A Cynic’s View Of Relationship Sex

There’s a sizable contingent of “red pillers” who believe that the male urge to have sex with a variety of women is, if you take their consternation at face value, unnatural. I never did get this line of attack against the degenerate poz. While I can’t fault the intention, the premise is based on a lie that feeds directly into feminist myth-making about the psychological sameness of the sexes.

This belief, and resulting admonition, that men are naturally monogamous and only desire poosy varietals when there’s something wrong with their mental state is not just wrong, it’s malignant, and will paradoxically cause a lot of men trouble within the confines of their monogamous relationships!

Reader superslaviswife echoes this CH sentiment and explains how the “cads are sickos” theory of the sexual market actually harms men’s ability to create and sustain monogamous relationships.

Something I do wonder about is the staleness of “the regular”. Many Beta males, as far as I have heard, are happy enough to get regular sex or sexual access, to see a naked woman daily, that the actual frequency, variety and duration of sexual sessions doesn’t matter to them. Here we get two problems:

1: Women need to see men as sexual beings constantly on the ready and on the prowl. You can’t be non-sexual 99% of the time and expect a woman to be aroused the remaining 1%. Even women with high sex drives who frequently initiate expect their man to reciprocate sexual cues, to signal he’s ready and warmed up. If we’re constantly slowly simmering, it takes a lot less to hit boiling point. This is why fostering affection doesn’t result in sex. At best it’s neutral. At worst it distracts us from being sexual. This is also why game is all about building tension: if you aren’t constantly sexual, the pot stops boiling and you could be anywhere from warm to needing to start over.

Women married to men with high libidos have to know that these men are also more likely to pursue additional outlets for their libidos.

2: If a man rejects sex from a woman too often, is rarely ready, wants sex once or twice a week because his T is too low and always wants a quick couple of minutes in the same position, ie, if he wants “just the regular please”, I can’t see how anyone would cope. From time to time, the regular will be needed. Maybe there isn’t much time, the other rooms aren’t available, you’re in a rough patch or a dry spell due to stress and just need to get the ball rolling again… But even then, when you know what’s going to happen you may as well open a book, to be honest. And if that’s your entire sex life, where’s the enjoyment? It’s reducing it to just a biological function, like buying macdonald’s instead of making a steak burger dinner.

This is a cynic’s view of relationship sex and durability, which means it has more truth value than the happy-clappy romantic view of sex.

Maxim #40: Men are strictly monogamous only insofar as their options for sexual variety are limited.

There are, of course, individual and race-based differences in the predilection for men to pursue multiple sex partners (concurrent or consecutive). But the general rule stands: Men, more than women, have strong NATURAL sexual urges to FUCK every pretty young woman they lay eyes upon. And men with OPTIONS will, often enough to put the lie to the “cads are sickos” theory, fulfill their non-monogamous desires.

The problem of stale relationship sex is intrinsic to differences in sexual desire between men and women. Over time, (usually about two years), a man will lose that groinal fire for his girlfriend or wife. This is inevitable, and coupled with the tendency of women to pack on the pounds and the nagger attitude after they have extracted commitment from a man, it should surprise no Realthinker that bed death isn’t solely a morbidly obese lesbian phenomenon.

The staleness of regular sex is compounded by further insults to relationship stability that are less physiological in nature than psychological. One, women, due to their hypergamous compulsions, will gradually lose attraction for their loyal and dependable male partners, unless those men initiate countermeasures to combat their women’s emotional and vaginal atomization. (Read “countermeasure”: GAME). It is a fact of LTRs and marriage that both men and women get complacent, which means men get BETA and SOFT and women get FAT and NAGGARDLY.

Two, if the character of the men that women are currently choosing to form long-term commitments is changing toward a SOFTER, EFFEMINATE, BETA NORM, than we will see more complaints from those women about their men’s ability to SATISFY them. And in fact I do think the character of Western men is changing to one that is less masculine and more supplicating.

My answer to this problem of stale “regular sex” is that men should not be penalized or admonished for desiring sex with many women (and sometimes fulfilling their desire), just as women are not and never have been penalized nor admonished for hypergamously desiring the best man they can get and for pushing him sooner rather than later into promises of lifelong commitment. This is a double standard — or if you prefer, a different standard — that is necessary to accommodate the differing psychologies and darwinian imperatives of men and women.

If a man is happy to be in a monogamous relationship for life with the woman he loves, then the anti-cad “red pillers” ought to get on board with the CH recommendation that these men would benefit themselves AND their women if they learned game aka the art and science of applied charisma, as a method of reinvigorating flagging relationships. But I doubt these particular anti-cad red piller types will ever see the light, because many of them nurse intense envy of men who bed desirable women and make no apology for it.