As the title implies, the book examines male-female relationships from a scientific perspective – actually, a “sociobiological” perspective. “Sociobiology,” in the words of Wikipedia, is a “neo-Darwinian synthesis of scientific disciplines that attempts to explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages the behaviors may have.”
I’ll let Ms. Pincott explain the impact of “sociobiology” on our understanding of human romantic relationships…
“Everyone has an unconscious preference for certain traits, and much of what we desire is rooted in deep evolutionary biases. We evolved this way. Studying ancestral conditions and the mating behaviors of other animals, evolutionary biologists have an interesting take: whether or not you actually want kids, you have ‘parental investment’ instincts that impact your sex life. It all boils down to the basic biological truth that in one year’s time, a woman could sleep with a googol of men but only have one full-term pregnancy, whereas a man could sleep with a googol of women and have googol of babies. To maximize their reproductive success, men are attracted to cues of fertility – youth and beauty – especially in short-term relationships. For women, it’s more complicated. Women have more at stake in the event of a pregnancy, so we’re choosier about our sex partners. Over the ages we developed biases for guys with good genes (masculinity and social dominance) and signs that they would be good dads (nurturers and providers), although we often make trade-offs depending upon our circumstances (p. xv).”
Let’s review this paragraph-long summary of the book’s thesis…
There are 3 major points…
First, that in the game of romance, people aspire to attract the best possible mate (and, especially as they grow older, they aspire to attract the best potential parent for their future children). There is nothing inherently controversial or demeaning or “Darwinian” about this fact. I accept it.
The second point is that women and men have slightly different understandings of what it means to “have a good mate,” and that the reason for this distinction is that women and men have different roles in reproduction. Specifically, because women are the ones who get pregnant, give birth, and have shorter periods of fertility, they are the “choosier” sex. Again, there is nothing inherently controversial or demeaning or “Darwinian” about this fact. I accept it.
But then we come to the third point: that a person’s romantic search is guided by “unconscious preferences” and “deep evolutionary biases. We evolved this way.” That is a flawed conclusion. First of all, there is no inherent reason that perfectly logical preferences (such as men who are “good providers” or women who are “good nurturers”) have anything to do with evolution, per se. Darwinists are always eager to link common sense and banal facts with “evolution,” and equate human beings with “other animals,” as Ms. Pincott does, even though it’s totally unnecessary.
Second of all, using evolution to explain human behavior is inherently silly. Why? Because the Darwinists insist that literally every behavior is a victory for evolution. Consider the following:
On P. 6-9, Ms. Pincott addresses the question, “Why do men prefer big pupils?” She answers: “Evolutionarily speaking, men prefer big, gaping pupils because they’re a sign of arousal and receptivity…Your pupils dilate widest around ovulation, the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle.” Ok…so…the blind forces of nature designed women’s pupils to dilate as a “sign of fertility?” Seems plausible.
But then we come to this…on p. 90-92, Ms. Pincott asks, “What does a ‘wiggle’ in your walk reveal?” Answer: “The more wiggle in your walk, the tinier your waist is in proportion to your hips – a telltale sign of youth and fertility.” OK, so “evolutionarily speaking,” we would expect a woman’s “wiggle” to be greatest during ovulation, right? Wrong! “To the contrary, it turns out that’s when a woman’s gait is most restrained.” Does this contradict sociobiology? Of course not. As Pincott says – without any hint of irony – “the reason women walk less provocatively when they’re most fertile is an unconscious attempt to avoid excessive male attention.”
Got that? During ovulation, women’s eyes dilate to gain men’s attention, and during the same period, their hips wiggle less to avoid men’s attention? Of course, that makes absolutely NO sense. But that’s exactly what happens when you use Darwinism to explain every facet of human behavior. For the atheist Darwinists, everything in life is Darwinist. In every debate, they play the same game: “heads I win; tails you lose.”
But you know what? That’s not my main criticism with Ms. Pincott’s book. Rather, it’s the assumption (once again, promoted by the Darwinists) that human beings – like “other animals” – are a product of their “instincts,” and that our behavior is mostly guided by “deep evolutionary biases,” rather than free will.
For example, one study tested “whether ovulating women are more attracted to very masculine men…The researchers recruited more than four hundred undergraduate women to watch video clips of the men and judge them on their personal qualities and their desirability as long- and short-term partners…The results confirmed…women who were in their fertile phase at the time of the study gave higher-than-usual ratings to swaggering, competitive, confrontational, dominant-looking guys…researchers speculated that the reason women are unconsciously drawn to strong-jawed, deep-voiced, domineering, healthy men when they’re most likely to conceive is that a child born of the union inherits the man’s ‘good genes.’”
While this is an interesting study, there are dangers in overinterpreting it. First of all, no woman makes the decision about who to have children with based on “video clips.” This is so basic and uncontroversial I almost feel embarrassed pointing it out (although I have to because the author doesn’t). Second of all, if the only way to measure “desirability” is through video clips, then the crudest physical aspects (such as “strong jaws”) are – by very definition – the only way women can measure “desirability” – and thus, it should be no surprise that men with traditionally “masculine” physical features are chosen as “more desirable” than men who lack them. If the only information you’re giving women is physical data, should it be surprising when the women judge men on…wait for it…physical data!
