‘Cheap Sex,’ our lives, our politics

Like I said, this book is good to read. In the article, the best sentence is, “The fuckboy lifestyle — in which a man can be basically worthless yet sexually successful — was simply not viable.” Absolutely. And men are still adjusting, psychologically, emotionally, and culturally to this shift. Women, especially young hot ones, now value sexual and sensual pleasure more than world-building and income. Every guy has seen some hot chick not just fuck but obsess over a degenerate guy. Then the guy thinks, “What is the degenerate doing that I’m not?”

Guys who follow that thought far enough find game.

The author neglects to make clear that sex is “cheap” for the top 20 or 25% of guys. It’s still very expensive for all the other guys. Those other guys are forced to watch porn, be celibate, cling futilely to their one-itis, become extremely wealthy, become famous, or learn game. In my view only that last one is practical for the vast majority of men.

When a man truly realizes sex is cheap, everything about him changes. “Cheap sex” is another phrase for “abundance mentality.” But when a man has abundance, it’s not just a mentality. It’s his life.

Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy

Mark Regnerus says, “My central claim in this book is that cheap sex is plentiful—that it’s flooding the market in sex and relationships—and that this has had profound influence on how American men and women relate to each other.” Yeah, he’s right, for the very top guys. Top 20% probably. The other guys are playing videogames and bitching on the Internet. Game is so important because the top guys are getting the sex. If you don’t learn game and you’re not a natural, all the other guys are going to be getting laid and you’re going to be whining instead of learning. It must be dispiriting to be the average guy reading about all the sex other guys are having and not having it himself. The average guy is too lazy to turn his frustration into action,  so he keeps sitting on the couch, while the guys who use frustration to propel themselves into action start getting laid.

The book is based around the myth that there’s this sexual cornucopia out there for guys. Imagine a castle with the local aristocracy in it, and a beautiful buffet for everyone to eat as much as they’d like, but the castle is surrounded by the majority of the population, which consists of peasants living in hovels. That’s what the sexual marketplace is like. Yeah, I’ve enjoyed the sexual cornucopia, by learning game, and by accessing the swinger and open-relationship worlds. But access isn’t free and it isn’t that easy for the vast majority of guys. If it were, the game world wouldn’t be blowing up like it is.

Most women are unsatisfied too, because guys have left their masculine identities behind. I used to think women were just lying whiners, but now that I’ve learned enough game to evaluate guys the way women do, I see their point. Sleeping with a fat or skinny-fat video game player who is unemployed or underemployed can’t be much fun for most women, even women who are themselves fat or skinny fat. Women are unsatisfied because guys are unsatisfying. Men learning game makes women happier too. They want to be seduced but most men are too inept to bother learning how to do it. Mastering seduction isn’t easy, but relative to many things humans accomplish, it isn’t that hard.

Guys who aren’t red pill and getting laid are going to get angry reading the book. One Regnerus interviewee, Sarah, says, “I meet people in strange places. . . . It just happens.” From her perspective I bet she’s being honest, but she means that she takes zero responsibility for her decisions and she also only responds to what men offer her. Only the boldest and most game-trained men open a lot of strangers, so she’s naturally selecting for guys who are in it for sex. Kinda stupid if you think about it, right? But she doesn’t, or doesn’t critically, kind of like how fat guys playing video games wonder why they get no tail.

Individual responsibility is the basis of achievement. Sarah gets around to fucking “David, a musician who seemed more committed to making it in the industry than to making it work with her.” No shit. Musicians don’t want long-term relationships, and music is an almost purely mating call signal with little long-term economic viability.

Guys who do music are specializing in casual sex. I recommend that guys work to specialize in casual sex: hit the gym, don’t eat sugar, learn game, rather than civilization-building: get a job, maximize income via long work hours, etc. Guys need some minimum viable amount of money, but the rest is game.

Regnerus also cites a precursor book, Anthony Giddens’s The Transformation of Intimacy, and in that book Giddens predicts how the

achievement of reciprocal sexual pleasure [becomes] a key element in whether the relationship is sustained or dissolved. The cultivation of sexual skills, the capability of giving and experiencing sexual satisfaction, on the part of both sexes, [has] become organizad reflexively via a multitude of sources of sexual information, advice and training.

Couldn’t agree more. Guys need to develop sexual skills, because women will not tolerate sexually incompetent men over the long term. I’ve asked women in bed why they ended up breaking up or ditching previous guys, and the answer is often “he is bad at sex.” Or “he doesn’t excite me,” which is usually the same thing. Women would rather be with an exciting deadbeat who gets them off than a boring office guy who doesn’t. If she keeps getting off she’ll keep coming back. She wants to be taken to a sex shop, pick out some toys, and then have you use them on her. The first time a woman gets off with a plug in the back and a man in her front, she often thinks she’s seen God. Doesn’t matter that it’s a physiological illusion. You want her to think you’re Jesus. Cultivate your sexual skills. Great lovers are made much more than they’re born.

