Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

Locked
User avatar
JustineNyce

Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 11:50 2016

Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by JustineNyce » Fri Oct 21, 12:29 2016

I was trying to help a guy friend by giving him advice on how to meet girls and I told him a few things about maybe trying a bit harder and showing more interest to the girl he's got his eye one.

But then I came across this article and it made me think and worry. What if my advice makes him come across as creepy and rapey or something? I know he's a nice guy but he didn't seem comfortable about making a clear move on that girl. Now if he does it and he seems weird...it might come off kinda bad.

Where is the balance for men between persistence and creepiness?


http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/men ... ith-women/

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Taurwen » Fri Oct 21, 18:38 2016

Alright, I'm going to start talking about race and bring it around, so stay with me please.

I went to a conference of sorts awhile ago, and the man who ran it was talking about helping strangers. He mentioned that he saw a woman in distressed and asked her if he could help, but he kept an appropriate "Black man distance" from her. The room kinda giggled and he said "No, I think it's important to appreciate that black men can't get as close to strange women without it being read as a threat"
I think that's true. But more importantly, I think black men are aware of it. That space is super important. I can think of all the times I've been catcalled, or hit on by black men, and it may not have been pleasant, but I never felt threatened. Why? Because they always made sure there was physical space between us.
The handful of times I've been hit on/catcalled by a white man in public have been terrifying. Presumably because they don't think about how to not be threatening.

Likewise I think there can be a big difference between showing a woman/person you're interested, and forcing that interest on her. I think being good natured about being turned down is a huge way to tone down the creep factor. Don't let a woman see you get all determined when she says no. That's scary. Laughing it off and saying 'Alright, let me know if you think that could change' is a solid way to leave it open but non-threatening.
Really though, I think instead of teaching men how to pursue women there's a lot of value in teaching them how women flirt. As long as they know there's no hard and fast rules. Being a tease isn't a crime, and sending out the wrong signals shouldn't get a woman hurt.

User avatar
Enigma
member
member
Posts: 3749
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 10:22 2004
Location: Canada

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Enigma » Sat Oct 22, 16:50 2016

Yeah exactly. Showing interest and trying harder isn't creepy. Doing that when the woman has already indicted her lack of interest with words, behavior or body language is creepy.
"Human beings are amazing... we might be horrible, horrible, but we're wonderful too. Otherwise, why go on?"

User avatar
garbage videos

Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 15:12 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by garbage videos » Sat Oct 29, 16:24 2016

I agree. I am for feminism because I want to live in a world where I don't need to persistent and pushy with women to get loved. If Feminism will bring boatloads of women flocking to me and surrounding me with women, so that I never have to assert myself in front of a woman ever again, I'm cool with that, in fact sign me up in your ranks as the biggest feminist on the planet who ever lived.

User avatar
Nerd1987
member
member
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 0:01 2015

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Nerd1987 » Sat Oct 29, 22:09 2016

We have an interesting thread going here. I really like what was said as I struggle with this myself and have tried to help myself and other guys in this arena.

If I think to times when I've felt most uncomfortable in a situation where someone was talking to me: when the person was bigger or clearly stronger than me, when I was alone with them, when they weren't taking my signals that I wanted the conversation to end.

On the flip side there have been times where someone hadn't really sparked my interest but they won me over without giving me a vibe that they wouldn't take no for an answer.

Btw that site has some good articles.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Pikachu » Fri Nov 4, 13:34 2016

"Where is the balance for men between persistence and creepiness?"

There is none, as it's the wrong advice entirely. Men must not "chase" women. Chases are for hares. Get big, get fit, get rich, get funny.

Then ask many women once. Don't ask one many times.

Sex worker/escort is another option if it's legal in your country.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Sonic# » Fri Nov 4, 14:31 2016

Hell, let's expand that list so that it's not so focused on prestige and applies to every gender. Get more informed? Love puns? Have a big hobby or passion? Develop outside interests? Read more? Practice interacting with people in low-stakes environments? Volunteer?

If the emphasis is on self-improvement, let's really focus on the self, and especially those parts of the self that give us more personality. Then the goal really can be self-improvement, but as a side effect it also makes us have more to give to the people we meet. I've found that makes for not only better dating but better friendships, better acquaintance-banter, better work relationships, and so on.

