Female and Male Sexual Interests Are in Conflict: Must Someone Lose?

I recently had another long and unproductive debate with an MRA, which lead, unfortunately, to nothing good. However, this post is not about him. It can apply to feminists, MRAs, and the religious people.

It’s known that women want one thing from men, and men want something different. One can say that an ideal fantasy life for a man would be sex with lots of hot women, and perhaps love on the side. For a woman, it would be, perhaps, serial monogamy with hot men (or just one awesome man). To give the other what they want, a person has to give up something they wanted. It is true on the individual level.

But does it have to be so on the grand scale? One can say feminism is on the side of women, working to give women what they want, at the expense of men. Not to mention they frame the female fantasy as moral, and the male one as immoral. A sexually expressive woman is confident, a sexually expressive man is an objectifying pervert. We consider it wrong, when feminists throw men under the bus for the sake of women’s happiness. Should the opposite be considered good, then? Or is it just more of the same?

I got this reply:

“It seems we agree that male and female sexuality conflict, and therefore we have two choices – getting male sexuality to conform to female sexuality, or getting female sexuality to conform to male sexuality. I say men and women would be happier if women could be like men, you say civilisation would be better if men could be more like women [not an accurate representation of my opinion, see next paragraphs – EE]. Well this is a men’s rights site, existing in the context where men are forcibly being made to conform to female sexuality, so I have no apologies about choosing male sexuality over female sexuality. We have also suffered numerous feminist troll ‘feMRAs’ using the old trick of suggesting that feminists are ruining civilisation for men and women and…guess what? Men should be more like women, instead of women being like men (which feminists supposedly suggest).

If our sexualities conflict (which evolutionary psychology, common observation, and it seem we ourselves agree) then there is no avoiding a men’s rights being ‘like feminists’ and choosing the side of men. How we can differ from feminists is in telling the truth and being honest.“

Do we really have only two choices, when it comes to the big picture? Either make men’s sexuality conform to the female one, or make women’s sexuality conform to the male one. How about a middle ground, where both give something up (lifelong monogamy)? Or perhaps choose a hands-off approach, where men can freely earn money and status without affirmative action in their way, and let women choose whom they please?


Does anyone want to be like these two? I’d rather not.

First, I will explain why I think lifelong monogamy is a compromise for both sexes. I was surprised when my conversation partner said that lifelong monogamy was a way to make male sexuality conform to the female one. Depending on whom you talk to, lifelong monogamy is interpreted as

a)      Men being subjugated to women’s will

b)      Women being subjugated to men’s will

c)      Both being limited

I believe c) is correct. While this arrangement does give benefits to the woman, it also locks her in without access to men she would normally “test drive”. She might be stuck with a boring beta man, who otherwise would not have gotten her. While my conversation partner will say monogamy is just a way for older women to eliminate younger competition, I will say it is also a way for each man to have at least one woman close to his own attractiveness, and not lower. I think it makes men calmer and stabilizes society.

I will also say, to clear up any misunderstandings, that I’m not pro enforcing strict monogamy, but would rather let the free market fix it.

I'd rather have this. Men and women as friends, whether they choose a relationship or just sex.

I’d rather have this. Men and women as friends, whether they choose a relationship or just sex.

Now, onto the discussion of female interests vs. male interests. The man I debated with admits that, like feminists, he is willing to elevate his sexuality over the one of the opposite sex. However, he at least doesn’t lie about it, and isn’t willing to use forceful, oppressive measures to make it happen. I’ll give him that. But I see issues with the goal itself.

1)      Feminists do exactly the same. They say “we just want equality between the sexes, not female supremacy”, but they at the same time define male sexuality as lower than the female one. Then they either demand men turn into women (because it’s better for women AND men), OR they simply pretend men are ALREADY like women (like when they say their reaction to waking up to sex with a woman is the same as a woman would have).

2)      If you admit you want to remake the other sex into your own image, you are on the same level as those who demand the opposite. Technically, both are insolent to demand such things. They are simply two rival factions, two among thousands, who want people on Earth to have sex in the ideal way they created in their heads.  It becomes even worse, when your enemy has strength, and you don’t. Then all it is, is one selfish faction wiping out another selfish faction. Neither memorable, nor a tragedy.

