Post: #301

(05-21-2018 07:01 PM)nek Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 04:05 AM)Tiger Man Wrote:  I look at another man and I wonder how he (A MAN) can allow himself to fall that far. Maybe I have some latent fear that, if these men could become that pathetic

Here's a red pill, some men (I'd actually argue MOST), are meant to be cannon fodder for the species.

I actually have had a number of hours-long conversations about this topic with one of my former grad students. His conjecture was that a lot of the sexually non-participant men (incels, Herbivore men, bad gammas) were, essentially, filling a much-needed role in the world that would have previous been handled by dead men. A lack of a one-off global wars or repeated local conflicts, combined with improved health and medicine practices, have led to a surplus of men (compared to much of history).

Men certainly are more variant than women. It seems that nature decided to use men to test out what works and what does not. I think it's easy to argue that those "cannon fodder" men are doing it wrong. A red pill, indeed.

Post: #302

The idea that:
-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans
-Like a prisoner's dilemma, it requires sacrifice on both sides that is ultimately beneficial to both sides
-It must be socially enforced to be the norm
-If it is not socially enforced, the societal consequences are disastrous
-Its social enforcement in our society is waning, the disastrous consequences have already begun, and they are going to get much worse.

Simply put, the vast majority of young women today have been fucked by men out of their league who were reaching below their level for an easy lay. And given the current social climate, how could it be any other way? Men love sexual variety, women love fucking men above their own status. Humans are naturally incentivized to behave in this manner, and when you remove the roadblocks (ie the social stigma), that is what will predictably happen.

The disastrous consequences lie in the fact that women aren't built to handle a downgrade. You think 7/10 girl is gonna get super enthusiastic about settling down with regular 7/10 dude when she's banged 5 different male models off Tinder? Fuck no. That's not how it works. Most likely she'll become delusional and embittered, believing male models are her level and that guys are just too big of asshole man-children to commit. If she's exceptionally self-aware, she may realize those guys she fucked were out of her league and that she needs to set her sights down a couple notches to lock down a man, only to find that the men who are attainable long-term now do nothing for her emotionally or sexually. Either way, the outcome for this woman is to hit the big three-zero with nothing to show for her life's efforts besides a mediocre career and several dogs that patch up the emotional void left by being childless long past the age when women are designed to begin caring for offspring. The only options now are to scramble to lock down a hapless man that she can never truly love to live out a miserable, uninspired marriage, or live out the latter portion of her life alone, a failure, the very first genetic dead end in millions of generations of lineage.

Multiply this case by millions of women, and you get plummeting marriage rates, declining birth rates, epidemics of divorce, mental illness, depression, loneliness, male incel rage that can manifest in violent rampage attacks... sound familiar? You also get communities of men springing up that obsess over increasing their sexual value, working their asses off in a desperate attempt to become one of the minuscule percentage of men at the top of the hierarchy who have sexual options... again, sound familiar?

The prisoner's dilemma has played out. In 2018, both genders have chosen "betray"; trying to have it all, and as a result, receiving nothing. The results aren't pretty, and they will not be getting prettier any time soon. I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.

Post: #303

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  The idea that:
-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans
-Like a prisoner's dilemma, it requires sacrifice on both sides that is ultimately beneficial to both sides
-It must be socially enforced to be the norm
-If it is not socially enforced, the societal consequences are disastrous
-Its social enforcement in our society is waning, the disastrous consequences have already begun, and they are going to get much worse.

Simply put, the vast majority of young women today have been fucked by men out of their league who were reaching below their level for an easy lay. And given the current social climate, how could it be any other way? Men love sexual variety, women love fucking men above their own status. Humans are naturally incentivized to behave in this manner, and when you remove the roadblocks (ie the social stigma), that is what will predictably happen.

