Sexzoned: The act of determining one is unworthy of commitment, but yet still useful for satisfying sexual needs.One way in which Red Pill thought has re-jiggered relations between the sexes is to remind men that, while women are the gatekeepers of consensual sex, men are the gatekeepers of consensual commitment. This commitment has substantial value, and men should not disregard it so.
Suitors offering friendship, yet found unworthy of access to a woman's sexuality have been friendzoned by the cowardly/unscrupulous/both since time immemorial. Today, however, subsequent to women's (and also men's) liberation, women offering sexual access yet found unworthy of a man's permanent commitment may find themselves, to use Emma the Emo's newly coined term, sexzoned by the equally cowardly/unscrupulous/both. Milk without the cow, &c. To use Emma's words:
If a guy says something angry upon being friendzoned, he is usually judged harshly, and it’s suggested he felt entitled to sex to have this attitude. And sometimes they say he thought that a woman’s friendship was a consolation prize (which is an insult to her friendship).The remainder of Emma's original post discusses legitimacy of the anger that some men feel upon being friendzoned, likens it to the resentment that some women feel upon being sexzoned, and discusses the relative merits of whether that reaction is due to entitlement or some other motivation.
A woman is not a machine where you insert friendship coins, until sex falls out!..
Indeed it’s true. But isn’t the same true for men?
A man is not a machine where you insert [sex] coins, until friendship falls out.
Offering friendship does not necessarily result in friendship. Sometimes people aren’t interested, or want more. Does that mean women who become angry when friendship is refused, felt entitled to a man’s friendship? Ian Ironwood [at the blog The Red Pill Room] suggests so.
A couple of thoughts here on sexzoning. First, men re-realizing that they are the gatekeepers of consensual commitment does much to re-balance the scales between the sexes in the sexual marketplace (SMP). This commodity (consensual commitment) is in great demand, and that demand grants significant power. A man should be as profligate in granting relationship as a woman is in granting sex. In being choosy in relationship, in being unpromiscuous in his commitments, a man increases his attractiveness both in the SMP and marriage marketplace (MMP), much in the same way as a choosy woman increases her attractiveness through differentiation and exclusivity. But that's not the only benefit: This choosiness insulates men and women from being friend- and sexzoned, respectively.
Moreover, adapting Scripture for a moment, we should recall that 'to whom much is granted, much is expected'. Thus those fellows who don't appreciate the thought of being friendzoned should remember that when tempted to sexzone a woman. The opposite applies to women considering friendzoning a man--it's disrespectful and using.
Second--readers will forgive a bit of proselytizing here, but I gotta--one's risk of being friendzoned/sexzoned decreases significantly upon rejecting the sexual marketplace for the marriage marketplace. But not just the MMP, but a specific domain within it: Courting. In courting, a man is in the driver's seat. He initiates this deliberate process with an end goal in sight--marriage. This sets the mental framework for the events to follow, and "breaks his beta", almost by default. This is not to say that women have less power or influence in this process, far from it. Rather, that both potentials are evaluating the other for suitability as a husband or wife. If either rejects the other, there was no "milk without the cowl" sex and/or commitment being obtained, thus low/no risk of friendzoning or sexzoning.