[Quintus Curtius]

All right...here's what I think I know:

1. Some guys want to be fathers and find that their life purpose.

2. Some guys do not. It's not for everyone. Some men find their creative impulses better satisfied by being artists, writers, warriors, scholars, etc. Procreation is not the sole determinant of a man's worth. Even cockroaches can reproduce.

If I wanted to, I could have a child fairly quickly. But some men have a different mission in life. Productive artistic endeavors take backbreaking labor in a way that family men (and even most single men) can never understand. And the opposite is true, too.

3. So we should each respect the other. Every man contributes in his own way to society. Neither man--the married man or the single man--should denigrate the contributions of the other.

4. You're never going to know exactly what to do at all times. At some point, you have to pick a road and go down it. This is the essence of Rolling the Iron Dice. This is what men do.

5. No matter what you do, you will have pros and cons. As Diogenes said, when someone asked him if he should get married or stay single, "You will regret either decision." It sounds like a comedy line, but it is 100% true.

6. All things being equal, it's better to have taken chances and lost, than to never do anything. I was married once and it didn't work out. It was only for 2 years. But I don't regret it at all. I think I learned a lot from it. And under the right circumstances, I would get married again.

7. Keep a sense of humor. This is the tonic that cures everything. We obsess about all this bullshit, but at the end of the day, you'll probably die of something else totally unrelated to being single or being married. Worry does no good.

8. It is not an "all-or-nothing" world. I meet with the general public all day long in my job. There are people in their 60s, 70s and 80s who still are working. They are also cohabiting with others. The old rules of society have been loosened a lot.

9. We all die alone. All of us. You can slice and dice it all you want, but this fact is unchanged.

If you want to have kids, have them. If you don't want to have them, don't have them. It's all up to you. Sometimes the decision is made for you (lots of guys don't like to admit this) when pregnancies are accidental. But if you think having kids is going to protect you in your old age, think again. I meet all the time with older men and women in their 70s and 80s who are alone, or who have kids who don't care about them.

10. Marry only if you want children. If you don't want children, consider cohabiting.

11. Make sure your wife wants to be a mother. Make sure she has good wifely qualities.

12. Have children only if YOU want to have them. It should be your decision, not a collective decision. Why? Because you will be the one paying for them.

13. Society has changed a lot in the past 30 years. Don't allow other people to shame you, denigrate you, or belittle you. If you don't want to do something, don't do it.

[worldwidetraveler]

My only advice to the young guys is to not do something out of fear.

Don't have kids because you worry about your genetic legacy.
Don't have kids because you are scared you will be alone.
Don't have kids because you wake up in cold sweats with thoughts of being some old dude that doesn't have anyone to change your adult diapers.

Have kids because you want kids.

We already have enough bad parenting in this world. The guys in the article may be doing the rest of society a favor by getting snipped. Chances are good that they would end up being lousy fathers.

We don't need more narcassistic kids with daddy/mommy issues.

Same goes for marriage. I wouldn't even think about marriage until you find a woman that is worthy of marriage.

I see many guys talking about partying until 30's and then settling down and having 2.5 kids. I remember when I was a younger dude and had all these plans. My life ended up quite a bit different to what I imagined. I can't imagine being happier than I am right now. In fact, I would say I would be pretty damn miserable if I got what I imagined as a young lad.

Life doesn't care about your plans. The sooner you realize it the happier you will be.

[Dan Woolf]

(06-02-2017 10:56 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

At the end of the day, all this anti-aging shit will probably never rival the power of youth.

I'm trying my hardest but I just can't wrap my head around this sentence. You are saying that if a 50 year old man goes through a treatment in which everything about his body is rejuvenated so that he's physically 23 years old, that won't still rival "the power of youth" even though he has his youth back in every possible way apart from his experiences? Are you talking about that - being physically young but mentally old? "I could climb Mt. Everest or go pickup some 18 year old cheerleader but nah, been there, done that"?

And when it comes to anti-aging tech, could you guys please stop bringing up testosterone, HGH, implants, pumps, creams and surgeries. It's very confusing and misleading.

By the way, we have flying cars. They just aren't practical so that's why they weren't adopted.

Ps. I'm not looking to settle down ever, at least not in the way it's talked about on this forum. Lifetime monogamy is dead, just like lifetime employment is dead. People just haven't accepted the former, yet.

[SlickyBoy]

(06-02-2017 05:00 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

Which also brings me to the next point: most people get married with the wrong girl. And most people marry when they have no business to be in a marriage. The 1000 cock stare applies to men too. You think Mystery would be a great dad? Or any guy on this forum who has boned 100+ girls would be a great dad, when at the first sight of trouble their first response is "next"?

I disagree at this equalist premise and am surprised nobody else called this recitation of feminist-drafted dogma. It's well established and observable by anyone with a modicum of game that promiscuity has vastly different effects on women versus men.

When I was stationed in the Republic of Korea in the 90s, it was a golden age for meeting pretty, traditional Korean women (though I can't comment on how things must have changed since the introduction of the smartphone, social media etc.) Back then you needed a modicum of game beyond the white god factor to do well, and many of us stationed there were satisfied, some returning with wives.

I had no complaints with my results during that time, but a good friend of mine did exceptionally well. He was in Korea on multiple tours, nearly five years with the US military, and spoke fluent Korean. He was tall, but a bit on the heavy side and not particularly handsome. His cultural awareness coupled with solid game paid him dividends in pussy - got plenty whenever he wanted it. One day he confided to me: "Man, I'm 28 years old now, so easy to get pussy, but one day I want to get married. I seriously don't know what I'm going to do - how do I settle on just one woman?"

Fast forward several years, he's out of the Army, completed college, works a low-level but satisfying enough federal job in upstate NY and finally got married in his late 30s. Much to the surprise of everyone who knew him, he did not marry a Korean but a blonde American white girl. They've got a couple of kids and he appears to be doing quite well as a dad. He isn't rich, but her family is a bit better off economically than his. That said, I don't think he's living life with the benefit of a sugar mama.

Yes, it's only one anecdotal example, but the point is it can be done and I don't see any evidence of him being hampered by some imaginary "thousand cock stare" equivalent. That applies to females only, with what is likely a solid a biological basis. A dad who winds up being a shitty dad probably would have been just as terrible regardless of the breadth of his world wide sexual exploits. There are plenty of guys on this forum with 100+ notch counts just like him who will turn out to be great fathers, whenever they choose to, provided they choose wisely. Is it harder when you get older? Sure, you won't be playing tackle football with your teenage sons if they were conceived when you were 50, but there's plenty of other, less physically impactful ways to lead and guide a son into manhood and a daughter into responsible behavior.

The other side of the coin here is even if they are utterly irresponsible and knock up some gold digger, at least then they've put themselves into a position of responsibility for child support payments only versus marriage to an unsuitable ho. It isn't a desirable situation to be in and certainly wouldn't make a man father of the year, but it's better to owe nothing but a monthly check for child support than that plus a surrendering of most marital assets in divorce court.

Given this, I don't see a compelling reason to self-snip as a preventive measure when good sense can keep you out of most problematic situations. Even a failure to pull out wouldn't be the end of the world versus marrying and reproducing with said ho.