The author, however, conveniently doesn’t mention the flaws with the study. Instead, the reader is left with the impression that fertile women, like any animal you find in a zoo, are pawns of their ovaries. The idea that women are looking for other qualities in a partner (such as personality and character) and value these qualities for their own sake (and not just for the value it would bring to their children’s “genes”) is never explored.
There’s a reason it’s never explored: because the author is quite eager to push the “truth” of these so-called “evolutionary biases.” For example, Ms. Pincott asks, “Why do some men smell better to you than others?” She answers: “Women prefer the body odors of guys who have major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene variants that are mostly different than their own…if you have children with a man whose MHC variants are mostly unlike your own, your kids may inherit a more diverse MHC and stronger immune systems…a body odor that indicates a genetic mismatch may be a big red flag – your body telling you he’s wrong for you on a base biological level.”
While I don’t dispute the conclusion of the study (that body odor can be a helpful signal for MHC “compatibility”) I question how to interpret it. As I stated above, human beings don’t make judgments on who they’re going to marry and have children with based on smell. Let’s use the following example: if a woman has to choose between two guys, will she choose the guy who smells better, or the guy who is nicer, smarter, and a better provider? I think the answer is obvious. And with that answer comes a different conclusion: While these studies are objectively interesting, they don’t tell us a lot about human behavior – because human beings are NOT animals; we don’t just have olfactory cells; we have minds!!!
Or do we?
The author pushes the “truth” of these sexual instincts when she shares the following story: “I once dated a guy whose smell I hated, even though he showered, and it was a major reason why I couldn’t take the relationship further. Later on, I met a man whose smell I love – and I married him.”
I’m not sure how serious we should take her story; it’s likely she’s exaggerating somewhat to increase the effect on her readers. But even so, it’s a very revealing statement. By sharing this story, she is in a sense, validating the “truth” of sexual instincts (such as smell) over the mind. And that is dumb for two reasons. First, as I said above, for most people, physical “facts” are just that – facts – and do not predetermine behavior. But even worse, by presenting these “facts” as behavioral “truths” – the Darwinists are – once again – unnecessarily degrading human dignity. I often wonder: Why do they feel compelled to constantly drag human beings down to the levels of dogs, mice, and insects? I don’t know. But they do it. And it’s wrong.
I don’t mean to pick on Ms. Pincott. I honestly enjoyed her book, and I truly believe she has no agenda beyond sharing interesting information with her readers; but even so, her words and phrases expose an unhealthy ideological framework that she’s transmitting to her audience.
What does this have to do with my book, The Mustard Seed? Well, one of the running questions of the book is: “What does it mean to be human?”
For Troy Dawkins, one of the main characters, being human is equivalent to being an animal. As he says in Chapter 10:
“The newest science is very straightforward – we are, in a very real sense, ‘nothing but mammals.’ Specifically, we’re nothing but highly-evolved monkeys. We think like monkeys and, more often than not, we act like monkeys - just in a more sophisticated way. This is true in virtually every area of life – including sex.”
This so-called “science” reinforces Troy’s atheist philosophy:
“The science is irrefutable: God doesn’t exist, the universe is meaningless, life is a random accident, and morality is an illusion. None of it matters, man. When are you going to understand that? We’re born. We live for a while. We die… That’s all…. And when you come to realize that, my friend, you’re free. You’re liberated. You can do whatever you want.”
Even people who don’t fully embrace Troy’s militant atheism absorb the ideas behind it (specifically, Darwinism). As Chris, the frustrated high school biology student, explains in Chapter 6…
“If anyone thinks the rules of evolution don’t apply to us…well, they’re just living in a fantasy world. I’ve sat in this classroom for years, and I’ve absorbed the truth, even if other kids choose to ignore it.”
I’m not going to write about the pros and cons of Darwinism in this post (although Chapter 9 of The Mustard Seed is a fair introduction), but I would like to highlight 1) the power of the Darwinist idea in our society, and 2) the fact that these ideas are based on faulty conclusions (as seen in Ms. Pincott’s book).
For me, I share the conclusion of Brain Raines, the protagonist of The Mustard Seed, who exclaimed in Chapter 12 that “sex can be, and should be, a human act, and I mean that in a positive way, not as an insult.”
Seeing sex as a “human act” – and not an “animal act” – would require seeing the power of reason and logic to overcome “instincts” and “evolutionary biases.” We see this power even among people who are not…shall we say…“very intellectual.” For starters, unlike our ancestors (or people living in developing countries today), virtually no American in the 21st century is trying to have as many babies as humanly possible. The average American wants 2-3 kids. Furthermore, they want their marriage to be based on love and happiness – not pumping “good genes” into the next generation. This sounds like common sense (and it is!) but our common sense is being weakened by “science” that is nothing of the sort – and the consequence of that “science” weakens morality and the enjoyment of life.
For those – whether they live in America or other countries – who wish to close their mind and live an animal existence – I can only say to them: “that is your prerogative.” But for those of us who aspire to a more spiritually satisfactory existence, we should be aware that our “instincts” are often misleading, and they should be overcome (not embraced!) through the power of reason, and dare I say, love, as well.
