Human civilization is on this planet for 10 000 years. One would think that since society punished women for cheating 10 000 years - they would eventually learn their lesson. Turns out they didn't and neither did we.
"If you do the same thing over and over again - don't expect different results." - some dude who said it.
Humans are not monogamous species, both weak pairbonding and AF/BB are proof of this. Demanding we turn monogamous - is going against biology (or - like some people call it "natural law" - that's a nice BP conspiracy there - to force people to abandon "natural law" and use culture to shape human biological nature instead).
Limiting female hypergamy - placing non-individaually selected restrictions on who a woman can fuck an choose as LTR material, in practical terms boils down restricting sex-without-marriage for women, and therefore men too.
There are two ways a male can mateguard:
-
the alpha way ("hey man leave my turf or face consequences" - fight off the male competition like almost every primate male does, you respond to challenge, win and remain alpha of the group)
- beta way ("why where you talking with him" - you don't respond to challenge, you blame her for passiveness during conflict instead of supporting you, which logical-BP-mind would interpret as reasonable thing to to, "you're my gf, you should be on my side", she's not - she's on the alpha's side)
Artificially limiting hypergamy is beta-mateguarding on societal level.
Female hypergamy and double mating is what enables men to fuck without the need to commit. It's what makes her fuck you and try to extract commitment. It works both ways.
Therefore stopping men from pursuing their sexual strategy and instead focusing on creating non-hypergamous society - is the very definition of forced commitment. This means that limiting female hypergamy leads men to being BP by design (abandon your sexual strategy, adopt hers). Not to mention any chance on having sexual abundance that is a core TRP concept.
My (partially modified) reply that partially this post:
it is reasonable to argue that post-modernism and progressivism have destroyed the culture with regards to male-female companionship,
It is reasonable, but also disputable. A simple counterargument - you IMAGINE that before "post modernism, liberals, progressivists, cultural marxists" the m-f dynamics were in their "natural" or "balanced" state. Men were predominantly RP alphas, women were virtuous, weren't hypergamous and pursue AF/BB. You IMAGINE that the "cultural marxists, liberals and feminists" MADE women into hypergamous solipsistic sluts. This implies that women were not like that before, which is biological impossibility as these traits are genetic, not cultural.
What we had was, in hindsight - stupid. We, men, by the power of betas ("men who can't get pussy") who compromised (did, are and will, if we don't act) the majority of men in power (by being majority of men), instituted laws attempting to regulate woman's sexual drive.
Slowly but surely (as with anything that is forced upon people) - women dropped regulations one by one and returned to their pure sexual strategy we see today. Men on the other hand remained in (male, logical) BP fantasy of love, dating and viewing women as angels - b/c they had "regulated" her sexuality, so now it's "fine".
We are roughly few hundred years behind women in understanding male (and female) sexual strategy in general society. This is why the only universally practiced strategy in the world (and in no small part supported by law) is female sexual strategy.
The solution to progressively worse treatment of men by society and law is not stricter regulations on womens' sexuality. We had that and it didn't work. The solution is - more alphas and more awareness of the sexual strategies.
Men shouldn't be thought that "women are like that b/c cultural marxism made them that way" b/c it didn't - they were always like that, we just didn't know - we helped them to hide it too, so we don't have to see how badly it contrasts with our BP-idealized world.
Men should be thought male sexual strategy, that will allow them to become selectors again b/c that is how stable families are going to prevail - by having RP "aware" alphas selecting "RP/greenflag" women.
Trooper_1868 9y ago
"If you do the same thing over and over again - don't expect different results"
Do you know the definition of insanity?
Vaas Montenegro, Far Cry 3.
You will know what I mean, if you recognise it.
[deleted] 9y ago
I've been thinking along similar lines regarding monogamy. Polygyny was an accepted form of marriage throughout most of history. I believe the Greeks were the first to define marriage as a strictly monogamous union. Theories range from frustrated males destabilizing society to emigration of unmarried men in search of wives. I have an idea that class equalism in ancient Greece and Rome may have had something to do with it.
