Men are risk takers, women are risk averse.

It’s generally quite accepted, even among the most ardent egalitarians, that men are risk takers and women are risk averse. It plays out everywhere, from women not asking for promotions right down to teenage boys dying more regularly from stunts gone wrong. There are all sorts of explanations as to how this comes about: hormone profiles, socialization, neural pathways and rewards. But there is an obvious reason why these behaviours are selected for, and knowing it benefits men women alike.

Make take the risks in society. They do this to surpass other men. Whether they’re starting their own business or doing a backflip off a tree into a pool, men want to become better than other men and be seen doing it. This is generally positioned by women as men wanting to show off and get social points. But the reality runs deeper.

The reason why men “peacock” like this, rather than by dressing in bright clothes or singing as they walk down the street, is because humans are brainy, social animals. And taking risks advances society. Why does the guy who starts his own business get rewarded with wealth and status? Because he provides a necessary service, a tribal environment, a product, employment, etc. He is actively creating wealth. Why does the guy who backflips off the tree get attention and praise? Because he is illustrating his physical prowess and confidence in his body, two valuable genetic traits. Both men are adding something of value to the world they live in, actively or passively.

The major disadvantage to this behaviour is quite obvious: death, resource depletion, ostracization, general failure. When a man takes a risk and it backfires, at best he is humiliated, at worst he is dead. A society of inefficient risk takers is a dead society. Therefore, as men mature and see the downsides of risks, their own risks become more calculated, preserving the older, more skilled men of the tribe to pass their wisdom down and ensure greater survival of the next generation.

On the other hand, women are naturally incredibly risk averse. We do this to survive. Women are the weaker sex, a necessity for the raising of children and socially dependent. We are unlikely to take any risks, even in our reckless teen years. Generally, men assume this is due to frailty or cowardice.

The reasons women avoid risks are also due to our brainy, social nature. Our babies need a very long time being protected and fed to grow their big brains and learn how to be adults. They need our care and attention. Possibly as a luxury given to us by men, possibly to encourage men to treat us kindly, we have got weaker from our primitive days and our bodies are gradually better and better adapted for nurturing, feeding and caring in general. This is not a flaw: by raising smart, healthy children in a safe environment we also add value to the world we live in.

The major disadvantage to this is less obvious, but is there: women’s low risk taking is a net loss. Look at how many great male inventors, leaders and artists there have been through history. Or, if you doubt the veracity of history, look at the great male explorers, inventors and investors, the risk takers of our generation. Imagine if the number of great women equalled that. Society would speed along over twice as fast from the sheer levels of innovation.

So men take risks, which is good because it pushes society forwards and bad because it endagers their lives and tribes. And women do not take risks, which is good because it provides care and safety and bad because it limits the progress of human society.

And therein lies a key compatibility.

Men’s strength lies in their ability to make calculated risks.

Women’s strength lies in our ability to accept calculated risks.

Any internal restriction on a man’s risk taking is a negative. If men always stopped at the safe line then society’s progress would be slow and staggered. But if men never knew when to stop or give in, or never paused for thought, then most men would be dead. Enter women: from his mother’s overbearing eyes during his childhood, to his scaredy cat girlfriends in his teens and twenties, to his wary wife in his thirties onwards, men have benefitted from the slightly paranoid voice of risk aversion. They will brush it off and often take the risk anyway, but always with a steadier foot, a more careful eye or an extra protective measure.

Any amount of spontaneous risk taking in women is also a negative. If women always toed the line of danger then society would be many mothers and babies short, drawing our growth to a halt. But if women never permitted a risk to be taken, then men would either become too weak to bring progress or exit society as a whole (reminds me of something, that…). Enter men: by making calculated risks and undertaking dangerous work on her behalf, the men in a woman’s life show her that risks can be taken in a relatively safe manner. Women will brush it off and still hide from danger, but always with a greater sense of security, that we can rely on men and trust their reason.

In a relationship, any relationship, be it parent-child, teacher-student, romantic, brother-sister or even work, we can make these facts play to our and everyone’s advantages.

Men:

  1. Take whatever risks you need to.
  2. Listen to women’s paranoias.
  3. Pause and assess which fears stem from a natural perspective.
  4. Ease her fears whenever possible.
  5. Take the risks she ought to take when her fear holds her back…
  6. …or at least make her feel safe and supported as she takes the risk herself.

