There is an incredibly interesting conversation going on at Dalrock’s, The Woman and the Dragon (here and here), and at Alpha Game (Dalrock also has more links that I have not yet been able to read). I have a flurry of thoughts in my head regarding this that I would like to post on but one is overriding all the others and is very important in regards to this . . . what would readers here define as the Male Imperative?
On a side note: My apologies for not saying this much sooner, but I hope everyone had a wonderful and joyous Christmas.
Male imperative: to win.
While the equivalent female imperative would be to survive.
In the aim to win the male imperative comes up with the rules and grids and ladders and competition.
And the female imperative comes up with the safety nets, tribalism, resource trappings and maintenance.
Yohami,
Could one say also that the male imperative would be to dominate while the female would be to protect?
I agree with your comment. I am trying to flesh out some thoughts on all of this as reading more about it is helping things to solidify in my mind.
To *self* protect, yes.
Yes. I would add family into that as well. What immediately surrounds her.
Yup.
Closely related:
Female directives:
Prime directive: Have sex with best man (men) available, get pregnant, have as many babies as possible.
Secondary directive: Secure provisioning for self and babies.
Tertiary directive: If she fails in directives 1 and 2, secure provisioning for self by any means necessary.
Male directive: Secure unlimited access to unlimited sexual opportunity.
Deti,
Could you take it a step further for me? As in, how? I have this picture of the male imperative being the alpha men fighting it out to be top dog. Ghengis Khan and the Huns being an extreme example. I’m not convinced men do this simply for sex as the male ladder of dominance has to mean something to it as well. Men fight for dominance among themselves when women are no where in sight.
“Men fight for dominance among themselves when women are no where in sight.”
Just like women are catty to each other even when no resources or no men are around. This comes in us as instincts, wirings, etc, it’s always there. But still the end result of being the top dominant dog (wining) is access to unlimited sex.
The guys might leave for a game where no women are present and spend the time dominating each other. When they return to the women, though, the women will sniff the winner.
Sting:
Yohami is right that winning is a big part of it.
But there’s no reason to expend effort trying to win if there isn’t something in it for him. What is that something? A woman, or at least the opportunity to get one for himself.
It’s been said somewhere else that western civilization was constructed so men could have sex with women. Men get educations and jobs, and earn money, so they can increase their status so they can get a woman. Men build things, towering buildings and beautiful monuments down to little conveniences, so they can make a woman’s life easier and hopefully get women for themselves. Men learn skills like sports and music and acting and art so as to distinguish themselves from other men, to bring themselves into the vision of more women.
The fighting for dominance among men in the absence of women is the survival instinct. At bottom, men fight for dominance because losing means death. The winners kills the losers.
Ok. This all makes sense and is what I was basically thinking, though I still get stuck in how important sex is to men. It is something I won’t ever be able to fully understand. Are sex and procreation separate or inseparable? I would think the latter (biologically speaking, as in what is innate for men).
while they are inseparable biologically speaking, the end goal for men is the sex, on its own, not the babies.
Then why is beauty so important if not for seeking out good genes? Men seek sex with the most beautiful women, if it were just for the sake of sex, would looks matter so much?
Sex and procreation are biologically inseparable.
Yohami is right that the end goal for men is the sex. As much as possible, with as many different women as possible.
The effect is to spread seed far and wide, because that increases the chances of pregnancy and thus propagation of the species.
Consciously, the man doesn’t care whether any of them get pregnant or not. Once he plants the seeds, to his mind his job is done.
It’s different for a woman, obviously. If she gets pregnant, she, not he, will be stuck with it. She, not he, carries the baby and lives with the baby. So she wants to limit her sex to only the best men, because (1) if she gets pregnant she wants the baby to be from good alpha seed so it will be strong and survive; and (2) she will be expected to stay with the man who got her pregnant.
Sting:
“Then why is beauty so important if not for seeking out good genes? Men seek sex with the most beautiful women, if it were just for the sake of sex, would looks matter so much?”
You’re projecting.
To a man, “The most beautiful women” is around 70% of the entire adult female population. At least 50% of them are minimally bangable, and minimally bangable is all it takes.