(05-30-2017 04:55 PM)Repo Wrote:  

No, concealing your identity is not easy when using social circle game. Unless if your lays are coming from random approaches or tinder, concealing it can be a full time job. So much info is out there on the internet, and these hoes are pros at finding out this kind of stuff.

It can be done, but its alot of work and easy to slip up.

And you can be sure Tinder will gladly throw open their records about you and provide them to the newly impregnated female, whether she's located domestically or in the tourist hotspot where you met her last summer. Maybe by using a prepaid credit card, phony address and secure throwaway email (good luck with that) you could avoid detection but overall it's unlikely. If she has a modicum of sense she'll find a way to get to you. Plan accordingly.

[scorpion]

(06-02-2017 12:13 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

It's well established and observable by anyone with a modicum of game that promiscuity has vastly different effects on women versus men.

...I don't see any evidence of him being hampered by some imaginary "thousand cock stare" equivalent. That applies to females only, with what is likely a solid a biological basis.

Think of sexual promiscuity as being in a series of fist fights against an equally skilled opponent. Women are going to be damaged a lot more on average, but men aren't going to some out entirely unscathed. Not even close. With women the damage of promiscuity manifests as a reduced ability to pair bond. They are literally brain damaged - their oxytocin receptors become dulled due to sexual overstimulation through novelty seeking. With men it's not even really so much "damage" as it is an inability to unsee the Matrix. If, as a man, you've put in the effort to get to a place where you can regularly pull attractive women from cold approaching, that's a very, very difficult thing to walk away from and forget about. It's a helluva drug. For the average guy who's had just a couple of girlfriends in his life (all of whom he met through social circle) it's no big deal to settle down with one. He doesn't even know what he's missing out on. But for a guy who looks at every attractive women he sees as a potential approach it's very different. The temptation is everywhere and unyielding. Walking away from that is like voluntarily giving up a super power.

When I think about this more, I almost wonder if men who reach this level of game - specifically through success with cold approach - end up suffering the same sort of brain damage that promiscuous women do. Because from a psychological perspective the mechanism seems similar. Promiscuous women look at every attractive man they meet as a potential sex partner. Why? Because sex is so easy for women to come by, all a promiscuous woman has to do to get it in most cases is simply make herself available. And voila, it is done. The promiscuous woman literally can't even walk down the street without being tempted by sex. Most men cannot even fathom this level of ease and sexual access, so it's not even on their radar. The idea that they would be giving that up by committing to a relationship never occurs to them, because they never had it to begin with.

But a player who has mastered cold approach sees the world similarly to the promiscuous woman - every attractive woman he sees is a potential sex partner. All he has to do is approach and run his game. If he's good and experienced, he's going to have a great deal of success. He won't be batting as high as the promiscuous woman, but he'll always make a good showing for himself. As I said previously, once a man has acquired this particular skill it's very difficult to forget about it or walk away from it. Needless to say, that makes committing to one woman much harder than it is for the average choad who's just happy to have a woman at all.

In life we tend to think of all skills and experiences we acquire as being only positive things, without any downside. But the reality is that not only do the skills we learn carry with them inherent opportunity costs (i.e. if you spend 2 years intensely studing Chinese that makes it essentially impossible to spend the same 2 years intensely studying Russian) but they sometimes carry with them exclusivities. For example, if you decide to train to be a powerlifter, you can't simultaneously train to be a marathon runner, and vice versa. One of those paths will necessarily be closed off (or at least made exponentially more difficult) by choosing the other. I believe the same holds true for the player and the dedicated, loyal husband - they are essentially mutually exclusive. The man who is able to excel at both must be exceedingly rare. As I said, it's like voluntarily giving up a super power. Imagine if you're Superman - what exactly is it going to take to get you to wear Kryptonite underwear for the rest of your life? It'd have to be a hell of a woman, or extreme devotion to your children. Even that might not be enough. It's simply too much to ask of a flawed human being. Most men who get a taste of that power won't give it up until it's taken from them one way or another.

[J_Sway]

(06-02-2017 06:29 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

So we have a marriage thread and a surrogate vasectomy thread and at least one is bleeding heavily into the other.

This one in particular has turned into an unmitigted fuckfest because people are yelling and chest thumping without the slightest frame of reference, since the OP is nothing more than an article about some dudes getting snipped so they don't get sperm-jacked.

So you've got chest thumping about how vasectomies are the end of Western civilisation and that having one is akin to declaring yourself AWOL from the neo-patriarchy movement. Then you've got guys leapfrogging that to say that if you don't get married then you're beta and you're kidding yourself if you think you'll be able to get a decent woman at 50. Then someone else says that getting married is beta because you'll get divorce raped and your kids will be sold to Barbary pirates, which is why you need a vasectomy.

Someone says "vasectomies are a rejection of manhood" and then fails to tell us how many condoms they've gone through, how many times they've pulled out to come, how many times they've "wasted" their seed on a woman using birth control and how many times they've failed to ensure their ONS didn't take a morning-after pill. We have to assume that this crowd is either celibate or they have in the vicinity of 100 kids or more.

Then you have people lecturing others about family values without giving any indication about how old they are themselves, how many sluts they've fucked before they settled down, and indeed aren't even bothering to qualify their derision specifically where it relates to whether they're talking to men who are 30 years old and single or guys that just graduated from high school.

This bullshit is like a fistfight in the dark.

I agree, and I probably should have been a bit more explicit in terms of the direction of my anger.

I take no issue with young men in their 20s doing their soul searching and hole plugging. Lord knows I did my fair share and learned more than a wealth of knowledge in the process. That knowledge was rarely given to me, I had to search for it and cobble it together, piecemeal, from a multitude of sources and experiences, most of which were the precursors to redpill or manosphere philosophy. I guess you could consider it old school hard-knocks learning.

I don't even take issue with men who honestly have no desire to settle down and start families as long as that is a decision they have come to after years of thought and experimentation. A young man in his 20s will likely come to regret making an irreversible decision regarding his reproductive capabilities, especially considering all the possibilities for change down the road. Likewise, however, that same man could come to regret getting married and having children. Both are extreme decisions with huge risks. Neither should be taken lightly.

Where my issue lies is with grown men who are otherwise mentally and financially stable, with solid experience and the ability to act as teachers and mentors, giving young men potentially life altering advice with irreversible consequences. This particular issue is just the latest in a line of nonsense I've seen increasingly prevalent among the male community. Combine this with all the chatter I always see regarding condoms and drugs in foreign countries, and you'd think we were actively trying to render our youngest and brightest young men sterile, diseased, and locked up. What good does that do anybody?

(06-02-2017 05:47 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

As I said previously, once a man has acquired this particular skill it's very difficult to forget about it or walk away from it. Needless to say, that makes committing to one woman much harder than it is for the average choad who's just happy to have a woman at all.

I think this is a particularly powerful statement. There's a concept in some spiritual circles that essentially amounts to "learned sociopathy". The idea that the more you commit a negative act, the more your conscience sears itself off from the convicting emotions associated with that act. Eventually you reach a point where it no longer has any pull on your conscience at all and you can do it without even blinking an eye. I think the same can be said about the skill of cold-approaching and racking up a notch count.

