NSFW Do you think it is true that many lonely men actually don't crave for sexual adventures and instead only want to be loved/getting true affection?

[SexyIncél]

A man who is "romantically repulsed by gals who've sexually desired lots of guys" is immature.

Bodycount & sexual jealousy/disgust is a complicated topic. You might like this exploration

If I do something silly like cry in front of a gal, and she can't unfeel her repulsion... is it any consolation for us to call her immature? If I'm aware that a significant percentage of women will be repulsed by that, perhaps it's wise to build my situation so I don't need to tempt fate

 

[Linda]

Bodycount & sexual jealousy/disgust is a complicated topic. You might like this exploration

If I do something silly like cry in front of a gal, and she can't unfeel her repulsion... is it any consolation for us to call her immature? If I'm aware that a significant percentage of women will be repulsed by that, perhaps it's wise to build my situation so I don't need to tempt fate

I think men should cry more often.

 

[RemainingDubious]

"You can still feel lonely with a partner. " That is certainly true. But if it happens (or, at least, if it happens a lot) the relationship is going nowhere, will probably end evntually, and you should consider bailing out now.

That's a lesson i stupidly had to learn the hardest way i guess learning later was better than never learning at all.

i personally found all the painful lessons from relationshits (no typo) just made true love even sweeter when it appeared. It showed my stupidity for previously settling, especially believing meaningless words

It's no wonder people were telling me to get rid at the times they could see it was doomed but i wanted to believe the bullshit

i'd 100% prefer to be alone than ever be lonely while with someone. i won't even entertain fake friends.

 

[SexyIncél]

I think men should cry more often.

Lately, it seems men cry more than women. Redpillers advise to only cry with other men — to avoid possible female disgust — like how many employees would start polishing their CVs if they saw their CEO crying

As anyone here knows, actions have consequences, and a single action can wipe out months/years of building. Black feminist bell hooks was right:

"Most women do not want to deal with male pain if it interferes with the satisfaction of female desire. [...] When I was in my twenties, I would go to couples therapy, and my partner of more than ten years would explain how I asked him to talk about his feelings and when he did, I would freak out. He was right. It was hard for me to face that I did not want to hear about his feelings when they were painful or negative, that I did not want my image of the strong man truly challenged by learning of his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Here I was, an enlightened feminist woman who did not want to hear my man speak his pain because it revealed his emotional vulnerability. It stands to reason, then, that the masses of women committed to the sexist principle that men who express their feelings are weak really do not want to hear men speak, especially if what they say is that they hurt, that they feel unloved."

— bell hooks, "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity & Love"

 

[Linda]

That's a lesson i stupidly had to learn the hardest way i guess learning later was better than never learning at all.

i personally found all the painful lessons from relationshits (no typo) just made true love even sweeter when it appeared. It showed my stupidity for previously settling, especially believing meaningless words

It's no wonder people were telling me to get rid at the times they could see it was doomed but i wanted to believe the bullshit

i'd 100% prefer to be alone than ever be lonely while with someone. i won't even entertain fake friends.

Don't beat youself up over past mistakes. We have all made them. (I certainly have.) Just move on.

Lately, it seems men cry more than women. Redpillers advise to only cry with other men — to avoid possible female disgust — like how many employees would start polishing their CVs if they saw their CEO crying

As anyone here knows, actions have consequences, and a single action can wipe out months/years of building. Black feminist bell hooks was right:

On average men are just as emotionally vulnerable as women. (Obviously there is great variation from person to person, but that applies to both women and men). Suppressing feelings tends to do more harm than good. If a woman depends heavily on a fantasy of her man as strong and invulnerable, maybe she is the one with the problem. She is not living in the real world.

 

[26mmmm]

I personally would rather have a relationship with no sex than sex with no relationship.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Depends on the guy. I've definitely known plenty of men who only want sex. And I wouldn't put it past them to lie in order to get it. Not just about what job they did- ie. how much they were worth. (Maybe you could argue women are being shallow if they go for that...) I have a feeling they'd be unscrupulous about their intentions too, to get what they want.

So- women may well naturally be cautious around all men at the start- so they don't get hurt or used. But sure- I expect some guys want more. Just the same as some men and women are monogamous and, some aren't. We probably all have different needs.

 

[SexyIncél]

So- women may well naturally be cautious around all men at the start- so they don't get hurt or used.

