Disclaimer: All the opinions shared here are mine. Keep an open mind and make your own judgement. This is an expanded post based on various comments I’ve posted recently. Apologies if it reads a bit disjointed. I urge you to share your thoughts and opinions below so that we can have a productive discussion. Buckle up for the long, maybe slightly pedantic read.

In the beginning, when we did not have a structured society, it was a free for all. There were no rules to adhere to except for the ones enforced by nature. Then we came about structure through tons of trial and error. Before monogamy, we had rape, free for all and then polygamy. The first two were shunned because they were found to be ineffective. The children (who are the primary concern in any traditional society) born out of that were stunted emotionally and were found to be less capable than the children from traditional (monogamy oriented) families.

As an aside, you only need to look at the current state of black families to have a grasp of this concept. Glorified thug culture, intelligence shunning, lack of responsible (father) figures, matriarchal family model leading to overtly testosterone influenced bravado, rampant sluttiness etc. Society turned to polygamy before it settled on monogamy.

Polygamy pretty much involved the system we have now: top men having their own harems and women relegated to being his entertainment until he tires of her. While this model makes sense if the guy is wealthy enough to support numerous spouses and their children and the women being poor enough to receive his support in this manner, as society progressed, this model was replaced mainly because while this was a better model than raping or free for all or polyandry, this still didn’t give children the amount of attention they need to be molded.

Enter monogamy and tight knit extended families that lived together in a tribe like structure to make sure both parties were not just accountable to themselves but to their kin as well. The kin performed various auxiliary functions like providing financial support when needed, having each other’s back, taking care of the kids when necessary, giving the kids access to different perspective via various family members etc. This structure mainly served two functions:

1. Financial necessity and relieving the financial burden by sharing with the family.
2. Humans being tribal creatures, this allowed people to make their own tribes and decide their allegiance (to their family first before anyone else).

You can still see this structure to some extent on various eastern countries. If they do not have a large family living in the same house, they still keep close contact even if they are nuclear families. This structure, needless to say, was pretty robust. If you were a woman, you had a reputation to maintain with your family first and your town next. If you slutted it up, not only did you bring disgrace to your family, you made their prospects for marriage worse as you being a slut brought about questions about the leadership of your family and the character of your fellow family members. As an aside, this is why you see honor killings still being practiced in Middle Eastern countries. Under proper context, it makes sense the family would either ex-communicate the girl or even kill her if she engenders the future of their tribe. Marriages were not for romance, they were done for survival and strength through allegiance. Game of Thrones fans will recognize this structure pretty well. Tywin Lannister is a staunch patriarch of the close knit family structure. His mission is a perfect embodiment of this structure. The house that puts its wellbeing above the wishes of its individual members will come out on top. This might seem tyrannical on an abundant society like ours, but people were not always so abundant and they had to put survival first before anything else. Love (and sex to an even lesser extent) took a back seat to the fundamental drive for survival and strength accumulation.

Any empire, society, organization (corporate or government) has various stages in their growth and their eventual decline: building stage, expansion stage, maintenance stage, deterioration stage and then finally decline. Once a society enters the deterioration stage, the eventual decline might be brought about by many factors, primary among them being lack of sexual restraint, cohesion, accountability, hedonism and glorified individualism, lack of collective responsibility and finally women primary rules to further weaken the contribution of men. As we’ve seen above, the close knit family structure is primarily a part of building and expansion stages. That led to close families not living together but still communicating to nuclear family to the current cacophony that we have now. Needless to say, you can surmise what lead to this sorry situation. When families are powerful, when you have a powerful authority figure on top of every family, there is not much need for an all-encompassing central governing structure. When that structure wants to gain power, the power of families need to suffer. The size of the family will be reduced as people get financially stable and governments want to expand their control. You might start getting the fundamental reason religion existed now. As it started, religion was a communal gathering to facilitate people coming together and helping each other.

