« like the cleaning of a house, it never ends | Main | nibbles »

01 December 2007



When you say 'our culture', what do you exactly mean? I think that each society varies. The way people are socialized in one city, may differ to the next and this extends to mating rituals. Men are socialized in accordance to the societies they live in or adapt to. New York is different from, say, Cairo. Sydney is vastly different from London, and the term 'our culture' is a generalization in itself. It's a matter of perception, and personal choice, regardless of gender. When feminists came onto the scene, and they practically brow beat women to support a philosophy, they didn't stop to realize that women outside or beyond a certain 'white' culture, lived under different conditions. The feminism of Friedan does not apply to, let's say, the bulk of Europe or Africa. Likewise, the male-female philosophy of John Gray, may be at odds in other cities or countries, and yet, it proliferates like a true fact or a proven behavioral blueprint.

If I, for example, decide to fuck within my culture, I also have to take the cultural standards or expectations in my stride, and I'm not referring to the wider Anglo culture (which varies) within Australia, which is lax where sex is concerned. It all boils down to the choices I make, because there are some cultural systems that cannot be changed overnight, no matter how many feminists jump up and down, but in the more moderate mainstream, there is room for women to move and make their own decisions, based on their needs.

I personally don't think men are the keyholders of fucking. At the end of the day, on the net, in a bar, wherever it may be, a woman has more control than what she realizes, at least within Western society. A woman chooses to stay or tolerate crap in a relationship, a woman chooses if she'll bed a man. A woman, today, can choose whether she'll raise a child on her own, or under the traditional umbrella of marriage.

Everyday social examples point to the control women have - at least in Western societies (Europe, the US, etc). Many high profile men, those who are past their sexual prime, have to practically pay to fuck and whether this is deemed offensive or not, everyday examples exist. Their high profile (finances, etc) enables this, but there are only few men who sit on the higher plane of influence (the Donald Trumps, Hugh Hefners, Rupert Murdochs et al, who, if they didn't have their clout, would have a lower chance of bagging pussy, especially younger women).

Each gender faces different social pressures, these pressures vary from one society to the next. In Western societies, men face the pressure of being adequate providers (career, status, financial status), and women are bombarded with daily campaigns to better themselves physically. The laws, in most western countries, place additional pressure on men (from a financial perspective: alimony, palimony, etc) than they do on women. I know many men who are in their thirties, who are apprehensive about dating. They'll fuck, but they're reluctant to settle down, and yet, in other societies, those that are in actual fact patriarchal (because western societies aren't 100% patriarchal, not when women have the freedom to divorce, or have sex before marriage, without the threat of death), such as most Middle Eastern capitals, men have more control on who they'll select as a partner and their financial wellbeing. The recent case in Saudi Arabia, involving the female rape victim is a definite example, whereby she was sentenced to public humiliation - being lashed - and the rapists receiving short sentences - compared to the sentences they'd received in the United States, the UK, Australia or Europe. Each time people complain about western society, there are worse examples elsewhere. So 'culture' cannot be generalized.

Women within the Western World often don't appreciate how good they have things.

I do believe that women (in the US, Australia or UK) can get laid whenever they want, so I'd have to disagree on the opposite. I've experienced it, viewed it as an observer (the pussy posse in the bar, sizing up potential talent, and rejecting each candidate). I'd hate to be a bloke, and walk up to a woman to create a conversation or buy her a drink, for her to size me up and say 'no', because that no isn't just a 'no' for a drink, it's a 'no' to any potential sexual encounter.


amen. very well said.

chelsea g


Forgive me. By "culture," I meant American culture. Like most Americans, I make the egregious mistake of forgetting that we are not at the center of the world.

But as to the heart of the matter I must continue to disagree. We may be able to get laid, but by whom? The same thing--the exact same thing--could be said of most men.

chelsea g

(Another) Chelsea

Love this essay/entry, Chelsea G.

"Many high profile men, those who are past their sexual prime, have to practically pay to fuck..."

There are always exceptions, but, at least as represented in the consciousness of our (American) culture, a woman past her sexual prime, or in any other way deemed "unsexy," couldn't pay to get fucked. Much less "bag" a younger man.

