Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
-By Caleb Jones
The argument goes something like this. A woman will only have sex with you if she’s getting something she wants from you beyond the sex. An easy example is that she’s only having sex with you because she's financially benefiting in some way. However, this argument states this also means that even if a woman isn’t getting literal money, gifts, or protection for the sex she’s giving you, she’s still only having sex with you for some other non-sexual reason, even if that reason is intangible, such as emotional validation, social validation, revenge on someone else, or so on.
Is the argument factually accurate? Is all sex transactional?
As always, I answer these questions with facts and objectivity rather than my opinions, biases, or emotions.
Based on facts and objectivity, the answer is no, it’s not factually accurate…
But it’s very close to being true…
But it’s not close for the reasons the men who make this argument think.
I shall explain.
Most Sex Is Transactional – Not “All,” but Most
If you just change the word “all” to “most” in the argument, it then becomes correct. Most sex that occurs in the world is indeed transactional. Why?
This is because most men are beta males, and beta males pretty much only have sex under transactional conditions. If you take the entire planet, add up all the beta males, traditionally married monogamous guys, and guys with traditional girlfriends, that equates to most of the sex occurring. And yes, most of those men are engaging in transactional sex.
Most traditionally married men are making more money than their wives and are paying at least a strong percentage of their wives’ living expenses. Not all of them, but most of them. We know from the data I’ve been quoting on this blog for many years that if these men stopped doing this, most of these wives would divorce these suckers and go find some other man to help them pay for their bills (and kids, if they have them). So yes, the sex these men have is indeed transactional, at least to some degree.
The same goes for most guys with traditional girlfriends; they give these women more money (directly or indirectly) than the women give them, plus social validation, and most of these women would probably dump these beta bastards if they did not do this. So, that’s also transactional sex. Again, not all BF/GF couples are like this, but most are.
Those categories do indeed encapsulate most sex occurring on the planet at any given time.
But not all of it.
This is because the men who say “all sex is transactional” ignore one inconvenient fact: women like to fuck. A lot. Some women are sex-positive, in that they like to have sex with a man they find attractive just because of the sex and for no other reason. I have had numerous FBs who simply came over to my house, fucked me with little to no conversation, and then left. They received no emotional validation, no real attention (since there was little or no conversation), no social validation, no money, no companionship, no support, no nothing. Just sex and an orgasm. That’s it. They just needed to fuck.
Granted, most of my FBs have not been like this. Most of them do indeed want to sit and talk for a little bit and get some kind of emotional validation and/or non-sexual attention from me before having sex. In those cases, you could argue that the sex was “transactional” in that they gave me sex and I, in addition to pleasurable sex, gave them some degree of validation / attention. But my point is many FBs were not like this. They just wanted to get pounded, cum, towel off, and get the hell out of there, just like a man would. They had sex just for the sex and no other reason. The sex was not transactional.
I am not the only man who will tell you this; many other men on this blog (and others) who have experienced the same thing. There are indeed a percentage of women who just need to get laid because they love sex, and they don’t need anything else.
The counter-argument to this is that yes, there are these women, but these sexual women will still take money, attention, validation, and protection if a man offers it, thus making the sex transactional again.
I’m glad you brought that up, since it leads right into my next argument.
Most guys who say that “all sex is transactional” imply that this is because women are all selfish, blood-sucking bitches, in addition to possibly being gold-digging whores, and all men are just innocent victims in this system who are forced to go along with it if they want any sex.
I’m sorry, but this is factually inaccurate. The reason that much sex is transactional is because of MEN.
The problem is those damn beta males again. Remember that based on my estimates, 70% of men in the Western world are betas. This number is even higher in Asia. This number is a little lower in places like Russia and South America, but it is still the majority at well past 50%. Most men are betas.
When a beta wants to get laid, what does he do? You know exactly what he does. He looks at a cute girl and thinks, “I want to fuck her. Crap, that means I have to buy her dinner three or four times. Fuck. Oh well, better pick out that restaurant then…”
He does that, and even a horny, sex-positive woman who would have fucked him without the damn dinners now says, “Oh cool! I get sex and attention and free food! Great! I’ll take it!” That’s his fault, not hers. If the guy had just followed my system (and only 10% of men ever will, at best) he could have had non-transactional sex with her without the time, dinners, and financial expense, and the hardcore transactional women would have screened themselves out.
Levels of Transactionality
This leads to one final point that could be brought up, and that is that sometimes there are gray areas in regards to the amount of transactionality going on.
Imagine a vertical transactionality scale going from top to bottom. At the very top of this scale are provider hunters and hookers. These are the hardcore transactional women. They will only fuck you if you give them a very specific, tangible, pre-defined result that has nothing to do with the sex. In the case of hookers, this means money. In the case of provider hunters, this means money, long-term support, and obedience to the feminine Disney agenda. If you don’t offer these things to them right up front, they’ll drop you like a hot potato and move on to the next customer/victim.
About halfway down the scale, sort of in the middle, you’ve got women in MLTRs and OLTRs. These women will (usually) have sex with you without any sort of quid pro quo. They will also continue to have sex with you without any strong desire for your money (since she knows from day one she’s not getting any) or your obedience (since she lets you fuck other women and engage in other things the provider hunter or Dominant would never allow). But, because of Societal Programming, if she keeps having sex with you, she will want some other things beyond the sex, such as attention and emotional validation (in the case of an MLTR) and/or a relationship that looks at least somewhat acceptable to society (in the case of an OLTR). If she doesn’t get these things, she will indeed eventually leave you for someone else (LSNFTE), though it might be several years before she does so. (And if you do all of this right, there's a 94% chance she'll eventually come back too.)
A little below that on the scale are those FBs who like to talk for a little bit before or after sex. All they need, outside of sex, is a little friendship. But that’s it. They’re barely transactional.
At the very bottom of the scale are those oh-so-wonderful sex-positive women who want to fuck you just because they need the sex. They aren’t transactional at all. Granted, this is a smaller percentage of women, but there are plenty of them out there (I’ve had sex with many of them).
So that’s it. Not all sex is transactional, but most is, and much of this is the fault of men.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
VSmilex 2018-06-11 05:55:49
Interesting and well-argued article, but I can't help but think if all transactional sex is bad? I have had girls come over just for sex and leave after 30-40 minutes and on other occasions have taken them out for fancy romantic dinners in the restaurants. One is non-transactional, another is. However, I enjoyed both of these things with no qualms about it being transactional or not. There are certainly examples of negative transactional sex (fancy restaurant dinner on first date), but there are also positive bonding transactions (conversations, friendships, etc.). I think there is strong stigma around topics like that in the manosphere, as transactional=beta and some guys get really hung up on that. I think the real question should be: is all transactional sex bad?
naattori 2018-06-11 06:16:17
As the guy before me already stated (VSmilex) about the same thing: I think you kind of forget that actually some men (like me) like the little friendly/pillow talk and joking around before and after sex so I get sex and pleasant social interaction and the girl gets the same things as well. Actually with my high end MLTR I don't even need to have sex every time we meet if I don't feel like it because the social interaction/physical intimace with her is really pleasant without actually having sex (3-4 times a week is enough sex for me and sometimes I've already met my FBs in previous days so I'm not in a mood). Even though the stuff on this blog is great, the more I read this articles the more I feel pressure that I must be having sex every time I meet a MLTR or MLTR candidate just to keep the frame and interactions sexual even though I don't want to have sex on that specific meet up.