The disastrous consequences lie in the fact that women aren't built to handle a downgrade. You think 7/10 girl is gonna get super enthusiastic about settling down with regular 7/10 dude when she's banged 5 different male models off Tinder? Fuck no. That's not how it works. Most likely she'll become delusional and embittered, believing male models are her level and that guys are just too big of asshole man-children to commit. If she's exceptionally self-aware, she may realize those guys she fucked were out of her league and that she needs to set her sights down a couple notches to lock down a man, only to find that the men who are attainable long-term now do nothing for her emotionally or sexually. Either way, the outcome for this woman is to hit the big three-zero with nothing to show for her life's efforts besides a mediocre career and several dogs that patch up the emotional void left by being childless long past the age when women are designed to begin caring for offspring. The only options now are to scramble to lock down a hapless man that she can never truly love to live out a miserable, uninspired marriage, or live out the latter portion of her life alone, a failure, the very first genetic dead end in millions of generations of lineage.

Multiply this case by millions of women, and you get plummeting marriage rates, declining birth rates, epidemics of divorce, mental illness, depression, loneliness, male incel rage that can manifest in violent rampage attacks... sound familiar? You also get communities of men springing up that obsess over increasing their sexual value, working their asses off in a desperate attempt to become one of the minuscule percentage of men at the top of the hierarchy who have sexual options... again, sound familiar?

The prisoner's dilemma has played out. In 2018, both genders have chosen "betray"; trying to have it all, and as a result, receiving nothing. The results aren't pretty, and they will not be getting prettier any time soon. I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.

Great post, very salient point about the prisoner's dilemma having been played out.

About the happiness/technology thing, it's spot-on. Ancient philiosopher's noticed this same thing about "progress" really only meaning technological problems and not social/human problems.

Post: #304

(05-21-2018 07:01 PM)nek Wrote:  Here's a red pill, some men (I'd actually argue MOST), are meant to be cannon fodder for the species.

Cannon fodder and worker bees. Society needs betas, and lots of 'em.

Post: #305

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  Simply put, the vast majority of young women today have been fucked by men out of their league who were reaching below their level for an easy lay. [...] The disastrous consequences lie in the fact that women aren't built to handle a downgrade. You think 7/10 girl is gonna get super enthusiastic about settling down with regular 7/10 dude when she's banged 5 different male models off Tinder?

Indeed. And how can one respect a woman who not only fucks for free but also measures her self-worth by the status of the men who used her as an unpaid prostitute and then discarded her, rather than by the status of the best men willing to commit to her?

A slut is a woman who is no longer able to love a man who can love her. She is no longer fully human...

Post: #306

(05-21-2018 10:49 PM)nek Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  The idea that:
-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans
-Like a prisoner's dilemma, it requires sacrifice on both sides that is ultimately beneficial to both sides
-It must be socially enforced to be the norm
-If it is not socially enforced, the societal consequences are disastrous
-Its social enforcement in our society is waning, the disastrous consequences have already begun, and they are going to get much worse.

Simply put, the vast majority of young women today have been fucked by men out of their league who were reaching below their level for an easy lay. And given the current social climate, how could it be any other way? Men love sexual variety, women love fucking men above their own status. Humans are naturally incentivized to behave in this manner, and when you remove the roadblocks (ie the social stigma), that is what will predictably happen.

The disastrous consequences lie in the fact that women aren't built to handle a downgrade. You think 7/10 girl is gonna get super enthusiastic about settling down with regular 7/10 dude when she's banged 5 different male models off Tinder? Fuck no. That's not how it works. Most likely she'll become delusional and embittered, believing male models are her level and that guys are just too big of asshole man-children to commit. If she's exceptionally self-aware, she may realize those guys she fucked were out of her league and that she needs to set her sights down a couple notches to lock down a man, only to find that the men who are attainable long-term now do nothing for her emotionally or sexually. Either way, the outcome for this woman is to hit the big three-zero with nothing to show for her life's efforts besides a mediocre career and several dogs that patch up the emotional void left by being childless long past the age when women are designed to begin caring for offspring. The only options now are to scramble to lock down a hapless man that she can never truly love to live out a miserable, uninspired marriage, or live out the latter portion of her life alone, a failure, the very first genetic dead end in millions of generations of lineage.

