Some of these statements are ridiculously obvious, but given the reductive assumptions counter argument has already popped up I'm just going to try to cover it all:
* What's good for an individual and what's good for society are not the same thing. Social contract is restrictive and onerous and that's the entire point of it.
* Women decide whether sex occurs or not. Circumstances shape everyone's willingness to pursue the choices open to them.
* Female mate selection isn't an average distribution (http://archive.fo/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e). Men do not favour a minority of women.
If you have an even number of men and women, then given the above virtually all women that want sex are getting it, many men that want sex are not getting it.
* Sex is a pacifying agent. It is the strongest incentive we have. Society understands and exploits that. All societies do.
* Monogamy and marriage are artificial social constructs designed specifically to place limits on our biological imperatives. Humans are primates, and primates are not monogamous.
* If sex was the only thing that mattered in relationships, and was neutral on social status in society, then men paying for prostitutes would be a non-issue. Unsurprisingly, men that have to pay a woman just to touch them tend to have different attitudes to both women and society thanks to being cut out of the social contract.
* The payment of the social contract (for men) is sex *and* reproduction, the requirement is utility. Without payment, men have no incentive (beyond self interest) to provide their utility to anyone but themselves. Good luck trying to wring 60 solid years of slavish labour from a man that has checked out of the race and just wants to play xbox. We don't have robots for everything yet, so labour still matters.
Even today, post suffrage, post Pill, post radical feminism, with women increasingly chained to the millstone as men have been, the social contract for men and women is not even remotely equivalent.
Up until the present the labour of one sex was the payment for the other. That equation has shifted, and it is still moving. Perhaps my concerns regarding antisocial effects are premature given that these things play out on historical time scales and we're right in the middle of it and lack the perspective. I can't answer that question. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the discussion we are, either way.
* The day that a team of women come to fix a burst sewer main at 3am is the day that I value their non-natal contributions equally to men's. Women aren't useless but let's not pretend they have equivalent utility to men. They don't, and women's lifetime negative tax contributions are evidence of that.
* The CDC has data on promiscuity and pair bonding (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf). I can find no data that indicates neutral or positive effects for promiscuity.
* I've yet to meet a single woman that is happy with *settling* for a meal ticket she thinks she's better than. I know an increasing number of men that aren't interested in shacking up with a woman with 300 notches on her bedpost. Nobody wants to be stuck with something that's beneath their expectations (realistic or otherwise).
* As for apex men having a limited ability to mate, simply search for pictures of Leonardo DiCaprio on beaches with models. He's coming up on 30 years of dozens of models a week (although he does share them with his friends, so that's nice of him).
* Depending on the jurisdiction, paternity testing can be illegal or ignored by the courts. However, it isn't ignored by biology, as amply demonstrated by the Cinderella effect. Also, good luck trying to sue a woman for paternity fraud - that's never going to happen.
* Swinging is a fringe adaptation to the death of marriage and monogamy. It's an attempt to bring stability and certainty to an environment without fidelity. As far as I've seen it takes all the drama of ordinary relationships and makes it even worse. I'm sure that someone has made it work, I've just never met them. Sex and reproduction aren't synonyms, not in general and not in swinging. Unless things have changed radically it's still a faux pas to knock someone else's wife up, swinger or not.
* Harem behaviour is voluntary in the West. The harem is like a pie, and just as with any pie, a smaller slice of a giant world class pie is better than the whole pie from the dollar store. It's a logical choice, but it has consequences like any choice does.
Historically, harem behaviour is complicated. Sexually dimorphic behaviour is paired. Harem behaviours from women wouldn't work if men weren't receptive to them. Historically, harem behaviour increases male disposability and violence. Either the surplus males attack the society (which is arguably what's going on in the West, greatly nullified by our bread and circuses) or they attack other societies to kill their men and gain access to the women (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.).
The lack of economic opportunity for women and their offspring is always nothing compared to what happens to men in the same environments. Even in the worst of situations, women can fuck their way to survival. Men just get butchered. Wombs are valuable, semen not so much.
* Polygamy in strict religious contexts breeds many of the issues I'm talking about (there's a good reason these societies are primitive). Islamic polygamy is dependent on male attrition by violence. Amish polygamy is dependent on expelling adolescent males from the community. What these examples don't suffer from is the birth rate crash of the West. Women are in a role where they are expected to stay in the home and reproduce, and they do. Israel is the only Western country on the planet with a positive replacement rate thanks to their large Ultra Orthodox community. If you curtail women's choices, they will marry and reproduce without objection (as evidenced by plenty of these communities being in the middle of Western countries. Any woman can walk straight out the door, onto welfare, and into a life of promiscuity and freedoms whenever she likes).
Female centric polygamy is just a subset of Western polygamy which is itself a subset of promiscuity. There's little of value there when it comes to creating a prosocial structure to replace monogamy and marriage. Even if it did help, I seriously doubt that would map to enough of society to be workable.
