CMV: The 'sexual liberation' only benefits women and top-tier men.

NalkaNalka · 2017-11-13T19:59:09+00:00

No shit, free markets benefit the successful.

DashneDK2 · 2017-11-14T04:21:51+00:00

The sexual liberation only benefits average men. Top-tier men have always been able to find lots of women to have sex with - they could do that before the sexual liberation (English aristocrats used to knock up their servant girls like there was no tomorrow, Kennedy had a new thot every other day or something, and back in the day you had your slave girls, etc.). Low-tier men are as unfortunate as they have always been. Middle-tier men on the other hand, now for almost the first time in the history of mankind have a shot at lots of cheap pussy and quick blowjobs - without having to give any kind of monetary or relationship commitment in return. You think your average 1940s joe had much luck getting laid with various women? With facials, anal and threesomes? He couldn't even get his wife to shave her twat.

Women are fucked. They have cheapened sex and thrown away the sexual power they used to have. Leaving them increasingly miserably in a dead end dating apocalypse

Why is sex cheap? Because women today expect little in return. Whereas women once demanded more care, commitment, and fidelity—serving as the gatekeepers in the sexual market—data shows women today give sex away for next to nothing, then wonder why they find dating so frustrating and marriage so elusive.

Regnerus explains the shift with three developments: the birth control pill, online pornographic videos, and online dating. All three give men the opportunity to have cheap sexual fulfillment with little investment.

While the sexual revolution promised women sexual and economic freedom—and Regnerus agrees the pill led to more education and career success for women—it also handed the keys to the marriage market to men, he argues. Sociologist: Sexual Revolution Has Cheapened Sex and Hurt Women

EsauTheRed · 2017-11-13T19:59:53+00:00

Yes and women have accepted this, their message is: tough shit

You will have to seek women further below you for sex and maybe when you are ready to settle down, then you will find a looksmatch

TheChemist158 · 2017-11-13T19:29:21+00:00

The only challenge I can make to this is that it's not complete.

"sexual liberation" benefits women in the short term only. In the long run, most women lose out. Some women escape the bad shit and marry hot dudes (especially if they live in very affluent suburbs of Northeastern metropolitan areas). It benefits top tier men short term and long term. It winds up poorly for most women. It's OK for below average women because, for a while, they can punch above their weight and have sex with much more attractive men than would even look at them in years past. It's terrible for the bottom 80% of men.

Esau had it right: Women understand this, they know it, and they're OK with it. They're fine with fucking hot men and then settling on beta bux pussies they can control and terrorize. Their message to you: We know. Tough shit.

ARealHoss · 2017-11-13T21:35:39+00:00

Not necessarily. Individual preferences vary greatly. As hinted earlier, there are plenty of women who are not interested in casual sex. Women, in general, tend to bear a disproportionate amount of risk when mating. If there are more and more women becoming "sexually liberated" it increases the pressure on women to have sex sooner than they may be otherwise comfortable with.

If a women is interested in someone, but otherwise isn't ready for a sexual commitment, she may have to change her behavior to secure a mate. If she isn't putting out, there are now more women who will readily do so. Without this scarcity, it makes it harder to secure commitment from a man if she isn't sex-positive. This, of course, can be a catch-22. If she doesn't put out, she has difficulty securing a mate short or long term. On the other hand, sleeping with a man in no way guarantees he will stick around. This increases n-count, and to many men, makes the woman less desirable. A double bind. In colleges where the student population is more heavily female, casual relationships are more common. Why? Since there are less men to choose from, men have the upper hand in the dating market. Scarcity of options drives men's relative SMV up, and allows them to set the market price. It becomes a race to the bottom. Women who would otherwise prefer to take things slower, or seek more commitment, are forced into a situation where they need to put out to be competitive.

People tend to be rational actors, and try to get the best deal possible. You're using internet dating as your benchmark. There are far more men on those sites than women. If you're upset that women are chasing after very few men, it's likely men you have to blame. Men are so sex driven that it waters down the market. There is never a scarcity of dick. Dick is cheap. Women know this. Why would they settle if they have better options? Especially if they are only seeking a short term relationship. The more options you have, the more selective you can be.

mgtownigga · 2017-11-13T20:42:59+00:00

Since you are equating 'benefiting from sexual liberation' with having casual sex, the majority of men (at least men who went to college) have some casual sex and therefore have benefited from the sexual liberation of women.

From this study, 50% of both men and women reported having at least one hookup in the last year.

Contrary to our hypothesis, the proportions of men and women who had hooked up were not significantly different. A total of 284 women (49.1%) and 112 men (45.3%) reported not having had any experience in hooking up in the past year.

From this study roughly 80% of all college students have engaged in some sort of hookup behavior, with there being no differences in behavior between genders.

In another study, a combined 81% of undergraduate respondents engaged in some form of hookup behavior, with 58% having engaged in sexual touching above the waist and 53% below the waist, 36% performed oral sex, 35% received oral sex, and 34% engaged in sexual intercourse in the context of a hookup (Reiber & Garcia, 2010). Research has found minimal gender differences in terms of hookup behaviors.

The most recent data suggest that between 60% and 80% of North American college students have had some sort of hookup experience.

The sexual liberation has benefited men more so than women, because now men can get sex without having to marry or even commit to a woman.

wtknight · 2017-11-14T02:01:48+00:00

I think non top-tier can get women for casual sex but they are going to be lower quality than they are. If decent looking women are down for casual sex, there's no reason why they aren't going to optimize and go after physically attractive men with charming personalities. Average guys should try for long-term relationships with the average women who aren't into casual sex if they want to have sex with women who are at their level or close to it.

says_harsh_things · 2017-11-13T19:34:11+00:00

I think questions like these are always hard to answer because its so difficult to be objective about it.

I dont know what 'I'm a normal, average looking guy' means. The average american man is overweight. Are you overweight? Balding? Beer belly? Poor style? Lots of guys 'average' guys have those features, and those are decidedly unattractive.

If you feel you are attractive, who tells you this? Girls (young, pretty ones)? or Aunt Gertrude?

Im not saying your initial premise is wrong (that women on online dating only pick the top tier men). I'm just saying that your presumption of being 'normal looking' is too subjective to relate to the topic.

Also, its very, very rare for women to be into open or poly relationships. Those type of women, just due to the numbers of men available, have a choice of many, and will naturally choose men at the top. Why wouldn't they?

storffish · 2017-11-13T20:05:35+00:00

it's more likely you're not interested in casual sex with the types of girls who would be DTF with you. let me break it down: most chicks on dating sites and even out at bars have no interest in actually meeting or getting with guys, especially the cute ones. they're in it for the free drinks and validation. the ones who do put out are usually the ones with major red flags: major emotional issues, kids, fat, ratchet and trashy, drug problems, etc. you could probably hit but... do you want to?

Ill break it down another way: most people in the US are fat, and a large minority are obese. this makes cuties even rarer than they'd normally be and those cuties are either going to demand a lot from their casual partners or get boyfriends (even if they're just bouncing from boyfriend to boyfriend.) you have no idea how much attention even average looking chicks get on dating sites and tinder, it's insane. guys are thirsty and desperate as fuck. women like seeing guys prostrate themselves and beg more than they'd actually like fucking those guys.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2017-11-13T20:16:00+00:00

post a picture from the internet of a stranger or celebrity you resemble

[deleted] · 2017-11-13T21:27:57+00:00

Nah, I think it's easier for just about everyone to have sex these days. Sure, hotter guys can get exponentially more ass than average or unattractive men but most men can have relationships or casual sex these days. The standards really aren't that high as guys like me often say they are.

[deleted] · 2017-11-14T11:43:28+00:00

Simply true.

EliteSpartanRanger · 2017-11-13T19:33:32+00:00

It's nothing to complain about. Something isn't being given to you, but nothing is being taken from you. It's not like they'd fuck you if they weren't "liberated".

Also, it's seriously nothing to complain about. Be a top tier man if you want some pussy. It's not that difficult. Have you looked at the competition lately?