Multiply this case by millions of women, and you get plummeting marriage rates, declining birth rates, epidemics of divorce, mental illness, depression, loneliness, male incel rage that can manifest in violent rampage attacks... sound familiar? You also get communities of men springing up that obsess over increasing their sexual value, working their asses off in a desperate attempt to become one of the minuscule percentage of men at the top of the hierarchy who have sexual options... again, sound familiar?

The prisoner's dilemma has played out. In 2018, both genders have chosen "betray"; trying to have it all, and as a result, receiving nothing. The results aren't pretty, and they will not be getting prettier any time soon. I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.

Great post, very salient point about the prisoner's dilemma having been played out.

About the happiness/technology thing, it's spot-on. Ancient philiosopher's noticed this same thing about "progress" really only meaning technological problems and not social/human problems.

Yes, really good job of tying in the ramifications of the cock carousel, or "outkicking your coverage". When I became aware that the 20-30 age range (18-25?) was the focused period to direct all the modern lies being fed to women, it all became crystal clear that the foundation for all societal stability was virginal women. I think the best example that maybe people who have a hard time with critical thought, but that points them somewhat towards the truth, is the career example. Everyone knows that when women work and slave away at a career its for little or nothing --- deep down they all see what happens at age 30 and how that system has clearly failed them and society. Especially the professions that require the long and costly training! They go and work part time when they finally make it!

Realizing, as you state, that fucking men out of their league but their not understanding (probably due to ego) that a short term bang from a Chad means little to nothing is the biggest detriment going. That's why strong men are needed, to tell women what is of value so they don't fall victim to short term Thundercock and the lie associated with it. It is so obvious it also exposes their inability to think with a logical mind, sadly.

Post: #307

(05-21-2018 11:31 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:01 PM)nek Wrote:  Here's a red pill, some men (I'd actually argue MOST), are meant to be cannon fodder for the species.

Cannon fodder and worker bees. Society needs betas, and lots of 'em.

You're missing the point now though --- we're already seeing the results of the experiement. Without something to be idealistic about you won't get their activity or tax money ... who's gonna be the tax base, women?

Post: #308

(05-21-2018 07:01 PM)nek Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 04:05 AM)Tiger Man Wrote:  I look at another man and I wonder how he (A MAN) can allow himself to fall that far. Maybe I have some latent fear that, if these men could become that pathetic

Here's a red pill, some men (I'd actually argue MOST), are meant to be cannon fodder for the species.

In a world where there are archers, warriors, monks, and wizards.....there are thousands of more peasants

Post: #309

(05-22-2018 04:10 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Yes, really good job of tying in the ramifications of the cock carousel, or "outkicking your coverage". When I became aware that the 20-30 age range (18-25?) was the focused period to direct all the modern lies being fed to women, it all became crystal clear that the foundation for all societal stability was virginal women.

Yep. Most people haven't even considered why nearly all cultures developed a tradition of shaming casual sex and encouraging their women to marry young. Maybe some people think it was to avoid spreading STDs or unwanted pregnancy in the pre-condom era. And that could be part of it. But clearly the larger issue is the mental damage casual sex does to women that ultimately, as you say, destabilizes society.

This damage is easy for me to see first-hand. I'm the type of guy that looks like an ideal marriage candidate on paper; stable high-paying job, come from a stable family, tall, lean, muscular, healthy, clean-cut, articulate, no real vices (unless you count wasting time on the Internet). I have little difficulty getting girls to talk to me, and agree to meet, off dating apps.

But what's incredibly apparent about nearly every girl I talk back and forth or meet up with is a soulless lack of passion and excitement. They're just going through the motions. The conscious portion of their brain insists they have to give me a chance, because I check off all the boxes. But the unconscious portion can't muster any semblance of enthusiasm. There are just dudes significantly better-looking, funnier, more exciting, and/or more famous than I'll ever be who have ruined these girls' expectations.

