Navigating the Murky Sexual Marketplace: Good Girl Edition

I touched on this a bit in my last post, but then Deti stated it clearly:

For at least 30 years now, women have been encouraged to put off marriage for as long as possible. So that’s what men see now, and what they deal with.

So I started riffing on some recent thoughts in that direction, to see if I’d come up with anything useful, and it kind of went back to the conundrum in which good girls find themselves.  So here goes.

Men don’t expect girls to be interested in marriage anymore, especially right out of high school.  What’s the worst thing that can happen to a bright, young 18-year-old girl, in the eyes of our society — even in church people?  Pregnancy.  Not because of the sin, primarily, but because it closes off her “potential.”  Even if she gets married to the father, who turns out to be a responsible provider, and they make a good family together, there will still be people who will sigh and wonder “what could have been,” as if she would have been curing cancer if she hadn’t gotten sidetracked by diapers and PTA meetings.  Everyone except a few oddballs like the Amish or very traditional Catholics is in agreement: a girl shouldn’t get tied down too early, preferably not before 26-28, after college and a few years of establishing a career.

So young men catch this vibe and act accordingly.  The guy who expresses an interest in marriage around typical 20-year-old girls quickly learns that he might as well talk about his struggles with chronic foot odor.  The romantic, marriage-minded boy learns that he has to hide his good intentions, so as not to scare away the girls who just want to have fun.

I was one of those boys.  I assumed that I would follow the script of my parents and grandparents:  graduate from high school, find a nice girl, date a while, get married, and build a life together.  On some parallel track, I would be establishing a career, but I didn’t expect one to have to wait for the other, because it didn’t for my ancestors.  They got married young and started having kids and getting on with life, even though it meant sacrifices like living with one’s parents for a while until they could afford a place.  It’s just what you did.

Well, not so much for my generation.  The girls weren’t interested in marriage, and they certainly weren’t interested in struggling to get by, cooking on a hot plate in a dingy apartment while hubby worked long hours to save up for a house someday.  They had fraternity parties to go to, and fascinating careers ahead of them!

Of course, while the girls weren’t interested in marriage, they were still interested in sex and temporary relationships.  I didn’t really understand that for a long time, though, because I still had women on enough of a pedestal — and they still paid enough lip service to the idea of marriage someday, at least — that I assumed they really did want marriage, and my own lack of success meant I just wasn’t attractive enough.  In hindsight, I can see that wasn’t it; girls were attracted to me at first, but I scared them off by coming on too relationshippy.  Had I known what I know now, I could have gotten laid like tile; but the truth is, I just wanted to find a nice girl and settle down.  (Not that I was so moral I wouldn’t have had sex with her at the first opportunity, but I would have married her.)

So, in that milieu, where most of the girls are just having fun and the boys have learned to play by those rules, what’s the Good Girl to do?  How does she figure out which guys have an interest in marriage that they’re keeping quiet about?  How does she signal to those guys that she’s different?  Here’s what I would suggest, from the point of view of a man watching for that kind of girl:

First, don’t do what the other girls are doing.  Don’t go to the parties, don’t watch shows about the fascinating lives of single working women, don’t dress like a hooker.  Just by not doing the bad stuff, you already set yourself apart.

More on dress: go with dresses and skirts as much as possible.  Keep it modest; look like you might be saving something under there that only one man will get to see.  Don’t obsess about it; it’s not like you can’t wear jeans once in a while and still look feminine.  But keep the cleavage out of sight and leave some things to the imagination.  Also, have long hair and know how to work with it.  Want to get a guy’s attention?  Take your hair down and brush it out a bit then put it back up while you’re talking to him.  Just don’t necessarily expect him to remember what you were talking about.

Talk about marriage/family topics around guys you find interesting.  Not, “So, what do you think about marriage?” but talk about how much you enjoy babysitting your friends’ or relatives’ kids, or how great it was growing up in a big family (whatever applies to you).  When a guy hears, “I love kids,” he knows what that means (even if she doesn’t).  Remember that guys are much less perceptive about these things, so don’t be afraid that you’re coming on too strong.  You’re much more likely to be too subtle.  Remember that, if he’s a marriage-minded guy, he’s been burnt before by expressing it, so it might take more than a hint or two to convince him you’re on the level.

