u/GridReXX

I just never liked that catchphrase.

I hate that it’s a thing.

It’s silly.

Ofc, it does the thing of making boys and men who don’t do those things feel bad about themselves, which compassionately I’m sympathetic toward.

But what I really mean is: What do you mean “teach” them?

Barring severe cognitive disability or impairment, you think the ones raping and disregarding others for their benefit don’t know?

And if they genuinely “don’t know” and aren’t clinically mentally disabled, then it begs the question: what the hell is going on with their brain functioning??

I feel like most of us, girls and boys, grew up ALREADY being taught the basics of mutual respect and respecting other people’s boundaries by our parents or at least early childhood teachers.

Idk. The phrase feels dishonest or like society is in collective denial. Cuz why the hell do boys and men need an extra lesson???

Consent is pretty much the foundational principle of Barney, Sesame Street, and whatever comes on PBS Kids or YouTube for children nowadays: play well in the sandbox with others.

Boys and men (and girls and women) who push past boundaries “understand” they’re doing so. They don’t care. They’re deliberately disregarding the other person’s wishes because it gets in the way of what they want.

The better question is, across diverse cultures and time immortal, WHY is it that boys and men more so than girls and women do that?

We all know why. But western societies don’t want to say the elephant in the room for fear of being called bio-essentialist or what have you.

My thing is you can’t address or fix a problem unless you’re comprehensively honest about it. And my thing is, it’s clearly not just “socialization.” It’s way too consistent for that. It’s nature exacerbated by nurture imo.

(Hot hormonal-science-backed take: I think a same thing that makes males as an aggregate more likely to ignore sexual consent, makes them more likely to ignore general consent aka more likely to rob, assault, murder, fight, raid, pillage, conquer, subjugate, enslave, explore, adventure, risk-take, etc.)

I keep noticing that when men bring up “pair bonding,” they usually aren’t talking about how they bond with women. I also notice that the concept itself is largely dominated by male talking heads, particularly in manosphere circles. For the last decade+, it’s men who are the primary ones evoking “pair bonding,” which is interesting 🤔

They use it as a way to explain how they feel women are supposed to attach to men, like it’s a rule women should follow. But that’s not really how women usually talk about nor experience relationships or attachment. Women tend to talk in terms like mutual love, trust, commitment, consideration, or connection.

Another example of this is the extreme emphasis men place on sex as the ultimate act of attachment. It’s weird to me because if you ask 100 women how their first time having sex went vs 100 men, I promise you the men are going to report higher levels of limerence, attachment (a.k.a possessive feelings), giddiness, and overall euphoria associated with sex. Which is what it is, we get it. Sex is their end all be all, but they’re projecting their experience as if it’s a universal one perhaps? Or more selfishly, they don’t care if it’s a universal experience, it’s the transaction he wants. Idk. Either way, the solipsism is annoying lol.

So to me, the way men use “pair bonding” feels less like a neutral relationship concept and more like a male-coded way of making a one-sided argument about some deferential fantasy they wished from women.

You can’t enter into a lifelong contract with the gender who acts like they will die without sex and die if their penis isn’t inserted into a warm hole and not expect to be their sex doll of sorts.

I do think that’s foolhardy of women.

I truly don’t think many women realize just how horny and sex-minded the average dude is until she’s been in a relationship with one. Like she thinks she has an idea. But she doesn’t.

It’s a bit pathological their need for bone’ing. And it’s not just straight men. It’s all males. The males who have sex with males community has countless NSA sex because that’s just how dudes are. It’s the testosterone I suppose. Either way, it’s outside the scope of what the average woman craves.

I think women have to make a choice. Commit to men and what that means. Or don’t. But don’t act shocked you married a male human and he’s humping the walls like a pit bull.

That said, I also think men should be more upfront about just how horny they are. Be explicit about how much sex you desire. So no one’s blindsided or caught off guard.

Inb4: This is not me saying anyone should have sex when they don’t want to. I’m a woman. Clearly I am against that. I just want people to be more honest about the situations they find themselves in. I’m saying perhaps consider your incompatibilities and compromise areas before “I do.”

I’m not personally saying they are insults, but if you’re the type of guy who thinks being seen as a “husband” is offensive, then do you see how women can think being seen as “wifey” is also not a compliment?

From what I’ve heard and read, these are the reasons some guys think “husband material” isn’t a compliment:

“Beta” “being used for money” “just so she can say she has a family” “she doesn’t lust after met the way she does Chad” “she’s already fucked other guys before marrying me” “retrospectively cucked” Based on that definition of it, to men it sounds like a humiliation ritual.

From what I’ve heard and read, these are the reasons some ladies think “wifey material” isn’t a compliment:

“He must think I’m going to be a bang maid. A cook. A baby incubator. A submissive house elf who defers to his Lordship.” Based on that definition of it, to women it sounds like a threat or prison sentence.

Thoughts?