Adaptations – Part I

age-of-aquarius-woodstock

Prior to the post-Sexual Revolution era men adapted to their socio-sexual and relational realities based on a pre-acknowledged burden of performance. I’ve outlined the expectations of this period in The Second Set of Books,

[…] when men transition from their comfortable blue pill perspective into the harsh reality that the red pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules – a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood – were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ‘just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.

During the eras prior to the Sexual Revolution that first set of books was more or less an established ideal. Men were every bit as idealistic as they are today, but the plan towards achieving that ideal (if it was in fact achievable) was preset for them. Even the worst of fathers (or parents) still had the expectations that their sons and daughters would follow that old-order rule set as they had done.

For men a greater provisioning was expected, but that provisioning was an integral aspect of a man’s Alpha appeal. The burden of performance was part of a man’s Alpha mindset or was at least partly paired with it.

The danger in that mindset was that a man’s identity tended to be caught up with what he did (usually a career) in order to satisfy that performance burden. Thus when a man lost his job, not only was he unable to provide and meet his performance expectations in his marriage, he also lost a part of his identity. Needless to say this dynamic helped incentivize men to get back on the horse and get back to his identity and his wife’s esteem (even if it was really her necessity that kept her involved with him).

A lot of romanticization revolves around the times prior to the Sexual Revolution as if they were some golden eras when men and women knew their roles and the influence of Hypergamy was marginalized to the point that society was a better place than the place we find ourselves in today. And while it’s undeniable that cultural shifts since the sexual revolution have feminized and bastardized those old-order social contracts, men will always adapt to those new conditions in order to effect their sexual strategies.

There’s a lot of nostalgia for these idealized periods in the manosphere at the moment; seemingly more so as its members mature past their “gaming” years and begin to feel a want for something more substantial. Men are the true romantics of the sexes so it’s no great surprise that their romantic / idealistic concept of love would run towards romanticizing a hopeful return to what they imagine these eras were like.

It’s kind of an interesting counter to how feminism and the Feminine Imperative paints these eras – rather than some idyllic place where women appreciated men, feminists exaggerate and deride these times as oppressive; the sexual revolution akin to the Jews leaving Egypt. What both fail to grasp is the realities of these eras were still just as susceptible to human nature – the human nature described by what we call Red Pill awareness – and both sexes adapted to the social environments of the times to effect their natures.

Condoms were widely available in the 1940’s and men painstakingly painted half-nude pinup girls on the noses of their bombers. Women too adapted to that environment; from What Lies Beneath:

two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself;

“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:

Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ‘good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children. (pp. 276-277)”

and;

“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.

These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of pre-war illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ‘enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”

Women of the “greatest generation” were still women, and Hypergamy, just like today, didn’t care then either. Dalrock made a fantastic observation in a post once, and I regret I don’t have the link on hand, but paraphrasing he said “Every generation in bygone eras dated differently than the ones before it. Your parents dated in a social condition that was very different than your grandparent or their parents. No one in this generation is going to date like they did on Happy Days.” I think it’s important we don’t lose sight of this, but it’s also important to consider that in all those eras men and women’s sexual strategies remained an underlying influence for them. All that changed was both sexes adapted to the conditions of the times to effect them.

Post-Sexual Revolution Adaptation – The ‘Free Love’ Era

While there’s a lot to criticize about the Baby Boomer generation, one needs to consider the societal conditions that produced them. Egalitarian equalism combined with ubiquitous (female controlled) hormonal birth control and then mixed with blank-slate social constructivism made for a very effective environment in which both sexes sexual strategies could, theoretically, flourish.

Women’s control of their Hypergamous influences, not to mention the opportunities to fully optimize it, was unfettered by moral or social constraints for the first time in history. For men the idea of a ‘Free Love’ social order was appealing because it promised optimization of their sexual strategy – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

The new Free Love paradigm was based on a presumption of non-exclusivity, but more so it was based on an implied condition of non-possessiveness. Men adapted to this paradigm as might have been expected, but what they didn’t consider is that in this state their eventual cuckoldry (either proactively or reactively) amounted to women’s optimizing their own Hypergamous impulses.

The social contract of  Free Love played to the base sexual wants of permissive variety for men, or at least it implied a promised potential for it. Furthermore, and more importantly, Free Love implied this promise free from a burden of performance. It was “free” love, tenuously based on intrinsic personal qualities on the inside to make him lovable – not the visceral physical realities that inspired arousal nor the rigorous status and provisioning performance burdens that had characterized the intersexual landscape prior.

It should be mentioned that ‘free love’ also played to men’s idealistic concept of love in that freedom from a performance-based love. The equalist all’s-the-same environment was predicated on the idea that love was a mutually agreed dynamic, free from the foundational, sexual strategy realities both sexes applied to love. Thus men’s idealism predisposed them to being hopeful of a performance free love-for-love’s-sake being reciprocated by the women of the age of Aquarius.

That’s how the social contract looked in the advertising, so it’s hardly surprising that (Beta) men eagerly adapted to this new sexual landscape; going along to get along (or along to get laid) in a way that would seem too good to be true to prior generations. And thus their belief set adapted to the sexual strategy that, hopefully, would pay off for them in this new social condition.

For women, though not fully realized at the time, this Free Love social restructuring represented a license for optimizing Hypergamy unimpeded by moral restraint and later unlimited (or at least marginalized) by men’s provisional support. For the first time in history women could largely explore a Sandbergian plan for Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks and, at least figuratively, they could do so at their leisure.

The problem inherent in the Free Love paradigm was that it was based on a mutual understanding that men and women were functional equals, and as such a mutual trust that either sex would hold the other’s best interests as their own. That basis of trust that either sex was rationally on the same page with regard to their sexual strategies is what set the conditions for the consequent generations to come.

This trust on the part of men was that these “equal” women would honor the presumption that it was “who” they were rather than what they represented to their sexual strategy at the various phases of their maturity that would be the basis for women’s sexual selection of them.

In part two I’ll continue this exploration through the 70’s and into our contemporary socio-sexual environment.

560 comments

  1. “The problem inherent in the Free Love paradigm was that it was based on a mutual understanding that men and women were functional equals, and as such a mutual trust that either sex would hold the other’s best interests as their own. That basis of trust that either sex was rationally on the same page with regard to their sexual strategies is what set the conditions for the consequent generations to come.”

    This.

    Albeit can’t state it more – 60s and 70s were a great time to be a young adult.

    Regards,
    ___
    Datson H.
    https://redmalehummingbird.wordpress.com/

  2. Dalrock made a fantastic observation in a post once, and I regret I don’t have the link on hand, but paraphrasing he said “Every generation in bygone eras dated differently than the ones before it. Your parents dated in a social condition that was very different than your grandparent or their parents. No one in this generation is going to date like they did on Happy Days.”

    I don’t remember that one, which is a surprise because it perfectly hits the nail on the head.

    I think it’s important we don’t lose sight of this, but it’s also important to consider that in all those eras men and women’s sexual strategies remained an underlying influence for them. All that changed was both sexes adapted to the conditions of the times to effect them.

    This is extremely important to understand. While the environment plays a huge role in how we behavior, our base behavior is always there. And it always tries to find a way to adapt and exert an influence over what is going on vis-a-vis socio-sexual interactions.

  3. Just a blog PSA here, I will be on vacation on an undisclosed island with my wife and daughter for the next week. I’ll check in periodically on the comments, but part 2 of this series will hit next Monday.

  4. you are going to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of boxed wine

    oh wait, sorry to have deboxed you

  5. D. Horrenbrand
    June 12th, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    Oh. Yeah. My first GF was a harbinger of the sexual revolution. Being a “revolutionary” as most youth are I just went with the flow. It was a GREAT time. No AIDS. Lots of easy women. Free Love. Boy were we idealistic. The Love Generation. All you need is Love.

    Hunter Thomson wrote about the illusions receding.

    There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .

    And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

    So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1074-strange-memories-on-this-nervous-night-in-las-vegas-five

  6. Very well written Rollo.

    “And while it’s undeniable that cultural shifts since the sexual revolution have feminized and bastardized those old-order social contracts, men will always adapt to those new conditions in order to effect their sexual strategies.”