When one fights for freedom, justice and truth, and against REAL abuses, one at least has something on the selfish enemy, even when they are much stronger. A higher moral ground. When one fights for those things, yet would like them more for themselves and somewhat less for others, all one has is those who want the same things – and the same number of people who want exactly the opposite. It’s like a war, where everyone fights for resources, and no one is really right or wrong. Although I admit it can still help free people, if the new winners can live up to their promises and not exploit their new position of power.

At last, I will say that I have no problem at all that the MRM is mainly about men’s issues. It is in the definition. It is as it should be. Those things need to be done. However, since I don’t suffer from internal inconsistencies, I frown upon any side (MRM or feminism) when they try to grab more than they earned; more than justice, truth and freedom.

What do you think?

This entry was posted in Feminism, MRA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Female and Male Sexual Interests Are in Conflict: Must Someone Lose?

  1. ParaPhilip says:

    Fun fact: No primate exhibits exclusive monogamous behaviour over an entire lifetime

  2. Chin Up, Chest High! says:

    “You’re either with us or against us” – this is the mantra of both sides and it is unhelpful in any genuine debate about gender roles and issues, it obscures what is really going on.

  3. Tim says:

    Har du funnet noen norske MRA blogger?

  4. Eric says:

    While I usually agree with your opponent, I have to lean slightly to your way of thinking here. Destroying the gender polarity is the stated goal of feminists like Andrea Dworkin. I do see where your opponent is coming from, though. Many MRAs, especially Anglo-American ones, see the polarity as already broken and incapable of repair. There’s good reason to think so; at least in our sector of the planet. But it’s like Pope Benedict is supposed to said when the recent priest-sex scandal was being touted as the end of Roman Catholicism: ‘Name one century in the last 20 when people haven’t predicted our end was imminent.’

    Gender polarity is tied to civilization, which feminists hate because civilization is patriarchial. They believe that civilization will be overthrown and gender polarity along with it, but civilization has been around for at least 50 millennia now; and given that it’s survived Communism, Naziism, Jacobinism (among recent movements) and numerous other religious, economic, and social ‘revolutions’ during it’s long history, I don’t see feminism as ultimately supplanting it in the long run. Even if feminism succeeded in destroying gender relations (including both monogamy and polygamy) it would only lead to social collapse and normal sexuality would re-appear again after a Dark Age. There are also appeals to technology and transhumanism—but these things are reactionary movements and their fortunes will rise and fall with feminism.

    But as for the second picture, I’d rather have that too, except that the positions would reversed. (LOL I should probably not elaborate further…)

  5. Liz says:

    I want people to give me money. Therefore everyone should give me money because that’s what I want. Alternately, someone else just wants people to give them money….and so on.

    In a nutshell, life is a compromise. There are costs to gains of any behavior. Men don’t want tramps who sleep around, they want the highest quality woman they can find. With this comes a price. For women it is the same.

  6. You’re no longer following me 😦

    • emmatheemo says:

      You were rude to me last time for no reason. I got enough stress as it is

      • Wait, wait, wait… When was I ever rude to you? What are you talking about?

      • emmatheemo says:

        I commented that you shouldn’t confess all your fears and problems to women so early. You got angry and said you couldn’t let it go (what the girl did). But I didn’t say anything about letting it go, I said throwing all your anxiety on them will probably drive them away.

      • Well, I am sorry if you felt I was rude but I didn’t intend to be nor was I angered by your post. I think there was a misunderstanding. I said I will not let go because I was very angry at her.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I’m not a fool. When the first sentence in the response to me is “Whatever.”, there is no mistake. The person is annoyed by something I said and wants to let me know they don’t give a shit about my input. I’m willing to admit my mistakes. I think perhaps I offered advice at the time when it would feel abrasive and cold, which I’m sorry about. I’m not sorry you “feel” I was cold, I’m sorry if I did it.

      • Look, the point is that I was very annoyed, but not by anything you said. It was an extremely stressful time for me. I was gonna smash the fucking store, she works in, dammit! So, if I did react with “Whatever” it was because I WAS GENERALLY ANNOYED AT THE TIME.

        I wasn’t annoyed by you. Or, I mean, I was. I was annoyed by every comment that wasn’t something completely supportive, without any advice telling me I made a mistake. But that had nothing to do with being intentionally rude to you.

        You’re not a fool but you’re acting very unreasonably here.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Ok. Maybe it’s best if we end this conversation. I do apologize and won’t offer any more advice.