This continuous competition between “instinct” and “reason” reinforces an idea that I’ve bandied about: We are souls who entered animal bodies to test the strength of the soul and create testaments to the power of the soul (creative acts such as raising a child or writing a book, etc). I won’t endorse or reject this idea (because there is a lack of evidence either way), but I think it’s a nice thought as we go about our lives (and it’s certainly better than the Darwinian alternative).
For ages, I’ve wanted to write an article about sex, love, and marriage in modern society, but I’ve been daunted by the amount of time, energy, and just plain thinking that would be necessary to write such a comprehensive piece.
Finally, a tragic killing spurred me to put pen to paper.
On August 5, 2009, 48-year old George Sodini walked into a Pittsburgh health club and murdered 3 women before turning the gun on himself.In his online diary, Sodini reveals himself to be a sexually-obsessed, but also a sexually-deprived human being.
I was reading several posts on different forums and it seems many teenage girls have sex frequently. One 16 year old does it usually three times a day with her boyfriend. So, err, after a month of that, this little --- has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48. One more reason. Thanks for nada, b----! Bye.
On Jul. 20, he complains…
“I have slept alone for over 20 years. Last time I slept all night with a girlfriend it was 1982. Proof I am a total malfunction…Girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE. There is something BLATANTLY wrong with me that NO goddam person will tell me what it is.”
I have to admit, Sodini’s words could’ve been written by Brian Raines (the main character in my book) if Brian had never met Heather Manning and crawled alone into middle age.But I digress…
Why did this happen?Why couldn’t George Sodini find a sexually-fulfilling relationship?Why did women reject him?Why did his failure lead to murderous rage?Are there more George Sodinis out there?Can we learn anything from this incident?
On his blog, In Mala Fide, Ferdinand Bardamu writes…
Not too long ago, there existed an unwritten contract between men and women in America and the West at large. Men spent their years working at shitty jobs, working their asses off every day and shortening their lifespans, obeying the laws and generally staying on the straight and narrow, and in return, they had guaranteed access to women through the institution of marriage.
If George Sodini had been alive as late as the 1950’s, he would likely have been able to get married in his 20’s to a reasonably attractive woman (6 or 7, possibly an 8) and have children. He would not have spent twenty years in an involuntarily celibate torture, allowing his mind to warp in all sorts of perverted ways. He would have been normal, because the situation that led to his mental abnormality – his inability to get laid – would never have happened.
The contract between the sexes is no longer valid. The wheels had been in motion for decades prior, but the motions that destroyed the contract for good occurred in the late 60’s and 70’s. Women were liberated from their contractual obligations…And yet, despite giving women the freedom to do as they wish, polite society still holds men to their contractual obligations.We guys are expected to go to college and rack up five-to-six digits worth of debt in order to get a spirit-crushing job in order to be worthy of a woman’s attention…Even worse, popular culture is engaged in a massive campaign to hide the truth from our eyes.
In the past, men who played by the rules won out in the end. No more. Women of all types are spreading their legs exclusively for pick-up artists, cads, players, badboys, and other men whom a healthy society would regard as the scum of the earth. Men like George Sodini who succeed and contribute to society have only their right hands for company, while bottom-feeders are drowning in more vaj then they know what to do with. Is this just?
Slowly but surely, the men of this country are realizing that they have been lied to their entire lives…They’ll likely get angry and react in myriad ways…A slim minority of men, such as George Sodini, will flip out, grab their guns, and go on a spree in the nearest public square.
I’m not holding Sodini up as a hero or someone to be emulated like some other people I’ve been reading. He was a nutcase who deserves to be scorned for what he did. That said, the greater sociosexual issues that dragged him that down that road cannot be ignored. Rage killings are a staple of our modern society – they almost never happened pre-1965. And gender-motivated rage killings DEFINITELY never occurred. Incidents like this are emblematic of deeper problems within our culture.
Why did the pre-1965 social contract between men and women break apart?Obviously, the “Sexual Revolution.”As all "good people" know, the Sexual Revolution created equality between the sexes. Once the Revolution swept through, sexual pleasure was no longer the exclusive domain of males.Women could (finally!) join in the fun!
But is the nature of female sexuality really the same as male sexuality?
The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own {hypergamous} utopia, not that of men.
What is “hypergamy?”Devlin again…
The female sexual instinct is hypergamous.Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.
Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and second, he “commits,”or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.
Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males.
The sexual revolution asserted the right of each individual to sex on his or her own terms… When the initial excitement of abandoned restraint had died down it was noticed that the promised felicity had not arrived. And one reason, it was soon realized, was that the terms men wished to set for sexual conduct were not identical to those desired by women.
What happens when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate for wives, but many women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a very few exceptionally attractive men. These men, who have always found it easy to get a mate, now get multiple mates.
And what is the quality of these potential “mates?”What is the character of the modern woman?Devlin again…
Men of the older generation are insufficiently aware how uncouth women have become. I came rather late to the realization that the behavior I was observing in women could not possibly be normal—that if women had behaved this way in times past, the human race would have died out.
