Females DO NOT Have More Options For Sexual Preferences

[Tenebroso]

6 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Women do not view sex the same as men do for the most part. Millions of women are out there in the world satisfying men's sexual needs on a daily basis. Women don't require those needs from strangers. If men were out trying to get to know women and wanting to be with just that woman they would be more successful, instead just looking for sex is more challenging other than with workers. You even said it yourself, high status men experience true abundance, as if an abundance of women is great. Yes, but only for men. Women don't require an abundance of sex. Can't be mad with us for that. I know your story from what you've said too without getting into specifics so you can't be so general in your arguments because its not like you never had any internal problems or anything troublesome and still can't find a woman. Those kinds of things will carry with it challenges but we can't be mad at the world and generalize because our situation is a bit challenging. 

I am not mad at the world, if I was I would hurt people which I would never do. I am mad at myself for not being good enough. Life is not worth it at all as an unattractive man. 

Genuinely getting to know women makes little to no difference if they are not attracted to. It is a myth that you can make a women interested slowly over time especially in this era where her emotional needs can be met in other ways. If you are not sexy you don't get a shot. Women don't care about how smart, kind, funny, emotionally available you are.......men without these qualities have never been more popular because they have the right look.

I have never been on a date or had a girlfriend you must be confusing me with another person.

[Tenebroso]

@Princess Arabia Ok. I will quote and reply directly to the OP to point where you are wrong.

[Princess Arabia]

16 minutes ago, Tenebroso said:

. Most men do not fit that and wil not be anyone's type and have little control over how much sex they can have.

You're still making my point here. Do you think these women are there for how much sex they can have. No, They're there for whatever reasons they like those men and I'm sure it's not for an abundance of sexual partners. Those men are probably cheating on those women because they find other women attractive or because they have options for sex. Those women are probably there because their options are probably limited. 

"have little control for how much sex they can have" is a man's idea. Women don't have this problem. The problem women have is finding that ONE man she enjoys having sex with. Men can enjoy having sex with multiple and an abundance of women IF THEY COULD. That's the premise of this post, not the type of men women are sleeping with.

[Tenebroso]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

All it takes for most men to WANT to have sex with a woman is her appearance. For most women, it takes more than a physical appearance to WANT to have sex with a man; but not just that, even if she wants to, it doesn't mean she'll go ahead and do it. 

Females have more men hitting on them, yes, than women hitting on men but not many she would actually want to, or have sex with. Wanting sex for us doesn't just come from feeling horny, but with a specific type of guy. A woman can have sex with someone she's not physically attracted to just like men, but a man will do it purely for physical reasons while a woman, in this case, it would be circumstantial. A man could be horny, and if an attractive woman hits on him, and is willing to sleep with him, more than likely he'd go, especially if he's single. For a horny woman, that takes more than just a guy hitting on her, physically attractive to her or not.

So no, women don't have more options for sex preferences - men do. Going out the door and having multiple guys hitting on me DOES mean I'll have more options for sex, but it DOESN'T mean my preferences are abundant. Sex for most women is different than what it is for men, please understand that. MEN WILL FIND MORE WOMEN THEY'D SLEEP WITH THAN WOMEN WITH MEN. 

This is not about status, wealth, attractiveness, competence, confidence, security, etc. either, just in general. All a man needs is for her to be his type, and sometimes not, and he's willing if he's single and looking and sometimes not also. Women aren't generally out looking for strange men just to have sex with, so her options are limited in that way.  Men aren't out approaching lots of women just to go have coffee or tea.

Notice what I put in the heading: Sexual Preference, not just options.

"All it takes for most men to WANT to have sex with a woman is her appearance. For most women, it takes more than a physical appearance to WANT to have sex with a man; but not just that, even if she wants to, it doesn't mean she'll go ahead and do it"

FALSE. Physical appearance is enough for most women. It is a myth that women are not influenced by lust and desire as much as men. If a man is physically attractive enough, women will sleep with him very quickly without getting to know him. I have seen it with my friends time and time again.

"Females have more men hitting on them, yes, than women hitting on men but not many she would actually want to, or have sex with. Wanting sex for us doesn't just come from feeling horny, but with a specific type of guy. A woman can have sex with someone she's not physically attracted to just like men, but a man will do it purely for physical reasons while a woman, in this case, it would be circumstantial. A man could be horny, and if an attractive woman hits on him, and is willing to sleep with him, more than likely he'd go, especially if he's single. For a horny woman, that takes more than just a guy hitting on her, physically attractive to her or not."