    Your writing, Rollo: No skill to understand it, mastery to write it.

    As the seasons go by, I see the manosphere as a tool to know the rules of the game, hone skills and keep ahead of the curve.

    Not being ahead of the curve and being left behind leads to grief. Getting through the stages of grief and moving forward leads to being proactive and getting ahead of the wave.

    I remember as an adult sitting down to a board game of Monopoly with my wife and family. I hadn’t played it much and and was overwhelmed and frustrated with the strategy. I didn’t know how to play the game well. I never wanted to be in that position again.

    Tools are available to understand the game and not be in a frustrating position no matter who or where you are. Don’t be the guy that doesn’t understand and doesn’t have a coherent game plan.

    Relationships are complementary. It is not about lording it over the other sex. It is about not being deficient. Make yourself better and adaptable and make your relationships complementary and as excellent on your part as possible. But don’t allow the partner to take without giving. She should complement you as you complement her. Pass the shit tests with flying colors.

    The free love era, long past was a shit test. We have a new paradigm with a more forceful shit test. The equalist fem-centric stripping of masculinity shit test. Don’t lose site of the complementary goal. Pass the test. Be good at being a masculine male. Your feminine partner should complement you. You should perform and be an oak tree strong and resilient against the pervailing winds and the storms. You men be strong, masterful, courageous and have honor when it is deserved and admired.

    The burden of performance is easier if you lower your hurdles by mastery of red pill awareness and game performance. Game is not adversarial. It is an art that enriches.

  7. The sexual revolution and “free love” were the pig-in-a-poke sold to men to justify cultural marxism. At the time most men being…well…manlier could take advantage of the new sexual freedom since women at the time were more feminine a win-win for all. And considering those men weren’t looking to be PUAs, just wanting test drive a bit before purchase, the old order went on as before mostly.

    But the cultural marxists used sexual freedom as cudgel to create an atmosphere of moral and ethical relativism and ambiguity. Increasing power to the state was the price of being sexually free. After all someone needs to feed the unplanned and unwanted children that result from removing the biological consequences of sex. Someone needs to be responsible for the diseases. Judging and stigmatizing single mothers and cads becomes ineffective when every man is trying to be a cad to some degree, and every woman is at risk of becoming a single mom. So all agree to the lie that the sexual is personal and beyond reproach as all critics are voluntary sinners beyond redemption, or perhaps self righteous squares who seek to limit the options of others to those things they can actually afford. In the end it’s all about wealth redistribution.

    This helped destroy the old order of marriage as marriage became a forfeiture of sexual freedom, at first expected and voluntary and now something to be resented, an obstacle to be gamed. So some advocate for open relationships for all, some advocated for new laws to make marriage a temporary whim. Others advocated to change the internal logic of marriage to eliminate any obligation of the spouses to one another beyond the merely financial creating a paradigm where the perfect is enemy of the good and “for better or worse” means until shit gets real.

    Naturally the burden to perform, to provide fell squarely and almost entirely on the shoulders of men. Those who could do the dance get laid, those who provide the goodies get wives, the rest get a tax bill to provide for women and children that are as petty thieves, strangers stealing the product of men’s labor, and now women’s too. Some men too learned to play that game and bums and hobos are elevated as victims to be cared for out of the pockets of the productive. When behavior is beyond criticism no one is to be left destitute, after all who can judge?

    With sexual freedom, and the lie of sexual equality came gender equality. Another burden born by men to adjust standards for the benefit of women. Benefits that are regulated by the state, ultimately enforced by guns and lawyers. Again those who produce nothing leech off those who produce everything. The economy of the sexually free society is built to maintain the lie that everyman has access to quality women. Socially that access is paid for by taxes, affirmative action, sexual harassment law, and creating a dysfunction where provisioning is a skill very few men can actually excel at, and the best providers are economic parasites who add no value.

    In the end western civilization sold itself to slavery and sealed it’s own fate because someone offered everyman free pussy. Turns out nothing is free. Turns out free pussy isn’t a substitute for liberty.

  8. This is exciting, it appears similar to the article below which this specific scenario has been dubbed a “hypergamous utopia”. Seeing when the breakdown occurred between the sexes is very insightful however it leaves quite a bit to the imagination as to how this evolved throughout the decades all the way to our current time. This is currently a time when 90% of my friends aren’t married and we are getting older (35-40 range). Seems that we may be reaching a peak of this hypergamous utopia and when men are starting to scratch their heads questioning what is going on. I know that was how I found the manosphere. I’m finding more women who have dated men who know about terms such as “hypergamy”, “white knight” and “SMV” and I’ve even heard women use these words without provocation. Seems a change is taking place now starting with men while women are reluctantly connecting the dots.

    I look forward to the analysis through the 70’s 80’s 90’s 2000’s and today… I’m also curious what the future holds for men moving forward. Is the manosphere something that will ignite an inferno counter sexual revolution? It appears that is what the media is afraid of with their continuous bashing of manosphere ideas while doing everything they can to keep it’s existence undiscoverable.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/sexual-utopia-in-power-part-1/

  9. Badpainter
    June 12th, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    The Marxist took advantage. But the real game changer was “the pill”. My first GF was pre-pill in her behavior. Diaphragms. Because she liked the feel. So did I. I NEVER was a condom guy. I turned down sex if one was required.

  10. @ M. Simon

    Obviously without the pill the sexual revolution doesn’t come off the same way. But in the same sense without the post war economic boom the sexual revolution doesn’t come off the same way. Even in Europe, still recovering from the war, being subsidized by the USA greatly mitigated the survival problem. I would even suggest the sexual revolution was in some ways a mass psychological reaction to the threat of nuclear armageddon much like ’50s monster movies. All of those thing; cold war, economic prosperity, the pill were buttons to pushed by cultural marxists. I don’t think cultural marxism works in thriving capitalist system without the promise of low cost/no cost pussy.

  11. Great post, Rollo!

    —-

    On the prior developments of this, the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s (and ongoing) really wasn’t, in my view, fundamentally the result of a grand conspiracy. The culture was already changing much earlier in the 20th Century, before war and depression came along. The 1920s, right after women got the vote, featured a flourishing of carousing and promiscuity. It set the tone for what happened later in the century, but happened in a different era completely.

    The developments of that time were interrupted by the greatest economic disruption in living memory (much worse than what we went through after 2008 – orders of magnitude worse). And nothing disrupts female sexual shenanigans more quickly than need. The genie of the 20s went back into the bottle in the 30s, and then she began to sneak out again during the war years (as Rollo’s post notes). Wartime generally creates exceptional behaviors of all sorts and a general moral weakening due to the pressing exigencies of the situation. WW2 was also the time when women entered the industrial work force en masse – something which happened of necessity due to the lack of male labor available, but which created memories of economic independence that were still very fresh in the 1960s, which were only 15-20 years later (i.e., as recent as 1995-2000 for us presently).

    The immediate post-war era of 46-60 was an irregular, odd, singular time in the United States. This is why both the left and the right idolize it for different reasons. Due to the fact that the rest of the previously economically competitive world was busy rebuilding its economic infrastructure, the US enjoyed a very large economic advantage for an extended number of years. This translated to very high wages for relatively low-skilled and uneducated workers, permitting these men to provide for middle class family life (of the era) on one income. That economic situation formed the basis for the 1950s single income middle class family, the “idyllic” situation that the left likes (because unions were powerful, wages for low-skilled uneducated workers were high, and social wealth disparities were lower than at most points in US history prior or since) and that the right likes (stable family life, low divorce rates, high morality enforcement, etc.).

    Of course, all was not roses underneath the exterior. Many of the women were bored, and there were memories of how things were during the war (harder economically but more sexually and socially exciting for women). Men were crushed with work. This was also the time in which the company man began to emerge, when male identity was becoming corporatized and so on. There was also a LOT of transgression building in the broader culture – rock-n-roll was a part of this, but so were the Beats, philosophers like Foucault and so on. That was going on at the same time as Leave it to Beaver was – it was a time when the culture was presenting a face of “traditional life” while there was that unruliness underneath it which represented a continuity from the pre-depression, pre-war era of the 1920s – a sense of resuming what was interrupted by economic catastrophe and war.

