G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Because women have relaxed their sexual standards and because the sexual market has become laissez-faire allowing the invisible hand to “finger out” the marketplace, men have developed an entitled attitude towards sex. Humans regularly display a self-assessment bias where a majority think that they are better than average (80% of people think they are above average intelligence). The male subset of humans is no different in their fallacious conclusions. Since women give up sex easier than they used to and because men think that they are at least as deserving as the men who are actually getting it, they develop a “why not me” attitude when they are relegated to sexual Siberia.
Because it has turned society on its ear, feminism and sexual liberation have created a logical dilemma for men; they would prefer to uphold the ideal of marriage, monogamy, and sexual socialism, yet they want to engage in easy-peasy sex with a woman who meets their attractiveness threshold. When they don’t get what they expect even though they abhor the thought of such behavior for the rest of the men in society, they get angry. But these two positions are incompatible.
Sexual Socialism: Haves versus Have-Nots
Humans align on a social hierarchy that basically determines their sexual attractiveness. While the middle portions of this hierarchy can become convoluted the general timbre of this concept is that there are men at the top who control their sexual destiny while there are men at the bottom who control their sexual destiny only insofar as they control which hand they jack off with and which porn sites they subscribe to. In other words, by nature, there are haves and there are have-nots.
This is an important point to harp on as it is at the root of all social disenchantment from affirmative action policies to gender-neutrality to disparate sexual experiences among males. Like most face-offs between haves and have-nots, the position of the have-nots supports socialist mechanisms in order to keep up with the Jones’ as they say. We see this argument in economics all the time. In particular, advocates for welfare and entitlement programs complain that the wealth gap is continually growing – the poor are getting poorer. But this is patently untrue; the poor are getting richer if rich is defined as “having more stuff”. It’s just that the rich are getting even more rich; they are getting even more stuff. But by historical standards, the economically impoverished are wealthy. They have TVs, cars, cell phones, and travel further distances and see more things than even the wealthiest people of past eras. But financial economics much as sexual economics – and empowerment through it – is all about relativity in the have-nots’ eyes. The have-nots’ ammunition and their power is gleaned from convincing us that life should be fair when we all know that it is not.
Male Entitlement Exists Even Under Female Hypergamy
The current sexual regime is monogamy with a tendency towards female hypergamy. Now, men have to make their sexual choices within this type of regime. The male hierarchy which allocates mate/date pairings has ostensibly adapted to the current sexual regime that has existed for over 30 years now. Most men in the mating/dating market have existed under this type of regime; this implies that our nakedly rational expectations – without cultural influences – would have shifted in order to form a sexual market equilibrium. In other words, mens’ sexual tastes and preferences should have shifted to account for their true-to-life options. If they haven’t aligned over time, there is some barrier – which I’m calling entitlement – standing in the way.
Female hypergamy has this effect: it slices off a portion of the bottom end of the male spectrum of the sexual attractiveness hierarchy. Male 1s, 2s, and 3s – the omegas of the bunch – are virtually eunuchs. They are the worker bees or the compost heap of humanity depending on how much you want to sugar-coat their precarious situation. But this is how it has been for most of human history. If we have 100 men and 100 women, 10% (the hierarchy is not a uniform distribution) of men don’t factor in to the sexual marketplace. The other 90 men become distributed across the 100 women; the attractiveness scale adjusts to where the distance between the highest ranking male and second-highest male is greater than that for the women. From this point on, after the omega males who have always existed have been dealt with, men and women pair up in accordance with their own ratings i.e. male 7s pair up with female 7s.
Because beta males could find mates – if they wanted to – their entitlement lies in their refusal to settle. When I say that men feel entitled, part of my argument rests on the feeling that men don’t accept the women who will accept them. To these men, because of untethered female hypergamy female 6s go after male 7.5s and get them. Since the inverse of this would have to be true – male 7.5s can only get female 6s and below – entitled men feel that they are “falling through the cracks of the new sexual marketplace”. But I maintain there are barriers to falling through these cracks – chubby womens’ bellies provide one such remedy.
A man’s attraction to a woman is based on several things, and this is where his entitlement comes in to play. Female 3s do have sex with men which implies that men are able to have sex with female 3s – some man is able to stomach the idea of having sex with these 3s. Those men are most likely 3s or 4s themselves who don’t have many other options, but the point is that men are physically capable of maintaining an erection around these women (it won’t be as quality as an erection around a 10, but it will do) if that woman is all they can get. So any man who can’t get an erection around these 3s is suffering from a construct which tells him that he is above banging out 3s. Usually this construct is his own memory of his past sexual dalliances. Perhaps the man is used to getting 5s or he sees men who he thinks he resembles having sex with 7s. When he sees a lot of good-looking women spreading their legs for men he thinks he compares favorably to, he’s naturally going to think that he has been shafted when those very same women aren’t interested in him.
Examples of Entitlement
So what does sexual entitlement actually look like? Entitlement is expressed in different ways. Men show it on the micro-level by having lofty expectations of the women they decide to date, and it is displayed on a more macro level in that men are unwilling to settle for a woman that they should rationally be willing to settle for.
First off, let me say that, in the past, I’ve felt overly entitled to sex. I have developed an attitude that if a woman doesn’t have sex with me soon after I begin wooing her I will stop pursuing her. This entitlement is felt by many men and it stems from our preconceived notion that all women are sexually empowered and that we meet their threshold of “do-ability”. This entitlement is manifest in other ways too. Perhaps we feel that a particularly good-looking woman should prefer us based upon our qualities over the types of guys she usually goes for. If those women don’t like our particular swagger or our look, we call them “bitches” or we impugn their intelligence. In many instances in the Manosphere I’ve witnessed men constructing self-defense mechanisms by which they make the argument that a particular (slutty) woman isn’t worth their time and energy. But we all know that these men would capitulate to this woman’s advances at the drop of a hat.
