There was a quite heated discussion about the number of sexual partners the average woman has over at MarkyMark's place not long ago. The subject of the debate was the number of sexual partners the average late twenty-someting woman has. A few placed this number in the single digits, others much much higher; the data suggests to me that high teens/low twenties is a reasonable conclusion, as I wrote in this comment.
Of course, key to the entire debate is the definition of "sexual partner". For example, one may be a technical virgin, in which a person has done about everything under the sun except have intercourse. He or she may not consider any of that sexual activity as relevant (I sure as heck do...any sexual activity, particularly of the below-the-belt variety, matters in my book...but that's just me), and may not even discount those partners as part of their personal traffic count. Or he or she may just simply define away any sexual act that they wish, as this woman counsels:
It’s not that in either case I’m lying per se; it’s just that a few of my partners just don’t register on the same scale as the rest and I don’t want to count them. And I’m not alone. In everyday life, there may be a couple partners that the average person would leave out. There is just some sex that doesn’t really, well, count.
IT DOESN’T COUNT IF…
1. ...it lasts less than 10 seconds and no one finished.
2. ...you can’t remember it.
3. ...you didn’t give permission.* **
4. ...you really, really, really regret it.
5. ...you’re less than 51% sure that penetration actually occurred.
6. ...he has a bad case of whiskey dick [I had to look that one up--EW].
7. ...it happened in Vegas (said jokingly).
With these provisos, addendas, and quid-pro-quos in mind, it lends support to the notion that a man should boost a woman's claimed number of sexual partners by some factor. Maybe not an order of magnitude as a couple of commenters to MarkyMark's post opined, but certainly taking a twenty-something woman's claim of "two or three" at face value would be a mistake.
* This woman, who said she was raped, then goes on to have sex with her alleged attacker a few days subsequently. Um, if you were raped by a guy, why in the blazes do you bed the same guy a few days later? Sorry, if you were "raped" by a guy and then go on to screw him multiple times over the span of the next few dates, you don't get to claim that as a rape.
** This woman also apparently subscribes to the ridiculous notion that a yes isn't a yes--and therefore all sex without that unequivocal verbal yes is rape--unless it is affirmatively uttered.
31 Comments:
Not taking credit for what happened, but I brought it to MarkyMark's attention after seeing it linked on this blog, how... I don't know if it's ironic, but it's funny to think it's come full circle. (the link was on the left side to Whiskey's Place).
Amateur,
I found this link via another post about a different Frisky's article at Vox's place.
But I'm glad for the community of bros who pass this stuff around, including you. It is good for the truth to circulate, and for up-and-coming boys to be aware of what awaits them.
There are some marginal cases.
E.g. Woman X tries to have sex with Man Y, who is impotent. Man Y cannot manage any kind of erection, but brings his flaccid member into contact with Woman X's genitals, stimulates her to a very minor degree, then they both go to sleep.
Sex? Well, it might be enough to cause a venereal disease.
However not all genital contact is sex. Example: Woman A and Woman B have just played soccer and are showering together in a team shower with no stalls. Woman A slips and entirely by accident falls with her face - including her mouth - making contact with Woman B's genitals. Contact is entirely involuntary and is terminated at earliest opportunity.
Verdict: involuntary genital contact does not equal sex in the meaningful sense. Of course, if Woman A had a bad case of oral herpes and Woman B subsequently contracted genital herpes, the non-sexual nature of the genital contact would be of small consolation.
The other thing that I didn't see mentioned here is that women, when assessing their "count", generally never count oral sex partners. Only vaginally penetrative sex is "counted".
There was a young women over at Roissy a while ago who, at 25, admitted she could count between 75-80 partners (she wasn't sure of the exact number, it was an estimate), but she expressly said that she wasn't counting oral sex partners, and that she couldn't even begin to estimate what that number was.
Oral sex is the new goodnight kiss, as they say (actually there is a book with that title but it's actually about middle class white high school girls who are taking up prostitution for fun and money: http://www.thenewgoodnightkiss.com/)
Nova, thanks for the link. I've been aware in general of the new goodnight kiss types, just based on reading about the hook-up culture, but was pretty short on specifics. Up until now.
