The Sexual Cartel

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not meant to be a counter-argument, it's meant to show up how utterly ludicrous what the site-banned OP has said (a global cartel between women - really?) is.

In a nutshell, the post translates as "Women are bitches for not fancying me and giving me the sex I'm entitled to, therefore I'll come up with some outlandish theory rather than accepting they don't fancy me and working on my self confidence and improving where I'm going wrong."

It's not a literal cartel, but in effect it does appear to be one. No one is realistically suggesting women secretly meet up and have "sexual cartel" meetings, but the effect of women's behaviours whether conscious or subconscious results in a dynamic similar to that if a cartel did exist. But realistically it could be every women just behaving in their own best interests, so no collaboration is needed.

Just recently, a woman I know slagged my brother because his 2 year old daughter bosses him around, she said " she doesn't even have a hold over you", the implication being that it's understandable that your wife could boss you around because she can withhold sex to gain power, so it's humiliating that he was wing bossed around by someone who doesn't have the withholding sex card.

She didn't specifically state she uses sex for power over her boyfriend but from what she said it's quite obvious she uses sex to gain power over her boyfriend.

[Deleted User]

Steamed Hams wrote: »

It's not a literal cartel, but in effect it does appear to be one. No one is realistically suggesting women secretly meet up and have "sexual cartel" meetings, but the effect of women's behaviours whether conscious or subconscious results in a dynamic similar to that if a cartel did exist. But realistically it could be every women just behaving in their own best interests, so no collaboration is needed.

Just recently, a woman I know slagged my brother because his 2 year old daughter bosses him around, she said " she doesn't even have a hold over you", the implication being that it's understandable that your wife could boss you around because she can withhold sex to gain power, so it's humiliating that he was wing bossed around by someone who doesn't have the withholding sex card.

She didn't specifically state she uses sex for power over her boyfriend but from what she said it's quite obvious she uses sex to gain power over her boyfriend

Wow.

Even if I squint, I can't see any connection. This woman was hardly alluding to some sort of universal female agenda to keep men subjugated or celibate that his daughter is not yet a part of. The toddler has no hold over her father because he's the adult and and complete agency over her, why would there be any other interpretation?

I would think that only a very powerless person would interpret that as alluding to some sort of powerplay. Extrapolating that remark to that degree is very telling though, perhaps it's projection.

There is nothing 'quite obvious' about any of that, except in your head.

Are you the OP?

Candie wrote: »

Wow.

Even if I squint, I can't see any connection. This woman was hardly alluding to some sort of universal female agenda to keep men subjugated or celibate that his daughter is not yet a part of. The toddler has no hold over her father because he's the adult and and complete agency over her, why would there be any other interpretation?

I would think that only a very powerless person would interpret that as alluding to some sort of powerplay. Extrapolating that remark to that degree is very telling though, perhaps it's projection.

There is nothing 'quite obvious' about any of that, except in your head.

Are you the OP?

She quite clearly was aware of a power dynamic whereby it's possible to boss a man around by "having a hold over someone" by using sex or sex withdrawal. It's certainly not in my head.

Candie wrote: »

This woman was hardly alluding to some sort of universal female agenda to keep men subjugated or celibate that his daughter is not yet a part of.

Well reading Steamed Hams' post (presuming its veracity), it is not unreasonable to come to that conclusion, I'm afraid.

Of course, this does not imply that such a "universal female agenda" actually exists, but the very existence of this thread is proof enough that some believe that it does and it would be naieve to believe that this belief would be limited to men alone.

In short, there are some women with this attitude. That does not mean that it is the norm or part of some international conspiracy, by any stretch of the imagination, but it would be equally false to presume that it does not exist at all either.

I would think that only a very powerless person would interpret that as alluding to some sort of powerplay.

Well, if someone did use sex, or lack thereof, as a means of controlling their partner, what can that partner do? Ultimately, all they can do is end the relationship.

This is all well and good, but once married and/or there are children in the relationship, there can be very serious consequences to ending a relationship for men, which does leave them pretty powerless. You frequently get threads started, from men in such situations, on the PI forum, for example.

Steamed Hams wrote: »

She quite clearly was aware of a power dynamic whereby it's possible to boss a man around by "having a hold over someone" by using sex or sex withdrawal. It's certainly not in my head.

They only have a hold over you if you feel like a junkie and treat your wife like a dealer.

clairefontaine wrote: »

They only have a hold over you if you feel like a junkie and treat your wife like a dealer.

What

Steamed Hams wrote: »

What

Apparently the human need for sexual relations is akin to a narcotic addiction, that clearly we can cure ourselves from...