Let’s take welfare for an example. In the good old days, you had a patriarch for every family who was responsible for the collective resource distribution. If one of the members were unable to gather resources, the patriarch and the family took it upon themselves to provide resources to that member until such a time when he is capable. Collective responsibility. These days, you are taxed as a member of the society so that the government can provide for those members of the society who cannot provide for themselves or who are willing to exploit this provider-ship. I need not point out the flaws of our current system as opposed to the old one. Providing for someone who will affect your life, as part of your family, as opposed to a complete stranger is not the same. The gratitude your family member will feel and the responsibility he will be willing to withhold because of this is generally much higher than that of the average welfare leech. In short, there was more accountability and it was more personal. You stuck together because you had to. But as time progresses and people attain financial security and when they are no longer worried about survival primarily, they tend to gravitate towards hedonism little by little. All those pleasures that was denied to them and their parents now seem like a convenient idea. They must be surely outdated as the need for sticking together is no longer valid. Arranged marriage is no longer something that was done to strategically add to the value of the family. It is inhuman and violating of the individual’s rights. Families get more disjointed and get more individualized and people start following rules of the society (laws) in general than to follow the rules of the family and the society comprised of such families.

So, now we’ve come to the stage where nuclear families are given more importance over close knit families. Individual freedom is more valuable now and with that comes the opportunity to live away from the watchful eyes of your family elders. Nuclear family marriages might still start out being arranged and left alone by the family to take care of themselves (with the occasional help thrown in) and end up being individuals dating to find partners and creating their families based on their own wants and needs as opposed to their family’s needs. The couple get more time to devote to each other and to spend more time with their children. While the child might gain more in terms of affection from his parents, he definitely loses out on the varied perspectives and the different levels of affection and expectations that come with an extended family. What’s more, the child might end up getting spoiled by the parents as he is the center of their world. It’s not as if they have anything else to occupy them apart from work. The role of the man and the woman in this structure is slightly different to that of the role they played in a close knit family. For the man, his responsibility gets a lot narrower and a lot more focused. You need not concern yourself with your role in the extended family and the responsibilities of that role. You are now the patriarch of your very own family. While you would have been the authority figure for your wife and children in an extended family as well, now you do not have an immediate superseding figure. You are it. While this brings in a lot of power, that does bear a whole lot of responsibility.

For a woman, this structure affords a lot more freedom. You are no longer beholden to various authority figures in your extended family. You don’t have to guard your reputation and play delicate games with other family members either. You have one authority figure to worry about. As a man, you will face a lot of shit tests in this structure than the previous one. This is where the fight for control starts too. While the power the woman can wield in an extended family is reliant on a lot of things, the power she can wield in a nuclear family is heavily reliant on her man. If you are strong, all she needs to do is to comply and she’ll enjoy the second in command position. If you’re not strong, she can gain control and then she’ll be in a position where she will resent you and will not have an idea on how to handle being in power. If your government/ society does not sabotage your marriage, it might be a decent way to have a relationship. Once this balance is fucked with, problems arise.

Before no fault divorce, sexual revolution, the pill and feminism, this was the delicate dance that the genders had to perform to maintain balance in one way or the other. Modern society tries to shift control to the woman in ways large and small but they do not understand the irony that in trying to chase the “have it all” dream, they are actually undermining their own happiness. A well-educated woman can be a stay at home mom who takes care of her children and makes sure her husband has everything he wants. There is nothing wrong in it. In fact, most men would prefer it if they can afford it. But in today’s society, you will be shunned by fellow women who chase the dream of having it all if you even consider such an option. Most of these women do not want to acknowledge that they cannot have it all. That it is not possible. If you want something, you will have to sacrifice something else. In this case, women had to sacrifice the very thing that makes them attractive to men. If you dismiss said dream, in current society, you will lose respect in the eyes of fellow women (and men who believe in the same ideology) as they are too ego invested to see the actual cost analysis of the situation that they think they chose. If you really reflect on what success means to a woman, it is to be like a man and to prove to herself that she can do whatever a man can do. I find it ironic that women who spout that they are superior to men will still follow the framework laid by men to prove their superiority. If feminism is to make any sense, it should be about making all women into Mother Theresa. Not a wannabe man creature that is neither man nor woman.