I'm not suggesting a young man start building deep and meaningful connections with every slag whore he runs into, but a little practice here and there probably wouldn't hurt, especially if they think there's even the slight possibility they will want to settle down in the future.

[Fortis]

(06-02-2017 11:53 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

7. Keep a sense of humor. This is the tonic that cures everything. We obsess about all this bullshit, but at the end of the day, you'll probably die of something else totally unrelated to being single or being married. Worry does no good.

This. Ultimately you gotta be able to roll with the punches.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-02-2017 08:51 PM)J_Sway Wrote:  

...
I'm not suggesting a young man start building deep and meaningful connections with every slag whore he runs into, but a little practice here and there probably wouldn't hurt, especially if they think there's even the slight possibility they will want to settle down in the future.

That last bit especially.

Any guy who doesn't have a fair bit of experience with women before he marries is going to teach his sons, what?

And beyond that, women can be taught in the bedroom but men have to learn those skills for themselves. Some guy with zero dick control is going to end up with a wife that's left to wonder and wander.

[BassPlayaYo]

(06-02-2017 11:35 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 11:53 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

7. Keep a sense of humor. This is the tonic that cures everything. We obsess about all this bullshit, but at the end of the day, you'll probably die of something else totally unrelated to being single or being married. Worry does no good.

This. Ultimately you gotta be able to roll with the punches.

Also learn how to not get punched.

[Fortis]

(06-03-2017 12:01 AM)BassPlayaYo Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 11:35 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 11:53 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

7. Keep a sense of humor. This is the tonic that cures everything. We obsess about all this bullshit, but at the end of the day, you'll probably die of something else totally unrelated to being single or being married. Worry does no good.

This. Ultimately you gotta be able to roll with the punches.

Also learn how to not get punched.

Always carry a scouter so you know who to punch and who not to fuck with.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

That guy is 79:


That was him in his 50s:

Sure - the hormones he takes cost a pretty penny, but many well-off men can afford it. (I think roughly 50.000$/year)

My goal is to look like him at his age, fuck Instagram hotties and to have grandkids as well. Maybe my wife will leave, maybe not, but that is up to her.

But of course I agree with some traditionalist posters here that men better have a family - it works better for 80-90% of men. Though there are some 10%+ who don't mind, but they are in the minority.

Also - sex is never meaningless in my opinion. Even viewed from a spiritual angle it can be the meeting of two Souls if you establish at least some connection between each other. You don't have to be together with a person for years or months to have such a connection with another person.

[Samseau]

Much confusion in this thread. Falsehoods being presented as truths, a dearth of historical knowledge, and lots of wishful thinking. Here are the most egregious posts:

(05-29-2017 08:22 PM)bacon Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 03:10 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  

I used to think cryopreserving your sperm before the snip would give you the best of both worlds, but I found out frozen sperm has a limited shelf life.

This is wrong.

Quote:

Sperm cells have been frozen, thawed and successfully used in treatment for more than 40 years

Presenting only a half truth here Bacon.

From the exact website you linked:

Quote:

What is my chance of having a baby with stored sperm?

Some sperm do not survive or are damaged during freezing. This means that after freezing there may be a reduction in quality. Some frozen sperm samples that are of poor quality can only be used for Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Success rates are averaged over DI cycles and all IVF cycles using donor sperm. For each treatment cycle, the success rate varies depending on the age of the woman. If the woman is:

under 35, the success rate is around 19%
35–39, the success rate is around 15%
40–42, the success rate is around 7%

These are fucking shit garbage TERRIBLE odds. Warning to all men: If you get snipped, you ain't having kids. Examine carefully what the vasectomy path entails:

- Spending thousands to get sterilized
- Freezing and paying for sperm that get damaged and weakened over time
- Paying tens of thousands more on IVF treatments with low odds of success

If you lose your source of income after a vasectomy, you will not be able to afford IVF and you will not have kids. Reversing the vasectomy isn't going to work either because of the antibodies to sperm your body will produce. You then have to find a young woman willing to have kids and undergo months, if not years, of painstaking IVF treatments.

All of these hurdles mean, if you get snipped you ain't having kids.

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

For nothing more -- in reality -- than daring to use such means as are at their disposal to enjoy their lives a little in a society that is dead set upon destroying them and denying them that enjoyment at every turn.

This contradicts yourself. By sterilizing yourself you're fighting against a society dead set to destroy you? What? You've got it completely backwards, by sterilizing yourself you've let society destroy you.

---

(05-30-2017 06:33 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 10:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

I wrote in another thread that most men should eventually marry and have kids, and this is true -- true because it is a basic natural need for MOST men

Slight correction: monogamy and child-rearing are not natural to men. Men are wired to impregnate every fertile woman in their vicinity, then chop down a tree, build a raft, sail across the sea to a new world, then impregnate every fertile woman living there, then dig up some metals from the ground, build a space ship, fly to another planet and impregnate every fertile woman of that planet.

Otherwise a great post.

(05-30-2017 08:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 03:19 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I must agree with Lizard of Oz and differ with Scorpion.

I get it that the men don't create anything grand and have a family.

But note that the sexual market was destroyed by the globalist social engineers and then the very enthusiastic women first.

What would happen if you had a conservative resurgence and the divorce laws change? Also suddenly 18yo women instead of end 20s or 30-35yo carousel riders wanted to settle down with a Hamptons man? What if they started to adhere to the old old set of rules and regarded marriage as for life and wanted to have 2 children with that man before they were 25?

I can guarantee you what would happen - that man would ditch his oversupply of 25-35yo sluts and marry that 18yo girl.

We are living in a society where women are told to go wild at ages of 18-26 at the very least.

The sexual market was not destroyed, it was liberalized.

What you had before were a whole set of artificial constraints on the sexual market designed to create certain socially desirable outcomes by restricting the natural sexuality of both sexes (but ESPECIALLY that of women) and setting hard parameters for how the mating game was going to go. This was all within the context of socially imposed monogamy.

To be fair, this worked well and there is a not-entirely-unconvincing case to be made that it is the reason (or a main reason) as to why western civilizations (Western Europeans are the only ones who adopted such strict rules with regard to socially imposed monogamy and all of the restrictions on sexuality within it) became as dominant as they have been over the last millenia or so. Every man had his little fiefdom (home, woman, family) and that can do wonders for creating and incentivizing warriors.

That is all good and well, but it also isn't real. It was an artificial construct that was and always will be vulnerable to real world truths. Humans are not naturally monogamous, socially imposed monogamy asks for tremendous amounts of restraint from those who adhere to it (more than can reasonably be expected of them), and we live in a world where the vast majority of humanity does not and never has adhered to systems of socially imposed monogamy (indeed, most hail from societies in which polygamy was either a norm or acceptable).

The above two posts carry the whole, "marriage isn't natural" myth which is propagated in Universities. Feminists of course love it and claim the family must be destroyed, while manosphere men use this myth to justify why it makes sense to bang an endless parade of sluts.

Here comes the ugly truth: Marriage is one the oldest social institutions known to man. Marriage is as natural as it gets. Marriage predates ANYTHING we have in the historical record. The oldest civilizations in the world have written accounts of people getting married.

That said, in the primal state of nature the most powerful men had multiple wives, but as far as the lower ranking members of civilization went, most of them had one wife and family. It is perfectly logical to assume, that since all of the earliest civilizations had monogamous marriages, the institution of marriage could go back hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe even millions of years.

Also ugly truth: marriage was not distributed equally across the human race. Asian and Caucasians (of all shades) are the only ones with long historical records proving marriages existed well over 3000 years ago. Blacks have no such record, and when Europeans were colonizing Black lands they found no evidence of any marriages at all - with the sole exception of Ethiopia.

So while perhaps marriage is unnatural for Blacks, it seems to be perfectly natural for Asians and Caucasians. If you are offended by this, it's not my problem because it's all part of the historical record.

This is also why evolutionary theorists claim that Black men are more attractive than their women and Asian/Caucasian women are more attractive than their men. In A/C societies, men held all the power as warriors and got to select their women. But in Black societies women held the power and got to select the men.

A/C societies were based on tribes of warriors, which meant that in order to equitably distribute the spoils of war, marriage is the logical step to insure all of your soldiers got at least one piece of ass. This kept them motivated and made sure they would provide the next generation of soldiers. You don't need religion to promote marriage. Marriage makes sense on the warfare/survival level which is why it predates the historical record.

That said, men in A/C societies have also had lots of slaves and sex slaves, so it wasn't some grand ole time for the non-warriors. Basically the top 10-20% got everything, but marriage was indeed a part of that. Young fertile women were hard to come by.

Which brings me to the second point: There has always been a surplus of men. Fertile men are never hard to come by. That's why, despite horrible wars throughout mankind's history, and the huge percentage of men killed every generation, there was never a shortage of husbands and fathers.

Even in extreme cases like Russia during WW2, which lost 30% of its men, they still managed to increase their population because the women were kept relatively safe.

So ultimately, even if a guy decides to get snipped, it doesn't matter much at all. It won't affect the population levels at all. Men are not the population bottleneck, never have been, and never will be.

The reason population levels are declining today is because women are corrupted sluts. It has little to do with the men. If 30% of men can die with no effect on population levels of Russia, this is hard proof that men have close to zero effect on the future population levels. There always exists a surplus of men, because sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive.

That's how things have always been, and always will be.

Quote:

What you see from 18-26 year old women is not merely the product of "evil globalists" tempting them to go wild. It is them doing as they were always naturally inclined to do. They're not wired to play dutiful housewife to some guy just for the sake of doing it. They are wired to seek the best mate they can find.

Nonsense, most women got a beatdown if they wanted to fuck anyone they wanted. They had some choice of mate because their fathers gave them some choice, but most of the time if the father wanted her daughter to marry a particular man then that is what would happen.

Quote:

They don't want a Hamptons man, they want the best man, and he might not necessarily reside in the Hamptons - he could very well be in the Bronx, Harlem, or somewhere upstate.
If they can find that best man, perhaps they'll willingly settle with him (because he's just good enough to make it worthwhile). But a society in which a bunch of men (most of whom are, by definition, not among the best men) set a bunch of rules designed to ensure that their chances of getting a piece of the best men are limited is not one they're going to be keen on. It never was - such a society only ever persisted by artificial force, and the minute there was any disruption (ex: technology bringing the world closer together) it was going to go.

Saying marriage was held together by artificial force is like saying books are held together by artificial force, since man hasn't been reading en masse for more than 400 years.

In fact the future of reading is far more dubious than marriage, as marriage predates the historical record and has always been common, but reading has only been part of the privileged .000001%.

Quote:

All that the evil "globalist social engineers" did was take the constraints off the natural order of things. Granted, they did go a little further in some respects and try to engineer some artificiality (which we see now with some of the propaganda re: male biological clocks and women being as fertile at 45 as they are at 25, etc), but by and large what we have now is much closer to nature than before.

False conclusion because you had false premises. Marriage is one of the most natural institutions known to man and the current state of affairs is as fake as it gets.

That the current world is fake is why it is dying. Natural things survive, and unnatural things die (like homosexuality, like sluts, like "educated" women). The last time things were this fake was at the end of the Roman empire, which of course had a horrible death that resulted in unmatched barbarism, a relapse of technology back into the bronze age, and the return of unbridled patriarchy.

Quote:

Quote:

The age group that is looking forward to be "gold-spermed" is usually 25+ and mostly rather nearing 30 or over 30. Most of the female office oversupply from New York and city girls is post-collage in the full Sex and The City drive. It takes only some 2-4 years for them to realize that this lifestyle is tougher than it seems and far less fun.

Those men react to the world and the stimuli given. They react rationally to the changes in the sexual market that the women unwittingly created with their behavior:

1960s:


Where are the women? Pregnant and barefoot at home - almost all of them married at ages of 18-24.

These are pics from commuting men in the very same city.

Give the men incentives, raise fatherhood, destroy old marriage law, tell women to start looking for Mr. Right at age 18 and not 28, then I am sure those men would settle down faster. Also the number of easy access sluts will markedly decrease - which is fine, there were more prostitutes in the past in the US.

The women will not do that, because they know it isn't an arrangement they want.

As noted above, women want the best men. By definition, if what you propose here comes to pass, most will be unable to access the best men. They'll be stuck instead with a man who is, more likely than not, in the bottom 80%, not the top 20%.
That's great for the bottom 80% of men (who will all be guaranteed a woman), but it is not so great for the majority of women (who would prefer a piece of the best man to the whole of a lesser one).
That's the reality.

The reality is it doesn't matter what women want. Rarely has. Female wants and needs have always been second or third class concerns for the vast majority of Asian/Caucasian history. I can't speak for Blacks because they have no detailed record going back thousands of years.

Quote:

The men in that photo were, by and large, beneficiaries of a form of sexual welfare. The old rules artificially enhanced their opportunity by a) creating social stigmas to limit female sexuality, and b) creating structural and social barriers to female earning power (necessarily making them more dependent on men). All of this made it impractical to follow the 80/20 or 70-30 rules women would naturally gravitate to when given the freedom to do so, and it ensure that men who would otherwise have been left without a mate got one. He only got said mate because she was not free to do what she wanted to do, which was seek out and find the best men and give herself only to them.

This is incorrect.

1. Women were usually snatched up by powerful men en masse as slaves. They were raped and enslaved. Their wants and desires meant NOTHING.

2. The reason women were divided evenly across men was to (a) buy their loyalty. Fight for this leader, you get pussy. And also because (b) powerful fathers did not want their daughters to become whores or slaves, so they encouraged (i.e. forced) them to marry.

3. Women did not enjoy promiscuous sex because she would get pregnant and with no man to care for her, she and her kids could easily die.

Quote:

The 20th century saw those restrictions knocked down, for a host of reasons, and now many of those men who occupy the bottom 70-80% are on their own. They do not have rigid social stigmas and structures to get them pussy anymore, and they cannot compel female affection via any of those artificial constructs. They also have a lot more competition in world that is much more well connected than it once was. Today, they effectively adapt or die: either they have the things females actually desire (wealth, status, game, charisma, humor, self-assuredness, etc) or they don't and they remain on their own.

The old social contract has indeed been invalidated, which is why our culture is dying and disappearing. Women are not "free" to do what they want - women are merely herd animals that obey their rulers.

There is no adapting to today's unfair, sinful, and degenerate society. That is why it is dying.

Quote:

You and I both know all of this to be true re: the true nature of men and women, and it is for these reasons that the clock is not going to rewind. The artificial limitations are gone and they simply are not going to come back. Women don't want them. Men don't really want them (even those many among the bottom 80%) and the world we live in is not equipped to have them.

Whether or not people want the old state of affairs is irrelevant; do you think people want to work for a living? Do you think people would prefer to do drugs and fuck all day if they could get away with it? Hedonism may be "natural" in the sense people prefer it, but God has different plans. Man's desires count for little.

Quote:

(05-30-2017 06:42 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Our basic instincts have to take a backseat when it comes to civilization building. Monogamous marriage with every man having a stable family is the best option. A society can always have a few sluts and prostitutes around to take care for extra needs.

We men roll back some of our basic instincts and women take back some of theirs - for example their lot would be satisfied to pair only with the top 20% of men and leave the other 80% completely pussy-less. If they could get away with it and their children were taken care of, then women would do it.

But we know how those societies end up - they were all conquered by the stable one-man-one-woman-one-family society. And don't get me started here about "successful" polygamous societies that are warlike. Their system is very unstable and prevents higher rise of civilization.

At some point, I think people need to accept that the genie is not going back into the bottle.
Women aren't interested in going back to the 1950's style of living. They understand that in such a society, they are providing what essentially amounts of a form of sexual welfare/AA for the bottom 80% of men at the expense of their own sexual prerogatives. They don't want to do this.

The genie never left the bottle. Westerners today arrogantly believe they have somehow transcended nature, meanwhile 50% of White women are dying childless.

We are heading so fast into a dark age people aren't going to know what hits them when the collapse comes. Our civilization is doing 100mph into a diamond wall.

Quote:

Men aren't interested in bearing the burdens associated with that style of living. Men understand the limitations placed upon them in this society and aren't interested, generally, in abiding by them.

The demographics of societies where said style of living predominated have changed fundamentally, and you can't guarantee that these different people will be so keen on that style of living either.

I'm not saying one need accept extreme progressive hedonism as the end-all, be-all, only-available-option for the future, but I am suggesting that looking to recreate a version of an idealized past is not an option either. What you see in that picture isn't coming back. You can only run completely contrary to your own biological instincts for so long before it catches up with you. The west has been caught, and there's no going back now. Socially-imposed monogamy has its upsides, but there are downsides too and this is one of them - it was all destined to collapse in time.

If you want an answer for society going forward, it will probably need to be something new entirely.

Nothing new is coming, just an intense economic depression, horrible wars, relapse in technology, and revival of survival norms - if the demographic situation isn't fixed in our lifetimes.

The fact is, women today have more money than ever before, and yet choose not to have kids by the millions. Women today could easily have many children if they wanted, the state even makes it so they do not need a man to stick around! If things aren't "good enough" for women now, it just means it was a horrible mistake to have given women so much power in the first place (which most of the manosphere knows is true already).

---

(06-02-2017 09:18 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

I'm a young guy, I admit that, but I find it perplexing how people here and on /pol/ approach these things like everything is going to stay the same in the next few decades. It's like my teacher in elementary school 20 years ago saying that "you need to learn to do math in your head because you can't just carry a calculator in your pocket!"

Some guy compared complete age reversal to taking TRT and getting a gender reassignment surgery. We have a thread about this on this very forum:

thread-36956.html



Then there's automation, robots, self-driving cars etc. We have a a few threads about those too:

thread-39175.html
thread-56282.html

Then there's artificial intelligence:

thread-62377.html

And then there's sex bots, artificial wombs, genetic engineering and plethora of other shit that you don't have to like or endorse, but that WILL happen sooner or later. And that's only the technological side of things, there's demographic and social changes, too. Our Politics forum is a great source for that and when it comes to social changes, there's a great thread on the Game forum:

thread-7528.html

People are still approaching this like it was the 50's or something. You know, get a 9-5 job by giving firm handshake to the boss at the factory, have a little ficki ficki in your youth, find a girl to marry, take a mortgage together, pump out a few kids, take care of those kids, then the kids grow up and find a job for themselves, then you retire from that same factory and get a golden watch, and then you grow old together with your wife, both of your bodies going to shit little by little every day until you look like this:



And then you die.

But that very likely won't be the case for people who are young right now.

The blind optimism here is not supported by current state of affairs.

While in theory, our civilization should be progressing, the reality is instead:

- Smartest people have the fewest kids today
- Affirmative action means fewer and fewer intelligent men are graduating into tech and science fields
- The medical industry is regulated too much, and growth of new tech is hampered far too much

We aren't going to tech our way out of this civilizational disaster we are currently heading into. Our current tech levels are probably 2-3 generations away from reaching the true "transhuman" moment.

Ray Kurzweil is going to die a discredited charlatan, and as our economy starts to permanently contract for the next 100 years as the Baby Boomers start to die off en masse (after 2025) there will be little to zero impetus for technological growth. Most people won't be able to afford it and the trillionaires of the world, who are still financing this stuff, won't share it with others.

Technology isn't going to save us, Kurzweil said we'd all be wearing Google glasses in 2011, his shit is just blind optimism. The hard times are coming unless we get our act together very fast and return to civilizational basics.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Samsaeu, how many kids you got again?

How you liking them? Glad you had 'em, even if they're a pain in the butt sometimes? I'd love to hear more about how you're enjoying fatherhood, because I think it's one of the biggest weaknesses of the manosphere: there are plenty of people saying "You must have kids for the sake of western civilization!" but very, very people saying "I had kids, and man, this is great. You guys should try it!"

[Dan Woolf]

(06-03-2017 02:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

We are heading so fast into a dark age people aren't going to know what hits them when the collapse comes. Our civilization is doing 100mph into a diamond wall.

Nothing new is coming, just an intense economic depression, horrible wars, relapse in technology, and revival of survival norms - if the demographic situation isn't fixed in our lifetimes.

So, what's your solution/advice? Take the black pill and walk into the ocean? Genuinely curious.

Also, I don't trust Kurzweil either.

[Samseau]

(06-03-2017 02:35 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Samsaeu, how many kids you got again?

How you liking them? Glad you had 'em, even if they're a pain in the butt sometimes? I'd love to hear more about how you're enjoying fatherhood, because I think it's one of the biggest weaknesses of the manosphere: there are plenty of people saying "You must have kids for the sake of western civilization!" but very, very people saying "I had kids, and man, this is great. You guys should try it!"

Did you read what I just wrote? The individual actions of men having children counts for jack shit in the big picture, proven by the countless wars involving large percentages of men dying off with little to no repercussions on the birthrate.

Men are the ones with a luxury of choice - we can decide if we want kids or not and our Neighbors will not suffer for it.