CSR 2018-06-11 06:58:01
Women's sexual strategy is hypergamy. You can not explain women's sexual behavior without it. Women love to fuck, of course they do, but they have 10 times less testosterone than men, not to mention they hormonal load varies from week to week. Their sex drive doesn't even come close to a man's. That means for them, sex is not 100% transactional but 100% conditional. - Are you the most attractive man in my social circles? Alpha fucks, non transactional sex. I don't care if I don't see a dime or if you treat me like shit. - Are you the best provider man in my social circles? Beta bucks, transactional sex. You have to obey my rules because I am lowering my standards. A FB that just fucks and leaves or a 3 AM Saturday night drunk girl picking up a guy are making a choice with way more standards than a guy. Either they are emotionally/financially covered by someone else, or they just want validation or they just find you very attractive or any other reason. But there has to be a reason, something that validates the sex. It is always conditional sex, be it alpha sex or beta sex. But you can not blame the betas for that transactional sex they are having. That's because even if you magically changed that 70% of male betas into alphas, in a matter of weeks women would realize that there's a 30% of badass mega alphas that would become the new alphas, leaving the 70% as betas again and "enjoying" pity fucks one more time. Hypergamy doesn't care. There will always be a better guy and that's the one women want to fuck. There's no escape from this.
hollywood 2018-06-11 07:09:46
Indeed, my favorite FB's are the ones who literally schedule a day/time once a week with me, are waiting naked in bed for me to walk in their house and have sex with them. After a couple rounds, she's ready for me to get out, and might even start mentioning what she has to start getting ready for next, if I don't get my ass out of her place fast enough. Wonderful.
hollywood 2018-06-11 07:17:19
Actually with my high end MLTR I don’t even need to have sex every time we meet if I don’t feel like it because the social interaction/physical intimace with her is really pleasant without actually having sex (3-4 times a week is enough sex for me and sometimes I’ve already met my FBs in previous days so I’m not in a mood). Even though the stuff on this blog is great, the more I read this articles the more I feel pressure that I must be having sex every time I meet a MLTR or MLTR candidate just to keep the frame and interactions sexual even though I don’t want to have sex on that specific meet up.In my opinion that is very risky. MLTR (at least for me) takes a strict following of the rules and needs to be handled very precisely if you want it to last a long time. I've had great struggles with keeping my MLTR relationship strong. One thing I had a very strong frame with her was that we did not ever hang out without having sex. Ever. If that even occasionally happens, I believe you would be setting an entirely boyfriendish frame, that while it isn't changing her perspective yet, she will bend you in that way over time and give you drama if you don't comply. Also when you set the frame and expectation of sex on every meet, she will relate being around you entirely with sex. She will be horny the moment you meet up every time. She also cannot start any drama with you, because she knows that she will be having sex with you and won't want to ruin that. (Ok that's not entirely true, she can still start drama, but if she does, she still knows she's going to have sex with you).
Anon 2018-06-11 07:50:23
I have had girls come over just for sex and leave after 30-40 minutes and on other occasions have taken them out for fancy romantic dinners in the restaurants.It's only transactional if she would refuse the sex without the dinner. Though a non-transactional mutually enjoyable dinner, unrelated to mutually enjoyable sex, has a potential of becoming transactional in her mind later. It's a slippery slope, so one has to be careful spending money and other resources on women. I believe BD has written an article on this.
CTV 2018-06-11 08:01:15
Honestly it is possible, YES sometimes it will need a low cost date.. Most Def with higher ASD demographic women. It comes down to you gotta decide which you wanna be.. The Guy that pays the dates to fuck or a guy that just comes out with it. This is WHY I love Alan Roger Curries MODE ONE system, you announce you're on deck to fuck from the jump. Must check it out if you're a TOH guy.
joelsuf 2018-06-11 08:12:03
even a horny, sex-positive woman who would have fucked him without the damn dinners now says, “Oh cool! I get sex and attention and free food! Great! I’ll take it!” That’s his fault, not hers.Legit. And let's swap the sexes, to where chicks think they have to jump through over 9000 hoops just to have sex with a guy. I'm pretty sure most guys would be down for the company and free food as well.
There will always be a better guy and that’s the one women want to fuck. There’s no escape from this.That's a bad thing? I'd rather have a chick be like "there might be a better guy" after I hit it than her catching feelings for me and clinging like crazy. There is always someone better, no matter who you are. There is no escape from that. Like BD says, its betas (and most alpha 1s) who don't understand this.
CSR 2018-06-11 08:16:47
That’s a bad thing? I’d rather have a chick be like “there might be a better guy” after I hit it than her catching feelings for me and clinging like crazy.It's not good nor bad, it simply is.
There is always someone better, no matter who you are. There is no escape from that. Like BD says, its betas (and most alpha 1s) who don’t understand this.They know it and they understand it. What they don't do is accept it. Because that's when you take responsibility of your life and start being the best version of you. That takes effort. Betas want to be "loved" for just being what they are and that is simply not possible for heterosexual men.
Gang 2018-06-11 08:33:36
In term of money I now only do hookers once in a while in specific conditions and for specific things such as FFM 3somes. I don't submit to provider hunters. However when we are at my place, I may offer food that I prepare myself, or drinks. I do talk and give some emotional validation. I like cuddling and it's probably the only rule that I consistenly break : I cuddle with almost all women I fuck, even FB. I start with that usually, even if very briefly and it leads to sex. There are indeed a small percentage of women who are very non transactional, who will just fuck purely for sex and leave, talking to the bare minimum and no post sex cuddling, maybe just a hug. So very few affection shared. It kinda feels odd to me not sharing affection, but I am cool with it, it's refreshing also. Something would be lacking or very wierd however if all or most women would not share any affection and/or cuddling. I noticed in North America people seem more cold than elsewhere I fucked in term of affection and cuddles in average. Also their physical private sphere in a public setting is much wider. My friend told me I was making people feel uncomfortable sometimes because I was standing too close in order to talk to them whereas I thought there was still a good amount of space. But if a woman is really too clingy for affection or cuddles I don't like.
Trengi 2018-06-11 08:59:09
I'm not an Alpha, but by now I've had my fair share of one-night-stands. In those cases, women just expected me to fuck them and then immediately get out (or the next morning), and they didn't gain anything in return for the sex, besides the sex itself. What's interesting is that those women are the same ones who then make a bf wait one month before sex, saying that they "don't feel comfortable enough yet". It's not that some women are "transactional" and others fuck for the sake of it. The SAME woman will have transactional sex with some males and non-transactional sex with others, depending on a lot of factors, including her subjective perception of his alphaness of betaness, the phase of her monthly cycle, whether she does not want to appear as a "slut" etc. etc..
CTV 2018-06-11 09:03:12
@Trengi Exactly what I was saying earlier.. Coming in with the right Frame from the jump, Mode One by Alan Roger is almost like EXTREME early frame announcement. Now is it fool proof? NO, but the point is you don't waste/waste much less of your time/money figuring that shit out..
Alex Jones 2018-06-11 09:05:16
Women’s sexual strategy is hypergamy. You can not explain women’s sexual behavior without it.Certainly women have a hypergamic strategy, so do men. But you certainly can't explain women's sexual behavior only with hypergamy. Why can you pick up a girl at a nightclub, take her home with you and she both knowing there is nothing after the sex? There is no hypergamic explanation for this. The explanation is simple -- she was horny and you were sufficiently attractive. (There are a couple of other things going on sometimes along the lines of "I'm going to prove to myself/others that I am super hot." but that isn't a hypergamic strategy either.)
