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.
[…] By Rollo Tomassi […]
“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/
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… Read more »
Brilliant post!
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.
Rollo its the #uckling wizard
Insightful post, interested in seeing pt. 2
you are going to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of boxed wine
oh wait, sorry to have deboxed you
A guy famous for programming delves into sexual strategies. He gets it mostly right. esr
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/promiscuity.html
esr wrote that in 2002.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.
Ah. Slavery>
http://classicalvalues.com/2015/06/what-is-slavery/
It is getting so bad that even the left – in America at least – is revolting. And they do not even get that their revolt is inimical to their goals. They just hate the Police State – because Prohibition.
@ 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… Read more »
https://youtu.be/ymE9Jtw179I
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… Read more »
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.
“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… Read more »
Equalism is a binary proposition. To have one succeed, the other must fail. Equalism is an epic fail. Complementary relationships succeed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
” 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… Read more »
Rollo starts his history too late. It should begin in 1920. The start of the First American Sexual Revolution.
sjfrellc
June 12th, 2015 at 11:03 pm
Moral relativism comes because women are in excess. Why is war universally decried in history – because a female in excess culture is like the one we have.
This is about future history and energy abundance.
http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/
“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?
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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… Read more »
Can’t wait for part two
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Interesting scholarly article:
http://issues.org/13-2/courtw/
Well jeeze look at what came up #7 in my search. Something I wrote:
Behavioral Sink Behavior And Thermodynamics
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/behavioral-sink-behavior-and-thermodynamics/
Women were always the roadblock to equality.
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;… Read more »
Rollo,
My one of my comments (repeated with slightly different text) went into the bit bucket.
You will note I’m the first commenter on this article:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/03/from_rampant_sl.html
@Water canon boy
Nice obervations been seening a lot of that where I live as well.
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
@ 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… Read more »
@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.
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)… Read more »
“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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
@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?
“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.
@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… Read more »
“Unless I missed the literature on the wild women of the 1870’s . . .”
Westward expansion. It hit the cities in the 1890’s.
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?
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.
Not Rome, but Alexandria, which was effectively the eastern capital of the empire before Constantinople.
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.
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… Read more »
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,
Sex ratios are generally overrated in the ‘sphere. Their effects are always marginal.
@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… Read more »
Sorry off topic http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7538240
It’s official folks.
Women with cats are crazy.
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
Kfg
The razor’s edge,GREAT movie to watch for men who are going through existential crisis (me?).
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.
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… Read more »
@M Simon. Radio silence on you absurd premise the “culture is the M/F ratio”.
“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.
@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… Read more »
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.”
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!
@Badpainter:
“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” -Gloria Steinem
Ironic, innit though?
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?
They say
When there is no money, the problem is food.
When there is money, the problem is sex.
http://www.experienceproject.com/Stories/Just-Broke-Up-With-My-Boyfriend/1989264
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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?
It is the number of men in the dating pool. Roughly 18 to 25.
Only 25 men in the dating pool? Things are worse than I thought!
@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.
@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?
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).… Read more »
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
Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.
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… Read more »
“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?
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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.
Good post and it illuminates our human inability to comprehend historical reference in the broader scale. We think everything important happens in OUR time. It’s a funny funny hamsterization. Every man reading here needs to go watch Ken Burns’ “Prohibition” and you will see quickly and clearly what launched the Feminine Imperative and where we likely go from here. Technology (ie: cheap grains being distilled to something not generally known prior, highly potent booze) kicked off the temperance movement, then the Suffragetes. It’s likely that the only thing that stops the adaptations and rapidly allows human sexual politics (and by… Read more »
@Tilikum:
The fight for the Tender Years Doctrine came first and is at the core, it’s babies all the way down, but the temperance movement handed out the battle axes.
@KFG
Touche
Good insights, nova seeker, about linking today’s situation all the way back to the twenties. The historian John lukacs makes a similar sort of argument In his book a new republic, although he does also argue that there was something respectable and bourgeois about women during the twenties. Not all women then were flappers; many lived good decent lives.
@Badpainter “but EXPECT the rest of the unfuckable to provide resources, attention, and protection just by mere fact of their existence.” That is the core of my biological maladaptive coping mechanism. “For example if the ratio is1:1 but half the men are fabulously gay does that make a difference?” Only reproduction @sjfrellc “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.” That’s hell of an importance to think I’m a social situation. I am still struggling with that. “our… Read more »