Yes a woman has to be horny and in the right mood, phase of her life. That is a difference between men and women but if she is in that receptive state physical attraction is going to be the reason why she does it. Women are not having circumstantial sex with men because he is funny, charming, kind whatever.....even young women today are explicit in their disgust for ugly men. The fact she is horny and willing does not change that.

Maybe 20 or 30 years ago an ugly man could use his  personality and good timing to get sex but not anymore. Why would give these men a chance when a physically attractive man is in their DMs. Women already have attractive men as fuck buddies whenever they need to scratch that itch.

"So no, women don't have more options for sex preferences - men do. Going out the door and having multiple guys hitting on me DOES mean I'll have more options for sex, but it DOESN'T mean my preferences are abundant. Sex for most women is different than what it is for men, please understand that. MEN WILL FIND MORE WOMEN THEY'D SLEEP WITH THAN WOMEN WITH MEN."

Wrong, emphatically wrong. Men have more options for sex preferences is another way of saying that men do not have high standards for arousal but that is null and void because most of those women are not interested. Sex is not as different for women and men as people think. Women would like to pretend their attraction is more complexed and nuanced.......it's not, sorry.

The truth so few men trigger that raw lust that women don't seem as sexual as men. With the most attractive men female lust is is even more potent and animalistic than men's sexuality. I have very attractive friends; male models, athletes, drug dealers.......I know what they are doing with women. Women who present a reserved, complexed face to the world but are completely different behind closed doors.

Men finding more women they'd sleep with means nothing if those women have zero interest. It's like making a list of things I would like to acquire if I became a Billionaire tomorrow. Don't you get it distinguishing sexual preferences and options means nothing because those preferences for men are not true options. Women don't even want to be the preference for most men.

"This is not about status, wealth, attractiveness, competence, confidence, security, etc. either, just in general. All a man needs is for her to be his type, and sometimes not, and he's willing if he's single and looking and sometimes not also. Women aren't generally out looking for strange men just to have sex with, so her options are limited in that way.  Men aren't out approaching lots of women just to go have coffee or tea."

Sorry but this is where you show your privilege and lack of understand of how difficult it is to date as a man. All a man needs is for her to be his type but many men like myself are nobodies type. A small percentage of men are lucky enough to be the type to many women. It takes an incredible stroke of luck if you are obviously not very attractive to be a woman's exact type. Men are not approaching women because most women are not receptive to being approached. Women have made it clear over the last decade that they want the vast majority of men to leave them alone.

[Tenebroso]

16 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

You're still making my point here. Do you think these women are there for how much sex they can have. No, They're there for whatever reasons they like those men and I'm sure it's not for an abundance of sexual partners. Those men are probably cheating on those women because they find other women attractive or because they have options for sex. Those women are probably there because their options are probably limited. 

"have little control for how much sex they can have" is a man's idea. Women don't have this problem. The problem women have is finding that ONE man she enjoys having sex with. Men can enjoy having sex with multiple and an abundance of women IF THEY COULD. That's the premise of this post, not the type of men women are sleeping with.

I am sure I could have a great time if I woke up a billionaire. There is a long list of things I could do and acquire but then there is reality. The fact that I could enjoy sex and abundance with women if I could, means nothing basically. You are either that guy or you are not.

Finding that one man she enjoys having sex with is a better problem to have than hoping that a woman will give you the time of day to just talk. A date is an achievement for a man.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Correct me if I am wrong @Princess Arabia, to rephrase with simplicity so Tenebroso can understand:

•  1 woman with a selection of 10 men - she may be sexually attracted to one man. More elements to sexual desire come into play for her.
•  1 man with a selection of 10 women - he may be sexually attracted to half the women. Less elements that constitute sexual desire for him.

Ergo she has less options, as dictated by the complexities in her sexual nature.

Tenebroso seems to be fixated on the gatekeeping phenomena : men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment/relationships. Women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex. Whereas your point isn't talking about this.

I understand and agree with your articulation

[Tenebroso]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Correct me if I am wrong @Princess Arabia, to rephrase with simplicity so Tenebroso can understand:

•  1 woman with a selection of 10 men - she may be sexually attracted to one man. More elements to sexual desire come into play for her.
•  1 man with a selection of 10 women - he may be sexually attracted to half the women. Less elements that constitute sexual desire for him.

Ergo she has less options, as dictated by the complexities in her sexual nature.

Tenebroso seems to be fixated on the gatekeeping phenomena : men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment/relationships. Women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex. Whereas your point isn't talking about this.

I understand and agree with your articulation

In 2025 men are not the gatekeepers of anything. A small percentage of men may have some influence over relationships because they are the men that women want.