To the question of approach-etiquette, I defer to Taurwen. I'll add that, online or off, it's good to show that you're interested in them in particular. As a teenager, I definitely felt like I could love anyone if they gave me a chance. (Emo violin sound.) First off, that just wasn't true; in my first relationship I learned pretty quickly that I did have preferences and they didn't meet them. Second off, that would have treated whoever I was with as an object of my affection who I like because they like me, not because of the X interests and Y traits that make them up as an individual. So with dating profiles as an example, I only liked messaging when there was something personality- or quality-wise that piqued my interest, and I liked to enthuse about that (briefly) in my first message. If I'm messaging literally everyone, then I need to get more specific about what and who I like. In-person, I find starting a conversation that someone might be interested in better than, say, just asking a lot of people whether they'd date me. If they seem interested (open body language, speaking about the same amount, no social signals like headphones, phone, or a book), I'm interested, and feel like the conversation is going somewhere, then maybe I exchange numbers or ask them on a date.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Aum » Sat Nov 5, 12:33 2016

There is a deeper issue here which is that we generally no longer teach men about sexual control. I'm not just talking about "don't rape" which is the most obvious. All the research tells men that being sexually engaged is a normal part of the male experience. I read a study from the UK two weeks ago saying that men who masturbate twice daily are more healthy than men who don't. The concept of containment is lost in our society, such that we are promoting sexually addictive behaviour in men as a demographic; we are teaching men that draining their sexual centres whenever possible is a good thing. The addictive behaviour is rooted subconsciously in internalized inadequacy and lack of self-reliant structures that generate internal satisfaction. These structures were never taught to men by men because most men in the modern world never make the transition from infantilized sexuality to mature adult man sexuality. In other words, the message is that men don't need to work on feeling internally fulfilled, they can find that externally by sleeping with as many people as possible. You can see the results of this trend in the decline of monogamy and the increase in "open marriages".

If men are taught to spend themselves as often as possible and not respect containment, then naturally their understanding of boundaries are going to be corrupted. The most extreme version is rape but there are even more minor versions, like men seeking sex when their bodies are maybe telling them to slow down, or maybe there are other areas of their lives that need more attention. This translates into men being told that they should be more persistent with "hard to get" women, because why would you give up when sex is such a priority? Get that prize. Get that trophy. Get your momentary satisfaction. No really means yes, etc. It's designed to draw men into spending their creative force in an unhealthy way that harms others and themselves. It's an ungrounding practice, and if you're undergrounded then you're less self-aware, and if you're less self-aware then you're not a threat to status quo power structures. It's no different than consumerism. Just keep trying to fill that void with frivolity. It's the patriarchy working against both men and women in these situations. It breaks down integrity of relations between men and their partners, and it breaks down internal self-relation.

It disempowers women from giving consent and being seen as complete human beings, and it disempowers men from realizing that continuous sexual conquest is a distraction from their self-actualization as well as a drain on their personal energy. We have taught men that lack of containment = strength when it's actually the opposite. The practice is disembodying... which works for patriarchy because it keeps the same immature boy's club in power. Part of the mature masculine is channeling sexual power into creative life force in daily life. The LAST thing the patriarchy wants is men using their sexual energy in this way.

Daoist tantra addresses this a lot in a really practical way, but it stems from an era and culture where men were expected to contain their sexual power and channel it in more useful ways (like ambition, career, community engagement, internal practices). This process is mostly rejected in the modern world. Men are now raised to want to spend their personal power in every sexual opportunity they can, basically giving up their energy for nothing. It's really sad.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Pikachu » Mon Nov 7, 6:20 2016

garbage videos wrote:I agree. I am for feminism because I want to live in a world where I don't need to persistent and pushy with women to get loved. If Feminism will bring boatloads of women flocking to me and surrounding me with women, so that I never have to assert myself in front of a woman ever again, I'm cool with that, in fact sign me up in your ranks as the biggest feminist on the planet who ever lived.
Okay...

I guarantee that won't happen.

The people who feminism will bring "boatloads of women" to, are the men who already get boatloads of women. If you have to be persistent and pushy, than you're not in that group.

More feminism = higher standards and expectations from women, not lower. Why proactively go for sex with Mr average when she can spend a night with Mr stud king ding a ling? That's the guy feminism will give women the confidence to approach. Not you, not me, not any guy posting on this site.

