TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

On the topic of female sexuality

Strikester101

December 14, 2019
2 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/26cf/592c500860d43ceab39d21816654e53e9c6c.pdf

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title On the topic of female sexuality
Author

Strikester101

Upvotes 2
Comments 38
Date December 14, 2019 7:59 PM UTC
(6 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/eaoh9d/on_the_topic_of_female_sexuality/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/on-the-topic-of-female-sexuality.1064298
https://theredarchive.com/post/1064298
Top posts by Strikester101

So, how much damage did women's groups cause to anti-rape activism regarding female-perpetrated abuse?

145 upvotes
August 9, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Q: Why are 70% of college graduates girls?

83 upvotes
January 8, 2021
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

A misandrist ad for Virginia Slims cigarettes. Thoughts?

81 upvotes
July 9, 2020
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

How much do women perpetrate child abuse of all types?

75 upvotes
August 21, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

TwoX: "It makes no sense to me that feminists are blamed for male rape victims not being taken seriously. The vast majority who mock them are men" | AKA being a flounder and focusing on the men

73 upvotes
May 29, 2020
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

What are the general rebuttals to "Men Commit the Vast Majority of Crime!" talking point?

67 upvotes
September 23, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Genuine question: Do male rape victims get punished/incarcerated by the legal system?

66 upvotes
August 22, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

OK, is anyone else bothered by how they are stereotyping the COVID-19 situation as "women are more effective than men"?

65 upvotes
July 17, 2020
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Comments

[–]Melthengylf 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago* (60 children) | Copy Link

In fact, I don't disagree with the findings: in traditional societies female sexuality is a resource to be carefully given away. Frankly, check femaledatingstrategy to see in a very explicit way how traditionally-minded women advice each other to not give away their precious sexuality resources until men are hook up. Traditional mothers have always adviced their daughters to be hard because all men are only interested in sex and will throw you away like trash when you have it with him, so conceal your sexual interest and act as if you were pure like Virgin Mary.

Now... this is a very very toxic view of sexuality.

I find some solace in the fact that in societies where there is more gender symmetry, women have more sex, because they already have economic resources and don't need to use sex as a negotiation tool.

I wish for a day where all sex is nontransactional sex and women are free to express their sexual desire for men.

[–]ElfmanLV 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

The biggest issue is people who are in the femaledatingstrategy mindset also claim their dating practice is a form of female empowerment, when in fact it's bringing them further back in social liberty. Yet somehow, some way, we don't talk about toxic femininity like how it is presented in this case and find some way to blame it yet again on toxic masculinity. We really need to start calling the spade if we want sexual progress between sexes.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

in fact it's bringing them further back in social liberty

how?

[–]ElfmanLV 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

They value men based on how they can pay for things and support them. Women should be able to support themselves if you were truly a feminist. By putting that reliance on men, women are putting themselves back.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

By putting that reliance on men, women are putting themselves back.

how?

[–]ElfmanLV 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

If you were useful and empowered you wouldn't need to rely on others. Please stop trolling me now.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

You are being a bit defensive here. Does that really mean you aren't able to elaborate on your opinion?

[–]ElfmanLV 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

What more would you like me to elaborate? You just keep saying one word to me. I've given you more than the deserved effort.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

I've given you more than the deserved effort.

You are the one making claims. Please elaborate on those two answers or admit that you're being intentionally vague.

[–]ElfmanLV 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Women in those subreddits are enforcing toxic masculinity and gender stereotypes in their dating behaviours. SPECIFICALLY strengthening stereotypes by placing high value on things like a high paying job, ability to father and parent children, stoicism, in men. If you know anything about feminism, you'd know strengthening toxic masculinity is bad for society and a step backwards for gender equality and women.

I don't know how else to explain this more plainly. If you must, ask a more detailed question, otherwise please just educate yourself.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women should be able to support themselves if you were truly a feminist.

I'm sorry, you've a very myopic understanding of affirmative action, and similar feminist policies. Women are able to toil away just fine without special privileges. And feminism is all about privileges for women and men picking up the tab.

[–]ElfmanLV 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What misunderstanding am I having? You can't claim women are just fine without special privileges when they currently still have them. Men should be picking up the slack, as equality means men would have to take on additional less stereotypical responsibilities, but it doesn't work when women don't do the same.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men have a slack to pick? Men are the net taxpayers.

