[Andreas]

This is a very interesting thread.

@Excelsior: Is it freedom of choice or the freedom of consequence that corrupts women? If I understand correctly society has severely limited the choices that women can have but at the same time has not taught them how to make good choices and is rewarding them regardless of how bad the consequences of their decisions are.

[BassPlayaYo]

(06-04-2017 01:18 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

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.

A vasectomy isn't castration, these "studs" aren't eunuchs.

[Excelsior]

(06-04-2017 01:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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"?

Because the distinction is meaningful. "Socially imposed" is just a term of art used to refer to the scale and strictness of the imposition.

As noted above, socially imposed monogamy is of the stricter form we've come to know in Western Europe. It arose there in the middle ages and has become the defining form of modern monogamy in our minds.
It goes above and beyond monogamy in its prohibition of polygyny, shaming of out of wedlock children, and its limitations on female sexuality.

In a strict system of socially imposed monogamy, women have very limited opportunities to openly express their hypergamy. Elite men cannot have open multiple marriage, concubinage, or harems. The best they can do is keep a few discreet mistresses, with any children produced of those unions never in a good place and limited in the opportunity available to them. The women who would instead be getting a piece of the top 20% of men are forced to settle for someone below that level in a long-term, monogamous relationship.

This is why I say that socially imposed monogamy is the ultimate form of beta welfare. It is the most forgiving to the average man and the harshest on women and elite men. It goes further than all other systems in ensuring that every sub-elite male can gain sexual access and the privilege of being a patriarch. It is peak betaffirmative action.

Systems that promote monogamy while still openly sanctioning and allowing concubinage (these were common in east asia) are distinct in that they do more to serve the desire of elite men to have more than one woman and the desire of women to express their hypergamy relatively free of consequence.
Systems that openly allow polygamy go further still, obviously. Both of these systems are less deferential to the average man.

Quote:

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."

There is no such line and there is no such prohibition in the Old Testament. Men in the Old Testament were openly permitted to have multiple wives. Polygamy was sanctioned and is not prohibited in the Old Testament.

The best anti-polygamy line in the bible comes from the New Testament, specifically Matthew 19:3-9, when Jesus says: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Of course, this passage has multiple interpretations and is not a clear prohibition on polygamy, though many have interpreted it to be such. Though only one wife is implied here, there is dispute over the notion that man can only cleave and become "one flesh" with a single woman - polygamists will contend (and there is nothing in the bible to firmly contradict them) that one can become one flesh with multiple woman, and that a second wife becomes one flesh with both the husband AND his first wife.

The fact that there is no other passage in the New Testament explicitly prohibiting the taking of multiple wives for men who were not figures in the church (indeed, the New Testament is largely silent on the issue of polygamy) lends credence to this interpretation - all bans on polygamy by the church are based on implications and interpretations. There is no solid prohibition. The Bible, quite frankly, isn't very firm in any stand against polygamy and isn't a very good source for substantiating a prohibition on it.

Quote:

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.

Partially correct, but not quite to the point. The key issue here is that in these societies strict monogamy was universally enforced even among the rich and powerful, which is why mistresses were kept with discretion and any children produced of those unions were at a substantial disadvantage (illegitimacy was a black mark). These plural relationships existed in the shadows precisely because they were not sanctioned, and they were not sanctioned because there was a strict prohibition on multiple marriages.

This stands in firm contrast with systems in which concubinage and/or polygamy were openly allowed. Discretion was not required, children produced of said unions had many more opportunities (illegitimacy was far less of a black mark), and the hypergamy of the women involved was satisfied far more effectively (an official concubine or 2nd/3rd wife had much more in the way of stability and status than a discreet mistress, she was not looked down upon or shamed nearly to the extent that mistresses were, and her kids were better off too).
These systems were, of course, worse for average men, but we've been over that.

Quote:

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.

Alright, I am going to start by focusing again on the statement that is bolded.

You say "women" generally, but, as I noted earlier, I know plenty of women who are having plenty of kids. Birthrates are high across many parts of the world.
A glance at fertility rates in Africa (North and South), West Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean/Central America + South America, as well as those of their kin who have migrated elsewhere, would seem to indicate that there is a general tendency to have kids (at least to have enough to replace themselves) and a preference for doing so.

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

So, again, I have to ask: what "women" are you talking about who are not having kids (but need to be having kids, according to you, lest the world be imperiled)? Can you be more specific?

Now, on to the talk about the virtues of monogamy. As I said earlier, strictly imposed monogamy is distinct in that it is the most beneficial of all systems for the average man. If we're talking about the virtues of monogamy, then we have to make this distinction because the average man is not as well off in a system that encourages monogamy but openly sanctions concubinage or multiple marriage. Socially imposed monogamy (which is what I have been calling this stricter system that we've come to know in the western world) is the ultimate form of beta welfare. There is no better system for the average man, and no worse system for women and above average men.