The average man would be willing to have sex with well over half the women he knows, if other factors didn’t constrain him.
A man’s attraction filters are much, much wider than a woman’s filters.
We notice every woman in a sexual way — every woman. All of them.
Women’s attraction filters are very different.
Most women can see and notice only the most attractive men. All other men, unattractive men, are simply invisible to her.
Deti,
I agree with all of what you said and your right, I was projecting. It’s really hard to turn off sometimes. I don’t think we women like it very much that men’s filters are much wider than ours.
Stingray said;
‘This all makes sense and is what I was basically thinking, though I still get stuck in how important sex is to men. It is something I won’t ever be able to fully understand.’
All men are born craving sex, and the vast majority of men have to work very hard to access it. Generally they accept this and do what has to be done.
Simply by being female you will never be able to understand how important sex is to a man. As a woman sex is always available to you if you want it. It is about as rare to you as the air you breath. Do you ever stop and consider how valuable air is?
I’m not trying to be offensive or inflamitory – just trying to offer perspective.
I’m not trying to be offensive or inflamitory – just trying to offer perspective.
No offense is taken from your comment and you are absolutely right. I’m (almost?
) middle age and I could still go out and have sex with a random man, probably tonight if I really dolled up. Add to that that most women simply do NOT have the same drive as men and we really can’t understand what it’s like.
I could not secure any commitment from a man I would be attracted to, though and that scares the heck out of women in a way they don’t even understand.
Men are not hypergamous. Men are polygamous.
The ideal sex life for a man would be:
1. Wife: Mother of his kids, love of his life. He loves her immensely and would never, ever leave her or divorce her. She commands most of his resources. He is eminently kind to her. She occupies the number one position in his life. She knows of his extramarital affairs, but he is very discreet. While he is careful to avoid detection and never, ever flaunts his affairs to her or anyone else, he also will continue his affairs against her wishes and despite her dislike of them.
2. At least one mistress, preferably two. He likes these women very much and enjoys their company but doesn’t love them. They get scant resources from him. He entertains them with nights out and the occasional gift; they give him sex, company, and the understanding he just can’t get from his wife. His mistresses get the status of association with a man who is desired by other women. If one grows tired of being a mistress, they part company amicably and he takes a new one.
3. Flings and one night stands, when he feels like it.
The ideal sex life for a woman looks much like the ones that younger women live now.
Age 17: first BJ to captain of high school football team.
18: Becomes girlfriend to HS football team wide receiver.
18-19: Gets college boyfriend, first P in V sex. Breaks up with him when a senior frat brother pursues her.
19: STR with frat bro.
19: STR with senior pre-law student. Ends at conclusion of sophomore year when he graduates and goes on to Yale Law.
20-21: Second college BF. She is a college junior; he is a 24 YO junior bureaucrat. She has young tight body; he has a degree, money and status.
22: Graduates college; breaks up with Bob the Bureaucrat. Moves to Big City with her degree in Mass Communications; takes cubicle job in PR department of MegaCorp.
22-25: Rides the carousel. Has LTRs with alphaest alphas.
25: Alpha she has been dating for the last year proposes. They marry.
25-32: Married to alpha, 4 BR colonial in the suburbs; quits sucky job, has 2 children. Youngest child in kindergarten; returns to work at MegaCorp.
32: Meets a new, better looking, higher status, richer alpha. He’s her boss at MegaCorp. She divorces First Husband and marries MegaCorp boss six months later.
32-45: remains married to MegaCorp Second Husband. Quits job again. Lives in suburbs with summer home in the Michigan Upper Peninsula, winter home on Florida Gulf coast, and vacation homes in Rio de Janeiro, Monaco and Singapore.
46: Divorces Second Husband amicably. She gets the house and a tidy settlement.
47: Starts having sex with the 21 year old pool boy and the 24 year old gardener.
47: Gardener turns out to own his own business and turns out to be rich and sensitive. The fact that he is built like Brad Pitt, has the face of Channing Tatum and the charm of George Clooney doesn’t hurt. Gardener proposes and becomes Third Husband. He stays with her until she is 65.