Learn and practice homemaking skills.  If you’re doing things like cooking or sewing on a regular basis, it will come up in conversation naturally and will make you look more “wife-like” without you having to advertise it.

Don’t rule out older guys too quickly.  I’m not saying you have to date guys 20 years older; if you’re not attracted to them, don’t.  But don’t get stuck thinking you have to have someone within a few years of your age just because everyone says so.  Guys 25-30 are much more likely to have gotten tired of waiting for the girls their age to stop partying, and could be very receptive.

Tell your friends and relatives in no uncertain terms that you’re ready to marry when the right guy comes along, and that you don’t want to fool around in the meantime.  They may not approve, but word will get around, and may get to the right guys.

Any other suggestions?

Ugly Ducklings?

I thought I’d dealt with the ridiculous notion that there are lots of attractive girls who just can’t find a man to marry, but the goalposts have moved: now it appears that many of them are actually too ugly.  Of course, there are some truly deformed, ugly people out there, but that’s always been the case and they aren’t that common, so does it  really have anything to do with the modern phenomenon of “where are all the good men now that I’m ready”?  This all actually leads into a post concept I’d been planning to work on, so let’s deal with this new myth, shall we?

First, if you know a 35-year-old, shrewish, short-haired careerist who’s battling an extra 10-15 pounds and complains a lot about how much men suck, it’s completely believable that no one wants to marry her now.  But she wasn’t always 35, shrewish, careerist, etc.  Once upon a time she was a fresh-faced 18.  Was she really so ugly then that no guys were interested for the next several years, or did she shrug them off because she was too busy “living”?  Let’s consider.

I did a quick search and found a small, Midwestern high school that puts its senior pictures online.  (I’m not going to say what town, because I figure it’d be kinda mean to have one of them do a search someday and find these pictures and my mean statements about them.  Suffice it to say it’s a middle-American town like thousands of others, with small enough numbers to keep my experiment manageable.)  I grabbed the girls’ pictures from 2012 (the last year available), arranged them into a montage, and numbered them.  The result:


So, how many of these girls are “too ugly” for any decent man to be interested in?  Well, #6 is clearly whatever we’re calling “retarded” these days, so she may not be marriageable for other reasons.  I don’t think any of the rest qualify as “ugly.”  I could nitpick some of them: #4 has a heck of a man-jaw, #12 needs help with her makeup, and so on.  But those aren’t big things, and they wouldn’t turn off every guy.  The main problem I see is that three of them are significantly fat — enough to keep away a lot of guys — and a few others have at least a hint that they might be putting on weight.  That doesn’t have to be permanent, though; and if those girls lost the weight, their features look good enough that they’d fit in with the rest.

So my contention is that 27 of these 28 girls could be married to decent guys with jobs by the age of 20 if that’s what they wanted.  None of them are doomed to a life of cats due to their looks.  Very, very few women are — nowhere near the numbers to account for all the career girls hitting the Wall these days.

However, pick out any one of these girls, and imagine her after 15 years of college, work, and club-hopping.  Add 20 pounds, cut off the hair to give her a “sassy” do, and give her an N of 12-20 and the personality disorders to prove it.  Now, when she cries that no man ever wanted to marry her, are you going to buy that?  Before you do, think back to the cutie she once was.

Out of curiosity, I also grabbed their pictures from 1962, 50 years earlier.  The results:


Now, I actually find this group homelier than the 2012 girls, which surprised me, but that’s mostly because the hairstyles do absolutely nothing for me.  (I’m very heartened by the amount of long hair in the 2012 pictures, actually.)  I’m sure many of these girls would be much cuter with long hair.  But the most striking thing is that not one of these girls appears to be overweight (maybe just a hint on #3, but barely).

Does anyone doubt that these girls were able to find husbands?  Of course not.  But that’s not because they’rte more attractive than the 2012 girls; they’re less attractive in my opinion.  It’s because girls wanted husbands back then and they didn’t want to put them off until their 30s.