Yeah, gals navigating the dating world might be interested in The Making of the Player. They're typically born from romantic failure & betrayal. Being a player can be a defensive posture

He didn't even have to be personally betrayed. When gals monkeybranched to me, they hid their bf — making me unwittingly complicit in embracing & licking his girl. One later bragged about the song playing in her mind, whilst cucking him. I'm listening to it rn

Guys tell each other these stories — like haunting stories over a campfire — of how women scar them:

It fucks you up as a dude. And a lot of people think heartbreak is just getting cheated on. But a lot of times being on the other side of that coin can can break your heart when you're the nigga who she's cheating with. Because you see a side of girls that you never really believed. You see how slimy they are, and how they'll text and genuinely seem like they're fucking with their boyfriend.

Like, she'll go to the bathroom and have a call with her boyfriend or something, or she's texting her man, and you put you put yourself in the other guy's shoes. He probably genuinely thinks she's solid. Because she seems genuine.

You know what I mean? On the phone she seems genuine, or she's texting them and "Oh I love you babe", this & that. And it seems genuine. And he's not knowing she's getting her back blown out. So that also scars you. I've never had my heart broken. But being on the other side of the fence fucking around with girls who got boyfriends — it's like that shit scars a nigga.

Some advise to destroy the illusion that women are angelic creatures, by talking to the guy who has lots of casual short-term flings with them

 

[dragonofenvy]

Yeah, gals navigating the dating world might be interested in The Making of the Player. They're typically born from romantic failure & betrayal. Being a player can be a defensive posture

He didn't even have to be personally betrayed. When gals monkeybranched to me, they hid their bf — making me unwittingly complicit in embracing & licking his girl. One later bragged about the song playing in her mind, when we cucked her bf. I'm listening to it rn

Guys tell each other these stories — like haunting stories over a campfire — of how women scar them:


Some advise to destroy the illusion that women are angelic creatures, by talking to the guy who has lots of casual short-term flings with women

I ain't gonna lie this post is starting to make me think that relationships with any gender is just a bad idea and that I just don't want to deal with social games.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yeah, gals navigating the dating world might be interested in The Making of the Player. They're typically born from romantic failure & betrayal. Being a player can be a defensive posture

He didn't even have to be personally betrayed. When gals monkeybranched to me, they hid their bf — making me unwittingly complicit in embracing & licking his girl. One later bragged about the song playing in her mind, whilst cucking him. I'm listening to it rn

Guys tell each other these stories — like haunting stories over a campfire — of how women scar them:


Some advise to destroy the illusion that women are angelic creatures, by talking to the guy who has lots of casual short-term flings with women

Oh sure- I'm not claiming women are all innocent angels. It was simply answering the OP's question.

Honestly- it's a whole other world for me anyway. I've always been far too scared of the (inevitable) rejection to even approach being in a relationship!

Put it this way though- it might not be the man's or woman's 'fault' that they become a 'player', although, chances are, she'll be called a 'slut'. Do you excuse women the same by the way? Is there an equivalent for 'sluts'? It's because they were treated badly by men that they decided to sleep around? Or- are women just evil?

You can probably even trace back to some horrible trauma why people of either sex become manipulative or violent. Doesn't make it any easier on the person they're cheating on or abusing! Why should they accept or forgive that? Up to them of course but, I wouldn't and, I wouldn't expect them to forgive me if I played away from home or became violent. But there we go- I'm old fashioned.

I'm not sure what this response is meant to mean. Don't blame your cheating arse boyfriend. Blame the women that turned him into that? By the same logic- don't blame serial killers. They had no control over how they ended up- really? We make choices. We know if they're right or wrong.

Just because a member of the opposite sex treated you badly in a former relationship- why does that excuse that person treating the next person they are with badly? Some kind of delayed revenge on that opposite sex? I mean- sure- I can understand them feeling insecure and a bit distrustful in the next relationship but- that shouldn't excuse treating them badly. And- I'm refering to either sex here. They are a whole other person! Why punish them for something someone else did to you?

But- there we go. Another reason not to be in a relationship. You'll likely be working through gender issues, even mother or father issues with one another. I'm glad I dodged that minefield and, I'm sure any guy dodged a bullet not dating me. Lol.

 

[SexyIncél]

I ain't gonna lie this post is starting to make me think that relationships with any gender is just a bad idea and that I just don't want to deal with social games.