    So when the 1960s hit, these contradictions came to the surface. The kids who were young in the 1950s and 18 in 1968, say, grew up with the contradictions of the 50s and early 60s right in their faces, and went with the unruliness that was swimming right underneath the top veneer of traditional life. That traditional life of the 50s was really not very deeply set, because it didn’t have deep roots. The previous two decades were disrupted decades of war and depression, and the one before that was a very untraditional roaring 20s decade. And so the unruliness that was already bubbling under the surface fairly easily broke through when the kids who were small in the 50s came of age in the middle and late 60s. And, of course, female liberation, in all of its forms, was a central part of this, just as it had been in the 1920s – it is a central theme of cultural development of the 20th century in the US, and one which was more drawn out because of the disruptions of the 30s and 40s, and the singular economic bubble of the 46-65 period that permitted the creation of a shallow yet broad veneer of traditional life for one last time. When it broke through, it stuck, precisely because the veneer was thin to begin with, and represented a discontinuity with the general thrust of the century, while the unruliness resumed trends that had formed in the earliest decades of the century.

    This has only accelerated since then, of course, as the traditional model has been undermined in every way – culturally, economically, politically and so on. But it was a model that didn’t quickly unravel in the 1960s out of nowhere, but rather the unravelling that happened in the late 60s and into the 70s represented a reprise of developments earlier in the century that were stalled a bit by some epically disruptive events.

    Feminism of course is also a theme that runs constant throughout the century, and doesn’t pop up in the 1960s from nowhere. The 20s were very feminist. The 40s were kind of feminist, too, due to the fact of men being dislocated, women earning money and being financially independent and sexual promiscuity being tolerated due to wartime. The 1950s represented the bubble, where feminism was bubbling under the surface, and then it burst out again in the 60s and has remained. The influence of the ideology and movement has been extensive, but it wasn’t new in the 60s. And it succeeded not only because of some ideological conspiracy. What really let feminism succeed was other conditions – wartime promiscuity creating expectations of independence (economic and sexual) that were hard to suppress, the thin veneer of unsustainable 1950s economics, the gradual but inevitable economic shift from agro and industry to services, the development of hormonal birth control and so on. Feminism was an overarching theme and built on and exploited these elements, but we wouldn’t be where we are today without those elements really changing the entire framework of expectations and possibilities, and even without the kind of radical feminism that came to the forefront in the revolutionary days of the late 60s and early 70s, things between men and women likely would have changed a lot anyway once the bubble of the 46-65 era ended, the pill came along, and the economy shifted towards services. It was, and is, just a new reality, and the culture would have adapted regardless. The radical feminism threw kerosene and a lit match on that process, without a doubt, but substantial changes to the way men and women organized their relations likely would have happened anyway without radical feminism – albeit that would likely have been much less confrontational and nasty than it has been, and perhaps much less alienating.

  12. Novaseeker
    June 12th, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Interesting point. And quite correct. And I should have noted it. “Free Love” is all about the M/F ratio. When females are in excess due to war or other events – free love.

    Males were in short supply temporarily in the 60s. Now it is a permanent condition due to better medicine. Very few women die giving birth.

  13. “The problem inherent in the Free Love paradigm was that it was based on a mutual understanding that men and women were functional equals, and as such a mutual trust that either sex would hold the other’s best interests as their own.”

    I just realized that feminism in it’s modern form may not be about equality at all.
    To be equal in standing to men you would think that women should lift themselves up…

    But what if Femnism is really about bringing men DOWN???

    Down with agression.
    Down with ambition.
    Down with whatever make a man a man.

    You see this undercurrent in nearly All of Feminst literature from Frankensien to Handmaids Tale… you see this deep deep irrational fear that men will one day just chunk all the veneer of polite equal talk and just throw women in bondage.

  14. Equalism is a binary proposition. To have one succeed, the other must fail. Equalism is an epic fail. Complementary relationships succeed.

  15. I am stunned by this post.

    First Rollo defined female attraction and the core red pill principles in his book and blog: The Rational Male. Then he took us through the life and sexual strategy of a modern woman in: Preventative Medicine.

    Now he is taking this work in a macro-sociological direction to compare and contrast sexual strategy during different epochs and under different social conditions.

    Rollo, your books will be read 2,000 years from now by young men still trying to “Get It.”

    Enjoy the undisclosed Island. You have more than earned it.

  16. What Rollo and everyone here misses is M/F ratio. There is a culture of females in short supply (in the mating years) and a culture of females in excess. The cultures that kill women easily or abort them preferentially want a certain kind of culture. We are getting the other kind. And given the kind of people we are we are probably stuck with it for a very long time.

  17. Bluepillprofessor
    June 12th, 2015 at 10:44 pm

    If Rollo thinks it is all culture and technology (birth control) then he will be forgotten a year after he dies. Culture is M/F ratio. The 20s roared because of the mass deaths of men from 1914 to 1919. We are in the same culture because we have nearly eliminated death in childbirth.

  18. If Rollo only had a nickle for every man who claimed “I wish I had heard of this X number of year earlier” he’d be rich.

    Wait, never mind, he is rich of his own accord and gives away red pill awareness for no profit.

    Purely to enrich men in the balance of the sexes.

    The war of the sexes is not a war, it is a balance. Steamrolling over one or the other does not equal a win in a battle and losing the war.

  19. ” The 20s roared because of the mass deaths of men from 1914 to 1919″

    The 20’s also benefited from moral relativism. Einstein’s theory of relativity was broadcasted loudly in the newspapers and in the 20’s the mindset was–so I read–that scientific observation of relativity translated into moral relativity. Our forefathers and our religiosity don’t matter as much as the fact that it is all relative, not absolute.

    Relative risk is not the same as absolute risk, but there are market shifts in a excessive direction under certain social conditions. The 20’s and the 60’s were a time of excessive shifts in intersexual dynamics.

    Even today I see the detrimental problem to the mindset of absolute risk is not the same as relative risk. No risk societies generate problems. Absolute risk mindsets are crippling.

  20. “Rollo starts his history too late. It should begin in 1920. The start of the First American Sexual Revolution.”

    Yes. I got this italic thing down.

    Things happened in the 20’s because of a hindbrain evo-psych inbred nature of men and women. Hell you only have to read Great Gatsby to get it. The 20’s was life before condoms, the 60’s wasn’t. It was game on.

    And we move on till 2015. The question is: where do young men go from here? Roll over and submit?

  21. Rollo starts his history too late. It should begin in 1920. The start of the First American Sexual Revolution.

    Yes, I agree. That’s why I started my comment at that point.

    For everyone else, what Simon is talking about here regarding sex ratios is also quite valid. For those who do not understand it, here is the basic idea.

    When the sex ratio is significantly skewed in favor of men (i.e., more women than men), short term sex/promiscuity tends to prevail, because there is an excess of women for the men who are sexually attractive. This means that there are not enough attractive men to go around, and so things become more short term, as the attractive men are able to pursue that strategy due to the fact that they are rare, relative to the number of women looking for them.

    The converse — where the sex ratio is skewed in favor of women (i.e., more men than women), longer term sex/serial monogamy tends to prevail, because there are not enough women to go around, period. Men in this context will try to lock down a woman due to scarcity, and women will be able to extract greater commitment due to scarcity.

    No doubt this in impactful, and can even be so in short time segments, because humans seem to react to this very quickly in mating behaviors and the market adjusts quite briskly. At the same time, I am not in favor of a “one factor explains everything” approach to history generally, because there are numerous factors that play into any result. No doubt, however, that the sex ratio is an important factor in any analysis about these things.

  22. The egg and not the chicken. I think Rollo posits a history to move forward into today’s narrative.

    How does that help me now? Is the question.

    Hypergamous impulses are strewn across history and women will take advantage of the times. Which leads up to 2015. How are we doing now?

    The 20’s are ancient history, the 60’s sent the bowling ball rolling for today’s landscape.