Women love to fuck, of course they do, but they have 10 times less testosterone than men, not to mention they hormonal load varies from week to week. Their sex drive doesn’t even come close to a man’s. That means for them, sex is not 100% transactional but 100% conditional.It is true that women have much lower levels of testosterone, but again, that doesn't explain their behavior very well. I am absolutely convinced that for women good sex is much more enjoyable than good sex is for men. Now lets be clear, women experience a much bigger range of sexual experience. For men, bad sex is still pretty good, but women experience sex ranging from the levels of demeaning and humiliating all the way up to "peel me off the ceiling". This can be illustrated by the simple question for any man -- when was the last time you had an orgasm so powerful that your legs turned to jelly and you couldn't walk to the bathroom? If you know what you are doing many women experience that level of orgasm. When was the last time you had five orgasms in a row, and each one was better than the last? Or on the flip side, when was the last time you had sex without an orgasm and really enjoyed it anyway? Or when was the last time you experience deep satisfaction rather than frustration from a make out session that didn't end with sex. Women have a far broader, deeper experience of sex than men do. Now women's sexuality is... big surprise here... massively more complicated than men's. Women have a remarkable capacity to totally switch of their sexuality in a way that men don't. Also, some women's bodies just seem to be built in such a way that they are less sexual (some of this is physiological, but it is mostly caused by psychological issues including both sexual trauma and the trauma that religion and societal programming cause.) I honestly believe the Caleb has mostly hit the nail on the head here. Women are sexually transactional for the simple reason that they CAN be. They are sexually transactional because men allow them to raise the price. They are hypergamous for sure, but they use sex only as a tool in that strategy because men allow them to. Without buyers there are no sellers. It is a plain fact that most women go through a stage in their life, usually in their early twenties, where they will fuck anything with a dick. This comes from the pure enjoyment of sex (and part of that enjoyment is the power sex gives them), it is after this that they realize that it is a tool to achieve their hypergamic goals. For the gold diggers and provider hunters I honestly believe that a lot of them have simply never had good sex (this is unfortunately true of a lot of women -- the percentage of women who have never had an orgasm is a shocking indictment of the failure of men to know what they are doing), and honestly, a lot of the transaction sex girls are also getting fucked on the side for free by someone they enjoy. So think of that next time you put down your credit card for a fancy dinner.
CSR 2018-06-11 09:30:56
Certainly women have a hypergamic strategy, so do men.Men are not hypergamous. We can not be.
But you certainly can’t explain women’s sexual behavior only with hypergamy.I didn't say that. I just say that you need hypergamy to explain women's sexual strategy, not that it's the only thing to consider.
There is no hypergamic explanation for this.They guy didn't pick her up, she did. He was the most attractive guy she's seen that night with the balls to approach and she was horny enough hence she fucked him. Hypergamy at its best.
It is true that women have much lower levels of testosterone, but again, that doesn’t explain their behavior very well. I am absolutely convinced that for women good sex is much more enjoyable than good sex is for men.I stated that women do enjoy sex. A lot. Testosterone influences the sex drive, not how much you enjoy sex.
Women have a far broader, deeper experience of sex than men do.Of course, because they are evolved to desire only the best males. That's why a woman only enjoys sex at the hands of very attractive, top tier alphas (or at least men she unconsciously considers alpha).
Also, some women’s bodies just seem to be built in such a way that they are less sexual (some of this is physiological, but it is mostly caused by psychological issues including both sexual trauma and the trauma that religion and societal programming cause.)Agreed. Women are much more gregarious than men so they are much more worried about losing their social status than men do. ASD, as BD calls it.
Women are sexually transactional for the simple reason that they CAN be. They are sexually transactional because men allow them to raise the price.They can do it because having less baseline sexual desire, women acutally decide when sex is going to happen.
It is a plain fact that most women go through a stage in their life, usually in their early twenties, where they will fuck anything with a dick.Nope. They'll fuck the best of the best alphas around, because women at their early 20s are at their absolute sexual prime.
it is after this that they realize that it is a tool to achieve their hypergamic goals.They realize the Wall is coming and that they need a beta to form a family and have enough cash flow. Their looks begin to fade and they must hurry up before it's too late.
Alex Jones 2018-06-11 10:02:39
CSR, you need to decide what you mean by hypergamy. If you mean a strict definition, (specifically the process of women marrying into a social group superior to her own) then you are right that men are less hypergamous, however, the plain fact is that men do try to "marry up" and have done throughout history. However, if you mean a looser definition -- seeking out mates of higher social status even if short term, as would be appropriate for your suggest that the ONS with the hot MOTOS is hypergamous, then men most certainly do that, though obviously they use a different classification system. And I might add that women are MUCH less hypergamous than they used to be, because they don't need men as much. For sure, they are still more so than men, but it is important to recognize that for most of human history the strong patriarchal structures in society meant that women had absolutely no choice but to be hypergamous -- it was literally their only option for advancement. Ten thousand years of social programming, programming inculcated into the very moral codes of a society, is not easy to overcome. Even a couple of hearings of the Vaginal Monologues and a Germaine Greer reading list won't shake you out of that sort of stupor.
CSR 2018-06-11 10:25:23
@Alex Jones They key to understand hypergamy is that women decide when sex is going to happen. They are hypergamous because they are just the ones who can. The ones who have the final word have all the power. Men are hypogamous and polygamous. We'll fuck as much as we can (quantity is our first problem to solve, hence the verb "can") even if the women we are fucking are not that great. Women doesn't give a shit about quantity because it's guranteed for them, they just want the best. The very best they can afford in any given situation. If/when/after a man manages to be alpha, then he can "rule out" some sub par women but that's just because he's so successful there are many top tier women willing to fuck him. That's not being hypergamous, that's being successful 🙂 A women does it since the very first minute she turned 14 even if she's the dumbest piece of meat on the planet. Because no matter how dumb she is, she still decides when sex is going to happen. Women are not successful in the relationship area because they... just choose. The younger/prettier they are, the best male they'll get. It's settled before they even start dating.
lolbertarian 2018-06-11 10:43:49
Of course all sex is transactional. Sex is a human interaction and all human interactions are transactional. This belief is at the core of libertarianism so I’m surprised to see you make this mistake, BD. If a woman fucks you in exchange for the enjoyment of sex, she still got something out of it. Would she fuck a creepy beta for “free”? No? Why not? Because she won’t get the tingles in exchange. He can’t give her that, so he pays financially or with his time, or both. “Transaction” =/= “exchange of currency.”
Blackdragon 2018-06-11 10:45:24
Interesting and well-argued article, but I can’t help but think if all transactional sex is bad? I have had girls come over just for sex and leave after 30-40 minutes and on other occasions have taken them out for fancy romantic dinners in the restaurants. One is non-transactional, another is. However, I enjoyed both of these things with no qualms about it being transactional or not.If you honestly would do the dinner date and thoroughly, 100% enjoy it without any sex whatsoever then I would argue it's not transactional at all. That's a big if though. Transactional sex is fine as long as you don't require it in order to get laid and you can easily provide the thing the woman is asking for without any inconvenience. I discussed that here. Transactional sex is very, very bad when those conditions are not true. And usually they aren't.
Even though the stuff on this blog is great, the more I read this articles the more I feel pressure that I must be having sex every time I meet a MLTR or MLTR candidate just to keep the frame and interactions sexual even though I don’t want to have sex on that specific meet up.As I've said many times, female biology doesn't care about your feelings, preferences, or sex drive. You are more than welcome to have regular dates with your MLTRs that don't involve any sex. It's your life, do whatever you like. But don't be surprised when betaization hits sooner and harder than it would otherwise, or if she LSFNTEs you faster. Meeting up regularly without sex damages frame, regardless of how you feel about that.