Be realistic.

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Nech » Mon Nov 7, 9:49 2016

Aum wrote:In other words, the message is that men don't need to work on feeling internally fulfilled, they can find that externally by sleeping with as many people as possible. You can see the results of this trend in the decline of monogamy and the increase in "open marriages".
I'd heavily argue against the point that promiscuity leads to open marriages. From what I've witnessed first hand, read about, researched on, the leading cause is the realization that one person does not have to be everything for you and that their should not be a limit on what kind of relationships you have with other people. Not that "guys are taught to be horny and fuck everything", because that's not actually how it plays out. The view that people in ethical non-monogamous relationships are some how hyper sexual is a huge falsehood and very misleading. And if they're not hyper sexual, it kind of doesn't fit into your point.

That being said, I do agree that society attempts to instill a very aggressive "on the hunt" type mannerism. It's been my anecdotal experience that it is mostly contained to conservative, older, or hyper-masculinized circles and is thankfully in decline everywhere else. The more joy an individual gets out of competition style cultures and sub cultures the more likely they are to succumb or accept this hyper-sexualized ideology. I also find the ideology thrives best in circles with low respect for women and their sovereignty.

I would disagree with the point of containment being the answer, and argue it's actually an outdated method. And while it can have it's uses I'd say it actually reinforces the patriarchy, not that it's a danger to it. Withholding sex has been very popular in sports or competitive circles as a reward for good standing in said competition ("Do well in the match and we can have sex again!"). It's not uncommon for athletes to already abstain before important meets/games putting their energy into training and the competition. It was common in medieval times to do something similar before battles. The problem is it works best for physical endeavors, and societies advancement no longer relies on that to progress. It hasn't fallen out of modern culture, it is still used. It's just an outdated practice/only useful in specific instances and thrives well in a hyper-masculinzied circles (almost alongside hyper-sexualized ideology). Not to mention the rush of endorphins post coitus/self care is not only physically healthy/beneficial but aides in positive unconfrontational thought. Containment also seems dangerously counter intuitive to a sexually free society (read: a society unconstrained by patriarchal thoughts on love and what sex means and how it limits genders and sexes).

(As a side note Aum, it seems the last few times I've posted have been countering your points. I don't mean these as a personal attack it's just circumstantial and intellectual. Despite our varying viewpoints, I enjoy reading your views and watching how you think. :) )
Pikachu wrote:More feminism = higher standards and expectations from women, not lower. Why proactively go for sex with Mr average when she can spend a night with Mr stud king ding a ling? That's the guy feminism will give women the confidence to approach. Not you, not me, not any guy posting on this site.
You seem to be under the impression that the only way for women to have rewarding sex is from an above average size member or that women having expectations is bad. Neither of these is actually the case, and it's also a very narrow view of Feminism. Higher expectations means they might go for a job they never thought before they could achieve. Or what rights they fight for because it wasn't "their job"/unattainable before. Since it is often paired with higher expectations, it might mean a higher estimation of self-worth or improved self-esteem. But worried about sex mostly? It might actually mean less sex because they realized they don't enjoy it and it's not their only worth. Or more sex, but with attentive and compassionate people, instead of whoever because they might not "be able to do better" or "women aren't supposed to enjoy sex". I fail to see how higher expectations and standards are bad for women.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Pikachu » Mon Nov 7, 11:47 2016

You seem to be under the impression that the only way for women to have rewarding sex is from an above average size member or that women having expectations is bad. Neither of these is actually the case, and it's also a very narrow view of Feminism. Higher expectations means they might go for a job they never thought before they could achieve. Or what rights they fight for because it wasn't "their job"/unattainable before. Since it is often paired with higher expectations, it might mean a higher estimation of self-worth or improved self-esteem. But worried about sex mostly? It might actually mean less sex because they realized they don't enjoy it and it's not their only worth. Or more sex, but with attentive and compassionate people, instead of whoever because they might not "be able to do better" or "women aren't supposed to enjoy sex". I fail to see how higher expectations and standards are bad for women.
I wasn't actually talking about penis size. It was a euphemism for the attractive guys. Looks, status, etc.

If you ask them if women approach, they'll say yep - all the time.