I don't think that female sexuality should be controlled in the way the sexuality of cattle is controlled. They should be allowed to choose mates freely. I think marriage as a contract should be replaced with domestic partnership. People should be allowed to freely enter polygamous domestic partnerships if they so choose.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal
sadomasochrist 9y ago
AKA "I agree with female primary sexual strategy." AKA "I am blue pill."
[deleted] 9y ago
How exactly did you deduce that from what I said? Is it because you doubt that a woman would freely choose you as a long term mate? Would it be easier for you if a woman's father, brother or mother compelled her to marry you?
In my view the only limitations that should be placed on the polygamous mating strategy of men and the hypergamous mating strategy of women is the contracts they freely sign. If you disagree, explain why.
sadomasochrist 9y ago
Obviously you don't want and don't have kids.
[deleted] 9y ago
I don't see how whether or not I want or have kids effectively counters my value judgement that people should be allowed to pair without being coerced or compelled by other parties. Perhaps it's because I prefer to argue with logos over ethos.
sadomasochrist 9y ago
Close to 90% of people have children in their lifetimes. If you're not having children, that's fine. It's just that your opinion is really only important to people who have unusual or different lifestyles. For anyone having kids, it's nearly completely incompatible with children being raised without personality disorders.
[deleted]
MattyAnon Admin 9y ago
And this worked great to form a strong society and raise healthy well adjusted children. Female hypergamy was limited, male sexual options limited, but at least your wife wouldn't break up the family on a whim and on your dime.
This means more sexually frustrated bottom 80% men. But I guess that's always been the way, whether you have marriage or not.
When you are buying a wife, you are the selector. When trying to get sex you are not unless you are top 20% at least.
I don't like any of the options.... but the reality is we live in a post-marriage world in which women fuck top men, so that's what I optimise for.
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
One word to introduce to the conversation:
JamesSkepp 9y ago
It also spread BP mentality as the correct/true version of m-f relations, which is why we have what we have now.
Not limited - hidden, from OUR view. Women knew it was there all the time.
That would be the goal. To get more men to become "above average and RP aware" so they can get access to wider range of women, not forced to (deliberately or not) be scraping the bottom for RedFlags b/c they are sex starved.
MattyAnon Admin 9y ago
I agree.... the problem is that not all men can be above average.
But if we all were honest about the situation... the betas would be better off than at present. At least they wouldn't be paying and not getting anything for it, wouldn't be trapped in a miserable dead bedroom marriage/divorce.
But sadly such men will always want to believe that their dream girl is out there..... they just gotta marry her to get it to work. Men are so fucking gullible when presented with the possibility of pussy.
I'm always amazed how many miserably married men will try to recommend to me that I join their ranks. "But you really should mattyanon... there's no sex and no social life and no freedom and you don't get to do what you want and you're constantly told what to do and if you don't there are arguments and drama .... you should try it!".
uhhhhhhh no thanks.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Which is why restricting pussy is the wrong move, making it more accessible is. Then we select the ones that fit criteria.
newName543456 9y ago
Limiting hypergamy is what big religions have been doing for centuries. Religious programming done from earliest years to limit hypergamy is the only thing that has any decent track record when it comes to giving betas opportunity to have a reasonably stable family.
MattyAnon Admin 9y ago
This is sadly.... probably true.
[deleted] 9y ago
Monogamy isn't just something that benefits beta males. No matter who you are or what your story is, there will always be a man who is physically stronger, better looking and wealthier than you. Can you fight/out-status/out-wit ALL of them ALL the time and ALWAYS win?
In the age of social media the likelihood that a man like this will cross paths with your woman are higher than ever in history. Socially enforced monogamy is good for all men in the end.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
It's good for making them beta, which compounds the problem even more.
[deleted] 9y ago
What is good for making men beta males, monogamy?