Polygamy is a crappy answer in a society with an equal number of men and women. Our evolutionary heritage and biological imperatives will never match what is required by our society. Nature's long standing solution to this problem is to kill lots of men. I think that's not a great solution, but I can't argue with the efficacy of it.
* My argument relies on a tipping point at which aggregated consequences of decisions made by individuals have synergistic negative effects on the entirety of society. That's true of many choices by many groups, when lots of people do the same thing then the consequences pile up.
* Given I *specifically* cautioned against people raising their own 'solutions' as objections and specifically state against any course of action, I'm wondering how to go about disentangling what I actually want to discuss from people disgorging their psyches in front of me. There's a ton of super interesting stuff that comes up every time and countless tangents, but unless I want to write an essay in reply to every comment I'm going to have to figure out how to pull back hard. I'm not sure how to go about that.
This turned out to be every bit as disordered as I feared.
comment by pjeby
· score: 10 (5 votes) · LW
So, your response to my questioning your premises is to propose more premises?
Men do not favour a minority of women
What? Of course they do. I'm a man, I would think I would know if I favored the majority of women. I don't. Similarly, you state that "men" require reproductive opportunity. I don't. I don't want children.
So I'm a trivial counterargument on both counts.
These seem to me like trivial refutations of large portions of your ideas about men, without even getting to such notions as "what social contract?" "Who made this contract with whom?" Or, for example:
Good luck trying to wring 60 solid years of slavish labour from a man that has checked out of the race and just wants to play xbox.
My response to that is, why on earth would I want to? I'm similarly baffled as to what value you see in the constructs you see as decaying. Many of them seem like things I'm more than happy to see us rid of. For example:
birth rate crash of the West
I'm not sure why I should see fewer people existing as a problem. Perhaps the people that do exist will be ones who feel wanted, rather than that they are being born into a society that expects them to do things they don't want in order to preserve a society full of people doing things they don't want to preserve a society full of... endlessly recursive suffering. If that is what children have to look forward to, then it's better they not be born in the first place. (Which is one of the reasons I'm not interested in having children.)
Another random point:
search for pictures of Leonardo DiCaprio on beaches with models. He's coming up on 30 years of dozens of models a week (although he does share them with his friends, so that's nice of him).
Does he have a collection that he keeps locked away in a harem? If not, he's not stopping them from pursuing "reproductive opportunities" with other men. Lots of women might enjoy a weekend with Lenny D, but a lot fewer actually want to stick around and have kids with him. Plus, that's what, 18000 women? There are still four billion left. There could be a thousand Leo DiCaprios not sharing any of those women and that's still only like one major city populated by women you no longer want to sleep with because apparently sleeping with more than one guy is (somehow?) a problem in some way I don't understand... and then there's still billions left.
And another thing:
virtually all women that want sex are getting it
On behalf of virtually every woman I have ever known... bwahahahahahahaha. Ha. No. No, no, no, no.
This is obviously, trivially false, as can be shown by observing the billion-dollar industries known as "romance novels" and "vibrators". (Let alone "Fifty Shades"... and for the two previous generations' versions, "Nine and a Half Weeks" and "Story of O".)
See also the research showing the main reason women are less likely to respond to random propositions than men do, is because they have a lower prior expectation for a randomly-selected man being a good lover. That is, they expect that on average, sex with a guy is a crapshoot with regard to the quality of the experience, such that they're better off going home to curl up with a good book and a vibrator.
(Which is one reason that a guy who is discovered to be even halfway decent in bed will sometimes get passed around a woman's circle of friends like a party favor... regardless of what the guy looks like on their OKCupid. The fact that people judge books by their covers should not be construed as them not caring about the contents, in situations where the cover is the only thing available to them to judge by!)
Anyway, none of these things are at all consistent with the idea that "virtually all women that want sex are getting it".
many men that want sex are not getting it
And? So? We live in a world where you can jack it to almost anything you can imagine... for free! Or you can pay a cam girl to act it out for you, or even hire an actual live person to do something for you.
So if what you are calling "sex" is not one of those things, it's not actually sex that's being sought, but something else that you can't actually buy... like love, or appreciation, or respect. (Which making more sex available will not give you, if it's from someone who resents you for making them, or who sees you as an obligation.)
Honestly, this whole thing sounds to me like, "women should want to have sex with me because social contract, blah blah". And my response is, why should they want to? If you're making a contribution to society, surely you have something you can contribute to them, personally, that they value? Arguing that another market participant should value something different than what they actually value, is not very good marketing, so it's not surprising your product isn't selling in that case.
I mean, as far as I can tell, 99% of this is "women want the wrong things, in my opinion, and should want things that benefit me", and/or "society should be restructured to force women to want the things that benefit me", with most of the rest being chaff and smokescreens for that fundamental point of view.