The notion that women don't approach is a popularized testimonial that comes from average and unattractive guys.

Add in a lot of confidence from feminism, and the attractive guys simply get more approaches, while the less attractive guys simply get called entitled if they expect any female attention.

An average looking heterosexual Woman can expect a 75% acceptance rate, just from approaching a complete stranger. (as opposed to 0% when reversed and men approach women) And again that's just the starting point. With near zero effort involved from the approacher.
http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/11/w ... x-pleasure

So the fact is, if they only approach the most attractive guys around, the average woman still has a much better chance of success than the average guy approaching any woman.

Whether you think higher expectations from women is good or bad is not my point. My point is: Why would anyone who said he has to pester, believe that feminism will result in boatloads of women coming to them?

That's a pipedream.

User avatar
garbage videos

Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 15:12 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by garbage videos » Mon Nov 7, 16:41 2016

Pikachu wrote: Whether you think higher expectations from women is good or bad is not my point. My point is: Why would anyone who said he has to pester, believe that feminism will result in boatloads of women coming to them?

That's a pipedream.
I said it before and I said it again, I prefer ze pronouns. Check your privilege you yellow-brown colored mouse.

I'm thinking long term, like 10 years from now, and that is when I will reap my benefits. The way I see it, I am gonna be a virgin for at least 10 years from now, with or without feminism. So as long as there isn't a worldwide nuclear apocalypse in 10 years, my support will pay off.
With feminism, they will convert the entire world into lesbians using the progress of technology and the government. Once I am converted into a lesbian, I will finally have a chance for love and romance and to save myself from the hell and damnation of isolation. After I am converted into a female lesbian it will correct my birth defect of being born with the toxic chemical testosterone and give me a life of happiness and prosperity.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Sonic# » Mon Nov 7, 21:26 2016

What the hell is going on with these names?
Mr stud king ding a ling
you yellow-brown colored mouse
...
An average looking heterosexual Woman can expect a 75% acceptance rate, just from approaching a complete stranger. (as opposed to 0% when reversed and men approach women)
OK? What does "acceptance" mean here? With your first study, for example, both men and women seemed equally willing to accept a date, indicating an opening you categorically deny to "less attractive" men. It was only when the action went directly to a private space (apartment) or sex that the gender disparity appeared. I distrust the latter results for two reasons: (a) people typically don't cold-approach for sex during the day. There's often at least a modicum of contact in casual situations, even if it's one meeting chatting and flirting; as Dr. Nerdlove himself points out, why would even a woman open to casual sex accept in that situation? (b) I think they overestimate the male acceptance rate. A study cannot ethically evaluate men accepting. At least some would likely say no between the quad and apartment, or even later, because consent is not a one-moment transaction.

It's obvious garbage videos is either trolling or deluded with the idea of a lesbian machine. I'm just puzzling over the thought process here. You seem to make this big body of data say, "Okay, so all women will try to go to 'Mr stud king ding a ling' and everyone else will be left short." I don't think even Dr. Nerdlove is saying that. He seems to be saying men seeking partners need to seem worth the risk of going out with. Being more attractive is only a part of that. As he goes on to explain, there's also dressing in clothes that fit well (flashy or not), maintaining one's hygiene, conveying friendliness and warmth, approaching people they're genuinely interested in rather than anyone who hasn't said no, having a good reputation with friends, using flirting to probe interest, and respecting consent. All these are things that "looks, status, etc." technically explains, except they're things attainable even with modest looks or status.

So back to acceptance. I think even Pikachu's right that pestering would be no more successful if society were less biased against women. I also think that whether it's starting a relationship or a one-night stand, success for anyone is determined more by someone's interests, recognition of appropriate contexts, and put-togetherness than by pure good looks or status. Further, if roughly the same number of women and men end up partnered with other women or men, I find it unlikely that women and men are all aiming for the likes of "Mr stud king ding a ling." Our tastes vary too much for that to sound true.

User avatar
garbage videos

Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 15:12 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by garbage videos » Wed Nov 9, 2:53 2016

Sonic# wrote:What the hell is going on with these names?
you yellow-brown colored mouse
Pikachu, if you are familiar with Pokemon, is a yellow-brown colored mouse.
It's obvious garbage videos is either trolling or deluded with the idea of a lesbian machine.
They said the same thing about airplanes, that they were delusional machines that could not be made. But they will be made. Because after 10 years there will be no more hell and damnation, I will escape the curse of my male body and have the female body I wanted to have since I was young.

