Males endlessly killing each other over females. The alpha males win the harem until they're replaced by a new alpha male. Resentful banished beta males causing civic unrest. The men engage in an endless cycle of violence and society never advances beyond access to food and pussy.
Females cat fighting in stupid squabbles over easily solvable issues of food and territory. Females choosing the male who fights the hardest to protect and provide for them. Rewarding him with sex when he does, withholding it and screeching in his face when she thinks he failed to sufficiently "man up".
Sounds familiar?
Many generations ago, humans decided to put restraints on our sexuality. We never got rid of male aggression, competition and our sky high sex drive. We never got rid of female hypergamy, promiscuity and bitchiness. However, we did put restraints on these things. Restraints that helped civilize our species, allowing us to advance ahead of every other species on the planet.
Marriage is an ancient institution that obligates the man to protect and provide for his woman. To tame his aggression for the benefit and stability of the family. Sure, polygamy was permitted in many places, but each wife came with responsibility. You had to be very well off to have more than one wife.
Likewise for women. Marriage obligated them to grant sexual exclusivity to their husbands. Adultery was harshly shamed and punished and withholding sex was grounds for divorce. Marriage was never equal, but it did always include obligations as well as benefits to both parties.
But today? Today we've allowed women to return to our uncivilized, primal, instinctual ways. Today a woman can destroy a marriage because she isn't feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling it. Because she's bored. Because she lost sexual attraction to her husband. Because she thinks he has to step up his game or because she thinks she could do better. In fact, she doesn't need a reason at all because no fault divorce is a thing.
But the man? He's still fully obligated to tame all his primal instincts. He may not openly express his sexual desires, he may not even look at a woman in a sexual manner as this would be considered to be sexual harassment. He may not express aggression of any kind because that's considered to be abusive, toxic masculinity.
She can be as primal and uncivilized as she wants. He must be proper and civilized at all times. Failure to comply may land him in prison.
Some of you may be thinking: all these rules are for beta males, but not for alpha males. So just be alpha bro and you're good to go. You get to bang all the women with impunity and the rules don't apply to you.
This is true to an extent, but I'd like you to watch the video again and I challenge you to look up similar videos of many different animal species. You'll find the same theme again and again. The alpha male must risk his life fighting for this position until he finally wins it, but that doesn't guarantee him anything beyond today's fuck. Tomorrow they'll trade him in the nanosecond a bigger, badder alpha comes around.
After all his hard work in getting the throne, the women will still withhold sex from him, they'll still shriek in his face and they'll still throw him under the bus in favor of some new jock.
Ladies, you want to know where the good men are? The good men are disinterested in such an unfair, rigged game. The good men don't want to risk life and limb for your disease ridden pussy and bastard children. The good men aren't interested in your treadmill of ever increasing demands. The good men aren't interested in your manipulation, sexual or otherwise.
Men have successfully tamed and channeled our brute nature and we have an incredibly advanced society to show for it. What have you done, ladies? Which part of your primal nature did you tame or redirect for the betterment of society?
Cheers!
[deleted] 3y ago
Save for later.
You need to write a book
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Lol
Maybe in a different lifetime
kyledontcare 3y ago
Polygamy never turns out well.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Recommended reading:
The perils of polygamy and the allure it inspires on players.
The costs of playerhood by Aaron Clarey.
Raising feral females.
Over civilized men, uncivilized women.
Evolutionary maladaptations or how moths and women are alike.
jewishsupremacist88 3y ago
this sort of stuff still goes in in 3rd world and developing nations. the warrior gene is responsible for it.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/29/does-the-human-warrior-gene-make-violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/#:~:text=The%20so%2Dcalled%20warrior%20gene,low%20level%20of%20the%20enzyme.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
This is key. You define your own rules. Do not do things to minimize your options, especially when you get to the top.
[deleted] 3y ago
Great post. Amen Brother
Noogisms 3y ago
I have a 95-year-old client whom grew up in Venezuela, daughter to a missionary. While lamenting my most recent failed relationship, she echoed the sentiment I read in The Mothers: in "lesser" civilizations, even up to modern day, women innately prefer to be the third wife to a wealthy ape than second to a simpler chump.
Monogamy, Briffault argued, is not the natural long-tern hierarchy.
His book has a further example about how upon invasion by outside forces, most women voluntarily side with the outsiders, reproductively, as soon as their beaus were slaughtered.
"If you want loyalty, get a dog."
BluepillProfessor 3y ago
Monogamy is not natural but neither is civilization. If you want one, you need the other. If you want alpha apes fighting and getting laid while the rest of the males go Chimptow, lay around all day, and nothing new ever gets invented then here you have it.
Leadbaptist 3y ago
Okay, I know the mods dont agree BUT-[user was banned for this post]
I think the issue is with everyone, we are abolishing every institution that punishes us for obeying our instincts. Men and women are pursuing the easiest high, leaving nothing of value in their wake, creating nothing for the next generation. EVERYONE is becoming uncivilized because we are beginning to forget why those restrictions were put in place to begin with.
BluepillProfessor 3y ago
Beginning? We are taught from age 4 that America is stolen land, that brown and black people are more noble, that men are bad, women are wonderful, and that having sexual feelings for a woman is trans phobic.
We are way part the beginning. We are, in fact, approaching the end. Arm up America. The white Knights are coming for you, all of you.
InevitableOwl1 3y ago
What other examples are you referring to ? Beyond drastically reducing the value and solidity of marriage ?
Leadbaptist 3y ago
Everything man. Like, name an aspect of living and Ill show you how people have twisted it just for the high.
Food for example. Look at obesity rates, the awful shit we put in our bodies. People (americans) dont bother with trying to be healthy, they just eat like crap cause monkey brain says that tastes good.
Overkillengine 3y ago
Or even something as simple and subtle as a change in environmental conditions.
Even a warlord can get cucked if he's good at fighting but not at feeding.
Men make the mistake of assigning their own values to the alpha label, without making the connection that it is simply a shorthand label for the male possessing attributes most desirable and/or needed by a female at a given time and place.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Yep. You don't necessarily have to better. You just have to be different.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Yes.
There are more videos on that channel of the same baboon clan. They demonstrate these points quite clearly.
[deleted] 3y ago
Dorinus2 3y ago
For thousands of years people married for politics,not for love
moorekom Mod 3y ago
For property acquisition and management. I am reading "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley and one of his points is that incest was stigmatized not because it can be genetically disadvantageous to the kid, but because it helped consolidating resources within the same family very well. In history, the only exceptions when it comes to the stigma of incest are royalty. He quotes Cesare Borgia and Caligula as examples. I will look for the quote and update it here when I have the time.
cc: u/loneliness-inc
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Found the below text. Although this is a huge wall of text, I think it provides good context to what we are discussing about. He is talking about marriage between cousins for the most part here. I also remember reading in another chapter that the most common form of incest (as in sex within same family) was mostly between a father and a daughter. This is because people do not develop sexual feelings for people they grew up with as kids and a father could be sufficiently distanced from a daughter's life for this to happen. I believe this was discussed in Chapter 8 or 9 in the book.
Let me put in a disclaimer that I do not own the copyright for the below text and I will remove it if need be. That said, here is the text from Chapter 7.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Wow. Very interesting. Totally increases my respect for the church and the religion it represents /s
Also reminds me of the meme: my daughter wanted to be treated like a princess, so I married her off to a stranger to strengthen our ties with Poland!
moorekom Mod 3y ago
The church/religion thing is not surprising to me. All religions start out with a slightly noble goal but eventually end up being tools for mass control. What is most interesting to me however is the truth about knights, jousting and the medieval royal life. Dalrock has covered the origins of Chivalrous love and how it originated from this fashion of cuckoldry from medieval times in a lot of his posts, so I have been aware of this dynamic for a couple of years now. That said, it still does not fail to impress me on how fucked the entire dynamic is everytime I stumble on it through various sources. This ugly thing came to define romance as we know it the world over and it is fascinating to see its ugly core.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Royal families married for politics. Most people married for family. In other words: for business.
What's love anyway?
Depending on how you define love, even marriages that "weren't for love" ended up being quite loving. The difference is whether love was the foundation upon which the marriage was built or an important component within the marriage itself. Please see the warm home analogy for more on this topic.
[deleted] 3y ago
Quite right and in many cases, and it is still the case in some parts of the world, having a family also ensured that you had someone to take care of you as you got older. I think one of the reasons that we are seeing so many issues here in the west is that we have too many safety nets.
Women don't have to feel the pinch of their bad decisions because daddy government is there to catch them when they fall.
adriannmng 3y ago
And that is why civilisation progressed. Now it is only based on tingles, so monkey civilisation is what we are heading for.
Scantraxx12 3y ago
So true man.....
Newbosterone 3y ago
Welcome to the Monkey House.
disayle32 3y ago
Call me a pessimist, but I think we're more likely to nuke ourselves to extinction instead.