I of course count someone a male/female does oral with as a sexual partner, and include that in the roster of sex partners.
The more and more I think about it, Black Sea's number of 25 is actually a pretty good approximation for the center of mass.
Scary.
Yes, it is scary. However, to me the issue isn't the exact number isn't the issue as the disparity in number of partners between men and women. By definition the average number of partners for a straight man and for a straight woman pretty much have to be the same.
However, if you take a look at the median it tells us a different story. (Remember, that the median is defined as the number 50% of whatever you are analyzing are above and below are that number.) What we have here wrt to number of sex partners is a case where the male median is signifigantly lower than the female median. Each new sex partner increases the average for both male and female. However, since the top 10% of men is getting most of the sex on the straight male side of things with nearly all of the women then the female median is much higher than the male median.
What this means is that a small percentage of men is getting huge amounts of sex, some are getting very little, and many guys (such as myself) are never getting any. It also means that most men look below average to most women. Over the last several years, I have talked to many men who are in their 20s, 30s or even older who have never had sex for all the same reason - lack of female interest. There is no equivalent group of women since there are no female virgins at our ages. Women are awash in sex.
Since I had started my blog, I have gotten lots and lots of emails from guys who are virgins and never had any woman express interest in them. They're mainly in their 20s, but some are older. Most of them are very intelligent. Most of them are successful.
This is why I am not that concerned about things like whether women are counting oral sex in their number of sex partners.
Tech,
I hear what you are saying, and I agree completely.
As a manner of explaining where I am coming from, my concern with the gross number of sex partners has to do with total experience vis-a-vis eligibility to be a wife.
Basically, the more sex partners a woman has, the less able, in general, a woman will be able to fulfill that role.
I agree with you, EW. I just find debating whether the typical woman has 20, 40, or 50 sex partners pointless. Whatever the answer really is, the fact of the matter I already know the answer is TOO DAMN MANY.
Of course, it makes them unsuitable for being a wife. It also makes then unsuitable for even being a girlfriend. There is just no way for most women to have anything other than contempt for most men. This in addition to the gross number of sex partners makes her unsuitable for being a wife.
It really annoys me that women weren't that slutty when I was single. Or maybe I was just not hanging out in the right places to find them. There are a whole lot of guys out there who simply don't deserve that kind of action. Just one more axample of how life is not fair.
"There is just no way for most women to have anything other than contempt for most men."
It's a bit different from that.
I think what it is, is that 20% of the men are sleeping with the women who sleep around. That % of women is not "all women", but they are the most visible, the most present and flirty, the most overtly sexual and so on -- so they tend to be the ones that get noticed. I would guess that it's around 40% of women at the most who are engaged in that behavior, overall, but the skew will be very, very different depending on where you are: young women in Manhattan, for example, will skew higher than young women in Iowa.
The thing that men often don't like to discuss are the 50% of women who are median and below median who generally do not get much male attention at all. In this respect, I think there is a tendency to focus on what the hotties are doing, rather than what the average girl is doing.
So while I do agree that the distribution of sex among men is very uneven today, it's also uneven among women, just not to the same exaggerated extent as it is among men.
Well, I wanted to think a bit before posting.
Sadly, many woman and men cannot count the number of sexual partners they've had on one hand. Meaning, that there just aren't enough fingers. When it gets into the double digit numbers, I would be very concerned as a prospective mate.
Now, if my prospective husband had a sexual encounter in his past, I certainly would not be unforgiving about it. I would be more concerned about the effects it had on him and that he would be healthy in all ways. I would want for us to be able to be together and not have any sense of shame, to experience love without limits. I am not that prudish or prideful. Some women can be really critical about that, and since I am 30, I would not expect a man in my age range to have abstained for so long.
However, for myself, I chose to not have any kind of sexual relationship until I am married. This is for emotional, physical, and spiritual reasons. Emotionally, it can be a real let down for a woman to have sex outside of marriage. When women have sex with a man, there is a chemical reaction that bonds the woman to the man. and she often falls in love with him and he may not feel the same way and vice versa. Also, there is a certain degree of maturity that is needed to experience this in that sex (minus the removal of reproductive organs) can always lead to the creation of another human life, which comes with great responsibility to both parties. which comes to the physical part. You want to know a partner well enough as to clear any doubts of disease in mind. Also, in the realm of marriage there are times when it is not possible to be sexual to medical reasons, etc. and since marriage is about more than just sex, it should be the only relationship where marriage happens, period. Spiritually, marriage is a covenant between a man, woman and God. It is about being together through all the ups and downs life can bring, not just the sexual moments. It includes the whole package and is for the long haul.
