I was reading this article just a few minutes ago and while at first, I had deduced it being another article written by a female who got the “he’s just not that into you” response from a guy, and decided to skim the rest of the article, I actually double backed and re-read the article again because the comments section were all over the place. And I wanted to know what the deal was.
Normally, the progression goes something like this : Girl complains about a guy rejecting her. She shames guy for not being a man. She feels justified in her shaming tactics. Comments section ensues with commentary telling the girl to move on, look within oneself and don’t sweat the small stuff on the one hand. Then on the other, there will be comments that tell her that she fails as a woman, that this is human nature and biology in the works, and that she just needs to work up her “game” (or feminine wiles) so to speak.
But this didn’t happen. At least not in the usual progression. What ended up happening is a bunch of MGTOW men and Red Piller’s storming the comments section like this is one of the many feminist stronghold’s that need to be taken down. This is not surprising part, by the way. In fact, there’s nothing surprising about it given how the comments section of virtually every other women’s magazine or women’s focused websites who tout the feminist ideologies using very subliminal language has been raided by MGTOW’s and Red Piller’s alike in the comments section as of late and doesn’t appear to be losing steam any time soon. The surprising part is actually some white knight mangina’s humoring the idea of the supposed double standard that exists between the number of women that men sleep with and the number of men that women sleep with that determines whether the woman (or man) will make a good, faithful and long-term romantic partner.
And since it was the white knight mangina beta orbiting provider’s that brought up this point and are actually humoring the seriousness of this idea, I began thinking more about it.
Let us suppose this thought experiment. Let us put aside all of our cultural and social conditioning that we know about and on some level, subconsciously, practice them when we, as men and women, deal with the opposite sex–just for a moment. Let us “level the playing field” and say that the number of sexual partners that one has under one’s belt does not matter (or make a significant point) in the overall functionality of a romantic relationship. (For this case, it was specifically marriage but we’ll just stop short of that at the romantic relationship stage because, well, that’s a necessary step before marriage anyway). Given those factors, we can plainly see that if the number of sexual conquests don’t matter in the grand scheme of things, then in theory, it shouldn’t affect one’s “relationship material” status, so to speak, right? That’s the conclusion that the author is drawing in that article.
Her main complaint is that there exists this double standard about sexual promiscuity between men and women that should play no part in how it affects her “marriageability.” That’s ultimately what she’s arguing. Ironically, that same argument actually works for the guy, in question, as well who is the ex that broke up with her over her sexually promiscuous past. Why? Because if sexual promiscuity from the past (or even the present, for that matter) shouldn’t be a problem, then why the hell is she even bringing it up and throwing it in the guy’s face via her very public blog on a non-profit organization’s public page of all places to publish her rant? She effectively shot herself in the foot on that one.
What she ended up doing in this article is creating another double standard where in her “new rule” only applies to her but not to the opposing gender who, in her eyes, is at fault because of a commonly held social standard that has been in place for several generations within traditional dating customs spanning all cultures–until third wave feminism tore all of that down around the world. Nevertheless, that outdated mode of thought still exists for a lot of good men out there who are still interested in something long-term with the opposite sex. Why does it exist? Well, it’s considered a good rule of thumb to determine whether the female partner will remain faithful and this has been around for generations and for good reason too.
Now, given that, I’ve read a few comments in the comments section that got me thinking some more. If a woman has been sexually promiscuous in the past, what reason does she have to remain faithful to this one man? After all, she’s tasted the rainbow and depending on her mood for the moment, some colors in the rainbow are so much more better in bed than the others. What makes her think that she can just stick to just plain vanilla for the rest of her life (or at least, the next 5-10 years, which seems to be about the average of when a divorce would happen–usually initiated by the woman)?
On the flip side, I’ve also read comments that argued the other side where a woman who remained chaste and married a guy, what’s holding her back when it comes to sexual promiscuity? She’s gonna be curious, the proponents argue! She’s gonna want to experience the rainbow, the proponents keep pushing!
To all of that, I say, “That’s all well and dandy.” The flip side argument? There used to be a social checking fail safe mechanism built into the old system that kept even the most outliers of outliers in check but that system is down and gone forever–because of feminism. So in the new world order, that flip side argument actually makes a lot of sense. To answer it, there really isn’t anything stopping a woman from doing anything about anything to anyone. Women literally have all the power in that respect. They now have that option of choosing not to be faithful and on a mere whim, they can, in fact, just do it with as many men as they want–even while in a “committed relationship”. The current social climate has freed up previous social stigma’s–thanks in part to feminism–but it’s not without their consequences. That’s the part that most women seem to miss.
Most women seem to think that “Yay!!! Now I can sleep with as many men I want and with as many different one’s I want even when I’m with a loving, caring man who provides for me with no negative consequences whatsoever!” And that’s where they hit “the brick wall” so to speak when men pull back when the woman wants to “seal the deal” at some point further down the line in their ongoing relations and refuse to be with said woman for any kind of long-term partnership beyond their existing situation. The fact of the matter is that there are consequences and those consequences just happen to be matters of faithfulness and whether you’ll stick around when the going gets tough and put actual effort into balancing and making better the existing relationship. Bottom line, if you’re going to be sleeping around with other men while in a committed relationship, you are not entitled to a man’s continued affection for you. To do so is sexist and sexism is a moral sin as it has been preached by many feminists and feminist leaning career driven, “independent” women alike.
But ok. Let’s just say, for a moment, that sexual promiscuity shouldn’t play a role in determining whether a person is marriageable. So this means that guys can be players and sleep with many women as they have always done and have been expected to be that way by society at large for many generations now. And women can be sluts and do the exact same thing for this generation and all the new up and coming generations. On top of that, men don’t have to remain committed sexually to the same woman in a committed relationship and by extension, women also do not have to remain committed sexually to the same man in said relationship. So when a man in the relationship sleeps with other women while in being said relationship, a woman’s response should not be that of anger but that of indifference or rather normalcy. Like it’s not a thing to them. And vice versa for the woman as well. If a woman sleeps with other men while being in a committed relationship, a man should not feel anger but rather, he should treat it as totally normal and get on with one’s life. Nothing to see here. Life continues as usual.
When I think about that, the world would be a very interesting place to live in. I’m very curious to see if that kind of new world order will ever come to fruition. Western women are already pushing in that direction. They are already making a strong push to be in a dedicated, loving relationship with a man who provides for said woman both financially and sexually, but also would voluntarily choose to have sexual relations with other men on the side. Like it or not, this is the new trend that’s been going on within major urban city centers in the past couple of decades now, not so much in the suburbs or countryside but they’ll catch up soon enough.
Exclusive relationships are slowly being eroded. Pretty soon, there will come a day when the whole idea of “exclusivity” will be meaningless because, well, if you’re in a relationship but can still have sexual relations with other people, isn’t that effectively the same as not being exclusive? The only difference being that the woman benefits more in this type of relationship because not only does she have access to one man’s financial resource but also, she’s given the freedom to sleep with other men as often as she wants while the man is only given the freedom to sleep with other women but still loses his financial resources both ways, one from the “committed relationship” and two from the women he has on the side, who do not come free.
Nevertheless, if polyamory does become the norm for any type of relationship, it would be rather freeing at the same time, ya know? The whole concept of cheating and jealousy should, in theory, fly out the window if polyamory becomes the norm.