65: She divorces third husband amicably, and splits the remainder of her days between Marco Island in Florida and her beachfront home in Monaco.
Very interesting. If that is the male imperative then it makes sense why religion / spirituality the world over has typically involved men proscribing abstinence from sex or a view of women as anti-spiritual.
But then… I have a hard time reconciling that as the main drive for male action with, say, the writings of Greek philosophers, of Roman politicians, of medieval scholars… There are a lot of examples of men creating woman-free spheres where they engage in the pursuit of truth and honour. How does that fit into the picture?
I know some in the manosphere label ‘the Patriarchy’ as betas’ world, but I don’t think that correlates with the reality of men we know of who were clear alphas, who pursued greatness, for whom the marriage 1.0 structure served as an established, stable source of constant access to sex and legitimate heirs, which freed them to pursue greater things. But I don’t see how those greater things are coming from a sex-oriented imperative. Thoughts?
“creating woman-free spheres where they engage in the pursuit of truth and honour.”
The female imperative have no interest in truth and honour. Truth and honour have their places in competition, ladders and ranks.
Men compete in arenas. The arenas have rules. The winner goes back and fucks all the women. If you throw a woman in the middle of the arena, the competition needs to pause so they can take the woman out of the arena or she could get hurt. Then the battle can continue.
Or, check most of the other mammals. The males are fighting each other. Not fighting the females. There’s no place for the females in the middle of two competing males.
Right, but… Are they really fighting over women if they all already have women?
And is the philosopher spending years of his life writing his opus doing it to win?
“I know some in the manosphere label ‘the Patriarchy’ as betas’ world, but I don’t think that correlates with the reality of men we know of who were clear alphas, who pursued greatness, for whom the marriage 1.0 structure served as an established, stable source of constant access to sex and legitimate heirs, which freed them to pursue greater things. But I don’t see how those greater things are coming from a sex-oriented imperative. Thoughts?”
Couple of things:
1. Some of those men who were “clear alphas” then would be considered betas now. Alpha is contextual.
2. Incentives matter. The man gets constant access to sex, thus incentivizing him to “pursue greatness”. He has to have an incentive, otherwise he won’t expend the effort.
“And is the philosopher spending years of his life writing his opus doing it to win?”
Yes. Because when he writes his opus he will become famous. Win.
Or he will have unlocked a previously unknown concept, being a “first” at something. Win.
Or he will get rich from his florid writing. Win.
Men are not hypergamous. Men are polygamous.
Right. That’s why we women fear it. A HB10 cannot fathom a man having sex with a HB 6-7 when he has her around. If she cannot secure him with her looks, what value does she have? It’s a scary proposition. Hence a big part of the female imperative.
Also, while what you wrote regarding ideal sexual strategy for women might be accurate, it’s is nigh impossible. Fear is a huge motivator, again, hence the female imperative. I propose there is an ideal balance. I hope to write more about it tonight if I can sufficiently gather my thoughts.
Phedre,
Also, I think, an alpha among men is very often THE alpha among women. At least that used to be the case. I had been reading Marcus Aurelius and he was an amazing man. His standing in the eyes of his fellow men very much affects how he stands in the eyes of women.
I haven’t seen the contextual alpha idea really discussed in the manosphere, although there have certainly been discussions where different guys had different definitions of ‘alpha’. Do you know of any posts that do discuss it explicitly? It’s a very interesting idea.
What in this particular case do you think would make them betas now? Is it that they didn’t devote their lives to banging as many women as possible? Is it that they married? If that didn’t make them betas then but is at odds with how you define the male imperative, then what was the motivation behind their actions?
How does constant access to sex incentivize greatness if it’s guaranteed by the societal structure anyway?
Not trying to be contrary here, I’m just trying to understand this more clearly.
“Also, while what you wrote regarding ideal sexual strategy for women might be accurate, it’s is nigh impossible.”
That’s why it’s ideal. Only the apex women can pull this off.
It’s also ideal for men, and nigh impossible for them too.
It’s also ideal for men, and nigh impossible for them too.