GreyJedi56 3y ago
OP: CALL AN AMBULANCE.... BUT NOT FOR ME
WOMEN OF THE WORLD: shiiiiit
[deleted] 3y ago
[deleted]
Blogginginvicecity 3y ago
It's a great thing to have control of our sexuality. Since we are social animals though, we are born sensitive to signs of disrespect and exclusion, which were mortal threats for our tribal ancestors. It instinctually agitates us when we feel considerably lower than another in social status (though spirituality fights this instinct). If a man has always been lonely, impoverished and in a factory every evening, it would be frustrating to hear that others have experienced hugs, juicy steaks, and sunsets, and have the option to do so regularly. So shameful for one not to be worthy of a simple pleasure. If he is not even worth that, his subconscious senses his social status and the implication that he could casually be thrown out of the tribe at any moment. This is disturbing to his psyche, causing, fear, anxiety, and ultimately the anger to change this situation. Even if he doesn't rebel and come to violence with others, he won't live up to his full human potential. His overall functioning will be impaired as his mind keeps an eye on the inequality and the primal threat that comes along with it.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
The resentment you describe u/Blogginginvicecity is why so many losers turn to communism, even though capitalistic free trade would have them all better off by several orders of magnitude.
[deleted] 3y ago
[deleted]
BluepillProfessor 3y ago
Bigger than it is?
Our entire culture is crashing and burning, literally and you tell normal men to get a grip. You are either a woman or a man with low t and no sex drive. The prospect of hot sex incentivises men to work hard. Without it, we don't. Without the men working hard, society falls apart. The end.
awakenedspirit1 3y ago
For me that's the biggest thing. "the game" is rigged
[deleted] 3y ago
I don't know if women are capable of climbing above their baser instincts. But I do know that over the last few thousand years it was a well established fact that men needed to have authority over women. Not just for the man's sake, but for the woman's too. Without it, we get the world we are seeing today.
At the very least we know that marriage does not work unless a man has that authority over his wife and the wife does not have the option to leave. Otherwise, when a woman is left to pursue her own instincts her hypergamy will always lead to the destruction of the marriage.
I think we are quickly approaching an age where marriage is no longer going to be a thing. Maybe we will find a new way to move forward as a species or maybe by necessity we will have to go back to a world where fathers arranged marriages for their daughters and the man is unquestionably the head of the household.
BluepillProfessor 3y ago
They are slightly capable if the alternative is being dragged to the city gates by your father or husband and stoned to death. Short of this, no they can't climb above their instincts. With it they usually can. Not always but usually.
[deleted] 3y ago
Hot damn! This is a good revelation. Thanks for your extended thoughts on our primal roots and how they have evolved over time. The thing is, women used to be civilized. They used to be required by men to speak, thrust, or live gracefully. They used to enjoy this arrangement because otherwise they would succumb to the elements or be ravaged by men that weren't civilized.
This used to be the normal traditional arrangement between men and women, but over time men provided more than what women needed and women took ever increasing advantage of that. Men were able to provide more because they were excelling at their obligations to women. They provided a proper place for women to live and nurture children, but then went beyond and provided an infrastructure in society so that she could also enjoy the fruits of freedom all the same. Well what did they do with their newly unfounded freedom? They voted for more obligations of the man and less responsibility of themselves. Now, society has this mangled view of how a traditional family is supposed to operate, where women enjoy the fruits of man-labor, but they have no responsibility to the man to ensure that labor continues. They can just flip a switch and enslave the man by either the state-sponsored scam that is the family courts or by the brute force of ignorant police that are biting at the bit to put an alleged abusive man down and in a cage. Society has unleashed female liberation while enslaving male desire. The only way to fix this situation is by rectifying the source of contention that is the financial and moral bankruptcy of society. The only way from here is down, but how far down the people want to go is entirely up to them. At this rate, there is no telling how far people will dig to retain the resemblance of a great society that once was and is not coming back.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Once a society reaches a level of comfort, women will demand rights that they were willing to do without previously. This is not because they deserve it, but because they think they do. No civilization is exempt to this. It happened to Rome, Persia etc. as documented in Fall of Empires by Sir Glubb. Civilization is a cycle. Empires rise, expand, decay, fall and in their ashes rises another empire somewhere else. The cycle continues.
u/loneliness-inc and I discussed this in detail here a while back.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Well said. Especially this.
Indeed, women passively went along because of necessity. The choice was between submission to a loving husband or fending for herself on the streets. Most women can't fend for themselves and so they chose to submit to their husbands.