I do not buy the notion that the destruction of the form of monogamy we have seen dominate the west has led to women not having kids. You don't need a system of socially imposed monogamy to get women to have children. If anything, maintaining such a system increases the risk of fewer children down the road and any "baby-bust" is actually the product of that socially imposed monogamy.

Let's illustrate this with a hypothetical that parallels what we've been talking about: what we are talking about is a system that effectively would have forced the women living under it to marry betas and forego any chance at getting a piece of men closer to the top of the pyramid.

Women of all kinds hate betas, so that was going to come crashing down at some point, and when it did this society was going to be in a pickle: because said society would have spent about 1000 years shaming the women to death for having children outside of the confines of a 1 woman-1 man union, the women living under it who rebelled against such unions would naturally feel uncomfortable having children (because they feel compelled to be inside the unions in order to do so).

At the same time, because this society has also spent 1000 years insisting that the women under its dominion are wrong to want to share a few elite men and shaming them for following their instinct to do so while also making it illegal (no polygamy, no sanctioned concubinage), its women won't feel comfortable procreating in those unions either (they are, after all, not the 1 man/1 woman unions they've been trained to believe are essential to procreation).

In short, such a society (which is a society of the kind you're promoting as ideal) would have left very few options for its women. Under the dominion of said society, women are only allowed to procreate in strictly monogamous unions...but they hate the men they are forced into these unions with since most are betas and they hate betas. They also despise the society broadly for its forcing them into unions with said betas. They aren't allowed to procreate outside of said unions (by, for example, sharing one or two elite men), so...no procreation.

The lack of children shouldn't surprise you at all. The strict nature of the system of socially imposed monogamy I have been talking about would inevitably lead to this outcome, as would contact with other societies in which things were not nearly as strict (ex: access to a greater pool of potentially better-than-beta men).

Fortunately, these women aren't the only women in the world. Other women can procreate too and those women have come from societies with fewer restrictions, so women will continue to have kids.

It just may not be the type of woman you, in particular, want to be having kids.

[Excelsior]

(06-04-2017 04:25 PM)Andreas Wrote:  

This is a very interesting thread.

@Excelsior: Is it freedom of choice or the freedom of consequence that corrupts women? If I understand correctly society has severely limited the choices that women can have but at the same time has not taught them how to make good choices and is rewarding them regardless of how bad the consequences of their decisions are.

I think you've hit on a big part of the issue. Society has focused primarily on limiting female choice, and it has not really done so in their interest. Female choice was severely limited not for the benefit of women, but for the benefit of the beta male. Again, socially imposed monogamy is beta welfare.

Women were encourage to make certain choices in service of this system of beta welfare, but little thought was given to the implications that their own nature would have on all of this and what choices would best be in service of that nature. Everything was about exalting the beta patriarch and getting him his fiefdom.

Thus, when the inevitable rebellion came (women will only tolerate forced coupling with betas for so long), we ended up with a free for all. I'm not sure this society was ever prepared to give women proper guidance on how to operate in a manner best suited to their own nature. Society's only experience is in guiding women on how to operate in a manner best suited to the welfare and nature of the beta male.
When that is no longer the goal, we're left with uncertainty: what choices should women make? What consequences should there be? Nobody knows.

The first instinct is just to blow everything up and get as far away from the old ways as possible (this is what the sexual revolution and feminism have done - they are manifestations of this rebellion and embody the anger of women against the old system, leaving us the mess we have now), but after that nobody knows what to do because this is uncharted territory for western society. They only know how to organize mating patterns in service of beta males, not women. I think this society is still figuring things out, and what we here on RVF see (and complain about) are the growing pains in that process.

[Highpool]

There's an old talking point that women's suffrage went through because men voted for it rather than against it.

Why?

Because the 80% weren't happy with the status quo.

"Our social contract guarantees you a wife" sounds great on paper, but when you have nothing to offer a woman, she doesn't take care of herself and she makes your life a living hell. Then you realize "wait this actually sucks ass and I want a different social contract."

[Excelsior]

(06-04-2017 05:41 PM)Highpool Wrote:  

There's an old talking point that women's suffrage went through because men voted for it rather than against it.

Why?

Because the 80% weren't happy with the status quo.

"Our social contract guarantees you a wife" sounds great on paper, but when you have nothing to offer a woman, she doesn't take care of herself and she makes your life a living hell. Then you realize "wait this actually sucks ass and I want a different social contract."

Another valid point. I've consistently described the old contract under socially imposed monogamy as beta welfare because, in a way, it was (every man was guaranteed sexual access). But the truth is that even though most men are beneficiaries of this in a sense, most don't want it either. They are happy to be free from the burdens and responsibilities of the system and to try their luck in a freer market (where they can either stay put and try to work their way up to a level at which they are the kind of man women would choose freely, and/or they can play geographical arbitrage to enhance their odds of being in that group of men). Others are happy to be without women altogether.