Women:

  1. Make sure your life is safely guarded against unnecessary risks.
  2. Observe men’s risk taking.
  3. Urge caution and try and phrase advice so they will understand.
  4. Accept when he is going to do it anyway.
  5. Do not be afraid to demand comfort or exclusion from an activity if the risk bothers you.
  6. Reward successful risks, and do not blame or nag when the reward falls short.

After all, we want neither a society where women throw themselves blindly screaming into activities that terrify them, or feel pressured to take big risks to “look mature”, nor a society where men pussyfoot around their troubles and choke back the risks they want to take for fear of female retribution. We want a society where women calculate risks and men take them, with both considering the other’s perspective.

We are not broken, unequivalent or stupid. We do not need to be fixed. We are two perfectly compatible sexes and our roles serve a distinct purpose.

TTFN and Happy Hunting!

 

For help starting out homemaking, check out The ESSENTIAL Beginner Homemaker’s Guide. For help budgeting all your everday and not-so-everyday essentials, from food to transport to clothes, check out On A Budget: The good homemaker’s guide to economizing.

Rough Play Is A Requirement.

I am not sure where the idea that women are frail and delicate and need to be handled like fine porcelain or sugar sculptures came from. But it seems pretty pervasive.

From the occasional radical feminist who claims BDSM sex, or even light, playful wrestling, is somehow male dominance and aggression to the PUAs who walk about Kino as though any guy, without direction, would either never touch a woman or accidentally break her, it seems that men touching women “too much” or “too harshly” or “not enough” or “not gently enough” or just not “the right way” is a generally accepted idea. And although this idea has merit when talking about a man and a woman who do not know each other well, some people carry it into marriage, or for their whole lives.

But roughness isn’t just a welcome facet to sexual encounters and other intimate times: on many levels it is a requirement. This is just from personal observation and reading around, but the more I look, the clearer it seems to me that most women, myself included, crave an amount of action, physicality and yes, roughness with our partners. There are two scales for this: playfulness and force. On the playfulness scale we have a range from friendly, through toying, teasing, sensual, sexual, dominating, right up to serious, which may be taking it too far. Friendly roughness might be pushing someone aside, sensual roughness is guiding them directly by moving their body like a puppet, serious roughness would be bordering on actual violence. On the force scale we have playing limp, equalizer, controlled, overpowering and full force. Playing limp is passive resistance, equalizer is matching their power, controlled is allowing for push and pull, overpowering is just enough to take over and full force is using all your strength.

And everyone’s needs will vary on both scales. Some women will prefer friendly, equalized roughness. Some will prefer teasing, limp roughness. Some will prefer dominating, full force roughness. It is necessary to understand this to see what I’m trying to say. Not all women want to be completely dominated and thrown around the room. But some form of rough play seems essential to a healthy sex life for the vast majority of us.

[NSFW links.]

Some women end up with gentle men, but still have a desire for domination.

Some women enjoy the most intense forms of abuse and neglect.

Some women just want to be chased a little bit.

But on some level most women want it. And, from my personal observation, it goes beyond a want into an actual need. The more I read and the more I observe my own needs, the more I see that rough sex, when desired, is not something meekly being suggested to “spice things up”. More often than not, it’s something these women want regularly, the standard for the sex they crave. Even those of us who have only been with one man, who has always been at the same level of intensity, will crave a pre-calibrated amount of roughness. It’s not about what we fancy, about curiosity, about boredom or about something we used to get. It seems to be, quite simply, an inbuilt need.

Thoughts?

TTFN and Happy Hunting.

 

For help starting out homemaking, check out The ESSENTIAL Beginner Homemaker’s Guide. For help budgeting all your everday and not-so-everyday essentials, from food to transport to clothes, check out On A Budget: The good homemaker’s guide to economizing.

MacDonald’s Sex.

From what I have read and heard, the MacDonald’s Sex epidemic is a fairly novel, increasingly common complaint across the Western world, from young newlyweds to boomer couples and old married folk, from teens to centenarians, from men and women.

What is MacDonald’s Sex? It’s sex that does the job, hits the spot, makes you feel better for a short while… but in the long run leaves you in a slump, bored out of your mind and questioning your life choices.

It’s characterized by…

1: Short sessions. Whoever is finished first wants it over with quickly, more akin to quick masturbation than actual sex.

2: Semi-frequency. It’s actually not a dry well at all. Perhaps not daily or every other day, but definitely once or twice a week.

3: Goal-orientation. The goal is always in mind. Like a burger during a long road trip, you just want it over with so you can focus on other matters.

4: Lack of exploration. Because there isn’t much time nothing is attempted or introduced that could possibly lengthen the session or take your mind off what you need to do later.