The reader who suspects me of exaggerating is urged to spend a little time browsing women’s self-descriptions on Internet dating sites. They never mention children, but almost always manage to include the word “fun.” “I like to party and have fun! I like to drink, hang out with cool people and go shopping!” The young women invite “hot guys” to contact them. No doubt some will. But would any sensible man, “hot” or otherwise, want to start a family with such a creature?
If Devlin, Bardamu, and others are correct, through the Sexual Revolution, women acquired many of the vices of men, while acquiring few of their virtues.Meanwhile, men as a whole were unchanged.If that is true, the quality of women (from the perspective of a man) has been in decline for many years, and continues to fall unabated.What are the consequences of such a “quality gap?”In particular, what are the consequences for the “beta men” (the less-desirable men)?
The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”
Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot.
We need a new strain of conservatism that acknowledges the realities of human sexuality while maintaining its ideological integrity.
Fair enough.So what kind of “conservatism” do we need?
According to Bardamu – and other bloggers - we need “Game.”
Game is best understood as an SYM [Single Young Male] attempt to bring order to contemporary dating confusion…
“Women seemingly have decided that they want it all (and deserve it, too),” Kevin from Ann Arbor writes. “They want to compete equally, and have the privileges of their mother’s generation. They want the executive position, AND the ability to stay home with children and come back into the workplace at or beyond the position at which they left. They want the bad boy and the metrosexual.”
“Things don’t make sense anymore, that’s why we need pickup.”
And what is “pickup?”Or “Game?”
It teaches the ordinary nice guy—in Gamespeak, the Average Frustrated Chump (AFC)—how to reinvent himself to survive in a ruthless dating environment.
Reinvent himself?How so?
Consider what’s known as the Seduction Community. The Community is a loose network of dating coaches, gurus, and their followers whose philosophical origins lie variously in Darwin, Norman Vincent Peale, and hyperlogical geekdom. Women want alpha males, the Seduction Community agrees; with some effort at self-improvement, any man can learn the game—Game, as it is reverently known—that will turn him into a Pick Up Artist (PUA).
That means desensitizing the AFC to rejection and, alas, building up his jerk quotient. Teachers encourage clients to project confidence and sexual energy, what is called, depending on the guru, “cocky funny” or “amused mastery.” In The Aquarian, a New York–based music magazine, Kevin Purcell describes his experience at a Game workshop: “One of our first tasks was to walk around the hotel silent, repeating in our heads ‘I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks about me.’ This mentality, it was assumed, would help lower the wall of anxiety and make us less prone to the pain of rejection. Like soldiers responding to a drill sergeant, when asked ‘What are you?’ we were instructed to loudly proclaim, ‘A fucking ten!’
What is the philosophic premise behind “Game” theory?
“At the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail.”
Once you accept the “pussy premise,” everything falls into place …
There is every incentive in the world to avoid marriage. It is a fetid corrupt mess, and only radical social change will make it an attractive alternative for men once again.
Thanks to Game and contraceptives, you can get the sex for free now without the imprisonment of marriage and potential financial and emotional ruin of divorce.
I can tell you right now about 90% of the women I’ve fucked in the past nine months (double digits) were, barring a character transplantation, completely unworthy as marriage material.
From the perspective of both Gamers and their critics, Game is a reaction to the “Sexual Revolution.”And of course, that’s partly true.But could there be an ever greater instigator of the “Game Revolution?”Yep, you guessed it: Reductionism.And more specifically, Darwinism.
By far the most important philosopher of the Menaissance is Charles Darwin. The theory that human sexual preferences evolved from the time that hominids successfully reproduced in the primeval African grasslands can explain the mystery of women’s preference for macho—or alpha—males. At the same time, evolutionary theory gives the former wuss permission to pursue massive amounts of sex with an endless assortment of women. Finally, the emphasis that Darwinism places on natural selection encourages him to adapt to the brutal current sexual ecosystem. Culture, in both its feminist and Emily Post forms, hasn’t won him any favor with women, so he will embrace Nature in all its rude harshness.
Check out DarwinDating.com, a matchmaking website “created exclusively for beautiful, desirable people.” Members rank your picture on a scale of one to five and vote on whether to let you join their honored ranks or throw you into the slush pile.
We are animals, the new Darwinians seem to say; get used to it. They define manhood as alpha-style toughness and unsentimental promiscuity. And in that spirit, they cultivate manipulation, calculation, and naked (in both the literal and metaphorical sense) self-interest. “Nature doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings,” explains dating coach Mike Pilinski. “It cares ONLY about reproductive success.”
We are here on this earth to serve one purpose — the propagation of our genes. Everything we do is either designed to push us toward that goal or is a byproduct of that purpose.
Our genes only care about one thing: What is the winning reproductive strategy? Today, that winning strategy is seduction, sex, and splitting, leaving the kid to be raised by an unwitting chump.
Human nature does not offer us a bottomless chest of treasure. Few are exempt from trade-offs, and no society can have everything its heart desires. To restore American greatness and comity of its people, feminism and its cousin -isms will have to be rolled back. This will mean women will sacrifice their earning power and some career freedom.
But does Roissy want to be a part of the solution?Does he want to be constructive by promoting traditional values and practicing them?Nah.