Rick Turner

My dad once said to me, "Don't sleep with any woman you don't want to wake up with." There's a lot to that advice, and however many partners I've had, I have to say that I did enjoy waking up with every one of them...at least that first time. I've also tried to be someone nice to wake up with... Sure, things can go "South", but actually liking someone beneath the "six pack" and pretty face does make sex a whole lot more fun. There's something special about that first breakfast...whether it is in bed or elsewhere...and if that isn't "happening", you probably shouldn't have done it the night before.

Charmaine X

Yes, yes, yes! And I don't mean that in an orgasmic way.

Thank you for saying this. More than once I've complained of unsatisfied horniness or a lack of regular sex only to hear the reply, "It's easy for you, you're a girl. You can get laid anytime you want."


I believe this stems from the concept that sex is something men *take* from women, not something women enjoy and pursue for the sake of pleasure. Ergo if a woman happens to want sex, she'll do it with just about any man who's ready to take it from her.

Not all sex is created equal. That should be obvious to anyone who's ever had sex, which includes most of us reading this blog, at least.

You said it far more intelligently, eloquently, articulately. Next time someone gives me the "easy for you" line, I'll direct them to this post.


By whom, can depend on priorities and convergence (goals, emotional stability, professions, values). Casual sex doesn't require any permanency. The growth of adult personals on the Internet mark an interesting event in human sexual evolution and it eliminates the middle man (the bar, cafe, club, etc); a person can date or engage in sex, dressed in their pajamas, without paying any heed to any physical mannerisms or cues.

It's only when permanency is required, that things get tricky. Societies become more selective as technologies advance. General studies of the species indicate that the female of almost every species is the most resilient, and/or demanding (high maintenance) of the two genders where cohabitation, marriage, and procreation are concerned. Twenty years ago, the idea of finding sexual fulfillment with a woman (if unable to find it with a man), was considered taboo, nowadays, women experiment at will, they are more resourceful. That's not to say that men are unnecessary, but the very machine that promoted feminism (in the Seventies), in western societies, hardly promoted family values or valued men, and decades later or the resultant has given women more options, but not without sacrifice. Sacrifice is a necessary part of every struggle, something is sacrificed in exchange for the replacement. Western women wanted sexual autonomy and freedom, without having to account for their actions, at least that's what many feminist writings point toward, and now, during times where men are more selective, (as a result of economic success, or whatever else), women are still competing to attain the ultimate prize: marriage. In Japan, it's considered a high prize, for a woman to marry a western man and women from similar societies, societies that are unlike other western societies, are willing to make sacrifices to attain marriage or cohabitation, sacrifices that women in the Europe, Australia and the US, are reluctant to make. In Europe there is an influx of eastern European brides. In Australia there are high numbers of Asian brides and/or migrants.

There are men out there (for whatever role a woman desires), it all depends on timing, self realization and/or meeting the other person in the middle, so in answer to 'by whom' I'd say, by women, men, a vibrator, a fuck buddy. I haven't had a sexual relationship for quite a while, but I know that it's not impossible. I just don't want to share that much of myself at the moment, but it's out there. I only have to write up a profile in a sex date network, and sex is readily available. It's a cheaper alternative than paying at a brothel for many men.


Let's not forget the angle that sex is different for men and women. For men, as they say, sex is like pizza: even when it's bad, it's still pretty good. Not so for women. A one-shot anonymous encounter with a man is likely to be resoundingly disappointing for the women, while still at least "pretty good" for the man. Men's bodies are wired to respond and orgasm easily, while the vast majority of we women must be able to relax and feel some kind of emotional connection to a man before we can let go to that degree. Also we need a few rounds with a new partner before the man has a chance to learn what we like and need to get off. So, the kind of sex that may be readily available to us at the drop of a hat online or in "a bar, any bar" is simply not desirable or satisfying to women. The same sex to a man would be plenty satisfactory. They would still "finish" and feel like a good time was had. Hence, the envy on their part to our ability to have this kind of sex seemingly whenever we want. But the truth is that we can't have what we want any more easily than men can. We all want good sex, not bad, and for men, "bad sex" is a relatively foreign concept.

chelsea g


I disagree. There is bad pizza. Men have bad sex. And that kind of flattened generalization about sex is exactly the kind of shoddy thinking I'm railing against.

Is it easier for men to achieve orgasm? Sure. Do women's brains show biochemical activity during orgasm that men's don't? Absolutely. But those facts do not equal the idea that for men all sex is good, or as you put it "plenty satisfactory."

chelsea g

Eli Cross

Yes, there is bad pizza, but you have to understand that many men in this country will choose bad pizza over going hungry, if -- and this is the most important point -- if bad pizza is on offer.

