So there is this interesting conundrum I’ve been trying to find a solution for.
It’s known popularly as the Battle of the Sexes.
Yeah I know what you’re thinking.
“Sure Kel, you’re gonna solve the battle of the sexes!”
“Um, I’ve got this great swamp land in Florida you’re just going to love…”
Stick with me.
So I see the battle of the sexes as a dividing line in our dating and relationship lives, caused by the two things that make up romantic love.
These are the desire for sexual fulfillment and the desire for emotional connection.
They are both important elements of true romantic love.
If you leave one or the other out, you don’t have romantic love as I define it.
What causes the battle of the sexes though, is guys and girls are divided.
Divided on which of these two aspects of romantic love is more natural to you.
It’s no secret in general guys are into sex.
In fact I would insist most guys are naturally sexually addicted.
I suspect most of you girls won’t disagree with me on this one.
Guys think about sex.
A lot.
Almost all the time.
Am I right girls?
And when it comes to dating, guys are usually trying to get to sex with you soon.
Like, maybe yesterday?
In fact in the battle of the sexes, I would call “get to sex quickly” the strategy on the guy’s side of the battle.
The seduction community advocates the strategy as a solution to the dreaded friend zone. The friend zone is where you girls put guys when you never intend to have sex with them.”
They’re your friend.
Your confidant.
The one you come crying to, when the guy you’re having sex with treats you badly.
The cry of most guys is, “Ugh!”
“Please.”
“Don’t put me in the friend zone!”
Okay girls I’ll admit.
I’m okay with being your friend.
In fact.
Because I don’t advocate the strategy.
I’m not a “get to sex quickly” kind of guy.
I really do want to come to know you as a person before I consider becoming physically intimate with you.
But I do relate to the basic problem here.
Because once I come to know you?
And really care about you?
I naturally desire to share deeper intimacy with you.
And that includes sex.
For me this has nothing to do with being “out for sex.”
What I want is to make love. To enjoy and share real emotional connection on the deepest physical level.
I’m a guy who is on track with what romantic love really is.
I really want to be free to express that with a girl I love.
And enjoy sharing in this deeper way.
This has nothing to do with the strategy.
But I’m still a guy.
Physical connection is a big part of how I feel love.
How I express love.
But because most guys are horn dogs and are strong advocates of the strategy, guys like me are left wondering how to approach things with girls.
Hence my conundrum.
Because if I’m right about you girls, I suspect you find the strategy to be something you would call the problem.
The problem is, how can you know a guy is really into you, and not just trying to get into your pants?
Yes I know there are some of you girls, who want to get into his pants too.
So things work out alright, when you meet guys who are horny when you are.
But you DTF girls are a bit of the exception in the long run.
And once you’ve played it that way for a while, you get a bit tired of it too.
You want to meet somebody who is more into you for you.
I read one girl’s comment recently who said “I’d like to know you think of me as more than just a vagina…because I am.”
And of course you are.
But how do you find a guy who believes this?
When there are so many guys out there who just want to get into your pants?
So this problem of guys being horn dogs?
Guys who are just out for sex?
It results in you developing what we’ll call the counter strategy.
The idea here is to hold out on sex as long as you possibly can. To make the guy “prove himself.”
What you want to know is that he’s really into you for you.
That he won’t just leave the minute you “give it up.”
I even read a book recently called The Power of the Pussy.
It makes this counter strategy explicit.
It advocates turning the tables on guys.
Using their own strategies against them to land a long term keeper.
You know?
The marriable guy?
The one with whom you have your children?
The author even advocates using other guys for sex, so you can satisfy your needs. That way you can hold out on the guy you really like.
Wow!
Can you see why they call it the battle of the sexes?
Good grief!
The guy who’s the good guy gets punished, while the bad boys get the goods!
(By the way, I do think that’s a great book for you to read to get the author’s perspective, even though I definitely can’t advocate her general approach.)
I was speaking about all this recently with a girl I was dating.
She was a strong advocate of the counter strategy.
She insisted that the only way to be sure a guy you’re with is the real deal, is simply to make him wait. To hold out a long time.