A FB that just fucks and leaves or a 3 AM Saturday night drunk girl picking up a guy are making a choice with way more standards than a guy. Either they are emotionally/financially covered by someone else, or they just want validation or they just find you very attractive or any other reason. But there has to be a reason, something that validates the sex. It is always conditional sex, be it alpha sex or beta sex.Incorrect. If an FB comes over and just fucks and leaves because she's emotionally/financially covered by another guy, you're proving my point. She's having transactional sex with him, but not with me. She's fucking me because she enjoys having sex with me and no other reason.
you can not blame the betas for that transactional sex they are having.I don't. I'm not Heartiste and I don't hate betas. But their behavior is still mildly irritating.
I’m not an Alpha, but by now I’ve had my fair share of one-night-stands. In those cases, women just expected me to fuck them and then immediately get out (or the next morning), and they didn’t gain anything in return for the sex, besides the sex itself. What’s interesting is that those women are the same ones who then make a bf wait one month before sex, saying that they “don’t feel comfortable enough yet”.Precisely.
The SAME woman will have transactional sex with some males and non-transactional sex with others, depending on a lot of factors, including her subjective perception of his alphaness of betaness, the phase of her monthly cycle, whether she does not want to appear as a “slut” etc. etc.Correct, and good point.
Why can you pick up a girl at a nightclub, take her home with you and she both knowing there is nothing after the sex? There is no hypergamic explanation for this. The explanation is simple — she was horny and you were sufficiently attractive.Correct. It's not "all about hypergamy." The vast majority is about hypergamy, yes, but not "all of it."
They guy didn’t pick her up, she did. He was the most attractive guy she’s seen that night with the balls to approach and she was horny enough hence she fucked him. Hypergamy at its best.Dude, that explains why men fuck certain women too (the hottest girls they can get to say yes) yet right above that you said "men are not hypergamous," so your argument doesn't make any sense.
Blackdragon 2018-06-11 10:48:32
Of course all sex is transactional. Sex is a human interaction and all human interactions are transactional. This belief is at the core of libertarianism so I’m surprised to see you make this mistake, BD.I'm not using the classic libertarian definition of "transactional" i.e. value-for-value, in this article. I'm instead using the manosphere/hypergamy definition that I clearly defined in the article's second paragraph. I suggest you re-read it.
CSR 2018-06-11 11:00:39
Incorrect. If an FB comes over and just fucks and leaves because she’s emotionally/financially covered by another guy, you’re proving my point. She’s having transactional sex with him, but not with me. She’s fucking me because she enjoys having sex with me and no other reason.If she's having sex with you and enjoys it and she doesn't "ask" for anything else, that means you are sufficiently attractive to her. This is not sex "just for the sake of it" even if it appears to be this way. It is like that for you, not her. Your standards for having sex are literally nothing compared to her checklist to be turned on. It doesn't come close. A woman's mind needs to justify the sex she's having even if she fucks you and doesn't say a word. Always. A man fucks what he can. No justification needed. It's a completely different world. As I said, not always transactional but always conditional. There's always an "if" for a woman to have sex. There has to be an "if" for a man to not have sex.
Correct. It’s not “all about hypergamy.” The vast majority is about hypergamy, yes, but not “all of it.”Enough to be the core foundation of why a woman decides or not to have sex 99% of the occasions. Hence my explanation. Alpha fucks, beta bucks is easily the most important piece of information in the entire manosphere and explains almost every single sex situation we've been involved in.
CTV 2018-06-11 11:31:04
Who I feel bad for is the guys shelling out Money, Club Hook Ups, Drugs, Free Time, Free Attention, ETC and than thinking these girls like them for them..
eta 2018-06-11 11:31:46
To me the definition of Transactional is the exchange of value between two parties. Because of that, even when it's just sex it's still transactional because you are exchanging two types of values. She's bringing in her female sexuality and you are bringing in your masculine sexuality. And if both are high enough in each other's eyes then the transaction happens.If your sex appeal wasn't enough for her (with nothing else on the table) then she would not fuck you. Your sex appeal holds value.We judge everything based on their value. Once we have established the value something has in our eyes, then we decide if we want it or not. And if the value we bring is of satisfaction to the other party then an exchange/transaction can happen.I agree the transactionality is multi layered and multi faceted, and these layers and aspects of it could be argued further, and there is more space for discussion on the level of transactionality we are willing to take.
TheRealCurtis 2018-06-11 11:34:26
Great post! OK, I gotta ask if you guys have heard this one and how often? I tell a lady that I don't want to be monogamous with her anymore (tried it again for a whole week lmao) because she had the gull to claim I was controlling, but in a "passive aggressive"manner of course lol! I have always been OK with dating her non-mono but it was her that preferred Monogamy. I told her if we are not exclusive, this would provide her the ability to search for a man that is not controlling like me. Win-win. (If she is saying that about me now you can imagine what she would later on.) She tells me that she loves me sooo much and that we have like 99% chemistry. She then says, OK fine (in an angry way) lets be Fuck buddies because she needs to get laid (very high sex drive). I say, well I would prefer FWB, MLTR or OLTR because I am not gonna want you over here acting all bitchy and angry during sex. She says, "No"! So now she goes from wanting Mono relationship all the way to FB only. Nothing in the middle will work for her. But she is really pissed at me for not wanting to be mono. So then she tells me that she has to get laid and that she could have had a FB last night but waited for me and that she has got to take care of her situation. So, she can't come over to my place and have sex with me (we known each other for 17 months) as an OLTR, MLTR or FWB but it is OK for her to go find another guy to be a FB that you don't know yet? Should I have allowed her to go from Mono relationship all the way to FBuddy status and just dealt with her bitchy attitude or being all cold and distant anyways? Shit I don't think I would even want an FBs to act like that either honestly. Now this is not so much transnational sex as it is maybe Conditional Sex I suppose.
Blackdragon 2018-06-11 12:16:49
If she’s having sex with you and enjoys it and she doesn’t “ask” for anything else, that means you are sufficiently attractive to her. This is not sex “just for the sake of it” even if it appears to be this way. It is like that for you, not her. Your standards for having sex are literally nothing compared to her checklist to be turned on. It doesn’t come close.None of that is relevant to the discussion and I'm unsure why you're trying to make it so. Of course all sex is conditional. It is for men too, since I'm not going to fuck a 300 pound whale no matter how horny I am. Again, not relevant. I defined what I meant by "transactional" in the second paragraph in the above article. Based on that definition, what exactly is a woman who comes over to my house, instantly fucks me, and then instantly leaves getting from me beyond something she experiences during the sex with me? Please be very clear and precise about your answer.
CSR 2018-06-11 12:24:39
Based on that definition, what exactly is a woman who comes over to my house, instantly fucks me, and then instantly leaves getting from me beyond something she experiences during the sex with me? "The argument goes something like this. A woman will only have sex with you if she’s getting something she wants from you beyond the sex."I'm not saying the FB example it's transactional (since my first comment), but 100% conditional. For a man, sex is not conditional. You are not going to fuck a 300 pound landwhale (sorry to pick your example, it's just to make my point) because even men have at least a lower standard. A woman will fuck almost no man except for the very, very few ones she finds attractive enough. For her, it's 100% conditional, not for a man. It's not that I don't agree with your article. I also think that 100% transactional is not the answer. I just wanted to point out that 100% conditional is more accurate.
Anon 2018-06-11 12:33:49
I say, well I would prefer [...] because [...]That's logic, which does not work on women.
They can do it because having less baseline sexual desire, women actually decide when sex is going to happen.Women have great amounts of sexual desire, but they're also very picky—much turns them on, but then much turns them off. Betas throw money and other resources to compensate for this, Alphas avoid turning them off in the first place. I would say that only in the former case women can be named gatekeepers of sex as you say.
Blackdragon 2018-06-11 13:02:10
You are not going to fuck a 300 pound landwhale (sorry to pick your example, it’s just to make my point) because even men have at least a lower standard. A woman will fuck almost no man except for the very, very few ones she finds attractive enough.Then you just proved that my sex is conditional. Sex is conditional for both men and women, not just women. You're just saying that men have much lower sexual standards than women, which of course is true.