Short of rape or overpowerment, the woman in American society holds the key to the pizza oven.

A girl walks into a bar and frequently chooses to go hungry because there's nothing but bad pizza on offer. But for that woman, if she's hungry enough, there's always pizza. For men that simply isn't the case.

I'm a porn director, so I work around sex every day, and even in our business, where everyone is getting paid and it's all professional, the female performers get to choose which men they will and won't work with. No one asks the men. They're props, and whether the pizza is good, bad or indifferent (as it frequently is), we expect them to get in there and eat it.

Freedom is dictated by choice, and in the Western world, choice is a woman's prerogative. It isn't a man's prerogative until the woman has offered it. Every man knows this to be fact.

The Tom Brady of Oceanography

Great post. I agree with you 100% as a man, and one generally considered good looking and cool at that. I can absolutely walk into a bar and have sex with someone 1 hour later in the backseat of my car. It happens, and it is not difficult. What is difficult, however, is to find a woman whose company I enjoy, who I'd like to take to breakfast the next day, even if it means I don't want to date her.

Most people of either gender really do want sex, not for the physical release, but for some form of intimacy that indicates their partner is sleeping with them for who they are as a person and the general happiness the interaction gives them, not their sexual happiness specifically. This is especially true within romantic love, but I've found it true after my own one night stands. Someone does not need to be a love interest, but I want to genuinely enjoy the interaction. In that sense, it is not easy for women to get laid any time they want. If they want to be with someone, regardless of relationship potential, who makes the time they spend getting fucked contribute to their happiness in general (meaning they actually enjoy the person).

I think most men delude themselves too...they fuck because at some level, they want intimacy. Intimacy is the need, not sex. This does not mean love, but it means connecting on a level that the other person is effectively saying "I am fucking you because you as a person make this experience enjoyable in general, sexually in specific."

The Bee

Is it a good thing that I want to learn how to have sex without emotion? Or maybe just learn how to have sex without falling for the person. I hate the idea of fucking. I hate the idea of being fucked. Maybe I'm too young to appreciate it.


It really is beyond embarassment. Of course we are the same... on a time line. COME ON !! we leave off when the other stops - gender regardless COME ON (in best Arrested Development parlance)lovely rhetoric and the Sophist I never was called out...No No No. Lay down and I will find in you a new city ...or an STD or everything I live for..or a penis when I am girl or a raping when i am boy or a master when you are slave or a...taller girl when you are short or small girl when you are basketball tall or a....woman who chooses or I man whose is chosen or...or RHETORIC be damned.

It is beyond argument (but I love the argumet as foreplay and as a man i am sure I could get laid a least as much as some of the women I hve had the pleasure of having spent time with),

I think I am Faulkner (tonight) I love your Pretty Dumb Things.)

Paul Davis

Sorry, CG, this is way too long. I just don't have the mental bandwidth to run my own blog, so from time to time, i hijack yours ;)

"The Tom Brady ...." wrote that most men delude themselves (and i paraphrase) into thinking that they want sex and not intimacy. I agree most wholeheartedly with this (and i think its a massive defect in the way we generally raise our sons as a society), but at the same time ... it occurs to me that one of the central things that CG's blog entry is about is really the *ease* of having sex without any experience of intimacy. i suspect that men (as a generalization) find this easier to do than women, although i also suspect that this varies quite dramatically with age.

CG as usual hits the nail on the head with a kind of fractal precision when she writes "Sure, I could have picked up any guy, but I didn’t want to pick up any guy. I wanted someone to ask me out, someone to take an interest in me, someone who wanted to fuck me enough to try. And no one did. It wasn’t easy for me to get laid, and maybe it was because I had standards, but really, who doesn’t?" Again, reinforcing my comment on TB's comment above, isn't the point that there are differences in the extent to which "standards" matter, and that speaking in generalizations, women's standards matter more to them than the ones held by men?

my last point is hopelessly anecdotal, but for me no less powerful because of it (of course!). the two great loves of my life have both been women for whom sex has been a burning passion and an intensely vital part of their lives. yet after 10 years with one of them, and now nearly 7 with the other, it has become genuinely apparent to me, and confirmed by them in conversation, that their experience of sex really *is* different from my own. but this is where i cringe: the closer i get to 50, the more real that old saw becomes: "men do emotional attachment to get sex, women do sex to get emotional attachment". i want to fight this platitude, this absurd generalization, this grotesque charicature of the human condition. but you know what? it just keeps getting more and more real, no matter how i fight it. some days, it becomes more real *because* i fight it.

