ve explained earlier. As for what this shows about one’s mindset, it means I take time to meditate on whether my actions are as fair and beneficial to both/all of us as they can be in that moment. If this is a bad thing in your mind…Why?
If someone *only* thinks of all male-female sexual intimacies or relationships as being zero sum transactional, I’d agree that is a problem.
Pfft…ha ha ha!
Liz, that was great!
I avoid having road rage by keeping a favorite YouTube playlist of songs on, and singing along. It’s difficult to be mad when you’re singing!*
*Note: This doesn’t mean I can sing.
Only that I do. 😉 My voice is too weird for singing in public, lol.
Tarn,
I am impresed. You could teach the boys lessons in how to charm.
It’s not difficult. Be confident, be friendly, and be genuinely complimentary. It’s how I got the number of a waitress at The Tilted Kilt in Indianapolis 2 years ago, anyway. We were leaving that day (which I told her since I’m not a jerk) but from watching my FwB flirt, I’ve found that this is almost always all it takes. The problem is that many men aren’t confident in themselves because heck, tons of people (mainstream media, teachers, parents, politicians, etc) have told them they aren’t awesome. Bullocks! Everyone has a spark of awesome in them! If someone tries to tell you you’re not awesome, Fuzzie, kick ’em in their metaphorical teeth and walk away.
I’m late to this post Bloom 😀 I agree with you and most of the comments about sex being transactional, but I don’t LIKE agreeing lol. I like to think of it as more romantic than just “transactional,” and think of it as being loving toward each other, and a deep connection lol!
But I understand it does make sense that in a marriage relationship (where I’m at), it comes from all the other things we put into the relationship that make it work. We both work together and take care of each other in complimentary ways. What Liz said about relationships being transactional in their basic fundamental form is true.
The only thing that isn’t really transactional (as far as relationships go) is probably with your young children. They can’t do anything for you, especially babies (I’m thinking of our baby right now 😀 ) so you just take care of them and love them… even though they spit up on you, have messy poops, yell and scream at you when they’re hungry, etc.
But they’re just so cute! LOL No transaction needed.
Maybe later in life comes in the transaction of mothering/fathering them well, maybe they will in turn take care of you if you take care of them well. LOL I just debunked my point! bleh! more coffee!!
“Liz, that was great!”
Hee, hee. Thanks, Tarn. 😀
“But they’re just so cute! LOL No transaction needed.”
Ah, but there is a transaction. Holding a baby, smelling a baby, just being near a baby is like holding on to a piece of magic. If people could bottle up that feeling, they’d be able to sell that drug for a very high price. Even the memories of that are beyond price. Worth all those late nights. 😉
re “everything is transactional,” maybe it depends how one is using the word. I heard a talk by Esther Dyson (I think it was) who noted that sociologists have explained the world as having gone from ‘status’ to ‘contract’…and she suggested that it is now going from ‘contract’ to ‘transaction’, and that in her view is not necessarily a good thing. (An example in the employment field is that once you were a medieval serf (Status), then you were a long-term employee (Contract), and now maybe you are working on temporary gigs (Transaction)
@dragonfly yes, good point. I was trying to think of cases where relationships aren’t transactional (hopefully win-win) and I thought of children too. And someone who is infirm. In those cases the child or disabled person simply can’t “give back” rather than won’t, which is a huge difference. Good point! Kiss that cute baby for me! 🙂