5: Lack of variety. And when no exploration happens, the mix won’t exactly have much in it.

6: Distraction. Due to brevity, familiarity and boredom, neither party is exactly in the moment.

It’s basically reducing sex to it’s most basic function, the same way junk food reduces food to appetite->hunger->feeding. There is no thought put into the ingredients. There is no thought put into the greater physical and psychological aspects of sex. There is no desire to fully enjoy the experience. There is no attention paid to the actual act taking place. The couple may as well be rabbits in a field, for all the bonding, socializing and enjoyment they derive from the act.

And it’s actually pretty sad.

However long you’ve been with someone.

However many constraints your faith or morals place on the act.

However rushed or stressed or tired you are.

There’s no reason why at least once a week you can’t make time to feel like a human couple during sex.

It’s in your power to make it a deep, emotional, intense, spiritual moment.

TTFN and Happy Hunting.

Friends, Friendly and Friend-Zones.

Or “getting the job you want”.

The topic of friend-zones, or when a person (usually male) believes that they can build their way up from friendship into a relationship with another person (usually female) is always a bit of a hot topic. The core of the matter is that no matter how much people say it’s not a clever idea, so many others will still try it once, twice, a thousand times. And sometimes it will work. Sometimes a friendship really does develop into a long-lasting, meaningful or at least sexual relationship. Which feeds the millions where it doesn’t.

So, in an effort to shine some light on the actual interactions taking place, allow me to use an analogy: your life is a company. You are not usually the CEO of your company, but most people are pretty high up in management. Therefore most people you have relationships with, from acquaintances to husbands and wives, will end up being below you: your employees. We generally have a good handle of this and whenever someone tries to move into our lives we will evaluate  how good they are for the job before letting them in at one level or another, or cutting them out.

However, the same works in reverse. You are an employee in the life of everyone you have a relationship with. Which we’re not so good at working with. Everyone you still interact with, from your best friend to your coworker to your ex to your sister are all employing you in their lives and they have placed you in a certain job. Oftentimes we get no choice in this job, especially in work, friendships and family. There is very little that can be done to change your role short of quitting the job: cutting ties.

This is all well and good when it comes to forced socialization such as work and family or spontaneous relationships like friendships. But it’s dreadful when it comes to planned relationships. Which is why it’s a terrible option for trying to establish a romantic connection.

You see, on the “jobs” scale for non-relatives, we have several positions:

ENTRY LEVEL:

Colleague.

Acquaintance.

Helpful person.

NOVICE LEVEL.

Friend.

Close friend.

No-strings.

SOME EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS.

Best friend.

Friend with benefits.

Multiple partner.

SOME EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS.

Long term relationship.

A LOT OF EXPERIENCE AND SOME QUALIFICATIONS OR VICE VERSA OR MORE.

Live-in partner.

Marriage partner.

Each step up requires an increase in “salary” provided by the other person. The salary? Their time, money, trust, attention and exclusivity. And you might notice that there is a massive jump from a helpful person to a friend or a multiple partner to a long term relationship. There are some very large gaps between these job positions in terms of how much the other person invests in you.

Which is why so many people stay in the friend-zone. You see, when you try and worm your way into someone’s heart by being helpful or friendly, you are putting in your resume for a job you don’t want. Then, when you get that job there is a lot of work you have to do to catch up. It would have been wiser to alter your resume to try and sound like a good prospect for a higher rank, at the very least a best friend or a no-strings, which has a smaller jump into romantic relationship territory.

Imagine there are 10 job positions in a company. X= job.

XXXXXXXXXX

You qualify for 4 of them, but would accept 2 and in particular want 1. R=rejection, N=no, M=maybe, Y=yes.

60% RRRRRR, 20% NN, 10% M, 10% Y

If you go to the interviews for the 6 you don’t qualify for you’ll be insta-rejected. R= rejection.

100% RRRRRR

If you go to the 2 you qualify for but don’t want, you could end up in them, which means you weren’t rejected, but you didn’t get what you want. NA= no, accepted; NR= no, rejected.

50% NA, 50% NR

If you go for the 2 you qualify for and would accept you’re placing a bet: either you get the one you really wanted, you get the one you’re comfortable with or you get rejected. M= maybe, Y = yes.

50% M, 50% Y

If you go for the 1 you really want, you either get it or get rejected. R= rejected, Y= yes.