so i find myself giving in. i mentally position the red hot younger women who make promiscuity seem like candy to be the exceptions that prove the rule. the older women who still feel a fire in the belly and below (and above) join their younger sisters inside my head in their exception-making hotness. but even with the exceptions in place, it still *looks* very much like a world in which women are trying to find love by offering sex, and men are in search of sex by promising love.

when i see (or imagine) young women in bars trying to pick up men (and presumably having a relatively easy time of it), i feel sad. the testosterone driven part of wants to believe that they, like the men at the other end of the bar, just have this overwhelming urge to fuck, and some lucky guys are going to be beneficiary of their drive. but then i try to get past my own male pre-occupation with their physical hotness and apparent sexual availability, what i imagine is really happening are women in search of someone to put their arm around, someone to talk about the morning news, or their fears, their dreams, to share an omelette with, to see that movie .. and more. and CG, this is *not* the "nice girls don't" meme. if you have to call it something, make it the "hot girls are never entirely sure why they do" meme. but for me the saddest part of all, as TB alluded to, is that in all likelihood, the men want just the same if they could only get past their own socially-constructed conception of themselves as fucking (rather than feeling) machines.

closing: i remember hearing this great sex education guy on the radio once talking a bunch of high schoolers or maybe college kids. "guys! the girls all want to fuck you too! but you have to remember that the consequences for them are bit more real and potentially a bit more severe. if you can show them that you understand this, and i mean *really* understand this, you'll be much more likely to be beneficiary of their desire".

The Tom Brady of Oceanography

Paul Davis,

right on, but that is part of CG's point. Men can and do get emotionally attached to sex. Sometimes heartbreakingly so. My ex dumped me out of the blue, I asked for space FOUR TIMES, and in response she said "but would you be willing to be friends with benefits?" It devastated me because I was in love. I expressed anger and called her the selfish whore she was and mutual friends chose her, because "as a guy, why would that even upset you? It was a compliment."

Men may be more capable of separating sex from emotions, but many more are attached than are credited, and one of the reasons they act douchey sometimes is that they can't handle the intimacy sex brings if they don't really really like the girl. It's too intimate, so they are jerks or fail to call or whatever.

It is too general to say "men can separate sex from emotions" and it is too general to say "women have it easier." Everybody wants to get fucked, but the reasons are beyond orgasms most of the time. I am guilty of bringing home a girl who I'd rather leave the side door of the apartment than meet my roommates. Afterwards, I was not feeling "hells yeah, I got laid. I needed that." I was thinking "nothing has changed. I still want to get laid to someone I like."

marx marvelous

Chelsea Girl, Foucalt never made it all sound so tasty.


Chelsea, I can't speak to the woman's side of the equation, so I won't opine on who has it easier than whom. However, I would like to respond to your "What keeps [men] from starting at the top of the hierarchy of attraction and moving down their own particular gradation from highly desirable to acceptable to unfuckable and finding a woman, some woman, to fuck them?"

And the answer, in my experience, is the very no-saying phenomenon you dispute. For a lot of men, the experimental result is that all the women say no. I have known guys who (for reasons that were generally pretty obvious) literally could not find someone. There simply weren't any women in reasonable commute range with standards that low.

For you to believe otherwise strikes me as (possibly) the result of an over-generalization of your own. Are you open to the possibility that you may be falsely assuming your own experience as a women is more generally shared by men and women alike?

chelsea g


And I have known women who literally couldn't find a man to fuck. Maybe not here in New York City, but up in Vermont, where I grew up. Maybe the women weren't conventionally attractive, or maybe they weren't young, or maybe they weren't able to connect with other people for whatever reason, but their experience was total sex gulag.

I grant, as I did in the piece, that culturally women can, if they want to throw caution and other factors to the wind, have an easier time of it. I'm merely suggesting that perhaps this hoary chestnut, along with other generalizations, needs to be scrutinized and retired.

chelsea g


From a supply and demand point of view: The majority of sex workers are women. Since the majority of these women's customers are men wouldn't it stand to reason that the supply for these customers is not sufficient to meet the demand without purchasing it.