Modern Society intentionally makes different concepts look synonymous. Innocence vs being dumb, freedom vs lack of restraint, submissiveness vs subjugation etc. A lot of people associate these things together and have difficulty distinguishing one from the other. Current society muddies the line so much that this is the default way of thinking for most people. I was recently in a discussion with a woman visiting our main sub and she was suggesting that men’s lack of sexual restraint is why women have the power they have right now. Leave aside the fact that for sexual restraint to be an effective strategy, all men need to do this in unison. The blame shifting that she did was part of the default reaction we’ve been taught since childhood too. I rebutted her that women cannot understand male sex drive because by nature, they have far less testosterone levels than we do. Just like men can't fully understand the trauma a woman would go through if she gets raped (the classic definition of rape, not the bullshit regret sex version we have now). But we can comprehend the importance of it. Similarly, we can comprehend the female sexual imperative of trying to secure the highest possible guy that she can get. I disagree with the current method women are using to get that but that doesn't invalidate the fact that I & a lot of others who have any understanding of these phenomenon had to put our personal emotions aside and think about the big picture.

This aside, I (personally) hold men responsible for the mess we are in too. It is the man's job to lead and provide direction. Sexual revolution was indeed one such thing. Majority of the men were blinded by their desire to actualize their sexual imperative. They thought if they can free women up from society's millennia of tried and tested rules, they can have their cake and eat it too. It was designed to be a classic carrot and stick scheme. The carrot being the promise for more sex and the stick being that you only get to have more sex if you're the top 20%. Women got the same scheme too. You can all the sex you want but you won't get commitment. Even if you do, you won't get it from who you think you deserve it from. You will be encouraged to chase an unnatural dream and men will revile you for it. You will get all the sex you think that you want when you are young but you'll die alone without anyone to care about you when you lose your beauty. Men will have to start off decent but getting no results and then have to make a conscious choice to either withdraw or become cold blooded. The only people who win in this game are actual sluts who don't mind being alone or can't envision being alone later in life and cold blooded psychopaths.

Now, the reason women pressured men to gain more freedom was because of their drive to secure the best guy that they can get. Most women study and earn so that they can get someone who has studied and earns more than them. See where this is going? There's only so much room at the top. Soon enough, women will have to compromise and settle for being one of the many in the harem of the top 20% men until your beauty interests him. In fact, we're almost already there. Now we, as men, can ask women why they are allowing this to happen and boxing themselves into a corner. Why can't women sacrifice their hypergamous desire for better and better so that they can have a happy life? Because, biologically, they cannot.

This is why innocence and chastity was valuable back in the day. Actual value is not in you exercising something just because you can. It's in restraining your selfish desire and determining how you can best spend it to increase your value. This is why sluts trying to secure commitment are ridiculed in our sub. Because they did not know what their true value was and gave it away for free. This is also why men who cannot get sex and men who give away their commitment to sluts are ridiculed. They do not know their value.

Compared to the system we have now, the system we used to have was better. Was it perfect? Nothing is. But there was balance, be it the close knit family or the nuclear family. Notice that almost anyone who wants to go back to the good old days never mention the close knit structure. That is a discussion for another day.

Regardless of the structure of the family, previously, a woman had to give a man sexual exclusivity, innocence and submissiveness in order to get lifelong commitment, stability, security and direction. A man gave up his sexual drive to fuck numerous girls and gained a family he can care for, contribute and lead. With that done, he can then concentrate on conquering whatever he wanted to conquer outside of his house. Ever heard of the saying: Behind every successful man is a woman? That's only part true. Behind every successful man is a submissive woman who made sure he can concentrate on his success. Why is it that women are unhappy now than ever before? Why is it that men just abandoned any desire to lead and are going their own way? It’s not because men lack control of their libido, but that we do not have the balance we used to have.

As Rollo says, a man who knows his own self-worth is the most dangerous and exciting thing to a woman. Now, you might come upon this knowledge by many means.

