Male Sexuality, Masculinity and Friendship

[Cognisant]

Regarding the thorny issue of masculinity in terms of sexuality I think the show "Two and a Half Men" neatly illustrates the three most prevalent archetypes (the original series with Charlie I mean), the loser, the winner and the non-competitor.

Of course these archetypes aren't accurately indicative of real social dynamics but the are indicative of what the media presents social-sexual dynamics in terms of masculinity to be, creating the perception that men are either winners, losers or non-competitors. Men acting in accordance to this perception are then either sexually aggressive (measuring their self worth by how often they have sex) and despondent & needy (their sense of self worth undermined by the infrequency if intercourse ) and as for the sexually mature non-competitors, well having essentially given up they find some manner of crutch upon which to justify the abandonment of their own natural impulses, for some this is misogyny, for others it's religion, personally I'm of the transhumanist persuasion but no matter what the crutch is there's no denying it isn't healthy.

I write this after watching a youtube video about the oppression of masculinity and frankly I just don't agree with it, there certainly is a problem but we're not being oppressed, on the other hand he made the point that cultivating friendships with other males is important and I cannot agree with that more. Y'see the core issue is that sense of self worth and our sense of self worth is mostly a result of evaluating ourselves by the reactions we receive from others, of course there's still an element of self volition in this but improving one's sense of self worth by willpower alone is difficult and success can lead to narcissism.

Friends can give you that positive feedback so when you are dealing with women you don't have insecurity weighing you down and for men in a relationship having support outside of it can improve your relationship by making you less reliant on the emotional support of your partner. As for making friends it works in reverse, everyone has a sense of self worth and everyone needs emotional support, you can give that support by reflecting a positive image, simply put be happy to see people, appreciate their time, show interest in their interests and their state mind/health, the great thing about men is that we generally aren't very emotional so even a little support goes a long way.

 

[QuickTwist]

Honest question, where does that leave gay guys? Surely their psychology is if not the ittsiest tiniest bit different than non gays then there need to be an explanation for them too.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't know what it's like to be gay so I can't comment on specifics but I imagine the principles are fairly universal, indeed I'm not saying men can't have female friends but being close to someone emotionally who you also find physically attractive can strain the friendship, and if you're fuckbuddies how doesn't it develop into something more?

I'm no expert on this stuff, indeed the OP is just a recent revelation, compared to how I act it's completely hypocritical

 

[QuickTwist]

Let me guess... Get some.

 

[Cognisant]

If that's your solution.

 

[QuickTwist]

It is hard to believe that all we are boils down to our sexuality. What exactly is so special in the way we reproduce offspring to raise as our own and care for that which is part of us? If this is true then what does it matter; drawing on that which matters, what is so special about creating a legacy in which we are reborn for all eternity? This poses the question: Does the future matter or does only the presence of the future matter? What really matters is that we are here, now, immediately. Tomorrow we may cease to exist.

 

[Cognisant]

It dosen't matter really, don't mistake me masculinity isn't solely about sexuality, one's competence is equally if not more important to having a healthy sense of self worth as are many other factors, it's just that sexuality tends to be the most problematic because society attributes such importance to it (which it shouldn't) and it's hard to truly scratch that itch on your own, the dopamine high is largely pheromone based.

If we all had gynoids with synthetic pheremon humidifiers then it probably wouldn't matter at all.

But then people would probably obsess over the next stage in the human program and everybody will want to have children, I predict the pet industry will boom, where we currently have infertile couples with "fur kids" we'll get single men with gynoids and puppies, while women get artificially pregnant with clones of themselves, so eventually the human male may go extinct, unless someone builds an artificial womb and men start cloning themselves too, or maybe we all go cyborg to the point where the distinction between man and android, woman and gynoid, no longer exists.

I look forward to it.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hmmm...

 

[Steven Gerrard]

Did you say in your opening post that not having sex is undoubtedly unhealthy?

 

[Base groove]

Did you say in your opening post that not having sex is undoubtedly unhealthy?

Umm no.

What he said was unhealthy is finding a different way (surrogate) to channel your repressed sexual energy (frustration), one that does not overtly contribute to your sexuality and is probably more destructive than beneficial in the long run (like misogyny which quickly turns to misanthropy).

 

[QuickTwist]

Catholic priests, nuff said.