In other words, the ladies of the world aren't giving it away!

It really is a matter of standards, and face it, men's standards for a one night sex partner are lower than women's. Of course that too is a generalization, a friend of mine has reverse beer goggles when he begins to drink. The more he drinks, the more attractive the woman needs to be. Consequently, he sleeps alone most nights.

chelsea g

Sure, Walden, and I suppose the facts that men historically have had economic superiority, or the fact that women fear rape, or the fact that women are castigated for desiring meaningless sex, or that biologically men are not always able to have sex have nothing to do whatsoever with the supply/demand prostitution ratio that you point out.

And while I'm on the ranty subject, Eli Cross, I had no idea that you all in silicone valley were making documentaries. I guess you're right: the more I think about it, real life is exactly like porn.

chelsea g



I read this post and heartily agreed with most of it. In fact, I ache with the veritability of it all. And then I serendipitously found this article: http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf

And I found paragraph 2 under "Two Utopias" to be undeniably biologically accurate-- and also fairly effectively contradicting what I know to be (in practice, anyway) true-- all the trials and tribulations you've covered above, about mating and selectivity from the perspective of an attractive women. So, I write to ask, what think you of the above article?


tom paine

The reasons are very interesting, but the math tells it all: go to any swinger site, dating site, any venue where people are looking for sex, and for the most part, the ratio of males to females is waaaay off. There are, I'm sure, many, many interesting reasons for this, and I'm also sure there are cultural stereotypes and generalizations galore. But the BOTTOM LINE is that men propose (sexually-speaking) and women dispose (to borrow the old quote about man and God).


Chelsea, now I'm more than a little confused. If you grant that women can "have an easier time of it", than how is it a chestnut (an old or stale joke) that should be retired? Are you arguing for us to stop saying something that's true?

The thing is, I've known men and you've known women who can't get laid, at all. Fair enough. That demolishes the absolute form of the claim you are attacking ("women can always get laid") but it similarly undermines your suggestion that men, too, could always get laid if they would but lower their standards the way women have to.

I'd say neither one of these "always" claims is true. Logically speaking, that's because they are "absolute" claims, not because they are generalizations. In the real world, absolute claims about the human situation are almost always false.

But when you soften the absolute claims into generalizations ("women can almost always get laid if they lower their standards", or your competing "men can almost always get laid if they would, too") there's room for discussion.

My own male sense is that the first generalization is closer to being broadly true than the second one is. Your willingness to grant that women can have an easier time of it suggests we aren't far apart in disagreement. To the extent we remain apart, I'll stand by my experiential guns: not being able to find a willing woman, any willing woman (standards not entering into it because the little head is in control tonight), is a normal and common part of male experience. I haven't heard you make a similarly strong claim on behalf of women.


P.S. There are MANY aspects of the article I linked with which I do NOT agree, for the record-- but, the disparity between quantities of ova in the world and quantities of spermatozoa in the world are, well, interesting to say the least.


Well, Walden's point about supply & demand and the fact that prostitution has the same pattern in every known human society (and apparently in some non-human primate ones)independant of other social and cultural factors and successfuly resists attempts to eradicate it, does point to a fundamental asymmetry that results in an economy of scarcity for men, but not for women. You mention some of the likely reasons for the asymmetry and some of the responses -- the existence of prostitution is probably best explained as a response as is the castigation of women for desiring meaningless sex -- but those don't necessarily mean the asymmetry is balanced out.

All generalizations are false at the edges, and this one is rather bitchy to boot, yet it merely reflects the imbittered perception of an underlying reality. An accurate desciption of that reality would be long and couched in terms of probabilities and distributions, but it wouldn't do much to redress the issue, resolve the tensions, or give comfort to the men who make up the large majority of the people who are on the wrong side of it.

Linda Sue

It is a hard thing, no question.
In my experience, especially when I was younger, I could go to a bar and get laid. I learned I never had to spend an evening alone. And that sounds very powerful to many men, especially male friends I have had who were bookish and lacking social charms, and couldn't have gotten laid if they would have spent a year in bars. (To be fair, a few handsome, charming men do have this ability).

Unfortunately, most women don't want "only" that. We want more, from particular looks to special charm, grace, accomplishments, chemistry, a sense there might be some potential. We worry more about the complications and dangers of one-night stands (although, goodness knows, lots of us have played with fire).