[–]ElfmanLV 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Money isn't the only thing that is "slack". I'm never going to say men or women give or take more slack, just that there's different varieties of things we need to pick up on. I'd say society needs to let women pick up the economic slack, not by giving payouts but by having women choose more jobs that may not be ideal but yet pay more. Like construction, fishing, mining. No excuse for women not taking these jobs.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say society needs to let women pick up the economic slack

You imply that women are barred from that. Why?

[–]InitiatePenguin 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Frankly, check femaledatingstrategy to see in a very explicit way how traditionally-minded women advice each other to not give away their precious sexuality resources until men are hook up... this is a very very toxic view of sexuality.

Absolutely, but it's also an relatively new and small subreddit and I wouldn't be comfortable labeling a significant amount of people as having similar views. It's essentially PUA for women.

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure!!!!! But as someone from a very patriarchal society, mothers advicing such things to their daughters was quite a commonplace situation.

[–]serpentineeyelash 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I just checked out femaledatingstrategy - now there's an internet rabbit hole I haven't been down before! - and it's gained 40,000 members in less than a year, which I consider pretty significant.

Plus, it's part of a network of misandrist subreddits, some of which look much worse.

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I did later look at their growth stats and will admit I didn't realize it was so new a grew quite so quickly.

I'm certainly not defending it either tho

[–]serpentineeyelash 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

And continuing to grow, from the sound of it.

They also link to a long list of recommended relationship advice books for women. So this advice is not new, it's just now being gathered together in one place.

The whole place is extremely misandrist, at least as bad as the male redpill/blackpill subreddits which have been banned or quarantined for misogyny (though the language is a bit more cultured). These women openly think and do the things that the manosphere has long accused women of. I don't know what percentage of women follows these strategies, but the popularity of that subreddit is among the most explicit confirmations that it is indeed widespread.

It shows there really are significant numbers of women who view men as providers to be enslaved by withholding sex. They outright say women have inherent value and men must earn value. This is a statement I've previously only heard from MRAs, but femaledatingstrategy comes right out and admits they see men that way.

And just look at some of the titles in their sidebar:

"FDS Is Not For You if You Believe in Asking Men Out"

"Why A Man MUST Treat You Like a Queen from the Start"

"How to never ever pay for a date"

"As a woman, it's not your job to pursue men. Dating should be a stress-free experience for you."

And they have a sister subreddit, DarkTriadWomen, whose mission is described as follows:

A space for dark triad women (and those aspiring to be one) to share amoral strategies to maximize their outcomes in life. Morality is for suckers. We talk about psychological strategies to enslave men psychologically, emotionally, and/or financially, depending upon our needs.

I could go on, but I think I might instead make a new thread about this misandrist network, so that everyone here sees it. This confirms so much of what male advocates have been saying.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just permanently lost 7 Hope points.

[+]Thin-Ant1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

40K subscribers so far.

​

How many subs did theredpill have at the latest, before it got quarantined?

[–]serpentineeyelash 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No idea. It had more time to accumulate members though.

[–]CraptainToad 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's an exponentially growing subreddit. I don't think you should downplay it.

Frankly it should be a wake up call to anyone who believes in the women are wonderful effect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

It is interesting how the paper links the female suppression of female sexuality to highly unequal societies where women lack economic and social power and can use their sexuality to climb the social ladder. Especially the part where they mention Germaine Greer's argument against feminists intervening in certain countries' FGM practices, because she says it's actually a female strategy to increase their power, and that sexual liberation without socio-economic liberation would diminish women's power even further. If I had read this kind of argument in any other context I would consider it batshit crazy, but in context of the paper, it actually seems to make sense.

Of course the biggest question is, why did some societies grew to be so unequal when it comes to men and women's socioeconomic power? The paper says that oppressing women socio-economically could have been a male strategy to increase their own sexual success because of the power differential, but that it was a misguided strategy because it exacerbated a female suppression of female sexuality, and that more gender equality leads to more relaxed female sexuality. But then it still doesn't make sense why a situation that is more beneficial for both men and women (men get more sex, women get more resources) hasn't been the dominant form of society in the first place? Unless men have more interest in power than they have in sex (something I find hard to believe).