Men Behaving Lamely

I recently was treated to a reminder of just how completely the female imperative permeates our culture — at a Catholic men’s prayer breakfast, of all things.  I’ve been mulling it over since then and thought I’d “share.”

First, the good points.  Number one, it was truly a “men’s” (and teenage boys) event; no women (or girls) in attendance at all.  That surprised me a little — I’d almost expect at least one whipped guy to bring his wife along to prove we weren’t planning to reverse the 19th Amendment or something — but it’s a fairly new event, so that hasn’t happened yet.  It’s surprising how relaxing it is to be in the presence of only men.  It’s quiet, there’s no drama at all, and everything just gets done.

It’s amazing how quickly 200 men can go through a buffet line.  Even more striking was that I didn’t see a single guy go back for seconds.  After I thought about it, I realized that was because they provided us with really big plates, so guys were able to take as much as they wanted — no wives around to say 8 pieces of bacon is too many.  We got our platters, loaded them up, ate it all, and moved on.

There wasn’t much outright shaming language.  I was watching closely for that and only winced a couple times.  The focus stayed on making men better, not on beating them up, so that much was good.

So much for the good points; on to the rest.

We started with Mass.  I won’t get into the problems with the new Mass except to say that many of the changes since Vatican II have been a direct result of having women more involved in church leadership and planning liturgy.  The whiny dirges that pass for music, the de-emphasis on the Sacrifice and the over-emphasis on the “communal meal” aspect, the hand-holding during prayers, the push for more “participation” by lay people, the applause for everything from birthdays to having visitors — these are all the result of women (and effeminate men) trying to make Mass more welcoming, more fun, more “inclusive” for everyone.  As a result, men left the church in droves during those years, and most of those who remained sat stoically through the silliness.

So you’d think that a bunch of men with no women around would dispense with the happy-clappy 70s music and the hand-holding.  Well, not so much.  It was all still there.  I’d like to think that they just don’t know any better, but when I looked around and saw guys holding hands with their eyes closed, looking like they might shed a tear at any moment, it hit me: maybe they like this!  Maybe they haven’t just been putting up with it; maybe they really enjoy this stuff.

After Mass and breakfast, we had our speakers, starting with our bishop.  Now, our bishop is one of the good guys.  He’s been a leader in speaking out against abortion and homosexual marriage and calling out politicians who use their Catholicism to get elected and then violate it in office.  He’s talked about the martyrdom of the early Christians, and warned that we could be facing serious persecution for our beliefs in the near future.  I honestly think he would go to the lions for his faith and to set an example for his flock.  He’s no wuss.

And yet, when he started talking about the lack of men in leadership positions in the church, he had to include disclaimers about how there’s nothing wrong with women in leadership, that what we really need is balance.  There weren’t even any women in the room, and yet he practically stammered when he got too close to saying that maybe it just might not be best to have women running everything.  This man with the courage to face up to authorities who can — and someday may — send armed men to imprison or kill him for his beliefs, can’t tell a bunch of men that there are some jobs women shouldn’t do (except for the priesthood, which he jumped past very quickly).  Then it hit me again: is he saying these things because he’s afraid to offend women, or does he really believe it?  When he says what families and churches need is more “balance,” is he trying to get men involved so they can truly take their leadership back, or does he really think that a 50/50 balance is best?  I’m not sure.

The second speaker was from a Catholic men’s group.  I couldn’t figure out what their goal is, but apparently they get men together and get them excited about being men and doing things like “leadership.”  It reminded me of groups like Promise Keepers, which got lots of men together vowing to be better men and fathers and….then what?  What ever comes of it?  Leading whom where, and to what?  It occurred to me later that they’re following a feminine model.  That’s how women resolve things, with the baby shower model:  get a bunch of women together, and they’ll talk about babies or clothes or gossip or whatever else isn’t the issue, but when they leave they all know what the herd’s consensus is on everything.  Men don’t work that way; if you want men to fix a problem, you have to do more than get them in a room and “inspire” them.  They need actions to take, specific challenges to tackle.