There is also a sense of entitlement in the complaints men have about the women available to them. A large enough number of men complain that they don’t want to date fatties and ugly women, but the truth is, those women are the only viable options for these men. The title of my post sums it up: Alpha Dreams and Beta Genes. Most men have beta dispositions and lead beta lives, yet they want to score on the same level as alpha males. But as we all know, there is a relatively fixed hierarchy that dictates the distribution of alphas, betas, and omegas through society. Too far gone are the words of wisdom that men in these parts are loathe to utter: “Take what you can get.” If you read any Manosphere comment board, you’d get the impression that most of these men are apex alphas who wouldn’t settle for anything less than an 8. But it would be a huge coincidence if alpha males came together on these comment boards in such high numbers. Chances are that most of us around here would do well to score a 5; while plenty of us would do well to score anything at all.
This attitude was captured in Charlotte Allen’s now famous Weekly Standard article titled “The New Dating Game”. She wrote, regarding Mystery, the Game salesman whose profits are maximized by convincing as many men as possible that they can score 8s,9s, and 10s:
“Mystery advises his readers not to bother with any female who rates lower than a 6…on the 1 to 10 scale, while assuring them that if they follow his advice, they can readily score a “supermodel hot” 10.”
One wonders what Mystery would do if one of his readers was Quasimodo or the Elephant Man. I don’t really need to blather on any more about this point as it has pretty much made itself.
I’ll use my roommate as an example of male entitlement. He is in his late 30s, has had legal problems that involved jail time for a non-violent felony, and he works with me as a waiter. Physically his looks are on par with your average man in his late Thirties. He had a dry-spell for quite a long time which is no surprise given his circumstances. He had a couple of opportunities to bust his slump – one with a slightly chubby 25-year old chick from work with a decent enough face. Even though she rates more attractive than him, my roommate didn’t want to pursue anything because this chick didn’t get him amped up enough for him to put in the leg work. She wasn’t hot enough for him to put forth any effort to ask her out, go out with her, or even have sex with her. So instead of doing something about his problem – his perpetually unsatiated horniness – he complained about how there weren’t any hot chicks around for him to bang. I pointed out to him on a couple of occasions that hot chicks don’t grow on trees and they aren’t rationed out to every man like loaves of bread during the Depression (although *that* would be an entitlement program I could get behind). His response was always that he couldn’t force “it”.
George Sodini is another example of male entitlement and the Bolshevekian sexual have-nots who I’m arguing against. Sodini had sex less than 100 times in his life; by the time he commited his murders in his late 40s, he hadn’t had sex in almost 20 years although he seems to have had more than one partner in his life. These facts, on their face and compared to men throughout history, indicate that Sodini was sexually fortunate. Many men in our recent history and in prehistoric times went celibate their whole lives. Research on mitochondrial DNA shows that perhaps only 40% of men who ever existed on this Earth reproduced implying that a lot of men went completely celibate in the olden days. Once again, while he wasn’t sexually rich by any means, Sodini’s error is that he compared his sex life to the sex lives of the men around him and determined that he was sex poor. He went on a rampage against a group of women because the women he wanted in general wouldn’t give it up to him. Sodini saw himself as some ranking – maybe a 4 or a 5 – and saw that he couldn’t get the women he believed a 4 or 5 should get. But if he wanted to and if his market analysis wasn’t out of whack from the male entitlement running rampant in the wake of feminism Sodini could have settled for a female 3. But Sodini decided to go on a rampage and then kill himself rather than settle for this fate. While Sodini’s behavior can never be justified, it would be more understandable if he were part of the omega class who didn’t even have the option to settle. But Sodini pined after young, nubile women who were far outside his grasp. He sought to date women many years younger than himself rather than women in their 40s who may have been happy to date the decent-looking and financially secure gunman.
Porn and Hollywood
Of course, porn and Hollywood imagery plays a role in male sexual entitlement. The real women that strut in front of us usually can’t hold a candle to the women we see on our computer screens; this makes for less desire to pursue them (not just because our libidos are drained but because they don’t meet our threshold of attractiveness). So even when female hypergamy chops off a portion of the male underclass, male porn use does the very same thing to the female underclass. These two opposing vectors balance each other out and – nullifying the distortion of female hypergamy – align the attractiveness ratings of “doable” men and “doable” women.
To say all of this boldly, men need to take stock of the women that seem willing to form relationships with them. By taking a sample of 4 or 5 of these women, a man can figure up his own ranking on the attractiveness scale. If a man is successful with 4s,5s, and 6s, then he is most likely a 5. To pine for 7s and complain when he doesn’t get them is entitlement through and through. If a man gets rejected either women are systematically blamed for it or the particular woman has something wrong with her. The problem is, women have become just as entitled by the sexual revolution as men. This dual-headed entitlement, these two Tectonic sexual forces rubbing up against one another, creates a situation where the only people having sex nowadays are those that meet in bars or those that meet in church. To blame his position on the underlying social structure is to ignore the reality of his situation; he is what he is – if he wants sex he has to take what is available to him. If he chooses to forgo sex because the women available to him aren’t up to snuff, he is left with very little room to complain about anything. Other than his genes. He can complain about his genes if he wants to.