One of my exes I met when she was young and had almost no experience with guys; she was the distinct exception to this rule. Her vibrant enthusiasm for the whole dating process was such a dramatic departure from what I'm used to seeing, I could hardly believe it. To think that's what regular men of past generations received putting in almost no effort... it's kind of sad.

Post: #310

(05-22-2018 05:51 PM)Delta Wrote:  But clearly the larger issue is the mental damage casual sex does to women that ultimately, as you say, destabilizes society.

Which is ironic after looking at the Travel section.

Post: #311

(05-22-2018 05:51 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 04:10 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Yes, really good job of tying in the ramifications of the cock carousel, or "outkicking your coverage". When I became aware that the 20-30 age range (18-25?) was the focused period to direct all the modern lies being fed to women, it all became crystal clear that the foundation for all societal stability was virginal women.

Yep. Most people haven't even considered why nearly all cultures developed a tradition of shaming casual sex and encouraging their women to marry young. Maybe some people think it was to avoid spreading STDs or unwanted pregnancy in the pre-condom era. And that could be part of it. But clearly the larger issue is the mental damage casual sex does to women that ultimately, as you say, destabilizes society.

This damage is easy for me to see first-hand. I'm the type of guy that looks like an ideal marriage candidate on paper; stable high-paying job, come from a stable family, tall, lean, muscular, healthy, clean-cut, articulate, no real vices (unless you count wasting time on the Internet). I have little difficulty getting girls to talk to me, and agree to meet, off dating apps.

But what's incredibly apparent about nearly every girl I talk back and forth or meet up with is a soulless lack of passion and excitement. They're just going through the motions. The conscious portion of their brain insists they have to give me a chance, because I check off all the boxes. But the unconscious portion can't muster any semblance of enthusiasm. There are just dudes significantly better-looking, funnier, more exciting, and/or more famous than I'll ever be who have ruined these girls' expectations.

One of my exes I met when she was young and had almost no experience with guys; she was the distinct exception to this rule. Her vibrant enthusiasm for the whole dating process was such a dramatic departure from what I'm used to seeing, I could hardly believe it. To think that's what regular men of past generations received putting in almost no effort... it's kind of sad.

Post: #312

(05-22-2018 05:51 PM)Delta Wrote:  But what's incredibly apparent about nearly every girl I talk back and forth or meet up with is a soulless lack of passion and excitement. They're just going through the motions. [...]

One of my exes I met when she was young and had almost no experience with guys; she was the distinct exception to this rule. Her vibrant enthusiasm for the whole dating process was such a dramatic departure from what I'm used to seeing, I could hardly believe it. To think that's what regular men of past generations received putting in almost no effort... it's kind of sad.

It may seem hard to believe to young men today, but there really was a time when being asked out an a date, being courted and pursued by a desirable man was an exciting experience for a girl.

Today, the whole subject is kind of "meh" for a lot of women. She'll go out with you if she has the time — if she has nothing better to do. And if she agrees to the date and then something more important comes up (work, other opportunities), she has no qualms about flaking on you.

One thing you have to get used to, particularly if you're using apps like Tinder, is that your level of enthusiasm for getting together and making something wonderful happen will almost always far exceed hers. You simply cannot expect her to have anywhere near the interest and motivation that you do.

We've all had the experience of chatting with a girl who initially seemed fairly engaged, only to have the conversation fizzle out completely on her end for no apparent reason.

More and more, young women just don't give a shit. About anything. They don't care much about their appearance, their attitudes, their health, their future.

Look at magazines aimed at young women from the 40's & 50's. Virtually the entire focus of a young woman's life then was to be as attractive, slender, pretty and feminine as possible, with the goal of attracting the best man possible. The women of that era would be mortified by the slovenly monsters roaming the streets today.

Obviously not all women are this far gone, but so many seem so deadened, so indifferent to such basic things, you cannot ignore that something is very seriously wrong with modern society.

Post: #313

women simply aren't funny nor really interesting.


every girl wants to be one of the guys, but somehow the guy that all the other guys have a crush on?