Do you think it's a coincidence that now that female hypergamy rules the mating game, men are less manly and more faggoty than ever before? We were born to procreate. To govern our wives and children and build up our castles is the rite of masculine passage, aside from war. Some of this has to come from within, but without society and political power backing up the normal people, your individual effort can only go so far. That's why the Libertarian streak in Red Pill forums will keep missing the mark.
Without engagement with our natural calling, most men (including self-styled alphas) become burned out bachelors who are the oldest guy at the nightclub, or (for betas) pallid vitamin D deficient spergs watching anime and playing wizards and princess RPGs. Neither one is part of a recipe for a happy and satisfying life.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
No, it's not a coincidence. It's an effect of men's self-imposed-need-for-BP-to-be true at the cost of reality check once in a while. Had we developed our sexual strategy by "getting better at being men" for as long as we tried to limit female one, we might have not have majority of BPs running the world.
True this is masculinity, but we don't have that at all, do we now? We don't govern our wives (we don't even govern ourselves), we don't procreate (on our terms, not even on equal ones), we barely build "our castles". So, perhaps, forced monogamy and doing what we have been doing for last few thousand years is not something we should be doing more of.
No idea about that at all.
[deleted] 9y ago
Women need and desire sex less than men do. The only thing that would come out of your world is men would all be yacht owning body builders and women would be even fatter and uglier than they are right now.
The reason women in Hungary or Poland are 100 times better looking than the ones in Britain is these former cultures are masculine and sound, while Anglo-Saxon cultures are competitive for competitions sake.
If you're willing to pay more for something, that drives the price of everything (including pussy) through the roof.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
True, we don't need sex in the same way we need food or shelter. What I would dispute is the desire. We have more desire to dominate, they have more desire to submit. We both desire sex, but in different ways.
Better looking now or throughout last 50 years? Different economic and political backgrounds that prevented the widespread of garbagefood, but also prevented the "culture of taking care of herself". Lastly, the personal prferences - de gustibus...
1by1is3 9y ago
I think you being pretty one sided in your analysis. You completely ignored the male point of view. If 10,000 years of civilization did not root out hypergamy, 100,000 years of evolution could not root out the male fear of getting cucked. An Alpha wants a harem without other males interfering. This is how alpha males operate in other social animals such as lions, wolves and chimps/gorillas. Religions evolved to limit female hypergamy and also took away some alpha traits so that civilization could advance. If every male is acting like alpha and every female is free to act on hypergamy, then all you will have is war.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
No, it would not, jealousy is built in genetically. The point is not to change men's generic driven behaviour, the point is men-not-limiting-women's behaviour so they don't self-hypnotize into BP fantasy again.
Less restrictions in access to women, easier access to sex means less need for conflict based on this "categories".
ShakaLeonidas 9y ago
I like your gusto for an extinction level free for all "survival of the fittest" anarchy type scenario. TRUST ME when i say i too wish the gloves were off and everyone could just go for broke on their own whims. Females operate covertly and do most of their slutty stuff under the guise of being "good quality girls" . Men no longer have the power to designate sluts. The BP brigade of white knights and feminazis have won that battle. .Slut shaming is a female construct not a male concept. Sloots bring down the price of pussy and the value of marriage. That drastically impacts womens ability to use their most valuable bargaining chip. Sexual access.
Yes we all wish we could just fuck to our hearts content with any hot chick we wanted and roll out when we felt like it. Then beauty and exclusivity would have no value and crap genetics would be everywhere. Also if your the physcial weaker and more vulnerable sex ,how would you survive if your nothing but a cum dumpster that recieves nothing in return but 9 months of pregnancy and a crying beacon to predators? See where this scenario is a loss to females. Even in modern times women don't desire this scenario. The welfare state incentivizes procreation and at minimum meets the minimum survival provisions for females. It gives a false sense of sustainability that snowballs into various Mens Rights violations just to encourage fucking. Even with the welfare state in place, females still instinctively know there's more to the game than just that. Hypergamy is literaly a force naturaul. It is also a natural male response to limit it. If your getting pussy its costing you something. Hypergamy is the gamble females play against the house (men) Unchecked Hypergamy is a loaded deck with the dealer helping the gambler. A casino won't last long if all its patrons come in and win all the money. See what I'm saying?
Ill say it Agian
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Women already operate on that basis in sexual market anyway. It's we, men who don't. This is the reason why we are behind.
Designate as in - put a label on her if she's a slut? We don't have to do anything else than not LTR her.
In today's time and type of sexual market - yes. Can't agree or disagree if it happened before and in other types previous cultures or in pre-civilization times.
1by1is3 9y ago
Two problems, you assume easier access to sex when the 20/80 rule means that would only be for the top 20% category. You can counter that by saying we should encourage alpha trait but females choose alpha based on group setting. You can be BP as fuck but still considered alpha by a female because everyone else is more BP around you. It's all relative.
Secondly, alpha's tend to own women, and they won't take lightly to hypergamy.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Alphas tend to own harems, female orbiters if you will. They don't limit hypergamy, the fight off competition - in effect proving their alpha status. You don't see male gorillas dragging away females from other males, you see male gorillas driving away competition.
Yes, they do, but you have to be realistic about it, the "statistical geographical distribution" will not place these "new alphas" in the same place. It's rather unlikely. So in the end they will stand out from surrounding beta/BP.
1by1is3 9y ago
Alphas tend to own harems which is what I said in my first post. They also own the women in those harems.
The fight between males is over who gets to mate with the females. You don't get to see gorilla dragging female gorillas because the other male gorilla that owns that pack would naturally challenge him. The dragging takes place after the fight.
This is what will happen under the scenario you are sketching where females will go with the alpha winner and the loser either becomes beta or dies. With 7 billion humans, you are basically sketching a scenario where there will be war.
Again, an alpha male does not share pussy or authority. Not everyone can become alpha, so limiting female hypergamy is the ONLY way to grant access to sex to betas so society can advance
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Ok, my bad for bad comminication. I wasn't not speaking about literal harems. I was talking about alphas having an "figurative" harem compromised of females orbiting him for sex (and hope for resources). Nobody is enforcing these "harems" to existtance or to remain unchanged b/c "it's my pussy", women choose themselves to share alpha even if covertly.
Not what I meant - you don't see the "owner" gorilla dragging away females from the contender as his sexual strategy, you see him driving contender away.
And create even more betas along the way. It's self fueling process that got us into BP owned world once women got their "game" up. Probably even literally "their game".
I'm not going to disscuss "war over pussy" as it's too far fetched, even for my imaginary scenario. I'm not advocating men practicing warfare to compete with other men using AK47s. Get real.
ShakaLeonidas 9y ago
We are always sharing pussy. Its not yours its just your turn.
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
...things will return to nature.
In nature a women has Dread that her mate will abandon her.
Women can act on Hypergamy today because we have artificial laws that make that behavior not have serious consequences.
The Blue Pill Laws "provide" the resources of a man whether the woman behaves or not.
The open acceptance of Hypergamy is called being a Cuckold.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
You cannot not-accept hypergamy. It's there whether you like it or not. You can only choose to pretend "it's not there and is dealt with" b/c "we have a rule that says so".
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
Hypergamy is the urge.
Branch Swinging is the action.
Never forget the difference between thought and action.
They are not the same.
(you should have known that)
Actions can be either encouraged or inhibited. (rewarded or punished)
This is called Game.
All this is basic Red Pill stuff.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
For last 10k years or so we punished infidelity in both genders, why is is still here then?
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
That's the dumbest thing you've said so far.
Why?
Obviously all training is on an individual basis.
You are losing your edge even as a corporate schill and troll.
[deleted] 9y ago
He's right. Hypergamy is simply female strategy. you have to accept it.
I think you're mixing up the terms, because accepting maximum hypergamy is more in line with what you're referring to
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
But executing a strategy is different than thinking of executing a strategy.
