Some stuff that stood out as worth re-blogging:
Badgerhut says: …There are some women who claim to be after the low-count guy, but are really on the ever-elusive hunt for “fried ice.” They want, and they say this with their own words, a guy who COULD have a high count but has elected not to – a guy with options who hasn’t exercised them. They want to be chosen by a guy who could have anybody but has held out for his princess. Let’s get serious. Guys with the well-honed physical, social and professional traits to be ladykillers, the “whole package” as girls like to say, are not going to hang the spoils of those traits on the shelf. It’s like expecting a woman who spends hours on her appearance to not use it to curry favor and influence – it just doesn’t compute.
Athlone McGinnis says:
In the USA, we tell our boys often that the way to a girl’s heart is through kindness. “Be a gentleman”, they say. “chivalry is not dead”, they say. If you’re kind to girls and try to make them feel good about themselves(read: if you’re the biggest beta male you can be), you’ll win a pretty girl’s heart someday. Then you can get married and live happily ever after with your 2.5 kids and mortgaged home.
We tell our young girls something entirely different. “You’re special for you”, they say. “Don’t ever take any shit from a man”, they say. “Live your life for you”. “Don’t EVER settle”. “Don’t give too much power to a man-remember the rules!” “Don’t let a man tie you down-explore you for you and have fun!”
So here we have an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand, we are telling young men to play by much older rules of conduct, tying themselves down with the chivalry and provider roles tied to and designed for men from several generations past. We are trying to reign in male sexuality.
On the other hand, we’re telling women to play by brand new rules. We want them not to be tied down by men, especially the overly nice, gentelmanly “nice guys”(hordes of which we’re simultaneously creating) who might tie them down before they’ve had their fun and maybe even convince them to (gasp!) settle like women were forced to do in the old patriarchy. We are trying to remove all limits on the expression of female sexuality.
We like to build nice guys, and then make it very tough for them to compete by giving girls different rules and not letting the men know about them. We sexualize and openly encourage sexual expression/freedom among increasingly younger girls, but we expect men not to look at them(those are the rules we give them, and they’re shamed from an early age into following). Younger girls are infantilized to an extent so men will know not to touch them, while they are sexualized at the same time. The paradox is perplexing, but all too real.
This whole scenario Tuthmosis outlines here is indicative of all this. Females have taken the rules they’ve been given so deeply to heart that they’re playing at a much higher level in their early-mid teens than even older men can hope to-the game is completely rigged in their favor. Guys are ignorant by design.
Males have taken their own much older, antiquated rules to heart. This has forced them to a) become completely oblivious to just how damn good these increasingly younger girls are getting at this rigged game they play and b) brainwash themselves into thinking that it is wrong, creepy, weird or just plain psychotic and ill to think of these girls as sexual beings, even though these girls clearly consider themselves as such, behave accordingly, follow their own rules to a T (“never settle, explore your options freely and often and have fun!”) and even though it is pretty natural for a healthy male to think in such a way about girls that age.
And of course, even if a man does figure all of this out and is able to break out of the matrix by a) recognizing the games these girls play and b) playing it with them and recognizing these young female players as sexual beings, he can easily get screwed. If he even touches these girls, he can end up in jail with a scarred reputation for life. He is damned if he follows the rules and damned if he doesn’t.
Of course, what he’d be doing would be natural, and these girls(as good at the game and aware as they clearly are) would do everything to elicit his attention, but the game doesn’t care about that. These girls will often openly pursue and only fuck much older guys, and they will seek out illicit drugs/alcohol in the process, but the game won’t care about that either. Females can have no true responsibility in this game, because that would make it too easy for them to lose. The point of all of this is to give females of all ages maximum freedom with minimal consequences. Only men are designed to lose this game.
The girls in Tuthmosis’ analysis are great examples: they have all the freedom in the world (do whatever drugs they want, fuck guys of a wide range of ages, flirt with lots of guys, etc, etc-all is acceptable for them). They’ve gotten good at using these freedoms, and nobody will shame them for it(read: zero consequences). Even if their future husband were to find out about their wild and crazy exploits and become uneasy, he’d be shamed for it, not her(“That was in the past-she’s matured now and had her fun! Man up!”).