  23. Of course, a man needs to adapt to the circumstances. Without question. But, if one seeks an understanding of “how we got here” (which can be influential for, for example, thinking about things like “how we can get out of here”, beyond “how I can adapt to living right now”), understanding the broader historical context and the factors that led us here is indispensable.

  24. Novaseeker and M Simon pretty much did my job before I even got here. Thanks guys.

    @sjfrellc:

    Given the above, I can’t say I really agree. WW1 is what really got the ball rolling and if the above guys have slighted anything, it’s the cultural nihilism that provided a foundation for the 20’s. The war destroyed everything, right down to the philosophical foundations of civilization, and we have never recovered from that.

    Which is why, while The Great Gatsby is an excellent recommendation, my usual go to is The Razor’s Edge.

    I never really understood the 60’s until I began to understand the 20’s, and then how the 50’s, far from being a model of traditionalism, was perhaps the most anomalous decade in human history.

  25. Another peek into the Edwardian (pre-WW1 UK) and ’20s sociosexual actualités (rather than what it said on the can) can be obtained from the novels and indeed biog. of that sickly little cryptofascist D H Lawrence.

    We even had his overwrought toss shoved down our throats at school as part of the curric. by enthusiastic liberal teachers. Most if not all of the guys were nonplussed by it. Made no sense, any of it, bafflingly implausible (particularly to those with actual coalminer fathers), but there were some cracking rude bits, so ..
    Whereas the girls, insofar as one could tell, thought it great, so intuitive, so insightful, so .. real. Apart from the frightful filth. Obviously made up evil male porn, those bits.

    It later occurred to me that part of the paedogogical vigour may have been generated by a kind of rudimentary screening/shit-testing, conscious or not, for those pupils who were possibly open to a bit of, er .. stationery-cupboard action. Gender immaterial. Ah the good old days, all that and the cane ..

  26. I have to share this experience. A 21 year old girl I was banging suddenly exploded after I banged her. She claimed I was being “selfish” and not paying enough attention to her sexual needs. “It’s about equality”…she kept stammering until I told her she was being disrespectful and had to leave.

    It puzzled me. The idea of “equality’ in bed? It seemed to me some bizarre shit test on whether I would cave in, apologize for being a man…and start supplicating. I didn’t. It’s been 2 weeks of radio silence.

    This is NOT the first time I’ve heard this “equality” in sexual pleasuring. Years ago before I learned game another girl I was banging suddenly disappeared saying “it’s not fair it’s not fair”… Of course months later she came back crying and begging for things to be “like they used to be”…in other words…”unequal”.

    Another girl I recently banged wanted to cheat on her boyfriend because he’d gone away for a weekend without her. Before meeting up she asked me if I was married saying she didn’t want to be involved with anyone who had a girlfriend….Equality….

    In the sexual market place it truly is every man for himself.

    Understanding a woman’s true nature is critical to avoid being distracted from a man’s true nature to dominate.

  27. Let us look at the “breakdown” of black family/culture. This is caused by an excess of females because so many men are in prison.

    College administrators know that imbalanced sex ratios cause girls gone wild when females are i excess. There are two tipping points. 1.05 to 1 F/M – causes a shift. 1.5 to 1 F/M causes chaos.

    You want to bring back those “golden” eras? Reduce the number of women.

    Where we are today has nothing to do wit religion Marx or any of that. They merely take advantage. it is biology. M/F ratio determines culture. “Manly” cultures – come about because women are in short supply. We get “slut” cultures when females are in excess.

  28. Have fun on the island.
    Heard headline about Miley Cyrus announcing she’s bisexual. Went back to read your article on Sexual Fluidity. Now that you’re talking about adaptations, you given any thought to maybe seeing an increase in younger aged girls claiming to be bisexual as some different facet of hypergamy?
    Don’t know if that’s a good way of putting it, but I started wondering with the current pop culture flavor of the minute, if girls would; just like the two girls who want to make out with each other in a bar to get a crowd oohing and aaahhinl; begin to more and more claim bi-sexual to garner even more attention.
    They can be with a guy for the usual hypergamic reasons of how he looks, alphaness, and status. But they can also be with a girl as a way of getting the coveted girl world currency of attention. And that ends up being the hypergamous motivation comparable to the high value male when they’re in their be with a man mood.
    Since pop culture is pushing transgender and gay this & that so hard right now, and with the atmosphere at colleges so hostile to men, seems a good opportunity for the inherent attention/drama seeking side of girls to mix with the deteriorating relationship between men and women, (plus more men being aware of it and the reasons for it), to add up to more girls claiming to be bi-sexual.
    It can be seek the alpha, be a good catch but where are all the good guys, get attention from both sides of the aisle, super girl power sexuality can’t be limited to one gender ’cause it’s more complex, and empower the victim of patriarchy all before dinner time.

  29. I have been doing searches on how m/f ratio affects culture. The facts are fairly obvious. Where women are in the minority they are valued and practice chastity (mostly). Where females are in the majority (in the 20 to 30 cohort) you get girls gone wild. So the 20s, the 60s, and college campuses these days. We also see it in the Black community where the ratio is skewed by jail (not to mention birth ratios and male mortality).

    And yet all this is written about so little that in general commentary I’m one of the most prolific people on the ‘net on the subject.

    This is very strange. The facts are obvious. And yet little studied or commented on. I wonder why.

  30. @All – N.B. – Try to look at these conflicting views simply as lenses of social analysis versus via a binary, wrong/right dyad that men often reflexively analyze information with. The social sciences don’t have that kind of “truth”. The value of any model of analysis in social science is the insight it provides. All the comments here elucidate one primary truth though. Hypergamy is gonna be hypergamous, and it’s the environment/ecology that shapes how it presents itself. My added insight? The velocity and scope of the change matters to culture and the humans in it a lot.

    My additional added value is an important tangent. How does the cultural change happen so rapidly? By the first conscious use and manipulation of the global memeplex in the history of human civilization. Never before has centralized ideological control from the top down of so many institutions and those who belong to them been possible or accomplished. I’m in information technology and much of what we face socially are in some ways “information problems” – and our global interconnectedness changes the information economy of social interaction utterly.

    I think the key distinction Rollo makes is the effect of open hypergamy on the culture. This is the epicenter of the ground that is shaking men operating with the old set of books. It’s also about how the FI seeks to blind men to it and continue to shame male sexual agency while it paints hagiographies of women’s exercise of their full sexual agency.

    @Novaseeker – Brilliant exposition on the subject, and it reflects a broadmindedness that I’m coming to as well. I of course thought about the ’20s, but not just here, I’ve been reading up on pre-War Germany and Europe in general and there was an open decadence there and here that we haven’t even reached the point of yet in some ways.

    To go more deeply, “The Libertine” is someone freed of the tropes and memes of traditional culture. He is simultaneously shamed and praised. What I actually at the meta level is a slower process of conflict between traditional culture and modernity still unfolding. It’s not going anywhere near as quickly as the more superficial political and cultural is moving, but I say these are the tectonic plates in motion. That cultural/social battle has been raging for a while. Fundamentalist Islam begins re-emerging 200 years ago, shaking off modernity consciously. There is a backlash to modernity across all cultures, no doubt.

    This entire ethos emanates from the modern era itself. Letting reason penetrate our beliefs instead of blindly accepting them. The Enlightenment freed us from many superstitions, and the belief that sex was a sin was one of them. It was an ineluctable result of self-ownership and individual liberty itself. I mean, if I own myself – not God – is it really wrong to see pleasing myself as the ultimate goal of life? Have any of you ever asked yourself why the “pursuit of happiness” is a core purpose of the American experiment? It’s a humanist impulse, one that seeks to assert man’s goals as primary in society, not those of God. Fyi, this self-ownership is key to liberty and is also why so many Christians find themselves endlessly conflicted – it’s an unresolvable dilemma for them.

    @Badpainter – Reducing this to being driven by “cultural marxism” (a term you folks will note I rarely, if ever, use) is to not see all this in perspective. A careful reading of human history reveals that this current half-puritan/half-slut culture we have is not normal or typical. Other societies have had widely different views of sex, women and men, marriage, homosexuality etc. And no, Christianity didn’t give us the modern world, it fought the modernity we all cherish today. It fought it every step of the way with everything it had, in fact.