I have had some girlfriends of mine get caught in a miserable predicament where they compromised themselves and would call me to vent about their recent encounters. I got so disgusted with it, that many of these same persons are not in my life on a regular basis. I just got fed up with the drama, the immorality and blatant disregard for the sanctity of marriage where these "encounters" should have been intimate, cherished experiences. I am not a perfect person and have been in relationships that were not healthy, but fortunately I did not have sex. God protected me and gave me the sense to abstain. I have trouble respecting women who give their bodies so freely and openly to men they hardly know. It is a total disgrace and contradicts biblical womanhood in every way. It brands and labels women in general as being loose.
"I already know the answer is TOO DAMN MANY"
Yes, more than 1, maybe two, is more likely than not an indicator that a moral man needs to fish in a different pond. As you say any effort toward figuring if the number is beyond that is a waste of time.
"The thing that men often don't like to discuss are the 50% of women who are median and below median who generally do not get much male attention at all."
An excellent point, Nova. It's probably fair to say that most if not all of the female purveyors of this blog fall into this category. And more than one has complained about the lack of male attention and/or initiation of a relationship.
It is an interesting quandary...that the very women that we men say that we want don't get any play whatsoever from quality guys. It's as if the men that we say we are just "turtle up" and don't bother to make overtures toward the women we want to be with.
The result is that both sexes complain...men about slutty women, women about scared hidey-hole men who won't take that step toward getting the relationship ball rolling.
Shannon, well put and an excellent witness.
IMHO, the key word in your comment was "drama"; which is what we humans get more of when we reject the Word.
I have a question for you. I've spoken with Believing sisters from time to time, and I note a recurring theme surfaces quite often. That women who have saved themselves for marriage look askance at men who have no "experience" whatsoever. It is like there is an expectation that it is okay, even somewhat desirable for a man to have had a partner or two to know what he's about or to know what he is doing in bed.
Do you find this to be true in your experience as well?
I think what it is, is that 20% of the men are sleeping with the women who sleep around. That % of women is not "all women", but they are the most visible, the most present and flirty, the most overtly sexual and so on -- so they tend to be the ones that get noticed. I would guess that it's around 40% of women at the most who are engaged in that behavior, overall, but the skew will be very, very different depending on where you are: young women in Manhattan, for example, will skew higher than young women in Iowa.
The thing that men often don't like to discuss are the 50% of women who are median and below median who generally do not get much male attention at all. In this respect, I think there is a tendency to focus on what the hotties are doing, rather than what the average girl is doing.
Nova, I'm sure this is another example of you not getting what is happening with people younger than you. You have the top 10% or 20% of men nailing the top 60%-70% of women or there abouts. The 40%-30% of women below that get attention from the next tier of guys that get some sex, but not a lot. This covers nearly all women, but this leaves a huge group of men who have never had any sex at all.
The result is that both sexes complain...men about slutty women, women about scared hidey-hole men who won't take that step toward getting the relationship ball rolling.
The difference is that men are complaining about skanky female behavior whereas the women are complaining that the men aren't willing to put their heads in the guillotine. What do women expect when a man receives nothing but constant rejection and threats of sexual harassment lawsuits when they try to approach women?
The result is that both sexes complain...men about slutty women, women about scared hidey-hole men who won't take that step toward getting the relationship ball rolling.
The difference is that men are complaining about skanky female behavior whereas the women are complaining that the men aren't willing to put their heads in the guillotine. What do women expect when a man receives nothing but constant rejection and threats of sexual harassment lawsuits when they try to approach women?
There is a major distortion or omission here in EW's description. Just as all women are not beautiful, so are all men not necessarily aggressive. Women complained for years about having to do all the "sh*t work" of housework, but seem incapable of appreciating the fact that men have to do all the "sh*t work" of intiating potential relationships. Someone did a study once and found that a man has to persevere through an average of 150 rejections between first contact and establishment of intimacy.