Both sides have a reason to remove the constraints.

[RexImperator]

Excelsior Wrote:

Again, socially imposed monogamy is beta welfare.

One way to summarize it is like this:

Patriarchy = Vagina Socialism

[Dan Woolf]

Without that "vagina socialism" we all would still be sitting in trees naked and flinging shit at each other. Something to remember.

[Excelsior]

(06-04-2017 07:29 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

Without that "vagina socialism" we all would still be sitting in trees naked and flinging shit at each other. Something to remember.

That's a false dichotomy. There's ample room in between sitting in trees and socially imposed monogamy (aka "beta welfare"). Civilization does not require strict socially imposed monogamy (remember that I'm referring to the strict European variant, which is the beta welfare prototype) to exist. Humans can maintain civilization without it.

[DarkTriad]

(06-04-2017 05:17 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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"?

Because the distinction is meaningful. "Socially imposed" is just a term of art used to refer to the scale and strictness of the imposition.

As noted above, socially imposed monogamy is of the stricter form we've come to know in Western Europe. It arose there in the middle ages and has become the defining form of modern monogamy in our minds.
It goes above and beyond monogamy in its prohibition of polygyny, shaming of out of wedlock children, and its limitations on female sexuality.

In a strict system of socially imposed monogamy, women have very limited opportunities to openly express their hypergamy. Elite men cannot have open multiple marriage, concubinage, or harems. The best they can do is keep a few discreet mistresses, with any children produced of those unions never in a good place and limited in the opportunity available to them. The women who would instead be getting a piece of the top 20% of men are forced to settle for someone below that level in a long-term, monogamous relationship.

This is why I say that socially imposed monogamy is the ultimate form of beta welfare. It is the most forgiving to the average man and the harshest on women and elite men. It goes further than all other systems in ensuring that every sub-elite male can gain sexual access and the privilege of being a patriarch. It is peak betaffirmative action.

Systems that promote monogamy while still openly sanctioning and allowing concubinage (these were common in east asia) are distinct in that they do more to serve the desire of elite men to have more than one woman and the desire of women to express their hypergamy relatively free of consequence.
Systems that openly allow polygamy go further still, obviously. Both of these systems are less deferential to the average man.

Quote:

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."

There is no such line and there is no such prohibition in the Old Testament. Men in the Old Testament were openly permitted to have multiple wives. Polygamy was sanctioned and is not prohibited in the Old Testament.

The best anti-polygamy line in the bible comes from the New Testament, specifically Matthew 19:3-9, when Jesus says: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Of course, this passage has multiple interpretations and is not a clear prohibition on polygamy, though many have interpreted it to be such. Though only one wife is implied here, there is dispute over the notion that man can only cleave and become "one flesh" with a single woman - polygamists will contend (and there is nothing in the bible to firmly contradict them) that one can become one flesh with multiple woman, and that a second wife becomes one flesh with both the husband AND his first wife.

The fact that there is no other passage in the New Testament explicitly prohibiting the taking of multiple wives for men who were not figures in the church (indeed, the New Testament is largely silent on the issue of polygamy) lends credence to this interpretation - all bans on polygamy by the church are based on implications and interpretations. There is no solid prohibition. The Bible, quite frankly, isn't very firm in any stand against polygamy and isn't a very good source for substantiating a prohibition on it.

Quote:

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.

Partially correct, but not quite to the point. The key issue here is that in these societies strict monogamy was universally enforced even among the rich and powerful, which is why mistresses were kept with discretion and any children produced of those unions were at a substantial disadvantage (illegitimacy was a black mark). These plural relationships existed in the shadows precisely because they were not sanctioned, and they were not sanctioned because there was a strict prohibition on multiple marriages.

This stands in firm contrast with systems in which concubinage and/or polygamy were openly allowed. Discretion was not required, children produced of said unions had many more opportunities (illegitimacy was far less of a black mark), and the hypergamy of the women involved was satisfied far more effectively (an official concubine or 2nd/3rd wife had much more in the way of stability and status than a discreet mistress, she was not looked down upon or shamed nearly to the extent that mistresses were, and her kids were better off too).
These systems were, of course, worse for average men, but we've been over that.

Quote:

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.

Alright, I am going to start by focusing again on the statement that is bolded.

You say "women" generally, but, as I noted earlier, I know plenty of women who are having plenty of kids. Birthrates are high across many parts of the world.
A glance at fertility rates in Africa (North and South), West Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean/Central America + South America, as well as those of their kin who have migrated elsewhere, would seem to indicate that there is a general tendency to have kids (at least to have enough to replace themselves) and a preference for doing so.

