~ archived since 2018 ~

Wants vs needs: the sexual attitude nuance

August 4, 2016
59 upvotes

It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything on here. I have been writing things, but I’ve been holding them back for a blog because I’m fucking busy all the bloody time. So I’m going to make a special effort to keep an eye on the comments section here despite being away for the weekend.

There’s a toxic attitude starting to take hold with some people on TRP around the idea that sex is a need. In simple terms, it’s not, it is a want rather than a need. Now there’s a reason I’m being quite pedantic about this – psychological mindset for one. Secondly it’ll hopefully provide a bit of background to that slightly paradoxical phenomenon where the man who doesn’t seem to care about sex being more sexually successful.

You can give and take around things like physique, game, status etc and still be successful with women to varying degrees. However if your attitude is wrong then you’re highly likely to have a bad time sooner or later. This is because the attitude of sex as a need over-values it and gives too much power to women. While the abundance is real, this won’t be an issue for you because you will genuinely just move to another woman when one asks too much of you. However, what about the times for the newer guys when they’re faking it until they make it? Or the guys who’ve hit a little bad luck and all of their plates smashed at once? This is when the over-valuation can harm you.

Let’s get one thing out the way first and foremost: the philosophy of sex as a need is central to those perpetual betas/omegas who forever complain about inceldom. (This alone should be enough to have it extinguished as an idea from TRP, but unfortunately we have some contrarians here who hear the feminists saying “men aren’t entitled to sex” and just have to disagree with them. Sorry guys, even a broken clock is right twice a day.) Much of the confusion here lies in the nuances. This attitude of entitlement to sex simply for existing is wrong. Having an attitude of entitlement to kino/drinks/sex simply for being there in the field is good and will demonstrate confidence/high value etc etc. The field is the difference. The attitude in the field is a necessary projection of attractiveness, the attitude on the sub and in private needs to be one of objectivity. You aren’t entitled to sex. You’ve got to better yourself in order to be worthy. Remember, women are the gatekeepers of sex. You are the gatekeeper of commitment, and only a weak man commits to a woman who can’t prove herself worthy. As a man, it is your job to prove yourself worthy of passing the gate for sex.

Now that we’ve got the attitude difference out of the way, we’re going to talk for most of this in the objective view you should use for the sub. Much of TRP is dedicated to achieving sex, however the various bits of self-improvement are there because they link into achieving sex. They increase your value and make you more worthy of sex. When you scale it back to more simplistic terms, increasing your worthiness for sex is the same as making effort to increase achievement of sex. They do the same thing since achievement will be closely tied to worthiness. There is a cheat though, achievement can be made using game without having true worthiness – PUAs are the prime example. This can also be done through fake status or situational status. So if the difference between worthiness and achievement is only cheating, why does the sub endorse achievement over worthiness? The reality is that it endorses anything that achieves. The rest is down to you to decide.

Which brings us nicely to the wants vs needs of this. There are four basic human needs (five if you include shelter/warmth):

  • Oxygen
  • Water
  • Sleep
  • Food

I can tell you to go without sex for a day and you will not die. If you go without oxygen for a day, you will die. Oxygen is a need, sex is not.

I can tell you to go without sex for ten days and you will not die. If you go without water for ten days, you will (very likely) die. Water is a need, sex is not.

I can tell you to go for a month without sex and you will not die. If you go without sleep for a month, you will die. Sleep is a need, sex is not.

I can tell you to go without sex for six months and you will not die. If you go without food for six months, you will die. Food is a need, sex is not.

The difference should be very clear from those examples. Differing levels of need and sex isn’t near any of them. Sex is a want. The fact that we want it every day or twice a day is neither here nor there. It’s high up the “want” list, but it’s still on that list. The requirement to differentiate between the two is highlighted by the post “Never settle for transactional sex” by /u/Archwinger who explains:

Remember, if a woman ever imposes rules or conditions on sex, makes you wait for sex, or makes you perform or behave a certain way (e.g., an unofficial payment or trade) for the sex, the sex is never worth what you’re going through.

This is something that would be acceptable to a man who views sex as a need and is therefore worth trading for. A Red Pill man would never accept that. (Partly because transactional sex tends to be low quality anyway and in my experience low-quality sex isn’t worth the effort.) If it is a want, then you can easily take the stance that trades are unacceptable. You can’t do that with a need, because needs must be fulfilled and if costs must be met to fulfil that need, then those costs will be met. Wants allow you to choose and weigh up what you’re willing to put in for what you get out. Thus it allows you to reject unfavourable terms. If you haven’t drunk water for five days and someone has a bottle of water, you would accept extremely unfavourable terms to get that water. It would actually be rational and sensible to accept unfavourable terms for that bottle of water. However in this day and age where our basic needs are met (and then some) we seem to have forgotten what we can and can’t live with. This has allowed us to start accepting unfavourable terms for our wants. In a word: don’t.

As sex is not a need, we leave you to decide its importance based upon your own libido, interests and a variety of other wants. TRP gives you the rawness of achievement, including both cheats and ways to improve worthiness. You weigh this against your other wants. You get to decide what is worth your time and investment. Merely taking the lead in your own life and making these decisions for yourself is an instant improvement in attractive attitude and behaviour so I always advise people to start there. Seek the advice required to achieve what you want to achieve, don’t ask others to decide for you or try to order your list of wants for you.

A final note on field attitude: the thirsty beta has sex at the top of their wants list. So much so, that they accept unfavourable terms simply to be in the presence of an attractive woman. Make sure your wants are balanced enough that you are the one in charge of deciding things. Whether this means increasing your worthiness or cheating, I don’t care. Just know the difference and order your wants appropriately to your own life without allowing sex to end up too high up that list causing any bad trades. A man with abundance mentality does not have to do a trade because he’ll take it on his terms or not at all. If you’re unwilling to do the “not at all” then you can’t have the attitude of “I’ll take it on my terms or not at all.” It’s a package deal guys and women are good at spotting fakes.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title Wants vs needs: the sexual attitude nuance
Author NightwingTRP
Upvotes 59
Comments 31
Date August 4, 2016 2:55 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/wants-vs-needs-the-sexual-attitude-nuance.61271
https://theredarchive.com/post/61271
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/4w4w6r/wants_vs_needs_the_sexual_attitude_nuance/
Comments
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter