Summary: I discuss how the Free Sex reproduction model compares with the (mainstream) Pair Bond model, and find that it trashes it, regarding men's sexual interests - and society's at large.
Marriage fantasies are die hard in The Red Pill. And I'm not talking about newcomers still searching for their unicorn. There is a widespread tendency to idealize Marriage 1.0 and the nuclear family.
The stumbling block in fully rejecting marriage (even 1.0) and family is, of course, the issue of paternity and reproduction. It's self-evident that every man needs to be sure that the children he raises are his own. Or is it?
What follows would be sacrilege to most, but try to read with a cool head. I will try to explain how free sex and paternity obscurity is a more powerful evolutionary model for humans than a nuclear family one. And that it is more beneficial for men.
Two models for reproduction
The Pair Bond model
Nowadays no serious evolutionary scientist believes that life-long family was something that existed in human's evolutionary period (think 100.000 to 2.800.000 years ago). That is, family didn't exist for pre-Homo Sapiens species, and didn't exist for the largest part of Homo Sapiens' existence.
However, there are some evolutionary scientists that believe that human's natural procreation model is the pair bond. This basically boils down to time-limited sexual exclusivity, i.e. serial monogamy, with a duration of about 4-5 years per pair bond, in order to raise your children to relative independence. Let us generously use this, more realistic, model, as our first hypothesis of human's reproduction model. This model is comprised by tenets that are taken for granted by most mainstream evolutionary psychologists, such as strict mate selection, especially from females, sexual jealousy and mate guarding, cuckolding with higher-value males, etc. It is a plausible model, I'll grant it that.
The Free Sex model
Now consider the contestant, the Free Sex model. Sex is free-for-all within the tribe. Paternity is unknown. Mothers are the primary caregivers for children, until the boys, at around 12, are taken out of the women's society to be mentored into manhood by elder men. (Girls never leave the woman-world).
What I want to discuss is each model's efficiency, i.e. how much it helps individuals in the tribe produce the best possible descendants, as well as how effective it is in assisting the tribe's survival. I'll be focusing on the Free Sex model, since the theories around the Pair Bond model are mainstream and more-or-less known to people in here.
The Free Sex model has some unique advantages:
- Better quality mates
Both males and females get to copulate with better quality mates, increasing offspring quality. For females, since they are the choosers, this is self-evident. With free sex this availability of higher-quality mates extends to males.
- Low level of frustration and aggression
The Number One reason for aggression, not only in humans but in every species, is male-to-male aggression over reproductive access to females. The Number Two reason is males attacking females over denial of sexual access. When sex is free, there is no reason for aggression. This, of course, favors the individuals directly, since there are no injuries and fatalities. But it also helps the individual indirectly, through the greater social cohesion. It forms a more stable environment in which their offspring can be raised.
- Competition and cooperation
There is the idea that if sex is free there is no incentive for competition among males, and evolution (as well as society) stagnates. This is dead wrong. Free-for-all sex doesn't mean equal reproductive odds for all males. There are still hierarchies in a free-sex society. There is the best hunter, the best singer, the smartest weapon maker etc. Females, being receptive to indications of quality and aware of social hierarchies, can give a "bonus" to the better males, either copulating more frequently with them, or by preferring them during their fertile days.
Free sex gives better chances to "better" males, allowing plenty of space for evolution. But it also gives a chance to males that are currently at a lower level in the social hierarchy. The result is that these males stick around, contribute resources to the tribe, the women and the raising of the children. There is incentive for them to help instead of sabotage those that are at the top of the hierarchy by their true merit.
Essentially, in a free sex community, the issue for men is how to get better sex, not hot to get basic sex. This changes the whole character of the social interactions, and changes competition from dog-eat-dog to community-advancing.
Objections
Of course, there are many objections to the free sex model. Why would women copulate with lower-level men at all, if they could get protection from powerful men - and they could also cuckold their lower-level mates? Why would top men bear lower men taking away a portion of their reproductive potential, if they could secure it all for themselves? These are legitimate objections, and they did play out in the evolutionary period. In other species, like sea-lions, these considerations all mostly all of the picture in their sexual landscape. But then again, sea-lions didn't evolve to conquer the earth, like humans did.
There is a huge biological cost for the species in sexual competition. Males spend colossal energy in displaying and fighting in order to win in the flirting game.
The handicap principle suggests that prodigious waste is a necessary feature of sexual courtship. Peacocks as a species would be much better off if they didn't have to waste so much energy growing big tails. But as individual males and females, they have irresistible incentives to grow the biggest tails they can afford, or to choose sexual partners with the biggest tails they can attract. In nature, showy waste is the only guarantee of truth in advertising.
G. Miller, The Mating Mind
As a consequence, in the inter-species antagonism, species that manage to lower this cost have a huge advantage. Free sex corresponds to practically annulling that cost. And we have already explained how it is possible to both nullify the flirting cost and keep evolution going on, through the "bonus" to the best.
Now, there is a strong current of traditionalism in TRP. Guys consider "beta" trait raising another man's child. And it usually is, under the current sexual regime. But this should not blind us to the fact that the paternity certainty model pales as regards its efficiency against free sex, for almost all men: Top men have a chance with all women, not being limited by exclusivity, and lower-status men also have pretty good chances, and stakes in the tribe's evolutionary future. And all these with near-zero aggression within the tribe.
Man's sexual psychology has been optimally configured for the best evolutionary results - that is, it has been configured for a free-sex cultural environment. (This is mostly unconscious, of course: conscious knowledge of the reproductive mechanism came much later, probably in very recent Homo Sapiens, and had not had nearly enough time to have an evolutionary effect.)
Now, does this environment favor women, as well? Tangentially yes, through the advantages conferred by the tribe's well being. Would women perceive this fact, or resent their giving up of their right to sexual selection? This is a very long discussion. I will hopefully be writing on it in detail in a later post. Briefly, the original free-sex society is mainly a man-centered social and sexual arrangement: free sex represents the victory of the male sexual strategy over the female one. This does confer benefits to the female, as a side-effect. The opposite, i.e. regimes featuring the right to sexual veto by the female, entail violent societies, prone to collapse. This is true for the original polygamy, with women availing themselves only to the top men, monogamy, with women being compelled to extend their choice to a wider spectrum of men, and modern hypergamy.
Conclusion:
Free sex is the ultimate victory of the male sexual strategy over the female one.
-Adam Leonas
For the full discussion on this line of thought, check out my book, The Empress Is Naked.
[deleted] 8y ago
This sounds like the sort of beta cuck fantasy that feminists like to use to recruit men into believing that the only reason women aren't blowing the half the neighborhood is because of the "patriarchies" oppression of women's sexual freedom.
The idea that implementing some free love society is going to benefit everyone is a farce. Despite being in a society with no limits repercussion-less sex, no girl is going to want to sleep with the fat pizza faced fedora wearing loser. Even with unlimited availability of sex, men will still compete for the youngest and most attractive women.
Today is arguably a sort of free love society where there's no limits on sex and what you get isn't peace and love for all. The reality is that hypergamy runs amok and alphas clean house while hardcore betas struggle through life saying "woe is me"
TLDR: you can't trick people into going against their evolved instincts
james-watson 8y ago
Exactly, OP's entire post is absurd. Human societies without established mating systems are everywhere, and what a delight they are. Think Sub-Saharan Africa. Paternity is nonexistent, and so is law and order. The OP's sexual utopia is just one flight away.
What the OP describes is a Winner Take All mating market. This is what we are trending to now, both in the economic and sexual marketplaces. An ever shrinking pool of winning men take all the money and all the women. The rest of us get fuck all.
The key is realizing that a man is not born "alpha" or "beta", but that he accepts that role based on his transient success in this winner-take-all market.
Your company just IPOed, and you're a billionare? Congrats, you are currently Alpha.
You majored in a dead end career, became a wage slave, and don't have a trust fund? Congrats, you are currently beta.
We like to say there's no male hamster, but all of TRP is one huge male hamster. There is no fucking alpha when 100 people own half the world's wealth. All it is, is you lifting weights and masturbating to the fantasy of becoming Arnold while avoiding the bitter truth.
Most of us, and i mean 99.99% of us, are losing. And we are losing bad. Trying to fool ourselves into believing we're winning is man's greatest hamster.
Sdom1 8y ago
Wait, what? The black Africans I know are all highly family oriented, both in their nuclear family unit and extended.
[deleted] 8y ago
You hit the nail on the head in the sense of society moving toward increasing disparity with money and sex. What's interesting is that we're supposedly more equal and progressive then ever before...yet all we see is an increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor, while its only alphas and women who benefit under the current sexual dynamic.
As you say it's winner take all. Ironic considering that socialism is taking hold everywhere and more people are calling for the abolishment of the "patriarchy" that actually kept most things fair and equal sexually
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
You are right in your assertions.
But you misunderstand my point. I'm discussing "Free sex for men societies". Sex is always free for women.
"Trickle down sex" is of course a feminist scam.
[deleted] 8y ago
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.2715 ^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?
Invalidity 8y ago
On top of that, men would be more inclined to keep mates for themselves, rather than open it up.
But the free sex model is not free in any sense, and would require either enforcement, or just rampant rape... both of which are neither desirable nor beneficial.
[deleted]
CoriolanusRevisited 8y ago
The 'free sex model', even if we take what you say at face value, is still in no way capable of being the best for society because we no longer have a tribal social system. This could only possibly be a functioning system if humans were living in small groups (<150) and knew everyone around them.
Codified laws, monogamy, etc. are what follows when a society moves away from a nomadic lifestyle towards a settled (at first agrarian) one, and that's the sort of shift that completely upends whatever societal value 'free sex' may have.
Certain practices benefit society at different times in that society's development into a modern nation state, and the era of 'free sex' if it ever existed will not come back. It's also interesting to note that most of the hippie communes tried a similar model for their society and for sex, and it simply didn't work and they all collapsed out of infighting and bitterness, often over sexual snubbing and people not pulling their weight in work.
Daily_Dosage_3 8y ago
Yep. The background assumptions being made for the conclusion ("Free sex is the ultimate victory of the male sexual strategy over the female one."), fail to recognize the changes that technology and large states or nations have on the reproductive failure or success of men. In fact, free sex may be the worst strategy, given pandemics of STDs, birth control, abortion, children being losers from not knowing their parents, etc.
In the modern world, sperm donation may be a better bet strictly in terms of mass producing children, if that's your thing.
A lot of further work needs to be done in OPs post, especially the assumptions being made about reproductive success in modern and ancient human societies.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
"Free sex" is a reality today. The problem is, only for women.
Wait, for women plus the top, maybe, 1% of men.
I'm not sure if a generalized free-sex regime is feasible in today's large-scale society. I'm not sure it's unfeasible, either. What this discussion offers is not so much a definite target for a man or a men's movement (the "free sex society"). Its value is that it offers insights on wtf is wrong - because men instinctively know that something is indeed terribly wrong. And this is because when men's instincts were being hard-wired, sex was not such a tremendously big deal as it is today. It was free.
james-watson 8y ago
How can you admit this, then post the rest of your drivel?
When women have "free sex" they choose the apex males. When men have free sex, they kill each other to become the apex males. Male desire is infinitely stronger than female desire, so no matter who gets to decide, it will always be 1% of men that women want.
Unless you force them to mate with men they don't necessarily want. As in, the way it was done throughout the entire history of successful human civilizations. Women were treated as dependents, and married off by fathers to future husbands. Women had very little mate choice. Marriage 1.0, the Old Testament, etc.
That is the only feasible system, and it can't ever be called "free sex". Free sex is anarchy, chaos. It is the Congo, it is Somalia.
Get your head straight, and think things through before posting ideas which directly contradict your evidence.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Not quite. They choose the psychopaths.
This is feminist propaganda. Please don't spread it in here.
I'll say it one more time, because it doesn't seem to sink in: Free sex for men means a dismissal of the female sexual veto.
james-watson 8y ago
You are so confused that I can't even understand your position. On one hand, you post facts, on the other you post absolute nonsense. It's like a half chocolate/half excrement milkshake.
So men killing each other for pussy is bullshit huh? So how do you explain...all of recorded human history? Men jockey for status and kill each other ruthlessly because...they're bored? Not at all because high status males monopolize access to females, right?