CSR 2018-06-11 13:05:32
Then you just proved that my sex is conditional. Sex is conditional for both men and women, not just women. You’re just saying that men have much lower sexual standards than women, which of course is true.Conditional is not an on/off switch. I've clearly stated (many times) that for women, sex is 100% conditional, which is much lower for men.
AlphaOmega 2018-06-11 13:36:01
This is all fine but the thing is this makes me realize that indeed many women have left me even after several sessions of sex where I gave them (multiple) orgasms quite possibly because I was indeed not offering the usual stuff like validation etc. So is there then a way to recognize if indeed I do need to make it transactional at least to some extent with someone women and how to then do it to optimize the results (without just being beta with her, of course)?
Blackdragon 2018-06-11 13:43:23
is there then a way to recognize if indeed I do need to make it transactional at least to some extent with someone women and how to then do it to optimize the results (without just being beta with her, of course)?As I've said many times, always be nice to women, period. Even if they're purely FBs, let them talk to you and emote. If they demand more stuff, like dates and shit, next them and move on. (Dates and things like that are only for MLTRs.)
Zan 2018-06-11 16:10:52
You guys already traded back and forth the main points I was going to make... BD's only blindspot was not stating that it depends on the type of woman... i.e... for a Gold Digger ... sex is 100% conditional and 100% transactional but for a Sweetheart or Shy Girl.. sex is 100% conditional and 0% transactional. So again it depends on the Type of girl and I would even further add, her age range makes a big difference as well. Older women (30+) are more transactional-minded vs young girls (20s), who are more curious-minded, for the sake of gaining experiences. I'll conclude by answering BD's original question. Is All Sex Transactional? (it's really a trick question) The technical answer is Maybe but the real answer is Inevitably or you can say Eventually.... (because it depends on a number of factors-as stated above). Sex is like a woman's love, 100% conditional but mostly transactional.
michele 2018-06-11 20:34:22
They received no emotional validation, no real attention (since there was little or no conversation), no social validation, no money, no companionship, no support, no nothing.But (this is roughly Rollo's point on the subject) they wanted that sex owing to a perception of you as alpha, which in turn means the ego-validation of perceiving themselves as winners of an alpha's (though relative) attention. What made them horny? The perception that you were alpha = the perception that they were winning some sexual marketplace tough contest. Try to quit alpha behaviour outside the bedroom and behold how they do react even though your behaviour in bed isn't altered. It'll show it wasn't very much sex for sex's sake. In fact, insofar as you have no oneitis and play the alpha well, factors that women consciously rate as essential will not be essential at all to them — they'll draw more pleasure from an impotent alpha fingering them than from someone perceived as non-alpha performing very finely physically. ** Now, where women copulate with a man on account of the man's physique and only that, that is, as I see it, the only non-transactional and non-validational sex. ** I am a rather womanly man, and am very conscious that the bulk of my enjoyment of sex with a beauty is the background feeling of "I am winning a contest, and this is the prize", rather than actually being touching someone well-formed.
K 2018-06-11 23:40:42
I’m not using the classic libertarian definition of “transactional” i.e. value-for-value, in this article. I’m instead using the manosphere/hypergamy definition that I clearly defined in the article’s second paragraph.My question, BD, is why you are using a definition of "transactional" that is logically flawed (by ignoring the concept of value). Exchange/transaction between two willing parties occurs when supply meets demand. Now, of course that the party to whom product "sex" is the only value they are seeking is unhappy their counterparties in the market (since technically, we have one big market here where various buyers and sellers interact, with only a very few specialized exchanges in it - brothels, e.g.) are seeking additional features to go along with the product. Imagine you want to live in a house with a good view. Living in such a house will satisfy your need for good living conditions. You need to buy a plot, in a suitable location, with a house on it or at least with the legal possibility to build the house there. Would you transact with a seller who only offers you a plot, in a location without a view and/or without the necessary building permit? Under exceptional conditions, perhaps - if you have nowhere else to go. However, your need would only be satisfied to a minuscule extent and you would keep wishing for the house with a view. Similarly, a woman who is looking for features in a relationship in addition to sex (be it emotional validation, social validation, children...) is not going to be satisfied with an offer of "sex only". Another woman with no such additional needs will. As mentioned by some of the guys above, there are men who seek to source additional features (emotional validation, social validation, children, childcare...) from women and at large they are no exception to the rule. If what you are able or willing to offer does not meet the expectations of the counterparties you meet in the market, you may complain about them charging "too high prices", which is precisely what plenty of the manosphere guys are doing by calling women's sex transactional (as opposed to their morally superior approach). Or, you do any one of a hundred and forty six other things.
Blackdragon 2018-06-11 23:59:01
My question, BD, is why you are using a definition of “transactional” that is logically flawed (by ignoring the concept of value).Because it's not my definition, as I've stated twice now.
Berti 2018-06-12 03:56:50
I used to almost hate provider types of guys who thought as long as they provided security, money and status they would get any woman. It never made sense to me, why they would willingly do that, knowing those women were not really attracted to them at all. However now I am actually glad they exist, because if a woman chooses someone else over you because of those traits, then why would you feel inferior? In fact you are free to either fuck her anyway behind his back or look for someone else to have fun with. You are free to NOT marry her or/and provide the things she is looking for. I almost feel bad whenever I see overweight balding guys with their hot chicks, who glance at me at times, knowing that I could probably smash them for free if I ever met them alone. It's a feeling of power actually. @Trengy
What’s interesting is that those women are the same ones who then make a bf wait one month before sex, saying that they “don’t feel comfortable enough yet”.Of course that's what they do. Women fuck guys who they find attractive and see as good lovers, probably someone who is outside of their friend circle as well but who are not monogamous and husband material while they make those guys wait who are boyfriend/husband provider material in order to not come along as a slut. The problem for those women is, if they like the sex with their lovers too much they catch feelings and can't let go.
John 2018-06-12 07:03:01
No.. lol.. Nailed it Blackdragon... Women love dick just for dick sake. If the women you date don't then you're doing it wrong, dating the wrong women, or you are a complete Beta. The only transaction that takes place is sex, then me laying there wondering how long before I have to perform again. Maybe it's the late 30's over 40 crowd. I date women who are already set and secure. After a long day all they want is someone to make them cum and if you can make them cum, a lot, they can't get enough. They will build a fucking shrine to you. Now if you can't do that, then yeah, you better get your wallet out, plan a bunch trips, couples day trips, and get a ways. Not every woman is the same of course. Like I said wrong women. There have been those who all they wanted was constant get aways to Chicago or the carribean. So they end up with some lame guy who does that. But they always come back wanting to "get together for a drink" (i.e cum again) behind their beta bfs back...
TheRealCurtis 2018-06-12 07:51:21
@john Wonder what women do if it's a Beta man that is also good in bed?? Does this exist? Surely so but idk. Wouldn't a beta man that is great in bed get more attention from women overall than an Alpha 2 that is equally great in bed? Let's assume the beta man is also really fit too. Or is this a Male Unicorn?