    Novaseeker is so right in pointing out how unusual and fleeting the post WWII situation was in our society and how it was the aberration. Puritanical mores about sexuality were already collapsing across the western world. And still, even then, hypergamy still expressed itself. Nowhere do you get a better sense of the human mind’s duality then when observing Christian attitudes and behavior with respect to human sexuality. We see it in society – why do we have sex clubs and porn and strip clubs and prostitutes and hookup sites and churches and standards for TV that shame sex etc? We are fucked in the head morally and rationally about all of this and I cannot wait for the Puritanical nonsense to be scraped off for good.

    And like I said, I’m old enough to have had a taste of what those days and people, pre-sexual revolution were like and I don’t want a bit of it. Male sexual agency was hugely shamed. And God help you if you were gay. Women were able to play the prude/good girl card even harder, but the alpha guys were always getting fucked. The dynamic is always there, but women could not be open about it.

  31. Traditional cultures are all that we had until a couple of hundred years ago, folks. They had a couple of hundred thousand years to instantiate and develop, while this modern ethos is a relative infant.

    What we are seeing at the meta level is a conflict between traditional culture and modernity. Sadly, a crazed group of Marxists fashioning themselves as Progressive Social Justice warriors have grabbed a hold of modernity at the moment, so we’re going into a ditch.

    Rollo is so right when he continually points us back to the equalist assumptions that have been forced upon us. But what he and others around here seem to never be able to accept is that this radical egalitarian idea arises from radically liberal political philosophy which morphed into socialism, Marxism, and now Social Justice theory. I think the FI merely finds equalism a great way to plant its “cause” under the rubric of modern ideas about liberty.

    You have to get that before the modern era we were largely in a pre-ideological era. Politics as a moral exercise had been thought about and bandied about for a while but only by the elite. And the idea that the ruling class wasn’t the law itself? That rulers must also be governed by law because the people deserved it on some fundamental level? This is a new development (Magna Carta, this is the 800th anniversary year of it, and it’s a great story you should read up on it if you haven’t ever).

    The Greeks and Romans, and other ancients, began the inquiry into rationality long before this but it was sidelined due to wars. Really, one can blame this slowdown largely on the barbaric Romans who merely borrowed other cultures and then slammed Christianity into the western world with great force.

    The advent of broad literacy and the printing press changed it all. Such heady ideas as those of Plato and Aristotel were never meant for the average, or even semi-smart people. These ideas are deep. I have to say that I took me two decades of sustained study to get anywhere with history and political.moral philosophy. It’s just so dense and variegated.

    So today we have pop ideology, mass ideology managed like a piece of direct marketing. Packaged for dingbats and half-wits who only seek to be “right”, not wise. People who read .5 books a year, and then only mysteries.

    You want to know the sickest outcome of my 40 year intellectual trip through all of this? I’ve become an elitist. I don’t think democracy can work. The U.S. was really an experiment in democracy and we have the results – it’s failed. People will not restrain themselves from using the power of the state to steal other people’s shit. No matter how hard the founders of the govt try to prevent govt from having that power, people will not restrain themselves.

    It’s because most people are fucking idiots and have no business making serious decisions about our laws, national strategy on the world stage or economics in the first place, which is a fatal flaw in our system. It puts far too much faith in the “every man”. Really. Try to imagine what our nation would be like if it were run only by propertied men (black or white or whatever fine by me)? I know, it’s a thought crime to even entertain such an idea, right? Lol, yet women can openly assert that a world run by women would be so much better…

    Our version of democracy comes down to letting the inmates run the asylum. The left has figured out that the best approach is to fill the asylum with illiterate, mind-numbed peasants and to whip them to keep them looking in the right direction. The Republicans have no ideas, just ambition and a reflexive notion of a version of classical liberalism that somehow or another is concerned with who I fuck, and many other personal decisions I make. They also seem hell bent on empire, which is yet another path to national suicide

    There are many drivers here. But this traditional/modern clash is at the foundation of much of it. What kind of freedom do we want to have? Who should really run things? Does anyone really think running buses to homeless shelter to take them to vote is any way to run a country? Of course not.

    In other words, I’m becoming a big fan of Edmund Burke. Yow, he’s far from perfect but he clearly saw the risk of letting commoners run things. And who is Barack Obama, if not a commoner playing at being a leader of men? And who are the feminists if not a bunch of sophists who’ve been given the keys to power without any idea how to use them properly?

    Okay, I’m out for the day. Great stuff, Rollo, just fantastic.

  32. @M. Simon – Oops, this is my last. Great points about how m/f mix is crucial to all of this. If you think of the sexual market economically, of course scarcity, density and supply etc are crucial drivers of behavior, strategies, selection and the like.

    On a personal level I can only say this sure looks true to me up where I live. Hot young women far outnumber alpha males, and it makes it easier to get laid and to not be monogamous. It’s not “easy” mind you, for me it’s quite hard actually. But hey, at 52 and still 12 lbs over weight and a bit all over the place emotionally, that’s not bad. I’m attempting a 20 yr old this afternoon, he he. I doubt I’d have a chance in hell with her back in NYC.

    Also, M. and I are from he pre-condom era. As I’ve explained to many a woman, “using a condom is like you picking your nose with a mitten on”. That seems to get through to them…

  33. @ M. Simon

    I am not saying the cultural marxists started or conjured the sexual revolution merely that they saw the opportunity to use it to push their agenda. Like a fire that someone fuels but didn’t start and then uses to their advantage.

    As for your M/F ratio thing I think I must agree on the basis of observation alone. I live in a largish isolated college town where 45-55% of the women are between 18 and 30 years old. Census says 40% are 18-26. It’s like a hunting preserve. Considering the weak ass meek Michael Jackson sound-a-likes that constitute about half the men in that demographic and a hard hat and safety vest around here are as effective as Mystery’s fuzzy hat. Thanks to you guys I get to take advantage of that like I never had before.

  34. scribblerg
    June 13th, 2015 at 10:23 am

    You say. “Not normal” but actually it is very normal. Look at how the ancients decry the change in culture after a war that kills of a lot of men. It is in the Bible for God’s sake. How Jewish women went chasing gentile big dicks after a war that killed off a lot of Jewish men.

    We keep seeing this through history. Through recent history. And in current events. And yet – some how it was the hippies, or the Marxist or … Well the folks here are getting (or already have) it. But in the general writing on the subject. A huge void.

    And that take is not just here. It is everywhere. When the simpler explanation of Demographics is right in front of our noses. Culture is an expression of Demoraphics.

    Rollo is quite good at the individual dynamics. But on this one he has missed the big picture.

  35. @Badpainter
    “It’s like a hunting preserve. Considering the weak ass meek Michael Jackson sound-a-likes that constitute about half the men in that demographic and a hard hat and safety vest around here are as effective as Mystery’s fuzzy hat. Thanks to you guys I get to take advantage of that like I never had before.”
    Best way to learn working on that myself.

  36. “I’ve been reading up on pre-War Germany . . .”

    My first realization was that the single greatest flaw in Marx’s thinking was simply in being a 19th century Prussian. No matter how “revolutionary” his thinking got, he never really ever thought outside of that box.

    That led to realizing just how much 19th century Prussia has shaped the western world. The way we think, the way we educate, the way we produce, the way we practice medicine, the way we go to war . . . it goes on and on, nearly all of it going back to 19th century Prussia, and 19th century Prussia was an environment I don’t think I would enjoy very much.

    “I’ve become an elitist. ”

    Embrace the superiority, brother.

    ” . . .the barbaric Romans who . . . slammed Christianity into the western world with great force. ”

    Circa 350, and it fell circa 400. Coincidence?