50% R, 50% Y

When you go for friendship, you’re choosing to enter the company of them in a role you don’t really want, but where you know you won’t be rejected outright.  Thing is, not being rejected doesn’t mean being accepted. And not being rejected isn’t a foolproof way to climb to the job position you want. Maybe they will let you. But it’s far more likely that the position you really wanted, that Y, has been taken before you get there, that you would never qualify for it or that there is no internal promotion in their company.

There is no surefire way to make your decision. After all, it’s your time and investment, but avoid these mistakes:

1: Applying for a job you don’t want, but know you’ll get, and hope for promotion.

2: Applying for a job you want, but know you won’t get and wasting your time.

3: Applying for too many jobs and coming across as strange and desperate.

4: Applying for various options when you would only really be happy with one.

5: Accepting a demotion and continuing the relationship.

If you don’t avoid these and you end up stuck in a job you didn’t want watching some other person getting the job you wanted, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

TTFN and Happy Hunting!

Beauty and Sex-Appeal are in the Body.

Something I have noticed about how women react to men is that in the last few generations we have been operating on the assumption that men aren’t allowed to fancy you for your looks. No longer is only male love supposed to be disconnected from their natural, biological lust, but now their lust isn’t even supposed to be based on your looks.

A perfect example is fat acceptance girls and chubby chasers. FA girls hate chubby chasers. Why? Because chubby chasers like fat women. Now, in any sane world women would be pleased that there are men who like their looks. But in this world sex appeal is now supposed to be divorced from looks. The chubby chasers should, apparently, find large women attractive, but not because they’re large.

Another example is how if a man tells a woman that he finds her attractive and wants to have sex with her and says both these things too closely together, regardless of her relationship with him she will start to become averse to the idea of sex. Saying she’s attractive? That’s cool. Wanting sex? That’s cool too. Saying you want sex because she’s attractive? No, not allowed.

Men are supposed to apparently lust after women’s personalities.

This never used to be the case. Women always accepted that a part of male sexuality was wholly based on her looks and that we had to live with that and work with that to get the men we wanted.

And I don’t think anyone has stopped knowing this. Women still lose weight or do their hair in hopes that a certain guy will notice them. I think the difference is more subtle.

The past few generations have been raised on two messages that, together, create a false impression in a woman’s mind.

1: Men are mindless animals that are blinded by their desire for you and this makes them usable.

2: Only what’s on the inside counts in terms of love, everything else is impure and unfair.

And the impression they caused? That men’s true love is a pure, asexual thing, but men have a wild libido that they don’t even know about that makes it easy for women to control them.

Which is a ridiculous concept, but it’s a concept I have observed most other women of my generation operating on. They assume that sex can and should be used to get things, that men who want sex based on looks are broken, that men who love you truly will want sex regardless of looks. Which is why they let themselves go in relationships, date “bad boys” who upset them and wind up bemoaning how terrible men are.

But then along comes a man who directly associates her looks with her sex appeal with his love for her. Say, a chubby chaser. He, just by calling himself a chubby chaser, is directly saying “I like the way you look, that makes me attracted to you and this attraction makes you potential relationship material.” Or, turned around: “If I didn’t like the way you looked, I would not be attracted to you and you would therefore not be relationship material.”

Which leaves the girl with a dilemma. If men are, indeed, aware of their own libidos and do, in fact, feel sexual attraction as a part of love, then a woman is not special or unique or lovable just for being herself. She is replaceable. And she thought she had triple leverage in the relationship: her looks, her sex appeal and her love. But it turns out she only has one: her looks.

In past times this was balanced. Women knew that men wanted them to be pretty and women made themselves pretty for their men. Women also knew that there were plenty of other women who were also pretty, so they didn’t rely on looks. Instead, they developed charm, a touch of wit, various homemaking skills and a pleasant disposition. It was a way of adding more to a relationship, to keep a man around and keep him interested.

But in today’s world many women rely entirely on looks, sex and love. Which is why it hurts so much to realize that those three qualities are actually one single quality.

TTFN and Happy Hunting.

5 Things Women Get Easy (that men would love).

In every society there are things that come easier to some people than to others and gender is one of those divides. Even in a primitive society, women often miss out on adventure and meat for being at home, whilst men miss out on safety and fruit for being away. In today’s society we’re told time and time again about the cultural and legal privileges that men have over women and we’re only just starting to acknowledge the many advantages that women have legally and in education. However we don’t really touch on the cultural advantages women have that men have to work incredibly hard to get.

So here are five privileges our culture bestows on women that men rarely receive, but absolutely love receiving.

1: Physical touch and sex.

Women benefit from all sorts of physical interactions. I’ll focus on two extremes: basic touch and sex.