One has to move from thought to action and between them is Dread.
Dread is the reluctance to Branch Swing... it's fear of consequences.
So to fully understand you must have:
Thought (strategy)
A free path to execute the strategy.
Game is about inserting Dread into that thought loop.
Assuming you are acting in the Alpha role in a LTR and not Chad just fucking then leaving. The Captain must have discipline and he does that by there being some fear in his crew.
[deleted] 9y ago
I know, I've commented on as much in your other post with my article on action
IblizTrigga 9y ago
This I don't agree with. There is nothing inherently beta/BP about monogamy. The concept of monogamy was introduced to ensure a strong unit in which to raise strong and productive children, thus creating a strong society.
The BP dream is created when we start redefining marriage by claiming it serves any other purpose than raising children. Society introduced concepts like "love", "partnership", and "soul-mates" thus creating the illusion that marriage is about two individuals with an equal role living together. The way marriage was designed, and should always have been, is a leader/follower relationship between the man and the woman. These are the only two roles. When we began obfuscating these roles is when the BP dream began to take root. A ship with two captains sails nowhere.
Also, keep in mind that although monogamy restricts female hypergamy, it also prevents men from discarding post-wall hags and replacing them with a younger model. Both men and women had to sacrifice for the sake of monogamy.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Yeah, there is. You have one woman that limit's sex as she pleases (being the sole provider) and you are sharing your resources with her. This is the definition of BP and BB.
I don't think it was introduced b/c "children are important" - I think it was introduced b/c men wanted to be sure their women will stay faithful. If children/family were the reason, the religions, beliefs and regulations would be about that. Instead they predominantly are about "how bad a woman is if she fuck another man" - which is clearly about sex.
True.
IblizTrigga 9y ago
Women provide sex and men provide resources. This is nature. Monogamy simply restricts this such that a woman provides sex for one man, and a man provides resources for one woman. The woman cannot leave the man for a better provider and the man cannot abandon the woman for a more fertile (i.e. younger) one. This ensures that the woman has lifelong provisioning and the man continues his genetic lineage.
This is not inherently BP. It becomes BP when the concepts I mentioned become the reasoning for it.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
The problem is - it's not working at all. It's an uneven exchange by design, if not outright slavery if she denies the pussy and the man doesn't change that. Most men don't, b/c most men can't. This is something that should be addressed - "our inability to replace them", not "their ability to replace us".
I don't see the "cannot" being equally happening for men and women nowdays. In fact, it's more often than not replaced by "will".
IblizTrigga 9y ago
Monogamy worked for a long time. It doesn't work now because the state muscled its way into marriage. Men cannot abandon women for younger ones because they will still be forced to provide for them (alimony, child support). However, women can easily trade up (no-fault divorce) and continue to extract resources (alimony, child support). Women don't even need to find a provider as the state will play that role instead.
Before the state intervened, marriage was successful as women understood the risks of not being the follower (abandonment and social ostracism), thus making men leaders.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
And when he did why did he intervene on behalf of the woman only?
Not more successful than it it nowdays. Do you think deadbedrooms and rule-through-pussy-choreplay didn't happen before?
Had we practiced our sexual strategy we would have emerged from this transformation as leaders, we emerged as betas. Therefore the leadership was artificial - given, not earned by experience in being one.
IblizTrigga 9y ago
Men are disposable and women are valuable.
Dead bedrooms are unrelated. That stems from sexual dissatisfaction and stats show women with ncount of 1 (her husband) have happier sex lives.
I don't even know what you're talking about in your last point. Leadership means having responsibility over others. You can't have responsibility over others if there are no others to have responsibility over.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
This is a bit paradoxical in light of RP and real life execution. On one hand without us the women couldn't do shit. On the other we're biologically disposable as supply/demand of sperm/egg dictates.
The leadership you say men had was artificial, we didn't strive to be leaders, it was given to us for free by marriage/law ("here have this woman to rule over", so to speak). Therefore once women could get by without us, we were left without the women to lead but also without the skillset to be one.
