So you're saying men don't have sexual pluralism? Google says sexual pluralism means "the view that any sexual behavior is morally permissible so long as it takes place between mutually committed adults" I don't think this is what you mean?
And are you also saying men don't sleep with many women in early life, then settle down and get married etc and completely change their sexual behavior?
See, this is part of the problem here. People insult and otherwise dismiss terms they don't know or understand, and thus then dismiss the concepts. I'm not knocking you; in fact, I'm giving you props because you're
actually asking.
No. When I say sexual pluralism I mean the type of sexual partners, the type of man, changes for a woman; or in other words, the script she goes by to determine who gets to sleep with her flips. That flipping is what I mean by sexual pluralism: an inherent agency in the biological firmware of a woman to secure both what she
perceivesas the best genes and provisioning for her and her offspring (and this is almost always contradictory, at least in modern society).
We've went over it before, but when a woman is in her prime sexually (~18-23ish yo), she literally almost always goes for what she perceives as the man with the best genes. Now, this perception is manifested differently for different socioeconomic groups, but the one thing in common - the one thing they all share ubiquitously is psycho-social dominance and the so-called 'confidence' that goes along with it. So, for example, a woman in a lower socioeconomic class might see a marine or a cop as sexually arousing. However, a woman in the upper crust might look at an investment banker or executive with vagina tingles. It's NOT money or wealth with the banker or exec, but her perception of power and status that this guy supposedly has, with money as a by-product.
This is a biological imperative, a limbic impulse, to mate with her perception of the best genetics, the most dominant male. Not a rational choice. We call that drive many things: feelings, falling in love, etc and et al.
However, once a woman's looks begin to fade in her early 30s, she can
no longerreliably secure the attention from what she perceives as the best genetic mate as consistently as she could in her prime. She may still club it up (& you see these women often), but she can't compete nearly as consistently.
So
this is when her sexual pluralism is expressed. This is when she self-admittedly 'matures', 'is ready to settle down', and 'looking for a different kind of guy'; this is when that whole narrative begins, and guys buy it. All of it. This is when she's looking for a life partner, a provider to change the diapers, do the dishes, and everything else that she wouldn't
even consider askingthe guys she fucked in her 20s to do. Don't believe me? Ask Sheryl Sandberg, the quintessential leader of feminism in modern America. She spells it out in her bestseller, clear as day (but likely not aware of what she's laying bare):
When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.
The evidence is
right therefrom not just any random woman's mouth, but arguably
the mostinfluential woman in America today.
RP exists to combat this, to tell men the truth of this pluralism. To make it known they're getting a crap deal, and to be the guy who she
doesn't expectto do the dishes or change the diapers. Be the guy she fucks with nary a care or expectation. That's RP-awareness.
Men do not have this pluralism, no. I hope that's more clear.