Basic touch is when a friend hugs you, or a coworker rests a hand on your shoulder to reassure you. Women are more likely to be offered this touch and, with new concerns about harassment, less likely to receive it when we don’t want it.

Sex has always been easier for women to get than for men, as humans are social animals and for society to thrive, all women must be offered a chance to reproduce. However men are becoming increasingly stigmatized for their sexual urges and natural desires on top of this, which means men have a much harder time getting sex.

However men enjoy all sorts of physical contact and are just as de-stressed by a hug as a woman is.

2: Help.

Women are more likely to be offered a helping hand with something difficult and less likely to be stigmatized for asking for help. This means that in every case where a woman finds herself in trouble she is more likely to be helped on her way by a friend or stranger than a man is.

This is even reflected by our social aid projects. Although by far more men are homeless than women, more women receive homelessness support. Although men suffer domestic violence and especially physical abuse as much as women, almost all DV shelters assume that the woman was the victim and most are women-only.

We are a society unwilling to help men even when they need it.

3: Common courtesy.

When you’re exiting a supermarket and someone lets you out before they enter, when a parking spot is given to you, when a door is held open for you or helps you pick up something you dropped, that is actually a form of common courtesy, a way of being gentle and polite to everyone around you.

But, again, women are on the receiving end more often than men. Try watching a doorway from a waiting room or a cafe for a few hours. Most of the people having a door held for them will be women, even if it’s also a woman holding the door. Yet sometimes even when their arms are full, men don’t get that same bit of help. But it’s beyond assistance. If someone is stood by a door, struggling with a pile of boxes and nobody opens it or held it open for them, they are practically invisible. Nobody sees them, so nobody extends that politeness to them.

But apparently most men are invisible in that regard.

4: Assumption of parental instinct.

When a woman moves to collect a child at the park, nobody questions it. When a female teacher sees a young boy after school, nobody questions it. When a mother is involved in a case of domestic violence against her child, nobody believes for a second that she was a willing and sane participant. This is the assumption of parental instinct: the assumption that a mother is a parent first and a human later. And it definitely has its downsides, as all the aforementioned scenarios have played out before and the ending has been child abuse.

But men face the opposite. The assumption they have no parental instinct. If a father takes a picture of his own child at the park he is attacked. When a male teacher sees a young girl after school she is questioned as to what he did to her. When a father is involved in a case of domestic violence against his child he is assumed to be the instigator. Whilst nobody should carry the assumption of parental instinct the way mothers do, nobody should be assumed to entirely lack parental instinct the way fathers are. The choice between a good father and a drug addicted mother should be obvious and his relationship status shouldn’t be the pivot point for the entire custody case.

In these cases, ultimately the children are the ones who suffer.

5: A break or a free pass.

Women get this and we sometimes don’t even realize it. It ranges from women (in general) receiving shorter sentences for the exact same crimes as men (in general), to girls being more likely to get a hall pass or extra mock time in school, to women being able to smile their way out of a parking ticket. In short, because women look more childlike and frail than men and because women are attractive to men, men and women alike are more likely to give a woman a free pass if she acts out, commits a crime or lies.

Men don’t get this pass unless they are under serious duress or look particularly infantile and sweet. Even when they are literally children, boys are more likely to be tried as adults in serious criminal cases than girls. And men of certain socioeconomic, cultural or racial backgrounds in certain countries may be treated more harshly than the law requires. The assumption seems to be that men “can take it”. A man “can take” being forced to the ground and having a rib broken during arrest. A boy “can take” waiting for half an hour for the toilet. A man “can take” paying his parking ticket. A boy “can take” being tried as an adult for arson. Girls are sweet and innocent, women are childlike and nice, but males need to own their actions and then some.

But men aren’t machines. Yes, men are more designed for hardship than women. This much is evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of years men have spent hunting and warring as women stayed home and faced relatively little danger. But what is natural isn’t necessarily fair and in a world where everyone abides by the law as best they can and everyone pays for their actions, it is genuine injustice to make men pay more unnecessarily.

And those are five things that come very easily to women that men would love to have. Use this information as you will. Maybe you will give your husband or brother some more hugs, or your son a free pass when your daughter would get one in the same situation. Maybe you’ll think more about parenting and the assumption of parenthood before siding with mothers against fathers. Maybe you’ll even consider men’s human rights a cause you are willing to support and actively fight for them. Whatever you do to give men a little taste of female privileges, however small, remember this: it doesn’t hurt women, it doesn’t hurt society and it makes the world a better and fairer place.

TTFN and Happy Hunting!