Okay, although I’d read this article quite a while ago on The Spearhead, I hadn’t had the time to post about it until recently. You see the premise which Henry Laasanen states is actually quite illuminating, in my opinion as it appears to me, I think some of his conclusions have been reached due to looking at only one aspect in regards to male and female interactions. One of his conclusions was that men need women more than women need men.
Now, I can see this conclusion making sense if Henry had decided to look ONLY at sex when considering male and female leverage, but unfortunately doing so does both men and women a disservice. To be honest, that statement got my back up, part of the issue with men nowadays is that they believe this myth to be true which is why they accept bullsh!t behavior from women right from the jump. Moreover, it also instills a false sense of superiority in women, which is entirely unjustified. It isn’t true, and I believe that Henry needs to widen his scope in order to assist in facilitating his premise.
Yes, if one looks ONLY at sexual relations, it’s fairly easy to see that women by and large have men over a barrel. No, women may not pursue sex to the level men regularly do and that can be an advantage since that means that women have some leverage over men in this regard. However, men and women do not trade sex in and of itself, there is far more going on than that.
In truth, Henry is making the very same mistake that our friendly neighborhood feminist’s are making, assuming that men and women are far more similar than they really are and basing conclusions on this faulty premise. As I’ve stated in the negotiation; what Henry is forgetting is that women trade sex, (what men want and are willing to pay for) for a man’s resources (what women want and are willing to trade for). You see, both genders are looking out for their own best interests and seeking out the best deal for what they can get. To say that men and women trade in only sex would be like saying that when people are looking for houses, they trade ONLY in real estate, no mortgages, no banks, no money, just a house for a house.
How well would that work?
Women know that men like sex well enough to pay for it, which is why they where able to trade men sex for commitment. It’s due to the value that men place on sexual relations to women that a man may engage in a sex chat with women, but women may not so readily do so themselves. What do they get out of it other than a power trip at the expense of the men they are talking to? However, just as Henry had stated that women don’t engage in that behavior, men also don’t spend billions of dollars a year on their appearance now do they?
Since women don’t value sex in the same way that men do, what is the return on a man investing on his appearance in a manner such as this?
See, when one looks at other aspects of the negotiation, it becomes fairly evident that the old adage that “women need men like fish need a bicycle” is wholly false. Even the tremendous power of the male sex drive can be described akin to a biblical parable, it giveth and it taketh away. Men are VERY willing to pay for sex with attractive women…and women can take advantage of that. However, the downside is that men are VERY willing to pay for sex with attractive women…and women can take advantage of that. That a 30 something businessman maybe willing to spoil a 20 something woman rotten only to shag her, but…this businessman will also be willing to spoil OTHER 20 something women rotten only to shag them when he is 40 something and the initial woman is now 30 something and no longer worth his time.
That is the true nature of women’s sexual power. It isn’t something for men to adapt to, mainly because men don’t have too. Game and/or MGTOW is all a man needs, we simply don’t need women in the same capacity that women need us. There will always be a younger/hotter woman and when one considers what both genders bring to the table in the negotiation, the ‘women don’t need men myth’ is busted pretty handily. The world would change tomorrow if more men realized the truth about their own power and leverage. In fact, Emma the Emo had a comment, which I think, really hit the nail on the head;
Furthermore, another issue I had with Henry’s article was the fact that yes; he did acknowledge that due to the aggregate investment of men in society, women didn’t need individual men in the same capacity. Once more, by not looking at a larger picture, he misses out WHY men invest in society in the first place and even realizing that men can opt out if they so choose.
All in all, it was a very interesting article, only that some of the conclusions where in error.