Exactly and again, here we have the feminine imperative. Women do not want this ideal for men so we fight against it. We use it for a tool to spread fear now, when the female imperative is strong and used it as a tool against the male imperative when it was stronger.
Wow, it never occurred to me before, but the female imperative has many more tools at her disposal than the male in this day and age. It is covert enough that fighting against it with normal strategies will be extraordinarily difficult.
How does constant access to sex incentivize greatness if it’s guaranteed by the societal structure anyway?
I think this is just it, it’s not guaranteed. Even if one does marry it’s not guaranteed. Men compete for the best women just as we compete for the best men. Only today, women are taught that what they want simply should be. The more men strive to give women what they want, the less women want anything to do with these men and they get even less sex than they were. However, when a man strives to be his very best, for himself then women tend to stand up and take notice (in some pursuits more than others. Daredevils and rock musicians are going to be far more successful).
I may have touched upon contextual alpha here but I don’t think it goes into exactly what you are looking for. In a nut shell, those men were alpha in their own circles. Men like that today, who are alpha in that small circle, tend to turn very beta outside that circle and then defer to women. Overall, it makes them beta.
Sting:
The ideal male sexual strategy has always been nigh impossible for most men. Even when the “male imperative” was strong and the feminine weak, only apex men have ever been able to pull off a wife, multiple mistresses and NSA sex on command.
The male imperative’s primary tools are brute physical strength, teamwork among tribes of men to accomplish a common purpose, and the tendency toward rational thought and problem solving.
The female imperative’s primary tools are sexual agency, the adhesion of the herd, and uncanny manipulative abilities. Of late, the female imperative discovered that with herd adhesiveness comes political power, which it has used to alter the laws and our societal structure so as to divert maximum power and effectiveness to the female’s most powerful weapon: sex. Restrictions on premarital sex, and unwanted pregnancy, are largely things of the past STDs can be cured or controlled. There are no longer many stigmas against premarital sex.
An average American woman between the ages of 18 and 29 has virtually unlimited and unchecked power in this SMP. As far as sex is concerned, she can have literally anything she wants, say anything she wants anywhere she wants, and do anything she wants with whomever she wants as often as she wants.
Phedre:
re: Alpha is Contextual:
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/the-contextual-alpha/
The ideal male sexual strategy has always been nigh impossible for most men. Even when the “male imperative” was strong and the feminine weak, only apex men have ever been able to pull off a wife, multiple mistresses and NSA sex on command.
Yes. But many men could have a strong marriage with a caring wife (Should this be #3 on your list? I couldn’t say from a man’s perspective).
The male imperative’s primary tools are brute physical strength, teamwork among tribes of men to accomplish a common purpose
And herein lies a huge problem with returning further toward the male imperative. Weakness is women’s strongest tool (it stems from manipulation). It induces in men the desire to protect. It fights against your brute strength and culls your ranks.
An average American woman between the ages of 18 and 29 has virtually unlimited and unchecked power in this SMP. As far as sex is concerned, she can have literally anything she wants, say anything she wants anywhere she wants, and do anything she wants with whomever she wants as often as she wants.
This is power that she will not willingly give up. Even after this peak women have difficulty in seeing what was wrong with it.
“What in this particular case do you think would make them betas now? Is it that they didn’t devote their lives to banging as many women as possible? Is it that they married? If that didn’t make them betas then but is at odds with how you define the male imperative, then what was the motivation behind their actions?”
It is either (1) most of them lived their lives within prescribed rules and patterns of the day; or (2) the disciplines they worked in are perceived now as low status or boring or uninteresting or unimportant.
STing:
Not exactly. As with most things I think it’s a matter of perception.
Women believe weakness is their most effective tool.
Men perceive sex as women’s most effective tool.
A combination of the two then? As she knows, on some level, that if he thinks he is protecting her that he might have a chance of having sex with her. We use our weakness to illicit in men their to desire to protect and pursue sex?
“This is power that she will not willingly give up. Even after this peak women have difficulty in seeing what was wrong with it.”
SEveral reasons for this, I think:
1. To a woman, her ability to have sex like a man is “fair”. She sees and notices only the most attractive men. They are the only ones on her radar. The rest are invisible to her. The men she notices are the ones having the most sex. So it’s only fair that she should get to do the same thing.