Post: #314

(05-23-2018 07:04 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  women simply aren't funny nor really interesting.


every girl wants to be one of the guys, but somehow the guy that all the other guys have a crush on?

I found one that was funny and interesting ( ex wife) but I had to comprise on the looks dept. I have never been able to find/land/connect with a hot AND interesting/funny/charming/caring/grounded/kind/sane/unselfish woman. I suppose they statistically must exist, but then again aliens probably exist somewhere in the universe as well.

Post: #315

(05-23-2018 07:08 AM)GreenManaleshi Wrote:  

(05-23-2018 07:04 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  women simply aren't funny nor really interesting.


every girl wants to be one of the guys, but somehow the guy that all the other guys have a crush on?

I found one that was funny and interesting ( ex wife) but I had to comprise on the looks dept. I have never been able to find/land/connect with a hot AND interesting/funny/charming/caring/grounded/kind/sane/unselfish woman. I suppose they statistically must exist, but then again aliens probably exist somewhere in the universe as well.

This is pretty much always the way it goes. Years ago, there was even a saying about this: "Smart, sexy, or sane -- but you can't have all three."

Post: #316

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  The idea that:
-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans
-Like a prisoner's dilemma, it requires sacrifice on both sides that is ultimately beneficial to both sides
-It must be socially enforced to be the norm
-If it is not socially enforced, the societal consequences are disastrous
-Its social enforcement in our society is waning, the disastrous consequences have already begun, and they are going to get much worse.

Simply put, the vast majority of young women today have been fucked by men out of their league who were reaching below their level for an easy lay. And given the current social climate, how could it be any other way? Men love sexual variety, women love fucking men above their own status. Humans are naturally incentivized to behave in this manner, and when you remove the roadblocks (ie the social stigma), that is what will predictably happen.

The disastrous consequences lie in the fact that women aren't built to handle a downgrade. You think 7/10 girl is gonna get super enthusiastic about settling down with regular 7/10 dude when she's banged 5 different male models off Tinder? Fuck no. That's not how it works. Most likely she'll become delusional and embittered, believing male models are her level and that guys are just too big of asshole man-children to commit. If she's exceptionally self-aware, she may realize those guys she fucked were out of her league and that she needs to set her sights down a couple notches to lock down a man, only to find that the men who are attainable long-term now do nothing for her emotionally or sexually. Either way, the outcome for this woman is to hit the big three-zero with nothing to show for her life's efforts besides a mediocre career and several dogs that patch up the emotional void left by being childless long past the age when women are designed to begin caring for offspring. The only options now are to scramble to lock down a hapless man that she can never truly love to live out a miserable, uninspired marriage, or live out the latter portion of her life alone, a failure, the very first genetic dead end in millions of generations of lineage.

Multiply this case by millions of women, and you get plummeting marriage rates, declining birth rates, epidemics of divorce, mental illness, depression, loneliness, male incel rage that can manifest in violent rampage attacks... sound familiar? You also get communities of men springing up that obsess over increasing their sexual value, working their asses off in a desperate attempt to become one of the minuscule percentage of men at the top of the hierarchy who have sexual options... again, sound familiar?

The prisoner's dilemma has played out. In 2018, both genders have chosen "betray"; trying to have it all, and as a result, receiving nothing. The results aren't pretty, and they will not be getting prettier any time soon. I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.

Great post but;

Forced monogamy (or any form of "mass monogamy") means most people get to reproduce. This is anything but natural, as you alluded to, and it will weaken the genetic material of any society/species/race that attempts this model. Really, in all of human history this model has only been employed for a few decades to be very strict; the post war years and up until say the late 70`s. You could argue that the baby boomers with so many Government dependant "freaks" are a direct result of this breeding pattern. It simply can`t work as a long term solution.

Many, if not most men not reproducing is just the way of things in nature. For example, only 1/10th of male hippos app. succeed in the battle for survival. This ensures the strength of the species. It`s why men are better than women also, we have to strive harder. The female (the "sifter" of genetic material) not reproducing in larger numbers however is highly unprecedented in natural history.