There's solutions. Like "hire slow, fire fast". There's unicorns out there who don't act so scummy. Or as Aristotle might put it, those with compatible virtue. (When he analyzed what makes someone lovable)

It's like jobs. Many expect they can get a job saving the world. Then they discover what wageslavery's like & alter their expectations. Some hack their way out of the worst parts of the system & discover fulfilling projects

I'm not sure what this response is meant to mean. Don't blame your cheating arse boyfriend. Blame the women that turned him into that?

Well, my post specifically addressed "gals navigating the dating world": anyone spending years in relationships with guys may find it worthwhile to learn male psychology — the stuff few know. (After all, to understand women, I studied patriarchy — the history even few feminists know)

• When I last addressed someone with a "cheating arse boyfriend": I advised her to cheat & dump him
• When dealing with men who attack underaged gals: I counterattacked them
• When helping a gal evaluate her new bf: I investigated him for yellow & red flags

Put it this way though- it might not be the man's or woman's 'fault' that they become a 'player', although, chances are, she'll be called a 'slut'. Do you excuse women the same by the way? Is there an equivalent for 'sluts'?

Probably 'simps'

Sluts are considered useful for sex & less suitable for relationships. Simps are considered useful for attention/time/money & less suitable for sex

 

[Malaria]

In my experience, a lot of lonely men I've met want a loving partner. Even my boyfriend, who struggled a lot with loneliness before we got together, told me that as much as having sex would be nice, he just wants someone to share his affections with and take care of.

 

[Forever Sleep]

There's solutions. Like "hire slow, fire fast". There's unicorns out there who don't act so scummy. Or as Aristotle might put it, those with compatible virtue. (When he analyzed what makes someone lovable)

It's like jobs. Many expect they can get a job saving the world. Then they discover what wageslavery's like & alter their expectations. Some hack their way out of the worst parts of the system & discover fulfilling projects


Well, my post specifically addressed "gals navigating the dating world": anyone spending years in relationships with guys may find it worthwhile to learn male psychology — the stuff few know. (After all, to understand women, I studied patriarchy — the history even few feminists know)

• When I last addressed someone with a "cheating arse boyfriend": I advised her to cheat & dump him
• When dealing with men who attack underaged gals: I counterattacked them
• When helping a gal evaluate her new bf: I investigated him for yellow & red flags

Probably 'simps'

Sluts are considered useful for sex & less suitable for relationships. Simps are considered useful for attention/time/money & less suitable for sex

Sounds fair- evaluate on a case by case basis.

Interesting though... 'Players' have been deeply scarred by wicked women. But, the female equivalent- 'sluts' are just simps? (Stupid.) Interesting how men get the benefit of a deep and painful backstory but, women don't.

What's the psychology behind the women who are so mean to these men to begin with? Does that just come from nowhere, or do they have a reason to be such manipulative bitches? I'm just a lay person but I would think the thing in common both have- women who cruely manipulate men and men who sleep around is maybe insecurity. Aren't they both doing it to prove to themselves (and others) that they are desirable?

if I'm honest though, I think some men are just horny and can't keep it in their pants. Some women too of course but, I've known of more men that cheat.

Personally, I'm willing to accept rejection being behind some of it but I think- also bear in mind- serial cheaters quite often have the attributes to make them very appealing. They are often extremely good looking- in my experience. So- just how often do you suppose they get rejected?

Also, do you find that everyone fits the profiles you have read about?

 

[SexyIncél]

'Players' have been deeply scarred by wicked women. But, the female equivalent- 'sluts' are just simps? (Stupid.) Interesting how men get the benefit of a deep and painful backstory but, women don't.

Que? Simps are a structural dual of sluts:

• sluts (female): exploited for sex & disrespected
• simps (male): exploited for time/attention/money & disrespected

In my last post, I listed 3 examples where I intervened & cared about a woman's "deep and painful backstory" — while acting callous to the guy's. I spend much free time irl doing emotional/intellectual/physical labor for abused women. But how DARE I not always center women's pain, every second of my life...

This is a thread analyzing male loneliness. How DARE I mention male psychology on a thread about male psychology...

But ok, as you demand, let me analyze the psychology of callous women — those who derail away from discussing male pain. And let's use an anti-patriarchal framework, from a high-profile black feminist! Woohoo, let's go nuts

bell hooks explains why men don't get to voice pain:

The reality is that men are hurting and that the whole culture responds to them by saying, "Please do not tell us what you feel." I have always been a fan of the Sylvia cartoon where two women sit, one looking into a crystal ball as the other woman says, "He never talks about his feelings." And the woman who can see the future says, "At two P.M. all over the world men will begin to talk about their feelings—and women all over the world will be sorry."