On the other hand, any guy over 18 who deals with them (and, keep in mind, these are exactly the guys they want to date at 14-15) will bare all of the consequences legally and socially.
This system sets men into a state of willful ignorance (giving girls one set of rules, men another, and not helping men understand the other set), encourages girls to take advantage of that ignorance and the naive betatude that comes with it (punitive alimony, child support, and other ridiculous family laws along with shaming calls for men to “man up” and be “gentlemen” in spite of claimed equality of women) and then makes it legally very difficult for a man to win even if he catches on (silly age of consent laws and a ridiculous degree of shaming for men who break the mold).
Bottomline: The only way to really win the game is not to play, it seems.
From the same thread, Tuthmosis chimes in:
Agreed, Athlone. Women love to complain about “double standards” that don’t benefit them, but are willfully ignorant of the double standards that they enjoy on a daily basis. Women don’t even notice the constant little extras they receive just for being women. I love pointing it out to random chicks when I observe them happening. It actually makes a nice opener. “Do you think he would have volunteered to do that for me?” They usually chuckle like someone who’s been caught doing something wrong. Among those double standards is the set of rules they get to live by, while men are shackled with the old rules.
Vitriol continues: Holding conversations with young women versus older more educated women really isn’t any different. I always have to dumb it down, even when talking with professional women. The second I start talking about anything even remotely abstract that normally would be discussed with males, I totally lose them to their phone, a striking article of clothing, something that is louder, etc. Guys that think older or more educated women are somehow challenging mentally are deluding themselves.
Compare the way of group of educated females socializes in an office setting on their down time with the way a group of high school girls gossips on their lunch hour. Very little difference…
Tuthmosis: Age is poor determinant on whether a chick is smart or dumb (a so-called “challenge”). Given their disincentive to develop their higher faculties (since they get all of the benefit anyway), most women–irrespective of age–choose not to, assuming they had the capacity to do so in the first place.
I definitely meet fewer women that I would consider intelligent, versus men. But, more interestingly, I meet almost no women that are well-rounded. If they happen to be knowledgeable in one area, that tends to be it. They very rarely develop skills in several areas like we do. What’s more, anything more than a single interest or aptitude all but guarantees that your girl is going to be unattractive. In other words, you rarely see a violin player, who is good at tennis, speaks three languages, has an incisive wit, and is super hot. That, I’m afraid, is the domain of men.
MaleDefined interjects: In the past year I’ve dated a 19 year old and a 30 year old. Both high quality women in their own right. While I agree the freshness of a young girl can’t be compared, I have to say that older women are incredibly horny and have pussies that drip like water falls. I really enjoy banging the 30 year old woman more. She just knows her body better and knows how to take care of me.
I’d say there is more thrill in young pussy, but my cock enjoys the older pussy more.
That’s a small sample size to be making generalizations from.
Keep going and you’ll likely find that some young women are incredibly horny and have pussies that drip like water falls and are incredibly sexually savant, while some old women are dried up asexual prudes.
I’ve had plenty of women who were in their sexual peak at about 21. This myth of the 36 year old sexual peak, where women grow into their sexuality, has only a small grounding in reality. Mostly it’s politics; older women trying to talk up their sexual value. Then it’s about the fact that most men can’t fuck, and it can take years before a woman meets someone who really gets her motor running. Then there is talk that a womans uterus thins out as she ages making G spot orgasms easier, and there are stats on the OK cupid blog that show that the of the minority of women who have trouble having orgasms (about 30%), they have an easier time of it as they get older, up to about 35 or so. But that stat says nothing about the majority of women who don’t have trouble having orgasms. I’ve known young girls to spout continuously like a faucet.
The fact is that WOMEN vary widely in sexual response. This variation isn’t very tied to age. It’s tied to a variation in WOMEN.
And the same goes for maturity and smarts. Who is claiming that women mature? That’s preposterous. Women have temperaments. And who is claiming that an older woman is going to be more intelligent? We know that IQ is stable, so don’t expect any smarter questions from an older person than a young one. The older one may be more informed, but how many of us have come to expect that the information that women have is put together coherently? Again, it’s down to innate temperament and capabilities. Women get very little advantage from age, and very much disadvantage.
And finally, for LTRs, do you want to start with a puppy, or an old dog who is reluctant to learn your new tricks?