Post: #317

(05-23-2018 06:43 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  Forced monogamy (or any form of "mass monogamy") means most people get to reproduce. This is anything but natural, as you alluded to, and it will weaken the genetic material of any society/species/race that attempts this model.

Define "natural". Chimpanzees and bonobos are both part of Nature, and their societies are not all that similar.

Monogamy encourages millions of betas to work hard and to be productive. It gives them descendants and, thus, an incentive to protect and provide.

The argument that free sexual markets are eugenic would be much, much more convincing if young women went mostly for impressive men. Who do women fuck in college? Is that eugenic? Sure, if you live in a hunter-gatherer society.

Far too many women are simply too stupid and too short-sighted to be given any freedom at all. The fate of the brainless human — whether endowed with a vagina or penis at birth — is to serve as a servant and dutifully obey his or her master. When there is no master, the brainless human flounders.

Post: #318

Is there a polygamous society around today that's powerful and full of stable, respectable families? It seems like polygamy always leads to perversion unless it is tightly controlled.

Post: #319

(05-23-2018 06:43 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  Forced monogamy (or any form of "mass monogamy") means most people get to reproduce. This is anything but natural, as you alluded to, and it will weaken the genetic material of any society/species/race that attempts this model. Really, in all of human history this model has only been employed for a few decades to be very strict; the post war years and up until say the late 70`s. You could argue that the baby boomers with so many Government dependant "freaks" are a direct result of this breeding pattern. It simply can`t work as a long term solution.

Many, if not most men not reproducing is just the way of things in nature. For example, only 1/10th of male hippos app. succeed in the battle for survival. This ensures the strength of the species. It`s why men are better than women also, we have to strive harder. The female (the "sifter" of genetic material) not reproducing in larger numbers however is highly unprecedented in natural history.

There is a dynamic at play here called "time preference" that needs to be mentioned. In economics, time preference is how much you value the immediate use of something, versus delaying the use of something for an additional benefit (i.e. investing). Polygamous societies increase male time preference in mating, because investing the time and effort to get a wife and raise a family is unlikely to pay dividends in an increasingly degenerate environment. You get more utility from using women for quick sex and abandoning them with no long term commitment. Healthy societies benefit from the stability that monogamy provides, and also increase time preference by making sure men get a lot of benefits from investing in their families and children. Love, sex, respect, support in old age, etc. There is a reason animals and third wold populations are polygamous, and real civilizations have monogamy.

Also, to the point of monogamy "decreasing fitness", just LOOK at the results of polygamous populations. How many brilliant scientists, explorers, artists came from these? Monogamy encourages assortive mating, where the fittest men are matched with the fittest women. Eventually, due to disease, starvation, warfare, etc, the less fit will be removed, while the better genes are refined generationally.

Post: #320

(05-23-2018 06:43 PM)Johnnyvee Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  The idea that:
-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans
-Like a prisoner's dilemma, it requires sacrifice on both sides that is ultimately beneficial to both sides
-It must be socially enforced to be the norm
-If it is not socially enforced, the societal consequences are disastrous
-Its social enforcement in our society is waning, the disastrous consequences have already begun, and they are going to get much worse.

Simply put, the vast majority of young women today have been fucked by men out of their league who were reaching below their level for an easy lay. And given the current social climate, how could it be any other way? Men love sexual variety, women love fucking men above their own status. Humans are naturally incentivized to behave in this manner, and when you remove the roadblocks (ie the social stigma), that is what will predictably happen.

The disastrous consequences lie in the fact that women aren't built to handle a downgrade. You think 7/10 girl is gonna get super enthusiastic about settling down with regular 7/10 dude when she's banged 5 different male models off Tinder? Fuck no. That's not how it works. Most likely she'll become delusional and embittered, believing male models are her level and that guys are just too big of asshole man-children to commit. If she's exceptionally self-aware, she may realize those guys she fucked were out of her league and that she needs to set her sights down a couple notches to lock down a man, only to find that the men who are attainable long-term now do nothing for her emotionally or sexually. Either way, the outcome for this woman is to hit the big three-zero with nothing to show for her life's efforts besides a mediocre career and several dogs that patch up the emotional void left by being childless long past the age when women are designed to begin caring for offspring. The only options now are to scramble to lock down a hapless man that she can never truly love to live out a miserable, uninspired marriage, or live out the latter portion of her life alone, a failure, the very first genetic dead end in millions of generations of lineage.

Multiply this case by millions of women, and you get plummeting marriage rates, declining birth rates, epidemics of divorce, mental illness, depression, loneliness, male incel rage that can manifest in violent rampage attacks... sound familiar? You also get communities of men springing up that obsess over increasing their sexual value, working their asses off in a desperate attempt to become one of the minuscule percentage of men at the top of the hierarchy who have sexual options... again, sound familiar?

The prisoner's dilemma has played out. In 2018, both genders have chosen "betray"; trying to have it all, and as a result, receiving nothing. The results aren't pretty, and they will not be getting prettier any time soon. I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.

Great post but;

Forced monogamy (or any form of "mass monogamy") means most people get to reproduce. This is anything but natural, as you alluded to, and it will weaken the genetic material of any society/species/race that attempts this model. Really, in all of human history this model has only been employed for a few decades to be very strict; the post war years and up until say the late 70`s.

What are you talking about? Marriage has literally been the norm for 99% of history in every advanced civilization.

Post: #321

Samseau Wrote:What are you talking about? Marriage has literally been the norm for 99% of history in every advanced civilization.

I think he meant including the Stone age.

What Delta wrote is huge big red pill, that marriage is an artificial construct created so that all men can have a stake in building up civilization. I believe that rabbit hole goes deeper than even most people on this forum realize. Because even if you fix the modern sexual marketplace, you're still left with the problem of the nature of marriage. I'm not sure if the majority of men today are able to stomach that or even wrap their heads around it, with all the belief about marriage being about finding your soul mate. What will they do in life without the narrative of happily ever after? What will they do when they have to wake up every morning of the rest of their lives next to a woman who would rather be with a more attractive man?

This is a topic that I find fascinating. How have cultural views of the nature of marriage changed in the last few centuries? Will we be able to go back to a world where people view marriage for what it is? Can most people in society even function if they knew that it was all a lie? Do they need the truth to be sugarcoated with a layer of blue pill mythology in order to function?

This is going into deep forum territory...

Post: #322

The biggest redpill, on my end, is having the chance to watch girls use Tinder in real time. I strongly suggest that you try and see it happen - it will shatter any illusion you may still have about online dating.

Post: #323

Quote:I think he meant including the Stone age.

Marriage also predates all recorded history in every advanced civilization. For all we know marriage existed back in the stone age. I would bet money it did.

I also question the absolute validity of Delta's premise:

Quote:-Lifelong monogamous love is not the natural tendency of humans

While I agree monogamy is not natural for everyone, I would contend it's probably natural for at least 25% of the population. The tendency towards monogamy follows a bell curve population model like any other trait. Some individuals will be extremely inclined towards it, others not, with most in the middle.

It's the middle of the population bell curve that matters, and it is they who are most effected by social incentives, programming, and stigmas. So treating monogamy as unnatural works from a practical standpoint, but from a strictly theoretical one the truth is that monogamy can feel quite natural for most people if society rewards and cultivates it.

Post: #324

While I'm on a roll with the depressing (but frankly cathartic) writing, let me expand upon this idea:

(05-21-2018 10:07 PM)Delta Wrote:  I used to believe society was ever-improving. Now I see that the more accurate statement is technology is ever-improving. Human happiness certainly is not improving, and I believe that's all driven by our abandonment of enforcing monogamy from a young age.