There used to be a multitude of social mechanisms to throw single men and women together in low pressure situations where they could get to know each other and allow a relationship to build slowly on some other basis than raw physical attraction and pure aggression - mixers, socials, even matchmakers. Now, we have "speed dating" in which each person has maybe 3 minutes to make a positive impression on the other. Talk about a GRISLY practice!!!
By relying exclusively on the passive-attractive strategy, women are actually selecting men based primarily on one characteristic - pure, raw, aggressiveness. Going with that is the secondary characteristic of sociopathology. The men who are best at ignoring and shrugging of 150 rejections get the girl. However, their ability to do so depends to some extent on how much they can dehumanize her and make her opinion of them not matter to them - particularly compared to their goal of "scoring." In the context of today's dating/mating scene, the PUA approach makes perfect sense and is probably the only practical solution.
I don't have any sympathy for these so-called "plainer" women because they mostly want to compete with their prettier contemporaries and want men to be the ones who make any changes - to find what they have to offer "attractive" instead of understanding what really attracts men and offering that. Using the term "attraction" in its completely literal sense, women want to pull men toward them like a magnet while at the same time dictating what men "should" be attracted to. Actual studies of mating show that women who are termed more aggressive in their "bidding" for male attention - i.e. being more approachable and not walking around with their b*tch shields at full power, often end up with mates before their more esthetically pleasing friends. They do a better job of assessing their own market value and do not indefinitely hold out for the "better offer" which beautiful women can be certain will be forthcoming.
Instead of b*tching about men not doing the sh*t work of initiating, women who embrace a more egalitarian approach and are willing to share the load and the risk of initiating relationships and moving them along are much more likely to end up with mates, as well as being happier with the ones they do get because they are not obsessing about how they could'a had something better.
I don't have any sympathy for these so-called "plainer" women because they mostly want to compete with their prettier contemporaries and want men to be the ones who make any changes - to find what they have to offer "attractive" instead of understanding what really attracts men and offering that
Please reread that. Ugly women have have full understanding of what men are attracted to. They have two options: 1) bypass the mating game and invest ones life into work, hobbies, extended family, and friends. I suspect this is easier for ugly women compared to unattractive men, because women are less libido driven and they still receive lots of touch through casual contact, or adopt a child. Option 2) slut it up casually, which I can assure you, is highly available to ugly women.
We've devolved to a point where, given the platform of porn, men will not tolerate plain women, and plain women no longer need a subpar man.
Hi E.W.,
You said, "It is like there is an expectation that it is okay, even somewhat desirable for a man to have had a partner or two to know what he's about or to know what he is doing in bed. Do you find this to be true in your experience as well?"
I found in my experiences to look for it out of my own case of not having "experience." I guess maybe it is a combination of my own insecurity, wanting someone to the lead, etc. In some ways, our society really mocks virginity. Consider the movie The 40 year-old virgin. As much as film has a few positive messages, in whole it really makes fun of men in particular, who abstain. Women too get labeled as prudish, bible-thumping, etc. for wanting to wait until they are married.
"Instead of b*tching about men not doing the sh*t work of initiating, women who embrace a more egalitarian approach and are willing to share the load and the risk of initiating relationships and moving them along are much more likely to end up with mates, as well as being happier with the ones they do get because they are not obsessing about how they could'a had something better."
Anon 9:47,
Is this your perception or do you have any evidence to back this up? In my observation the opposite is true- women are "happier" when men are the initiators.
Also aggressive and assertive do not mean the same thing. A person does not need to be aggressive to initiate.
I am around many young women in their 20s an extensive amount of time and it appears to me that what Nova says is true of some of them as well. Below the median in the looks department young women may be able to get sex (below the median older women as well) but that does not mean they can get what they want, if what they want is a loving and committed relationship.
Learner said...
women are "happier" when men are the initiators.
I'm sure they are. Most people are "happier" when someone else does the work and takes the risks to give them what they want.
I can't point to an empirical study that encompasses all the points made above. However, there is quite a bit of evidence around us in environments which represent a greater cross-section of age groups. There are many quite plain women wearing wedding rings, and many who conform much more to the contemporary standards of beauty who do not.