Once upon a time there was a great essay passed around in the Manosphere talking about all of the many bachelors, or at least died childless, of the West who were the greatest thinkers: Kant, Plato, Faraday, Socrates, etc. Just so many the list is at least 1000 names.

And was our civilization worse off for these men not having kids? Hardly, it was their discoveries which enabled further growth and prosperity for those who did have children.

The facts will never change; individual men choosing not to have kids means very little.

But if we see individual women choosing to remain barren, you know something has gone horribly wrong. For an individual woman to decide she doesn't want kids only can mean tens of thousands, if not millions, feel the exact same way as her since women are herd animals. Men are stubborn individuals who decide on their own, and moreover, there is never a shortage of men who will basically do anything for pussy, including marriage.

[SamuelBRoberts]

(06-03-2017 03:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Did you read what I just wrote? The individual actions of men having children counts for jack shit in the big picture, proven by the countless wars involving large percentages of men dying off with little to no repercussions on the birthrate.

I did, yeah. It was a bunch of nihilism about how we're all doomed, which I know you don't believe, because you spent a good chunk of last year trying to get Trump elected, behavior which makes no sense coming from a man who says that "We are heading so fast into a dark age people aren't going to know what hits them when the collapse comes. Our civilization is doing 100mph into a diamond wall."

Quote:

Once upon a time there was a great essay passed around in the Manosphere talking about all of the many bachelors, or at least died childless, of the West who were the greatest thinkers: Kant, Plato, Faraday, Socrates, etc. Just so many the list is at least 1000 names.
And was our civilization worse off for these men not having kids? Hardly, it was their discoveries which enabled further growth and prosperity for those who did have children.

Well, okay. Was society better because Plato's dad had a kid, then?

[Samseau]

(06-03-2017 03:02 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 02:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

We are heading so fast into a dark age people aren't going to know what hits them when the collapse comes. Our civilization is doing 100mph into a diamond wall.

Nothing new is coming, just an intense economic depression, horrible wars, relapse in technology, and revival of survival norms - if the demographic situation isn't fixed in our lifetimes.

So, what's your solution/advice? Take the black pill and walk into the ocean?

Also, I don't trust Kurzweil either.

The only solution for social change is the same solution that has always existed. People must be educated.

The are two ways of getting educated. People can learn the hard way, or the easy way.

My Grandmother believes people only learn the hard way. I still want to try the easy way, which is why I educate people on the internet. For example, if not for the internet Trump would have never been elected.

The internet is the true wildcard of our age because it enables the spread of information so quickly and has the most potential to change people's behavior.

The more people accept that our society is a disgusting degenerate pile of trash that mass produces sterile sluts, the faster people will be to accept political changes to fix it - especially when crisis points arrive.

As for specific political changes to restore families - there are many ways to skin a cat. At bare minimum marriage and divorce laws must be made more equitable. But additional measures could be such things as:

- limiting women from entering the university until they have children (or at least give generous subsidies for mothers who have been married for 10+ years)
- Giving big tax breaks to married men
- Mandatory birth control for unmarried women who need welfare for their children (as I described in my Future of America thread)
- A total overhaul of the education system (no more mandatory schooling hours, more freedom of choice for boys to pursue fields they like and will make money in, more emphasis on teaching girls the essentials of homemaking and child rearing)

However none of the above will be implemented if people think things are hunky dory and life is going to continue on as it's always been. First people need to realize the gravity of the situation, and then when crisis points arrive they will be emotionally ready to push for political changes.

Politics is really the source of civilizational success, our individual ant like actions have no bearing unless they affect the minds and lives of others.

[Samseau]

(06-03-2017 03:10 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 03:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Did you read what I just wrote? The individual actions of men having children counts for jack shit in the big picture, proven by the countless wars involving large percentages of men dying off with little to no repercussions on the birthrate.

I did, yeah. It was a bunch of nihilism about how we're all doomed, which I know you don't believe, because you spent a good chunk of last year trying to get Trump elected, behavior which makes no sense coming from a man who says that "We are heading so fast into a dark age people aren't going to know what hits them when the collapse comes. Our civilization is doing 100mph into a diamond wall."

Yes but just because we are heading there doesn't mean we cannot apply the brakes or change direction.

The last sentence I wrote was a conditional: "The hard times are coming unless we get our act together very fast and return to civilizational basics."

Quote:

Once upon a time there was a great essay passed around in the Manosphere talking about all of the many bachelors, or at least died childless, of the West who were the greatest thinkers: Kant, Plato, Faraday, Socrates, etc. Just so many the list is at least 1000 names.
And was our civilization worse off for these men not having kids? Hardly, it was their discoveries which enabled further growth and prosperity for those who did have children.

Well, okay. Was society better because Plato's dad had a kid, then?

Plato was not the product of just one man deciding to have a woman. None of us are.

We are the product of mass forces; lots of men wanting to have wives and children, lots of women feeding love into their families. Mass children are produced. The odds are played and geniuses get produced.

Hence why Aristotle, Plato's most famous student, wrote, "Man is a political animal. Only Beasts or Gods live outside of the polis."

[SamuelBRoberts]

(06-03-2017 03:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Plato was not the product of just one man deciding to have a woman. None of us are.

We are the product of mass forces; lots of men wanting to have wives and children, lots of women feeding love into their families. Mass children are produced. The odds are played and geniuses get produced.

Hence why Aristotle, Plato's most famous student, wrote, "Man is a political animal. Only Beasts or Gods live outside of the polis."

Aristotle also wasn't a fan of sophistry, in the sense of only vaguely relevant quotes used a justification to dodge a clearly stated question.
I'll just ask it again then: "Was society better because Plato's dad had a kid?"

[Excelsior]

(06-03-2017 02:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 08:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(05-30-2017 03:19 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I must agree with Lizard of Oz and differ with Scorpion.

I get it that the men don't create anything grand and have a family.

But note that the sexual market was destroyed by the globalist social engineers and then the very enthusiastic women first.

What would happen if you had a conservative resurgence and the divorce laws change? Also suddenly 18yo women instead of end 20s or 30-35yo carousel riders wanted to settle down with a Hamptons man? What if they started to adhere to the old old set of rules and regarded marriage as for life and wanted to have 2 children with that man before they were 25?

I can guarantee you what would happen - that man would ditch his oversupply of 25-35yo sluts and marry that 18yo girl.

We are living in a society where women are told to go wild at ages of 18-26 at the very least.

The sexual market was not destroyed, it was liberalized.

What you had before were a whole set of artificial constraints on the sexual market designed to create certain socially desirable outcomes by restricting the natural sexuality of both sexes (but ESPECIALLY that of women) and setting hard parameters for how the mating game was going to go. This was all within the context of socially imposed monogamy.

To be fair, this worked well and there is a not-entirely-unconvincing case to be made that it is the reason (or a main reason) as to why western civilizations (Western Europeans are the only ones who adopted such strict rules with regard to socially imposed monogamy and all of the restrictions on sexuality within it) became as dominant as they have been over the last millenia or so. Every man had his little fiefdom (home, woman, family) and that can do wonders for creating and incentivizing warriors.