So for many men (shameful generalization), just getting laid, just the sexual release, even with a dumb, average-looking, or worse, woman, is this unimaginable power. They wish they had it. An average-looking-or-better woman does. But it doesn't mean as much to her.

Life is unfair.


A great post! As a male, I can agree with your premise that there is a hierarchy to the "fuckable" potential partners. Excluding some chemical clouding ones judgment (everyone looks good at closing time), one does classify the potential "fuckees". I agree with many of the commenter's, in that once past the teen years, I wanted to have some emotional connection. If this connection was not present, I might as well have masturbated for all real satisfaction that I achieved. I believe this is a corollary to the fact that yes, with a pussy you can get laid any time, but.... I have been with the same woman now for just short of 20 years, and I believe in our relationship that the pussy and the penis have equal importance and that makes the relationship great!


I really don't want to get into a deep argument here, because, like, this is just not the place. But I did have several reactions to the original post by CG & the some of the comments. Just a fascinating sort of commentary actually.

1.) CG says "it just isn’t true in the sack. When it comes to sex, all men are not created equal. Some are highly desirable. Many are acceptable. But most are unfuckable".

Let's accept this as a given, and the counter claims for women.

Let's put some numbers on it shall we? Let's suggest that perhaps easily 1/2 to 2/3's of the 'normal population' trundling along on your average street in Des Moines say is, unfortunately tagged as 'UNFK' (Vs. UNHCR or UNIFIL). Let's also assert that this also has a limited relationship to if or whether these tragic pools of sad 'UNFKs' are indeed Married. Because as we know mating & marriage need not rely at all on 'fine performance points' or if Charlie has a wonder weiner, or if Kathy can deep throat like the pro's and look sweet while doing so. It would be perfectly nice if this were possible or likely, but often, it's just not in the cards, as CG noted.

No health statistics tell a wildly different tale. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and that's typically cited as an 'under estimate'. Many of these conceptions brought forth to birth will live to see their parents divorce or never marry. So despite being well neigh 'UNFK', there's still lots of action going on out there. And of course not to put a fine point on it, but the stupid & ugly are spreading, both never being any bar to procreating. Or even enjoying life as completely fu*ked 'UNFKs'.

2.) Now truth be told there are some fine biological mathematical models for all this too. Both on a macro & micro level, and from what we know about Primates, it's the female choice that proves to be most decisive in mate selection. Now of course Human Culture has intervened here, and the typical reaction against female choice of all kinds has been male domination & attempts at control. But if we're strictly talking the biology of mate selection here, the most current research will show that the most powerful director of future genetic diversity in any interbreeding community is female choice over long periods of time.

3.) Still we do have many enduring 'double standards' with regards to sex & marriage, some of which obviously date back many 100's of years. But the 'ethos' has been evolving right along with cultural developments too, it's certainly not static. So there are many Berlin walls, and there are many venues where they've never heard of Berlin, and they've got their own & different walls. Some venues having more or less than others.

4.) My bottom line here is that sometimes the completely & very highly desirable men & women are wholly unsuited for Marriage & child rearing. Which is something always worth considering. We sometimes force them into such arrangements at our peril & disappointment.

Cheers & I hope that may help some. Good Luck, 'VJ'


Didn't the choice of the words 'abnegating self denial' connote, or perhaps even expressly state, that you could fuck anytime you wanted but that you had chosen not to? If you can't fuck anytime you want, there's no 'self denial'. It could be, just as you described, nobody worth having has come around. In that case, there's no 'self denial.' On the other hand, since a guy of average attraction never has a moment when he must 'choose' whether to fuck, he'll never understand the concept.
That's all.

Miss Syl

But when you soften the absolute claims into generalizations ("women can almost always get laid if they lower their standards", or your competing "men can almost always get laid if they would, too") there's room for discussion.

I think, unless I'm misunderstanding the original post, the issue at question is not whether either gender can find someone to fuck if they lower their standards, but that there's a question of if anyone is fully lowering their standards just to find "something" to fuck. And given that question, if this indicates that women are being chastised for their standards and being told to "stop whining" while men, operating under their own set of standards, are being told "they have it hard (much harder than women)--and women are keeping them from their rightful enjoyment of sex."

not being able to find a willing woman, any willing woman (standards not entering into it because the little head is in control tonight), is a normal and common part of male experience

I've yet to find a man who doesn't have some threshold of standard. That a man may choose to fuck someone who is not model-beautiful or not someone he is 100% into personality-wise is not the same as "not having a standard." I challenge you to find a guy who could honestly hold that his "little head is in control" so completely that he'd stick his dick into anything, just to get laid.