Male and females in terms of socio-dating dynamics.
Males have a harder time with it because of R and K selection. Males tend to be R selecting, less choosey of mates and lusty towards strangers more often. Females tend to be K selected, they have low lust towards strangers and their lust builds either towards a couple of persons over time, or to one particular person who they select out from the group. This is an old evolutionary pattern of males competing to win the affections of one female, only the most dominant and glamorous male of the pack obtaining his partner. Because of this principle, males usually have a much higher difficulty curve at obtaining partners.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by Aum » Thu Nov 10, 12:56 2016

Nech wrote:I'd heavily argue against the point that promiscuity leads to open marriages. From what I've witnessed first hand, read about, researched on, the leading cause is the realization that one person does not have to be everything for you and that their should not be a limit on what kind of relationships you have with other people. Not that "guys are taught to be horny and fuck everything", because that's not actually how it plays out. The view that people in ethical non-monogamous relationships are some how hyper sexual is a huge falsehood and very misleading. And if they're not hyper sexual, it kind of doesn't fit into your point.
When people can't maintain partnership agreements (whatever that looks like, including poly) or partnership fulfillment due to sexual appetites (like constant promiscuity, porn addiction, etc.), it's not healthy. I have seen some people maintain the open partnership lifestyle in a balanced, loving way to all those involved. It's rare. It takes a degree of work and self-reflection that the vast majority are not doing. The average relationship turnover time is high right now. That's not a product of sexual liberalization but something to do with unaddressed internal dissatisfaction.
Nech wrote:That being said, I do agree that society attempts to instill a very aggressive "on the hunt" type mannerism. It's been my anecdotal experience that it is mostly contained to conservative, older, or hyper-masculinized circles and is thankfully in decline everywhere else. The more joy an individual gets out of competition style cultures and sub cultures the more likely they are to succumb or accept this hyper-sexualized ideology. I also find the ideology thrives best in circles with low respect for women and their sovereignty.
People with higher levels of testosterone will be more sexually aggressive and take more risks, this is fact. That includes some women who have above average levels, but it generally applies to men as a group. Talk to anyone who has transitioned from female to male and they'll tell you all about it. Also, people in leadership positions or power develop more testosterone, hence why a lot of female execs behave "like men" (they're really just in the same testosterone group). But that's biology. Culturally, men are not being taught to get in touch with their own bodies in a useful way. The penis is still shamed, and a lot of people truly believe that sexual gratification for men is uncomplicated. The ignorance is systemic.
Nech wrote:I would disagree with the point of containment being the answer, and argue it's actually an outdated method. And while it can have it's uses I'd say it actually reinforces the patriarchy, not that it's a danger to it. Withholding sex has been very popular in sports or competitive circles as a reward for good standing in said competition ("Do well in the match and we can have sex again!"). It's not uncommon for athletes to already abstain before important meets/games putting their energy into training and the competition. It was common in medieval times to do something similar before battles. The problem is it works best for physical endeavors, and societies advancement no longer relies on that to progress. It hasn't fallen out of modern culture, it is still used. It's just an outdated practice/only useful in specific instances and thrives well in a hyper-masculinzied circles (almost alongside hyper-sexualized ideology). Not to mention the rush of endorphins post coitus/self care is not only physically healthy/beneficial but aides in positive unconfrontational thought. Containment also seems dangerously counter intuitive to a sexually free society (read: a society unconstrained by patriarchal thoughts on love and what sex means and how it limits genders and sexes).
This is not at all what Daoist containment practices are about, and I only referenced it as one cultural niche that practices it. Men over the age of 30 are more prone to health problems if they ejaculate too often. It's not about cultural control. There are traditional health systems all over the world that have mapped this over the millennia, some even have it down to a fine science. In modern science, it has a cyclical addictive effect due to the dopergenic release system involved with sex. Men who ejaculate too often are less motivated, less aggressive in their own lives at achieving their own goals, more detached. A common misconception is that you get dopamine after the reward; the levels are highest BEFORE the reward. So there is a science behind containment that maintains goal-setting ambition. IMO the patriarchy promotes male sexuality but not in a healthy way, so that men are stuck in a relational world where their life force is constantly being spent and they remain non-competitive. At the same time, male genitals are shamed so that men are more reluctant to talk about embodiment. It's messed up. Women have had their sexuality totally suppressed with slut shaming, whereas men have had their sexuality suppressed through excessive promotion of its dysfunctional forms. It keeps men ungrounded and out of touch with themselves which is the entire point. Feminism rightfully asks men to take responsibility for their sexuality and their bodily boundaries... yet on a deeper level we are not encouraging men to experiment with containment to see how it feels. The idea of abstaining or reducing frequency even for a short time is preposterous because liberal culture views that as an attempt to suppress sexuality when that's not actually the suggestion at all. Daoists for example still masturbate, or they channel the energy into other activities -- a concept lost on most modern men.