We didn’t know each other well enough, that I desired to be physically intimate with her.
What I was trying to get her to see though?
The counter strategy actually punishes the good guy.
The one that you actually want?
Because he’s not out to get into your pants?
You make him wait and wait to be physically intimate with you.
Even though sexual fulfillment is a key way a guy like this feels loved.
Shares love.
Can you see what I’m saying?
The counter strategy of making a guy wait a long time for sex?
It is no more respectful of a guy’s desire for sexual fulfillment than the strategy is of your desire for emotional connection.
Both of these elements of our natures are equally important for romantic love. Leaving one or the other element out of the picture, will kill your chances of developing and sustaining romantic love in your relationship.
Yet this is exactly what both the strategy and the counter strategy do.
So this is my conundrum.
I don’t really have an answer at this point.
I guess I wrote this post primarily to you girls.
Because I think your counter strategy is really pretty flawed.
Even though I understand its intentions?
I’m wondering if there is a way to find a better solution?
I definitely don’t advocate the strategy of getting to sex quickly for its own sake. I don’t advocate “get to sex” at all.
I advocate making love once the two of you come to know and love each other.
But that doesn’t take weeks or months to happen.
If you really love a guy?
You should desire to share physical intimacy with him as well.
But I also understand the problem.
How do you recognize him when he shows up?
Good guys don’t arrive with a label on their forehead that says, “Good guy who’ll love you and won’t leave you as soon as you’ve given up the goods.”
So when any guy shows up?
You shut down any possibility of being physically intimate with you.
Just in case he’s “like most guys.”
But this leaves you with the battle of the sexes.
Because the desire for sexual fulfillment is more natural to guys than it is to girls?
They continue to try to get to sex with you as quickly as they can.
Because emotional connection is more natural to you girls than it is to the guys?
You continue to try to hold out on sex as long as you can.
Instead of a win/win?
You end up with both sides fighting a losing battle.
What do you think? Can you suggest a better way?
Like what you’re reading? Sign up!
As a woman, I have encountered “the strategy” and also understand why “the counter strategy” has come about. I read a funny ecard a while back with the image of an exasperated woman and the caption read like “Never mind the Apocalypse. What about the Douchebag Epidemic that is already upon us?”
If most men are wired to prioritize sex and most women are wired to prioritize the emotional connection, then as a woman, I would need to satisfy myself that a guy actually likes me for me, not just that he wants to get into my pants. If I give it up too quickly, then I can’t be sure. If he genuinely enjoys my company and sees that I’m also playful and flirty (ie not a prude), then as a man I’m guessing he can not only see the sexual potential, but he will have fun with all of it too and also enjoy the chase. It’s like a dance, but it can be fun. As you say, guys don’t show up with signs plastered to them with warnings about whether they are the good ones.
However, as a woman I should satisfy MYSELF that, even if it doesn’t work out with a guy, he’s actually someone I am attracted to enough and like enough to share myself with. That way I don’t have regrets.
If he’s going to misrepresent himself for the sole purpose of getting the goods, my investigative powers are only going to get me so far. Holding out indefinitely, or getting my kicks with other men that I don’t wish to be with just sounds unsatisfying and like too much work!
I just have to be clear and honest with myself that I’m not using sex as a way of drawing him in, in the hopes he will stay. I think that strategy inevitably fails. And it often leaves a woman feeling ashamed and disappointed in herself more than she is in the man. Not good.
Withholding sex as a way of convincing or pushing a man into a more serious commitment is not a good long term strategy. I think it’s like withholding affection, which both sexes hate. It feels like punishment. And that’s a recipe for having a guy withdraw, often unconsciously.
On the other hand, if a man feels accepted, alive, and cared for (which will often include include sex for him, before serious relationship commitment), I think he’s way more likely to stick around. That’s because he will feel sexually satisfied and connected as well as emotionally connected. I think he needs the latter, regardless, if he wants to be in a serious relationship with a woman, as opposed to just a sexual one.
Anyways, that is my two cents worth! Thanks for the post Kel. Another great topic to tackle.