No, we don’t need to give women a break

A while ago a reader left a particularly misguided comment on my blog. It was the following (see the comments section of the post “Men Who No Longer Really Care About Women”):

Honestly, you need to give women a break. Why? They are fed terrible propaganda from a young age and practically brainwashed into a hoe phase. The checklist for men should be (1) do I get good regular sex (2) is she hot (3) does she treat me well. If you have those things I’m not sure why you’d complain.

As it is the case with so many hostile comments, I expect this one to have been written by a woman, not just because the bar suggested is so low. The problem is that your typical woman brings, on average, nothing to the relationship. Now that more men are checking out, some women suddenly claim that they “cook and clean” (lol) and that they provide “nourishing conversation”, or some bullshit like that. We’ll talk about the cost of maintaining a girlfriend later. For now, let’s just go through the short list that female commenter suggested, and which should be all you ever ask for from women.

First, sex is shockingly overvalued. On top, the vast majority of women is quite passive in bed. They just lie there and the guy does all the work. You do all the pounding, while she may moan a bit but otherwise not be distinguishable from a corpse, body temperature aside. Sometimes, this is referred to as “starfish sex.” This is, on a side note, precisely the reason why an inanimate sex doll can fulfill the sexual needs of a man, while a male sex doll would be nigh useless for a woman, apart from the fact that it does not spit out 100-dollar bills. What woman out there is able to ride a dick actively for a solid ten to fifteen minutes?

Ceteris paribus, you’d certainly rather want to bang a hot woman than a not-so-hot one. However, her looks are only temporary. If she would make a shitty mother, then it does not matter how good-looking she is in the present. She is just not worth it. Also, you have to keep in mind that “hotness” is often misunderstood. You’d think that it would refer to a woman with an excellent physique and facial features who works out regularly. Instead, your average thot thinks she’s hot if she puts on a push-up bra and plasters her face with a ton of make-up. That look is not overly appealing once you’ve seen a supposedly hot woman without makeup the next day.

Her treating you well should be non-negotiable. However, very few women do that. Modern society has made great strides towards making women rather insufferable, with a sense of entitlement that is downright comical. There are marketing campaigns that would make for great entertainment, but they are (or have been) taken at face value, such as that an engagement ring should cost as much as the groom-to-be makes in three months, or that a wedding should cost the yearly salary of the groom. Well, the wedding industry is trending downwards, so it seems that the parties involved have been overplaying their hand.

The current dating landscape is so bad that there are plenty of guys who would be happy with even a rather homely-looking woman as long as she shows good behavior. That alone is incredibly difficult to find. Instead, there is a sea of sluts out there who may want to fuck a lot, use a ton of makeup so that they can pretend to be hot, and who only treat you well during their initial love-bombing. Afterwards it’s all downhill.

We talked about the trifecta of the ideal woman before: virgin, debt-free, and no tattoos. All of this means just saying no: “No, I don’t want to have premarital sex!”, “No, I’d rather not take out $200,000 for a degree in Gender Studies”, and, “No, I do not want to get a tattoo.” If the bar for men was as that low, it would mean that scrawny shut-ins who live off welfare and don’t ever open their mouth are a hot property on the dating market. Instead, the demands on men are only getting higher. So, if a slut tells you that she a) fucks, b) is hot (because of a ton of makeup) and c) will love-bomb you into submission, you’d better not waste your time on her. A single tattoo should be a deal-breaker as it indicates poor long-term planning. The same is true if she has been sleeping around and racking up an inordinate amount of debt, or any debt at all.

The bar for women needs to be high because they are, viewed objectively, a drain on your resources. A single guy with a job, any job, could retire in his 40s if he learned to live within his means. With a wife and kids, that will be a distant dream. Note that I am not saying that having a wife and kids is a negative overall. You get companionship and support, in the best case, and children, and for the latter you need good genes from her, too. (Behavior is genetically determined as well, by the way.) But the flip-side is that you burden your life with an enormous amount of responsibility. You are not going to get out of that rat race anytime soon. This is precisely why your standards on a woman should be extremely high. You are trading decades of your life. I would say that most guys will be better off on their own as the number of marriageable women, based on the rather simple metrics (near-)virgin, debt-free, no tattoos, and good genes, is vanishingly small.

Did you enjoy this article? Excellent! Here are some further steps to consider:
1) If you want to read more from Aaron, check out his excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II, Sleazy Stories III, and Meditation Without Bullshit.
2) Aaron is available for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want honest advice.
3) Donations for the upkeep of this site are highly welcome.

9 thoughts on “No, we don’t need to give women a break

  1. I was red-pilled after my first marriage. She was a hot mess. I stayed single for 7 years before I married again. But the second time I had my criteria. Must make as much or more than I did, $0 debt, no kids or kids living on their own, and of course have some shared interests. After we married we had separate credit cards, bank accounts, cars, etc. She made the mortgage payments and paid for groceries and I would pay if we went out to eat. I also covered utilities and house maintenance. So basically, if we broke up I would be financially whole and the money I did spend would be less than it would have cost me to rent when I was single. If you want to get married and have kids, don’t do it unless you are the one not working and she is bringing home the paycheck.

    1. If she is bringing home the paycheck, is the husband supposed to breastfeed and raise the children? In all seriousness, though, sharing financial responsibilities is a good idea. However, flipping it so that the man stays at home won’t likely work out well. For instance, there are statistics showing that the divorce risk jumps up should the woman start to outearn the man.

    2. if she outearns the man then divorce isnt devastating.
      cause if we assume sharing half the money or dont you dont lose anything. at worst you will pay child support so it is much less risky, however getting a rich one will be difficult without sacrificing some hotness.
      i will love a chick as rich or richer then i am with zero kids ,zero debt and totally into me but women tend to be a big pile of shit with a unicorn one in a billion so i dont know.

  2. “On top, the vast majority of women is quite passive in bed. They just lie there and the guy does all the work. ”

    “We talked about the trifecta of the ideal woman before: virgin, debt-free, and no tattoos. All of this means just saying no: “No, I don’t want to have premarital sex!”, ”

    How do these two go hand in hand? You can’t demand a girl to be a virgin and then complain she is not suddenly fucking like Sasha Grey in bed.

    1. I don’t quite get what you are aiming at. We have sluts that tell men that they have sex to offer. In contrast, I claim that sex is overrated and that you should not put a ring on a whore. What’s the issue?

    2. Beteigeuze… That’s a complete non-sequitur fallacy.

      – Girls who lay there like a dead fish do not do so because of a “lack of experience”. The sluttiest girls i ever had sex with were also the laziest.

      – Some of the most porn-like sex I ever had was with girls who’ve only had 1-3 partners before me.

      It has to do with laziness/entitlement, not amount of experience. If you were a man, you’d know from experience that when chicks are lazy in bed, it’s because they feel that just having a pussy and bestowing it upon you is “good enough”.

      It generally translates to other areas of their behaviour as well, that’s why we men know this. It’s not like a girl is super giving and humble and then believes just being naked is “a gift onto itself”. It’s the same girls who have this demeanor in general, outside the bedroom as well.

  3. Spot on once again! Unfortunately the majority of women, should they ever get the opportunity to read this text, will never really understand the content and the arguments laid out here, because they – for the most part – lack intelligence and objective judgement. Also the reasoning behind this analysis directly threatens the age-old female business model of selling the illusion of affection for cold ca$h (or the equivalent value of it).

    1. Ideally, the man should be training the girl how to properly have sex- not a string of 20+ men. If you get a virgin and train her properly in the bedroom she won’t just lay there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.