America is beyond saving in the traditional ways. The rot has metastasized. There will be no glorious beta male uprising. Like one of the commenters from yesterday’s post pointed out, the first cute girl to bat her eyelashes at one of these revolutionary Che Betas will have him betraying the brotherhood faster than you can say “just the tip”.
No, the solution is to give the New Girl Order *exactly* what it wants: Game, and an army of cads that practice it. Force feed the beast until it is choking on its own gluttony. The emissaries of the Great Lie must have the consequences of their ignorance and treachery shoved down their throats. In time, the unabashed pursuit of hedonism and the embrace of Darwinistic nihilism (two potent forces which, coincidentally, happen to have truth and pleasure on their side. Exhibit B: God is dead) will raze the neoliberal monolith to the ground, and from the ashes the eternal human cycle will begin anew, strengthened and revitalized. A complete reconciliation with our tragic destiny gives us the only chance to avoid it.
The ugly truths are seeping into every crevice of society, poisoning the marrow of
idealistic impulse. As we learn more about how the brain works, this is inevitable. The pretty lies once served some higher, nobler purpose, but that is dead now. Embrace the known.
Hope is the tribute reality pays to fantasy.
Neil Strauss, the author of The Game, says that during his PUA years, he saw enough lies and infidelity to make Darwin look like an optimist. “Losing all hope is freedom,” snarls the blogger at Eternal Bachelor.
True. But would you rather get laid and lose all hope, or be a failure with women and lose all hope? The choice is clear.
But is it?Is the choice really that clear?And what is the impact of such a choice?What is the impact of allowing Reductionism to dictate our sexual behavior?Indeed, what is the impact of Reductionism on our entire society?
What is biological reductionism? It is the belief that all the affairs of human life, from the formation of families to the creation of art to the founding of religions to the discoveries of science to the rise and fall of civilizations, are determined and defined by a handful of the most basic instincts, sex, violence, competition for resources and so on, and that these instincts are in turn the products of genetic determinism. Everything comes down to genes, which in turn are the product of random mutations selected by the biological competition for survival. While biological reductionism is associated with secularism which is associated with the left, not all reductionists are on the left. There are conservatives who are biological reductionists. But a conservative reductionist is a contradiction in terms. Conservatism means the defense and restoration of a threatened or damaged civilizational tradition, namely our own. But a reductionist is unable to articulate and defend our civilization, because he is unable to articulate the things that make up our civilization, such as religion, philosophy, political science, morality. He denies the higher parts of human nature of which these fields of knowledge speak, or else he reduces those higher parts to epiphenomena of lower parts.
The kind of thinking on display in this thread, in which people look at the human race in terms of "alpha male" and "beta male" and talk about organizing society along those lines, is symptomatic of a social catastrophe. The catastrophe results from the twin developments of biological reductionism and sexual liberation, and it consists of the reduction of human beings to competitors/commodities in the sexual marketplace. It's a vision of man and society in which there is no sense of social and cultural order, no shared vision of an inherited or higher good, but just the competing desires and needs of people conceived of as biological/sexual units.
Is this really the way you see, and want to see, other human beings? Is this really the way you see, and want to see, yourself?
Can you imagine any decent society coming out of such a vision? Do you think any civilization could ever have been created or preserved on such terms?
(1) The general notion one had (for example, from Tom Wolfe’s I am Charlotte Simmons) that young women today are mind-blowingly promiscuous, combined with (2) the larger picture of what this pattern means and what its specific consequences are for women, men, and marriage, as powerfully explained by Mark Richardson, combined with (3) the Roissy argument that the only way “Beta” men can avoid being left behind in this Sexual Darwinist jungle, where life is red in tooth and claw, is to practice “Game,” in which men look at women as pure sex objects to be won over by the manipulation of their emotions,—a position I’ve denounced at Mangan’s, which set off the discussion there—have opened the doors on a new dimension of our social and moral catastrophe.
So where do I stand on all this?After letting other people speak for 12 pages, what is my perspective? As a practitioner of Spiritual Rationalism, I begin my quest with reason.
Reason is the highest domain of the mind – focused purely on facts, unswayed by emotion, and in every moment, seeking a constant expansion of one’s knowledge. Reason is a complex and highly demanding tool – primarily because it forces us to be independent in thought, and responsible for our own judgments.
Using facts and reason, let me begin by making a few points that should be relatively uncontroversial, but will be priceless in navigating our way forward…
1) As I pointed out in my essay, Sex with Blondes and Darwin, people aspire to attract the best possible mate (and, especially as they grow older, they aspire to attract the best potential parent for their future children).
2) Women and men have slightly different conceptions of what it means to “have a good mate” because each sex has a different role in reproduction. Specifically, because women are the ones who get pregnant, give birth, and have shorter periods of fertility, they are the “choosier” sex.
3) For most of human history (pre-civilization), there was a basic understanding that since women are biologically better geared to the nurturing of children (breast feeding, nesting, for example) and men – through their physical strength – better suited for labor – women would be the domestic sex, and men the laboring sex.