A counter example against the OPs assertions would be society in the Middle East. Correct me if I'm wrong but women hold very little power over men in these societies. As casual sex is rare, the OPs model would predict women in those societies to hold even more power over men. But then again the culture there is such that a man can negate that power with physical force and intimidation which isn't tolerated nearly as much in western society, or so I'm lead to believe.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apparently the human need for sexual relations is akin to a narcotic addiction, that clearly we can cure ourselves from...

There you go, NEED. If you are that dependant, and your attitude to a women or women,is like looking for supply, then that's when they have a "hold over you" as it was put.

Hankmarker

clairefontaine wrote: »

There you go, NEED. If you are that dependant, and your attitude to a women or women,is like looking for supply, then that's when they have a "hold over you" as it was put.

How do you suggest a person switches off their need for sex?

clairefontaine wrote: »

There you go, NEED. If you are that dependant, and your attitude to a women or women,is like looking for supply, then that's when they have a "hold over you" as it was put.

Firstly, a need for sex is natural. While this need varies in level and can be influenced by many social and psychological factors, ultimately it is neither unnatural nor unhealthy to have such a need. It's simply human.

Secondly, such a need does not put any 'hold' over one. What puts a 'hold' over one is where one is left with no realistic option when it is used as a weapon.

As I already pointed out, if you're in a relationship and someone withholds sex for ulterior motives, you can always end the relationship. However, if married, with children, and so on, the consequences can be devastating, leaving the person effectively trapped or blackmailed; damned if he does and damned if he does not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Firstly, a need for sex is natural. While this need varies in level and can be influenced by many social and psychological factors, ultimately it is neither unnatural nor unhealthy to have such a need. It's simply human.

Secondly, such a need does not put any 'hold' over one. What puts a 'hold' over one is where one is left with no realistic option when it is used as a weapon.

As I already pointed out, if you're in a relationship and someone withholds sex for ulterior motives, you can always end the relationship. However, if married, with children, and so on, the consequences can be devastating, leaving the person effectively trapped or blackmailed; damned if he does and damned if he does not.

Life is not full of perfect solutions. If your wife is using sex like a dealer and you the junkie, then you will have to make some choices, and all choices have consequences. Whether you choose to continue this, or have an affair or visit prostitutes, or leave the marriage. Welcome to adulthood. It's painful but doable.

Hankmarker wrote: »

How do you suggest a person switches off their need for sex?

And now your switching to gender neutral language. So I'm guessing you thnk men withold sex from their wives to control them also?

Bevelled Edge

clairefontaine wrote: »

And now your switching to gender neutral language. So I'm guessing you thnk men withold sex from their wives to control them also?

What's your opinion on the OP?

MaxWig

clairefontaine wrote: »

Life is not full of perfect solutions. If your wife is using sex like a dealer and you the junkie, then you will have to make some choices, and all choices have consequences. Whether you choose to continue this, or have an affair or visit prostitutes, or leave the marriage. Welcome to adulthood. It's painful but doable.

Couldn't agree more.

If we could remove the final chinks of stupidity from the family law courts, we could begin to provide a much more stable environment in which men or women, but mainly men, could safely indulge their sexual needs outside a loveless marriage without fear of losing their home and children.

Oh to love in wonderland!

clairefontaine wrote: »

Life is not full of perfect solutions. If your wife is using sex like a dealer and you the junkie, then you will have to make some choices, and all choices have consequences. Whether you choose to continue this, or have an affair or visit prostitutes, or leave the marriage. Welcome to adulthood. It's painful but doable.

Which given the biases in family law, many men choose not to marry any more, so as to avoid such scenarios.

hotaru

To the OP:

My dear friend, as far as the "Cartel" analogy goes, I'm not on the same ground with you.
However I completely understand the frustration of not having been able to make a meaningful relationship with a woman or girl.
Women, unlike us men, tend to attract to opposite sex for quite different reasons. Contrary to the common belief that portrays men as some beasty sex-crazed creatures who see women nothing but some joy toys, I think it is us men, that approach women with the need for love and finest human emotions in mind. On the other hand however, they seek something else in this trade that being the protection and guarantee of financial provision and survival for themselves and their offsprings.
In short, it is them who actually act out of pure animal instincts.
Of course I am not to blame them for this, as i myself said they're doing what just their genes told them to do.
So what to do in this situation, it really seems nothing can be done, as far as you are trying to make a deal between two parties with each offering something that the other one does not need in the first place.
The world without women ain't that bad as hell as you might think.