Both men and women have standards, all of them different by individual, and both men and women don't end up getting laid at the end of the night because they choose to adhere to them. Or because no one of the lowest rung of standard they'd go to showed up.

Anyway, Chelsea, to me it seems there's a lot of stuff operating underneath this generalization, most of it designed to put women in some kind of weird, inescapable condemnation trap.

It would seem by saying, "Any woman could get laid if she wanted to (if she simply lowered her standards)," we're being told, "you should be more like men (just have no standards, like SOME men are SAID to have, and then you'd get laid)." And yet, here we are being told by the men repeatedly in these comments that having no standards STILL doesn't get you laid, because you may run into a night where everyone thinks YOU'RE too low standard for them.

The whole argument smacks familiarly of that old marriage myth that if a woman hasn't found a man by age X, then she's defective. It's never the fault of the pool of men, is it? Because if she'd looked harder, or just not cared so much if he was an asshole or abusive or what have you, she'd be married and respectable by now. "Just shut up, lower your standards and tow the societal line, missy, and make it easy for the men." And if she DID that and still no one asked her to marry , it was assumed it was SHE who was the problem--she became the pariah of her sex, not good enough for a man to want, her fate to be pitied and used as an avoidance lesson for others. In any case, she didn't get to win. It was always her fault if she was mateless.

In the same way, if it was actually true that any woman could get laid if she wanted to--then it follows by that twisted logic that if she ISN'T getting laid, she's either "too picky" (high standards) or COMPLETELY deficient because despite having no standards, she's still not wanted by standardless men. Either option is designed to try to make her feel badly about herself and her choices. Either way, it's always the woman's fault.


Yes, yes, yes. This is the best post evah, except for most of CG's other posts.

"But the BOTTOM LINE is that men propose (sexually-speaking) and women dispose . . ."

Oh GIVE it up. Lots of men play just as confusing-to-get as women do, at least, when they aren't in bars. In my 30s, when I couldn't for the life of me seem to get laid, I asked guys I knew out for drinks, dinner, coffee. I TRIED. I did not say, "Will you have sex with me?" and I did not mean, "I want to date and marry you"--I just wanted to hook up. Perhaps I should have simply said that. In any case, no dice, even after I went down the ladder of what I considered "fuckability." (And yes, pizza guy, I hit the point where jerking off was preferrable to a jerk. Maybe women are the only ones who feel like that, but I doubt it.)

I was EXPERIENCING no as much as any guy. All of my female friends have had the same experiences of no, in different and more blatant variations. We wanted to fuck, we asked, and we got refused. A rejection is a rejection is still a rejection.

The most eye-opening thing CG said, to my mind, was about the safety factor of bar-trawling. Whether the fear of rape is something women blow out of proportion, I don't know, but it's what makes me shoot down a guy in a bar, and it's what makes me pass the NSA adds on singles sites by. When I was looking, I wanted to fuck a known quantity--someone who felt accountable. So to the extent all the above comments are describing a "stereotype," a "generalization," or something that seems to have "math" behind it, any numerical difference is something I'd put it down to the factors CG mentions. (For those paying attention--if you're into generalizations, you could just as easily say that men "control" women's sexual safety as that women "control" access to sex. Depends on your perspective, don't it?)

All-in-all, it seems to me the whole "women control sexuality" thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you approach anyone thinking that that person has the power to give you what you are oh-so-desperately looking for, you're already at a disadvantage. If you walk through life thinking you have something to give, rather than something you need to get, things tend to work out a bit better.


"I wanted someone to ask me out..."

Well, thar's yer problem! Of course, you can't be equal without acting equal.

It might not be politically correct or particularly palatable but men have more sex drive than women. For one thing, they have (on average) ten times as much free testosterone. That's the small percentage of testosterone running around in our bodies that stimulates the libido (among many other things).

While there's clearly more to it than that (progesterone in women, for instance), it's a big factor. Think about a time when you were overwhelmingly horny. Now multiply that times ten. Now, have you got a clear idea what it's like to be a man?

There's a huge range within each sex, of course, but it's still a fact of life that there is a biological imperative at work.