 

[BigApplePi]

Regarding the thorny issue of masculinity in terms of sexuality I think the show "Two and a Half Men" neatly illustrates the three most prevalent archetypes (the original series with Charlie I mean), the loser, the winner and the non-competitor.

Of course these archetypes aren't accurately indicative of real social dynamics but the are indicative of what the media presents social-sexual dynamics in terms of masculinity to be, creating the perception that men are either winners, losers or non-competitors. Men acting in accordance to this perception are then either sexually aggressive (measuring their self worth by how often they have sex) and despondent & needy (their sense of self worth undermined by the infrequency if intercourse ) and as for the sexually mature non-competitors, well having essentially given up they find some manner of crutch upon which to justify the abandonment of their own natural impulses, for some this is misogyny, for others it's religion, personally I'm of the transhumanist persuasion but no matter what the crutch is there's no denying it isn't healthy.

I write this after watching a youtube video about the oppression of masculinity and frankly I just don't agree with it, there certainly is a problem but we're not being oppressed, on the other hand he made the point that cultivating friendships with other males is important and I cannot agree with that more. Y'see the core issue is that sense of self worth and our sense of self worth is mostly a result of evaluating ourselves by the reactions we receive from others, of course there's still an element of self volition in this but improving one's sense of self worth by willpower alone is difficult and success can lead to narcissism.

Friends can give you that positive feedback so when you are dealing with women you don't have insecurity weighing you down and for men in a relationship having support outside of it can improve your relationship by making you less reliant on the emotional support of your partner. As for making friends it works in reverse, everyone has a sense of self worth and everyone needs emotional support, you can give that support by reflecting a positive image, simply put be happy to see people, appreciate their time, show interest in their interests and their state mind/health, the great thing about men is that we generally aren't very emotional so even a little support goes a long way.

You have a utube video?

Your topic is an interesting one. I currently belong to a retirement group and by coincidence we are all guys though my wife drops in once in a while. I checked my phone records. For years I belonged to men's groups ... a total of eight would you believe it? Mostly all different guys.

I also did a great men's weekend where supposedly we went back to our roots. The women had the same but it was completely separate from ours so I don't know what went on.

Your three stereotypes are fine for a start.

 

[BigApplePi]

Honest question, where does that leave gay guys? Surely their psychology is if not the ittsiest tiniest bit different than non gays then there need to be an explanation for them too.

Some women like gays. They make possible friends. My wife introduced me to a couple. One guy was her good friend before we were married. We had dinner twice I think.

 

[Diyxsela]

I believe you're missing one, the blue-balled. Or, to put it more genially, one that is in a relationship but is denied its rewards. This man sustains an ambiguous state of neediness and optimism.

 

[Pyropyro]

I think this is more of a conflict between the young (idealistic young men) and the old (Probably best termed as "Big Money") than actual oppression. In the natural world, the old gives way to the young who will then give way to others in time. Unfortunately, the old loves their world and loathes to give them up. (This is not new BTW, the myth of the Minotaur subtlely communicates this trend)

The old is afraid of letting go. They are afraid of the passionate chaos that the young provides will disrupt the institutions that they have carefully established. They don't oppress the young, they actually decide what the young should want and gives it to them.

By enmeshing the young with the lure of the Woman (nothing wrong with being with women, but their weaponization and objectification is bad), the status quo that's preferred by the old is preserved.

The old whispers:
*Why achieve actual confidence and character by changing the world when you can purchase Fedoras and TapOut T-shirts instead?
*Why do hard work when you can enjoy it now? We have banks and we have credits. You should enjoy yourself. Don't mind the chains, they will only tighten in the very far future.
*No you don't need to unite in arms with the ungodly scientists or the primitive clergy. Others simply don't have the right to live and express themselves that you enjoy.
*He who gets the most women wins. Being the envy of your peers is the way to live.
*Why make a group and become an actual threat? Prove you're alpha and get those wimps in line! You're the One (you're only one)
*Just be vocal about asking for change. Getting that like is better than toiling. You don't want sweat, blood and tears to ruin your clothes, would you?

So what happens when the young is finally fed up with the deceitful old? When they actually pool their collective chaos? Let's just see the political, economic, religious and scientific revolutions that have happened throughout history.

*I'm not qualified to discuss about women, their growth and their contributions against the old (Hence the young male viewpoint). Perhaps another forum poster can contribute about that instead.

 

[The Introvert]

Nice thread, Cog, but I have an issue with one of your statements:

and as for the sexually mature non-competitors, well having essentially given up they find some manner of crutch upon which to justify the abandonment of their own natural impulses, for some this is misogyny, for others it's religion, personally I'm of the transhumanist persuasion but no matter what the crutch is there's no denying it isn't healthy.

Who's to say that a sexually mature non-competitor is suppressing anything? What if sex drive (or as you put it - natural impulses) is simply low/non-existent for some people? You're lumping non-competitors with failures, which isn't always the case.

Ironically, I think a large part of the problem with male masculinity expectations is the expectation that all males want to have sex - the very reason the stereotypes exist in the first place is the same reason they shouldn't even be there at all. It's that very expectation that drives the creation of archetypes; you too seem to have fallen into that trap. By claiming something you personally feel to be an omnipresent instinct in the world's male population, you're creating a basis for judgement of masculinity which is, IMO, unwarranted.

Expanding on that, it'd be safe to assume the reciprocal of your premise, correct? If so, then femininity can be judged on female sexuality (what about gays?) ie the desire to have sex with men. What about a person that just isn't interested in sex? Is an 'asexual' person, by your standards, not a person at all? Is gender only determined by sexual desire, or are there other factors - gender biases, perhaps - that factor in to a person's masculinity/femininity?

However, that's still not to say that those that do use a crutch have an unhealthy imbalance in their lives. BG expanded well:

Umm no.

What he said was unhealthy is finding a different way (surrogate) to channel your repressed sexual energy (frustration), one that does not overtly contribute to your sexuality and is probably more destructive than beneficial in the long run (like misogyny which quickly turns to misanthropy).

I'm curious to see what others think about the whole 'asexual' thing.

 

[TimeAsylums]

OP,


I don't recognize or identify with any of the issues presented.

Spoiler

I'm more of a big picture kind of guy, can't be hampered down by these pesky, little, micro social issues; boohoo, male, female, transgender, black, white, brown, races, ethnicity, culture.

Nah man, humans.

 

[Absurdity]

Ironically, I think a large part of the problem with male masculinity expectations is the expectation that all males want to have sex - the very reason the stereotypes exist in the first place is the same reason they shouldn't even be there at all.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I don't understand this thread*

I has no Fe :/ lol

 

[Absurdity]

I has no Fe :/ lol

Guess that puts me in the "non-competitor" slot.

 

[Reluctantly]

Yeah, social stereotypes always seem kind of superficial. This makes a lot more sense from a psychologist's standpoint. Is that a good show? It sounds lame, if the idea behind it is to take social stereotypes and draw out the content of the show around that, but I know it's popular.

Personally, I don't understand the stereotype at all. But I don't much care to evaluate myself against other people anyway. But I am kind of weird or divergent from normal ideas of sexuality, so that probably makes sense that I wouldn't because it's not for me.

 

[The Introvert]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

For reference:

Ironically, I think a large part of the problem with male masculinity expectations is the expectation that all males want to have sex - the very reason the stereotypes exist in the first place is the same reason they shouldn't even be there at all.

What I'm trying to say is that he's equating masculinity to wanting to have sex, and furthermore that those males that aren't overly concerned with sex replace their urges with some sort of unhealthy crutch.

What I was trying to get at with the irony bit is that the reason the stereotype (masculine males want to have sex/succeed in doing so) exists is because the males use that as the 'crutch'; they use idea that getting a lot of women can somehow make up for some other deficiency that they may have, or that having a lot of sex is all that's necessary to make a man... manly. The thing that's used as a gauge to determine masculinity (and is regarded as unhealthy to replace) is actually the unhealthy thing that's replacing some other insecurity/instability/what have you.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Personally, I don't understand the stereotype at all. But I don't much care to evaluate myself against other people anyway. But I am kind of weird or divergent from normal ideas of sexuality, so that probably makes sense that I wouldn't because it's not for me.

^

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not asexual (unfortunately) so I don't know what that's like.

 

[Cognisant]

I believe you're missing one, the blue-balled. Or, to put it more genially, one that is in a relationship but is denied its rewards. This man sustains an ambiguous state of neediness and optimism.

That's the loser type, neediness and optimism practically defined Allen, whether or not he was in a relationship or even getting laid didn't really change his circumstances because even when he was in a relationship he was just being used, his sense of self worth having been brought so low he can't imagine why anyone would love him for who he is so being used was the only relationship he could understand.

Anyone who has ever begged for sex or said "I love you" out of necessity rather than choice knows what it's like, the scars of indignity don't seem to heal, which is why non-competitors choose not to compete, they don't want to debase themselves anymore.

I wonder how many asexuals are truly asexual, and how many are just people who have been in pain for so long, telling themselves "I don't want it, I don't want it" that when they receive pleasure it just causes them more pain. The guy in ConAir, gangreem I think his name was, spoke of another prisoner's childhood and how being angry for so long had made moments of levity painful for him, entrapped by his own coping mechanisms.

 

[redbaron]

Just how drunk are you Cognisant?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Masculinity and Winner culture are both ingrained and deliberately implanted, I partially agree with this:

I think this is more of a conflict between the young (idealistic young men) and the old (Probably best termed as "Big Money") than actual oppression. In the natural world, the old gives way to the young who will then give way to others in time. Unfortunately, the old loves their world and loathes to give them up. (This is not new BTW, the myth of the Minotaur subtlely communicates this trend)

Old order vs new order, products vs consumers that need to be taught to crave the product.

Paint the female with eyeshadows, lipstick, mascaras. Tell her that she is where she belongs.
Introduce the male to the pornography and alpha competition. Tell him that he desires women.

Benefit from the self propelling wheel of marketing and a social structure for 100 years, make some changes and survive a few revolutions and reset the cycle.

I enjoy the platonic aspect of the relationship, consumption serves as the support and variety rather than a goal.

 

[Cognisant]

Just how drunk are you Cognisant?

Sober.

I still wonder about your tendency to generalize; applying your unique experiences and desires to the entirety of masculine experience. You're a weird guy, cognisant. If you solve the 'problem' of masculinity as it applies to the general population, why would that solution help you?

I admit what I've written is only a very small insight into a very broad issue.

As for my "solution", well personally I'm currently a non-competitor and as you well know I've been a loser, but this trinity of wretchedness isn't the entirety of what masculine sexuality can be, not even close (it's just common, hence speaking in general), I think there's a better state of mind to be had and I strive towards it, I want to be healthy, I want to be happy, and I think it's possible.

Currently irl I'm working hard to make friends and integrate myself into social society, and I figure the more I get into it, the more I meet people, the more likely I'll meet people that I want to hang out with all the time and the greater my chances of ending up in a healthy relationship, one in which I feel valued for who I am.

If I just wanted to get laid I could make a peacock of myself, go clubbing, chat up every drunken vapid floozy I find until I get lucky just like every scumbag seems to do, and as hedonistic as that may be would it really make me feel any better? I doubt it.

Or I could do the loser thing again, chat with you every other night, fighting practically for the sake of it like an old married couple who have long since grown sick of each other but are too insecure to move on, debating the merits of killing myself to escape the hollowness inside, thinking that if I had a videogame for a girlfriend like that Japanese guy that married one I could at leaat have the delusion that it loves me back.

Y'know your cold polyamorous self is Charlie Sheen par excellence, assuming your philosophy of polyamory actually amounts to anything you're the embodiment of the promiscuous schizoid personality.

Of course it's all just a monogamist conspiracy isn't it?

 

[The Gopher]

Currently irl I'm working hard to make friends and integrate myself into social society, and I figure the more I get into it, the more I meet people, the more likely I'll meet people that I want to hang out with all the time and the greater my chances of ending up in a healthy relationship, one in which I feel valued for who I am.

What part of social society?

 

[Cognisant]

Acquaintances from work mainly, which reminds me I have been meaning to give Proxy and yourself my new phone number, it's been a while since we last hung out hasn't it?

 

[TimeAsylums]

well personally I'm currently a non-competitor and as you well know I've been a loser

self defeatism does not get one very far

 

[The Gopher]

Acquaintances from work mainly, which reminds me I have been meaning to give Proxy and yourself my new phone number, it's been a while since we last hung out hasn't it?

yeah I was thinking that as well. I'm actually pretty free right now, like going bored free :P I have a new phone (same number) so I can actually text and stuff normally.

 

[The Gopher]

woops

Edit if this makes no sense to you you obviously missed something.

 

[QuickTwist]

That reminds me.

My question about gays was never really disgusted. Anyone want to take a stab at it?

 

[Base groove]

That reminds me.

My question about gays was never really disgusted. Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Freudian slip in forum? That's new.

 

[QuickTwist]

I guess now its me saying woops.

 

[pernoctator]

You're lumping non-competitors with failures, which isn't always the case.

He's actually lumping both as subtypes of the first category, which was defined as "measuring their self worth by how often they have sex". Winner is cocky, loser is unsatisfied and intent on becoming the winner, non-competitor is unsatisfied and trying to distract himself from his dissatisfaction. All three are unhealthy.

 

[Cognisant]

+10pts

 

[The Introvert]

He's actually lumping both as subtypes of the first category, which was defined as "measuring their self worth by how often they have sex".

Right.

Winner is cocky, loser is unsatisfied and intent on becoming the winner, non-competitor is unsatisfied and trying to distract himself from his dissatisfaction. All three are unhealthy.

My issue was with what's in bold.

I argued that it's not necessarily true that a non-competitor is unsatisfied, unhealthy, or distracting himself.

In addition, I made a claim that the same criteria by which Cog is judging the masculinity of people (amount of sex had) is in fact an unhealthy standard in the first place, and the undeserved (and harmful) poster child of masculinity.

 

[pernoctator]

I think we both agree but we're just categorizing differently. I'm saying thery're all unhealthy if they're all subtypes of an unhealthy type, you're saying some are healthy if they're a separate type.

I'm not sure if Cog is saying the three types represent all men... if so then I disagree with him.

 

[Cognisant]

I argued that it's not necessarily true that a non-competitor is unsatisfied, unhealthy, or distracting himself.

Which is valid.

In addition, I made a claim that the same criteria by which Cog is judging the masculinity of people (amount of sex had) is in fact an unhealthy standard in the first place, and the undeserved (and harmful) poster child of masculinity.

I'm not judging anyone and the archetypes are indeed unhealthy.
To quote myself:

Of course these archetypes aren't accurately indicative of real social dynamics but the are indicative of what the media presents social-sexual dynamics in terms of masculinity to be, creating the perception that men are either winners, losers or non-competitors.

A false perception, though I thought that was obvious.

 

[Cognisant]

The problem is the archetype that doesn't exist in media, the healthy relationship that includes a mutually supporting network of friends and family, which of course isn't very dramatic.

The patriarchal ideal of a man as the domineering partner is a result of this deficiency in healthy archetypes, now these days we're resisting this patriarchal ideal but still without any healthy archetypes to emulate we're trading it for a matriarchal ideal where instead of being dominated masculinity is shamed and debased, in fact I think we've got the worst situation possible where both of these unhealthy ideals exist simultaneously and we call it gender equality.

We need new healthy archetypes, in an attempt to overcome the problems of the past post modernism has made things even worse, telling us what's wrong but not what's right, so I think we need new ideals, a new story to show us the way.

 

[Cognisant]

I mean seriously who doesn't want to be in a relationship with someone who appreciates you for you first and foremost, rather than your gender or what a relationship with you could do for them, likewise don't you want to fall in love with someone for who they are?

That seems so hard when really it should be the simplest thing.

 

[Duxwing]

Our entertainment need not alone influence our relationships; e.g., cycles of abuse.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

I mean seriously who doesn't want to be in a relationship with someone who appreciates you for you first and foremost, rather than your gender or what a relationship with you could do for them, likewise don't you want to fall in love with someone for who they are?

That seems so hard when really it should be the simplest thing.

Reading this actually makes me sad

I don't know if you're looking for some sort of validation, Cog, but I bet if you were to be honest with some lady of interest and told her something to this effect, she would be deeply moved. I hope your trials turn out for the best, whatever they may be.

 

[Puffy]

The interesting thing about Two & a Half Men is that while on the surface it appears like Alan (the "loser") is unhappy because he doesn't have what Charlie (the "winner") has, Charlie himself always struck me as a character who beneath facades is unhappy and unsatisfied...

The problem with the OP's non-competitor is that they stop playing out of scorn for not winning ("if I can't win I'm not playing") and so they're essentially a loser in denial, rather than the type of non-competitor who, say, identifies the game as irrelevant to them or as something they have no emotional investment in. Which is personally how I would relate to it.

I'm unsure if satisfaction is derived from relationships for relationships sake, or sex for acceptance sake: or, fitting some label of masculinity out of a feeling that is who one should be, the life they should have; not always, but people who put all their satisfaction in fulfilling this archetype are unlikely to really love themselves, as it seems more like they want to escape themselves and the shame they associate with themselves through it. I think the key you've identified isn't in sex-count or playing up to masculinity games but in friendships in which you feel recognised (and self-acceptance...)

 

[Puffy]

On a lighter note (or not):

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk4csBc7ymc

I find this kind of hilarious in the context of this thread. Guy at 07:43 is non-competitor to the max (maximum troll )

 

[RaBind]

Of course these archetypes aren't accurately indicative of real social dynamics but the are indicative of what the media presents social-sexual dynamics in terms of masculinity to be, creating the perception that men are either winners, losers or non-competitors. Men acting in accordance to this perception are then either sexually aggressive (measuring their self worth by how often they have sex) and despondent & needy (their sense of self worth undermined by the infrequency if intercourse ) and as for the sexually mature non-competitors, well having essentially given up they find some manner of crutch upon which to justify the abandonment of their own natural impulses, for some this is misogyny, for others it's religion, personally I'm of the transhumanist persuasion but no matter what the crutch is there's no denying it isn't healthy.

Since you gave you're stand on sexuality, I'll give mine too. The way I see it, either it'll happen to me or it won't. I'm not really going to be actively seeking it out but nor will I distance myself away from it. It is a big component of being alive, but it is not the only component, and obviously there is more to life than any one of it's components. I think my stance is simply the result of how sex itself works actually, rather than based on any archetypes. Sex is used as a product that's to be valued and worked for/towards. In order to get it you must have something of value to trade. I guess if I must be pigeon holed I be a non-competitor. I want it, but not as a product of some transaction I made, I just want it to happen naturally, which I feel is the way it's meant to be. (I'm talking about love/relationships here, not lust or a sexual desire in and of itself, that I think is fair game. What I'm saying is I got nothing against prostitution, if it is actually desired by all participants.)

I write this after watching a youtube video about the oppression of masculinity and frankly I just don't agree with it, there certainly is a problem but we're not being oppressed

I watch a lot of videos on youtube too, about all sorts of issues. One video I remember about male sexuality pointed out the word creep, as an ammunition used mainly against males and their sexuality. It really is a powerful word. I could see it being particularly devastating if a guy was trying to be nice, to a girl he liked, and he got misunderstood for being sexually aggressive and the girl labelled him a creep. The stigma is one that could certainly dislodge any hope of love or familiarity, with the opposite sex (mind you, I don't wanna give the idea that this could only happen to males. I think slut is the term for shaming/stigmatizing female sexuality). And no we're not being oppressed (unless it's a conspiracy), but whether males are at a disadvantage is an open question.

I mean seriously who doesn't want to be in a relationship with someone who appreciates you for you first and foremost, rather than your gender or what a relationship with you could do for them, likewise don't you want to fall in love with someone for who they are?

That seems so hard when really it should be the simplest thing.

Do you really think this is true? I think it's more likely that you only want to believe that it's true. I think you're projecting you're thoughts about love onto everyone else, or at least you want it to be true.

The way I see "why people screw other people's attempts at finding love" is to benefit from it. Economically, socially or even a feeling of superiority is there to be gained by people who shit on those who attempt to be genuine. Seriously though, if I were to see it as a cost/benefit thing, and threw my morals out the window, then it's the most advantageous thing to use people and discard them. In this sense if a, relatively attractive or maybe even that isn't needed, girl was looking for the person they loved genuinely for no other reason than he/she being him/herself, than it's actually pretty smart to shit on and attempt to squeeze as much benefits as possible for any guy that they meet, before who ever they happen to genuinely fall for. Well that also applies for guys, but it's more common in girls, but the fault probably lies in most males instinctual giving value to women, for just being women though.

Men do have their own advantages to though and it comes in the form of reduced costs/risks when engaging in relationships. Men simply don't have worry of getting pregnant and left to financially provide for themselves and their children.

 

[addictedartist]

http://youtu.be/iqicXO3YOUw

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What about female friends? How does it affect your idea?