Traditionally, marriages were structured to have balance. You take care of her until she acts right. If she doesn't, she gets dropped. She will get nothing because she violated her end of the bargain. Yours is to lead and hers is to comply. This wasn't as simple as that as she would have a lot of soft power to influence your decisions in household and life, but a man was the front of the household with the responsibility and praise to go with it. No fault divorce and sexual revolution (especially the emergence of the pill) changed that equation. These days, you do need to come by trp to know your worth. Even then, knowing your worth alone is not going to work on girls who are young enough and dumb enough to not think past their twenties. You need external factors like social proof, money, fame etc. for them. Society these days is doing everything to make a woman look precious and a man worthless. Regardless, the general theme is this: Women, if born beautiful, get everything handed to them in the beginning. They get used to it and expect that to continue because they think that they are that awesome. They only realize when they start losing their looks that this is not forever. Men, on the other hand, start with nothing. You are what you make of yourself. As Patrice Oneal used to say: "A man can elevate a woman to her highest position. A queen. A queen cannot elevate a man to his highest position. A king. A guy who marries a queen is not a king. He's the bum who married the queen and the queen can't look at him like he's the king. A queen is the king's bitch."

A man's burden is to perform. A woman's burden is to reproduce. In the old days, if a woman can't reproduce, the man can get another woman to pass down his genes. Virginity was to make sure the child was his. This is why we are attracted to women's looks and not her intelligence. We don't care who she is. We're only concerned about what she can be to us. Women are more concerned about who you are first.

Think that this is impossible in today’s climate? There's a reason why the number one fantasy of women is rape. It's a surrender of control to male aggression. You cannot override nature. Women are the instigators. They set the initial tone. Men respond and determine the tone thereafter. Trp and mgtow are indeed natural male responses just as patriarchy was a natural response. We will go back to patriarchy when the need arises. Women will always go back to the kitchen when the going gets tough. Similarly, when they feel comfortable enough, they begin demanding more benefits (not because they deserve it but because they think they do) because of their comfort. Feminism was exactly that. Women felt very safe and demanded that they be given benefits. They set the initial tone. Men are responding now. Men are not given authority over anything. Men take and they provide what they've taken to people they deem deserving. This taking might be actual taking or earning the authority and taking it over from someone, but we do take because we are the aggressive gender. Women covet. This is why women like aggression in men. Men being aggressive is natural. Women submitting to that aggression is natural too. Anything other than that creates imbalance.

Not everyone has the good fortune of witnessing/to read about various cultures and have the time and resources to connect the dots that runs through seemingly different cultures. Most people do not look at the big picture and are confined by their view as defined by their own society/culture. While the current push back by men through trp and mgtow is understandable, I consider them both half measures. But they're still the products of their time. In a hypersexual society, the only way men can protest is through sex. There's not much of a brotherhood left, no family, no social or collective responsibility that'll help them. Personally, I've maintained that fucking a hundred girls and siring one child vs fucking one girl and siring one child is pretty much the same when it comes to evolution. In the old days, before condom or abortion, fucking hundred girls makes sense. Now, it doesn't make a difference how many girls you've fucked other than to satisfy your vanity. If lay count is how you measure your worth as a man, you've only lived to fulfill your sexual potential. On the other hand, mgtow choose to walk away from this hypersexual society. They depend on another principle of current time: individuality. They focus on self-improvement.

Personally, I don't prescribe the current dating climate. I am actually very much against it. While men can have multiple girls on the side and still love his main girl, women are incapable of disassociating emotionally in a way only a man can because of his biology. Fucking a hundred girls frivolously just because you can is not good for the psyche of both genders. While men are more robust on how many they can fuck and still retain their emotional well-being, women are much worse off for every guy they fuck. I've commented here before about PUAs like Roosh, after having fucked a hundred girls, lamenting the fact that they cannot find a girl they can trust to finally settle. We need to understand that unrestrained sexual access changes your psyche. Women do change first as they usually can get sex much easier than a man. Men change after they have had their fun. While it may be fun and ego satisfying to have the feeling that you can have as much sex as you want to, it doesn't lead to anything in itself. Living in a narcissistic, vain world that holds individual fun to be more important than anything else, and the proximity of people who do not and cannot think outside of the context (which is unrestrained sexual access if you’re lucky enough to get it) that they were raised on, it is easy to lose sight of the big picture. We should not.