2. Sex opens doors (for a while) for her that were previously closed. She can get free drinks, meals, entertainment and more.
3. Sex gets her attention and validation, and feeds her sense of self-worth. She can get them instantly, and with no more effort than it takes to remove clothes and spread legs.
4. Sex gives her a (false) sense of control and influence over her surroundings.
Hmmm.
Men have an innate automatic response to protect all women. At bottom it is because women have to be shielded from death. If all the women die, there can be no procreation and humans will be extinct. A woman can only carry one or two, maybe three babies at a time. So we need lots of them. But we only need one man, because that one man can impregnate all those women and more.
Eggs are expensive. Sperm is cheap.
I don’t think women use weakness or sex to elicit much of anything, other than getting out of a man what she wants from him at that point in time, whether it be sex, or provisioning, or protection, or any combination of them.
At bottom, the reason women have sex with the most attractive men is to get the best genes from the best men. Alpha genes means alpha babies who are strong and good looking and will themselves make lots of babies.
But a woman will also deploy sex and vulnerability to a beta provider, in order to secure his resources. She can also deploy vulnerability (submission, deference) to elicit protection from other men,
“But many men could have a strong marriage with a caring wife (Should this be #3 on your list? I couldn’t say from a man’s perspective).”
Speaking for myself, no. Marriage first, because this is a guaranteed source of sex. Under Marriage 1.0, the wife was legally obligated to provide sex. If she failed to meet that obligation, the husband has grounds for divorce. The price is investment, and most men were more than willing to pay that cost in exchange for guaranteed sex.
If flings and NSA sex are his goal, there’s little investment, but no guarantees either.
At bottom it is because women have to be shielded from death. If all the women die, there can be no procreation and humans will be extinct.
Ok, but a step above bottom would be what Yohami and you said earlier, that sex trumps all. If all women died, you would not be able to have se with them any more. More women (in a sense) means more sex with greater variety.
I don’t think women use weakness or sex to elicit much of anything, other than getting out of a man what she wants from him at that point in time, whether it be sex, or provisioning, or protection, or any combination of them.
But a woman will also deploy sex and vulnerability to a beta provider, in order to secure his resources. She can also deploy vulnerability (submission, deference) to elicit protection from other men,
This is essentially what women did to further the feminine imperative to the extent that it is today. It is how the divorce laws and child custody laws have been passed. It is, to a large extent, how much of what you see in mainstream fem world today came into existence. Throw in some shame and it is maintained.
deti,
In speaking of # 3 I meant marriage without mistresses on the side. Pure monogamy.
Thanks for the link Deti. Not sure how I missed that one.
Yes, most men could have a marriage with no extramarital sex, purely monogamous. I’ve often said this was what marriage 1.0 was designed to promote: every man who wanted a wife could get one. He might get the chubby 4 or the superskinny 5 with no chest, but he could still get a wife. Men and women alike lived in an assortative mating system. 10s with 10s, 9s with 8s and 9s, and so on.
this required slut shaming and restricting women’s sexual freedom. It was clear that when you remove restrictions on women, they give up sex to the most attractive badboys and leave all the rest of the men in the cold.
It also required the top men to restrict themselves to one hottie instead of one or two hotties and 10 Plain Janes.
This had the effect of preventing the men from fighting one another over the women; and enlisting the betas in helping support the alphas. The alphas understood they were vastly outnumbered by betas. If things went badly, the betas could band together and drive out or kill the alphas. The betas could also refuse to do most of the hard work and dying in the wars. So, alphas and betas reached a truce by which the alphas agreed not to fuck all the women, and instead restrict themselves to one. They also agreed to restrict the women from fucking the best men and making them stay faithful in marriage. Any man who wanted a wife got one. This worked well for women too, who got a man to support them. The alphas planned civilization; the betas provided the support and the grunt work.
Hail to the Deti.
So what happens when you remove the restrictions on women?
The alphas are the winners. They get to fuck all the women.