Femme_Fatale

I'm a single woman since 2009. Haven't met any guy to have a meaningful relationship with, just the odd casual encounter.
Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day. It makes life a lot easier really.

hotaru

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I'm a single woman since 2009. Haven't met any guy to have a meaningful relationship with, just the odd casual encounter.
Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day. It makes life a lot easier really.

Easier for you maybe, but perhaps not for that guy (or men in general).
And I am a 40 year-old single man who has never had any relationship of any kind whatsoever (even that "odd casual ones"). I don't know what you call it in English... celibacy or virginity or..? Yeah, I am that. And I'm gonna remain one till death, cause I can see how miserable the married or in-relationship people around me are.
There are so many important joys and satisfactions in my life, that stuff like women or relationships or dating... virtually account for nothing in, Zilch.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day.

You might not, but that doesn't mean that women are not as prone to their own conspiracy theories or blamestorming as some men are - I've heard, and read, more than once the explanation that the increased reluctance of men to settle down or marry being put down to things such as male immaturity, for example.

You'll always find members of either gender evangelizing such theories. Doesn't mean every man or woman does so though.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I'm a single woman since 2009. Haven't met any guy to have a meaningful relationship with, just the odd casual encounter.
Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day. It makes life a lot easier really.

Probably because you are not a dependant creature who treats men like a drug dealer for sex.

Even the title of this thread suggests that paradigm. Note CARTEL.

Femme_Fatale

hotaru wrote: »

Easier for you maybe, but perhaps not for that guy (or men in general).
And I am a 40 year-old single man who has never had any relationship of any kind whatsoever (even that "odd casual ones"). I don't know what you call it in English... celibacy or virginity or..? Yeah, I am that. And I'm gonna remain one till death, cause I can see how miserable the married or in-relationship people around me are.
There are so many important joys and satisfactions in my life, that stuff like women or relationships or dating... virtually account for nothing in, Zilch.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You might not, but that doesn't mean that women are not as prone to their own conspiracy theories or blamestorming as some men are - I've heard, and read, more than once the explanation that the increased reluctance of men to settle down or marry being put down to things such as male immaturity, for example.

You'll always find members of either gender evangelizing such theories. Doesn't mean every man or woman does so though.

Yeh I'm not interested in "But... but what about" stuff. Saying "Women do it too" is... zero argument. Also, I can't see where I implied women don't. Hostility towards the opposite gender in general for the person not being able to meet someone, and claims that there's some sort of conspiracy by the opposite gender against them, is cracked and I would suggest professional help.

It shouldn't be difficult at all to train yourself not to think in such a resentful, self-damaging way... unless you want to wallow in it.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh I'm not interested in "But... but what about" stuff. Saying "Women do it too" is... zero argument.

While not saying it at all implies that "women don't do it too" as it silences it's existence, instead concentrating on "how men do this".

And why put so much attention to those men who "do this" anyway? It's a minority, who have been repeatedly been rejected by the majority of men in this thread - yet we repeatedly need to return to talking about them, rather than discuss the topic; why?

Bottom line? The discussion gets hijacked and instead of debating where such perceptions come in the first place, we end up discussing how men, and only men, are wallowing in conspiracy theories against women.

As a result all comments by men on the subject end up dismissed, tainted by the conspiracy theories of the few. Indeed, you quote hotaru, as if to prove a point. His approach is extreme, in my view, however, he hasn't claimed any conspiracy theory, only that he's been put off by how often he's seen people made miserable by their relationships.

I can sympathize with that, even if I wouldn't be driven to celibacy by it. Yet you don't seem to bother. Glad to see we have such open dialogue here...

Pullerhair

clairefontaine wrote: »

And now your switching to gender neutral language. So I'm guessing you thnk men withold sex from their wives to control them also?

I'd say in a minority of relationships some men do use sex to control women, however it seems obvious to me that many women use sex in subtle ways to control their partner.

I believe men on average have less tolerance to the pain of being celibate therefore that tips the balance of power into women's control.

This is why many women despise so called sluts, they are a threat to the cartel. They give it away for free tgus threatening the catel's price.

StudentDad

The sooner we have a 'male pill' the better. In the end this always boils down to an argument over who looks after children and who pays for them.

When men have control over their fertility then we can have balance.

How many men wind up with children they never asked for after being assured that protection is in place?

SD

28064212

StudentDad wrote: »

The sooner we have a 'male pill' the better. In the end this always boils down to an argument over who looks after children and who pays for them.

When men have control over their fertility then we can have balance.

How many men wind up with children they never asked for after being assured that protection is in place?

SD

Have you never heard of a condom?