That is all good and well, but it also isn't real. It was an artificial construct that was and always will be vulnerable to real world truths. Humans are not naturally monogamous, socially imposed monogamy asks for tremendous amounts of restraint from those who adhere to it (more than can reasonably be expected of them), and we live in a world where the vast majority of humanity does not and never has adhered to systems of socially imposed monogamy (indeed, most hail from societies in which polygamy was either a norm or acceptable).

The above two posts carry the whole, "marriage isn't natural" myth which is propagated in Universities. Feminists of course love it and claim the family must be destroyed, while manosphere men use this myth to justify why it makes sense to bang an endless parade of sluts.

Here comes the ugly truth: Marriage is one the oldest social institutions known to man. Marriage is as natural as it gets. Marriage predates ANYTHING we have in the historical record. The oldest civilizations in the world have written accounts of people getting married.

That's cool, but you've made a mistake here. Your whole argument is fighting a stawman.

I have not argued that marriage is unnatural. Your entire response to me is based on this assumption that I have said marriage is unnatural. I did not say this.
I said that socially imposed monogamy was unnatural and unsustainable. Again, to quote:

(05-30-2017 08:38 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

The sexual market was not destroyed, it was liberalized.

What you had before were a whole set of artificial constraints on the sexual market designed to create certain socially desirable outcomes by restricting the natural sexuality of both sexes (but ESPECIALLY that of women) and setting hard parameters for how the mating game was going to go. This was all within the context of socially imposed monogamy.

To be fair, this worked well and there is a not-entirely-unconvincing case to be made that it is the reason (or a main reason) as to why western civilizations (Western Europeans are the only ones who adopted such strict rules with regard to socially imposed monogamy and all of the restrictions on sexuality within it) became as dominant as they have been over the last millenia or so. Every man had his little fiefdom (home, woman, family) and that can do wonders for creating and incentivizing warriors.

That is all good and well, but it also isn't real. It was an artificial construct that was and always will be vulnerable to real world truths. Humans are not naturally monogamous, socially imposed monogamy asks for tremendous amounts of restraint from those who adhere to it (more than can reasonably be expected of them), and we live in a world where the vast majority of humanity does not and never has adhered to systems of socially imposed monogamy (indeed, most hail from societies in which polygamy was either a norm or acceptable).

Note the emphasized bits carefully. Socially imposed monogamy is my target here, not marriage generally. I know marriage is an old, ancient construct that is seen in nearly all societies, and I'm not challenging that.

There is a world of difference between what I said and what you have presumed me to have said (and based your response on). Let's get on the same page before you conclude that everything I've said is "egregious" and shows "a dearth of historical knowledge". I think we're both well informed enough to discuss this.

Quote:

That said, in the primal state of nature the most powerful men had multiple wives, but as far as the lower ranking members of civilization went, most of them had one wife and family. It is perfectly logical to assume, that since all of the earliest civilizations had monogamous marriages, the institution of marriage could go back hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe even millions of years.

Indeed, it does.
Socially imposed monogamy (whereby even powerful men were not allowed to have multiple wives or even avail themselves of socially approved pools of mistresses) is an entirely different story.

Quote:

Also ugly truth: marriage was not distributed equally across the human race. Asian and Caucasians (of all shades) are the only ones with long historical records proving marriages existed well over 3000 years ago. Blacks have no such record, and when Europeans were colonizing Black lands they found no evidence of any marriages at all - with the sole exception of Ethiopia.

Socially imposed monogamy is unique to Northwestern Europeans (particularly germanics) inside the K-selected realms of behind the Hajnal line.

Quote:

So while perhaps marriage is unnatural for Blacks, it seems to be perfectly natural for Asians and Caucasians. If you are offended by this, it's not my problem because it's all part of the historical record.

I'm not offended because the assertion made is flatly false. Marriage is not unnatural for blacks. There is clear evidence of ceremonies and traditions among blacks across Africa that predate colonization.
Socially imposed monogomay, on the other hand, is unnatural for blacks and just about everyone else outside of Northern Europe, where open polygamy and/or the open maintenance of concubinage/harems was accepted.

Quote:

So ultimately, even if a guy decides to get snipped, it doesn't matter much at all. It won't affect the population levels at all. Men are not the population bottleneck, never have been, and never will be.

In most societies? No.
In a society, however, in which there are relatively strict enforcements of one-to-one marriage, socially imposed monogamy, and a general discouragement of multiple marriage AND out of wedlock births? That's another story.

Quote:

Saying marriage was held together by artificial force is like saying books are held together by artificial force, since man hasn't been reading en masse for more than 400 years.

Good, because I'm not saying that. I am saying that socially imposed monogamy has been upheld by artificial force.

Quote:

False conclusion because you had false premises. Marriage is one of the most natural institutions known to man and the current state of affairs is as fake as it gets.

"False conclusion because you had false premises" defines your entire response to me thus far.

Quote:

That the current world is fake is why it is dying. Natural things survive, and unnatural things die (like homosexuality, like sluts, like "educated" women).

Those are all perfectly natural things.

Quote:

The reality is it doesn't matter what women want. Rarely has. Female wants and needs have always been second or third class concerns for the vast majority of Asian/Caucasian history.

I think it does matter. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it didn't.

Quote:

I can't speak for Blacks because they have no detailed record going back thousands of years.

You can't speak for blacks because you know (and only care to know) very little about their history.

Quote:

This is incorrect.

1. Women were usually snatched up by powerful men en masse as slaves. They were raped and enslaved. Their wants and desires meant NOTHING.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Quote:

2. The reason women were divided evenly across men was to (a) buy their loyalty. Fight for this leader, you get pussy. And also because (b) powerful fathers did not want their daughters to become whores or slaves, so they encouraged (i.e. forced) them to marry.

Yes. I call this beta welfare (aka "betaffirmative action"), because that's precisely what it is.

Quote:

3. Women did not enjoy promiscuous sex because she would get pregnant and with no man to care for her, she and her kids could easily die.

A valid concern in a society imposing strict socially imposed monogamy with harsh prohibitions on out-of-wedlock births and limited emphasis on extended family relationships.
Different story elsewhere.

Quote:

The old social contract has indeed been invalidated, which is why our culture is dying and disappearing. Women are not "free" to do what they want - women are merely herd animals that obey their rulers.

There is no adapting to today's unfair, sinful, and degenerate society. That is why it is dying.

There is no adapting for some. For others, different story altogether.

Some will survive. Others will ride into obsolescence even as they spend all their time looking up 70 year old images for examples of masculine virtue and praying for the chance to become neo-patriarchal Don Drapers with their own personal Bettys.
They'll die dreaming, and the world will persist.

Quote:

Whether or not people want the old state of affairs is irrelevant;

No, it is quite relevant, because that old state of affairs will require a gargantuan effort on all of their parts to bring back. There's nothing inherent or natural about socially imposed monogamy.

Quote:

do you think people want to work for a living? Do you think people would prefer to do drugs and fuck all day if they could get away with it? Hedonism may be "natural" in the sense people prefer it, but God has different plans. Man's desires count for little.