The women, even average plain Janes, get to fuck the alphas and turn up their noses at the betas. Their newfound sexual freedom means she doesn’t have to have sex with or marry an icky beta. Or if her man winds up being a beta, she can divorce him without any monetary loss (because that’s only “fair”). They also demand economic freedom (and get it ) so they don’t have to answer to a man.
Our complex legal system prevents the men from killing or exiling the alphas. So instead, the vast majority of betas do…. nothing. No work, no investment, no making money. There’s no reason to do any of it when it has no payoff in the possibility of sex. The nonsexual reward (money, status) isn’t worth the required time and effort. If they have no chance of winning, there’s no reason to play the game.
Deti, that’s a brilliant analysis.
deti,
You basically just wrote part of the post for me. A balance was exactly what I was thinking of when I asked this question today.
Ladies, do you agree that the ideal female life would be the one Deti describes? That holds no appeal for me, which does not mean what he wrote is untrue. I’m wondering if this really is how most women would like their lives to go.
I believe he is 100% correct in his summation of the male preferred life. I just intensely hate reading it, is all.
SunShineMary,
I’m working on a post that might help a bit (at least I hope it does), but to directly answer your question, I do not think that he describes an ideal life. I think what he describes is what would be ideal for a sex life. I think these are two very different things. I would much prefer, for my life, a marriage where both parties give to their strengths. But as a purely sex life (I’m thinking hypergamy here), then I think he describes it well.
I believe he is 100% correct in his summation of the male preferred life. I just intensely hate reading it, is all.
Also, this is part of the feminine imperative. I don’t say this to be hurtful. I say this as to maybe help you identify what you are looking for. The FI is an attempt by women for security and the make imperative is anything but secure for us. Hence why we hate reading it. It’s painful.
Pingback: The Male Imperative vs. The Female Imperative « On the Rock
I think male imperative is as much sex as possible with as many women as possible, but they don’t consciously think this. It’s the reason they evolved to be so ambitious, but often, they don’t consciously have careers and write long books on philosophy because they think it’ll get them sex. They do it cuz they like it, and it just so happens these things get them sex.
Phedre: I didn’t make up this analysis. Others have said it before. Brendan has in comments around the ‘sphere, and Roissy has also.
Pingback: - In the war of playas against sluts, I’m Sweden. | The Woman and the Dragon
I can only speak for myself, but Deti’s “ideal sex life for woman” sounds horrid. While I’m sure that there are women out there who DO live this way, I find it disgusting. Too many casual sex partners leads to increased chance of STDs, unwanted pregnancies and a lack of respect for yourself and your lovers.
Personally, I’d MUCH prefer the “ideal sex life for man”…other than the casual one night stands, it adheres far better to my ideal sexual situation. To have a husband/main lover who I share a great part of my life and love with, plus one or two boys on the side for that I can engage in sex my main lover doesn’t like and whom I can get better understanding from: That is MY ideal.
Now currently I am 27 and a solid 7 in terms of looks…an 8 if I wear makeup and feminine clothing. I began having sex at age 20, and have only banged the same guy since then. I’m his “mistress” I guess you could say, since he is married 12 years with children. However, I have more disposable income than he does, despite the fact that he is 43 and has a good job…so I often end up paying for our get togethers/meals/entertainment. I very rarely get gifts from him, and I rely completely on my own paycheck to get my bills/loans taken care of. The way things are going, I’ll be utterly debt free in under two years, then can go for my Master’s in Business. A “kept woman” I am not!
Honestly, I love sex, crave sex, desire sex…I’d have it everyday if I could, and I think about it hundreds of times a day. Every time a halfway attractive male walks into my store, I immediately begin imagining how he’d look naked. Good teeth, clean scent and less than 50lbs overweight? He’s got MY attention, lol. But despite how easy it would probably be for me to ride the “cock carousel”, I never would.
That is not what a responsible adult does. I will not ruin my future career by getting pregnant. I will not risk giving an STD to my lover and/or his unknowing wife. I will not disrespect my intelligence by making up halfhearted excuses as to why I “deserve” sex. And I certainly would not insult the other man’s emotions by using him for my own needs and desires.