4) As the sex which bears the most “cost for raising children, women have less desire for sexual activity. They think about sex less often and practice it less regularly.They lose their virginity later in life.They are less likely to commit adultery.They are less likely to consume porn and prostitution.Etc, etc.
5) Through this biological knowledge, men and women have built social norms in which a man – in part – derives his “masculinity” by the number of women he has sex with, while women derive their “feminism” through their chastity.The fact that “everyone know” men are the hornier sex has – throughout history – given women a tool to level the playing field in their favor.They can withhold sex from men – both before and during marriage.
Now what does this biology lesson have to do with the modern world?A few facts...
1) In today’s society (in contrast to most societies throughout history), we have legal equality between the sexes.We have removed nearly every single legal barrier to women in higher education, the labor force, the military, etc.As a matter of law, nearly everyone agrees that this is a “good thing.”
2) Over the decades, people have made the slogan “equality is always good” into a sacrament.As such, any fact (whether biological or sociological) that shows any difference between the sexes (i.e, that women are better suited to domestic life) is repressed.Indeed, if a person brings up this fact too loudly and frequently, he will be tarred as a sexist and ostracized from society.
3) The idea that “men and women are the same and should be the same” has affected every segment of society.The “liberation” of women hasn't a happy blending between "masculine" and "feminine," but rather, the devolution of women into lesser forms of men.In today’s society, women have been coerced into male aspirations regarding employment (having a career and high salary) and sex (having a rich, diverse sex life).Men, on the other hand, remain men.
4) The consequences of “women’s liberation” (in which many women are hybrids of men and women) has created numerous problems.For starters, it has reduced the happiness of women.It has also reduced population rates across the Western world, putting the survival of our civilization in doubt.And perhaps most importantly, it has made the “good life” harder to attain for both women and men.There are simply fewer “good women” out there.The lack of “good women” discourages “good men” who are more likely to engage in bad “masculine” behavior.Thus, the emergence of “Game.”
Oh, and one final thing…
5) Darwinism – the “truth” which Roissy uses to justify his behavior is flat-out wrong.In addition, Darwinism’s impact on society has been dreadful.Click here, here, here, and here for more.
Once we junk the Darwinism nonsense that Roissy and his ilk spew, we can enable reason to retake her throne and continue our project with confidence.
And where does reason lead us?After 12 pages of weighing the facts of modern romance, what is my advice to hopeless romantics?
Well, my best advice is to read The Mustard Seed.In my book, the main character, Brian Raines, finds true love with a young woman.In their relationship, Brian and Heather convey the principles of Spiritual Rationalism: Reason.Faith.And love.The love that Brian and Heather share – and the relationship they’ve created through that love - is a wonderful model for us all.
For those who aren’t currently in a relationship, you might be wondering: How can the principles of Spiritual Rationalism apply to my dating life?Well, S.R. advances a philosophy of personal integrity (“Be good and be smart”).So a Spiritual Rationalist would have no interest in expending time and energy for casual sex.A Spiritual Rationalist would never judge the suitability of a mate by their physical appearances (except in some very rare instances which I won’t elaborate on here).A Spiritual Rationalist would never lie, deceive, or cheat other people in order to appear more “desirable” to the opposite sex.A Spiritual Rationalist would never pursue a woman – any woman - who valued lying, deception, or superficiality in their partner.A woman who loves the “bad boy” is of no use to him.A Spiritual Rationalist would seek a woman who scorned all of the “bad boy” behaviors, and prized reason, faith, and especially love.
Can a Spiritual Rationalist go out of his way to meet women?Of course.After all, it’s hard to meet good women by accident!So, yes, he can go out to bars, churches, Internet websites, anywhere, really.But in the process of meeting women, he should never sacrifice his integrity (his “beingness”).As Brian Raines learned, there is no use in pretending to be someone you’re not.At every stage of the courtship, he should think rationally while permitting himself – one step at a time – one earned step at a time - to love his girlfriend unconditionally.A woman should love a man for who he is, and vice versa.Every person should seek a partner who complements their “sense of life,” stirs their very soul, and elevates their happiness to a level that would be unimaginable without them.
Love is a beautiful thing.Someone should tell Roissy.
If a person accepts Darwinism, and also accepts Roissy’s assertion that the best (indeed, the only) way to enjoy the company of women is through “Game,” isn't it logical to ask, “What’s the point?” Why should I expend so much time and effort for the chance - just the chance - of sex with women I don't even like? No sexual pleasure can fill the void that such an meaningless existence creates? Even in my Reductionist days, I would never read Roissy’s essays and think to myself: “Cool! I want to be a part of that!”Rather, I would ask, “What’s the point?”And I mean seriously, “What. Is. The. Point?”
Ultimately, this is why “Game” is really a bridge to nihilism.
Fr. Seraphim Rose delineated four stages of Nihilism, defined by their ever-increasing indifference or hostility to truth. The first and mildest stage of Nihilism is Liberalism. The Liberal does not believe in truth, higher truth, absolute truth, or Christian truth. Yet he retains "the name of truth, and the names of those truths men once regarded as absolute." The next stage of Nihilism is Realism. The Realist aggressively denies all higher truth, he says that only the material, the physical, the lower, the purely deterministic, is true. The Vitalist in turn reacts against the unbearably sterile world that has been created by the Liberal and the Realist. He seeks a revived meaning and vitality in life, but without challenging the Liberal's and Realist's assumptions about truth or seeking a restoration of the truths they have destroyed. On the contrary, since the truth offered by Liberalism is so weak and vague, and the truth offered by Realism is so deadening and depressing, the Vitalist rejects the very idea of truth:
"The falseness of an opinion," said Nietzsche, "is not for us any objection to it.... The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving ..." When such pragmatism begins, Nihilism passes into the Vitalist stage, which may be defined as the elimination of truth as the criterion of human action, and the substitution of a new standard: the "life-giving," the "vital"; it is the final divorce of life from truth. [Nihilism, p. 50].
In the Vitalist stage of society, people deliver themselves over to an unending search for sensation and excitement, for the exotic and the experimental, for ever-greater freedom and satisfaction of desires, for the "riches of diversity," for the transforming "energy" that is produced by a society in constant change and motion--and with all these things being seen as, even explicitly promoted as, a substitute for any inherent truth and goodness in existence.
As Vitalism reaches its peak, the final stage of Nihilism starts to appear. This is the Nihilism of Destruction, "a rage against creation and against civilization that will not be appeased until it has reduced them to absolute nothingness."
Yep, Roissy is a nihilist in training. Indeed, he is a living, breathing version of Troy Dawkins, one of the main characters in my book. I wonder what Roissy’s parents think of their son? Indeed, I wonder – deep down inside – what Roissy thinks of himself.
Cracks in male/female relationships began when men and women started interacting outside of marriage. As many of the commentators have noted, anonymous urban living, contraceptives, the breakdown of social shaming, etc., has allowed women to pursue men in bars and clubs without the worry of rumors and unwanted pregnancies spoiling reputations. This brought in the first problem threatening men: the system of like marries like breaks down. Just like men, women cannot marry above their station. Unlike men, however, women can easily date and sleep with men above their station. This means that a woman who is a 5 or 6 can sleep with a man who is a 7, 8 or a 9. Consequently, the vast bulk of men face the problem that their female equivalents do not want them, simply because the women can do better. In a sense, the women are right...up to the point of marriage. That is why women are racking up such huge body counts [...]
The vast majority of women have entered a tournament where they are leveraging their prime years trying to snag a man that is either too attractive or too successful, or both, for them. When they fail and inevitably reach north of 30 without a husband, they then scramble around and marry a man they would've ignored before. Unfortunately, a woman with a history of dozens of sex partners all more attractive than her current husband is not fit for any long-term relationship. Divorce is inevitable. This is probably why women are surveying as very dissatisfied.
Larger social consequences loom, of which demographics is the least worrisome. Wives and children are the glue that holds society together. It makes men invested in the society around them. What happens when you have armies of unattached men with no investment in society? You have men who will not care what happens to that society or the women in it.
The concept of the equality of the sexes plays havoc with this arrangement. While men are no longer publicly acknowledged as superior to women, women still have to view them as superior in some way if they are to be sexually attracted to them. In the early days of sexual equality, when women had not yet become financially independent, there was still the man's earning power to establish the requisite perception of virility. But nowadays even that's gone, so the only kind of male power that remains to attract women is of the base, animal kind--on the physical side, brute strength, or on the non-physical side, selfishness, arrogance and social domination.
But those who qualify as "alphas" by this measure are not necessarily the same as the alphas of times past. This is because now almost all male children are indoctrinated from birth with a feminist-inspired view of sexual relations--an indoctrination designed to suppress and eradicate any masculine behavior and attitudes among boys. The only boys who survive this mis-education with any masculinity intact are precisely the most recalcitrant and intractable--the hyper-masculine, the anti-social, the borderline criminal (and criminal). Behold the new, mutant alphas. Just as over-reliance on antibiotics and overuse of antisepsis in hospitals has given rise to heretofore unknown strains of drug-resistant superbugs, so too feminist efforts to engineer a new, feminized man have resulted in a new breed of hyper-cads.
Mr. Auster elaborates approvingly…
When you eliminate distinctions between different and complementary parts of the whole, such as men and women, each respective part no longer needs the other for its own completion as it formerly did. Previously, the parts related to each other as parts of the same whole...but once the distinctions between the parts have been eliminated, the whole to which they belonged…the male and female, have no transcendent meaning to each other any longer. All that's left to attract them to each other is their body… The love, sympathy, and friendship that used to prevail between men and women is changed to jungle combat.
And all of this is the result of feminism and sexual liberation.
"Mancession" has been used to describe the current economic reality in which men have lost work at a far greater rate then women. (See for example the NYT Economix blog for a discussion.) Male unemployment in July ran at 10.5%, and the corresponding figure for women was 8.1%. Women are close to becoming a majority of the employed.
The NYT makes the point that women are overrepresented in jobs that are more recession-resistant, such as health care and education. I would add government jobs, and that these three categories, government, health care, and education, are precisely those that will be increasing over the coming years. Manufacturing jobs, a traditional male bastion, look like they're in terminal decline.