The fundamental mechanism comes from game theory and has been discussed numerous times across the web. Here is a good summary -
Consider the classic version of the marriage proposal: A woman makes it known that she is open to a proposal, the man proposes, and the woman chooses to say yes or no. The structure of the proposal is not, "I choose you." It is, "Will you choose me?" A woman chooses to receive the question and chooses again once the question is asked.
You can think of this traditional concept of the search for marriage partners as a kind of an auction. In this auction, some women will be more confident of their prospects, others less so. In game-theory terms, you would call the first group "strong bidders" and the second "weak bidders." Your first thought might be that the "strong bidders"—women who (whether because of looks, social ability, or any other reason) are conventionally deemed more of a catch—would consistently win this kind of auction.
But this is not true. In fact, game theory predicts, and empirical studies of auctions bear out, that auctions will often be won by "weak" bidders, who know that they can be outbid and so bid more aggressively, while the "strong" bidders will hold out for a really great deal.
In this context we are speaking of women "bidding" for male attention. Whether the means of bidding is makeup, revealing clothing, or socially extroverted behavior, the goal is to stand out and "win" the competition for the limited resource of attention.
Now, the "holdouts" who consider themselves to be in a strong position are actually in a weaker position if the purely passive-attractive strategy is used. They think their "package" is worth more, and that their market value should be higher, so their "bidding" is limited to enhancing their visual assets. They may spend two hours getting ready to go out for an attention "fishing" trip, but once they embark they are relatively helpless.
Let's say there are 100 men in the room, 10 of which she might be open to receiving an overture from. Even when perfectly matched on some scale of "attractiveness" with another woman, the 2nd woman might bid more aggressively for attention by showing more cleavage, for example, or more frequent hair flips. In this context, women with a lot of beauty power have the advantage. But, they also have to sit there waiting while turning down approaches from men they consider "unsuitable". Failing to catch the attention of one of the men she wants leaves her frustrated, angry, and down - which progressively degrades the value of the hand she is holding.
The woman holding a weaker hand, but bidding more aggressively - climbing down from her chair and mingling, for example, short circuits the visibility of the woman with the stronger hand by pre-empting men's attention. She will feel far less helpless, and in aggregate receive far more attention.
By taking her destiny in her own hands, she feels more empowered, and thus less like she had no choice other than to take the best offer delivered to her. Since her role in the choice making was more active, she tends to be more satisfied with it than if she simply sat there waiting while an offer from the man she really fancied was never forthcoming.
"...women are "happier" when men are the initiators. "
I may be projecting a bit here, but I think that men are happier when the do the initiation as well.
Anon 4:43 quoted:
"The structure of the proposal is not, "I choose you." It is, "Will you choose me?" A woman chooses to receive the question and chooses again once the question is asked."
To me, asking a woman to marry you is a lot like testing for a belt in martial arts. You don't test unless your sensei thinks you're ready; likewise, I don't think a man should ask unless he's pretty sure of the outcome.
Reasons? Avoidance of rejection is a small one. A much much larger reason is to avoid playing emotional chicken with the marriage proposal. A proposal should not come as a shock to either party. Rather, it should be a reasoned conclusion bought into by both sides of the equation.
Oh, and no bling either. Which means that fancy bailments on a woman's virginity are right out. An exchange of bands is just fine and is a good test of whether or not your gal is a Merchant Maureen.
Otherwise, Anon 4:43, you gave an excellent summary of the eligible bachelor paradox and how it teams with women's overinflated sense of value to make them lonely and frustrated and bitter.
Also aggressive and assertive do not mean the same thing. A person does not need to be aggressive to initiate.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. (Care to elaborate?) In the context of the discussion here, I think they basically are the same thing. Call it aggressive or assertive or whatever you like, but in order to initiate a romantic relationship men must shoulder the entire risk of rejection and throw themselves at the mercy of women--which, by the way, wouldn't be as huge a burden if the woman was reliably honorable and respectful and not the condescending sort that's too common today. I say aggressiveness (combined with tons of confidence) is the trait that lends itself to such behavior, but choice of words makes no difference that I can see.