If law gives someone people to rule over - it makes him a leader TECHNICALLY. Whether he has skills to back it up is a different matter. This is what's missing today and we did it to ourselves in big part by not pursuing sexual strategy but by pursuing BP lifestyle.
dking168 9y ago
Another reason the female sexual strategy is the only strategy is due to the fact that males have no form of birth control. Women can manipulate men into commitment and use the government to enforce it. The only way for us men to get back is to make vasagel mainstream
sadomasochrist 9y ago
Or use condoms? Come on man.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Ahh yes, this is so true. And beyond being true - it will also change in a matter of few years. Vasagel (or anything else we can use) is going to upset the sexual market a lot, but I fear it might also make men more complacent (including RP) by making them selectors artificially.
And the government obliges b/c it's made out of BPs who can't see beyond female narrative b/c nobody told them there is something more - until now.
brinkleybuzz 9y ago
Looking at the big picture, without beta males producing and protecting, we wouldn't have the stable, affluent society we enjoy today. Doesn't it make sense to help relieve them of their sexual frustration and give them an incentive to continue producing for our economy and protecting our society?
Let's keep it real. "Limiting hypergamy" really means convincing the average to below average woman that rather than chasing alphas, the best thing she can do for herself and mankind is to find a nice, hardworking guy to be monogamous with and keep him happy so he can be a productive member of society. The fact that a basic bitch believes she can use sex to lock down an alpha reflects how inflated female value is these days.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
No, we would not. Doesn't mean "more betas" will be even more beneficial.
You can't relieve women of sexual frustration by making rules.
I'd love to see women being convinced they don't want or won't try to get the alphas. Not going to work. Never did.
Yes, we can deflate it by making it more accessible to "average man" not less. What is scarce is valued.
[deleted] 9y ago
Monogamy is just a form of sexual communism in place to prevent worker drones from revolting en masse. Mateguarding is beta, improving yourself to impress a woman is beta, bragging about female validation is beta. Females are hypergamous,they play the game right, having many options. Men should too. Stop giving in to them and bankrolling their lives in exchange for sex.
[deleted]
rebuildingMyself 9y ago
Limiting hypergamy is protecting women from themselves. Look at the modern woman as a great example of what most basic bitches do with unlimited freedom and no consequences
ShakaLeonidas 9y ago
Mateguarding isnt ALPHA or BETA. Its effective or ineffective. For example: A lightening bolt striking a car is ineffective power but a 13v battery powers a car just fine.
Monogamy is as natural as polyamory. Its all domain dependent and driven by enviromental factors. Reproductive strategies are simply the effects of environmental catalyst. The Industrial Revolution changed the environment therefore changing the strategies. Incetivizing the Female imperative bolstered Industrial capicity. Everyhing reaches critical mass and becomes a blackhole at some point. ACTIVELY restricting female sexuality limits hypergamy and stabelizes the feild. Men pro actively self regulate. ALWAYS have and always will. Women reactively self regulate.. Women are the perpetuators of Human Life and hence her soloposism firmware defaults to "whatever i need to do to survive and thrive. I survive and the species survives". Men are perpetuators of Civilization and Culture. "Whatever i need to do to ensure I and the female ,and my offspting survive"
Hens simply lay eggs. Its the Cocks doing all the extra.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
As in alpha works beta doesn't? B/c I can't imagine beta mateguarding working.
No idea what's your point here.
Yeah, we do self regulate - and this makes us "beta squared" considering most men are BP-betas who couldn't get pussy to save their life. By self limiting ourselves and women, gender-wide, we drive the value of women up, simply b/c of scarcity. This is plain stupid as it will never change anything in society. Hence my post. I can't comprehend why any RP-man would want to do it even more.
Yes. We could also be perpetuators of culture that serves us more, if we had more RP-alpha presence in society and drove the value of pussy down.