1. There are options in between Hedonism and 1950's America.
2. Man's desires count for everything here. There is nothing godly or divine about socially imposed monogamy and the "traditional" Northwestern European breed of marriage and social organization that it fostered. It is a manmade construct and nothing more.

Quote:

The genie never left the bottle.

Yes it did.

The comically stubborn refusal of some to accept that reality and instead hearken back to a Man Men or "Man in High Castle"-esque world is the real issue here.

Quote:

We are heading so fast into a dark age people aren't going to know what hits them when the collapse comes. Our civilization is doing 100mph into a diamond wall.

We are seeing a natural, inevitable transition that has come to pass on countless occasions before. Westerners are not special.

Quote:

Nothing new is coming, just an intense economic depression, horrible wars, relapse in technology, and revival of survival norms -

I beg to differ.

Quote:

if the demographic situation isn't fixed in our lifetimes.

What is this "demographic situation", exactly? What precisely is the problem that needs fixing here in our lifetimes?

Quote:

The fact is, women today have more money than ever before, and yet choose not to have kids by the millions. Women today could easily have many children if they wanted, the state even makes it so they do not need a man to stick around! If things aren't "good enough" for women now, it just means it was a horrible mistake to have given women so much power in the first place (which most of the manosphere knows is true already).

"Women"? What "women"?

I know plenty of women who are having plenty of kids. Birthrates are sky high across many parts of the world.
Caribbeans are above replacement level. Africans and Arabs are above replacement level. The South Asians are above that level too, as are most of the Latinas.
In other parts of the world, it would seem that these same women are still able to maintain relatively high fertility rates (at or above replacement level) even when in socieities that have generally low rates. The migrant populations (and their descendants) in many parts of North America and Western Europe are a testament to this.

It would seem to me that, after a survey of women in Africa (North and South), West Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean/Central America + South America, as well as all of their kin who have migrated elsewhere, there's been a general tendency to have kids (at least to have enough to replace themselves) and a preference for doing so.

Given that the above location/groups account for the majority of reproductive-aged women on the planet, it seems a bit odd (over-broad, a bit vague) to me to make a general conclusion that "women" are failing to have children.

Perhaps you should be more specific?

[RatInTheWoods]

All men should get a vasectomy at age 15.

If at some stage they want a few kids, they can extract the sperm and make a kid.

This might happen a few times in your life, but the amount of times you will not have to worry about blowing bareback into a woman is millions of times.

A no brainer.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Excelsior-

I have a terrible time following these detailed, line-by-line refutations, and I think you might be better served if you condensed your arguments into a couple clearer points.
I want to respond but I don't know how to do it when your point is chopped up into 20-30 disparate ideas.

Can you tell me more about the significance of "socially imposed monogamy" versus regular monogamy?

[Excelsior]

(06-03-2017 08:51 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Can you tell me more about the significance of "socially imposed monogamy" versus regular monogamy?

Socially imposed monogamy is monogamy imposed by strict social controls. Generally, a system of socially imposed monogamy will include firm restrictions even against high-status men who would seek multiple wives. It will also include an increased emphasis on the nuclear family, a strong de-emphasis on extended kinship networks, and a very strong stigma against socially children conceived outside of the context of monogamous marriage.

Systems of socially imposed monogamy are the harshest of all in their discouragement of polygyny. A less strict system that would stand in contrast to the systems of socially imposed monogamy I'm talking about would, for example, encourage monogamous marriage but maintain an open, socially acceptable allowance for higher status males who sought to maintain additional mates who could be spouses or something at a status level just below a spouse (ex: concubinage). This less strict monogamy system would also allow for greater opportunities for children conceived with those additional mates, since there is a much weaker stigma placed upon them than there is in a system of socially imposed monogamy (where only children born within marriage have any real value or status). These are the things that create a difference, even though both systems result in most marriages being monogamous.

In addition, there are systems which are even less strict than the one described above and allow for open polygamy among men who can afford it, even if in practice most men are in monogamous marriages. These systems also tend to put a greater emphasis on extended kinship networks (which is crucial for women as it provides the safety net that a woman who has children outside of monogamous marriage does not have in a system of socially imposed monogamy) and much lower stigma attached to children born outside of monogamous marriages.

Combined, these less strict systems of monogamy with those that are less-strict still (meaning they accept polygyny) and you have covered the entirety of the world, for the most part. Socially imposed monogamy, arguably the strictest and most limiting form of mating organization we have on Earth, only arose in Northwestern Europe and was born in the Middle Ages. It is heavily correlated with the mating patterns common to residents within the Hajnal Line - more can be read about that here.

Socially imposed monogamy is embodied by the kind of traditional mating patterns being promoted by Samseau and others here. It is the mother of the kind of mating patterns we saw dominate mid-20th century America and its predecessors, as well as most of the western world until the modern day.

There is also another form of monogamy called Ecologically Imposed Monogamy, which persists in hunter gatherer societies.

[Samseau]

Seems to me this "socially imposed" monogamy is a distinction without a difference. Virtually everything in society is "socially imposed" in one form or another.

Why not just call it "monogamy"?

By the way, monogamy goes way further back than Christian times - strict monogamy originated with the Jews. Which is why Christianity has it. In the OT, the famous line is, "Thou shall not multiply wives."

But even in Jewish and Christian societies strict monogamy was not universally enforced among the rich and powerful. For example, rich Jewish men still had concubines, and many Popes had harems of personal whores at their beck and call. In The Prince Machiavelli talks about one of the Pope's bastard sons of a whore who rose to great power before losing it all. These things were always common among the top.

In general, when I speak of the virtues of monogamy, I speak of the average man. The top will always get away with murder and adultery, but as long as their degeneracy is contained then it is not a big deal. Conversely, when 50% of the women aren't having kids because monogamy has been destroyed, then captain we have a serious problem that is going to destroy our culture. And considering how much of the world depends on our culture, they're going to be in for an even worse time as well.

(06-03-2017 03:40 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 03:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Plato was not the product of just one man deciding to have a woman. None of us are.

We are the product of mass forces; lots of men wanting to have wives and children, lots of women feeding love into their families. Mass children are produced. The odds are played and geniuses get produced.

Hence why Aristotle, Plato's most famous student, wrote, "Man is a political animal. Only Beasts or Gods live outside of the polis."

Aristotle also wasn't a fan of sophistry, in the sense of only vaguely relevant quotes used a justification to dodge a clearly stated question.
I'll just ask it again then: "Was society better because Plato's dad had a kid?"

You missed the point entirely. Plato's Dad having a kid isn't what produced Plato. That was just one part of it; the other parts, just as important:

- The massive political structure which gave Athens it's military and economic superiority
- The many philosophers who preceded Plato that influenced Socratic thought
- The social networks among excellent men that promoted top notch educations

Merely having the child was the easy part. Any dumbass can have kids. But only a truly amazing society produces men like Plato and Aristotle.

[rudebwoy]

Asians Emperors were famous for having concubines, in "recorded" history.

I thought this was interesting.

"The Imperial concubines were guarded by an equally obscene number of eunuchs (men who’ve been castrated) to ensure that they couldn’t be made pregnant by anybody except the Emperor".

Now we have guys doing this voluntarily.