And I mean, for real, it's nothing to complain about. Women don't crave sex like you do. It's like air for them, it's just there. The reason it means so much to you is because it's as difficult as it is to get. Let it be what it is, don't lament about not being able to cheapen it.

RockinSocksII · 2017-11-13T19:31:32+00:00

It benefitted my boyfriend, who is an average man. We probably wouldn't have started dating if we didn't hook up off of Tinder.

retardradical · 2017-11-13T19:25:30+00:00

You're not wrong. This topic has been done to death though. Will you write another shitty thread like this or go do something towards being one of the men raking it in?

hyperrreal · 2017-11-14T00:02:02+00:00

Why is this not being removed as Woe is me?

/u/hyperrreal

SWRer · 2017-11-14T05:44:09+00:00

How can you prove your assertion that if they couldn't get the "top tier" men (which many women don't want btw because what is attractive and desirable is highly variable between people) that they would then have sex with you or any other person? It's not like I'm being forced to choose between you and some other dude, I have the choice to not have sex with either of you.

I would rate myself 6-6.5, maybe 7 depending on who is doing the ratings. I prefer dating and sleeping with people who don't see me as ugly or uglier than they are. They may not actually think of me as ugly, but when I look at online dating, I look for men I can actually see myself with, in reality, not in some dream world. So I could be turning down 8s and 9s, and not realizing it LOL I doubt it. They usually have different lifestyles than I do, different worldviews than I do.

I would also much rather be important to one person that I find attractive, than some girl that gets fucked by someone "super hot". I don't get anything from that - I don't feel validated or even necessarily pretty. Feeling like he's "slumming it" with me or just views me as a warm hole - That does nothing for me.

PBRScagsquad · 2017-11-13T22:32:11+00:00

20/10 very original.

Industrialbonecraft · 2017-11-13T22:43:11+00:00

Stop whining.

adamlikesprettygirls · 2017-11-14T03:00:09+00:00

It's a more liquid market, which can support winner takes all outcomes, so yeah, Gini coefficient goes up

Butt-Factory · 2017-11-13T19:54:41+00:00

AutoModerator · 2017-11-13T19:23:29+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Doom_and-Gloom · 2017-11-13T20:07:14+00:00

OKCupid has a lot of women who are openly into casual sex/polyamory

While I do agree with the basic premise of what you're saying, this statement throws your credibility into question somewhat.

EsauTheRed · 2017-11-13T22:21:49+00:00

Why does everyone think Chad is fucking land whales?

LaGardie · 2017-11-13T22:25:23+00:00

Wait ten years and see that the tables have been turned.

Temperfuelmma · 2017-11-14T03:19:27+00:00

It benefits top tier men and low tier women

Ultramegasaurus · 2017-11-14T03:48:38+00:00

For your own good, toughen up. OKCupid girls are going to end up lonely and self-loathing. If you do the same, you will end up playing games and eating chips on your couch.

mydikishomofobik · 2017-11-15T11:49:22+00:00

It benefits the more attractive and younger women the most. Less attractive and older women don't benefit as much. The most attractive men will gravitate to younger women. Social norms prevent most rich high status older men from marrying 14 or 17 year old girls like European aristocrats used to do. But a 60 year old rich dude can still marry a nice looking late 20s or early 30s aged woman instead of choosing a woman his own age. It becomes harder for women to get the small number of highly sought after top men as they get older.

Non-top tier men benefit in some ways. They get a big supply of porn (made possible by girls having sexual freedom to do porn). And they get to avoid responsibility by not getting married.

Cunari · 2017-11-15T19:01:26+00:00

Female promiscuity does not hurt men male promiscuity hurts men

crackrocksteady7 · 2017-11-13T19:29:38+00:00

So why don't you try something besides okc game

Title	CMV: The 'sexual liberation' only benefits women and top-tier men.
Author	AldorRod
Upvotes	78
Comments	330
Date	November 13, 2017 7:23 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/7cpins/cmv_the_sexual_liberation_only_benefits_women_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-the-sexual-liberation-only-benefits-women-and.264885 https://theredarchive.com/post/264885

Comments