A while ago I would've argued that this forum is collectively over-nostalgic about the pre-1960's. Yes, it was very easy for a regular man to land a good, faithful wife while she was young. But there was no expectation of sexual gratification back then. Men did not demand that their wife be 'hot.' And I would've argued that if we all dropped our demand for a sexually appealing woman, most of us could land a decent, loyal woman too, just like our forefathers.

Here's the flaw in that thinking that I just recently came to realize:

We're only capable of landing a faithful 4 or 5/10 because we've put in a stupid amount of effort into being sexually appealing ourselves, while our forefathers didn't have to.

Back when I was like 19, scrawny, poorly dressed and gameless, I would've killed for a 5 to come along and agree to marry me. But of course, that option was not available to me at the time. Girls were sure as fuck not out husband-hunting back at that age. They were out looking for muscular, stylish, popular guys who could make them feel good in the short-run. Obviously I didn't stand to succeed in that environment.

Contrast that with previous generations: To your knowledge, were either of your two grandfathers avid weightlifters? Were they over 6' tall? Were they rich? How much did they know about men's fashion and hairstyles? Were they exceptionally gregarious and charismatic guys who were super popular within their community? How was their game? Did they have a good cocky/funny persona? Were they familiar with push-pull? Did they know dominant body language and voice intonation? Were they good at kinoing and escalating smoothly?

You get the point. Yet they still found a wife. Probably when they (and she) were incredibly young by today's standards. And she was probably loyal to them. And, I don't want to speculate about whether anyone's grandmother was considered 'hot' back in her day, but I'll bet your grandmothers were at the very least decent women rather than nasty and/or obese dregs.

* * *

So here I am, years later. Since I was 19, I've worked tirelessly to earn wealth, put on lean muscle, dress better, become a better conversationalist, and learn what triggers attraction in women. I've spent an ungodly amount of time pursuing women, getting rejected, being flaked on, having my time wasted, going on miserable dates, finding some success here and there, and over-analyzing all of these experiences in hopes of gaining an even deeper understanding of what works and what doesn't.

So do I still want that 5 to come along and marry me?

Fuck. No.

I'm sure many of you can relate to this: When you've put in this much effort, the idea of committing to an average woman just seems like a slap in the face. In a way, I feel broken in much the same way that Tinder sluts are; not that I think the women I'd be interested in are all out of my league, but that most members of the opposite sex do absolutely nothing for me emotionally or sexually. Here's some sage advice to any newbies: Self-improvement will increase the quality of woman you can land, but it will not increase the exhilaration you get from women. You'll simply find that to achieve the same satisfaction you used to get going through the mating dance with a 5, you'll now need a 7 or 8.

What's the takeaway here? I already described in my previous post how a not-strictly-monogamous society can be disastrous for a woman. But here's how it's also disastrous for men like us:

Men in strictly monogamous societies, such as your grandfathers, get back what they put in. You will get far less.

Post: #325

(05-21-2018 08:31 PM)Tiger Man Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:01 PM)nek Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 04:05 AM)Tiger Man Wrote:  I look at another man and I wonder how he (A MAN) can allow himself to fall that far. Maybe I have some latent fear that, if these men could become that pathetic

Here's a red pill, some men (I'd actually argue MOST), are meant to be cannon fodder for the species.

I actually have had a number of hours-long conversations about this topic with one of my former grad students. His conjecture was that a lot of the sexually non-participant men (incels, Herbivore men, bad gammas) were, essentially, filling a much-needed role in the world that would have previous been handled by dead men. A lack of a one-off global wars or repeated local conflicts, combined with improved health and medicine practices, have led to a surplus of men (compared to much of history).

Men certainly are more variant than women. It seems that nature decided to use men to test out what works and what does not. I think it's easy to argue that those "cannon fodder" men are doing it wrong. A red pill, indeed.

I agree with your grad student, and made a post on that subject here: /thread-67021...pid1729838

No one seems to get it.

Red pill: Have as many kids as you want, but if you spend hours upon hours on forums encouraging other men to marry and reproduce in order to strengthen western civilization, you're part of a 5th column whether you mean to be or not.