Ejaculation also releases prolactin which acts as temporary hormone suppression for things like testosterone. Try ejaculating and then going to the gym on the same day. I guarantee your output will not be the same. For some men this effect lasts for days but they don't realize it. You can lookup "nofap" on Reddit or "Daoist 100 day challenge" to read about people's personal experiences while they contain in order to better understand how this all works. I'm not anti-masturbation or anti-sex, but when you suggest to the average guy to try not ejaculating for even 1 week to experiment with shifts in vitality, they flip out... "OH MY GOD I DON'T THINK I COULD LAST 3 DAYS!" It's a big, big problem in our society and mainstream research doesn't address it because on the surface it would seem to run contrary to the sexual liberation movement and in support of anti-sex religious people.

It's not outdated or obsolete. Many groups still practice it and it's not about withholding. Just please do more research, I can't elucidate on the entire practice here. It's about charting your own energy flows and whether or not it's appropriate to engage in sexual activity based on what your body's vitality levels are telling you, rather than "sex = yes!" all the time. Our culture currently teaches sexual practices in an addicted way. It has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. I support sexual freedom. It's your body so do what you want with it, in a consensual way. My suggestion is that we live in a hyper-sexualized culture in general that overlooks what a resource drain it is on the body to be constantly engaged in sexual activities. In cultures that are not exposed to constant sexual imagery and innuendo, people still have sex but it's not such a huge focus in their lives.

If anything what I'm talking about is post-liberalization, not pre. Societies have to go through a period of sexual excess before they develop (or rediscover) practices that enhance the creative sexual force within themselves. Sexuality in our current society is in infantilized form. We see it as progressive because previously things weren't as open before now. But we are still in early development. If you look back at pre-historic China, the conservation practices reached more common use after periods of excess... like the Tang dynasty. IMO promiscuous culture is related to societies living in excess. When resources aren't scarce and there is instant access, there is less concept of conservation in general.

What I ask is that you please parse my points in such a way that you are seeing it as a moderate view plus some new information, and not on the anti-sex/pro-sex axis. I have a healthy sex life and I'm not a prude, I've just learned a lot about personal vitality through conservation.
Nech wrote:(As a side note Aum, it seems the last few times I've posted have been countering your points. I don't mean these as a personal attack it's just circumstantial and intellectual. Despite our varying viewpoints, I enjoy reading your views and watching how you think. :) )
It's all good, I'm not taking it personally!
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
garbage videos

Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 15:12 2016

Re: Why It’s Dangerous to Tell Men to Be Persistent to Get Women to Sleep with Them

Post by garbage videos » Thu Nov 10, 21:10 2016

You put a lot of effort in your post, so I suppose you deserve to know a secret.

Patriarchy, is also known as the Alpha Male State.
It's job is to fuck up sexuality as much as it can, shame basic and natural instincts, and outlaw all kinds of animal behavoir it deems a threat to the Established Order or SuperOrganism.


An example of this was the Roman Empire. At first Christianity was an underground anarchist movement, but Paul altered it by catering it to the State. "Follow the rules of the land" was his contribution, tainting the Gospel. Rome knew they could use this religion to further manipulate people, so they endorsed it. Priests and papals were the lords of sexuality, monitoring and dictating reproduction rules and rites. In this way the State could regulate and control all male behavior, and prevent it's females from copopulating with males disobedient to the State.

Locked