One theme that came up in recent discussion was the unsubstantial nature of many women's jobs. Commenter Davout made this case:
The notion that women have their own income is facially true but a fallacy for most employed women upon analysis. Men's tax money, foreign loans etc. subsidize a majority of female incomes.
If one (a) reduces the size of government by eliminating useless bureaucracies and (b) eradicates relevant affirmative action programs, female employment will fall dramatically because the government job positions previously held by women would be exposed as redundant [...]
While this may be true, does anyone expect it to happen anytime soon?...Since I maintain that women's economic independence has been a crucial factor in causing the current sexual dystopia and social decay, [and] because of the mancession and the trends it reveals, none of this will be changing.
So long as we as a society remain wealthy, so long as crisis doesn't arrive, women won't change. Marriage and family are dying. But that itself may bring on the crisis that will change everything.
**UPDATE, AUG. 21, 2009**
To continue the dialogue, last night, I sent Lawrence Auster the following email...
As a young man (29), I wanted to tell you about some of my first-hand experiences with women of my generation (in contrast to the women of your era). First, let me say that while I don't like the terms "alpha male" and "beta male" any more than you do (I'd rather just call myself a "man," period), I'll play along with the game and identify myself as a "beta male." And by that I mean that I have no discernible superiority in the traditional masculine traits of physical strength, attractiveness, or charisma. What I lack in these traits are offset (I hope) through my intelligence, creativity, and character. In any case, what are the dating prospects of a "beta male" such as myself? Well, let me put it this way: Throughout my teenage years and young adulthood, I have been privileged to know many "good men"--men who--by any sane standard--would be considered excellent husbands. Unfortunately, I can't give the same compliment to the opposite sex. I have known very few "good women" in my lifetime. Today, most young women are a strange hybrid of men and women. They lack the feminine qualities that men have always appreciated (and continue to appreciate, even if we won't admit it). Meanwhile, women are adopting some of the worst vices of our sex (excessive drinking, casual sexual activity, ruthless careerism, etc.). Fortunately, when it comes to those few women who over the years I have come to like in a romantic sense, I've had some good success. Indeed, I'm currently engaged. But I'm lucky. Most men aren't. Therein lies the problem.
Let me give you an example of today's twenty-something "lady." About five years ago (I was 24 at the time), I met a friend of mine for dinner. He brought along his new girlfriend--a petite recent college grad--pretty in an unaffecting way--and quite shy--dare I say, almost timid. Also, she was smart. She worked for the government. In any case, the three of us had a nice evening together, and I left the restaurant thinking: "What a nice girl. She and [my friend] have a bright future together."
Boy was I wrong, Lawrence. Later on, I learned the truth of how my friend and his girlfriend met: They met at a party. And that very same night, they had sex together in the bathroom. After that, they went on a few dates. And then their relationship ended.
Sad, isn't it? And to think: Those are the respectable (!) women!
We are in trouble, my friend. Once these women (and men) advance through society and gain power, we in for a rough time, indeed. The level of their moral corruption should not be underestimated.
Mr. Auster replied:
Very interesting and disturbing (I realize I'm overusing that word lately).
I responded:
Yes, I agree. It is quite disturbing. By the way, it sounds as if you've read (or at least are familiar with) Tom Wolfe's I am Charlotte Simmons. I've read it too. The book came out in 2004. I graduated from college in 2001, so I feel comfortable standing as a witness" for the "truth" of Mr. Wolfe's book--and let me say it is true. Or at least 90 percent true. Charlotte Simmons accurately describes the dating scene at today's colleges and universities, which--needless to say--is appalling. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the college dating scene doesn't end in college; it continues far beyond. The behavior of today's college women isn't a "phase;" it becomes their very essence. I'm 29 years old, and I'm still waiting for the women of my generation to grow up. Having said all that, I don't want to beat up too much on the fairer sex. I love women. At least real women. And I'm sure many modern gals could spin a tale about how it is really men who are the ones who have debased contemporary romance. Fine. Point taken. But it seems to me--after giving this issue a lot of thought over the last few days--that it really women, not men, who are the heart of the problem, and thus, at the heart of the solution. It is the behavior of women, not men, that has changed most drastically in the past half-century, starting with the Sexual Revolution in the '60s, and accelerating with another, albeit quieter, Revolution in the '90s). Therefore, our best chance for America's renewal rests in the hands of women. I'm not terribly optimistic. And since we know that a person's sexual values is a leading indicator of his or her future behavior, I am not terribly confident about my generation's ability to lead America or Western civilization. The best we can hope for from Generation Y (which voted for Obama 66 percent to 32 percent) is that they will keep the fort running for a few more decades until a culture of reason and morality has a chance to bloom once again.
This is incredible. Yesterday morning, I posted this article with a photo of the cast of Megan Wants A Millionaire. This is a Reality TV show starring Megan Hauserman as the object of attention for 17 millionaire men (think The Bachelor). These men, needless to say, are precisely the "aplha males" that are at the center of the tempest about modern relationships that is currently consuming the blogosphere.
So imagine my surprise (what a conicidence!) when my fiance told me last night (a few hours after I posted the photo) that one of the contestants on the show was wanted for murder (!) of his wife (yes, wife!).