My point is that the fact men are attracted to way more women than women are to men, means nothing because for most men the women you are attracted to have zero interest in you, so those options mean nothing. Also women sexual desire is not as complicated as people make out it's just that so few men can trigger that raw sexual sexual attraction in women. Other qualities do not in fact have much influence in making a woman attracted to a man; kindness, humour, intelligence etc It is a myth. If women cared about these things, we would see a much wider spectrum of men doing well with women.

That is not what is happening, there is a vast difference in the experiences of men. Some men attract nobody regardless of all their positive qualities while some men attract thousands of women. Women today complain about narcissistic players who lie and manipulate them yet these men are always chosen by women regardless of their reputation, why? because they are attractive and the type for many women.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Tenebroso said:

In 2025 men are not the gatekeepers of anything. A small percentage of men may have some influence over relationships because they are the men that women want.

My point is that the fact men are attracted to way more women than women are to men, means nothing because for most men the women you are attracted to have zero interest in you, so those options mean nothing. Also women sexual desire is not as complicated as people make out it's just that so few men can trigger that raw sexual sexual attraction in women. Other qualities do not in fact have much influence in making a woman attracted to a man; kindness, humour, intelligence etc It is a myth. If women cared about these things, we would see a much wider spectrum of men doing well with women.

That is not what is happening, there is a vast difference in the experiences of men. Some men attract nobody regardless of all their positive qualities while some men attract thousands of women. Women today complain about narcissistic players who lie and manipulate them yet these men are always chosen by women regardless of their reputation, why? because they are attractive and the type for many women.

Somehow, somewhere along the line, you have absorbed this belief men are victims of something. Women maybe? I do not know.

On what evidence are you putting forth these opinions?  Stats?  

You don't seem to have the ability to decipher that a point can have validity independent of a system.

[Tenebroso]

@Natasha Tori Maru I don't know if I would say men are victims. I don't think women are actually doing anything wrong to men. Men are not entitled to anything and I would not turn back the clock to restrict female freedom. That isn't the right solution. However my issue is with the discourse around dating which presents women as having a kind of attraction which is more complicated and takes into account thing beyond the physical etc kindness, humour, intelligence etc.......

What we thought once about female nature was based on an epoch where the true desires of women were restricted due to patriarchy, religion, socio-economic forces. Now that women are free at least in the west, we see that women are just as lustful and sexually driven as men if not more but importantly just for a minority of men.

There are plenty of stats that support my views but more importantly observing what women say but watching what they do and who they choose repeatedly. I have attractive friends and live in a diverse major city. I know the experiences of my attractive friends are true because I have lived with some of them and know what happens behind closed doors.

More women are in some kind of relationship than men, despite there being an almost equal number of men and women, why? because the most attractive men are often involved with multiple women, they have so many option that they have no incentive to settle down. Sometimes they are honest, sometimes they are not, so some women think they are in a committed relationship while the guy see her as just another option.

There is a lot of discussion around single mothers. Women say well it takes to two people to make a child they are right but what they don't acknowledge is that a small percentage of men have multiple kids with multiple women out of wedlock yet women will continue choosing those men anyway. Most men are not out there creating single mothers. A small percentage of men out there cause so much damage because women find them so attractive that they never have any incentive to change or become better which reveals that character, virtue and all these qualities women claim are important are in fact not important. If a man is attractive enough all red flags go out of the window.

Edited Saturday at 02:13 AM by Tenebroso

[Emerald]

@Tenebroso It's that same narrative playing out again and again.

What statistics do you have that show this?

If what you say is true that only the top 20% of guys get women... then it stands to reason that each of those top guys have 5 girlfriends on rotation and everyone else has none.

Do you have any stats to back that up?

And have you even anecdotally witnessed it (as a rule and not as an exception) that each attractive guy from the top 20% has 5 girlfriends who are committed only to him... and furthermore are fine with sharing him just to be able to have him?

Also, if you look around the world, you'll see plenty of men of all different levels of attractiveness with girlfriends and wives. How does the ubiquity of partnered up average men square with your theory?

[PenguinPablo]

18 minutes ago, Emerald said:

@Tenebroso It's that same narrative playing out again and again.

What statistics do you have that show this?

If what you say is true that only the top 20% of guys get women... then it stands to reason that each of those top guys have 5 girlfriends on rotation and everyone else has none.

Do you have any stats to back that up?

And have you even anecdotally witnessed it (as a rule and not as an exception) that each attractive guy from the top 20% has 5 girlfriends who are committed only to him... and furthermore are fine with sharing him just to be able to have him?

Also, if you look around the world, you'll see plenty of men of all different levels of attractiveness with girlfriends and wives. How does the ubiquity of partnered up average men square with your theory?