But if the person reading your arguments doesn't have the same value system as you, none of that is meaningful. All I can hear is "people should be made to want the things I do, or at least forced to do them whether they want to or not", which to me doesn't distinguish between you and J Random Fundamentalist of whatever religion.
the labour of one sex was the payment for the other
See, this is what continues to baffle me. If what you want is ownership of a sex partner, you can have that consensually, too, in this day and age. There exist plenty of women who want this arrangement just because it's their fetish, too, let alone the vast number of women who still live in cultures where that's just the done thing (if that's the sort of dubcon that gets you off). So if that's what you want, why not just go get it, instead of insisting that everyone must do it that way, or else? If that's what floats your boat to the tune of 60 years of backbreaking work or whatever, hey, go for it.
But that doesn't mean everybody else wants to live in a world that revolves around ownership fetishes.
I can't help but feel there's some kind of fundamental thing I don't "get" about people with this type of "men don't get enough sex" argument. The weird thing about it to me, is that it seems like an example of the same sort of argument that radical feminists make, i.e. "the other sex isn't doing it right, so let's make them".
Not, "how can we give them what they want to get what we want", but "how can we make them see how wrong they are to not value the same things?"
I really don't get it, especially since I apparently don't value the same things as either group of "the other sex is doing it wrong" people.
Given I specifically cautioned against people raising their own 'solutions' as objections
I don't understand. Where have I proposed a "solution" to your stated problem? I don't believe the problem you stated actually exists to begin with (or at least is not being stated coherently), so I don't understand how I have raised a solution as an objection.
Women aren't useless but let's not pretend they have equivalent utility to men.
Ok, this is just weird to me. Apparently, it's super important that women have children (because men want that), and men dying is bad. But when women take the risk of dying (by getting pregnant), this is not as important or valuable to society?
By your own arguments this makes no fucking sense. If the guy's prize for working is "me get woman", then how is the woman in that equation not of equivalent utility to the man her (literal) labor births, cares for, and raises to the point he can work, not to mention the part where, if she is also payment for his work, then her mere existence must be at least of equivalent worth, within your own framework!
So if, in today's society, the woman does all the same stuff she'd have done in a patriarchal society, and also makes some direct contributions in a job, isn't that a net gain for "society"?
(TBH, I don't even grok "society" as a coherent entity. Small towns can have a "society", churches can, and other small cultural groups. But "society" as a unified entity in the US started collapsing at least as of the advent of cable TV and the death of prime time, let alone the birth of the internet. The world is much more transactional now: more a marketplace than a society as such. If you were going to stop this trend, you would have needed to start by preventing the death of the "company man" with the collapse of pensions and lifelong expectation of employment, that started a few decades ago and birthed the "free agent" economy that has replaced the previous "society" now in all matters, not just those of employment.)
comment by Stuart Anderson (stuart-anderson)
· score: 6 (4 votes) · LW
My response is an attempt to provide answers to a complex subject, where the tendency of participants is to act as if their own catastrophising of ALL WOMEN or NO WOMEN scenarios are something that has actually been voiced and supported by me. This easily turns a discussion into a death by a thousand cuts where every tiny little statement is attacked (potentially disingenuously) from every single angle possible.
Let me give you an example:
> Men do not favour a minority of women
Then you say:
> What? Of course they do. I'm a man, I would think I would know if I favored the majority of women. I don't. Similarly, you state that "men" require reproductive opportunity. I don't. I don't want children. So I'm a trivial counterargument on both counts.
Straight up you make a false conflation between the individual and the class (I don't as a part of the class, therefore nobody/not enough in the class do to matter).
I cite the OKCupid data that specifically supports my statement here. I am saying men, as a class, do not favour a minority of women.
I do not state that men require reproductive opportunity *anywhere*.
I can't respond to a false conflation other than to point it out, I can only give you the citations I cannot force you to read them, and I absolutely cannot be expected to defend statements I didn't make and don't believe.
I am more than happy to respond to any point you wish clarified, and/or to discuss any matter in relation to this topic, but it's pretty clear that if we can't make it six sentences without two showstopper errors my usual *word vomit* format isn't going to work here.
If you still want to talk, pick the single most important element and be as reductive as possible. You are going to object to *everything* I have to say, so keeping a very narrow focus is the only way this is going to work.
comment by pjeby
· score: 3 (4 votes) · LW
Since your reply to my bringing up problems is to bring up more stuff that has problems, while not addressing most of the problems I previously raised, I don't see how a conversation can meaningfully proceed from here, without it feeling like a Gish Gallop. For example:
I cite the OKCupid data that specifically supports my statement here. I am saying men, as a class, do not favour a minority of women.
I read the article you linked, and it says that 2 out of 3 messages sent by men are to the women in the top 1/3 of attractiveness, while on the other hand, women rate 80% of men as below-average attractiveness... and then message most of them anyway.
This sounds to me like it 100% contradicts your statements about men and women's mating preferences.
If the very data you cite literally contradicts the premises you're citing it to support, I don't see how to have a sane conversation about this, given that you don't even remotely touch on the majority of my objections. Also, the part where we have thoroughly different value systems means that there's a ton of difference in what's considered even relevant, so a meaningful discussion is probably not possible.