If we cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed. It is not just men who do not take their pain seriously. Most women do not want to deal with male pain if it interferes with the satisfaction of female desire. When feminist movement led to men's liberation, including male exploration of "feelings," some women mocked male emotional expression with the same disgust and contempt as sexist men. Despite all the expressed feminist longing for men of feeling, when men worked to get in touch with feelings, no one really wanted to reward them. In feminist circles men who wanted to change were often labeled narcissistic or needy. Individual men who expressed feelings were often seen as attention seekers, patriarchal manipulators trying to steal the stage with their drama.

When I was in my twenties, I would go to couples therapy, and my partner of more than ten years would explain how I asked him to talk about his feelings and when he did, I would freak out. He was right. It was hard for me to face that I did not want to hear about his feelings when they were painful or negative, that I did not want my image of the strong man truly challenged by learning of his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Here I was, an enlightened feminist woman who did not want to hear my man speak his pain because it revealed his emotional vulnerability. It stands to reason, then, that the masses of women committed to the sexist principle that men who express their feelings are weak really do not want to hear men speak, especially if what they say is that they hurt, that they feel unloved. Many women cannot hear male pain about love because it sounds like an indictment of female failure. Since sexist norms have taught us that loving is our task whether in our role as mothers or lovers or friends, if men say they are not loved, then we are at fault; we are to blame.

Explains some women's behavior. No matter how much of my free time I devote to helping abused women — even putting my body on the line — they get angry when I give males some basic consideration

In fact, it's hilariously gruesome: no one here ever asks me HOW I intervene against r*pists & other abusers. (Even though I've written articles on how I do it, for weirdos like me.) No — they're pathologically obsessed whenever I deviate from centering women in some useless (blackpilled?) pity party. Because all they do is performative virtue-signaling. Not actually fixing problems

 

[Forever Sleep]

Que? Simps are a structural dual of sluts:

• sluts (female): exploited for sex & disrespected
• simps (male): exploited/disrespected for time/attention/money & disrespected

In my last post, I listed 3 examples where I intervened & cared about a woman's "deep and painful backstory" — while acting callous to the guy's. I spend much free time irl doing emotional/intellectual/physical labor for abused women. But how DARE I not always center women's pain, every second of my life...

This is a thread analyzing male loneliness. How DARE I mention male psychology on a thread about male psychology...

But ok, as you demand, let me analyze the psychology of callous women — those who derail away from discussing male pain. And let's use a feminist anti-patriarchal framework, from a high-profile black feminist! Woohoo, let's go nuts

bell hooks explains why men don't get to voice pain:



Explains some women's behavior. No matter how much of my free time I devote to helping abused women — even putting my body on the line — they get angry when I give males some basic consideration

In fact, it's hilariously gruesome: no one here ever asks me HOW I intervene against r*pists & other abusers. (Even though I've written articles on how I do it, for weirdos like me.) No — they're pathologically obsessed whenever I deviate from centering women in some useless (blackpilled?) pity party. Because all they do is performative virtue-signaling. Not actually fixing problems

Oh sorry- I misinterpreted the word 'simp'.

I've probably misinterpreted you in general also and for that, you have my apologies. I really admire the work you do to help both men and women.

Really, I ought to stay off gender issued threads because I'm fully prepared to admit that I bring my own bias to them.

I suppose this thread initially was about the assumptions women have about men. So, to be honest I suppose- whether it's justified or not- whether it's even accurate or not, yes- I would go in with those assumptions that a fair number of men are only after sex. (However you want to justify it.) Especially attractive ones- because they can get it... But- I'm happy to be proved wrong. I'd also say equally- a fair number of women are only after money so, I don't blame men being wary of that.

But- in any case, none of it is relavent to me because I'm not attractive in any sense to men and I'm not even wanting one now. I just don't like it when my friends get hurt- of either gender.

 

[ilovecats]

I would rather be in a genuine relationship based on love and empathy than one on lust. Although I understand where this is getting from as there are a lot of men seeking only sex, the number of such men is inflated by the media.

I have nothing against peoples "wants" as long as they don't hurt others or themselves and if the person they involve, if they involve someone, is on the same wavelength.