That was really the crux of the problem with the whole conference.  If you say there’s a problem with “failed male leadership,” fine; I won’t dispute that today’s men could be much better leaders, much better men.  I certainly include myself in that group.  But if you’re going to get men together and teach them to be leaders, you’re going to have to do one of two things: either give them someone to lead, or explain to them why no one seems to want to follow them.  Otherwise you get the guy all worked up and he goes home and says, “Hey, Honey, this conference was awesome; I’m ready to be a real leader for you and the kids.”  And she says, “Great, you can start by leading this trash out to the curb.”

You can’t warn guys about that, or give them any specific actions to take, without talking about female rebellion.  You just can’t, but no one went near that topic.  Headship and submission in marriage are a package deal; you can’t tell a guy to go home and take more headship of his family without him taking power away from his wife.  If you can’t explain that to him or tell him why it’s necessary, because you’re afraid of offending women or convinced that equalitarianism is correct, you can’t give him any tools.  All you can do is get men together and pump them up with buzzwords, and then turn them loose, hoping good stuff will happen somehow.

Leadership is a zero-sum game, in a family or in any organization.  If I’m the leader of a scout group, and you come along and insist on being the co-leader, that doesn’t give the group twice as much leadership.  It divides the leadership between us.  Men can’t re-invent themselves as leaders in their churches without taking it away from the women who currently hold it.  Those women are not going to give it up gladly, so men who try are going to have a fight on their hands.  To fail to even warn them of that, let alone to supply them with the proper tools, is setting them up for failure.  It also doesn’t help to imply that women only took over leadership because men abandoned it.  That makes them think that if men volunteer for leadership positions, women will gladly step aside for them.  That’s a lie, and it will leave men confused and frustrated when they try and get rejected.

The last speaker, a priest, did hit some good points.  He stressed that masculine men who try to fix the current problems will get no help from most of the Church hierarchy, so we have to depend on each other and other sources for that.  But even he said at one point, when talking about how men need to get their priorities straight, that “the ladies get it.”  The ladies don’t get it, any better than the men do — maybe worse.  I didn’t get to talk to him later, but I’d bet (from his general tone) that he doesn’t really believe the ladies get it; but that’s the female imperative that we’re all breathing every day.  If you don’t make a conscious effort to avoid it, it’s so easy to slip into that assumption that women are more engaged, more spiritual, more “together” than men.

On the whole, it was pretty disappointing, even though it didn’t get into the shaming I was afraid it might.  The phrase that kept coming to my mind throughout the day was “playing dress-up.”  I couldn’t figure out why until I’d had some time to think about it later, since you normally think of that as a girl thing.  But that’s really what it was like: a bunch of boys dressing up for Halloween as cowboys, astronauts, or heroes; but at the end of the day the costumes come off and they’re back to real life, with no lasting effect.  If you just put on the hat and spurs but don’t learn to ride the horse, you’re not a cowboy.  And if we can’t even talk about how wild many horses have gotten or what to do after one throws you, we’re just playing dress-up.

The problems with marriage today, and the wider societal repercussions of feminism, are problems of both sexes.  We could argue about which sex is more to blame, but I don’t think there’s any rational argument that can put all the blame on men.  So there won’t be a solution that doesn’t put at least some of the responsibility on women.  There certainly won’t be one coming from men who can’t even discuss women’s weaknesses.

I got to thinking about what a good men’s conference would be like.  I think it would start with a speaker asking, “Okay, men, let’s have a show of hands: how many of you asked your wives if you could be here today?  Okay, now how many told your wives you were coming?  We have a problem here.”  There has to be a discussion of what feminism has wrought in families, churches, and society.  There has to be an explanation of biblical teaching on headship and submission.  Most of all, tools must be provided for men to achieve their proper state in life.  Each man needs to go home with a plan, at least one action he’s going to take to work toward the proper headship in his family or the proper leadership in his church or community.  Specific actions, not just talk and emotions.

I think sometimes there’s a hope that if we fix men women will follow.  If men all become masculine and dominant, women will happily submit to them, and over time the laws and mores will change back to where they should be.  That sounds nice, because it means we don’t have to confront women about their behavior.  But it’s a pipe dream.  That may happen to some extent in individual relationships, but to expect it to happen society-wide is to ignore that women (like men) have a sinful nature, and part of that is rebellion against male headship.  That’s never going to go away completely, no matter how manly men are.  Besides, we’ll never get all men on board; there will always be some Pajama Boys waiting to cut us off at the knees, and the legal system is already in place to assist them.  Making men so attractive that women can’t resist them, even if it were possible, isn’t the overall answer.

