29 January 2012

Sexual Catastrophe


A couple of years ago, I read the great game debate over @ View from the Right. While doing so, I found an insightful post by Ian B., who renders his opinions & observations about what caused our dating wasteland, and what we can do about it. This is some of the best stuff I've read thus far...


Ian B. wrote:

I thought I'd throw my own two cents into the whole debate over Roissyism and the socio-sexual disaster, and offer my diagnosis of the problem and how to solve it.

The Roissyites, and Mark P. [see Mark's explication], do share one profound insight: the ones who are most proximately to blame for the social chaos are women, not men. While men do the wooing, it is women who make the choice to accept a relationship.

Typically, when a woman throws herself at some "alpha male" and gets burned, society places all the blame on the guy for being such a callous, uncaring cad as to sleep with a poor innocent woman and not commit to her. But who is he supposed to commit to? Her, or one of the several other idiot women throwing themselves into his path?

And consider this: For every stupid woman throwing herself at the same jerk that several other women are throwing themselves at, there's a guy who is probably responsible and quite willing commit, but who is being ignored by the tramp. So who is really being more callous, the "alpha male" being enabled by the women, or the vain, selfish women ignoring the decent guys? The problem here is not the existence of a few cads (a few cads, unfortunately, have always and will always be with us), but rather the behavior of women towards them.

So, I've just said who I think is at proximate moral fault for this mess (the women), but I haven't said what the root cause of it is. That is, what changed that allowed this mess to happen? These are two different things. For instance, imagine a town in which all the policemen pack up and leave one day. Subsequently, the town falls into a morass of violent crime. The ones to blame for the crimes are the criminals, but the root cause of the mess is the cops leaving. The solution is not to hope that the criminals will suddenly start behaving responsibly, but rather for the cops to come back.

With that distinction out of the way, let me say that the cause of the disaster is that the cops, by which I mean the majority of masculine men, have left town, and this was caused by the acceptance of feminism.

You may have noticed a common thread in these discussions. The term "alpha male" is used interchangeably to refer to both worthless, no-count cads, and to the men that women find most attractive. The term "beta male," on the other hand, is used interchangeably to refer to both the responsible men, the builders of society, and to the men that women find less attractive.

This might seem strange. There is no necessary logical link between these things. In fact, you might tend to assume that the responsible builders would be stronger, more authoritative, and hence more attractive in general. However, there is a contingent link between these two things within current society.

The problem is that because of feminism, men have been taught for decades that they ought to be sweet, sensitive doormats, attentive and deferential to women's needs, seeing women as goddesses on high pedestals. This message has been preached by the schools, in the media, and even by their families. Unfortunately, this is precisely what turns women off. Regardless of what they think or say they want, most women are actually attracted to (and happiest with) a strong, independent, assertive man who will dominate and lead them.

And since this is what is taught everywhere, only the sociopaths and renegades--that is to say, the unteachable cads who scorn the wisdom of everyone else--manage to avoid absorbing this lesson, and hence end up being the most attractive to women. The potentially responsible leader types are instead conditioned into being feminized squishes by the time they reach adulthood, and so end up being "beta males."

So, here's my two step solution:

1) First of all, men need to be taught to be strong and independent again, from an early age. They need to be taught that women are attracted to assertive, dominating guys rather than suckups. They also need to be taught to see women for what they are: fallen and flawed humans, possessing merits, but also emotional and emotionally manipulative, to be led, and not shining goddesses of wonder to be appeased. This would at least put these men on an even playing field with the cads and the Roissyites, in terms of attracting women, which is half the battle.

Of course, the idea that we should just start teaching men differently is easier said than done. There is one place where it is possible, however: Within the conservative Christian community. There is Biblical precedent for men as leaders, and the conservative Christian community has shown itself surprisingly capable of coming alive and quickly embracing a new movement when it is clear that Scripture is on the movement's side. Witness their rapid mobilization with slavery and abortion, for instance.

What about the secular "beta" males? Well, there's really no hope for them. But really, it's no big loss. There's really nobody more pathetic and shameful than a person who both rejects Christianity and gets immersed in and emasculated by feminist dogma. Like the contraceptive-using cads, Roissyites, and slutty women, they will die childless and alone, and be outbred by the Christians even more than they already are.

2) These newly-minted masculine men need to start engaging in shaming, to establish societal order again. Right now, when a woman gets burned going after a bad boy, most sweet, sensitive "beta" males sympathize with the poor besotted woman, and blame the heartless jerk who did it to her, hoping that they can get her affection with their sensitivity. It doesn't occur to them that while she was throwing herself after the jerk and being subsequently left high and dry by him, other men were being left high and dry by her.

A man who has been trained to see women for what they are will recognize and shame the primary guilty party: the woman. Rather that join her in her pity party, he will blame her.

Honestly, step (2) isn't really a separate step, and should come automatically with step (1). The shaming doesn't even have to be overt. It simply has to take the form of attractive men rejecting women for being sluts.

Women already insult each other all the time for being whores, but that doesn't really bother them. What really shames a woman, what really frightens her deeply enough to modify her behavior, is the prospect of being rejected and found unattractive by desirable men.

If women think that being slutty will make them generally less attractive to desirable men, they will be shamed into not being slutty. And if there are a good number of desirable men out there that happen to be Christians, this should start to take care of itself.


That's some of the best analysis as to what caused our dating & mating wasteland; not only that, Ian B. offers some suggestions too. Have a good night now...



Carnivore said...

Yes, that is excellent. Totlaly agree - men are not being taught how to lead in their relationships with women.

Zorro said...

Extremely insightful and accurate analysis by Ian, with the sole exception being his condemnation of men who reject Christianity. That is wholly unrelated to this mess, and is a distraction from the core.

Men Are Not Abusers said...


I wholly disagree with your assertion that a rejection of Christianity is "wholly unrelated to this mess". This, of course, doesn't mean I think it's wholly related, just that I think it's foolish to reject the anti-evil methodology that true Christianity represents when society is systematically being subsumed by evil.

Personally, I don't think Christianity alone holds the key to rectifying the twin problems of rampant feminism and cultural misandry, as Christianity doesn't define the global culture, but in the absence of a more well-defined strategy against evil it behoves the skeptic to at least consider its mechanisms.

Zorro said...

@Men Are Not Abusers:


Dulantha said...

Sexual life styles are too complicated today. Men must be careful when they are having relationships with women. There are lot of women who are not suitable for sex too.

Burton said...

Most civilizations have understood that women (at least most of them) are too irrational to be allowed access to the levers of power. And also that if female sexuality were not restrained, females would breed irresponsibly with a small number of males.

And we can see what has happened over the last half century with feminism becoming a national ideology: the destruction of the family; the decline of infrastructure; the leviathan national debt; the end of manned space exploration; politics degenerating into popularity contests; the inability to control the frontiers from mass illegal immigration.

All of these are symptoms of a civilization in decline, and much can be attributed directly to females, or feminized men (the ones Roissy et alia terms "Betas," those this is not quite the correct terminology).

Central to this decline is that women choose to breed with a small number of "alpha" males (or breed with the most irrational mates). The result is growing numbers of "betas" who have been excluded from marriage, and now have no stake in society since they have no family nor children. But it is those "betas" who used to be the yeomen farmers and citizen soldiers who ensured the fields were tilled and the frontiers defended.

As I say, time to stockpile MREs, ammo and generator fuel, for in the coming darks ages, he who does so shall be king. Or at least high up on the warlord pyramid.

PC Geek said...



The amazingly well-reasoned rebuttal to Men Are Not Abuser's point leaves me in total awe...

There is a reason that there is very strong correlation between the rejection of traditional Christian morality and an embrace of feminism - the connection is very powerful and these two phenomena happened concurrently.

Christianity is very closely related to this mess...how can you claim that the Patriarchal, anti-feminist religion that used to dominate in the west, and now no longer does, is irrelevant?

The liberal, overwhelmingly secular feminists are very much part of the overall suppression of religion in this country, and for a good reason - they explicitly recognize how dangerous traditional religion and its' concomitant traditional roles and values is for their movement.

PC Geek said...

Quick edit to my previous post:

I meant to write "*rejection* of Christianity is very closely related to this current mess that we are in."