And "free-sex" is dismissing female veto. OK, let's say you could fuck any woman you wanted to, right now. Great. You see a hot girl, you fuck her, maybe she likes it maybe she doesn't. She tells her father and brothers about it, who are coincidentally the men protecting her and putting food on her table. What do they think? Uh oh, they don't like you now, and they're coming to get you. You dun goofed.
Think things through just ONE iteration before posting. Just ONE. That's all I ask. Human societies form as a result of status jockeying over millions of years. We got this shit in our DNA. Your definition of free-sex doesn't make sense, at all.
Also, you point out psychopaths like they're the One Great Evil. Guess what, being a psychopath is the only rational strategy in the system you advocate, which is the Winner Take All mating system.
You got a choice of two mating systems:
Winner Take All (R-selected): men fight for status, winners take all the bitches. Bloody, violent, exciting. Somalia, the Congo, all of human history in which war was common (hint: all of it)
Excuse my ad hominem attacks, it's just how I justify spending time on the internet. You're on the right track, but you're promoting the wrong solution, or are possibly confused about the meaning of what you're suggesting. The above are the only two possible systems, as borne out by history, biology, archaeology, economics, rationality, and every other system of analysis known to man.
You think you have some breakthrough all of our literate ancestors have missed in the last 10,000 years of civilization? Be my guest and spread the gospel.
Till then, we'll be giving you hell for nonsensical ideas.
strat_op 8y ago
I agree on this. Also I highly doubt the free sex model would in fact result in "low level of frustration and aggression". On the contrary I think that as sex would not be distributed evenly we would see a raise in agression and frustration in those who do not get sex. Monogamous bonds greatly increase stability as they (in theory) assure everyone has his minimum sexual needs met.
For a recent example you can look at the upheaval in the far east, especially Egypt, which was mainly carried by young men motivated by sexual frustration. (Resulting from strict moral codes only allowing for sex in marriage while marriage being unattainable for most men due to economic reason, i.e. not being able to acquire a own household).
[deleted] 8y ago
Agreed. You could argue that today's society is structured like a free sex model and the reality is that it leads to soft harems not the glorious sexual peace that OP claims. As another poster mentioned, even in a free sex society there are still desirables and undesirables
The old system (marriage 1.0) was probably the closest to this peace ideal since it was one man one woman; arguably a form of sexual socialism. What you see now is alphas getting multiple women and beta losers like Elliott Rodgers get nothing. Speaking of which wasn't Elliott Rodgers motivation for killing a bunch of people that he was sexually frustrated? Oh yea it totally was...so much for free-for-sex making everyone happy
[deleted] 8y ago
Interesting to note that as our society moves closer and closer to this, at least for our younger years of adulthood (the modern day college experience is essentially a mix of the free sex model and short term pair bonding), we're seeing violent outbursts from those excluded from sex (e.g. mass shootings are almost always carried out by sexless omegas).
Back in the tribal days, when a free sex model would potentially work, an aggressive beta was dealt with easily. If he acted out against society he was killed and the tribe moved on. Now we have technology that enables an omega to successfully rage against society, and we have a standard of living that is high enough that any outburst like this is a major threat to our way of life. In other words, we have guns now, and we strive towards creating a society with little to no violence.
The reality is that what's best for society and for our lives overall does not mesh perfectly with what our biology is telling us to do with our relationships.
strat_op 8y ago
I want to expand on the last point as this is one of the most overlooked in TRP. While sex maybe one of the major biological drivers it is neither the only one nor is in itself beneficial for society.
Abstaining from (extensive) amounts of sex can result in increased productivity etc. and in fact this has been proven in studies. I have also seen articles linked here about CEOs taking times of abstinence in time of high stress.
Im on my phone therefore only this: https://archive.is/VUMeW
You get the idea; fulfilling our biological needs only and extensively does not equal a productive society.
Primemale 8y ago
Exactly. OP needs to rethink this one greatly. ''free sex'' does not mean everybody gets sex, women still don't want to have sex with beta guys if they can help it.
fingerthemoon 8y ago
Just what I was thinking. Who keeps the betas away? One of the main reasons a woman would be faithful in prehistoric tribal days was for a strong alpha to protect her form thirsty betas.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Free-sex means no, or limited, female right to sexual veto.
As an example, in some primate groups a new female that wants to enter the group first needs to have sex with all the males in the group.
As a note, I find it quite extraordinary that the idea that the female sexual veto always existed is so deeply ingrained in men in our culture. It was Dr. Leonard Shlain, in his book Sex, Time, and Power: How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution that first popularized the idea that it did not. (Although he saw the process of its acquisition more as evolutionary, rather as historical, which is the case).
Primemale 8y ago
I certainly can see your point here in that woman haven't always had right to sexual veto but then who did control the 'flow' of sex? The dominant males, surely? Therefore you are insinuating that they are fair in their distribution of sex? the only 'fair' model for the beta males I can see, is marriage 1.0.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Today, the 'flow' of sex is control by females and 'dominant males', i.e. 'the system'. In a free-sex society there are different social norms. They might dictate, for instance, that it's a shame for a woman to deny sex. (This is not the only case, of course, since even early human societies always had a great variety in culture.)
FloatyFloat 8y ago
Where is the evidence that this was the case? You also state that females were able to choose the better males to mate with, which involves rejecting/vetoing other males. This would indicate a significant ability to veto. Otherwise, any male could essentially have sex with anyone, and this would override natural selection favoring the fitter males.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
In any case, it would be many orders of magnitude less than today's, where a woman can veto a sexual encounter even after it has been completed - and accuse a man of rape.
FloatyFloat 8y ago
Even if we take away a women's "right" to "veto" a sexual encounter today, their ability to say no during a sexual encounter is still major. You still have no evidence they had "no, or limited" veto in the past.
Heck, suing after the fact does not "veto" the encounter. The sex still happened.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
The difference of theory and practice is much greater in practice, than it is in theory.
If you think that monogamy means an endless stream of free sex (even if it is from only one woman), you are greatly mistaken. It's not only that you have to pay for the sex with your providing, you have to endure the shit tests for the rest of your life, with no way out.
"There is no rest, there is no respite or reprieve from performing", as Rollo puts it.
[deleted] 8y ago
I'm a firm believer that the "honeymoon phase" and the "seven year itch" are biological phenomena that show us our true capacity for monogamy without purposefully resisting our urges. The first is the time to conception, where if pregnancy isn't achieved by some number of months then the man is considered infertile and the woman loses desire. The second is the time to raising a stable child, somewhat similar to the 4-5 year pair bonding theory.
This is why I'm a huge fan of the "mini relationship." I'm fairly certain that this is the optimal way to get the most sex possible. Not the most partners, but the most sex for sure. Constantly living in the honeymoon phase is probably the best strategy for the modern day male looking for the best parts of monogamy without the inevitable drop off at the end.
qlqrlk 8y ago
What is the "seven year itch" if not a second "infertility reflex"?
[deleted] 8y ago
A desire for genetic diversity once they are reasonably sure their first genetic legacy is safe. It just makes sense that evolutionarily a woman employing these strategies would succeed.
Find a male who suits your reproductive needs? Fuck him until you're pregnant, if you're not pregnant in 4-6 months, lose desire and move on.
If you are pregnant, stick around and use him for protection until the child is old enough to be somewhat independent, or at least not in constant need of a body guard.
Then, whose genes are more likely to move on, the woman who comes back for seconds from the same genetic pot, or the one who takes advantage of genetic diversity and finds a new mate? Overall, finding a new mate -> greater genetic diversity -> greater probability of genetic success. So this is the strategy that would develop over millions of years of evolution.
qlqrlk 8y ago
I only ask because I don't know of any women who divorced their husbands while pregnant and/or lactating, even with more than one child.
By the way, anatomically modern man has only been around for 160,000 years, and psychologically modern man for a few thousand. Hell, H. erectus didn't even control fire until 400 kya.
[deleted] 8y ago
Because women don't have the power to leave during these times. Seriously, no one picks up pregnant chicks, and women don't have the time to date around when they're taking care of small children. It's just a dumb move.
You're kidding right? This is most divorced couples I know.
Admittedly, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I'm guessing our older evolutionary ancestors still had a big effect on our behaviors today.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
I'm afraid this view is too constricted, is succumbs to the realism of the modern sexual regime. I'll quote Geoffrey Miller in The Mating Mind, since he's a reactionary and cannot be dubbed a free-sex hippie.
[deleted] 8y ago
I appreciate the effort you put into this write up but there is one major flaw in your idea, the complete lock out of the bottom 80% men can only lead to strife and even violence up to and including murder.
Given the choice females would rather share an alpha male in the top 10-20% than have their own beta in the bottom 80%.
Basically what you would have in a tribe of 200 people (100 men 100 women) is 20 men with roughly 5 women each and 80 men without any pussy at all besides maybe a scrap here and there.
These 80 remaining men would be expected to provide time/resources for these mens offspring even though they definitely aren't the fathers.
What would end up happening is five guys sans pussy would get together and kill the single male with 5 women. But those 5 women wouldn't go to the murderers, they would just go to another top 20% man.
So genetically speaking yeah, it would provide a superior tribe.
But in a long term sustainability and a united tribe? Nah.
*EDIT If you read about the mutiny on the HMS Bounty and their flight to Pitcarne island this is basically what happened. These english mutineers went to Tahiti and scooped up a bunch of island girls and a few island dudes. Murder and wife thieving ensued, and I think some of the girls even ended up killing some of the men in their sleep but accounts are mixed.
azrise 8y ago
The free sex model makes no sense in my opinion. Among other things, it completely disregards one key natural characteristic of men: selfishness.
Tell me, if I'm the alpha male of the tribe - meaning I am stronger, possess more resources and therefore have more value than the other males - why would I be willing to share the woman with highest replication (beauty) value with the lesser males when I have the power not to?
A free sex system would benefit the betas more than it would benefit the alphas.
You speak of the energy spent on competition but you're missing one key point: in a prehistoric society competition only lasts until the woman's virginity is taken. That's it. One big race and nothing more. The moment you, as the alpha male, take her virginity and impregnate her, two things will take place:
The lesser males will acknowledge defeat, quit the race/competition and look for other quality females. Why would they spend their energy on a female that has the other man's seed? Also, the woman will lose replication value after bearing the first child. She will become less attractive, fatter, produce less eggs and will be less willing to risk losing the support of her alpha partner by looking for another male.
Lastly, I'll leave you with a question:
So that begs the question, if indeed free sex cultures were more effective, how come they didn't become the norm?
E.g. Tribe A = The Pair Bond model ; Tribe B = The Free Sex model
If Tribes B were more effective than Tribes A at assuring their own survival and replication of quality genetics, then they would have grown more, spread better and eventually influence and overpower and replace the Tribes A to become the norm as a way of living. But that didn't happen.
The mistake that some evolutionary psychology theorists make is that they focus too much on speculating how things worked back then and forget to look for answers in how things work now. If there is no such thing as a Free Sex Model today then that means, by evolutionary theory definition that such idea can never be considered more efficient. If it was, it would have become the norm thousands of years ago.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
You raise rational objections. I believe, though, they are mostly answered by the broader perspective I'm trying to give.
This is a valid question if you consider today's society healthy. Being here in TRP, my guess is you don't. Cancer cells are a biological reality, and they are more effective than normal ones in talking over the organism. That doesn't mean they are better.
Respectively, the generalized violence of today's society is, imo, a side-effect of 'women plus the elite' taking control over all of humanity's sexuality, a sign of social disease.
james-watson 8y ago
This fellow right here, is a much politer man than I, and hits the nail on the head for what I'm trying to convey in my insane rants.
Fair play to you sir, I was once as calm and collected as you.
Then I went outside.
[deleted] 8y ago
Yes and no.
You are right until the incel betas decide it's too much and resort to violence ( ISIS anyone ? ).
War is a very good evolutionary drive, if we are to judge the goodness of something by evolution. However i know not a few people who wouldn't take that route just for the sake of better genes.
While on evolutionary terms your reasoning is certainly sound, it lacks a more comprehensive approach. Socially its consequences are devastating. Unless we are ready to return to slavery ( meaning the beta lower class being kept in check by violence ) it's not going to pan out well in the long run.
The fact is either you give privileges to the system ( social format stability ) or you give it to evolution. The second route contemplates war routinely and i'd wonder if that's not a bit risky with 30k+ nuclear war devices around.
Then again this is just a mindset issue. The actual situation doesn't give us choice so by all means, go for the free sex, since even if you don't get it you are still going to pay the societal price ( war ) for it.