  7. But there’s nothing to apologize. You have nothing to apologize about because you meant no harm, I have nothing to apologize because I didn’t want to be rude. And this rudeness was nothing at all, it was one “Whatever”, made during the period when I was literally shaking from anger. You even went on posting after that, asking me if I will make the post on my fwb.
    I thought you stopped following me because I made the blog private. This is very disappointing and unreasonable . But oh well…

  8. intjguy says:

    I think the ideal fantasy for most men is to have a sweet and pretty wife and to be able to have flings with an endless variety of hot women on the side.

    More relationship oriented guys like myself have the ideal fantasy of having multiple pretty wives.

  9. Tha Rainbow says:

    Hello. The current fad of “polyamoury” is a joke and a good way to pass STDs. How many people do YOU know who have their heads on so straight that they could manage a 3+ relationship? I thought so. I agree that monogamy is not a bad deal overall. Plus, I am a romantic anyway.

    Also, here’s an excellent blog re: personality disorders and fake apologies.

    People spend too much time online and not enough time banging and loving.

    Over and out…

  10. Pingback: Sexualizing of Young Girls - Page 32

  11. Dr. Jeremy says:

    I just wanted to say thank you for your supportive comments on my J4G article a few weeks ago. I appreciate your thoughts on these topics as well.

    Bringing a moderate perspective to these issues can provide a win-win solution for a number of people. For example, I only get one very “polarized” comment on my blog articles at Psychology Today for every 500-1000 reads. However, men and women who have been extremely hurt, disenfranchised, or who have a difficult time competing within their sex for resources/mates, are the ones often motivated to adopt such a conflict-oriented, win-lose view. The thing to remember is that, although they are outspoken, over-represented in some groups/site, and may be motivated to push biased policy/legislation/relationships, they are not the majority of people.

    We do have choices, reforms, and changes to be made. The current social system, incentive structures, and even individual norms and roles around intimate relationships are not working right now. However, continued conflict and domination is not the only solution – nor is it a satisfying one for the majority of men and women. So, keep looking for that win-win…

    • emmatheemo says:

      Thanks for visiting my blog 🙂

      I liked your post, and felt the response to it was overly negative. I’m no dating expert since I hardly dated, so can’t comment on what works. But my boyfriend told me courting (as in paying for dinner sometimes) can be fine, as long as you choose a woman who already likes you. And that’s coming from a guy who was frequently incel. He was surprised there were men who paid for dinner countless times, without getting anywhere. One obviously should not give too much, but one can give a little, to the right people. Just my two cents 🙂

  12. caprizchka says:

    I find “herd behavior” when it comes to sexual rules confounding. Isn’t that a clear way to destroy sexual attraction? If sex is boring and “politically correct” regardless of whose politics it uses then it is going to be stale and will ultimately self-destruct. If on one hand, the herd uses “morality” as a way of using “fear of Hell” to dictate “correct” sexual behavior, then the logical defense is to be “immoral”. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that either sex has a monopoly on sexual “moralism” which prevails even among the “alternative” set who police correctness just as stridently as the Christian Right.

    In my view, one has to take risks in order to truly achieve both sexual and romantic satisfaction. Risks means that the outcome isn’t certain but that the outcome–whatever it is–is “authentic” that is, not a pageant of “correctness”.

    For some, the risk is monogamy and for others the risk is anti-monogamy. However, if other peoples’ opinions matters more than the sex itself then the risk would be to do exactly the opposite of what “other people” believe is correct.

    However, in a situation of over-population relative to available resources, “the crowd” will become more strident. I believe that this is merely “rats in a cage” syndrome that ultimately works to correct population growth by making sex unrewarding to all those who follow the herd. This would naturally serve to slow down reproduction on the part of the most small-minded. Even though birth control is widely available, I believe that we humans haven’t yet psychologically caught up. What a shame.

    While I realize that many people question what sort of hardware and software I possess, I have not yet been able to achieve romantic and sexual satisfaction through monogamy although goodness knows I have tried. I have sacrificed a whole lot of things for “true love” and in the end found that love had eluded me. Today is different though because I do have true love and that may be because I’ve found a soulmate who had made the same sacrifices I had to the same poor results. So we together tossed out social sanctioning of our relationship and that is a real turn on.

  13. Jacquelyn says:

    I read a lot of interesting posts here. Probably you spend a lot of time
    writing, i know how to save you a lot of work, there is an online tool that creates readable, google
    friendly posts in minutes, just search in google – laranita free content

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s