From http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/29wt3t/how_are_women_not_the_gatekeepers_of_sex_men_are/

I realize that a lot of BPers are adamant in their viewpoints, but this time, please, for the sake of discussion, allow me to set only one rule; we will disqualify types of answers like "I rejected a woman once" "I got rejected by a guy that one time" "Am I hyper-alpha?" "red pillers have never rejected a woman? lel" "Your metaphor is weird"

Because otherwise, despite conviction, thoughtful answers in that thread were pretty few. And only one provided real-world evidence and arguments (in this thread). However, the reason I didn't find the TBP response here very compelling is although the arguments are plausible, it is extremely speculative, it assigns simple personalities to broad categories of behaviour(for example, if "sex pestery" of women is for male attention, then why is it not dependent on other males to be necessarily present and why all the different non-attention seeking forms? I also don't understand why lesbians would be so concerned with feminist viewpoints of their sexlife) and tries to present isolated cases as evidence against trends (female sex industry for example. In Australia and New Zealand, 15.63% of male anonymous respondents answered as having paid for sex workers. 0.09% of women answered that they had. 30% of women who answered yes had accompanied a male who paid. 1.4% of males had their first experience with a sex worker compared to exactly 0% of women).

So lets try again. I'll elaborate the concept this time.

Women being the gate keepers of sex is not literal. It does not refer to women solely deciding whether or not to have sex. Nor is it a universal rule for all relationships. Its simply a RP observation of the social dynamics of exchange in the large majority relationships, and which is largely true for most areas of the world. It describes that sex itself may be considered a commodity for which a woman may negotiate and obtain value in exchange for, while a male will largely not. Said negotiation may be completely unnoticed by both parties.

It is a central concept of Red Pill's model of the default sexual marketplace(and since its a concept I've seen TBP feels strongly about, I'd like to request them to treat this as a CMV thread).

The principle being, due to the state of the market(less supply, due to restriction or naturally), and the nature of demand(hunger, more like) a woman by default has the option to obtain real value in exchange for participating in this mutual activity. The reasons she may not do this abound(her beliefs, she desires a male more than he does her, she likes sex too, she doesn't have self-esteem or knows how) but that doesn't change the fact that she has this option, while the ordinary male does not.

Men will approach women. Men will provide value to impress her. She needs provide little to nothing, but may do so any way to compete or score higher quality. A date where a woman displays absolutely no qualities besides being attractive is still likely to succeed because the man views sex itself as value. The opposite is not true at any significant rate.

An interesting corollary is, a beautiful woman could quite literally make a living solely out of being attractive. And many do. In a wide variety of ways(not including the obvious ones like prostitution). Any of the top 30-40% of women have the potential to do so in the present market. For men, its about the top 1-3% (max).

Which brings me to the next point, almost any woman can get laid. I'm not saying she should necessarily want to or is obligated to. But her choice of man is all that stands in the way.

Now these are harsh things to say. So this should be easy, right? But I'd still like answers. (EDIT: I said this in my first comment but I'll add it here too: disprove any one to win.)

OK, now evidence(feel free to skip)... It is reflected in the pornography industry, in the social dynamics (especially of places like Asia where a man's earning potential is seen as key to finding a bride. hobos simply do not get married. even though women are further along in the professional market than in the US or Europe. Its also real as day in America too), the prostitution industry, the dynamic of men being the initiators in a majority of romances, the greater expenditure of the average US man vs woman on dates and romance expenses, etc.

Or take studies like this for example, where men and women were asked in comfortable situations by newly acquaintances for either of the three: a date, to go back to the person's apartment or straight up go to his/her bed. Positive answer rates given below:

Man as the requester Date 56% , Apartment 6% , Bed 0%

Woman as the requester Date 50% , Apartment 69% , Bed 75%

These videos are more illustrative. Woman and man approach opposite sex for sex. Success rate: 0% vs 50%. If we discount the "I'm gay", "I have a SO", and responses in front of others(thus keeping others in mind), its kind of 1% vs 80%.

Buss and Schmitt, 1993. 1994, 2000, 2004, and 2007 used sample sizes of about 60,000+ people across 48 countries to verify many of these conclusions in indirect ways. But from the perspective of sexual strategy theory.

Again, it was shown women simply want sex less. And literally money(ahem, earning prospects) more.

Even women in relationships were less concerned about the sex resource and more about other things, while men care far more about sex. 80% of committed women answered, they would consider emotional infidelity in their partner more concerning than sexual fidelity. The response of was flipped.

I'd post more falsifiable corollaries but instead of that, I'll ask if you feel there are some that argue for or against the concept, feel free.

EDIT: To everyone I specifically asked to not reify metaphors and who went ahead and did just that; disgraceful standard of debate.