  37. @M.– Great stuff. I either misspoke or you didn’t understand me. What I was saying is our overall culture about sexuality in the west is utterly colored by Christian (not Judeo, they were and are a deeply perverted people, as you demonstrate – and call me a fan if you like, I’m a jew-lover), suppressive ideas about human sexuality that weren’t present in many of the other polytheistic religions. I observe this bizarre slut/madonna polarity in our society and I just don’t detect nearly as much even in other modern western cultures. Take France, the feeling between men and women is much more sexually charged and male sexual behavior is not shamed as much.Italy? The men walk around behaving like animals in rut and it’s tolerated somehow. They now have this weird two-headedness that we see in all western cultures, but still, what we’ve got here is plain old bad and not typical. Using the word “normal” was not best.

    As for whatever early jews did or didn’t do, just keep in mind that the Jewish people were (and still are) a tiny portion of the population of humanity. That God of yours would have gone nowhere if it weren’t for us goyim.

  38. @M. Simon – Seriously, if the Christians hadn’t jacked up Abraham, Mohammed probably never rips off the bible and claims to be the real savior. No Muslims – imagine that?

  39. “Take France, the feeling between men and women is much more sexually charged and male sexual behavior is not shamed as much.Italy? ”
    True very observably true… The cultures prefers sexuality to violence. I’ve seen more people make out publicly in France than any where else in the world however I haven’t been to that many places around the world.

  40. @M Simon. If Rollo thinks it is all culture and technology (birth control) then he will be forgotten a year after he dies. Culture is M/F ratio. The 20s roared because of the mass deaths of men from 1914 to 1919.

    117,000 American men died in WW1 when the population was 110,000,000. 620,000 men died in the American Civil War when the population was 35,000,000.

    Unless I missed the literature on the wild women of the 1870’s, it seems the M/F ratio isn’t the driving force. IMO the pill allowed women as much sex as they wanted without the possibility of pregenancy and consequently being judged as fallen women. At the same time the culture was changing so that whole concept of a slut or whore was designated a construct of the evil patriarchy and as such invalid.

  41. “Unless I missed the literature on the wild women of the 1870’s . . .”

    Westward expansion. It hit the cities in the 1890’s.

  42. This is an excellent analytical reflection of that periods dynamics. I am looking forward to Part 2. Will Part 2 bring us to present day and do you plan to extend this study into a prediction of what may come?

  43. scribblerg
    June 13th, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    I think the city of Rome was on the order of 50% Jewish before the conversions began. It was all a mistake. Time to get back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

    And as you note – the celebration of male/female congress among Jews is well known. It is fact a part of the religion. At least I was taught it growing up.

  44. Not Rome, but Alexandria, which was effectively the eastern capital of the empire before Constantinople.

  45. We are where we are today because women are 51% of the American population. Not quite a sufficient Demographic shift (that is thought to require 105% and above or 95% and below), but more than sufficient for a voting shift.

  46. Okay, Rollo, got me. To some extent, I do have a certain fondness for the ‘good ole days’.

    Perhaps, I am finally awakening to your reference point and steely eyed understanding . . . . The entire arch of of human existence. . . and the self-interested psycho-epistemology of the human animal. . . .

    Relative to short term/long term sexual strategies of each gender. And how it influences behavior within the context of time.

    He who integrates successfully within the broadest germane context understands most. . . . and elucidates. . . .

    Trepidation as a to the state of Western thought (Post-Modernism), Constitutional Idealism, sound economic theory and the FI. . . . not withstanding. . .

    . . . . not to mention my personal experiential reference point of the post SexRev Nitro glycerin effect of female hypergamy . . . the sort of baboon like race to Alpha – Women for access and Men to be. . . . .

    Perhaps, all overstated concerns. . . . . .

    . . . . To lament is to be anachronistic . . . .

    It is my regard for family and other eroding institutions that gives the taste of bitter. . . . but all in the light of proportionality . . . . It took centuries for Rome to eventually fall . . . and remember it is the individual self that is ultimately responsible for ones own happiness. . . .

    You post reveals your lofty perch. . . and I appreciate your principled consistency. . . . . . .The many concepts re-introduced through out your essays always enlightens

    Great post. Can’t wait for Part II . . . .

  47. Rollo
    “Just a blog PSA here, I will be on vacation on an undisclosed island with my wife and daughter for the next week. I’ll check in periodically on the comments, but part 2 of this series will hit next Monday.”

    Well with all due respect,
    There is a good thing and a bad thing about Rollo going on vacation.
    1, “Tomassi’s ” stalker / pop ups insanity would leave us alone. That’s the good news.

    2,we will miss you,

  48. @70s – Hanging on to the idealization of family and being a father nearly killed me. But my experience isn’t universal, some guys right here are making it work. I know this, getting more self centered and letting go of my grief about the loss of all you talk about has been like loosening a vice that’s been tightening on my head for decades.

    And I love this: “To lament is to be anachronistic.” Poetic and true all at once. Wisdom comes with age, it’s a shame our society doesn’t value that anymore. Yet another thing we could lament I suppose – but nope, I’ve had enough lament for 10 more lifetimes. I want to be joyful and full of life and energy. And sometimes I am, lol.

    So much of the Blue Pill is unconscious. The vassalizing goes deep with us older guys. It’s like we’d rather keep the bit in our mouths no matter what…

  49. The sex ratio issue is a conundrum, the standard academic explanation doesn’t follow real world version of events. The boots on ground version is more accurately described by Rollo’s axiom, ‘men are the true romantics’.

    Post World War II when sex ratios where highly skewed towards less males, marriage rates were very early and high. Conversely when baby boomers reached sexual maturation and sex ratios were skewed to less females (owing to the structural age difference between marriageable females and males) promiscuity increased while marriage rates fell and marriage age increased.

    Evidence suggests that when males control the mating market via sex ratios they marry early, while when females control the mating market they are more promiscuous and delay marriage.

  50. “It is an illusion that youth is happy, an illusion of those who have lost it; but the young know they are wretched for they are full of the truthless ideal which have been instilled into them, and each time they come in contact with the real, they are bruised and wounded. It looks as if they were victims of a conspiracy; for the books they read, ideal by the necessity of selection, and the conversation of their elders, who look back upon the past through a rosy haze of forgetfulness, prepare them for an unreal life. They must discover for themselves that all they have read and all they have been told are lies, lies, lies; and each discovery is another nail driven into the body on the cross of life.”

    I recommended The Razor’s Edge, but that bit is from On Human Bondage

  51. Kfg

    The razor’s edge,GREAT movie to watch for men who are going through existential crisis (me?).

  52. Speaking in generalities:

    ” . . . when males control the mating market via sex ratios they marry early . . .”

    Men do not need women, but want them.

    ” . . . when females control the mating market they are more promiscuous and delay marriage.”

    Women do not want men, but need them.

    What’s more, men will be accepting of a wide field of what they consider “A Good Woman,” whereas when women decide they do want a man, they all want the same one.

  53. kfg – “…whereas when women decide they do want a man, they all want the same one.”

    But let’s be clear. All the ladies want to fuck the same few men, tis true, but EXPECT the rest of the unfuckable to provide resources, attention, and protection just by mere fact of their existence. This is the intolerable reality and the crux of the basic conflict of sexual interests. This is the real source of women’s fear of men. The fear they may be made, or forced, to provide something in exchange or be left to survive with their non-sexual collective needs being simply ignored.

  54. “This is the intolerable reality . . .”

    There’s no crying in baseball. What there is is a set of sporting rules which you must analyze, devise a strategy and set of tactics most likely to favor you, then implement it as best you can in the face of an opponent doing the same.

    “The fear they may be made, or forced, to provide something in exchange or be left to survive with their non-sexual collective needs being simply ignored.”

    Sounds like a plan.

  55. @ScribblerG
    June 13th, 2015 at 10:53 am
    “You want to know the sickest outcome of my 40 year intellectual trip through all of this? I’ve become an elitist. I don’t think democracy can work. The U.S. was really an experiment in democracy and we have the results – it’s failed. People will not restrain themselves from using the power of the state to steal other people’s shit. No matter how hard the founders of the govt try to prevent govt from having that power, people will not restrain themselves.

