When I first got laid in 1985, I went to the bathroom, toweled off the equipment and walked down to 7-11 for a big gulp. No blue birds landed on my shoulder to whistle Disney songs and no ray of sunlight broke through the clouds to shine on me. Nor did I think “damn, that was terrible, I’ve lost all respect for myself, I’ll never be the same again,…sob!”, it felt pretty good. The traffic lights still worked, the busses ran on time (sorta) and food still tasted good.
I’ve had sex with over 40 women since then. I got laid first when I was 17 and on average I’ve been having sex with my wife 2-3 times a week (and a hummer on her off weeks) for coming up on 17 years now. Sex is a great part of life, sometimes it’s memorable, sometimes it’s taking care of myself, but it’s never been some epic experience of cosmic importance. It keeps you healthy in body, mind and spirit, and the best I can describe sex is that it’s an important part of a balanced life experience. People have been fucking a lot longer than anyone’s had time to contemplate the esoteric significance of sex.
I can remember listening to an episode of the Tom Leykis show when he was on terrestrial radio, and he described what sex is like for men. He said, sex is like taking a piss for a guy – sooner or later he’s got to take care of himself and let loose. Now, most guys would prefer to take a piss in a nice clean bathroom, where the towels smell good and he can feel comfortable and unhurried. Sure, he’d love to have the occasion to take a piss in the bathroom of a four star hotel with gold plated faucets and all the trimmings, but when he really has to go, he’ll stop along the side of the road or take a piss at a dirty gas station urinal. Sooner or later he’s gonna have to go.
What prompted today’s post was my reading a recent blog entry of a notable christo-manosphere commenter. I’m not going to name him since I think most of the readers who frequent Rational Male from Dalrock or Sunshinemary’s blogs already know who I’m referencing. What’s important is his life’s plight. The nuts and bolts of his post was his lament in finding a suitable, monogamous mate to marry, have sex with and (presumedly) have a life and children with.
It’s not too tall an order for even the most abject Beta of men. To be sure, nowadays it increasingly requires a good amount of self-delusion and / or faith for a guy to consider monogamy, and red pill disillusionment can help or aggravate, but statistically more people are engaging in monogamy than not at some stage of their lives. However, this blogger feels doomed and relegated to what I can only assume is a self-inflicted life of celibacy due to his religious convictions and his inability to connect with the properly prescribed virgin bride who fits his ideal.
Now before I dive too far in here, I’m not going to debate the merits or limitations of this guy’s conviction. Before I started considering this post I realized I’ll be run up the moralist flagpole for even using his predicament as my example, but what I’m going to focus on is the need men (and by association women) have for sex. Try to keep this in mind.
Big Heads and Little Heads
One very common dismissal of red pill awareness I read from blue pill men is this feigned, blasé indifference to sex.
“All that Red Pill, PUA shit is for guy’s who obsess over sex. They only go to the lengths they do to get laid and never see the bigger picture. You don’t need sex you know, you wont die from not getting laid.”
For the most part this pseudo-indifference is really a feminized, conditioned, response couched in Beta Game. The idea, of course, is for the blue pill guy to promote the public perception that he’s above his sexual impulses in the hopes that any girl within earshot (or reading his comments online) will recognize his uniqueness in not letting his cock do his thinking for him. From a male deductive logic standpoint it makes sense to the feminized male – women have all told him how put off they are with guys who only think about sex, so he’ll identify with the women he’d like to get with and “not be like other guys.”
Boys subscribing to this identification usually find themselves sexually frustrated by the very women they hope to connect with in their sexual indifference because, on a core level, women are psychologically insulted by men who actively desexualize themselves in order to get with them. Despite every verbal protestation women can muster, women are aroused by, and ego-affirmed by, Men who unashamedly display the covert social cues of wanting to fuck them.
Thats the Beta Game behind the “you don’t need sex” Buffer, but there’s more too this rationale than that. Technically the Beta reasoning is correct; physically, you’re not going to die if you don’t get laid. You could probably masturbate to relieve yourself or live a sexless existence due to a physical disability and live a productive life as satisfying as you can manage it. If you don’t know what you’re missing or if a sexual substitute does the job, what’s the difference, right? The line of reasoning is that if it isn’t food, water or oxygen it isn’t really a necessity for existence.
From an absolutist perspective it’s one of those conveniently unassailable positions that excuse a guy’s inability to get laid – “no one really needs sex, and if you think you do you’re obviously preoccupied with it and letting your little head do the thinking for you.” By this line of reasoning, basic necessities like clothing and shelter could be considered superfluous needs for living, but since it’s sex, and in most respects hedonistically enjoyable, special consideration has to be given.
The unhealthy disconnect here is that human beings do in fact need sex. We can attach other ephemeral aspects to the sex act (or masturbation if that’s the only recourse), like love, emotion, commitment, etc., but on a base level your body needs sexual release in one form or another. Yes, you can willfully override the need, just like you can overcome hunger while you’re fasting or on a hunger strike, but the need is still the operative in that act of will. Once hunger, breathing and thirst are satisfied, sex is the single most influential drive the human species (really, most any species) is motivated by. Society is driven by sex, cultures evolve around it and personal achievements, as well as horrible atrocities are the result of our inborn prompt to satisfy our sexual urges.
Sigmund Freud once said, “all energy is sexual”, meaning that subliminally we will redirect our motivation for ungratified sexual impulse to other endeavors. Thus it’s men, being the sex with the highest amount of libido inducing testosterone, who must look for far more outlets to transfer this motivation to than women. So is it any real surprise that it’s historically been Men who’ve primarily been the empire builders, the conquerors, the creators, and destroyers who’ve (for better or worse) moved humanity the most significantly?
If I said I felt pity for men like the blogger I mentioned earlier, who through their own conviction or bad circumstance, have never had sex in their lives, I don’t think I’d be accurate in expressing myself. I feel a profound sadness for them; a sadness similar to when you meet someone who’s lost a limb or has had to live with a physical or mental disability. For guys who want to tell you that you don’t need sex to live a fulfilling life I’m sure this sounds like conceit. There are plenty of inspirational individuals who live their lives without arms or legs, or with other disabilities, that we can all look up to for “overcoming the odds”, but the reason they are inspiring is because they must strive for a quality of life that others simply take for granted. Run a marathon and it’s quite an achievement, but do it as a paraplegic and it’s a triumph of human will.
Sometimes a sexless life is a choice of conviction, but more often it’s not a choice for men, it’s simply their circumstance. I grieve every time I read a comment by, or receive a painful request for help from a late 30’s man who’s still a virgin. Sex is a part of a healthy human experience; if you want to apply meaning to it, if you only consider its legitimacy within marriage or monogamy, or if you enjoy sex with many women, the function is still the same.
I felt this way after I read the aforementioned blogger relating his frustration about his not being able to find an appropriate woman to wife under today’s social climate. This post isn’t an attempt to convince him to adjust his expectations; I can’t necessarily empathize with his convictions or his reasonings (I’ve always enjoyed sex, and never felt guilt for enjoying it), however, I can empathize with his deep desire to become intimate and sexual with a woman. This healthy human experience is denied to him by conviction, but it doesn’t alleviate his desire for it.
He needs sex.