Merchant Maureen
Nice. That'll be another entry to my book of synonyms for contemporary womenfolk.
Jesse, I wish I could take credit for coining merchant maureen, but that honor belongs to Marc Rudov.
"I say aggressiveness (combined with tons of confidence)..."
Which may be indistinguishable from egotistical. Or pompous alpha asshole. Take your pick.
Anon,
I have heard that theory before and I also know many a plain woman who is married and many a physically attractive woman who is not. I am not disagreeing that absolutely can and does happen. However, the young women I was referring to were neither "strong bidders" or wallflowers, they were exactly the type of young woman that Novaseeker was referring to. I agree that women can overestimate their value, however I also think some "median and under in the looks department" women who are friendly are also being overlooked by men who are focused on "the hotties" who in turn are not interested in the guys because the guys are overestimating their mate attraction value. It would seem that some prudence would serve both genders well in this arena.
I have tried initiating (and by that I mean being the one who does the asking out, or who calls them) with men in the past and nothing ever came of it. I am not saying that is how it is for everyone, just that I, and many other women I know, have learned through experience that if the man isn't attracted enough to you to do the initiating that it isn't going anywhere relationship-wise. However I am also old so my experience may be different from 20 something young women!
EW,
Yes, I know lots of men who say they prefer to initiate as well. So, I don't think it is just you.
"Oh, and no bling either. Which means that fancy bailments on a woman's virginity are right out. An exchange of bands is just fine and is a good test of whether or not your gal is a Merchant Maureen."
I am most likely being dense here (it's been a long week), but I don't understand what you mean. Can you 'splain?
Jesse,
Well, I don't mean to split hairs but I think of the terms assertive and aggressive differently. Agressive, to me, is more combative, pushy and belligerent. Assertive is more confident and assured. So, for example, assertive is being willing to speak to someone before they speak to you (which certainly women can and should do as well....but I don't consider that "initiating"), aggressive is cornering someone so they have to talk to you. I understand that putting yourself out there and risking rejection is a difficult thing for men to do and is made worse by the women who behave in a horrible manner when rejecting men. That is wrong.
Learner, happy to 'splain. Upon re-read of my last comment, it may not be the best in terms of clarity.
I read once someplace about the history of wedding rings. The story goes like this: wedding rings came about because a couple were assumed to have had intercourse when they were engaged. Yet engagement isn't a marriage, they break up often, even back then. Thus a woman's ability to be married off went down after a broken engagement because she was not a virgin. Thus the fancy ring is her compensation for her drop in value after having sex. Thus the term bailment.
I would counsel all men to eschew the typical depredations of modern Anglosphere dating and keep it simple. If a fellow proposes to a woman, the only hardware involved should be a plain band. No surprises, no shocking her with how big of a rock you can get her on credit (and which she gets to keep if the engagement fails or if she divorces you later).
If she holds out for a sparkly, well a man knows where he stands then. He has been dating a Merchant Maureen, a woman who sees him not as the leader of the family she's being asked to join, but as a walking wallet, an ATM.
(and which she gets to keep if the engagement fails or if she divorces you later)
That topic was actually covered a bit on one of the morning radio shows during a drive to work a few months back, and some folks called in to say that in the case of a broken engagement, the ring is typically found to be the legal property of the man, not the woman. (Supposedly there is quite the online market for second-hand engagement rings too; I wouldn't know.) In a divorce I would assume it would go to the woman, but my impression after listening is that the ring belongs to the man until the marriage.
Learner,
Makes sense, thanx. And yes, confidence plays a huge role, which is another discussion in itself. I've noticed in myself that I'm naturally assertive if I'm confident wrt the issue at hand (i.e. at work, etc.) despite my personality not at all lending itself to that. Unfortunately I also tend to be aggressive/combative too often as well, so it's probably a good thing I'm not endowed with more confidence in too many areas of life or I'd be one of those "pompous alpha assholes" Wapiti refers to.
I, and many other women I know, have learned through experience that if the man isn't attracted enough to you to do the initiating that it isn't going anywhere relationship-wise.
I understand that putting yourself out there and risking rejection is a difficult thing for men to do and is made worse by the women who behave in a horrible manner when rejecting men. That is wrong.