Regnerus says, “Opportunistic men are pressing women to operate more like men by privileging the physical over all other traits, and women—to mate at all—feel like they must play along.” He means, “women, to mate with the highest-value men, feel like they must play along.” Plus, a lot of women bring zero skills to their relationships. I’ve met a million slovenly women with no cooking skills who literally bring no concrete skills to the relationship apart from sex. If all they bring is sex, then yeah, guys are going to evaluate them on looks.

I’ve literally had this conversation with exes who bring up the ultimatum: move in or I’m moving on. And when I say I won’t live with a woman, they want to know why, and I ask, “What skills do you bring to this relationship?” They’re confused and then I point out to them that I’m a better cook, I make more money than they do, and I have better mechanical skills than they do. So what are they going to do to make my life and our household better? What gains from trade are we going to reap?

Then they start crying and I feel bad about making them cry.

We break up anyway.

Women won’t stay in uncommitted relationships for more than two years. Usually much shorter than that. Personally I’m happy to make them my official girlfriend as long as they’re willing to do swinging and non-monogamy, which, as I’ve said before, are underrated for top 20% RP guys.

Women want guys who make more money than they do, but if you’re a guy who makes more money you are also putting a lot of it at risk: “Women are far more likely to want out of their marriages than men. Among divorcees, 55 percent of women said they wanted their marriages to end more than their spouses, while only 29 percent of men reported the same.” So there’s a paradox: guys who want to marry often can’t because women won’t take their broke selves, while guys who don’t want to marry because they have too much to lose are often most sought by women.

Don’t get married. I’ve said it a million times before and will keep saying it till guys wise up. If you absolutely must must must must get married, do it after age 35 and after at least 50+ partners. Otherwise you just don’t know women. You might think you know women, but you don’t. When I was 21 I was like, “I’m such a stud, I’ve banged chicks, I know it all.”

I didn’t know shit.

I still don’t know that much. But from talking to a lot of guys, it’s apparent that I know more than the average guy. Which isn’t very much.

There is much more to this book than I’ve written here and I recommend it to all guys who want a better view of what’s happening. Regnerus doesn’t go all the way RP but he’s damned close.

Sociologist Mark Regnerus: ‘Cheap sex’ is making men give up on marriage

“Cheap sex is making men give up on marriage” is the article, and it should not surprise most guys reading here who have followed the community over the last couple years. His book is Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy.

In today’s dating market men can specialize in being the guy girls want to f**k or the guy they think they should want to marry. Or, more realistically, neither, but let’s ignore the guys who can’t specialize in either for now. It is of course possible to do both but trade offs exist in the real world, and most guys are better off specializing in being the f**k boy.

While women bemoan the lack “eligible” men, they mean that they want a guy who can f**k all the girls he wants but for some reason her magical pussy makes him monogamous to her and makes him want to transfer lots of financial and other resources to her, with basically nothing in return. Top guys are waking up to how terrible a deal this is. If one woman walks, she’ll be replaced by another. Guys who know they can get laid live a very different life from guys who can’t.

Stated like that, the situation obviously makes no sense.

The only way to judge who and what women actually want is to look at who they fuck. Smart guys hit the gym, up their style, and learn game. Dumb guys bemoan their “fate.”

My last bunch of relationships ended after three to twenty-four months when the woman wanted a timeline for cohabitation or eventually marriage, and I refused. Very few women will be long-term fuck buddies or even girlfriends without a timeline for cohabitation. That can yield a Groundhog-day quality to relationships, but in my experience that is much better than the situation some find.

In the article, the author doesn’t even attempt to ask himself what legal structures might make men wary of marriage:

This ratio, he says, keeps ultimate relationship power in the hands of men. “To plenty of women, it appears that men have a fear of commitment. But men, on average, are not afraid of commitment,” Regnerus writes.

“The story is that men are in the driver’s seat in the marriage market and are optimally positioned to navigate it in a way that privileges their (sexual) interests and preferences. It need not even be conscious behavior on their part.”

Or maybe men have learned from their fathers and uncles and friends that any time a woman wants to, she can divorce him and take half his assets. If they have kids she can use the violence of the state to compel him to disgorge money to her for 18 – 24 years. So why would any man sign up for that shit? Answer: he won’t.

Can cheap sex make you give up on marriage?

Guys don’t want to give up prime women.