THIS is why I don’t understand the supposed “ideal female sex life”. It is full of drama, emotional detachment, disrespect, and materialistic hypergamy. It spits on the wonderful act of giving oneself sexually, and reduces it to a crude act of monetary bargaining and/or “trading up”. Why in the seven hells would ANYONE, male or female, WANT that as their “ideal”?
Dove,
You sound like you could be hight T. It would make you an outlier, really as far as this goes.
It is full of drama, emotional detachment, disrespect, and materialistic hypergamy.
Our base desires, exactly. I don’t think what deti said is ideal at all in real life. I think it is more what women would have if they could go through life without consequence in their sexual nature.
That is not what a responsible adult does.
I can’t just let this go. I don’t know anything about the marriage/family of the man you are with, but I don’t see being a mistress as being a responsible adult, either.
@Stingray
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what a “hight T” is. Could you please give a definition?
I don’t think that any of the things that Deti or I mentioned are able to be classified as “base desires”. Does anyone truly WANT to be materialistic, disrespectful, unloving, etc.? I think not! Rather, these people simply don’t see what they’ve turned into…they have, for whatever reason, lost their logical/balanced side and delved completely into their ID. In other words, they are children in adult bodies.
As for your last point, perhaps it’s not THE most “responsible” thing…but neither of us planned this relationship, and I try my best to make responsible decisions while in it. I have only had him as a sexual partner in my entire life, thus there is no worry of STDs. He had a vasectomy years ago, thus I don’t have to worry about getting pregnant. I know he loves his wife and children, thus I can remain focused on my happiness as a single careerwoman while still getting great sex. He gains the company of an attractive younger woman who gives him the understanding (and sex) that he can’t get at home, and pays nothing for it.
SHOULD this relationship have happened? Probably not, at least according to societal taboos. But I truly believe we are each benefitting from it in our lives, albeit in different ways. It has been 7 years…it will in all likelihood end someday, and we’ll just be friends. In the meantime, it is good to stay healthy, safe, and responsible in the decisions he and I make in regards to it.
Dove,
High T means high testosterone. Women with higher levels of testosterone than average tend toward what you described in yourself.
delved completely into their ID
Yep. That’s exactly what we are talking about. You say ID, I say base desires. Basically the same thing. I am trying to understand things by taking our will out of the equation to make it more clear in my mind. In real life can we do that? No, not at all. But I do think that understanding this can help find some truth.
As per the adultery, I’m Catholic, Dove. I stand by my Church and Her teachings. What you and he are doing is wrong. It’s not responsible at all. I’ve talked here some about why married men cheat and not getting sex at home is often a big reason why. His wife needs to take a huge chuck of responsibility for their problems. But their problems should not be part of your life.
Ah, okay. Thank you for the definition. Yes, I am fairly high testosterone for a female. On “sex specific” mental tests, I’ve always gotten far closer to a male score than a female score. Despite me having a very feminine body (long legs, wide hips, large breasts), my doctor believes that I have high testosterone because I suffer absolutely no complaints during my menstrual cycle, and never have. I also seem to be a bit stronger than other women my age, and consistently prefer to befriend men rather than women.
I see what you’re saying about “base desires” now, and agree completely with you!
As for my relationship, I recognize and respect the fact that you believe it is wrong. I was Catholic til I turned 15, then became atheist. (Not saying that other atheists would approve, either…just letting you know.) However, I also know that he loves his family, and the love he feels for me could never overshadow those feelings. I will never be his wife, nor do I ever wish to be…that is her esteemed place, she is the one he goes home to every night. I am not a threat to her, I’m a friend and sexual outlet to him.
I also realize that I shouldn’t be the one helping him in this way…it truly should be her. But in all their years of marriage counseling she seems to believe she isn’t in the wrong at all, that her husband should only desire sex once every three months just as she does. I didn’t plan on doing this for my friend, but past decisions are past decisions, and I honestly think it would harm him greatly if I suddenly withdrew all my friendship/affection. As I said, someday we WILL move on…but until then, we can only try to be what we are.
Perhaps I’ll look at some of your previous posts on this topic…I enjoy reading about different opinions and ideas.