The Ironwood Collection of Alpha Moves (9 page)

That's one thing that the feminist revolution really messed up. 
In promoting the idea that women could initiate a sexual relationship and have sex
without
it having been initiated by men, it spread the erroneous idea
to men
at the time that since
these fully-empowered, sexually-
active women could initiate sex without being condemned for it, that they would naturally start initiating sex roughly half the time.

That took a lot of pressure off of dudes, because the less they initiate, the less they get rejected. 
Only it didn’t work out that way.

A
fter the novelty of early sexual exploration wore off and young couples had to face the intricacies of
a day-to-day sex life
in a long
-
term relationship,
men continued to expect the more aggressive sexuality of their woman's single years,
(
i.e. she initi
ates sex about half of the time)
whereas their women usually lapsed back into the monogamous pattern of waiting for their men to initiate, as Nature programmed in us
.  And when the menfolk just didn't
initiate as often
, because they took the feminists at face value and backed off dominant tactics, frustration and anxiety set in on both sides.

The problem is that feminism has put such a stigma on male sexuality that women are brought up to both desire male sexual attention and fear it.  That sucks for them.  And we dudes were brought up being taught that aggressive sexuality -- which included attempting to initiate sex -- was inherently disrespectful of women, and that the proper thing for a good little boy to do was kiss your woman's ass until she decided she was ready to have sex with you (the Betaization), because
to manfully initiate sex like your forefathers was an affront to the inherent spirit of independence and person-hood of women as human beings
, and yadda yadda yadda
and
after that we just kind of stopped listening.  We got the message. 

Oh boy,
did we get the message.

Between the fear of divorce, sexual harassment suits, and diversity training classes, the men of Generation X were taught to fear and respect female sexuality.  They were also taught that women could initiate sex and not be considered sluts.  In fact, they were pretty much instructed exactly what hoops had to be jumped through in order to have a pristine, politically-correct sexual experience complete with two condoms and a signed indemnification form.  For all practical purposes, we were taught that Nice Boys didn't initiate sex . . . they stood there and waited for it to happen by the grace of womanhood alone.

Big problem with that, though. 
Sex doesn't work that way.
  Because it's pretty clearly understood that women are designed to be
sexually reactive,
and men are designed to be
sexually proactive
. 

Even Emily Nagoski, noted feminist scholar of human sexuality
and fellow Sex Nerd
, is perfectly willing to admit this.  She pretties it up
by saying
that women tend to have "responsive desire", while men tend to have "spontaneous desire", but it comes down to the same thing:
men are proactive about sex, women are reactive
. 

If a man doesn't
act,
the woman can't
re
act.
 
Dr. Nagoski
hedges her bets by
invoking
the usual NAWALT
(Not All Women Are Like That!”)
argument that spontaneous and responsive desires are
not
gender-dependent and vary greatly from individual to individual -- all perfectly true -- but as my old physics teacher always said, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong . . . but that's the way to bet." 

Dr. Nagoski agrees.  She says about 70% of women usually have Reactive Desire at most points in their lives, so for our purposes, i
f you want to qualify the statement
for public consumption
, you can
say
"Men
, in aggregate
, tend to manifest Spontaneous Desire more often and more easily, while women
, in aggregate
, tend to manifest Responsive Desire more often and more easily."

In other words, "
In general
, women don't start getting hot and thinking about having sex until a man
(we’re assuming heterosexuality, here)
comes along and gives them a reason to."  That doesn't mean that she won't have lusty, nasty thoughts at any given hour of the day . . . but in terms of acting upon those thoughts,
it's
less-
likely even in this egalitarian day-and-age that she will initiate sex of her own accord without
first
being approached by a man.

It’s
ironic
that she pitches the
idea as a feminist demand for acknowledgement that women are different and special creatures
.  Dr. Nagoski points
out that she's tired of sex researchers using the language  and standards of
male
sexuality to evaluate and judge
female
sexuality. 

W
hile her point is well-taken -- male and female sexualities appear to be
very
diff
erent in make-up and mechanism,
and sex researchers have traditionally been male and used male paradigms for evaluating female sexuality -- it also
undermines the feminist approach to sex
in which male and female are theoretically equal in all important ways
.  That
leads to the pragmatic result of women becoming more dominant in their personal relationships by default, as men ceded the initiative under the blistering attack of f
eminism on their collective masculinity. 

It's a feminist axiom that men and women ideally enter into a marriage or relationship as an "equal" partnership.  In the feminist marriage
, there is no implied obligation or expectation of sex on either party's part
. 
U
nder feminism
, sex cannot be institutionalized in any way without damaging the independence of women as individuals.
 