    It’s because most people are fucking idiots and have no business making serious decisions about our laws, national strategy on the world stage or economics in the first place, which is a fatal flaw in our system. It puts far too much faith in the “every man”. Really. Try to imagine what our nation would be like if it were run only by propertied men (black or white or whatever fine by me)? I know, it’s a thought crime to even entertain such an idea, right? Lol, yet women can openly assert that a world run by women would be so much better…”

    I don’t think it is by any means sick. Nothing wrong with being an elitist. It means you really are better and you care to intellectualize the problem. You can discriminate quality from crap. If someone were to contest your position in which you keep frame, the proper response is to agree and amplify or react non emotionally, just like any other shit test.

    No thought crime here. No need to be apologetic. You are entirely correct in your assertions and yet you are apologizing. Don’t apologize. You are thinking with a clear head today June 13th. You are apologizing to the Feminine And Marxist Imperative with their social conventions of today’s society. You are apologizing in a Marxist/Feminist Frame. You don’t have to apologize in a ScribblerG frame. Because what you say is an accurate assesment in your Frame. It certainly resonates with me and I think the same way. I have a guy friend and mentor that thinks the same way. Strength among like minded males.

    So maybe men didn’t control the narrative as best a possible in Adaptation Part I. I doubt Rollo would assess that men control the narrative in Part II. But guess what? The Manosphere gives resources not ever available to men seeking control over their own private narrative.

    Men can become antifragile (fragile>Robust> antifragile) and restrain our women from making us suffer for their bad choices due to their hypergamous nature.

    Detecting female behavior and red pill hard wiring is easier, much easier, then predicting where the next Facebook Generation/social media dynamic will lead and how the next generation of women will behave, our mission as men is to minimize harm and maximize gain from forcasting errors regarding where women go next and have red pill awareness and game so things don’t fall apart or even benefit when intersexual mores make a mistake.

    We don’t want to make an attempt at Retro-Masculinity. That ship has sailed . Men don’t have the votes to reshape the Feminist/ Marxist mindset of the country. We can’t create a utopia out of thin air. “They” still want to shackle masculine males as evil misogynist sociopaths that cannot help and only hurt the constrained safe world of top down government which becomes more fragile with every attempt to silence masculine males. We should make things for men more robust to the defective Fem-centric world and lack of forecast into what doom we are headed, and then exploit the hell out of how fucked up the status quo is. With red pill awareness and game. Make lemonade out of lemons.

    How?

    Adapt.

  56. kfg – “There’s no crying in baseball.”

    My bad.

    The intolerable aspect is that a third party has guaranteed those needs be met at the muzzle of a gun, or grave threat to liberty, and personal reputation. You see it’s one thing for the weak and needy to ask for my assistance. I believe in charity. It’s another entirely for the weak and needy to compel provisions by force and expect to never have to ask politely and risk being told “no.”

  57. women who want resources from a man is = negotiate long term desire .

    Women who want authentic sex = short term relationship with men who gives them tingle.

    Women know a man who is wanted/desired by all women WOULD NOT commit to any.

    Women know a man is not wanted/desired by any woman,, , ,well, that when resources comes to mind.

    What a predicament!

  58. @Badpainter:

    “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” -Gloria Steinem

    Ironic, innit though?

  59. One more thing

    When “resources” dry up!
    That’s when the wilder beast go look for other resources not for sex resources?

    Isn’t time to re visit the “resources” and authentic sex?

  60. M. Simon, I too have observed the M/F ratio as it was in my college as 1/4 in the early 80’s.

    Yes the women were 50% not worth hooking up with and the men were 95% virile, men good at being a masculine male.

    “Where women are in the minority they are valued and practice chastity (mostly).”

    My experience exactly. The ratio being skewed the behavior followed.

    Chaste women, unlaid men.

  61. Atticus

    June 13th, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    @M Simon. Radio silence on you absurd premise the “culture is the M/F ratio”.

    My apologies for having other interests. You can SMD to make up for it.

    As to the substance – there was a window in the 60s where the females predominated – just from Demographics. And on every campus where women are well above the 50/50 range. And in the Black community where the men are jailed by Prohibition.

    So what helped in the 60s? The men sent to war.

    A paper on the subject:

    http://issues.org/13-2/courtw/

    Where women are scarce they are pedestalized. The American frontier.

    It is not F=ma. There can be confounding factors. But the trend is unmistakable. The culture is the M/F ratio is the way to bet. And we know this from historical accounts and even passages in the Bible.

  62. I’m wondering if higher ratio of female to male makes it girls gone wild or not. I thinking that it’s not the difference in numbers but it has more to do with what is causing the number of males to be lower.

  63. Is it the raw numbers of the M/F ratio or the female perception of number of MEN within the merely male cohort? For example if the ratio is1:1 but half the men are fabulously gay does that make a difference?

  64. @M. – Funny how some are so hostile to the m/f ratio bit. If we are in a “sexual marketplace” then of course an economic analysis is quite appropriate. My only caveat is that the other factors are not “confounding”, they are just other factors. I also think that the advent of the pill and legal abortion on demand made a huge difference in maternal investment wrt the reproductive risks/costs being made much lower for having sex. It seems to me that this alone would permit much greater expression of alpha fucks strategies for women.

  65. @M. Simon – Your claim that Jews made up 50% of the population of Rome at any point is baseless nonsense. In fact, at best it was perhaps 10% and that may even be high. The numbers are quite hard to get at, actually. The population was large enough to cause trouble though, hence why Jews were expelled from Rome several times. They were numerous, but 50%? Come on, get serious.

    Why would you make such a wild claim?

  66. The sex ratio is a factor, but not the only one. Like most things, the landscape we experience in terms of inter-sexual relations is complex and is the result of numerous factors in interplay with each other. Each one factor has a significant influence, but no one factor is itself “ultimately determinitive” in a reductive sense.

    On average, when women are scarcer, they can demand a higher price (more commitment for access to them as women and sex). On average, when men are scarcer, they can demand a lower price (more sex up front for access to them as men). It’s just supply and demand. Other factors, though, interplay with this, such as the rise of the pill, female economic independence, the lifescript of not marrying until around 30 and so on. It all plays together, and factors tend to combine and reinforce each other.

    We’re living at a time when the factors are all pointing in the same way. Virtually all factors in the culture, technology and ratios are in favor of more promiscuity among females, and not less. There really isn’t any significant factor militating against that, currently, other than the blip that happens if/when a woman wants to have babies, and for many women that’s a blip which does indeed pass while the normal romp is later resumed. It’s quite possible, in light of that, that the culture will continue in this trend for quite some time, as long as the economics that sustains it is plausibly maintained (true economic hardship bumps people down the hierarchy of needs, and sexual anarchy tends to end pretty fast once true economic hardship kicks in).

  67. On average, when men are scarcer, they can demand a lower price (more sex up front for access to them as men).

    Not true. In fact, the opposite is true, as discussed here:

    justfourguys.com/the-lupita-issue-revisited/#comment-39427

    justfourguys.com/the-lupita-issue-revisited/#comment-39518

    justfourguys.com/the-lupita-issue-revisited/#comment-39522

  68. Not true. In fact, the opposite is true, as discussed here:

    Actually what that article says is that in low sex ratio settings, it is in fact true that there is more promiscuity (that’s obvious from numerous studies and many of them are cited in the article), but it focuses instead on what the preference behaviors are in low and high sex ratio settings. In other words, it takes as a given that there is more promiscuity in low sex ratio settings than in high sex ratio settings but it it examines whether this reflects a “lowering of preferences” of the more numerous sex or not. It concludes that while low sex ratio settings do indeed feature more promiscuity and sex outside marriage, it may also be true that (1) men “lower their standards” because sex is on the table more readily with a wide variety of women (this actually confirms the behavior of male 8s fucking female 6s which is what we see in our setting) and that (2) this promiscuity is more concentrated among certain men than others, due to women tightening the screws in terms of preference in a promiscuous setting where they are expected (and are expecting) to give up sex relatively easily (which, again, is what we see in our setting with the promiscuity concentrating itself in a more preferred subset of men). It’s still the case that when the sex ratio is lower, more promiscuity results because the men who are in the market can demand sex more readily — women don’t have the market power to refuse to give up sex relatively quickly if they are interested in relationships with men. What the article says is what we already know — that this fact does not mean that this sex is distributed among all men in the market equitably, but rather that it is concentrated among certain men in the market, because as women become more promiscuous, they also become more picky, while as men become able to become more promiscuous, they simultaneously become less picky so that they can cash in on the opportunities they have.