There are also the cultural factors, obviously. Culturally, in this country, women have been given a cultural imperative that may be even stronger than the biological one. That's changed so much in my lifetime, but it's still true that many people think women should be more restrained about sex. I'm of the other opinion--women should be as free as men to explore their sexuality. (I've helped a number of them....)

You may (indeed will) run into resistance if you try to get equality in the sexual realm, but I applaud you for trying. I don't think you will find that either society or biology supports you, but they aren't insuperable problems. Especially, I've heard, in New York.


Upon further reflection we can also surmise that many of those highly desirable Looking prospects of both sexes may not indeed turn out to be all that 'Fuckable' when tested or tried. Again this is not all that uncommon, as is the reverse situation. The 'Plain Jane' or Ugly Bob who in fact is quite the decent performers, and geting plenty of return engagements, if only tried first. So it's very hard to tell, until it's been tested in various ways & venues. And of course there's the confounding factor that some may indeed Improve with age (yes, on balance again women seem to come out ahead here), and some decline or lose interest with age, (which can & does affect both sexes).

But I was reminded about this when reading the Independent story of a storied NY couple. Meet the 'fuckables!': [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3223695.ece]

Dec. 5, 07:

"Sex, drugs & big bucks: the murder that shocked Manhattan
By David Usborne
Published: 05 December 2007

Seth Tobias had surely made his parents in Philadelphia proud. After landing a job on Wall Street fresh out of university, he rose quickly to found his own hedge-fund company called Circle T. He had fancy homes in New York, New Jersey and Florida, a beautiful wife and more money than they could have spent in a lifetime. He had even become a star commentator on a financial television channel."...

Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'

The Cook

Chris Rock said it: "Women control all the pussy in the world."

We're talking about generalizations here, and in general men are less discerning than women about who they will sleep with. In general, men will eat bad pizza rather than no pizza. In general, a guy who goes to a bar hoping to get laid will take what he can get within the limits of what he finds attractive and will not use as good judgment as a woman will in making the same decision.
There are always exceptions.

There's also some truth that many men are intimidated about approaching really hot women. I've heard models and other hot women complain about that and it makes sense. That may have contributed to your lack of action.


Yeah, when was the last time a fat MAN was compared to a moped by a WOMAN?
Surley you know the joke.

Guys will stick their dicks in anything (ask any emergency room nurse) if they think no one else will find out. The fuckability of a woman is measured by the desperation of the man, plus the level of inebriation, multiplied by the chances of avoiding her forever after he gets his rocks off, especially if he might get blown.

This argument you pose is not about which gender stands the lower chance of getting laid, but who has the higher chance of retaining a lover once they have had sex, and that, unfortunately, is mu. No matter how hot someone is, there is always someone somewhere who is sick of their shit...


wow, lots of comments here. too many to read. i guess a sex blog gets lots of people commenting.

you are wrong. you could not possibly be more wrong. there was this experiment done recently where a woman went around a college campus and asked men at random if they'd want to go back to her place and fuck. a majority said yes. it's surprising to me that they did not all say yes. a man went around the same place and asked the same question to women. they ALL said no.

women use sex. men just have sex.


"we get called “slut” faster than you can slide on a condom"

that is not true. i heard a long time ago that "a whore is someone who will fuck anyone except for you" and since that time i've almost magically denied myself that word.


Historically, women do have higher standards about which men they choose to sleep with. This phenomenon has everything to do with the different consequences of sex for men and for women. While both sexes experience an urge to procreate and to reproduce, the male bears considerably less responsibility for the pregnancy, birthing, and childrearing. It is in the woman's interest to look for signs that her partner is not only committed to her but willing to provide for her. For men, the historical consequences of a fling or one-night stand were (and still are) much less.

Of course, reliable birth control in the modern era has complicated this model quite a bit. However, I think it's probably still fair to say that women continue to be choosier about casual sex than men. I think there is an important distinction between casual sex and sex in the context of relationship-seeking that has been missing from this dialogue. Men might (or might not) be just as choosy about the women they date and marry, but they risk much less when they engage in short-term sexual relationships. Perhaps women's choosiness is somehow in our biology, reflecting the burdens of child-rearing. Or perhaps there are other consequences of casual sex for women that remain just as looming as ever (e.g. scorn, violence, rape). Whether or not women, when engaging in casual sex, would be less picky if not for these factors: who knows?

The comments to this entry are closed.