If sex
happens
in a feminist marriage
,
it is by the grace of the woman to bestow it
, regardless of the man's behavior, and
she alone controls access to it by custom, if not by law.
  Any less than enthusiastic and willful participation by the woman is tantamount to
a non-consensual tryst, goes Third Wave feminist
theory.  In some extremes,
she can even change her mind about her consent
after the fact
,
and let the hamsters fall where they may. 

But all of that lovely ideology falls apart when the rubber hits the well-traveled road.  If biology demonstrates that women tend to have "Responsive Desire" -- and that is held up as a proud difference between male and female sexualities by one of the noted feminist researchers -- then it's really
very difficult
to argue any pretense that the goal of "equality" in a sexual relationship, especially in a marriage, is
contrary
to our biology.

That may make little difference to the "gender is a social illusion" crowd, who push to have gender concepts in general stripped away from our culture in the interest of fairness.  But for the rest of us, the ones who are
actually going out and trying to get laid
, this is a vital and fundamental fact that cannot be ignored by pretending it would be better if we all just acted like it didn't matter to anyone if we were boys or girls.

Because when you do that . . . well,
you stop getting laid
.  Androgyny occasionally slips into our culture as a novelty, but when it comes down to it we persist in recognizing the pretty clearly-established fact that there are bigger differences between men and women than our choice of position when we urinate.

Just take a look at the phenomenon of "Lesbian Bed Death".  It's a truism that lesbian couples in long-term relationships often just . . . stop having sex, even if they were fairly lustful at the beginning of the relationship.  The "Reactive Desire" idea, applied in this sense, demonstrates that if two people who are both "reactive" are in a relationship, you get a lot of "so do you want to have sex tonight?" "I dunno, do you want to have sex tonight?" "I dunno, it depends on whether or not you want to have sex tonight?" "I could have sex, but it's totally up to you." "Hey, isn't there a
This Old House
marathon on tonight?"

Similarly, gay men in relationships tend to have a lot more sex than straight people or lesbians, especially in the heady days of their early 20s when testosterone turns every male into a horny slab of testosterone-poisoned sex-zombie willing to bang anything that doesn't run away fast enough.  When both partners enjoy "spontaneous desire", you can bet that there's a whole lot more
DNA
flying around.

So the science says women are reactive, men are proactive.  Feminism says to ignore that and focus on human rights issues and universal deference and respect for vaginas, letting them do as they will of their own accord.  After ignoring the custom that supported the science for three decades, and suffering a societal retrenchment of mating customs the likes of which human history has never seen before, eventually the damage got bad enough so that a couple of dudes said "hey, all that stuff about us waiting until the woman says she's ready for sex on her own?  It's really all kinda bullshit!".

And then they went and developed Game, because they realized
that if they, as men, didn't take responsibility for attempting to initiate sex 100% of the time, then they got a lot less sex
.  When you wait around patiently for the one in the relationship with "responsive desire" to suddenly generate interest in "spontaneous desire", then you're going to be waiting a lot.  And then your woman will quit being attracted to you and start to cultivate other options. 

Welcome to Blue Pill Betahood, where they put the 'blue' into 'blue balls'!

Indeed, for most dudes in the Manosphere you can trace back their realization that they just took the Red Pill when they realize that the same sexuality that has been castigated and demeaned all his life is evolutionarily designed for him to try to initiate sex all the damn time as an inherent expression of his masculinity -- it's not a sign of a character flaw or a medically treatable condition. 
Dudes are horny, they try to have sex with girls, and that has nothing to do with their deeper political beliefs about the role of women and gender in our society.
 

And once they realize that -- and accept that if they want sex, they and they
alone
are responsible for initiating and managing their sexual relationship -- then they can relax, safely ignore all of that crap about the politically correct method of coitus, and get his freak on like Nature intended by initiating sex without fear of
judgment
.

And yes, he might get judged . . . but the next step on the Red Pill journey is ceasing to give
unworthy
women the power of
judgment
over you. 
O
nce you realize that to screw them you have to ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do, then what they say
even about you
gets a lot less credibility.
 

Case in point: college girl I knew absolutely
hated
the whole macho Alpha image thing with a passion, to the point where she  would confront jocks and d-bags in the college cafeteria about their alleged douchebaggery and lack of respect for women by these oversexed walking phalluses . . . and then at the end of the semester she was the FB of three dudes on the wrestling team who could care less what she thought about them.  It wasn't her opinion that they were trying to get into.

So the best thing a dude can do is suck it up.  Accept the fact that despite what our popular culture might be saying, in fact
the female sex drive tends to be reactive, not proactive, and that you will have to put forth more effort than you'd probably like if you want to improve your sex life.  Deal with it.