One off-the-cuff hypothesis I have is that the regulation of sexual mores has historically been in the interest of the elites at the expense of the underclasses (both men and women). If lower class men are perpetually sexually frustrated, they are easier to manipulate. Young disenfranchised men could be swayed easier by propaganda that promises them 72 virgins in heaven if they become martyrs, or promises them foreign women as "the spoils of war" if they enlist as cannon fodder. The men at the very top of the pyramid could also be interested in driving up the price of sex indirectly by oppressing women, because if they are the only ones who can "afford sex", they can accumulate basically all the women and all the sex they want. (Ostensibly, the women at the very top would also benefit from this arrangement, because it gave them social power over other women and left them in a more favorable bargaining position with the top men?)

[–]Melthengylf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's because oppression is irrational on the part of the oppressor.

But then it still doesn't make sense why a situation that is more beneficial for both men and women (men get more sex, women get more resources) hasn't been the dominant form of society in the first place? Unless men have more interest in power than they have in sex (something I find hard to believe).

You are asking the good questions here.

There is a reason why I support Nonviolent Communication and try to avoid excerting power. Because every time you try to force someone to do you a favour through fear, duty or shame, you are going to pay for that eventually.

This is the thing: I do believe that there is a patriarchal society with men excerting power over women. Now, men do not excert power because it is a rational choice. They do so because they are full of shame, it is a chatastrofizing state of mind were they find themselves unable to be or feel loved or desired sexually.

Shame is the reality behind the curtain of the Power.

And that is what I don't like of hegemonic intersectional feminism. They make it look like power is desirable.

It is not, every time you excert power you are hurting yourself. But human beings do hurt themselves, or there wouldn't exist suicides.

You need to let go of the ilussion that human actions are rational, that they are done because they benefit the one who does it. The reality is that Institutions have a life on their own.

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because oppression is irrational on the part of the oppressor.

That's why criminal courts recognize that insane perpetrators belong in a mental institution. We as a society still decide that it's safer to lock them up so they don't do harm. Essentially that makes you an advocate for sex separatism. If men universally "oppress" women against their better judgement, it doesn't do justice to straight out put them in labor camps. Though it becomes justified to plan cities and public amenities men-free, institute curfew, "male permits", eternal criminal probation after puberty, etc.

Because every time you try to force someone to do you a favour through fear, duty or shame, you are going to pay for that eventually.

Women were forcing men into their gender roles through fear, duty and shame for millenia, and men still pick up the tab. Who's paying again?

They make it look like power is desirable.

Because they want even more power themselves? Isn't that obvious?

[+]Thin-Ant2 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Especially the part where they mention Germaine Greer's argument against feminists intervening in certain countries' FGM practices, because she says it's actually a female strategy to increase their power, and that sexual liberation without socio-economic liberation would diminish women's power even further. If I had read this kind of argument in any other context I would consider it batshit crazy, but in context of the paper, it actually seems to make sense.

Fuambai Ahmadu has a long paper discussing attitudes towards FGM in a number of countries of her own native Western Africa. She interviewed one older woman, circumcised one, whose attitude was something like: "If men cannot please women sexually (since women have been circumcised), then men have to please them by working hard and bringing home the money. Younger men today are shallow weak men who only think about sex, and that's why these young men oppose FGM(!), so they could only have sex with their intact girlfriends." Many men also expressed dismay that they cannot have fun with "FGM-ed" women and have to give them money instead. Hardly any men mentioned in the paper had a positive attitude towards FGM.

​

By the way, the reason why Victorians gave up on FGM is because they believed it did NOT repress female sexuality!

​

PS. Doesn't Methengylf sound like an incel when he says: "I wish for a day where ... women are free to express their sexual desire for men"?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

PS. Doesn't Methengylf sound like an incel when he says: "I wish for a day where ... women are free to express their sexual desire for men"?

I dunno, why do you think that?

[–]banmale 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

PS. Doesn't Methengylf sound like an incel when he says: "I wish for a day where ... women are free to express their sexual desire for men"?

https://youtu.be/hWdXEmsdJB0

This video hints at what those people really want from men's spaces.

Marxists aren't that different:

We are now approaching a social revolution, in which the old economic foundations of monogamy will disappear just as surely as those of its complement, prostitution. Monogamy arose through the concentration of considerable wealth in one hand — a man’s hand — and from the endeavor to bequeath this wealth to the children of this man to the exclusion of all others. This necessitated monogamy on the woman’s, but not on the man’s part. Hence this monogamy of women in no way hindered open or secret polygamy of men. Now, the impending social revolution will reduce this whole care of inheritance to a minimum by changing at least the overwhelming part of permanent and inheritable wealth—the means of production—into social property. Since monogamy was caused by economic conditions, will it disappear when these causes are abolished?

