Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The Sex Spectrum Theory

Okay:

Today's blog is going to be about sex again, so be forewarned.

So, what's up with women not wanting to have sex? What's going on there?

As a teenager, I had been totally comfortable with the fact that there was never any guarantee of sex, that it was something you earned through hours of coaxing and being "sweet" or something you simply lucked upon. As I got good and settled into my twenties, however, it became a foregone conclusion. Getting laid, after a while, was no longer a big deal. It was inevitable, in fact, and happened far more frequently than I had ever dreamed it would.

Now, unfortunately, as I approach thirty, I am noticing a trend shift. More and more often, I'll be expecting to get some and won't get any at all. I'm sixteen all over again.

I'm still trying to figure out whether or not this is a good thing. Of course, you don't want to be a whore forever. But in some situations, dare I say, I think it's a reasonable expectation.

I was talking to a lady friend of mine on the phone the other day and she mentioned something that clicked a dim light on in my primitive male brain. While she does not mind being single, and has no plans of becoming celibate, she has realized that there are certain rules and guidelines to the game of casual sex to which a woman in her thirties must adhere if she plans to protect herself from a rather juvenile case of broken heart.

Single, intelligent, sexually active women do not have casual sex with men they consider to be in the "candidate pool". This "candidate pool", I have learned, consists of men that a woman knows who have presented the requisite traits and attributes for being considered for an exclusive, progressive relationship.

In short, a woman should not "fuck" a man she considers "lovable".

Not "lovable" in the casual sense of the word, like a puppy or a friendly midget, but in the practical sense. That is, a man they could fall in love with.

I know, fellas. Absurd.

Apparently, the logic goes as follows:

"If he's cute and he turns you on and you think he might be good in the sack, give him some. If he's all those things, maybe even to a lesser degree, but is also atypically kind and sensitive, cultured, mature, intelligent and ambitious, then make him wait."

Preposterous, right? But I shit you not, this is the way they think. And it's mostly our fault for being so callous in our kind of seek-and-destroy approach. They have adapted and evolved as a gender. Our covers are blown. They have figured us out.

So, if you want sex from a woman, but you're not interested in anything beyond that, here is the trick. Be "just nice enough". Don't be a prick. That won't get you anywhere. Be nice. But just enough. Occasionally you must do something assholish to remind her that she could never be with someone like you. Something that will remove you from the candidate pool.

See, if you look at it like a spectrum consisting of four overlapping "zones" or "pools", then it makes sense.

It begins with the dreaded "friend zone". Here you have no chance of getting any because you have somehow trained her to regard your penis as an afterthought.

Then there is what they call the "yummy zone". Here she is planning to give up the draws just as soon as the opportunity presents itself because she finds you so "yummy".

Then there is the bittersweet "candidate zone", or "pool" as it were. Here sex is a possibility, but only under the "right" circumstances. And if it does take place, things will only get more complicated from there. This is my least favorite place to be.

Then there is the "asshole zone". There are many ways to get here, before or after sex. Ironically, there is a strong possibility of sex here. She hates you, and for women, that is intoxicating. Fortunately, this is reversible. It's far better to be here than in the friend zone though. You're more likely to get laid.

So, there you have it.

Fellas, I know. You're welcome.

Ladies, I challenge you to apply this theory to every man you know and see if it doesn't hold water.

I invite your comments.


Thanks for reading.

GOBAMA!

LISTEN TO MY MUSIC AND WATCH VIDEOS AT
http://www.blackbroadway-online.com

Postnote: This spectrum theory does not take into account the "indifferent zone", the category into which most men a woman knows would fall.

2 comments:

ZACK said...

So that's my problem ! I was wondering why I never got some. I must be husband material. But that would mean I'd get married to a woman bound to cheat on me because the bedroom is the only place where good guys finish first.

I think relationships are bullshit, and women are just...superficial by nature. I might fall in love, but it's gonna take a Halley's comet before I do. And the next one comes when I turn 78. So, I'm screwed (figuratively, not literally)

GREAT POST!

Mizrepresent said...

Zack,lol! OMG!

Well,Cool Cee, you have done your research, and WALAA! You are correct.

Men have trained us so, that if we do bed you in a minute, it's considered a "quicky", a "booty-call", and therefore nothing that will last past the last orgasm and kiss goodnight. We understand and adhere.

If we want something more lasting, we got to hold out...we got to see what else you are made of...do you like us, not even love us, just like us...then are you willing to hang around awhile, bc if you are not, we would just go for #1, the booty call and move on. Once we invest our heart, we want more, we want the dream.

The friend, remains a friend, we vow never to cross that bridge, never, but if we do...most likely friendships expire...i know it's wrong but it's the truth.

So, what does a man do? Be specific, you want to be a friend, a lover or a bootycall...yep i know 2 out of three you might not get none, so choose carefully! And don't play...if you do, you might end up with a stalker, just saying.