AlphaOmega 2018-06-12 09:26:19
Wonder what women do if it’s a Beta man that is also good in bed?? Does this exist? Surely so but idk. Wouldn’t a beta man that is great in bed get more attention from women overall than an Alpha 2 that is equally great in bed? Let’s assume the beta man is also really fit too.Sure it exits but because hes a beta hes ultimately going to show lots of pussy behaviour at some point and is gonna be monogamous etc. and let her be the boss in the relationship. At some point the woman will not like that and end it and will give some vague reason that they grew appart or doesnt love him anymore or something like that.
eta 2018-06-12 09:26:57
Even if we use the PUA definition it still holds true in practicality. There is always something non-sexual that a woman gets even if she is just hooking up.For example convenience, she will fuck a regular cute guy over a hot guy if the first one is able to make it happen when she's sexually available. Through the first guy she gets the convenience, discretion and probably many other things. I am not denying that there might be cases where it's just sex and nothing else, but that's just very small exception. And using BD's expression, the exception proves the rule! Convenience and discretion are just non sexual benefits that are directly tied to that sexual event. But for the most part sex is the result of a whole process that started before it happened and continues past that sexual event. Even with those fuck buddies you still had to take them on dates, you still had to somehow "court" them. And if you got them online, you still had to hint on being a cool or rich guy through your pics. Women operate like credit cards when it comes to sex, use your credit now, and pay back later with interest. So sex is not just a one time transaction, there's a whole process and cycle of events around it.
TheRealCurtis 2018-06-12 09:37:09
@AlphaOmega But if a women eventually loses attraction to a beta that is great in bed, than great sex is not the main factor that determines who a woman sleeps with LONG-TERM correct? that begs to ask the question - what is it that women desire then? Doesn't it boil down that they are attracted to men that tell them NO! lol. If not all the time but at least sometimes. Or maybe it is they are attracted to men that won't always tell them Yes. It seems that women enjoy the a) challenge and b) being told no or not always being told yes c) excitement/throwing them a curve ball occasionally or novelty maybe and d) attention from a man or men that won't just tell them what they want to hear but honesty/openness.
Roberto 2018-06-12 11:27:48
Indeed, my favorite FB’s are the ones who literally schedule a day/time once a week with me, are waiting naked in bed for me to walk in their house and have sex with them. After a couple rounds, she’s ready for me to get out...Agree – for a pure FB setting, this is ideal. I don't know that it's so very unusual – I've known a number of women like this. One of my current FBs and I, for example, meet almost every Monday early evening at her place for sex and nothing else. The only difference from what's described just above is that she's not waiting in bed because she has to let me in the door. But once I'm there we get straight down to it, usually fuck twice, then shower and I leave. I've been seeing her like this now for a bit over a year, it's a great arrangement, and it suits her as much as it suits me.
There are indeed a percentage of women who just need to get laid because they love sex, and they don’t need anything else.I'd only add that they don't need anything else from you (or me, or whoever their FB is). It doesn't follow that other needs aren't being met by orher people. Also, sometimes a FB will want more from me than at other times without necessarily crossing a boundary into non-FB territory.
Anon 2018-06-12 12:47:38
There has been talk of supply and demand of sex, and the unspoken assumption is that the women are the suppliers. The men are the suppliers. They are expected to actively seek partners, to take initiative during the sex, and to navigate the complex path to the woman's orgasm. It's like salesmen who are cold approaching picky buyers. And even if the wares (read: physique and skills) are of high quality, buyers still often refuse the transaction because not everything seemed perfect, even though the product was offered for free and would be taking care of the buyer without her having to lift a finger.
david 2018-06-12 14:57:14
"that means I have to buy her dinner three or four times. " Dating sites are full of women complaining that chivalry is dead and men only want sex right on there bios. I heard the same thing from my mom and sisters growing up. If these betas are out there taking women to dinner, there sure aren't many of them (based on the number of women bitching about it.) "women like to fuck. A lot. " I'll never agree with that. Looking at research on sex drives relationship to testosterone levels, as well as how often men think about sex per minute, and surveys of what men look forward to about marriage (sex, which is unfortunately not going to happen.) Your own blogs say after a few years of marriage, when fuck their husbands less. They can't "like to fuck a lot" if they're going to choose abstinence over their husband. And my own personal experience: I'm taller and better looking than most guys. I play guitar, sing, make good money, travel, and I approach a ton. I have certainly had success with beautiful women and sex, but the fuck buddy scenarios you describe do NOT happen in my life. I'll hit it a few times. Eventually they tell me i'm a fuckboy and they want someone serious. I'm happy for you if you're experience is better, but only maybe 1/20 of the women I've met like to fuck as much as the average guy.
CSR 2018-06-12 15:08:50
I’ll never agree with that. Looking at research on sex drives relationship to testosterone levels, as well as how often men think about sex per minute, and surveys of what men look forward to about marriage (sex, which is unfortunately not going to happen.) Your own blogs say after a few years of marriage, when fuck their husbands less. They can’t “like to fuck a lot” if they’re going to choose abstinence over their husband.I agree. As I said before, women's sex drive is 100% conditional. The statement "women like to fuck a lot" is incomplete. It's "women like to fuck a lot with alphas". With anybody else is duty/transacional sex at most.
I have certainly had success with beautiful women and sex, but the fuck buddy scenarios you describe do NOT happen in my life. I’ll hit it a few times. Eventually they tell me i’m a fuckboy and they want someone serious.My own experience too, and that's maintaining a 100% FB relationship, no more than once a week, no messaging bullshit, etc. etc. etc. Eventually, they want to cash out. A woman never, ever fucks just for the sake of it.
joelsuf 2018-06-12 15:34:21
A woman never, ever fucks just for the sake of it.I think a precious few do, but its very rare, like 2%. But yeah usually they want company or something after sex. If that's "conditional" then sex is pretty much all conditional. Transactional is more like the chick won't fool around/have sex with you unless you give her money/do favors for her etc. Like you said, sex being transactional is dependent on what kind of guy you are. If you're pretty much anything other than Alpha 2 its gonna be a transaction most of the time. Even Alpha 1s to stupid things for sex. Case in point: PUAs (who are mostly Omegas acting as Alpha 1s). I think what BD is trying to get at is that assuming that ALL chicks think of sex as a transaction no matter what is toxic. Which it is, really. And unfortunately, most of the manosphere has this philosophy, which is why BD is pretty much the only manosphere writer that I can take seriously.
Throughfare 2018-06-12 15:40:01
“women like to fuck. A lot. ” I’ll never agree with that.And . . . you'll never get to fuck a lot as long as you believe this . . . All I can say is: you have no idea how much women like to fuck. The conundrum though, is they're never going to reveal this to you. You have much to learn, my young Padawan . . .
TheRealCurtis 2018-06-12 15:44:06
This reminds of a conversation I had recently on a date where she, I kid you not, blurted out my most hated phrase of all time: "I'm picky, I know what I want and what I deserve. I know my VALUE and I'm not gonna settle..." O.M.G. stop the train. To make matters even more hilarious, these women that say this same rehased group think phrase will then say that they don't copy other women and that they are "totally different" lmao. It's adorable if it wasn't so sad. Could you imagine if a man had that phrase on his dating profile? Lol. Please.... Anyways, so I decided to pull a Larry David on her and said: No, do not know your Value and dared her tell me what her value actually is?? I wanted her to give me a #?? She argued about for lil bit and was getting frustrated and finally admitted that her value = "priceless". My value = not priceless. Lmao. Do you think this Christian lady wanted to base this value off of how many men or women we slept with? (Virgins = higher value). Of course not! Lol. The absurdity of this phrase is beyond annoying. Because us men certainly can't be priceless TOO because then it makes the statement void or irrelevent basically. What's even more sad is I heard a 29 year old lady w 5 kids, no car,no home and no job say this after her husband just left her. Like that is the time to not settle and start acting like your a "priceless" princess lol. Wow...