ShakaLeonidas 9y ago
"As in Alpha works beta doesnt? B/C i cant imagine beta mateguarding working"
Males and females mategaurd point blank period. If your GF gives her number to a guy and you walk up and punch the dude, catch an assault charge and a law suit and she fucks the other guy while your locked up and or broke, was that effecitive Alpha mate guarding behavior? Nah. If you act like you don't care and call her bluff on the jealousy tactic and she loses intrest in calling the guy back, is that succesful beta mate guarding? Yeah. Given your impression of Alpha/beta designation, the beta strategy shouldn't have worked. . That's why there is no Alpha/Beta distinction in mate guarding. Simply effective and ineffective.
A woman keeping her affair with AF Chad from BB husband in order to keep recieving pprovision is mate guarding. A girl dating Alpha Chad and lies about being a Student and waitress but actually sells pussy on Backpage and becomes a Sugar Baby to Beta Bobs is mate guarding to secure vagina tingles and get $$$$. Female sexual strategy is 60% mate guarding ,20% Plausible deniability and 20% blame shifting.
"No idea whats your point here"
-The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.- Rollo Tomassi
Promoting the Female imperative(unrestricted female sexual agency) unbalances natural law and leads to nihlism. There's no incentive for men/males to be productive in general if there is no security. Its equivalent to catching clouds with a fish net. Encouraging wanton whoredom does no one any good and you can see the results of un restrained hypergamy right now so enjoy the decline.
I agree we gotta take the pussy off the pedastal but pussy will always be for sale and at any price. Top quality pussy will stay top quality and be in demand. That's a biological drive not a mental game. Involuntary pay while not being able to play is what needs rectifying.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
This is not beta at all, it's alpha.
I see the validity of the examples in general, no doubt. The switch to effective/uneffective is a nice trick.
I have read enough about "natural law" it to know that any interpreting it done not by REAL philosopher will only lead to garbage discussion b/c everyone has his own (often uninformed) idea what "natural" is, not to mention the ideas of what "natural" should(!) be, even among people who agree "natural law" exists.
I think it doesn't, if it did and was true we would all be few hundred million tribes killing eachother for shrinking territory, b/c that was "natural" for 1,5 million years of human evolutionary development. Unrestricted sexual strategies are therefore natural law too, we had been limiting hypergamy via BP for "only" 10k years.
Yes, it does.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
JamesSkepp 9y ago
They won't. Realistically speaking there will be always more pussy than men capable of getting it, so there's plenty for everyone already.
Unregulated hypergamy is there to encourage men compete more, instead of demanding the return of BP fantasy.
ShakaLeonidas 9y ago
80/20 rule is relative to environment. If 100 alphas are in a bar with 300 women. Only 20 of those guys are considerd Alpha and betas. Depending on the female ability to attract and maintain whom SHE deems "Alpha" attention, will she float between them and the remaining betas with utility value. The other 80 guys are damn near invisible.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Do you see alphas not sharing pussy or guarding it in today's world?
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
JamesSkepp 9y ago
They don't guard it, that's one of the reasons they are the top alphas.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
JamesSkepp 9y ago
I will, right after...
...you show me how widespread mateguarding by alphas is in today's world.
Also - top "20%" doesn't do polygamy (nor am I advocating it as solution), they spin plates or do serial monogamy.
[deleted] 9y ago
In the short term, this is correct, but it also means keeping some bitch around is a full time job where there's no room for mistakes.
The real solution is to create staunch consequences for women who practice hypergamy. Maybe Sharia law stoning is a bit over the top, but banishment and ridicule is enough to keep women in check and allow men to use their time, will and energy for more productive things.
ShakaLeonidas 9y ago
Scarlet letter aka Sexual lupus.
If you gonna hoe. Get classified as a hoe... like we classif u sex offenders? It sounds good in theory, but wonen are psychological terrorist. Remember the Salem Witch Trials?