 

[SexyIncél]

Really, I ought to stay off gender issued threads because I'm fully prepared to admit that I bring my own bias to them.

No worries! Once, I took a long break from SaSu because I was gwumpy that some new biases of mine made me err. (I needed more real-world experimentation, to fix it.) But if people were more constructive with my biases, I wouldn't have needed to

So, to be honest I suppose- whether it's justified or not- whether it's even accurate or not, yes- I would go in with those assumptions that a fair number of men are only after sex. (However you want to justify it.) Especially attractive ones- because they can get it... But- I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Yeah, I certainly agree that men value sex more than women; and women value time/attention more than men. This small imbalance often leads to painful antagonisms. Because they trade these things — and often feel ripped off or betrayed

And guys want sex with a variety of women. Whereas women want time/attention with the highest-value guy they can get. I think society would improve if sex & time/attention were more abundant for anyone

Hungry people say they just want basic food. This is true. But had they been wealthy, in a consumerist society engorging on culinary pleasures, they'd be pigging out in restaurants. As hungry people watch through the window

Similar for guys who make a virtue out of a necessity. They're focused on hunger rn. Once they satisfy it — THEN we see more of their true nature

Me personally? It's complex... my pleasures are generally linked to the other person's pleasures. Like in my theory of sex. Of course I like erotics; and am fascinated by the feminine

 

[Forever Sleep]

No worries! Once, I took a long break from SaSu because I was gwumpy that some new biases of mine made me err. (I needed more real-world experimentation, to fix it.) But if people were more constructive with my biases, I wouldn't have needed to


Yeah, I certainly agree that men value sex more than women; and women value time/attention more than men. This small imbalance often leads to painful antagonisms. Because they trade these things — and often feel ripped off or betrayed

And guys want sex with a variety of women. Whereas women want time/attention with the highest-value guy they can get. I think society would improve if sex & time/attention were more abundant for anyone

Hungry people say they just want basic food. This is true. But had they been wealthy, in a consumerist society engorging on culinary pleasures, they'd be pigging out in restaurants. As hungry people watch through the window

Similar for guys who make a virtue out of a necessity. They're focused on hunger rn. Once they satisfy it — THEN we see more of their true nature

Me personally? It's complex... my pleasures are generally linked to the other person's pleasures. Like in my theory of sex. Of course I like erotics; and am fascinated by the feminine

It's interesting. So, would you say men and women are- at a core level fundamentally mismatched for long-term relationships?

I reckon it depends on the individuals personally. I know some men who are very monogomous, despite getting the impression they may not be utterly fulfilled in the bedroom department! I also have a family member who cheated on her absolutely lovely husband. Even more amazingly, he presumably forgave her and stayed with her.

I think we're all different. We all have different drives, needs, things we'll tolerate, things we won't. Maybe there are some attributes that are more common in either sex but, I think things like our upbringing has a lot to do with it too. Plus, our natural appetite. Some guys on here do seem surprisingly less interested in sex and more into close companionship- holding hands, hugging.

But, I think upbringing plays a part too in how we view sex. Neither my Dad or myself would feel comfortable sleeping around because we were taught from an early age that sex was something special and sacred and you don't do something that shitty to your partner! Both of us align sex with love and marriage. I don't think either of us rebelled at that idea.

Probably sounds strange me comparing my Dad to me but- it's because my Grandma brought both of us up with strict, Victorian ideals. (My Mum died- so, she brought me up for my formative years.) So- I think that plays a part too. How a person views sex. For some, it does just seem like scratching an itch- in which case, I don't get why masterbation doesn't do it for them. Others though, it's surely about connection. I suppose it depends on how you see it or whether you can accept your partner sees it differently to you. Again- I probably couldn't really. So- even if it were even likely for me to find someone, that's another thing I would be wary of.

But- it's that phrase isn't it? 'Know Thyself.' That surely has to be essential in a relationship that both people know what the other one is about. What thing's they won't be able to live with. No point in trying for a relationship if you are incompatible- surely? I guess a lot of people still do though...

 

[SexyIncél]

It's interesting. So, would you say men and women are- at a core level fundamentally mismatched for long-term relationships?

Without going uber-philosophical & defining various terms... I think people should learn negotiation. Find inventive ways to meet each other's interests

Also, romantic love is probably historically peculiar; people from other times & cultures might consider it begging for dysfunctions