Too Hot to Touch

This started out as a comment at Dalrock’s, and got long enough that I moved it here.  The context is the idea some people keep putting forth that there is an epidemic of beautiful, fit, smart, Christian, virtuous young women who want nothing more than to be married but can’t find a decent man.  Sometimes they can’t even get a date.  It’s a very sad story if it’s true, so I decided to explore the idea a bit.  Here’s the comment that got me started.  If I recall correctly, the commenter is the father of a couple of over-educated girls with no apparent marriage prospects, so he white-knights frequently:

A beautiful 23 year old girl with no debt, high SMV, and a college degree has both astronomically high MMV and SMV. She doesn’t just wake up one day and decide that today, she is going to get married. She has to be asked.

They aren’t getting asked. That is the problem. — IBB

First, let me dispense with one myth he keeps repeating:  a college degree is never going to make a woman more attractive to men, no matter how many times you say it or how much you wish it were so.

As for the rest:  We’ve got a beautiful 23-year-old girl with no red flags who wants to be married. I assume she’s not hiding in the basement due to crippling shyness, so men do see her beauty and have opportunities to approach her. Obviously they aren’t going to approach and propose in the middle of their first conversation; they’re going to approach and talk to her for a bit, see if there’s some interest there, ask for a phone number or even a date. If she agrees, they’re going to see each other for a while, meet each other’s families, talk about increasingly marriage-oriented things, and THEN he’s going to propose to her.

So if she’s not getting any proposals, that process is breaking down along the way somewhere. Let’s explore where.

First, a beautiful 23-year-old girl who goes out in public WILL be approached. Don’t tell me she won’t.  I have eyes.  Sadly, I’ve also been the let’s-just-be-friends friend of a few beautiful 20- to 25-year-old girls, and got to see just how many approaches they get, to the point that they actually know how to use call waiting on their phones, and have to decide which date offer to accept (if any) each night they go out.  If she goes to a bar or a party, men will buy/bring her drinks all night just for the opportunity to talk to her.

Next, some of the men WILL be attractive. As he says, she has an astronomical SMV, so she won’t be approached only by fatsos and geeks. She’ll be approached by handsome men, rich men, confident men, Christian men, and men who embody combinations of those traits.

So, the next step: does she indicate any interest? Is she putting them off somehow? Even if she is, that’s not the whole problem, because some men are pretty hard to discourage when they have a hot babe in the crosshairs. Just being a little reserved isn’t going to scare them away.

So is she refusing their advances? Are her expectations so high that not a single one of these men is worth a date? Is she playing way too hard to get?  (Again, this probably wouldn’t keep the most persistent ones away.)

If she’s going on some dates, what’s going wrong then? Are they all pushing for quick sex? No. Some will, of course, but not all of them, even today. Some won’t out of morals; but there will also be others who would expect a first-date lay from a 30-year-old mother-of-two, who nonetheless would accept a longer wait when the prize is a hot,chaste 23-year-old. So at least some of them will play it straight.

Is she driving them away once they get to know each other? Is she just a crazy bitch? Probably not already at 23, coming from a good family. Besides, even insanity wouldn’t prevent EVERY man from sticking around if she’s really hot. Just seeming relatively normal in the head would be plenty to satisfy most men and keep them around while the relationship matures, considering her looks.

That brings us to the proposal. So if she’s made herself available, shown any interest at all in men who approach her, gone on dates to get to know them, and not driven them away with some sort of inexcusable personality disorder, the proposal WILL come. That’s just how it works. That’s how it’s always worked in the past in most societies, and it’s how it still works today for plenty of women who don’t have as much to offer as she does. It just makes no sense at all to think that the MOST attractive girls have it the hardest. That’s like saying that the men with the most money and the fastest cars have the hardest time getting dates. It’s nonsense.

Consider this: any woman who’s hot AND at least mildly famous will get proposals in the mail. Why wouldn’t the men proposing to her propose to her if she were not famous but went to their churches, if they got the chance? The answer is: they would. They do.

