Jib
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 591
I was a big part of a "Red Pill" blog community for years. What ultimately led to my leaving was realizing how toxic the community was. There were a lot of decent men, but there was a very rigid adhering to a lot of ridiculous ideas about how men should interact with each other, or are supposed to, which included group ridiculing or shaming if someone was writing something that wasn't "masculine enough" according to some arbitrary definition.
Very common for guys to make fun of other guys for sounding like women, or being "Beta." Lots of **** swinging, bragging about how good their game is or how many women they've slept with, etc., and ridiculous ideas such as a healthy long term relationship or marriage is impossible if a man has not literally slept with at least 100 women. I have seriously seen people claim this. It's just idiotic. I actually still agree with the majority of the actual "Red Pill" content, but in my experience the community is extremely toxic and hostile to anyone who not only disagrees with their beliefs, but has a personality or manner of speech that doesn't align with what they see as "correct."
Many men I met and interacted with on there were absolutely rigid, and of course no one saw the irony that despite all their **** swinging and posturing as "Alpha" males, they were writing for hours a day on a blog on the Internet...makes you wonder, really. You would think that actual "Alpha" males would be too busy living their lives and leading teams and colleagues and making progress and having fun or whatever to spend so much time online calling people "Beta males."
However, all this being said, I do think we're actually in a masculinity crisis now, where most men are too fluid, and too removed from the idea of being men. If a woman is truly loyal to a man, she is submitting to him, at least in some capacity. Submitting out of free will. It is no coincidence that many women like the idea of being "claimed." A man claiming them as his own, belonging to him, etc.
A lot of this BDSM stuff, IMO, is a simulacrum of this innate instinct and desire. You can act out the roles in something like BDSM, but nothing even remotely close to that is necessary to have a "dominant/submissive" relationship, which is the natural relationship between men and women as far as sexual/romantic relationships go. It just so happens that "dominant" and "submissive" are very emotionally charged words. It's much more subtle in reality.
You can put it simply like this: a woman that is "submitting" to a man will be completely sexually open to him, not restricted or hesitant. Just the fact that a particular woman wants to have passionate sex with a particular man and feels no hesitation about it is evidence of "submission." You can look at submission as simply a woman's receptiveness and openness to receiving a particular man's energy and leadership. This is much more subtle and "between the lines" in reality than it sounds when a person says "submissive" or "dominant."
I grew up in a more traditional house, where my mother did not work, my dad made all the money, and would lie down when he got home to relax and would expect dinner and dessert to be ready and for my mom to bring it to him. He would do all the car work, built most of the furniture in the house, electrical/plumbing, etc., and my mother would clean and decorate. My life was actually pretty messed up in my childhood but that model was healthy for me, and while I had a lot of issues with my parents, I never saw them fight or argue and they've been married for well over 40 years at this point.
So yes...very fluid in some ways, but also too fluid in other ways. I do know a few men who are very liberal about gender roles, and feel everything is up in the air, but then they tell me how frustrated their girlfriends/wives are that they're the leaders in the relationship, that the sex has dwindled down to almost nothing, and are generally unhappy.
I am not religious, but I will say this: the idea in the Bible that if a man has sex with a virgin, she has to become his wife, makes sense to me. I've read a fair amount that suggests women pair bond particularly strongly to their first sexual partner. And I don't think it's something to be taken lightly. I would personally have no interest in taking a girl's virginity unless I could see myself being happy in a long-term committed relationship with her. I wouldn't feel right doing it "just for fun." However many guys are also obsessively fixated on only taking "virgin brides" and disqualifying any woman for a long-term relationship who's had more than 1 or 2 partners in her entire life. I think that's insane and unrealistic, and the idea that a girl who was a virgin before you will be less likely to cheat on you is dubious at best.
But to each his own, I guess.
"Submission" being natural could also simply be seen like this: a woman being very sexually attracted to and aroused by the man who is her long term partner, and a woman who actively "mate guards" herself: dismissing, avoiding or ignoring advances by other, even "high value" men. She just has no interest in sleeping with anyone else. That is "submission" and is much subtler than the word implies.
Many guys are so wrapped up in sexual frustration or their partner not "doing what they want" they don't see that their partner is not submitted to them in this sense. "Duty sex" is unthinkable to me but a lot of guys will settle for this -- unenthused, hum-drum, mechanical sex, which is basically just like masturbating inside another person. It's unthinkable to me, but I think this is one consequence of men losing touch with their masculinity.
Feeling desired as a man has been a very important part of my identity. Whether monogamy is "natural" or not doesn't matter as much as making a conscious choice to adhere to it. And many people are doing so successfully -- and many aren't. I would argue that the most successful monogamous couples are the ones that are aware that humans may be "naturally polygamous" but have consciously decided to make a commitment to each other despite their baser impulses.
The man/woman yin/yang dynamic, IMO, is essential in order to keep a long term monogamous relationship strong. I know some married couples who have no concept of "gender roles" at all and are actively opposed to such ideas, but it is concerning to see married men sitting around and doing nothing while their wives bring home the bulk of the money and make all the decisions about the household. I guess I'll see how that ends up some years down the road, but personally I don't foresee a happy ending.
There is fluidity and flexibility, but there is ignorance too. It can be a very fine line.
