Men are the real romantics. Women just want [good] sex.

It’s interesting to me that men prefer action movies, but feel compelled to romance women. Women on the other hand, love romance movies, but love to watch their men in action. We call men pigs because they want to fuck hot women, but call women romantics because they want to be romanced by men.

Something doesn’t add up. The things we tell each other have become inverted from reality. In light of this, I assert the following theories:

  1. Men are romantic. Women are sexual.

First, the generalization: “Men are obsessed with sex, and women are obsessed with men’s success and just want attention.”

This has been used interchangeably with “Men trade romance in exchange for sex, and women trade sex in exchange for romance.”

Both of these things are true.

…but they are incompletely true.

There is what a man and woman is aroused by, and then there is the state of being of the man and woman itself.

Men are aroused by the physical sexuality of a woman (evidence: nearly every awkward boner of your youth). However, it is his state of being which brings about the attraction, and thus women love romance — not because romantic gestures are romantic, but because the actions the man takes are symbolic of who he is at the core, and that is what arouses her. Women are aroused by the character and behavior of men.

Men have a biological urge to fuck every sexually attractive hole in a hundred foot radius (man-sluttery), BUT they instinctively know that attraction/sex occurs as a result of their state of being — this state of being expressed in their general behavior (status) and their specific behavior towards women (romance). Thus, in all archetypal hero stories, the focus of the movie is not on the prize (woman), but on the journey towards the prize (achieving the proper state of being).

I’m not going to fully develop the concept of “romance” here, but in this article I’m using it in a broad sense. This includes the full range of actions, all the way from subtle doting and favors bestowed on one woman over all the others, to body language, vocal tonality, assumption of leadership role, roses on the bed, etc.

Women love romance movies — but in the movies themselves, the romantic actor is the man. He’s the one DOING the romantic gestures over which the woman swoons. Women are the objects upon which the romance is being done. Thus, the fantasy of women is for men (who they find attractive) to be romantic towards them. For men, the sexuality of the woman is the thing that arouses him, not the state of being — the state of being is movement towards higher status. Since the state of being is what defines a person, men are the real romantics in this equation, driven mad by lust. For an alternate look, Delicious Tacos has a fantastic piece titled “Fetish.”

  • The state of being for a man is romance
  • The reward of men is the sexuality of a woman (note: it is not JUST sex)

Men who give up the search for a proper state of being often drown themselves in porn, which is the fantasy that women’s sexuality comes without regard for the man’s state of being. It is definitively the reward without the work. “I could fuck her” — and why not? After all, she fucked some other guy she barely knows for a couple thousand dollars. “But that’s not w-” Yes, I know your fantasy isn’t real. That’s the point — that’s why porn broadly exists as a caricature of female sexuality. The real danger of porn isn’t that it ruins your taste in women, the danger is that it allows you to reward yourself for existing in a state of being that is fundamentally unattractive to women. If you’re male and that statement makes you angry, it probably applies to you.

“Why do you hate porn?” What I feel about porn is irrelevant — use it, or don’t. But don’t pretend like it doesn’t have an effect on you. If you repeat an action enough that it becomes habit, the meta-analysis of that habit reveals something about your state of being. In other words…

You are what you do, dipshit.

But porn usage isn’t the point of the article. It’s defining things. Once you define that which is, then you can define that which can be. So: men are romantic, women are sexual. What’s the implication?

2. The “friend zone” occurs when you let someone abuse your nature.

It explains what’s so insulting about one-sided relationships. Take for instance the “friend zone” — in which a woman takes advantage of a man’s attraction towards her in order to get favors and special treatment from him (romance), without offering any of her sexuality in return. She gets the reward (romance) without being obligated in her mode of being (sexuality).

On the other hand, women experience the “bang zone” — in which a man takes advantage of a woman’s attraction in order to get sex, but without the prerequisite relationship that she would like to have. He gets the reward (sex) without being obligated in his mode of being (romance).

Both of these states of relationship are insulting to the abusee because it involves taking advantage of the very nature of a person. Both sexes feel taken advantage of at the gut level — not that the blame is entirely on the other person. If you’re in that friend zone or bang zone, you’re in there by choice. Nobody forced you to lower your standards.

3) Women have porn too — and it’s not romantic novels.

There’s an old saying: “men grow through [healthy] challenge, women grow through [healthy] praise.” By extension, if the praise in unhealthy, the woman is instead corrupted — and I do mean that quite technically. The same goes for men who face challenges that break them, especially ones where no mentor is present. Challenges that force men to grow, btw, are a form of the archetypal hero story.

Women, being sexual creatures, love affirmation of their sexual value — they love feeling sexy. Social media not only affords them with endless fonts of misguided, narrowly focused affirmation, but it also affords them the opportunity to claim sexual harassment from any man who affirms her sexual value in an inappropriate way, and thus garner even more attention from white knights who will gladly jump in to imply their attraction towards her as they devote far too much time to declaring how awful it is that she received a dick pic in her DMs.

Side note: I don’t have to explain that sexual assault/rape is bad. We all know it is. Moving on…

Facebook, twitter, and especially Instagram are like crack for women, especially those who don’t know how to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy praise. This is not unlike men who don’t know the difference between healthy and unhealthy modes of being. The effect is heightened by the increased safety factor, and the fact that the actual affirmation — much like the sexuality of porn stars — is simultaneously un-nuanced and over-exaggerated.

Social media is porn for women.

4) Friend zones and bang zones are the real-life acting out of generalized porn scenarios.

Except these scenarios suck. Guy gets all the sexuality of the woman, but doesn’t have to romance her. Girl gets the attention and affirmation, without having to worry about being sexually vulnerable.

“So what, if women are sexual, why don’t they like dick p-” They don’t like dick pics because that’s you approaching a woman as a sexual man sans the romance. Inverting the structure is kink, not form. You send the romance. She sends the nudes.

Men are the real romantics, driven mad by their lust for feminine sexuality.

Women are the real sexual creatures, driven mad by their lust for masculine romance.

That’s why men will accept mediocre sex far more readily than women will. And women will accept mediocre attention far more readily than men will.

What is good sex, btw? Simple: sex which accesses and unleashes the fullness of a woman’s sexuality. More on that later.

End.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.