CSR 2018-06-12 15:44:14
I think what BD is trying to get at is that assuming that ALL chicks think of sex as a transaction no matter what is toxic. Which it is, really. And unfortunately, most of the manosphere has this philosophy, which is why BD is pretty much the only manosphere writer that I can take seriously.I agree. And you've not seen the Spanish manosphere. Boy, that's a bunch of AFCs in the anger phase. "They're all bitches", etc. etc. Horrible. The English sphere is much more evolved. BD is probably (I agree) the only one pretty much 100% focused on actual personal development but at least the English sphere has the Red Pill, Rollo and the rest of the folks which is a fantastic theoretical foundation to build the rest for yourself.
Blackdragon 2018-06-12 15:48:00
Dating sites are full of women complaining that chivalry is dead and men only want sex right on there bios. I heard the same thing from my mom and sisters growing up. If these betas are out there taking women to dinner, there sure aren’t many of them (based on the number of women bitching about it.)They're taking them out to dinner (or similar), then trying to have sex, or behaving otherwise "inappropriately," which pisses these high-ASD women off.
Looking at research on sex drives relationship to testosterone levels, as well as how often men think about sex per minute, and surveys of what men look forward to about marriage (sex, which is unfortunately not going to happen.)Men want sex more than women, yup. None of that changes the fact that most women (though not all) enjoy sex and desire sex to some degree.
Your own blogs say after a few years of marriage, when fuck their husbands less. They can’t “like to fuck a lot” if they’re going to choose abstinence over their husband.In the article, I was not talking about a woman you've been monogamously married to for over three years. That's an isolated scenario where you're warping her sexual desire. I was talking about women you meet and have sex with within the dating pool.
I’m taller and better looking than most guys. I play guitar, sing, make good money, travel, and I approach a ton. I have certainly had success with beautiful women and sex, but the fuck buddy scenarios you describe do NOT happen in my life.Then you aren't providing the correct EFA during the initial phases of the relationship. As soon as you correct that problem I promise you'll have that experience as much as you want.
A woman never, ever fucks just for the sake of it.Incorrect, as I showed above more than once.
My own experience too, and that’s maintaining a 100% FB relationship, no more than once a week, no messaging bullshit, etc. etc. etc. Eventually, they want to cash out.Correct. It's called a LSNFTE. It's very normal. It's also no big deal, because they eventually come back (if you do everything correctly). We're both looking at the same data, but you're thinking scarcity while I'm thinking abundance.
Anon 2018-06-12 16:33:13
“women like to fuck. A lot. ” I’ll never agree with that. [...] They can’t “like to fuck a lot” if they’re going to choose abstinence over their husband.That doesn't make sense. If you're a connoisseur of fine wine and will only sample the best specimens, which you can only get hold of rarely, can it no longer be said that you "like wine a lot"?
But yeah usually they want company or something after sex.If she's a friend with benefits, she's a friend. Why wouldn't she want her friend to keep her company for a bit, now that she's at his place?
C Lo 2018-06-12 16:42:07
Women lose attraction to their men over time regardless. Alpha or Beta, the only difference is how long it takes to get there. Act accordingly.
TheRealCurtis 2018-06-12 16:50:09
@c lo Hmm. But don't you think us men ( both genders) lose attraction to the other over time? If she is a Alpha female or drama queen, we lose attraction faster. If she's sweet and caring and low drama, we lose attraction slower, in general??
C Lo 2018-06-12 20:46:50
I’m the wrong guy to ask. I used to be the stereotypical betaized married schlep and now I don’t attach to anything or anyone. Just enjoy them while they are here and don’t sweat it. There’s plenty more.
Alex Jones 2018-06-12 22:10:06
I’ll never agree with that. […] They can’t “like to fuck a lot” if they’re going to choose abstinence over their husband.Women are curious creatures. As I noted above, women do like to have sex a lot. Frankly I think, under the right circumstances more than men. However, they also have this strange capacity to completely shut off their sex drive, something that men don't have. My theory on this, which could well be wrong, is to think about the selfish gene driving them (and men.) That gene drives her to copulate because it wants to be propagated. However, when she is pregnant or mothering the gene doesn't care as much. Now I am not saying that women like to fuck until they get pregnant (though there are few things that kill the female libido like pregnancy and motherhood), but my point is that their brain has two modes of sexual operation -- fuck a lot or don't fuck at all. So during nearly all marriages they simply flip the switch.
If she’s a friend with benefits, she’s a friend. Why wouldn’t she want her friend to keep her company for a bit, now that she’s at his place?To this point, I have always made a distinction between a fuck buddy (FB) and a friends with benefits (FWB.) People use these interchangably, but I think they are quite different animals, in my experience anyway. FBs are just there for sex. There is not talking, emoting, etc. it is just sex. FWBs are quite different. Here the woman has a friendship relationship as well as a sexual relationship. Few women are capable of that. The friendship produces bonding, and bonding plus sex leads to a whole different level of relationship than just a fuck buddy. The core success of an FB is specifically that she DOESN'T have a bonding relationship with you (which is why BDs rules are so important -- they are there to prevent her from developing a bond). Let me emphasize that a bit -- for an FB to work she just can't have a relationship with you. Not because you are a cold hearted bastard, but simply because it just in her programming to take that friendship plus sex and make it a bonding thing. It is their nature and very hard for them to fight against. So, you are doing her a favor by not taking her out on dates. If you do it'll lead her to heartbreak. It is why, in my experience, FBs are sustainable in the long term, while FWBs really aren't.
Blackdragon 2018-06-12 22:18:18
don’t you think us men ( both genders) lose attraction to the other over time? If she is a Alpha female or drama queen, we lose attraction faster. If she’s sweet and caring and low drama, we lose attraction slower, in general??Not enough to actually leave. Statistically speaking, both in BF/GF relationships and in marriages, overwhelmingly, the woman leaves the man, not the other way around. So yes, women get bored with men and lose attraction far more often than men lose attraction for the woman (enough to leave, that is). It's not even close. There's a big difference between a man not being as sexually attracted to his now overweight wife as much as he was 10 years ago (very common) vs. a man actually having the balls to move out and file divorce papers (very uncommon).
hey hey 2018-06-13 02:21:33
My own experience too, and that’s maintaining a 100% FB relationship, no more than once a week, no messaging bullshit, etc. etc. etc. Eventually, they want to cash out.Are you looking for some Disney Fantasy? Yes ALL women will want to cash out eventually one way or another. What's the problem? If she is a FB, she likes sex with you but because she wants to get social validation when she gets a new beta provider she'll drop you. The point is if you keep your frame she'll still crave you even if she doesn't see you for some time and she is with that other guy. And while she is with that other guy, you play with other FBs. If you do things right these women will keep on returning to you for sex but they won't be doing that for other guys. So yes in a sense they do it just for the sex, because you only keep that interesting to them over time.
Eventually they tell me i’m a fuckboy and they want someone serious.So what? You see, this frame right here is what might be damaging their perception of you. It's not your good looks or whatever that makes them horny over time. Are you hurt because they told you you are a fuckboy and want someone serious? Your attitude should have been something like this: "Eventually they tell me I'm a fuckboy and they want someone serious. I LOVE IT! 🙂 Then I go out and add new exciting women". And to make a woman FB you should treat her as FB from the lock-in onwards. Women LOVE to fuck, even drag you to bed after exhausting sex and get that dick inside them because they can't get enough, IF and only IF your all around frame is correct and congruent over time. So in a way it's your attitude that determines if women like to just have sex with you.
paternitytester 2018-06-13 12:56:45
BD, But isn't most sex still transactional because she gets the validation that she can acquire the attractive male? Therefore the only sex that isn't transactional is the sex where it's enjoyed purely for the sake of the sexual experience, therefore whatever sexual prowess the man possesses - mental or physical, it matters not. Then we have to consider though that noone starts having sex with another without having met them first. It is impossible to allocate sexual attractiveness out of a person's attractiveness as a whole. On a side note, as a man I'm equally value physical attractiveness in women with their behaviour. I need to have both, and in fact their behaviour is more important to me. A behaviourally-attractive "6" can be a 9 to me. It feels weird to even write this - another time that same "6" can look like a 3 or 4 if she behaves unattractively.