However, they were never really active in their civilization. They demanded civilization from men and they went along with it (dragging their feet and complaining all along...), but they never actively civilized themselves. That's why they jumped on the first opportunity to return to their primal selves.
As u/moorekom has eloquently explained in several of his posts.
Noogisms 3y ago
My high school sweetheart had a mother that taught me multitudes about women — almost decades later, now, I still visit with them once every few years.
Around 2004, I was gardening with her mother and asked "B, if you despise your husband's antics so much, WHY ARE YOU STILL WITH HIM?!" Never forgot her response, and have asked her about this multiple times over the years: "Noogy, at this point in our lives it's just easier to remain with him."
Such tough, strong women — the HS GF was about as progressive as could be, back then, but now carries a handgun for protection — yet they stick to their married apes now that their sexual value has depreciated considerably.
B, I hope you remain well.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
I'm gonna plug the two posts linked here and encourage everyone to read Dalrock's posts about relationships, courtly love and feminism. Links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/d701kc/the_perils_of_polygamy_and_the_allure_it_inspires/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/cigq1h/over_civilized_men_under_civilized_women_by/
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Thank you sir
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Thank you for letting me plug those old posts. :)
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
That was the point! I wanted you to plug your posts.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
I know. And I appreciate it.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
You should sticky it for visibility.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Done.
InevitableOwl1 3y ago
The majority of this is great and very insightful
It does gloss over the fact that in some cases you can’t just “become alpha” - although you do go on to clarify that this isn’t relevant anyway
Our advanced society compared to other animals requires “betas”. To the extent of they will do a lot of the work including on scientific advancements etc.
But these guys need to incentive and historically that has always been that they would at least have the chance to have female companionship. The idea of a 5 should be able to get a 5 rather not now where a female 5 goes for 8+
Whilst there are of course philosophies about eschewing this that doesn’t bode well for the traditional society as a whole. Or at least the one that got our species to the top
The reasons why probably need further discussion and comment. But that is probably a separate topic. And I assume has been done
Edit: apologies if any of this is covered elsewhere. New here
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Women's emotional state keeps shifting. Almost everyone can learn to become desirable to some woman, at some point, if they put in enough work and meet her in the right context.
However, this point is moot as explained in the post.
Yes. Part of civilization was to prevent the beta males from causing trouble due to frustration and resentment. This is probably the same reason why marriage advanced to monogamy in some cultures. Indeed, monogamous societies tend to be more stable than polygamous societies.
Welcome aboard!
Cristoff13 3y ago
I think marriage evolved alongside modern humans. If you look at tribal/pre-tribal human societies, they all have marriage traditions. Even in hunter-gatherer bands most marriage is monogamous, with polygamy being limited to elite men, such as headmen (the original alphas). Even limited polygamy leads to a shortage of young women and frustrated betas though.
Overkillengine 3y ago
Yeah turns out that if you want to move past the tribal stage and stay past that, you have to ensure in some way that a sufficient number of non apex males have a reason to contribute their productivity.
Well, a reason other than the use of force to get compliance that is. That's been tried plenty of times and eventually the beta males realize they outnumber the apex class to such a huge degree that they can just overthrow them.
And even if the lower tier men don't resort to violence to resolve the issue they can still just simply refuse to maximize their productivity, which gets their society out-competed or conquered by rival societies that weren't as stupidly shortsighted.
Edit: well, there is another "solution" to the issue of non monogamous mating. It's called being locked in a constant cycle of tribal or national warfare.
BluepillProfessor 3y ago
That's the reason for the forever wars of the modern Democrat and Pubic parties!
We have always been at war with corona virus.
Keep the focus on the fake enemy so we don't see our freedoms disappearing. It's like a magician. Keep your eyes over here while we do this. Nothing to see. Just wear your mask and shut up.
MrNeurotypical 3y ago
That's exactly what happened in Africa.
Cristoff13 3y ago
Good point, probably the main cause of warfare between neighboring bands was disputes over young women. Only by strictly limiting polygamy could these come together to form larger and more complex societies.
loneliness-inc Mod 3y ago
Spit it out already, what's your solution?
BluepillProfessor 3y ago
The solution to government coercion is freedom, fairness, and private property rights. They are new ideas, I know but they have worked in the past.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Reee, look at this inkel trying to encourage wrongthink.
PS: /s, of course.
theoracleofosiris 3y ago
I don’t see any evidence that we socially organised ourselves from harems to monogamy as premised in your argument. Perhaps you can point me to a few references.