Update: Cane Caldo did a great post covering a part of this that I only touched on: white-knighting fathers who encourage their princesses to hold out for the perfect man, and scare everyone else away.

What Is It with Women and Fairies?

I don’t watch TV anymore, except for the occasional football game.  That’s not some proud moral stance I’ve taken that I think makes me better than other people.  It’s mostly an accident of circumstances: there’s no cable where I live, and when I had a dish system they kept raising the prices and worsening the service until I dropped it, and then I got out of the habit.  Now it’s just hard to imagine dedicating the time and energy to sitting down and getting into a new show, so I watch old favorite movies and TV shows online, and ignore the new stuff.

So it’s always a bit of a shock to the system when I’m in someone else’s home and I see what’s pouring in through the TV today.  As I said, I do watch football now and then, so I’ve seen how stupid and PC the commercials have gotten.  But at least football is still kinda oriented toward men and a more conservative audience.  The Cultural Marxism is in the background, but it’s not slapping you in the face.

It slapped me in the face yesterday.  I was at Thanksgiving dinner, chatting with another guy, and a “parade” was on TV, beamed in (I assume) from New Yawk City.  I say “parade” because most of it seemed to consist of dance numbers performed in one spot, which was unlike any parade I’ve ever seen, but anyway.  Suddenly this extremely obvious man dressed as a woman started singing, and we gradually realized that all the people on stage with him were likewise men in drag.

The funny thing was, I had just been talking to this guy about what Steve Sailer calls “World War T”: the fact that the next front in the culture war, now that the elites have gotten their way on homosexual marriage, appears to be the push for rights for transsexuals of various sorts.  No sooner had we finished talking about that, when these guys pop onto the TV and start singing about how everyone gets to choose who he wants to be.  Yes, it was that blatant.

Now, here’s the thing: it’s unlikely that anyone else in my family has even met a transsexual.  I’ve only met one, and that’s because I traveled in more liberal and cosmopolitan circles than the rest of them for a while.  We’re talking about rural, provincial, salt-of-the-earth type people here.  Take the image you have of the Amish, give them cars and electricity but not iThings, and you’ve got the idea.  To them, the microwave is still kind of a fad, so you’d think that men dressing up as women and marrying each other would be completely out of line to them.

And yet, all the women in the room seemed sort of fascinated by it, in an embarrassed, joking way.  They didn’t say, “Oh, I just love this stuff!” which is what would have happened in some liberal homes I’ve visited.  But they didn’t change the channel or find something else to do either; they watched it and remarked on the nice boots the guys were wearing.  When I and the other man in the room did express disgust, they looked at us like we were spoiling the fun by expressing an opinion held by all of humanity up until a few years ago.  We were the rude ones — not the network execs, performers, and announcers pumping deviant behavior into their home during a family program on a holiday afternoon.

That’s another reason women shouldn’t vote or be in charge of things, I guess.  It’s just too hard for them to look at something and say, “That’s wrong.  I don’t want to burn you at the stake for it or anything, but it’s wrong, so keep it away from me and mine.”

I think I’ll continue my football-only TV policy for now.  Until teams start using men in drag as cheerleaders, anyway.

Getting (Not Giving) the Shaft

Time for the results from my extremely non-scientific poll of how often men would like to have sex in marriage, charted against the actual numbers as reported by married couples to the General Social Survey (GSS).  With 99 votes on my poll, the trend is clear enough to draw some conclusions.

My first mistake was in inventing my own time frames instead of using the ones used in the GSS.  The most frequent category used by the GSS was “4+ times per week,” while I had three catetgories more frequent than that, two of which got the bulk of the votes.  At the other end of the scale, my “monthly or less” category includes three of the GSS categories, two of which got the bulk of its votes.  And in the middle, the GSS had a “2-3 times a month” category that didn’t fit into any of mine.  More on how I massaged those issues later.