One might reply, not without reason: not only will it not disappear, but it will rather be perfectly realized. For with the transformation of the means of production into collective property, wagelabor will also disappear, and with it the proletariat and the necessity for a certain, statistically ascertainable number of women to surrender for money. Prostitution disappears and monogamy, instead of going out of existence, at last becomes a reality—for men also.

At all events, the situation will be very much changed for men. But also that of women, and of all women, will be considerably altered. With the transformation of the means of production into collective property the monogamous family ceases to be the economic unit of society. The private household changes to a social industry. The care and education of children become? a public matter. Society cares equally well for all children, legal or illegal. This removes the care about the “consequences” which now forms the essential social factor—moral and economic—hindering a girl to surrender unconditionally to the beloved man. Will not this be sufficient cause for a gradual rise of a more unconventional intercourse of the sexes and a more lenient public opinion regarding virgin honor and female shame? And finally, did we not see that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution, though antitheses, are inseparable and poles of the same social condition? Can prostitution disappear without engulfing at the same time monogamy?

[+]Thin-Ant1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

All sexual revolutions, wherever they happened, have always been led by men.

​

Why should men be leading sexual revolutions if their sexuality was supposedly already affirmed and liberated (in supposed contrast to female sexuality)?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm only really aware of one "sexual revolution", circa the 60s in Western countries. Do you have other examples of sexual revolutions?

[–]InitiatePenguin 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Why not use the paper's title?

Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality

What, exactly, can we conclude from all this?

First, it is clear that the proximal causes of the suppression of female sexuality are predominantly female. The female control theory is broadly consistent with the bulk of the evidence. This conclusion is consistent with feminist views arguing that women have been active agents in society and history rather than merely passive victims of male influence. In the present analysis, female behavior has been guided by a rational and correct assessment of self-interest and a corresponding adaptation to circumstances. It must be acknowledged, however, that the present review has not been able to confirm the full female control theory, merely the bottom-line prediction that female sources will be the proximal agents of influence.

The male control theory has been abundantly contradicted. Direct male influence on female sexuality was largely absent, and when direct male influence was found, it usually pushed in the direction opposite to what the theory would require (i.e., men pushed for more rather than less female sexuality). Men do not appear to be important or effective sources of proximal influence toward the general restraint of female sexuality.

...

Thus, the main conclusion from this review is that female rather than male agents have been the primary proximal forces operating to suppress female sexuality. It is mainly from other women that girls and women have been influenced to restrain their sexual responses

...

In the West, women have essentially all of the rights and opportunities of men and have vastly reduced the gap between themselves and men in power, status, money, and other resources. Hence, their need to rely on restricting sex to yield a favorable exchange is much lower than in the past, and so a return to the extensive suppression found in the past is unlikely. In other parts of the world, however, women remain at a much more substantial disadvantage in political and economic spheres, and hence the continued suppression of female sexuality in those places may be something women will perceive as needed.

A few of my thoughts:

  1. It likewise asserts that men are also predominantly responsible for the lack of control on sexual pursuits as they also promote uncontrolled behavior. So to find that women would be more affected by their peers to be somewhat unprofound. And a question remains about how each genders approach causes a feedback loop on the other's response.

  2. Still, that women choose to be restrictive and men choose to be open in their pursuits based on their peer groups would be more of the point.

  3. It states that suppression of sexuality is less so in Western countries where there are more gender equality because sex is less likely to be used as a negotiational tool.

[–]Blauwpetjevalued LWMA contributor 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Modern double standards in the west are: female sexuality is beautiful and empowering, male sexuality is threatening and degrading. Imho at the moment that is a lot bigger issue than what might have happened in the past.

[–]Strikester101[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Heads up, read it before you type.

This is quite interesting.

[–]InitiatePenguin 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Seems incredibly bad form to link a study without context, call it "interesting" and ask other to read it fully before contributing when you haven't yourself.

[–]thereslcjg2000left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, this is what I’d call a low effort post.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, however I did think the paper was extremely interesting (I read all of it, lol) and I'm glad the OP linked to it even if they didn't provide any commentary on it.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter