Are Men Assholes, Or Do They Just Need Sex? A Critical Examination | #ForTheBoys #2
If we are going to grow as a society, we — men especially — need to expand our definition of love.
Pedants, pundits, politicians: all three agree there is a problem with young men right now. Rarely does a society as dysfunctional as ours come to such a universal consensus even in the identification of a problem. In America in 2025, our only common ground is that people — but boys, specifically — are going through it. In my series, #ForTheBoys, I will be discussing various topics surrounding these social phenomena. Read the first post in the series here, and subscribe for more inTESTigations.
What does a ‘man’ do?
In light of the Tate Brothers’ charges, I think it’s necessary to interrogate male gender roles specifically in the case of relationships, particularly sexual relationships. If one of the most recognizable symbols of reactionary masculinity both brags about and is charged with kidnapping women, maybe we need to consider what the fuck a “man” even should be.
As a matter of course, we have been generalizing, necessarily, because otherwise it is impossible to discuss systemic phenomena. This limits the analysis significantly in several ways:
We are focusing on Western-capitalist gender roles and relationship dynamics, because of their predominant position in influencing world social relations. So, for example, we will not be discussing the dynamics of relationships in countries whose social relations are impacted by Islamic law and cultural practices, as these diverge in some very significant ways from Western social relations.
In this piece, we will be discussing typical heterosexual relationships, as this is the framing for the argument we are dissecting. This is obviously limiting the analysis, leaving it incomplete without considering perspectives from non-heteronormative relationships. The particular dynamics of non-heterosexual relationships, while invisible in mainstream discourse, do affect society’s relationships writ large.
We are considering the question mostly from the male perspective in this piece because of the author’s reliance on appealing to male fantasy/fallacy. I do attempt to decenter the masculine perspective when necessary, but I do think it is important to hear the overarching conclusion of the argument from this misguided perspective in order to better denature these toxic arguments which are quite prevalent.
With all that being said, we can get into it. In this piece, we will be facing the problem of gender relations head-on by examining a relatively controversial piece by Justin Ross entitled “Men Aren’t Assholes, They Just Need Sex.” Prepare yourself for an unfortunately long, arduous ride.
Men Are Assholes Because They Don't Deserve Sex
While there are prominent anti-reactionary theorists interrogating masculinity both theoretically and practically, there are some who pontificate and theorize in the opposite direction — namely, that men are simply being targeted by some kind of new wave of negative societal sentiment that sprung forth from nothing. In the timorous defense of modern men, “Men Aren’t Lonely, They Just Need Sex,” the craven Justin Ross argues that actually, it’s women’s fault that men are sad and lonely, and they just need to “give men sex.”
Unfortunately, we need to unpack this dumb shit slowly.
Gender is not sex; and your gender is not getting sex
The subheader on Ross’ August 2024 piece is “We are merely animals.” I hope I speak for you when we respond:
He references Scott Galloway, the new Democrat man-splainer, a marketing professor who says “men aren’t taking enough risks,” in perhaps the worst economy in the last 50 years. After that, Ross innocuously cites a woman who says that “women have unrealistic expectations of how wonderful and fulfilling relationships ought to be.”
However, the most cursory google and one finds out that the quoted Louise Perry is a British reactionary feminist who writes for the Daily Caller. This was a ham-fisted attempt at sleight-of-hand in order to pose a female voice as a critic of modern women is done to provide a launder or cover for the baseless critique. In the simplest logic of all time, if a woman says something about women, they’re authoritative by default. Obviously this is facile, but we are not even a full hundred words into the piece and we have our first major claim — a claim that many men throughout the country would happily agree with:
Women are demanding too much from men.
This perception is common, but wrong. Think about it for half a second and you’ll understand it: it took until 1974 for the U.S. to explicitly guarantee women the right to open their own bank accounts. White women have only had voting rights for just over a century; Black women have barely had it for fifty. What we’re seeing now is an unjust reaction to the justified advances and demands women made for their political, social, and economic freedoms.
A minor increase in the demands on a relationship by women collectively1 would always be seen as “too much,” just like the backlash all reform movements have faced. However, this reform movement for relationships is occurring within the disease-stricken context of capitalist socio-economic logic: it is always doomed to fail when social relations are so discordant.
Square Man continues, calling out the main problem in today’s society, in his opinion: “we are deeply, profoundly unserious. About everything. Including relationships.”
Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree. But, given that Square’s entire argument rests on a spurious claim that humans are no different than ‘animals,’ I am worried that, intellectually, the author has fallen into the same trap that he pointed out moments ago. He is deeply, profoundly, intellectually unserious about these problems and their actual causes. And, of course, it’s going to get fucking weird. I mean, the title is bad enough, but the drivel has not even really begun. Yet.
The author’s bothered by “men’s relationship with sex,” which, hopefully is not a cry for help. Because society teaches “literally everyone (even transgender kids2) that they should embrace their sexuality.” But, for men, according to Ross, “inside the average man,3 somewhere, is the fantasy of being a powerhouse of sexual conquest and having women submit before him.” If, as Ross claims, the average man has the fantasy of wanting to treat women like shit, then his later claim that “most men do not have it in them, morally, to actually treat women like shit” is stupid. Morality does not matter in fantasy, and if it is true that the average man contains this fantasy, then by definition they have it within them to treat women like shit.
According to the Square, “most men” are “somewhere in the vicinity of ‘guy fumbling stupidly through life, trying to be a good man, hoping that someone wants to participate in good sex with him.’” He contends that the average man is simply “Hoping that some woman admires him to enough to want to sleep with him regularly.”
Are most men fucking brainless Miis that wander the plaza and bump around until they find someone to speak to? If so, is that in and of itself not a fucking problem? Why should we commit ourselves to actualizing this passive, naturally conservative existence?
Even if ‘not all men’ was a valid argument against exploitative and disheartening relationship dynamics, that does not include the systemic oppression of a heteronormative, patriarchal society. But it’s also not a valid argument to begin with.
For someone that wants to solve problems, there is a significant lack of systemic understanding, which probably stems from his lack of a systemic grasp of intersectional feminist critique of society. He further confirms unwillingness to be serious by claiming that “all of the worst offenders are used as stand-in representatives of an entire group,” a hyper-logical coat of paint on not all men. Again, the Ross’s animal brain is unable to grasp the forest and, like a primate, remains among the trees.
I hate to say it, but in this case, the facts are more important than your feelings
Despite the author’s feelings on the problem, the facts are not on his side: men, due to societal pressures and systemic expectations are -- yes -- privileged to not have to consider many aspects of the systemic discrimination and oppression that affects women and non-men in almost every facet of their lives, from healthcare to education to employment to paying more for shit just because it is marketed for women. Despite Ross’ assertion that the average guy “[does] not have it in them, morally, to actually treat women like shit,” society’s formal-legal and informal-permission structures make it easy for men to not have to consider the morality of their actions. I mean, I don’t want to be hyperbolic, but how many readers have ever heard their father apologize and admit he was wrong? What about more than once?
Approaching the concept of love4 with any degree of precision renders the Square Man a child in the face of real thought. Ross defines love as “the happiest, most secure, warm feeling you’ve ever had. In your whole life.” This, of course, for a man is obtained through how “a woman’s body makes a man feel.” To Ross, “sex, to a man… is love.”
Without citing any kind of source, without even attributing any kind of epistemological understanding of the information, he asserts: “All right, this might be an okay answer. There’s something here.” Sex is love for men, and that’s that. Why love is different for women and men is not interrogated. Square attributes the phenomenon of “[women] not giving5 men sex” to the fact that “not giving men sex is more convenient than giving them sex…” a phenomenal misunderstanding of feminist critiques of modern relationships. The idea that sex is something that women are forced into, even in a relationship context, utterly negates the idea of consent. If you are required to do something, it can still be done with attention, care, and even enjoyment.
Sex is not a quest reward
The idea of sex as a reward is most egregiously, credulously expressed in the pages of the incredibly horny Federalist. The now-infamous Amy von Otto piece “Men Did Greater Things When It Was Harder To See Boobs” explicitly states that “Giving Sex for Free Destroyed Men’s Motivation,” an assertion that seems almost silly until you read further and realize that she’s actually serious about it. Otto’s argument is that without the motivation of boobs that are waiting to be seen — meaning, when women were most chaste and did not have the social freedoms they do today — the world has fallen into turmoil (i.e., non-traditional gender roles).
This is obviously laughable. Promiscuity did not destroy the modern man’s motivation: decreasing upward mobility did; the increasing proliferation of benzos, opioids, and, yes, unfortunately, cannabinoids did; video games, easy access to porn, and short-form video and streaming apps did.
Lo, but if the average man can use ChatGPT to compose a love poem6 for his wife, surely we have hope, right? Right??
Otto’s favored metaphor for gender relations is another good angle of analysis:
“[women] held a majority of the cards in sexual relationships and, facing a royal flush, decided to fold.”
While it is not particularly surprising the author conceives sexual-romantic relationships to be a zero-sum, winner-take-all affair, it is alarming the commonplace nature of this ideology.
Sex, according to right wing ‘thinkers,’ is a transaction; a means of payment for a good delivered or service rendered. Capitalist logic is expanded into every sphere of life, as usual. “All that is solid melts into air. All that is holy is profaned.”
In Square’s case, the trade should be: sex ←→ attention.
Otto’s formula is sex (as a heightened form of female attention) ←→ accomplishments.
Further entrenching a market logic to the world of dating, Otto argues that “[t]he opportunity cost of overly available women may mean shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity.” Where is she getting her data about decreased productivity? Americans are more productive of corporate wealth than they ever have been — despite not receiving compensatory wage increases.
When you are indoctrinated early that All Markets Matter, it will be tough for you to form real, non-transactional relationships, especially with those you are already conditioned to dehumanize because of porn media. This is something that really, really needs to be discussed. But, we will save all of that for a later post!
‘Appeal to un-nature’ fallacy…?
We have passed over one of Ross’ larger assertions which needs to be dwelt on for a moment: that “men need [a lot of] sex” (emphasis mine). But this should be rigorously questioned: are we actually going to assume that there is some disparity of sexual desire that is simply, irrevocably unbalanced? Will men constantly, eternally be walking around with their dicks in their hands, seeking round holes for their square pegs?
The above vision of a future of masculinity is bleak, but likely given our lack of programmatic solution to these issues.
He then compares these “behavior[s] that [humans] [are] biologically programmed to engage in” to the volatility of the stock market, a fucking laughable notion if you actually understood the stock market. The ‘volatility’ which mystifies Ross is actually a function of the system itself.7
Ross argues that “Men are not allowed to ‘not accept’ that women have needs,” and, in order for there not to be a ‘double-standard,’ therefore women should accept that men are basically unneutered dogs and need to “give8 men sex.” A common refrain throughout the essay is the assertion that “Human beings are animals.”
Yes, Diogenes, thank you, the modern man is nothing more than featherless biped.
However, there are massive, categorical differences between humans and other animals, such as… sentience? Higher-developed neural networks, larger physical brains, longer periods of development due to higher cerebral functions — all of these are biological qualitative differences between humans and all other animals. Also, uhh… there’s society. Even though other animals have complicated social relations and different rituals for mating and living, these are not world-altering systems that alter both the society and the world around them, like humans who impact both their surroundings and those who live there.
And now, please welcome to the stage, Dr. Sigmund Freud!
It is very quaint that a child-brained author says that
“anyone who denies biology ought to be dismissed back to the children’s table so the rest of us can work on improving the real world.”
Despite trying to use ‘biology’ as a shield to defend his vapid understanding of human interaction, Ross is not very convincing in his argument. He immediately breaks down and compares the “moment of bonding” between a mother and “child” who needs his bottle after getting antsy to… you guessed it — intimate sex!
So to recap, men are babies9 that need to be taken care of by “giving them sex” and we cannot help that they are too horny to stop themselves from demanding more and more of it. The attempt at laundering this incessant horniness (or “lovesickness,” as Ross might call it) as “basic needs,” which, he says (to his credit) a man should “spend a portion of [his] life looking after his wife’s basic needs.” But, again, this is a misunderstanding of love.
If we take Peck’s definition again, we have to consider the entire Maslowian pyramid: “looking after his wife’s basic needs” clearly would be located in the first and second levels of the pyramid.
Even sex, the apparently-necessary key ingredient to relationships, is only located on the 3rd stage of the pyramid, below both Esteem and Self-Actualization. Is all that men can and should demand from their lives located at this intermediate stage?
No wonder young men have a problem; if they’ve been listening to this drivel their whole lives they’re fucked. One of the worst things that you can realize10 when you get older and into a real relationship is the fact that just being in a relationship doesn’t get you to the apex! Sex is not a panacea, despite its therapeutic potential. Trying to use this physical act as a psychic balm is always going to result in poor outcomes: the manifestation of a corrupted mind/body that are pulled apart daily in capitalist society.
‘Give your husband sex, but do it happily’
The bulk of his argument then shifts to the assertion that women should, as wives, “Give your husband sex,” specifically because “your husband needs… to relish and revel in getting to enjoy your body,” and — perhaps the most disgusting sentence ever digitally published — “Your squishiness and softness are his Kingdom of Heaven.” I’m so sorry I made you read that.
Let me be clear: the author who said certain people need to go back to the children’s table is talking about squishiness. What a fucking world, man.
This freak keeps talking about “access to sex,” as if the concept of sex itself were divorced from the people that are doing it, a startling implication which posits that women are essentially sex objects with a mouth that needs to be fed. Describing “duty sex,” or “the lazy, ‘just to shut him up’ handjob,” Ross asserts that if women ‘give sex’ only reluctantly, that sex turns into a shame spiral with potential “tragic aftermath.”
Thank you sir, for bravely coming out against spousal rape. Given the remaining 99% of this article, I wasn’t too sure on Ross’ outlook.
According to Ross, when a man “loses the sex”— that is, literally the love — “in his marriage, he is utterly defeated as a man.”
As a physically able-bodied person in a marriage with a disabled individual, I can confidently state that despite a decrease in sex (or for Ross, ‘loss’ of ‘love’) because of my partner’s disability, I was and am not ‘defeated as a man,’ nor did I feel less ‘loved.’ To reduce the complicated natures of relationships to man needs sex, woman needs attention, Ross must iron out all of the truly wonderful parts of relationships. If only he were the only one that felt comfortable reducing intimacy to sex. Unfortunately, too many people believe these misconceptions that it leaves most men feeling like if they aren’t having sex every single day, they are insufficient.
This calls to mind a quote from a recent piece I’ve been turning around in my head since I read it:
“[(angry) straight males] fetishize what they fear, and they fear what they can’t dominate.”
If that’s not a perfect description of the problem, I’m not sure what is.
I argue that conflation of self-worth with socio-sexual acceptance is the same animating logic behind both the ‘divorced dad’ radicalization pathway and the ‘incel’ radicalization pathway. In both cases, the reduction possibility for self-esteem and vulnerability to a single, usually idealized individual of the opposite sex is of course untenable, especially under modern capitalist social relations. And when the rare access to this limited form of emotional healing is taken away completely — either denied (incel) or revoked (divorced dad) — the perverted, corrupted solution becomes reactionary masculinity.
Many men — perhaps my younger self included (?) — are nothing but one particularly bad rejection or break-up away from rapidly descending into fascism.
There is a real wilderness out there
This is not to say I’ve never lusted or been tantalized by fantasies of sex. When I was younger (i.e., a man-child), I was continually bombarded by thoughts of inadequacy because of my lack of “access to sex.” Especially when I was a fraternity brother (colloquially, frat bro) — where, I will say again, women were literally referred to as “hole” — this exact same message that Square Man is promulgating was reinforced constantly through degrading and sometimes illicit treatment of women both digitally and physically.
Churning and angsty in this kind of environment, it was easy for me to begin to hate others. Obviously, this was a projection of my self-loathing and my fear of and embitterment from rejection. But, in the heat of the moment, it’s impossible to distinguish. In hindsight, I can see how my thought patterns could easily have slid into reactionary misogyny. When the conditions are right, anyone can fall for a well-laid trap.
I think it’s objectionable that sex is discussed in this piece and generally in the world as something women “give access to,” a tragic rewriting of real sexual relations, which, naturally, are consensual and enthusiastic by nature. Men are just expected at all times to be horny and women are supposed to “provide access” to sex AND “be happy in doing so,” because a woman’s body is a man’s “home,” and the “fountain he drinks from.” Besides the obvious questions about whether or not this man has ever had sex before, I am left with an important query: what does the man provide in return? And what is he left with in a long-term relationship if the sex is not there?
For Ross, the man must provide “attention:” attention in the form of “listen[ing],” and “attend[ing],” should entitle a man to the “reward” that is a woman’s body. In fact, “[a woman’s body] is where he finds his value as a man,” a statement as ridiculous as it is depressing. But, I really think this is a common thought that many people have. I think back to the discussion my students were having: there is a large contingent of men whose only goals in life are to literally just have consistent sex. That’s so fucking depressing man.
Marx predicts this so acutely in “Estranged Labor” — because capitalism degrades the social relations between people, “man (the worker) no longer feels himself to be freely active in any but his11 most animal functions — eating, drinking, procreating.” Is this not exactly what Ross describes? Men who shuffle through life looking for the basest satisfaction of carnal desires at the expense of cultivating any spiritual depth are doomed to eternally yearn for real, nuanced love and not even know why they can’t achieve it.
The idea that sex is just something you get as a reward for putting up with bullshit is also a common refrain in society that is tough to dispel. A relationship between a man and woman should not simply be putting up with each other, barely symbiotic; a true, loving relationship should encourage the spiritual growth of both the individuals in the relationship.
We’re giving men the keys to a car with a boot on it, and by the time they get it off and get inside, they find out they’re out of gas.
But we’re not even giving women the keys to their own cars. They’re stuck in the passenger seat with someone who won’t ask directions, metaphorically and even perhaps literally. And sometimes that driver wants to steer the car off a bridge.
I cannot entertain this simpleton’s ideas any further. He basically endorses Freud, continues to argue humans are less sophisticated than animals, then lists 13 reasons (no, unfortunately not that) why his argument may not apply. When you have to make that many caveats at the end of the piece, I am really unsure what you were doing writing it in the first place.
New Visions of the Future
How can we go about addressing ‘The Man Question’ in the future?
Clearly we are missing out on something when the most popular creators for young men are Rogan, Fresh&Fit, Andrew Tate, or even Theo Von. Unfortunately, I am just one guy, and I am limited by my expertise and experiences, so I can only offer you my personal understanding, and hope that it can provide either a guide or a spark of inspiration for you to try and work on your own personal
I have found two key methods for becoming a better partner and person: learning by reading and learning by experiencing. It won’t surprise anyone which one I came to first.
Chill Dudes reading list from a man of constant qualms
The inimitable bell hooks —for all of her strange quirks — was perhaps the only theorist discussing this in a serious way. I, unfortunately, come to the point where, as an English teacher, it is hard for me to recommend anything other than reading, or maybe even— gasp — some reflective writing as a starting point. If you are even somewhat thoughtful about these questions, as a man, you will be forced to look inward, then in order to make sense of that inchoate mess you are going to have to again look back outward.
Essential reads for, like, most people — but especially men
“The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World,” Gabriel García Márquez (short story, 1968) - study this society: this is how we should live. How can we make our world better for the ones we love?
“The Will to Change,” bell hooks - Please pick up this book ASAP. I cannot recommend it enough to help challenge a lot of your preconceived masculine notions. DO NOT SLEEP ON bell hooks!!
The Politics of Housework, Pat Mainari - a frank dissection of the political nature of the distribution of labor.
Estranged labor, Karl Marx (treatise, 1844) - absolutely essential prerequisite to understanding the modern, capitalist-colonized psyche. Marx outlines the material processes that contribute to the psychological and subconscious degradation of the modern subject.
Caliban and the Witch, Silvia Federici - A thorough history of the repression and economic exploitation faced by women through the beginning of capitalism. The most consequential history of capitalism since Marx.
“Good For Nothing,” Mark Fisher (blog post, year unsure) - If one of the most illuminating theorists of the twenty-first century was still convinced he was worthless, what hope do any of us have? Raw reflection.
These are obviously scattershot, and from a male perspective, but that’s the best I can offer in this circumstance, as a person who both experienced male socialization and is learning to break away from male gender expectations and constricting norms. If you can think of any other works that would help guide the wayward men in the world, please feel free to share them in the comments!
A partner should not be an anchor, nor a lifeboat
Last but not least, I am eternally indebted to my life partner, Sarah. I have received sincere love from Sarah after the first moment of our first encounter12 that has transformed me as a human. When I first read the definition of love hooks outlines via Peck, I was absolutely floored. I think, as a function of her upbringing — an abusive, toxic environment — she was willing and able to extend her self in order to help me grow spiritually. I wonder daily: did Sarah’s extension of her self to me come at the expense of her own spiritual growth? Because I was not mature enough, or, because I accepted society’s implicit relationship roles, did I passively or actively contribute to my partner’s spiritual anguish?
This kind of hard, self-critical inquiry must be done in a healthy fashion, and it can be healthy to have a professional speak with you to help navigate literally learning how to think about things you’ve never thought about before.
But, ultimately, even an honest, radically vulnerable relationship between you and your love should not be the only place where you, as a man, can seek solace.
You need to develop a self that is resilient: a self that does not cower at rejection or the fear thereof because love recognizes the wisdom of letting go; a self grounded in firm and unshakable morals because that foundation provides a basis for self-love; a self that can defend the rights of others and your own vulnerability; a self that is capable of spiritual growth. Before you have that will to change, nothing in this world can cure those festering feelings that eat you up at night. Build yourself, thoughtfully, into a person worth participating in sex with (among other things!). And — please — do not expect sex for anything, especially just as a function of being in a relationship.
in solidarity with those resisting fascism and colonialism from Los Angeles to Palestine,
—hanson
To be clear, these ‘demands’ are “don’t abuse me or degrade my worth,” “allow me to have a job outside the house and make my own financial decisions in some cases,” and “stop controlling my body through legislation and punitive restrictions that inhibit my humanity.” Not too crazy if you ask me!
Emphasis mine; interesting that the author felt the need to specify this group of people when “literally everyone” would surely include “transgender kids,” unless one was already prone to excluding that population.
I take issue with this; the White Western, average man under modern capitalism may have a proclivity toward this revanchist mindset because of the perceived loss of ability to dominate others in other contexts. However, this is ahistoric; cultures before conquest typically enjoyed equitable gender roles, so this fantasy may have had no real or imagined precedent, leaving it likely that these early men may have been more ‘woke’ than us, sharing childcare and childrearing duties more equitably — even communally.
We are using the previously referenced definition of love from M. Scott Peck: “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.”
This phrasing is a clear misunderstanding of what ‘sex’ is. Should we see ‘sex’ as ‘giving to a man something’ or ‘something people should freely, happily consent to together’? Just what kind of sex is the Square-man-forcing-into-a-round-hole trying to have??
Referenced by one of the guests on the “Search Engine” podcast episode entitled “Playboi Farti and His AI Homework Machine.” See “References” page on ruthcrit.substack.com.
Again, what the fuck…?
The pronoun used throughout the paragraph about a mother bottlefeeding a suckling infant is “he,” assuming this child is a male. For no particular reason, I’m sure.
Authority to speak on this: I am married
[humans],[their selves],[their]. So as not to clog up the quote with brackets, I add these corrections here. Marx famously uses “he” to reference all workers because he, like the political economists of the time, grouped women and children together as the ‘labor underclass.’ His adopting of the contemporary forms does not absolve his lack of focus on the role of women in production and societal reproduction. See Silvia Federici’s Caliban and the Witch for a critical extension of Marx’s work on primitive accumulation and the role of women in the production process.
After she punched me in the face — our first moment of our first meeting — she has been the most loving person in my life.