📊 Relationship Status by Gender (U.S.)

Source: Pew Research Center (2020) & U.S. Census / General Social Survey

Men aged 18–29:

63% are single

Only 37% are in a relationship or married

Women aged 18–29:

34% are single

66% are in a relationship or married

[Hojo]

Sexual preference is male or female they have the exact same sexual preferences man woman or transgender.

If you mean sex availiability options then your argument for not having as much options for sex is cause they are too picky because they get hit on all the time and therefore can be choosy.

Ridiculous arguments.

A comparison is like a white person saying black people are poor and dont get better paying jobs cause they have less options and will take any shitty job they can get cause they are just in it for the paycheck. While white people take their time and choose a job that gives them meaning cause they have so many job offers coming in and dont have to pay rent this month.

Edited Saturday at 04:19 AM by Hojo

[Kid A]

@Tenebroso 

You actually have some good points, but those points mainly apply to people in their 20s. Remember, there’s life after your 20s too. Things change quickly then, and men and women become equally attractive. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Tenebroso said:

@Natasha Tori Maru  However my issue is with the discourse around dating which presents women as having a kind of attraction which is more complicated and takes into account thing beyond the physical etc kindness, humour, intelligence etc.......

To be clear so I understand this sentence, as I think the grammar is catching me: You take issue with the fact that dating for women is more than just physical attraction? That the elements you raise, kindness, humor, intelligence, do not factor in for women?

Oh boy if so, I have news for you!!!! GOOD NEWS!! 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 minutes ago, Kid A said:

@Tenebroso 

You actually have some good points, but those points mainly apply to people in their 20s. Remember, there’s life after your 20s too. Things change quickly then, and men and women become equally attractive. 

I was just about to post this - nailed it. I have been dating actively for a long time, and although I am a single anecdote, I can attest there are profound changes in what men go for when reaching their 40s (and women).

[Kid A]

3 hours ago, Tenebroso said:

"All it takes for most men to WANT to have sex with a woman is her appearance. For most women, it takes more than a physical appearance to WANT to have sex with a man; but not just that, even if she wants to, it doesn't mean she'll go ahead and do it"

FALSE. Physical appearance is enough for most women. It is a myth that women are not influenced by lust and desire as much as men. If a man is physically attractive enough, women will sleep with him very quickly without getting to know him. I have seen it with my friends time and time again.

This is not true. 

You have no idea how little it takes for a woman to lose interest in you because of something you say or do. I’ve been rejected by so many women on dates that it’s honestly ridiculous. 

It’s also a well-known thing these days that women get «the ick» from the smallest things guys do.

[PenguinPablo]

1 hour ago, Kid A said:

This is not true. 

You have no idea how little it takes for a woman to lose interest in you because of something you say or do. I’ve been rejected by so many women on dates that it’s honestly ridiculous. 

It’s also a well-known thing these days that women get «the ick» from the smallest things guys do.

Which is such a fucking r*tard*d and narcissistic trend. The amount of damage that these brain rot Tik Tok trends have on society by people applying them at scale without further critical thinking. 

[Schizophonia]

I know a man, one of the highest-ranking Frenchmen (or the ) in the global information network, who is very grounded in non-dual spirituality and can supposedly manifest women.
He boasted in his telegram about "praying" to manifest women at absurd hours, like in the middle of the night, and sleeping with them after a few dozen minutes of conversation, lol.
He also talked about his hypnosis master who had siddhis, like being able to see the weather change, turn red lights green in the middle of a city, etc.

Edited Saturday at 08:34 AM by Schizophonia

[Basman]

The argument is that women are too picky comparatively and therefor have less option effectively. It equates optionality with availability but those two are completely different things. Having higher standards doesn't mean your availability is actually lower. The argument doesn't recognize either how much more leverage you have with greater availability as well.

A conventionally attractive women could ask random strangers for sex and most likely be successful at it while a conventionally attractive man would most likely not be remotely as successful in getting laid. I don't think women appreciate the leverage they quiet have but don't seem to use proactively because they desire a passive experience, and conversely don't seem to appreciate how sex starved men tend to be. Commenting on male availability as a women can easily become a "let them eat cake" situation.

Edited Saturday at 10:36 AM by Basman

[Tenebroso]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

To be clear so I understand this sentence, as I think the grammar is catching me: You take issue with the fact that dating for women is more than just physical attraction? That the elements you raise, kindness, humor, intelligence, do not factor in for women?

Oh boy if so, I have news for you!!!! GOOD NEWS!! 

I am saying women do not care about those things. My hypotheses is that women are more shallow than men.