Blackdragon 2018-06-13 15:21:06
But isn’t most sex still transactional because she gets the validation that she can acquire the attractive male?No, because women can get plenty of enjoyable (to them) validation from unattractive (to them) males. It's called "friend zone." But yes, most sex is transactional because, in part, of validation women get from men, as I said in the article.
Then we have to consider though that noone starts having sex with another without having met them first.Incorrect. I've had sex with a new woman within 5-10 minutes of meeting her via things like referral game. That's not the norm of course, but I've done this more than once with more than one person. Based on what you said, you'd probably hate that, but just because you hate that doesn't mean other people don't do it.
Marty 2018-06-14 01:24:14
I've only skim read comments and I only really read BD's posts in full so not sure if something like this has already been said. But having been in the swinging scene now for over 2 years its 100% obvious that lots of chicks love sex just for the pleasure of it. I've been at parties where the only conversation I've had with the girl I've fucked is..."can I fuck you". She says yes. I fuck her and move on. Don't talk or even know her name. She might get fucked by 5-10 other guys in the same way that night. I've had hot 20 yo girls, 30 years younger than me come to my place at 4 am in the morning after only a couple of text messages and let me and my girlfriend fuck the shit out of them for 2 hours straight and then leave and never have any contact again ever. Had similar to above with heaps of partnered and married women (with their partners) where they already have a guy looking after them but just come and fuck us after a brief meeting and a few drinks and then never have any contact again. A lot of these women are letting me fuck them just because they want to have sex with my GF. And I can guarantee you she's not giving them anything apart from lots of orgasms. A lot of women really like sex!!! Especially if it comes with no strings attached or social consequences!
Alex 2018-06-14 02:13:07
To the guys saying that women don't like sex, or that it's always transactional, or that women don't like "fuckboys": I think the only transactional gain required for women with Alphas is validation. Not money, ass-kissing, monogamy or anything else; they're just bonuses that they expect when you display beta behaviour. I know guys like this in real life - they think it's somehow "bad" to prioritise sex. Pure SP. It's just wrong, and completely incongruent, actually. I've had women on vacation have sex with me (almost) every single night for two weeks straight. No long-term potential. No affection or romance. No money. Nothing other than possible validation for her. These girls were just out to have a good time. Just be aware of your own biases because they're seriously holding you back.
Roberto 2018-06-15 00:35:50
I have certainly had success with beautiful women and sex, but the fuck buddy scenarios you describe do NOT happen in my life. I’ll hit it a few times. Eventually they tell me i’m a fuckboy and they want someone serious. I’m happy for you if you’re experience is better, but only maybe 1/20 of the women I’ve met like to fuck as much as the average guy.Aren't you a fuckboy? ime, a women who's made a successful fuck buddy and who ends it very often comes back to continue the arrangement at a later time. The fact that women are prone to ending a fuck-buddy situation (even if often not permanently), and the fact that many women don't like/need to fuck as much as we do, are good reasons to have a roster of fuck friends and some back-ups.
John 2018-06-15 10:47:40
@john Wonder what women do if it’s a Beta man that is also good in bed?? Does this exist? Surely so but idk. Wouldn’t a beta man that is great in bed get more attention from women overall than an Alpha 2 that is equally great in bed? Let’s assume the beta man is also really fit too. Or is this a Male Unicorn?Just had this conversation with a friend about her ex. Guy was a nice guy but never turned her on so did't orgasm. So, I don't think they would ever be truly attracted enough for him to be "good in bed". Women want and need to be turned on before sex takes place and some beta BFF just doesn't get it done. That's why they are BFF's, being friend zoned for eternity, usually.
paternitytester 2018-06-15 12:51:15
Incorrect. I’ve had sex with a new woman within 5-10 minutes of meeting her via things like referral game. That’s not the norm of course, but I’ve done this more than once with more than one person. Based on what you said, you’d probably hate that, but just because you hate that doesn’t mean other people don’t do it.That's interesting, never heard of that. As for my preferences, yeah, I would probably hate that, but would love to try it once or twice to get a grip. It's funny coz when I found my first FB who doesn't have any feelings for me (nor do I have more feeling for her than an average person I adore. I'm a feelzguy), I've quickly found the sex to be just lacking. Lately I've even described it as an equivalent of woman's masturbating using a shower handle. It's purely physical. I could do that maybe once a month, provided I had a MLTR or two. Then such sex is acceptable very occasionally for me. If I had only such FBs though, I'd be looking for a MLTR until I've found one. Unacceptable. Per physical needs I can have sex seldom, but per my bonding & connection needs I need sex few times a week. You said once that 90% of your sex was meaningless, and 10% had feelz. That's like the exact opposite of mine. Because of my completely different personality to yours, I had to fine-tune a lot of your content. Despite that, I found the rational approach you teach a huge stabiliser for my usual rollercoaster ride of life. You teach mindsets that naturally chaotic guys like me can benefit from any time, any situation and it's been very beneficial. Enjoying the blog and the book. Cheers
Vanilla Boy 2018-06-17 19:08:29
As an expat living in South East Asia, I've noticed that there are two groups of women who will have sex with foreigners. The first are the cliche, the sugar daddy hunters. The second are the ones who are looking for simple, non-transactional sex without complications. If they have sex with local guys, they are in danger of being labeled sluts, in a society where that kind of reputation can have a very negative impact. But it's safe to have sex with a foreigner, the usual rules don't apply. I had an FB who was often sighing and moaning about the local boyfriend she'd just broken up with. Love, shattered hopes for the future, all that. And she was with him for a YEAR and had never had sex with him. And we had sex the second time we met. And she wasn't pretending that she was in love with ME. Curious, I asked her how come she'd never shagged this guy. "Oh, he'd think I was a slut!" Variations on this theme are common, any foreigner living here can tell you the same story. We are the Greek waiters of Asia. It's acceptable to shag us just for the sex, without any expectations or hopes for the future. I even had one FB who was a bit reluctant on the second date. A few weeks later, she said it was because I lived here, her preference was for foreigners who were just passing through. Maybe this story is irrelvant to you guys living in western developed countries. But maybe not. I can imagine similar scenarios, women you meet on holidays, women at conferences. Women who are richer or earning more money than you (so you're not on their list as a provider). Or mabye it's more psychological, just about getting the message accross that you are somehow in that category of not being a provider and good long term partner material.
Vanilla Boy 2018-06-17 19:31:15
PS. It's one reason why I don't the Dragon's "no screening" rule for online dating works in Asia, even if it's appropriate in the US. I don't approach women who are wearing heaps of make up and frilly dresses and perfect hair. They aren't really my type anyway, but women with those kind of images tend to be the sugar daddy hunters. I screen for women who have been divorced and/or single mothers, because you don't have the issue of dealing with girls who place a high value on their virginity. Also, women with some kind of job or business, slightly higher education. Those are the ones who are more open to non-transactional, sex for the fun of it. The supply-demand ratio works in a foreigner's favor, so you don't have to bombard hundreds of women - maybe you'll get replies from 50%, half of whom will meet you, and half of them who will have sex with you. I realize this is not a scenario that is usual for this forum. But it's worth keeping in mind if any of you guys have plans to relocate.
marty 2018-06-17 19:45:57
I can imagine similar scenarios, women you meet on holidays, women at conferences. Women who are richer or earning more money than you (so you’re not on their list as a provider).Definitely. Fucking married women on conferences are like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes.