Have Women Been Screwed by the Sexual Revolution?
Make Love, Not War, Baby
I’m cancelling regularly scheduled programming today to write about something causing quite a debate in the UK. By way of introduction, Martin Amis is a 60 year-old, highly intellectual (not always highly readable) British writer. He’s been called the “leading luminary of the English metropolitan literary world.” He’s currently promoting a new novel, The Pregnant Widow, and shared in a recent interview that he based a character on his sister Sally, who died nine years ago, an alcoholic, at the age of 46.
What’s interesting is what Martin Amis cites as the cause of her death: The Sexual Revolution.
Of course, this has caused enormous hand-wringing among feminists who accuse him of misogyny and patriarchy. Amis’ response to the charges:
“Women can’t rise far enough to suit me. I’m a gynocrat – I’d like rule by women.”
I find this a particularly interesting discussion, as it confronts head-on some real, long-term consequences of the Women’s Movement that are generally not discussed in polite society. Martin Amis is no stranger to controversy and he doesn’t mince words here:
“She was pathologically promiscuous. She really had the mental age of someone who was 12 or 13 and I think she was terrified. I think what she was doing was seeking protection from men, but it went the other way, she was often beaten up, abused and she simply used herself up. She died at the age of 46, not of anything sudden; she was one of the most spectacular victims of the revolution.”
Amis said she had been crushed by the pressures he felt women had been subjected to ever since the idea of no-strings sex became the norm. Society was still dealing with the fallout, he said, but women usually fared worse than men.
“It’s astonishingly difficult to find a decent deal between men and women and we haven’t found it yet.”
While women enjoyed more freedom than they did before 1970, he said, they were also more liable to suffer from the pressures the revolution exerted on them.
“Sally could not cope with the sexual liberation it granted her.”
In today’s Daily Mail, Bel Mooney weighs in with My generation created the sexual revolution – and it has been wrecking the lives of women ever since. She addresses the controversy provoked by Amis, and points out that his critics felt it was his sister’s own doing and poor choices.
Well, I was part of that culture too. As a university student between 1966 and 1969, I experienced first-hand the impact of the sexual revolution, and the sweeping changes it wrought between men and women. To suggest any individual was immune from that tidal wave of change, or from the pressures that came with it, for women in particular, is frankly wrong.
Of course any individual is a unique, complex, multi-faceted creation – shaped by family, by personal reactions to events, and by the random nature of sex and love. Nevertheless it’s absurd to suggest that we exist in isolation, that we are not shaped by the culture we inhabit.
Mooney acknowledges that women behaved against their own interests in an effort to be hip. While I believe that women must take responsibility for their own choices, e.g. “If it hurts, stop doing it,” I can recall the almost political zeal we felt when we ripped our clothes off. Essentially, we were shouting from the rooftops, “I am Woman, and I can choose to have sex like a Man!” Of course, we know now that the unanimous male response was one giant collective “COOL!“
An acceptance of casual sex was central to the spirit of the age, and it was not easy for a young woman to escape that influence, whether it made her uncomfortable or not. As the writer and feminist pioneer Rosie Boycott has said, ’What was insidious about the underground was that it pretended to be alternative. But it wasn’t providing an alternative for women. It was providing an alternative for men in that there were no problems about screwing around.’
It is interesting that the pioneers of the Women’s Movement wish to distance themselves from these effects, eager to reassure society that this was never their intention. Betty Friedan, that homely, grandmotherly, smart, tough cookie who launched the second wave of feminism with her book The Feminine Mystique in 1963, is on record re today’s culture of indiscriminate casual sex:
Instead of fulfilling the promise of infinite orgasmic bliss, sex in the America of the feminine mystique is becoming a strangely joyless national compulsion, if not a contemptuous mockery.
This kind of talk creates enormous panty twisting and backlash among today’s sex-positive feminists. Mooney goes on:
Today, those of us who express doubts about the long-term effects of such cultural changes are dismissed as prudes suffering from a permanent moral panic-attack. The denial of the liberals is ongoing: a blinkered refusal to admit the causes and effects of history. But this is what the distinguished historian Eric Hobsbawm writes about the shift in standards in his authoritative book, Age Of Extremes: ‘The crisis of the family was linked with quite dramatic changes in public standards governing sexual behaviour, partnership and procreation… and the major change is datable and coincides with the Sixties and Seventies.’
The family is indeed in crisis, as marriage and birth rates decline while the divorce rate remains high. Are women who spend their youth “halfwaying” it with fake boyfriends and not-quite-relationships headed for a sustained dry spell as the supply of willing long-term partners continues to dwindle? We know that women trying to conceive in their 30s are struggling with fertility issues as only their “weakest” eggs remain.
The Ladette, British cousin to America's Girls Gone Wild
It may be cruel to say it, but today’s young girls primping and un-dressing for Saturday night, when they will get drunk and get laid (and feel doubly bad in the morning) are the inheritors of [Sally Amis'] destiny. There is sexual pressure on women as never before and no matter how much women achieve in the boardroom or as helicopter pilots, it makes a nonsense of equality.
The ongoing sexual ‘revolution’ is, in truth, as selfish and reactionary as those groovy Seventies men were, when Martin Amis’s sister was young. She, like so many others, was conned by the talk of freedom into abandoning all self-respect. The sad thing is young women today are still being conned – victims of the pervasive sex industry which uses ‘liberation’ as a mask for degradation.
Martin Amis is old, Bel Mooney is old, and hell, I’m getting up there myself. I know some of you are bound to view us as a bunch of buzzkills, trying to drag you back into an era when women were sexually repressed.
False. What we are trying to make you understand that it wasn’t all that much fun even then. Only you can say whether it’s a lot more fun now.
Related posts:
It's a quite true post.
I think that the idea behind the “liberation” was to free women of the sexual double standard — the idea that it's “more okay” for men to have freewheeling, casual sex than it is for women to do so. That sounds well enough as a goal (if a bit unrealistic at the margins), but the issue was the method used. In reality, there are two ways to skin that cat. One way is to “up the ante” when it comes to the expectations for sexual behavior on the part of both sexes — in other words, to shame male sexual license to such a degree that it decreases, and men become significantly less rapacious, and their licentiousness is shamed at the same level as that of women. The other way is to “lower the ante” when it comes to the expectations for sexual behavior on the part of both sexes — in other words, to disallow shaming of female sexual license so that men and women are both free to do whatever they wish sexually without social opprobrium.
The fallout we are seeing is from the fact that it was the second method that was chosen. I think it was inevitable, however, for this to have been the method chosen. Why? Because the entire thrust of the women's movement in every other area in the second wave was oriented around liberation and freedom. This is why, I think, the sex “negative” feminists like MacKinnon, Dworkin, Brownmiller and the like didn't, in the end, carry the day in the culture as a whole — what they were saying really went against the grain, in many ways, of the idea of liberation — at least of the popularized, and easy to swallow version which swept across the culture. Although the argument was made that freeing women from male sexual expectations was, itself, a form of liberation for women, nothing seems as tangible in terms of freedom and liberation as the freedom to act — personal autonomic freedom has really been the touchstone of the culture for decades now. So while it was possible in theory for feminists to advocate a more nuanced approach to liberation for women in sexual matters, I think it was inevitable that this approach was going to be washed over by the waves of social revolution.
Most revolutions have their Thermidor, however. The interesting thing about the sexual revolution is that we haven't really seen this. The hookup culture, based as it is on casual sex that seems, for the most part, to be more of a man's game overall, seems fairly entrenched. I think there are quite a few reasons for this, but probably the most prominent one has been how men have increasingly dropped off the radar screen — preferring ESPN and X-Box to chasing down women for dates. I think that this has both causes and impacts. But as for the impacts, I think when you have a significant number of men either (1) falling behind women substantially in terms of status, education, earning, achievement and so on and/or (2) losing interest in ambition, drive, and so on, you end up with an artificial “shortage” of men who are mate suitable for women. Sex ratio studies have shown that when the sex ratio is low (i.e., lower number of men than women), casual sex abounds because women have lower “bargaining power” in the market and men can more easily avoid commitment for longer periods (or completely). While the overall sex ratio may not be low, I think it is the case that the “effective” sex ratio is lower due to all the men who have effectively dropped out of the system in terms of being attractive mate material. So even if many women would like the pendulum to swing back, the effective sex ratio makes that very hard to achieve, as a practical matter, and the rules of the sexual marketplace appear to become more entrenched. I think in order to flip the pendulum back to a more balanced state, more men would need to be presenting themselves as good mate material, but due to the many factors that underlie that development I am not sanguine about that happening anytime soon.
Not screwed, no. We got what we wanted, what we needed. Society's norms are always changing.
I think that in general, the Womens' movement as part of the Civil Rights movement has been a generally good thing in bringing political and civic equality to a large number or of people.
However, the whole “Sexual Revolution” part of the Women's movement has been more of a bad deal, for women (and men) and for society as a whole. Unfettered freedom. unfortunately, can be a bad thing because freedom requires responsibility, and that really is in short supply. My guess is the upper class white women who were the vanguard of the second wave wanted “liberation” in order to be able to act like their upper class white counterpart men, eliminating the so called double standard. Of course, your average non-upper class man never really benefited from that double standard to begin with.
I agree with Novaseeker's analysis about the two methods…and that the road taken was the one that fit the zeitgeist of the current age. Pretty much everything these days is a lifestyle choice, and all choices seem to be held as equally valid. Thinking otherwise is seen as being judgmental, even when the choice is the equivalent of jumping off a cliff.
At this point, I think your average woman is probably depressed and sad about this state of affairs. The cads are happy (as are the betas who learn some of the lessons of the cads) because there is no stigma to their behavior, and your average male is finding the X-Box and ESPN (and porn) to be easier to deal with than the combat dating scene.
It's not for no reason that my wife, who works in female dominated field, is always amazed at what her single colleagues go through these days (and she hugs me while telling me that).
Great comment, novaseeker, it could have been a post in its own right. I totally agree with your point about women wanting liberation. No one (least of all Americans) will happily tolerate a rollback of privileges. We are all about wanting more. The reason this backfired is because over time, as men's attitudes continued to be measured, it was discovered that they STILL preferred women with less sexual experience than themselves. Quite a bit less, in fact. So the slut shaming still exists because men will not select a woman who has been promiscuous. Women reacted with anger and defensiveness about this over time, which partly explains the sex-positive feminist wave. But it didn't change the way men feel about the issue. And it never will, because men are hard-wired to be suspicious about cuckoldry – a woman who has had a lot of sexual partners has a track record that is not reassuring for a man seeking a faithful partner.
I think you're right on about the “effective sex ratio.” I've never thought about it in exactly that way before, but it works. That ratio is getting lower all the time, and I agree that the reasons for it are quite entrenched. We must find a way to re-level the playing field for men without trying to send women back to a barefoot and pregnant state. It will be tough sledding, indeed, but Michael Kimmel, David Brooks and others have written about it. We're talking about it. It's a start.
Secretia, I would agree that we've got today what some women wanted in the 1960s, though I do believe many of those women pioneers would not be pleased to see the state of sexual relations today. I think it's debatable whether we needed it. I'm not talking about Women's Rights in general here, just no-strings sex. Yes, we have the right to engage in whatever sexual activities we wish. However, there is a cost. Despite the Pill and abortion, there is a huge cost in births to single mothers. It is estimated that 25% of college students have STDs. Most men will reject a promiscuous woman as a long-term partner. And many women have found that casual sex leaves them feeling unfulfilled, even rejected.
My view is that very few women are cut out for it, overall. Society's norms change, yes, but I'm hoping the pendulum swings back a bit on sexual mores. Women could use a correction.
ENY, I agree, responsibility is key. We have a climate that is almost entirely impulsive and spontaneous. Hookup stories are rehashed the next day by both sexes as men and women try to figure out what it meant, if anything.
It's also interesting what you say about class. I have never really studied this issue by race or income or education. I'm sure, as you suggest, the norms vary widely.
I think you're also right when you say women are bummed, cads are happy and the nice guys are opting out. Sigh. Maybe if they stay home and google “hooking up bitches” they'll find me and I can give them some encouragement! And of course, you know I have a soft spot for those Betas who are learning how to spit Game
Yeah, your wife is a lucky woman, allright. I'm so happy she tells you that!
What utter specious twaddle coming from Martin Amis. But I repeat myself. He's a well known 'neo-con' in Brit, and has been this generation's go to 'bad boy' for all sorts of unpleasant examples of rank idiocy. I'd not trust his word over Barney Rubble's on much of anything of significance.
And really? The sexual revolution? Which one, hon? There were several. The Pill & better more effective contraception technology made it 'stick', but 'free love' as a genuine philosophy is well over 150 years old, and it's antecedents are clearly older still. Yes society & cultures do change. This was also a Legal revolution as well. Women were finally allowed to be seen as independent agents of action who could finally speak for themselves with regards to all sorts of legal disputes & functions. This was clearly a change for the better. For almost everyone, as long as the freedom was respected with a modicum of self discipline. That's really not too hard to do either. Shut off the damn TV, let the Cosmo/faddish Women's/Fashion mags lapse, and learn to live & enjoy life in the present. Live reality as it's seen & felt in your neighborhood. Not in the distant fog of some imagined glorious or 'useful' past, but here & now. But geez, this is such an easy topic to distort and lie about from the ahistorical perspective. There's a reason why it all happened, and we forget that at our peril. Despite all the 'cool fashions' on Mad men and damnable pixilated breasts too!
See also Prof. Stephanie Coontz's masterful book on the history of women included here: “Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage”. http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/marriage/
Cheers, 'VJ'
Thanks, Susan.
It is a start, although I have to say I have many reservations about Kimmel's ideas — I agree with his observations about the dysfunction, but his suggestions for a “cure” seem doomed to failure, really. And Brooks is really just depressing when he speaks about these issues.
I expect we'll need a few generations more of confusion before a new kind of equilibrium is found organically. I don't think we'll therapize our way there, really, because men are resistant to that approach, generally, and despite being X-Boxed and so on do not blame masculinity for this, as Kimmel and Brooks seem to do. A more productive approach would be to bring men back to base, but to be honest … X-Box and Warcraft and so on are just way too fun for “base” to sound very interesting. I think things *will* work out eventually, and we will find a new normal, but I don't think it will be very soon, because I think the equilibrium needs to be reached organically. There won't be another revolution (for men this time) as some feminists have suggested — there will, however, be an adjustment. I don't think it will set women back, really, other than women who actually love the promiscuous lifestyle. I don't expect it will have any impact on women's advancement in other areas of life, really.
Really VJ? Fine, you don't like Martin Amis, who does? I'm not particularly interested in his judgment, but he has hit a raw nerve here. Women feel pressured, even compelled to have sex casually to prove their independence. They pretend, and often they crash afterwards. And the double standard? Alive and well. I'm not saying women shouldn't have sex when the mood strikes. But the Pixilated Breasts Girl? Probably not making a good choice. Same with swinging sex parties, girl on girl (unless you're genuinely into girls), three-ways, etc. Women are not built this way. S that D. Shut it down. Dealbreaker!
Hmmm, well that's a more positive prognosis than many share, I'll take it. What is bringing men back to base? I've not heard that term..
I agree that there will be an adjustment. Throughout history, pendulums always swing back, and this one will too. Alarmists are fond of saying things are as bad as they were in ancient Rome, and perhaps they are. But we survived that (including the Dark Ages, yikes), so hopefully we'll come through this too. As you say, it will need to occur organically.
BTW, are there other writers you would recommend in the vein of Kimmel? Guyland was a real eye-opener for me, but I wondered if you have come across others?
I think this argument against the sexual revolution, as well as most of these comments, makes the assumption that men absolutely are not and never will be interested in actual relationships as long as they're getting sex. I don't think we should sell men short like that. Even if they choose to enjoy an extended adolescence or a lot of casual sex, I think most men will eventually want to have a partner that they genuinely love and with whom they want to (at least try to) be exclusive.
And isn't blaming things like X-Box and ESPN for men not being viable partners the equivalent of saying women who tend to have female-oriented habits like knitting or baking are making themselves undateable?
I just think that sometimes we don't give men enough credit.
I think this argument against the sexual revolution, as well as most of these comments, makes the assumption that men absolutely are not and never will be interested in actual relationships as long as they're getting sex. I don't think we should sell men short like that. Even if they choose to enjoy an extended adolescence or a lot of casual sex, I think most men will eventually want to have a partner that they genuinely love and with whom they want to (at least try to) be exclusive.
And isn't blaming things like X-Box and ESPN for men not being viable partners the equivalent of saying women who tend to have female-oriented habits like knitting or baking are making themselves undateable?
I just think that sometimes we don't give men enough credit.
The games of 'casual sex' along with the sliding definition of same have been ever changing since, well, forever. Each generation has their own standards as well this should be expected too. Me? I tend to think that there's also much too much focus on sex, (& too little enjoyment too), which is yes, an overhang & now 'breakout' from the earlier more strictured era of much despised close 'supervision' for any 'charges' (i.e. young ladies) and chaperoning same to suit the needs of our deep foundations as a more patriarchal culture.
Yes, we all like & deeply desire sex. It's fun & challenging etc. But as the 'foundation' of the woman's movement of the 1960's? I'm sorry, but much more realistic & useful marriage 'reforms' were more prominent actually. No fault divorce. Reform of the deeply biased child custody laws, which yes, once presumed mothers automatically 'unfit' if they sought to sue for divorce or adopted the standard of 'father's know best'. Women being able (finally) to keep & make & enforce binding legal contracts by their own w/o the male supervision of their husband or parental 'guardians'. Being able to serve on a jury. Rape law reform. Getting a credit card in your own name. Being able to open an account with the phone company for a business you might own. All rights secured & fought for in the name of 'women's liberation'. And yes, the right to love & live freely. Which did indeed conquer the world, strangely enough. And yes, does still apply to all that lovely 'girl on girl' action too. (Even if we old farts might imagine that they're all too young to know just what they're doing yet).
Women can and do prove their independence in any number of productive ways besides 'hooking up' with rank strangers every Sat night. Me, I think it's a phase everyone happens to go through. We've just extended 'adolescence' to such a degree that this now seems to apply to everything done before your 40th birthday (a la Dubya Bush).
But yes, Ms. Pixilated, despite seeming happy, is probably hooking up with some damned hippy. Which is a pretty poor choice. Worse still, is that 40+ years on? Said hippy dude is probably a deeply conservative 'hanging' Judge by now! But happily enough, she would not continue to put up with all his 'stuff, and divorced him 20 years ago, and is a thriving artist today. With a happily contented GF. And perhaps even a very understanding hubby. In CA of course. She's redefining the 'double standard' (DADT!) too for her generation. Her youngest daughter however? Is the Marine, being posted to the AfPak border. Redefining freedom & liberty for her generation. As a Republican of course too. As the world turns. Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'
I think you have misunderstood the comments…the X-Box and ESPN aren't the cause of the problem, they're the symptoms and consequences of the problem. They're the sign that your average guy thinks the combat dating scene isn't worth the hassle. If the dating scene was more hopeful, they'd ditch the X-Box and ESPN.
There is some percentage of guys who want BOTH the sex and the relationship. However, many of those are “undateable” because some large percentage of women prefer the cads in this day and age. And it really is the cads that prefer the sexual revolution: their behavior is validated and not stigmatized. They're the guys that “have chemistry” with women, so for them, it's the best of all worlds: no need for any commitment, and loads of confused and conflicted women to prey upon. And the cads can also have the X-Box and ESPN as well! Life is good.
So I'm not selling men short at all. Heck, I was one of the X-Box/ESPN guys for a while (though it was Nintendo-64 back then, but same principle), so I know first hand that there are guys looking for viable partners. But it isn't easy … and I can't really fault the guys who drop of the radar screen… it's hard not to do that.
As for the women, well, the subject of this blogpost by Susan is indicative that a lot of women lost out in the sexual revolution as well. Regardless of whether it was good or bad (or both good and bad), there have been a lot of casualties in that revolution, so maybe some rethinking about it is warranted (and note that I say rethinking, not repealing).
I agree with ENY here. The argument is that the X-Boxers aren't extending their adolescence while enjoying a lot of causal sex; it's that they turn to the X-Box because they aren't getting any sex at all. I think Susan has also made this point in a number of places, that while “hookup culture” of casual sex may sound great for boys in general, in fact it really only benefits (if that's the word) a small fraction of boys/men, while the large number of boys/men wind up with nothing and so may drop out completely.
A tragedy for women in this situation is that, once men drop out they are likely to stop developing themselves personally, and may even degrade somewhat. Can you blame them, really? going essentially without sex for the first 6-8 years after puberty, in a high sexualized culture, is a terrible experience! that you can easily imagine would have to be damaging to boys & men. So, once a woman gets past dating “cads,” in ENY's phrase, the solid, developed men she might want won't be there for her.
What I mean by bringing men back to “base” is roughly for men to find a way to be men again in a way that makes sense in the current context. Not so much “new masculinities”, but rather masculinity in its essential aspects repotted in the current context. In that regard, I differ in the *substance* of what that means from what someone like Kimmel or Katz thinks, but the overall idea of the need for something akin to a “Menaissance” is a good one. For me, the *substance* would be for men to embrace both the freedom they now have to structure they lives as they wish together with personal responsibility as suited to the particular lifestyle they choose. I think men need to move in both areas, really, but I do think that it's the second part which is flagging even more today.
Megan, thanks so much for joining the conversation. I do hear what you are saying – one thing I do try to be careful about is judging men. Sometimes it's all too easy to just say all guys are douchebags, when in reality, it's a case of the cads getting all the attention. I agree that there are many men who would prefer sex in the context of a relationship, but they feel frustrated because in the current hookup scene the men who are good at scoring sex are men who are naturally comfortable and confident around women. That's actually a pretty small percentage of guys, especially in college. This is one of the reasons guys join frats – it's a shortcut to the “bad boy” attitude that guys know will get them laid.
For most guys, though, it's a daunting task to spit game, and they wind up opting out, as ENY and Dilithium say. It's a terrible waste, b/c I'm convinced that there's a large population of girls and guys who would be well matched, but they wind up having little interaction. This is the dilemma.
VJ, I don't think the Sexual Revolution was the foundation of the Women's Movement. It was born from more serious concerns around equal rights, and many good things happened for women as a result. The Sexual Revolution was related, but not the same thing. One factor that influenced it, for example, was the Vietnam War. Large groups of young men and women came together to rebel against the establishment, and taking off their clothes for “free love” was part of that rebellion (as displayed in the photo up top).
Yes, women are independent today. In fact, they are eclipsing men in some areas, including college enrollment and employment (which has other effects, as per ENY and Dilithium). For most women, experimenting with casual sex is a phase. Quite a few come here to either get help interpreting how it works, or get support transitioning out of that phase. Very few women will wind up like Sally Amis did. Still, indulging in casual sex does mess with the heads of many women. Part of the reason we eventually grow out of it is that we can't take it anymore.
Haha, you do make a good point about the world turning. Each generation is the opposite of the generation before it in some ways. Those hippies did all go to law school after they got done protesting the war. They became the Establishment. And their kids did whatever it took to piss them off, which was probably being a fan of Reagan. And the kids of that generation loves Obama.
Everything changes, and you will be surprised.
OK, thanks. One thing you imply is that the “menaissance” will need to be led by men. This is key. I do think women can and will be supportive of men in this goal, assuming it doesn't include stripping women of rights they already possess. That won't work, as we've discussed. Honestly, as one example, girls are growing up watching the boys in their elementary school classes getting penalized in all sorts of insidious ways for being distracted or impulsive (ADD). We are well aware that lots of things kind of suck for guys right now.
Yes, of course, it can't involve anything having to do with women directly in terms of women's rights and advancement and so on — that's not needed to address the issues, and it isn't desirable overall. Women don't need to be “put back” to where they were — almost no men want that, really, and it would be bad for everyone. But, yes, men need to work this out as for men, and our own issues and so on, among ourselves.
“For most women, experimenting with casual sex is a phase. Quite a few come here to either get help interpreting how it works, or get support transitioning out of that phase. Very few women will wind up like Sally Amis did. Still, indulging in casual sex does mess with the heads of many women. Part of the reason we eventually grow out of it is that we can't take it anymore. “
I had to quote this Susan, because I am smack dab in this mornal dilemma right now as you know. And as the date of the deed looms ahead of me, I find myself teetering greatly. On one hand, it's just sex. We both want it, why not have it? I mean that is what I am entitled to right? On the other hand, do I want this to be a potential one night stand? What if he doesn't call again or I get the cold shoulder?
Casual sex is messing with my head in a big way, and it is not something I am sure that I am capable of. Will that stop me from giving it a try? Probably not. Will I wake up the next morning berating myself and wondering what happens next? Most likely.
What kind of sexual freedom is that??
Rebekah, your last question says it all. You have freedom of choice, but you'll still be hostage to your hormones. Damn that oxytocin!
I'm not surprised that you'll probably give it a go, though. Casual sex can include all of the excitement, intrigue and drama that we expect from sex. It lacks intimacy, but I think it often feels better than nothing, at least until it doesn't.
Before time runs out on this thread, I'd like to point out one subtler, indirect but still important way in which the sexual revolution may have made life worse for women: by saddling them with damaged and underdeveloped men. (This is an expansion of my comment above.)
Young ladies, listen up. As you humble blogger and others have noted, the sexual revolution and the hook-up culture that followed from it may at first look like a bonanza for boys and men, but the benefits are not widespread: the rich, handsome, confident few get all the action, while the main run of males — up to 80% by some estimates — get nothing in their young lives. Think about that, the next time you're out in public, in class, or wherever: four out of five of the boys around you are not gettin' any. No sex, no love, no relationships; not tonight, not this week, not for the rest of the year, most likely.
Why should you care? I mean, they're all just losers, right? Perhaps you might care in a distant, charitable way, that all those lost nights and missing kisses are a human tragedy in and of themselves. But that's kind of like an earthquake in some distant country; sad, maybe, but it doesn't concern you directly.
What I want to tell you is that those men's lost lives will also be a direct problem for you, in your life, even from your most selfish viewpoint. Basically, a young man who spends his first 6-10 years after puberty alone, with very little sex and very few relationships, is very likely to be damaged and underdeveloped going into his 20's, and it will be no fun for you to live in a world populated by damaged, underdeveloped men. Here are some serious questions for you, arranged in convenient pairs:
When you're out in the world, after college, do you want the men in your life — boyfriends, husbands, friends, neighbors, coworkers — to be confident and comfortable?
Do you think the experience of spending 6-10 years being completely undesired is going to result in men who are confident and comfortable?
Do you want men to be emotionally open and accessible?
Do you think it likely that any person will respond to 6-10 years of essentially non-stop rejection by becoming more emotionally open and accessible?
Do you want there to be a large pool of men who are good kissers?
Where do you expect them to get any practice?
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. An unexpected result of the sexual revolution is that most boys and young men are now relatively deprived, sexually and romantically, compared to the system that came before. And that deprivation will directly worsen the world that women will be living in after college and through many years to follow (the men will recover, but it takes time to make up for lost time). So you can chalk this up as another of the ways, indirect but important, in which the sexual revolution may have made women's lives worse.
Dilithium, what is so great about this comment is that it speaks to something I have talked about quite a bit on this sight – delayed maturation in men – much more specifically and from a male point of view. This is very powerful stuff. Unless you have a strong objection, I'd like to write a post about this, incorporating your comment. Young women are literally unaware that young men feel this way – they know who they're hooking up with, but they wouldn't dream that the other 4 out of 5 guys aren't getting any from anyone. It says a lot about the reason for the dearth of relationships.
You've given some pretty powerful incentives here for change, but if we assume that young women will understand and wish to address the problem, how should they do so? This sort of gets back to the question you and I discussed at Obs's re the hypothetical Katie and Matt, or whomever. How do we create the bridge if Matt doesn't think he has a chance in hell?
I've been thinking anyway of writing about when and whether women should make the first move. Is that the answer? Or just giving a certain kind of encouragement?
Let me know what you think. Thanks for writing this – awesome perspective.
Hi Susan — I'm glad you found this comment valuable. Your proposed post sounds like a good idea, and it's certainly fine with me if you want to reuse this comment, in whole or in part.
As to questions of What Is To Be Done? I would say that, between the two of us yours is certainly the creative Big Brain, while I am more of a note-taker. But I will pass along two notes and a remark (what a deal!) that you may find useful in thinking about how to connect with your target audience.
First, I deliberately tried to eschew an adversarial, or threat-based motivation, ie “if no one sleeps with these guys, then they'll all wind up as misogynists and vote against women's rights.” Not that that's silly or unreal; but I think your approach of trying to create positives rather than fending off threats is likely more engaging to your readers.
Second, I like the term “development” somewhat over “maturation,” even if the latter is technically more accurate for what you want to discuss. Saying that someone is delaying maturation could sound kind of accusatory, like it's a deliberate moral failing. Development, on the other hand, sounds more neutral, and gets straight to the main point without blaming anyone: people need experience in order to develop, and if young guys aren't getting experience then they're likely not developing. Simple, less inflammatory, and hard to argue with. It also connects with a point you've made elsewhere, that young women are also losing out: they may get sexual experience, but if they're not getting relationship experience then their development may also be impacted.
On connecting with readers, I think one reason you've enjoyed blog success so far is that you appeal to their self-interest rather than lecturing them on their morality. Continuing that theme, you might consider this approach: First, make a convincing case to young women that there are in fact a lot of guys out there who are really good material, but who might not be so visible for a number of reasons, ie discouragement, inexperience, etc; as you say, young women may really be unaware of what's happening right next to them. Second, describe convincingly how this presents an opportunity for a woman to get what she wants, if she's looking for relationship experience; maybe by widening her view, or making herself more approachable — you'll really have to do this part yourself; I'm not that familiar with the current scene, and don't have any really stellar advice (but, hey, that's why you get the big money). It may be a bit tricky, since you don't want to come across as urging any woman to settle for second best — “he's got a great personality!” — or as sacrificing themselves just for the greater good of humanity. If you can make the case for “unclaimed treasure sitting all around you,” then she can enjoy doing well while she's also doing good. There's a certain cache in being the one to “discover” a previously unknown great guy, and the perspective that she's helping usher in a better world can add a new dimension. Enlightened self-interest coupled with better information will lead the way to the greater good! just the thing to warm the heart of a capitalist MBA.
Best of luck, D
Thanks, that's helpful. Yes, enlightened self-interest + “how to” should be an effective way to get women to think about this issue.
D, I have a question – it struck me yesterday and I couldn't really do the math. One hears a lot about how few guys are actually getting laid – you addressed it here. The actual estimates on college campuses are only 5-10% of guys have sex on any given weekend. This proves your point about how few young men get any experience or sexual attention. Up to 90% are frustrated and isolated from girls.
However, the same percentages must apply to the women on campus. Those BMOCs may appeal to a large number of women, but realistically speaking, few of those guys will have sex with more than one woman on the same weekend. That means that 90% of girls are in the same boat as the majority of guys are. They're not saying “I never get any sex,” obviously, they're saying, “No guy ever likes me.” Even if we assume that 20% of the women are gunning for the 10% of Alpha douches, that's still a lot of disaffected women.
So it seems to me than rather than ask that 10% of both sexes to broaden their thinking (let them have each other), we should be thinking about ways to bring together that 90% of men and women, all of whom lack experience and confidence, perhaps. This is where dating and courtship rituals were so helpful in the past – they provided structure and a road map.
6-10 years of non-stop rejection? In many cases its longer like 15 years. The group of men who experience non-stop rejection until they're 30 (or even later) is growing. In many cases these men who were rejected until they're 30 get rejected later because there “must” be “something wrong” with them because no woman wanted to be with them.
>but if we assume that young women will understand and wish to address the problem
Why would you assume this? Clearly young women are fine with this situation. It wouldn't be a problem in the first place if they weren't. If they weren't then they would have already solved this problem by not letting it get to this point.
>How do we create the bridge if Matt doesn't think he has a chance in hell?
I found the story you're talking about. Why do you think Matt really has a chance in hell if this was taking place in the real world? He probably wouldn't. To continue this, let's ignore that and assume Matt does. Katie has to fight the long series of YEARS of EXTREMELY HARSH REJECTION. Most likely Matt has not had a single success EVER.
>I've been thinking anyway of writing about when and whether women should make the first move. Is that the answer? Or just giving a certain kind of encouragement?
Katie would have to do SOMETHING. In your story all Katie did was have a single brief conversation with Matt. Matt would not assume that Katie is interested based on that since 99.9% of the people you only have one single small talk conversation are not interested in you.
Asking Matt out would be a good thing to do. That might be what it comes down to because Matt may not believe Katie is interested in him otherwise since Matt has been burned for many years. Regardless any kind of encouragement would be helpful. The fact of the matter is the laziness of expecting one short conversation is going to Katie what she wants is stupidity.
>delayed maturation in men
Exactly how is maturity defined by relationships with women? That's nonsense. How mature a man is is not defined by women. Women don't have the right to arbitrarily (and capriciously) define maturity in men.
>However, the same percentages must apply to the women on campus.
No they don't. Let's assume that there is an 80/20 deal going on. The top 20% of men in college are getting all the sex where as the rest of men are going without. Assuming that the top 20% is only getting laid (a reasonable assumption) and that they only have one partner a week, then the 20% of men can go through all of the women on campus every 5 weeks. If there is more women than men on campus then it takes a bit longer but the principle still applies. If its only the top 10% of men getting laid then it takes 10 weeks.
Sorry Susana you don't get to claim “women have it as bad as men” on this because the bottom 80% of men have it a great deal worse than women when it comes to this.
For what its worth, I wish you good luck in dealing with this issue, Susana. As a not exactly disinterested party, I hope for the best, but I believe you will find this an exercise in futility. As I already said, young women don't care about the 80% of men being shut out from women. If they did then it would never have happened. By the time women might care many of these men are in their late 20s or early 30s with minimal to NO experience.
Think about this Susana, there is a large percentage of men who are reaching their late 20s or early 30s with no experience with women whatsoever. These men are virgins or if not only because they did it with a prostitute. Many of these men will have never even KISSED a girl/woman. Women in their late 20s or early 30s will find these men to be losers for simply being inexperienced and have nothing but contempt for these men as a result. The only option for these men is to hope for extremely good luck or engage in high levels of deception to gain experience and development. You may have a problem with that from a moral/ethical point of view (and that is reasonable), but what are these men supposed to do? Women shut these men out when they were younger and now they shut them out for being “inexperienced”.
Personally, I believe this is not going to end well since I don't see women making the changes in their behavior required even though its in their own self interest to do so.
Steveo, hi, thanks for commenting. OK, let me take this piece by piece. Your assumption that 20% of the men can go through all the women on campus in five weeks, is accurate enough mathematically, but completely unrealistic. If you've been on a college campus, then you know that a far smaller percentage of women than 100% are having sex. A 2001 study showed that 39% of women freshman are virgins, and the number is 31% at graduation. Of the 69% who do have sex in college, a significant number of those have only had relationship sex, rather than casual sex, and that casual sex number has actually gone down a bit in the last five years. So, while you make a valid point, I still think my argument holds – there is a large pool of both women and men who are on campus desiring love and connection, and not finding it.
You say that women don't care about the 80% of men being shut out. I would argue that women are not even aware of it. Until I found some of the sites dealing with this question, I myself had no idea of the anger and resentment that men are feeling. Most women feel disappointed and most men feel disappointed. I don't think either sex has a really good handle on what's going on with the other.
I don't think it's fair to put this all on women – guys need to bring their best game. You know that women select, but they won't select someone who doesn't even get on their radar screen. Guys approaching with confidence is half the battle. Women do need to make good choices, but they can't do that if they don't see their full array of options.
Again, young women are not fine at all. I don't believe they understand the nature of the problem as you see it. They are looking at the problem through a female lens. You must understand that men and women want different things. Men are disappointed they're not getting laid. Women are disappointed they're not attracting a boyfriend.
In the Katie and Matt story, I say that Katie is interested, she thinks Matt is cute. She sends out a subtle indicator of interest. Matt would like to respond, but he doesn't trust it and feels nervous. If Katie feels pity, that's a no go. You know that. Matt has to have the confidence to signal interest. Women know that men like to pursue, we've been told a million times “If he isn't calling you, he's just not that into you.”
Re maturation in men, Dilithium already called me out on using that term, and that's fair. When I used it I was referring to research done by Michael Kimmel, who wrote Guyland, that talks about how guys are becoming independent, getting jobs, dating, etc. at much later ages than they used to. He says many men are 26 before they let go of video games, living with parents, etc.
But Dilithium makes a good point. A better way of talking about it is personal development. That's what I was trying to say about Matt. He needs to develop himself to have the skills he needs to approach Katie with confidence if he thinks she is cute. I'm not talking about hitting on her. I'm talking about walking with her and chatting after class, for example. Even just making her acquaintance.
There is no question that hookup culture has created a lot of casualties.
1.That 20% of guys have it made, we agree on that.
2. Theoretically, I would say about half of all women could have sex with that 20% if they wanted to, but many don't want to. Still, more than 20% of the women are able to have casual sex, for sure.
3. The most attractive women are now at a disadvantage because of the ready supply of less attractive women willing to hook up. So women who hold out for commitment, no matter how attractive, often don't get it.
4. The 80% of “beta” guys who might have had a shot with the 80% of “beta” girls, now find that all of the girls seem to be gunning for Alpha.
Yes, women are acting against their own best interests. In time, they will adapt and the pendulum will swing back. But for a guy who is ready now, he would do well to prepare himself to get out there and go head to head with douchebags. If he is a good man, he has something to offer that they don't, but unless he can bring it early on, he'll never get the chance to demonstrate that.
And most of those guys who up against the douchebags will fail. I know. I tried. I wasn't the only one. All I have for my trouble is being a 29 year old virgin soon to be a 30 year old virgin next month. I have no prospects for changing this since I lost against the douchebags in college and now women think there's something wrong with me for being “inexperienced” (i.e. failing against the douchebags).
Sure the pendulum will swing back, probably when I'm an 80 year old virgin.
Steveo, you don't need to tell any woman your history or your virgin status. No woman needs to know what your level of experience is. But if you have trouble relating to or approaching women, you need to develop the social skills to do that. It doesn't matter what age you are – I hear what you're saying, and I know it sucks. I know you feel angry and resentful. I know 30 feels old to you, but it's too young to give up. I've heard from guys older than you who have just lost their virginity. Forget about the douchebags – it'll just make you feel worse, and life isn't fair. Get out there, go online, meet women your age who are single and looking for a relationship.
Sure guys want to get laid, but many would prefer to get laid within a more relationship like deal where you actually know the woman. Many guys (possibly most) don't have the temperament for bed hopping. The difference between men and women in this are that the men have no options, but the women are getting offers, but it isn't what they want.
The reason that Matt is confused is that he isn't sure that he is really getting a signal of interest. I'm struck by how lazy Katie is being. It's not about who pursues who. Why is Katie so incapable of saying, “Hi, how are you?” each time she sees Matt. What you described was Katie making small talk with Matt once, and then pining for him from afar. Of course, Matt is going to be confused (and that's before we add in all the crap women have dished out to Matt). Some basic friendliness would do much to bolster communicating Katie's interest to Matt.
There's a fundamental problem with your story with Matt and Katie. It assumes Katie is interested in Matt. That's reasonable to say since its your story that this situation is certainly happening. However, Susana, you have implied that every guy has women interested in him. Let's take Matt's classmate Steve. While Katie is interested in Matt, there is no woman interested in Steve. While women have treated Matt like crap plenty, its nothing compared to what has been done to Steve. There isn't only one Steve. There are plenty of Steves. Many of the Steves will be virgins and never had a relationship long after they graduate college.
Even using the term “personal development” instead of maturity has the same problem. What special skills are needed to deal with Katie? More importantly, this allows women to claim that men such as myself are dangerously underdeveloped justifying why I should die a virgin who has never had a relationship. I'm not underdeveloped. Both the terms, maturity and development, when applied to men in this context just mean what the woman wants. There is no objective standard. A guy who say makes a 6 figure salary, owns his own home, lives independently, and is generally responsible is still “immature” or “underdeveloped” by these definitions since no woman has chosen him. This is silly in addition to when guys are getting jobs and moving out are dependent on the economy, not maturity. There's this mancession thing going on right now. There is also something of a young adultcession going on too. The guys who have the least control over these things are getting blamed the most when they are called “immature” or “underdeveloped”. On top of that video games have nothing to do with maturity or development.
>Your assumption that 20% of the men can go through all the women on campus in five weeks, is accurate enough mathematically, but completely unrealistic.
Right. I doubt it would happen like that, but the fact of the matter is that its easy to get the 20% of superexperienced guys, close to 100% experienced women, and a horde of guys with little to no experience by college graduation easily. That's what the math shows.
>A 2001 study showed that 39% of women freshman are virgins, and the number is 31% at graduation.
It's a known fact that women underreport on sex surveys (and men overreport) so a lot less than 31% of women are virgins at graduation while the percentage of men is much higher.
Regardless of the actual numbers what happens at 25 or 30. The answer is that many men are still shut out while the virgin women will lose their virginity and have relationships. As a guy who will be a 30 year old virgin next month I can find plenty of 30 year old virgin men (and 25 year old virgin men) who women have completely passed over. On the other hand finding 30 year old virgin/relationshipless women (outside of a convent) is impossible.
>Guys approaching with confidence is half the battle.
I can give you any number of guys who did, but are 30 year old virgins in spite of that.
>I don't think it's fair to put this all on women
Maybe, but this is a female caused problem, and women are the only ones who are in a position to do anything about it. This is why I don't have much hope since it requires massive changes in female behavior.
>Steveo, you don't need to tell any woman your history or your virgin status. No woman needs to know what your level of experience is.
Susana, I have no intention whatsoever of telling any woman this horrible secret about me. That doesn't mean she won't find out. I have no idea how to successfully approach women. (I can tell you how to fail at approaching women in explicit detail.) I have no idea how to kiss. (That's right. I have never even kissed before.) And if I somehow manage to make it past all of that, I will end up looking like am imbecile during sex. I have only seen a naked women in pictures or video (i.e. porn), never in real life. One way or another she will figure it out.
>But if you have trouble relating to or approaching women, you need to develop the social skills to do that.
But how? This sounds like a case of can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job. I can't develop these skills without already having these skills now. I need a woman to accept me to even develop these skills in the first place, she will reject me if I don't have them. It sounds like I'm stuck in a catch 22 now. How do I get out of this?
>Get out there, go online, meet women your age who are single and looking for a relationship.
What do you think I have been trying to do for years? All that happens is more and more rejection.
Susan, this has been an interesting thread.
The sad reality is that the 80% “beta guys” are the worst off in today's environment. A large percentage of those really are totally shut of the dating environment, and a lot of them really have limited options to get out of that situation.
Of course, a lot of women are on the losing end as well. However, they still have some possibilities out there, and if they are smart, they can still find a good partner, if they've realized early enough that the alphas and cads are incorrigible. I think the women have it a little easier, but it can seem that they don't because they often work against their own best interests: the cads are cads for reason and on the whole they can't be changed.
I sympathize with steveo's situation, because half a dozen years ago or so, I was in a similar situation. The truth is that a beta in that situation doesn't have many choices. He can hope for women his age group to finally tire of the cads, but it kind of sucks being someone's n-th choice. Or he can drop out of the scene altogether.
Perhaps the only advice I can give is maybe what I did in similar circumstances. Learn from the alphas, and use some of what they do. Be assertive, and confident, with the idea that it's the woman's turn to show why they are good enough for you. That worked for me, probably because I was competitive with my younger brother, who is a natural alpha, and that competitiveness forced me to be more selfish, even a little narcissistic. My brother's mantra was that “no woman is really all that special” and I learned to internalize a little of that thinking. It made me pickier in who I'd be willing to have a LTR relationship with, and it wasn't going to be with women of my age group or above who were only then realizing that the alphas and cads had been a waste of time.
Of course, that can get you a lot of dates and short term hookups, but it won't necessarily find you a woman worth the long term commitment. For that, you have to be on the lookout for worthwhile women, and you have to patiently study the women to see how they act, not what they say. From the other thread, there are some women who haven't jumped head first into the hookup scene, so they are out there. It took me three years of “alpha-like” behavior to find her, so it does take patience. But, we beta guys do have an advantage: we have more time. At 21 I didn't grasp that, but a decade later, it became clearer that time was a little more on our side.
So, for the beta guy, travel around the world, go to Europe, put yourself in situations where you are forced to be assertive and extroverted. Talk to the women on those travels: you'll probably never see them again, so be a little more assertive. Then do the same back in the States, and perhaps things will get better. You have nothing to lose, and you're still young and have time. But the key is to do something.
>The sad reality is that the 80% “beta guys” are the worst off in today's environment.
Yes, and it's worse than we think. I found this which proves that women find 80% of men unattractive. No wonder 80% of men have so much trouble. This also means that women are disgusted by a good portion of that 80%. The only way the problems we have talked about will be solved is by women changing their behavior, yet it's clear that women have absolutely no motivation to do so.
>He can hope for women his age group to finally tire of the cads, but it kind of sucks being someone's n-th choice.
I'm almost 30 years old. When are women going to tire of the cads?
>Be assertive, and confident, with the idea that it's the woman's turn to show why they are good enough for you.
Women aren't going to show me why they're good enough for me. They don't want me so they won't bother.
>My brother's mantra was that “no woman is really all that special”
That's fine, but when it comes to me women don't care because they aren't interested in me.
Why is it so hard for people to get that no women are interested in me? A couple of years ago I posted about my problem on a dating message board. I knew no one was getting it when someone asked me a question that started with the phrase, “When women ask you out”. I don't remember what the rest of the question, but it meant they didn't get it. I couldn't make them understand women don't ask me out, and any attempt by me to ask women out is a complete and total failure.
Steveo, I'm going to be straight with you here like I would be with my own son. You are not going to find the answers online. You've got a lot of anger and disappointment, which is very understandable based on your experience. You will need to work through that before you can be attractive to anyone. Men with attitude and confidence are far more successful with women than men who are shy or anxious. I know it feels like a Catch 22, but if you can shift your way of thinking, I believe you can improve your results. For this a therapist would be very helpful. I'm a big believer in therapy – I wish I could afford to have it all the time. I don't mean to be patronizing – I think you have some real work to do, and I think it's very hard, even impossible, to do that alone. I agree with ExNewYorker. The point is to do something. You are a young man, you are not sentenced to be miserable. You can take action and take control.
>For this a therapist would be very helpful.
How is me going to a therapist going to change female behavior? It won't.
>The point is to do something.
What do you think I have been doing for years????? I'm not here because I'm stuck in my apartment doing nothing. I'm here because I have experienced nothing but harsh rejection from women.
Steveo, you're right. A therapist can't change female behavior. It can only help you achieve insight into what's going on, and possibly your own role in it. That, in turn, may lead to you changing something about your own behavior. I'm not saying you've been inappropriate in any way, or that you are at fault and deserve to be rejected. But the dance of mating is a complex one, and it could be that a counselor experienced in this area could help you navigate the script. It's just a thought – but as I say, I am very pro-therapy myself. We are all a bundle of emotions and neuroses dating back to our childhoods. That makes us poor objective interpreters of our own feelings.
>possibly your own role in it
What role? The only role I have is getting rejected.
>That makes us poor objective interpreters of our own feelings.
My feelings don't change female behavior.
No, that is not true. Before you get rejected, you have to interact. You have to approach, converse and try to attract the woman. You do play a role, we all do. That is worth exploring.
OK I've got a quick thought here. Might work, might not. Crass it may be. Get out from under the computer & all the other yes, 'sad sacks' out there in the ether. Get into the river & flow with it. Get out to the bars and practice. Practice the Game, practice with Beta women, practice with unlikely women, and yes, Please Do practice with Older women. Try on a cougar or a 'cheetah' on for size. There's plenty of older women who need some action Steve, and many are willing to do the necessary training. Without much muss or fuss or much explanation either. But the issue can only be resolved through practice, or indeed some rather expensive sex therapy that'll amount to the same damn thing. Put all the theories to experiment and discover what might work for you. And yes, it'll take some time. But it's a far better and more likely prospect of success than whining to strangers on here. Learn to love the burn! The sting of rejection should be a badge of honor. 'I've tried, and I've engaged, and I'm closer to my goals'. Live the dream Steveo! Get started today! It's the Holidays, Live it up! Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
No, that is not true. Before you get rejected, you have to interact. You have to approach, converse and try to attract the woman. You do play a role, we all do. That is worth exploring.
OK I've got a quick thought here. Might work, might not. Crass it may be. Get out from under the computer & all the other yes, 'sad sacks' out there in the ether. Get into the river & flow with it. Get out to the bars and practice. Practice the Game, practice with Beta women, practice with unlikely women, and yes, Please Do practice with Older women. Try on a cougar or a 'cheetah' on for size. There's plenty of older women who need some action Steve, and many are willing to do the necessary training. Without much muss or fuss or much explanation either. But the issue can only be resolved through practice, or indeed some rather expensive sex therapy that'll amount to the same damn thing. Put all the theories to experiment and discover what might work for you. And yes, it'll take some time. But it's a far better and more likely prospect of success than whining to strangers on here. Learn to love the burn! The sting of rejection should be a badge of honor. 'I've tried, and I've engaged, and I'm closer to my goals'. Live the dream Steveo! Get started today! It's the Holidays, Live it up! Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
He needs the right therapist.
Tom Leykis is the best therapist for him, and the only cost is the electric bill needed to run the radio.