[deleted]
Breidurhundur 9y ago
True, that's how it probably went in the primitive societies. But then at some point men decided that there was more to life and companionship than sticking your wee-wee in her pee-pee and jerking your hips for 20 minutes. The artificial restriction on hypergamy came about because men wanted to build and advance their society, and they felt repulsed by sluts so they imposed restrictions to keep women under control (i.e. from being sluts). And they were right to do so. Honestly, I know TRP started out as a sex strategy forum so I'm going to get downvoted for this but if you really think sex is the main goal and the most important thing in your life then you're either not getting enough of it or your life is super boring.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
Men never felt repulsed by sluts. If they were, there would be no sluts.
The artificial restrictions on hypergamy were not to "stop women from being sluts in the name of progress", but to stop women from being sluts to OTHER men.
Breidurhundur 9y ago
Men have always been repulsed by sluts. That's why most cultures used to value virgin brides and denounced extramarital affairs. To marry a slut was a great shame. Even now, here in TRP the most frequent advice you'll see is not to marry a slut. As for the second part, sluts are sluts because they're allowed to. There are no open sluts in Saudi Arabia (yeah they are all sluts inside, AWALT etc but you won't see bimbos in daisy dukes chugging down shots at a bar and sucking a dick in a toilet stall, giving other women a bad example).
Absolutely. And that's a great thing. If you can control a woman and ensure her fidelity then it's a keeper. If she's a slut for you, what a lucky bastard you are. If she's a slut for everyone then she's worthless garbage. That's how it has always been. No need to think that men were retarded blue pill betas centuries ago because they didn't want their woman to fuck other men.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
No, they were not.
Someone fucked them enough times for her to be considered slut.
If you are proving "men are repulsed by sluts b/c they don't marry them" is secondary and different thing. She had to be a slut first for the rest to be relevant.
Nobody marries a hooker, this doesn't men men are repulsed by them. If they were there would be no hookers b/c men would be repulsed and not pay for sex with one. You marrying one and her being one is two different things.
No woman is "openly a slut and proud of it". It's always covert. Also...
http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/744426
So, there you have it. For last few hundred years - you can get you head cut of, get stoned, you have religious police watching everyone, everyone is strictly religious, hard patriarchy, zero laws for women and so on - 30% divorce rate, 20% of it from adultery. Maybe more rules will help tho.
There is class and there is being prude.
I'm not saying they were BP b/c they didn't want their women to fuck other men, don't know where you got it from. I'm saying they were BP b/c they chose BP method to stop this from happening. On top of not working method btw.
Breidurhundur 9y ago
This is what I was talking about. I never said men are physically disgusted by sluts, we'll fuck whomever we can fuck. I was talking about serious monogamous relationships and marriage, which I thought was evident from the context.
Good. They must be ashamed. Too bad that modern feminism is trying to erase this idea that being a slut is bad. Now sluts aren't just sluts, they're sluts and proud of it. And we, according to the leftist media, are to embrace and respect that.
Not that bad though. Take a look at the West. Saudi Arabia is obviously not perfect but having rules that sometimes don't work is better than having no rules to begin with.
They weren't blue pill at all. Those times were different and they didn't have complete sexual liberty like we do now. Everyone was supposed to marry and have a lot of kids instead of lifting weights and going to bars to pick up one night stands every night. And if you know you have to get a wife then you will absolutely want the society to shame and punish sluts because the abundance of sluts diminishes your chances of finding a good bride. As for it "not working" because two women out of ten cheat - as I've already said, having rules that are broken in 20% of the cases is not ideal, but still far better than having to rules at all.
JamesSkepp 9y ago
You see shame, I see fear of being judged. This mechanism was one of the motivators in women (and men) hiding female sexual strategy from general view. It became so pervasive that sex (in general) became taboo only discussed in private. We had taken away from ourselves an opportunity to understand, learn and use it.
Considering the consequences I would say it's pretty inefectual.
Depending on region and time period, sometimes they didn't, sometimes they did.
Yes it does. It can be remedied by other ways than we used before, since the old ways have clearly not worked well enough AND made men more and more BP.