But it's not that happy of a situation overall, imo. With all the repressed anger and growing silenced hate around, i don't feel optimistic about it. To me it just seems you are rationalizing why this isn't bad at all when it clearly is an unstable atomic social bomb. Then again i guess that if you see through evolutionary-only lens, it's quite the blessing.
But it's on the same lanes of: why violent rebellion is good for us, you can get free tvs through the cracked shop glasses. Yay! But it misses the big picture and it doesn't contemplate the risk you are going to get at gun-point with some thug 5 mins later. Then a more stable system will look more appealing. Too late it will be, ofcourse. But hey, it's already too late, let's get what we can but i would refrain from celebrating it.
NeoreactionSafe 8y ago
You need to see things from the "big picture".
The Blue Pill is an emotional indoctrination system that has a very precise goal which is to eliminate anything resembling a middle class and replacing it with beta slavery.
Marriage 1.0 was a threat to Blue Pill goals.
So now the Blue Pill has altered society to such a degree that the man who was once the owner of his family has been reduced to being a provider which is exactly what the Blue Pill desired as an outcome because the masses are forced into beta slavery.
Freedom (Frame) and Liberty (Game) are actually maximized in the Marriage 1.0 laws.
Some people honestly just don't understand what is really going on.
Don't forget that affairs were common in Marriage 1.0 so a man was understood to have mistresses if he was of high Alpha status.
The low status men were left with few options and might be unable to gain a wife at all.
james-watson 8y ago
Finally, someone who gets it. Old Testament Marriage 1.0 is the average man's best friend. The Chad wanna-be's and posers will now pour in and say "Sir, I doth protest. I wish to bang ALL TEH WOMMENZ". Well son, you can go right ahead and try, and let us know how that goes. Just FYI, most adult men (30+) can be violent and very capable of hurting other men especially when females are involved, contrary to what TRP preaches about all men being "betas" and "pussies". This is where the "Be Alpha" strategy breaks down.
Our ancestors weren't fucking idiots. The man who wrote the Old Testament was a goddamn visionary. He figured it all out, by himself, in one lifetime and made an instruction manual using storytelling, the most powerful human form of propaganda, to build civilization.
Women being treated as dependents is the only way a society can remain stable. Fathers own custody of daughters, and transition to husbands. Obviously, Fathers have the final say in who marries their daughters. Patriarchy, the original version. Sounds too rough for all you plate-spinners? Guess what, it's the one common element that all successful human civilizations share. You wanna be a trail-blazer and start a hippie commune instead? Go right ahead and tell me how it works out.
I wonder when men as a whole will finally fucking wake up to this reality. Women can never vote, can never testify in court, or have rights anywhere near that of men. Why do you think they were classified in the same category as CHILDREN for all of civilization? Because they were extremely valuable DEPENDENTS. All the special treatment they got was in exchange for giving up decision making rights in society.
And guess what, it fucking worked. That's how we can sit here typing away on magical machines of instant global communication. All those hippie communes? Check out Somalia to see how they did.
NeoreactionSafe 8y ago
Most of the people on Red Pill are very young and have no direct experience before Feminism.
Because they have never seen how masculine men can be married and run a household very effectively as the head of household they just can't imagine it working.
Most of these young Red Pill readers are effectively orphans without true parents.
A single mother is the only fragment of parenting they see and that's typically polluted with Feminist thought and failure.
I'm not saying the flawed logic they possess is "truth" but we who know better must realize how desperately screwed up these kids are today. I'm 54 years old and was lucky to have experienced a good family life with a masculine father and happy mother, but this is very, very rare today.
qlqrlk 8y ago
Spot on, with but one exception: the Old Testament was written by many men over a long period of time, hundreds if not thousands of years.
aherne18 8y ago
Free sex model makes the majority of men (those that aren't attractive) into porn addicts and the majority of women into worthless whores. It is an extraordinarily negative phenomena that only occurs in collapsing civilizations (where the little vital energy left is used in self-destruction)...
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Why, would you prefer them expensive whores?
aherne18 8y ago
No... I would prefer a traditional family where they marry and stay untainted, as they used to decades ago.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
I thought so...
So, expensive whores it is.
Joseph_the_Carpenter 8y ago
I see someone read Sex at Dawn. It's at best a veiled attempt at catering to the dreaded Female Sexual Imperative.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
I have also reviewed it.
gggreorge 8y ago
are you an evolutionary biologist? what are your creds?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
I'm not an evolutionary biologist.
Necessarily, I go by my pen name in order to maintain anonymity, so my credits are only the reviews I get.
I have been a political activist for a few decades, active in feminism as well, so I know why is it a scam from the inside. I've done extensive research in evolutionary psychology and other sciences for 3 years after unplugging, which resulted in my book..
I hadn't discover The Red Pill back then. In retrospect this forced me to consider and build up everything from scratch, which was painstaking but rewarding.
Primemale 8y ago
the ''Kill your marriage fantasies'' article linked was quite incorrect I think, also 'OMGTRIGGERED' debunked most of what you said. I haven't yet read this article so cannot comment on it, however the whole ''free sex'' thing just doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all, no men want to have sex with women (and more so commit to) that have multiple partners for one, this is an inbuilt natural tendency of men, i.e. exclusivity at least far as men are concerned. Women on the other hand only want to fuck with the best men, not all men, this is the whole point about why promiscuous women are so miserable.
You mentioned tribes and their free sex behaviour, obviously for one we have moved away from that with civilisation and also men in many tribes used to look after their sisters (female relatives) offspring in order to at least be passing on some genes that were partially related, and that was the contract between the men. Even if this theory was all correct (which I doubt) there is no way it's sustainable or advisable today, beta guys were never getting the good pussy anyway in ''free sex'' periods or not.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Are you suggesting that prostitution is nonexistent?
Primemale 8y ago
No, beta and/or desperate men will concede to it even if that's not their ideal, beggars can't be choosers after all. MOST MEN consider it inherently to be a negative, that is why no high value men (with options) would commit to this sort of woman, as a last resort option perhaps, sure.
From your stuff I've read you seem to think that men have no inclination towards committing to a woman, granted the most dominant and highest t individuals will be less likely to do so, but even they will start the march towards the androgynous and settle for one mate eventually. Woman have behaviours such as crying that lower a man's testosterone levels (temporarily) and the birth of a child has been shown to lower a man's testosterone levels so that he bonds with the child, a necessary step for the species to survive. Men want to have a 'main chick' whether you call that a wife, girlfriend whatever, perhaps the highest t ones could do with a little side but even they will eventually become committed to one woman that's how it works.
Monogamy is the mainstay of all of Europe and America, the only place that doesn't that I can think of is Africa and that country is a complete shambles. I'm not sure that this was even forced for modern civilisation, most men I know, alpha or not eventually commits to one woman, I see it more as an eventuality based on status, (and therefore hormonal status) driving behaviour as opposed to some evolutionary tendency to want to all fuck each other willy nilly, that doesn't make sense from what I have observed.
LeFlamel 8y ago
You're a dumbass if you think Africa doesn't have monogamy.
E: it's also not a county
Primemale 8y ago
They practiced polygamy more than any other country, but yeah your right they do have monogamy too.
[deleted]
eddiae 8y ago
how about both ? cuck betas in your 20s securing some kids raised in stable families, then marry in your 30s a 10/10 young chosen woman to raise your own kids. its what kings do all the times, they have a ton of illegitimate kids (they dont have to cuck to do that though) and then they pick a 10/10 queen to raise their heirs to the throne.
[deleted]
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Why the hell have children in the first place?
[deleted]
[deleted]
eddiae 8y ago
well, its biologically the mission of a man to have as many kids as possible with the lowest ressources spent on them, as modern humans we can consciously control somewhat what we do but you will probably "feel" when you're older a dissatisfaction that may be biological and may ruin your adulthood, a lot of childless older men report being "miserable" and other bullshit. its probably an evolutionary mechanism but you can override it by having some kids through cucking, that way you have nothing to lose and you can live without marriage and raising kids and keep doing whatever you want.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 8y ago
Not quite. “the average effects of offspring were distinctly more negative for men than for women”. Indeed, “among well-educated white men, there is a rather strong evidence that childless persons have been happier than others”.
SIDWULF 8y ago
This is obvious and true. Should be on the sidebar.