First, the raw data:

My Poll:

  • Monthly or less 1.01%  (1 votes)
  • Weekly 2.02%  (2 votes)
  • Twice a week 19.19%  (19 votes)
  • 3-4 Times a Week 40.4%  (40 votes)
  • Nightly 21.21%  (21 votes)
  • Morning and Night 12.12%  (12 votes) 
  • So Often You Get Fired for Missing Work 4.04%  (4 votes)

The GSS:

0: NOT AT ALL (in the last year) 6.8
1: ONCE OR TWICE (in the last year) 6.7
2: ONCE A MONTH 12.9
3: 2-3 TIMES A MONTH 20.3
4: WEEKLY 23.9
5: 2-3 PER WEEK 23.6
6: 4+ PER WEEK 5.7

My first attempt at a chart kept each poll’s categories as-is, and simply interleaved them.  This is hard to read, but judge for yourself.  The blue bars represent the frequency reported to the GSS, from lowest to highest, and the red dots/lines are what my poll reported.


As I said, that’s ugly.  So I tried to lump the periods together to get something that would match up better between the two data sets.  The groupings I settled on were Monthly or Less, Weekly, Semi-weekly (meaning 2-3 times), and 4+/week.  This left two groups that didn’t fit well into one of those.  The 2-3/month group from the GSS, I divided half-and-half between Monthly and Weekly.  That seemed to be the fairest way to do that.  Likewise, I divided the 3-4/week group from my own poll evenly between Semi-Weekly and 4+/week.  That resulted in the following much more readable chart:


Now, I think you can see that quibbling over whether I should have split those two in-between groups differently is pretty irrelevant.  Even if I gave the “Getting” side the benefit of the doubt both times, the disparity here would still be very clear.

In the two bars on the left, 3.03% of the men in my poll reported wanting sex weekly or less.  According to the GSS, 70% of couples reported having sex that infrequently.  In the right-hand two bars, you see the opposite: 97% of the men in my poll want sex more often than weekly, but only 30% report getting it that often.  And if you look just at the fourth bar, nearly 60% of men want sex at least 4 times a week, but less than 6% are getting that.  So a man who goes into marriage hoping to have sex at least 4 times a week has, at best, a 1-in-10 chance of getting it.

The GSS didn’t even bother asking about higher frequencies; maybe they didn’t think daily sex in marriage would be common enough to count.

The takeaway here is clear.  Men — at least the kind of men who will answer a poll on the manosphere — want a lot more sex in marriage than they’re likely to get.  The only man who’s likely to get all the sex he can stand is the one who wants it only monthly.  Those who want anything more than a Sunday afternoon quickie had better plan ahead for how they’re going to make sure that happens, because it’s not at all the norm.  If these charts represent 100 couples, only 3 of them have sated husbands, with maybe another 6 or so doing okay, but 90 hungry.  Not  good odds.

The message to wives is clear too: if you think your husband is happy with your weekly romps, maybe he is — or maybe he’s not at all but doesn’t know what to do about it.  Even if you’re going at it 2-3 times a week, there’s a good chance he’d like more.  If you really want to keep him satisfied, it may take a lot more sex than you had guessed.  Try offering it every night for a couple weeks, and see if he turns you down.

How Often Is Enough, Guys?

A common topic of contention in the manosphere between men and those few women who brave these choppy waters is the issue of frequency of sex in marriage.  Polls say that married men get sex once a week on average, and also that married men get sex considerably more often than single men.  So women seem inclined to take this as evidence that most married men aren’t being deprived.

But is that true?  Does getting it more often than your single friends equal satisfaction?  If the average is weekly, that means about half the men are getting it less often than that (I know mean and median are not the same thing, but it’s close enough for our purposes).  The GSS says 15% get it twice a year or less, while only 7% get it four or more times a week.  (I wonder if “daily” was so small they didn’t bother to report it, because I’m having trouble finding it mentioned anywhere.)

So, how many of those guys are satisfied?  I’m going to save my opinion for another post, so as to try not to skew this poll, but I’m hoping plenty of men will share theirs so we can get an idea what the frequency would be if men were in charge.  So here’s the question; feel free to add details about your age or other circumstances in the comments:

Guys, if you were (or are) married to a woman you found attractive — not a supermodel, but someone who doesn’t repulse you or make you want to avoid her — and she seemed to enjoy sex well enough and was happy to have it any time you felt like it, how often would you like that to be?