One thing which I've heard a lot over the years is that one of the main reasons assholes tend to get more sex than nice guys is that women think that sex is better with the assholes and this makes it a fine trade off for them to put up with the assholeness. If sex is better with the nice guys, it's weird that women who want sex hang out in bars instead of in libraries or something and being an asshole wouldn't be such a viable strategy for men.
-
Features
Science Says Toxic Masculinity — More Than Alcohol — Leads To Sexual Assault
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
One thing which I've heard a lot over the years is that one of the main reasons assholes tend to get more sex than nice guys is that women think that sex is better with the assholes and this makes it a fine trade off for them to put up with the assholeness. If sex is better with the nice guys, it's weird that women who want sex hang out in bars instead of in libraries or something and being an asshole wouldn't be such a viable strategy for men.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
I remember when Leykis was on air in LA. His show was pretty awful. He was an obnoxious boor. The people that called in were all mouth breathing morons. I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Ah yes. I forgot you were from North America. Over here, a man can't get a moment's peace in a library. Why, just the other day I remember saying, 'Beyonce, sweetie, can't you see I'm trying to research Galen here?'
Or, if you want a serious answer, women need to get drunk to loosen the bonds of the patriarchal prohibitions.
Or, if you want an actually serious answer......
ruby sparks
Contributor
At least he has one redeeming quality. He's deliberately not passing on his genes. Where that fits with an alpha male theory I'm not sure.
I hear that some of his conquests have said something similar.
ronburgundy
Contributor
And it seems likely that this novel and rapid change was brought about by women, for the first time in history, being protected from violence and abuse, and thus free to express desires for greater equality and liberties that most women throughout history secretly always wanted. IOW, criminalization of some of the more extreme forms of "toxic masculinity" allowed women to finally enjoy more of the benefits of civilized society where violent brute force is not given free reign to determine who comes out on top. A related factor is women in the workforce which allowed the to escape from being under control of their mates, which itself is partly a byproduct of their mates not being allowed to physically prevent them from working, but also sparked by need for more workers during WW I and II.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yeah it was probably lots of things. But one of the big ones was women, in large numbers, organising for change.
I was not aware that this was preceded, as you imply, by criminalisation of things which kept women down, but you may know better than me.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I think there's too many other variables at play to make that statistic interesting. During this time contraceptive pills were introduced. Sex went from a right men had a right to take, to rape within marriage becoming a thing. The rise of feminism. The 19'th century was socially extremely unstable. Extreme poverty and urban migration put both men and women into extremely vulnerable positions where they could be, and often were sexually exploited. Ie, it makes people more promiscuous, who otherwise wouldn't be. Two traumatic wars. Wars increase child births. An unprecedented economic rise, and women joining the workforce, which changed the power dynamic between the genders. Marriage and children went from being a duty, to something you did because it was something you wanted. Industry became increasingly technical and demands on a well educated workforce increased, pushing further and further back "adulthood".
My point is that being promiscuous in the 1890'ies meant you were rich and could afford prostitutes. In the 1920'ies the desirable women to desirable men ratio in Europe was about 10-1. That changes dating dynamics. In the 1950'ies, the death of religion. The 1960'ies and 1970'ies culture of free sex, being a promiscuous man meant that you were a sexy man with a hairy chest.
Even that said, even if all this developed linearly, it's not super weird. A faithful man will have more access to "their" woman than a single promiscuous man. So the faithful man will be at the roulette table more often and is thereby "winning" more.
^ Not only that, but making babies and having sex are not the same thing now that contraception is so readily available.
And married guys are probably having more sex, but promiscuous single guys are having sex with a wider variety of women (at least one would hope). So "some guys get so many women" would still hold true.
Then you got the gay guys. I remember years ago when people would hate on gay men and I would always respond that they should thank gay men for being gay. It means a better shot at women for them.
And married guys are probably having more sex, but promiscuous single guys are having sex with a wider variety of women (at least one would hope). So "some guys get so many women" would still hold true.
Then you got the gay guys. I remember years ago when people would hate on gay men and I would always respond that they should thank gay men for being gay. It means a better shot at women for them.
ronburgundy
Contributor
I think you're more aware than you know. I am mostly just referring to husbands not being able to beat their wives with as much impunity (not just changes to formal law but changes in enforcement such that cops no longer disregard domestic abuse), parents not being able to beat their kids (which is used to enforce authoritarian cultural norms, including women's "proper place"), and changes in the law allowing women to vote. IOW, I think women would have organized for change much sooner and would do so everywhere if the law gave them voting power to effect change and protection from retaliation when they attempt to create it.
In turn, all of these things were eventual byproducts of the principles of personal liberty that arose from the Enlightenment. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't grant these basic protections to women and blacks, but did establish core principles of secular, non-authoritarian law that laid the foundation for those rights to gradually expand to all people, because there is no reasoned basis to oppose that expansion that doesn't contradict the principle itself with grants those rights to those who already enjoy them.
When you look at the countries today with the greatest inequality of rights and strongest enforced gender norms, they are places (mostly Islamic countries) where women lack basic human rights and are not are not protected by the state from physical harm by their mates and families, thus they cannot organize for real change.
In sum, basic rights to free from violent coercion from other members of society, including one's own mate and family, are essential for people to be able to have the freedom needed to organize to fight for additional rights, and to lessen cultural norms designed to enforce inequalities.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I agree, in general terms. I just wasn't aware that many of those things in your first paragraph had happened prior to, say, the Suffragettes. In saying that, I don't mean that I think or am aware that they hadn't. It would make plausible sense if they had. I just haven't considered it before now.
Googling, I found several articles which set the backdrop, and outlined the 19th C precursors, such as this one:
Meet the Victorian women who fought back
https://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/founding-mothers
Which includes the line:
"With the extension of the [voting] franchise to working men in 1867, it was natural that the more reform-minded should turn their attention to the franchise for women."
Last edited:
Why do people create these cutsie-pie labels like toxic masculinity when people who rape and molest do so to trying and gain control they wouldn't ordinarily have by any other means. The entire thing makes me think of pathetically insecure persons who need to gratify some desire for power by forcing themselves on others. These people are losers, bullies and cowards.
So ... you're saying something along the lines of that you think there's something toxic about the way they express their masculinity?