    So, in other words, in a high sex ratio setting, the alpha 8 has a harder time demanding sex up front (because women are in shorter supply), whether he’s dealing with a female 5, 6, 7 or 8. Women are more able in that context to enforce their demand for commitment as the price of sexual access, even to a male 8. That’s why those settings have high marriage rates, earlier marital ages, lower promiscuity and lower divorce rates. In a low sex ratio setting, the alpha 8 has an easier time demanding sex up front from females, while the mid-level 5-6 guy may have a harder time because when women know that sex is the price for any relationship with a man, they tighten the standards up, which focuses the attention on the most desirable men. This makes sense, and reflects what we see, but it doesn’t invalidate the basic idea of the sex ratio that when it is low, promiscuity is more common while marriage is more fragile, while when it is high promiscuity is less common and marriage is more stable. It merely adds the insight that we all already know — namely, that when the society moves towards promiscuity, women get pickier, not less picky, even as they become more promiscuous. So they are having more sex outside of marriage, but because of that, they are pickier about who that sex is with than they would have been in a high sex ratio setting (where they would be much less likely to have sex outside of marriage to begin with). This simply reflects our own setting, which is a mild low sex ratio setting: more promiscuity, more sex outside marriage, but, as with all non-commitment-based sex, women’s standards shoot up at the same time as they are having more sex outside marriage. That’s basically Red Pill 101, and it doesn’t really contradict the basic idea of the impact of the sex ratio.

    So, what Simon is arguing is not really undermined by that article, but rather reinforced by it. As the sex ratio gets lower, things get more promiscuous, and sex gets more concentrated among a smaller subset of men. This is our reality in 2015. As the sex ratio gets higher, things get less promiscuous, more emphasis is on marriage, and as a result sex is more equally distributed, but also much more focused on marriage than outside of it.

  69. Shit flows downhill, gentlemen (see below linked article). If we were to view this as a mountain (or pyramid), the scourges of feminism, Marxism, divorce industry, CPS, SJWs, etc, is the drainage basin in the valley, where all the shit and carnage aggregate to be flushed away into oblivion. The aforementioned campaigns exist not at the top of that mountain, but rather roughly at the halfway point. The carnage of foot soldier battles and the resultant destroyed males exists at the bottom.

    GBFM has been close to the target from day one. Why only “close”? Because the Federal Reserve is not at the top of this mountain, either. Who is? While theories and anecdotal evidence exist of powers higher than this one, this one is the only one I’ve ever read about that was backed utterly by public corporate filings. You can also look up a Swiss university study done some years ago that entered all available global public filings into a database and then ran algorithms over that data. The conclusion? Something like 50-60% of all public companies—GLOBALLY—are controlled by 140 corporate entities, and those 140 are essentially one entity, insofar as their corporate board control is concerned.

    It’s not some mysterious diffuse “feminine imperative” that’s responsible for this. In fact, it is a tiny concentrated group of “males”, who through the above interlocking corporate directorates control the following propaganda distribution channels for feminism, et al: all media, except for internet outposts like TRM (includes Hollywood, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, book publishing houses, GRADESCHOOL TEXTBOOKS, etc), public schools, universities, NGOs, “public” health entities, “public” research entities, etc. Not to mention the distribution channels for less than propaganda-specific energy (Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Healthcare, MIC, financial markets, and of course, Western law (which is a franchise system emanating from the City of London (corporate entity, not metropolis)).

    Note that this has been in the works far longer than merely the sexual revolution of the 60s. In fact, it goes back much further than even the below linked article touches upon.

    Males and females are damaged equally by this system—that’s the point. (How many of those single mothers are actually happy? I don’t know a single one who isn’t miserable, despite her divorce rape revenue stream.) If you must carry anger in your temporal vessel (it’s justified), at least focus it on the correct target.

    “This is the game, the program.”

    “… which means the last decade has been nothing but a preparation for the biggest debt for equity exchange in the history of the human race, with the new equity holders of virtually all global assets set to be a select group of financial oligarchs.” [who also own all the organs of propaganda distribution and thereby the levers of social engineering… to which the very manosphere is a response]

    Anyone who claims to help you with the intersexual aspect of YOUR life, but refrains from discussing how we really ended up here, either: 1) lacks a grasp of the true history, or 2) is trying to keep you focused on buying their line, day after day.

    Not me. I know that the more males who awaken to what is really transpiring in our social sea, the better that is for me and mine. And also, of course, learn to manage the females in your life, as that also results in a better life for me and mine.

    Happy reading, gentlemen: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-14/cornering-earth-how-rothschilds-controlled-least-one-third-global-wealth-over-100-ye

  70. “Because the Federal Reserve is not at the top of this mountain, either. ”

    Yes, we know about the global system, Rothschild, Warburg, The City and the lot.

  71. Novaseeker,

    your original statement was this:

    On average, when men are scarcer, they can demand a lower price (more sex up front for access to them as men).

    Then you stated, in verbose and detailed fashion, a different theory, which can be summed up as:

    A small – and decreased – minority of men can successfully demand a lower price for sex, and thus more acts of promiscuous sex are taking place. The rest of men have as many opportunities for promiscuous sex as before as long as they lower their standards, because women become more picky. It’s simply not true that in the case of a low sex ratio, men, as a sex, can demand a lower price for sex.

    Did I misread something? Bear with me, English isn’t my mother tongue.

  72. “Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.”

    Why would a woman have sex with a man whom she can get to do what she wants?

  73. Why would a man have multiple sex partners when he can get what he wants out of one woman?

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265

    “Most personality traits have substantial effects on mating- and parenting-related behaviors such as sexual promiscuity, relationship stability, and divorce. Promiscuity and the desire for multiple sexual partners are predicted by extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism (especially in women), positive schizotypy, and the “dark triad” traits (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism). Negative predictors of promiscuity and short-term mating include agreeableness, conscientiousness, honesty-humility in the HEXACO model, and autistic-like traits [20]–[31]. Relationship instability is associated with extraversion, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness [26], [29]–[31]. Finally, neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and (to a smaller extent) low agreeableness all contribute to increase the likelihood of divorce [32], [33].

    In addition to their direct influences on mating processes, personality traits correlate with many other sexually selected behaviors, such as status-seeking and risk-taking (see e.g., [20], [34], [35]). Thus, in an evolutionary perspective, personality traits are definitely not neutral with respect to sexual selection. Instead, there are grounds to expect robust and wide-ranging sex differences in this area, resulting in strongly sexually differentiated patterns of emotion, thought, and behavior – as if there were “two human natures”, as effectively put by Davies and Shackelford [15]”

    I find myself having agreeableness, conscientiousness and honesty-humility and autistic-like traits (without autism per se).

    It works for me.And hopefully for her.Heh, I try.

  74. Then you stated, in verbose and detailed fashion, a different theory, which can be summed up as:

    A small – and decreased – minority of men can successfully demand a lower price for sex, and thus more acts of promiscuous sex are taking place. The rest of men have as many opportunities for promiscuous sex as before as long as they lower their standards, because women become more picky. It’s simply not true that in the case of a low sex ratio, men, as a sex, can demand a lower price for sex.

    Did I misread something? Bear with me, English isn’t my mother tongue.

    If my earlier post on this implied that the lower sex ratio means that ALL men have greater sexual access and can demand sex from all women, then I apologize for that — that was not my intention. I took it as a given that it was the men who were attractive for sex who could demand it up front as the price of admission to access for them — not ALL men. But I see that I could have spelled that out more clearly in my earlier post.

  75. I took it as a given that it was the men who were attractive for sex who could demand it up front as the price of admission to access for them — not ALL men.

    In other words, the sex ratio has no impact on a man’s social status as sexually attractive or unattractive.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s