Yes, it is wrong, Learner. And the older a woman gets, the more of a price she will pay for the fact that other women do it.
There are other factors at work in my case - too many years in the battlezones of the sexual revolution - but I will never ask another woman out in my life. I have been so aversively conditioned to the entire gruesome mating dance that I dread the process more than a root canal. I've accepted that I am going to live the rest of my life without a relationship. I'm not particularly against having one, but not particularly motivated to do so, either. And, I'm far from alone. I know a great many men who no longer "date" and simply go about their lives enjoying the lack of drama in them now.
I'm not sure when the time-window closes, and of course it is a bit different for everyone, but late 40s to early 50s seems to have been the cutoff point for most of the people I know - both men and women.
Men have plenty of experience with doing the intiating and still having it go nowhere. I find the excuse of "men don't like it when women initiate" a bit hard to swallow. It seems like a cop out to me.
Too many years of the "all sex is rape and all 'unwanted' attention is sexual harassment" have convinced a lot of men that a hostile reaction to their overtures is far more likely than receptivity. The problem with women waiting around for men to make the first move is that men might not do so.
This leaves women pretty much confined to the most aggressive men, and like Jesse I think you are splitting hairs with aggressive versus assertive. That is a good example of one of the factors which has made the process so noxious to me that I will no longer put myself through it - hitting that exact "perfect" note in approach, particularly when shooting in the dark over whether the response is going to be acceptance, a lawsuit, or a criminal charge, is far more trouble than any reward I have come to expect for taking the risk.
So, yes, women can continue to sit on their passive behinds waiting for men to do the dirty work, and take all the risks; which go far beyond enduring cruelty, contempt, and rejection now to include loss of livelihood, freedom, and reputation; and continue to write articles bashing men and bemoaning the lack of "good men", and we will just continue to walk around going about our lives thinking how odd it is that women complain so much about not having a relationship, but seem to be absolutely unwilling to take any positive action do anything about it - other than complain and bash men because men aren't giving them what they want.
E.W.
One of the prettiest rings I own was purchased from...a vending machine LOL! I kid you not! Paid 50 cents for it! Rings are more about sentiment than anything else. As for the walking ATM thing, I think that a lot of folks, americans in particular, cannot appreciate the basics. They have bought into the false prosperity that comes with pop psychology brainwashing, followed by easy credit. We have come to a point as a culture where things equal wealth in folks' mindset. Of course, for a small handful of us, this is not true and many are getting knocked on their duffers in the current economic crisis.
They are learning that the big house, 2 vehicles and everything on credit just doesn't work. I would be as happy with something modest and affordable with a vehicle that is paid for and shared than to have in possession things that one does not own. The more things you have, the more problems they cause you.
Shannon, a side benefit of eschewing the big Merchant Maureen bling is that the hardware and the ceremony remain about the seriousness of the commitment that is being undertaken, rather than one huge ostentatious display of excess and pageantry.
EW,
Thanks for 'splaining!
Jesse,
No problem bro. I am more assertive when I am dealing with a subject matter that I am comfortable with as well. It can be tough to be assertive both when you struggle with being aggressive and when you struggle with being door mat-ish.
Anon,
No doubt singleness can be a jungle for both genders. I agree that it is annoying when people complain that others won't do something they themselves will not do. I don't think "men don't like it when women initiate", I am sure some men do like it. From my perspective it is not really about "liking" it, it is about whether or not it is conducive to the kind of relationship I would want (meaning with male leadership). In my experience it does not appear to be condicive, so I have elected to not do it. I have also elected to not complain if I personally am not asked out.
Some very mature elections, Learner.
FWIW, popular culture has leaned towards total acceptance of lots of partners for women. Sex and the City amounted to, I think, someone wrote it up, around 50 for Samantha, and around the thirties for the other gals, with the lowest scoring (the red head) being 17.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer depicted the character losing her virginity at barely 17 (her birthday), and five different guys by age 23. Gossip Girl's teen characters have hookups by the truckloads.
Culturally, lots of sex partners for women is totally accepted and is indeed viewed as a positive thing by women.
That's a big shift. Probably most young women would be "ashamed" to have say, less than ten partners by age 25. They would view it as being unsexy and undesired.
Post a Comment