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

So, again, I have to ask: what "women" are you talking about who are not having kids (but need to be having kids, according to you, lest the world be imperiled)? Can you be more specific?

Now, on to the talk about the virtues of monogamy. As I said earlier, strictly imposed monogamy is distinct in that it is the most beneficial of all systems for the average man. If we're talking about the virtues of monogamy, then we have to make this distinction because the average man is not as well off in a system that encourages monogamy but openly sanctions concubinage or multiple marriage. Socially imposed monogamy (which is what I have been calling this stricter system that we've come to know in the western world) is the ultimate form of beta welfare. There is no better system for the average man, and no worse system for women and above average men.

I do not buy the notion that the destruction of the form of monogamy we have seen dominate the west has led to women not having kids. You don't need a system of socially imposed monogamy to get women to have children. If anything, maintaining such a system increases the risk of fewer children down the road and any "baby-bust" is actually the product of that socially imposed monogamy.

Let's illustrate this with a hypothetical that parallels what we've been talking about: what we are talking about is a system that effectively would have forced the women living under it to marry betas and forego any chance at getting a piece of men closer to the top of the pyramid.

Women of all kinds hate betas, so that was going to come crashing down at some point, and when it did this society was going to be in a pickle: because said society would have spent about 1000 years shaming the women to death for having children outside of the confines of a 1 woman-1 man union, the women living under it who rebelled against such unions would naturally feel uncomfortable having children (because they feel compelled to be inside the unions in order to do so).

At the same time, because this society has also spent 1000 years insisting that the women under its dominion are wrong to want to share a few elite men and shaming them for following their instinct to do so while also making it illegal (no polygamy, no sanctioned concubinage), its women won't feel comfortable procreating in those unions either (they are, after all, not the 1 man/1 woman unions they've been trained to believe are essential to procreation).

In short, such a society (which is a society of the kind you're promoting as ideal) would have left very few options for its women. Under the dominion of said society, women are only allowed to procreate in strictly monogamous unions...but they hate the men they are forced into these unions with since most are betas and they hate betas. They also despise the society broadly for its forcing them into unions with said betas. They aren't allowed to procreate outside of said unions (by, for example, sharing one or two elite men), so...no procreation.

The lack of children shouldn't surprise you at all. The strict nature of the system of socially imposed monogamy I have been talking about would inevitably lead to this outcome, as would contact with other societies in which things were not nearly as strict (ex: access to a greater pool of potentially better-than-beta men).

Fortunately, these women aren't the only women in the world. Other women can procreate too and those women have come from societies with fewer restrictions, so women will continue to have kids.

It just may not be the type of woman you, in particular, want to be having kids.

Great post, but I want to also point out that it wasn't just welfare for betas, it was welfare for women as they got older. Every person had someone "assigned" to take care of them, it covered weaknesses for both sides. What happens to the concubine when she's 50 years old?

You shit on betas, but not everyone can be the leader, and the betas do most of the actual work. We have the amazing society we do because it was an amazing engine for motivating people and giving everyone a stake in society that made them bust ass for a better life for their family. Also, increased political stability because you don't have a bunch of frustrated womanless guys running around stirring up trouble (a la Islam). We're seeing the consequence of this ourselves in our own way (whether dropping out and playing videogames, enjoying the decline, or needily becoming a male feminist SJW).

The insanity of family court and modern debtor's prison is a direct result of that system of monogamy breaking down on a large scale.

Also worth noting that societies with these monogamous nuclear families brutally out competed all the societies doing it otherwise. It's truly an amazing system for harnessing human energies. Slave payments, serfdom and threat of debtor's prison just aren't doing it as well.

[DarkTriad]

I also want to point out that the modern beta is relatively recent invention. If a guy was a little socially awkward/short/ugly or whatever, but he could still contribute to society, he would still likely have a height/weight proportionate teenage wife, be responsible for taking care of a family, looked up to and respected, appreciated, essentially be substantially more "alpha" than a similar modern guy condemned to lot of incel thirst for so many of his prime years. By the time he's established enough to attract a woman to "settle" down with him, he's kind of broken...and so is she.

[TooFineAPoint]

Living up to my user name...

but "vagina socialism" is a term closer to what we have now.

Patriarchy is extreme private property, with the woman being the father's property before he can transfer it to a husband.

What is a perpetual carousel rider if not an unowned community resource (aka Town Bicycle)?

[Vaun]

(06-04-2017 10:35 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

I also want to point out that the modern beta is relatively recent invention. If a guy was a little socially awkward/short/ugly or whatever, but he could still contribute to society, he would still likely have a height/weight proportionate teenage wife, be responsible for taking care of a family, looked up to and respected, appreciated, essentially be substantially more "alpha" than a similar modern guy condemned to lot of incel thirst for so many of his prime years. By the time he's established enough to attract a woman to "settle" down with him, he's kind of broken...and so is she.

Also, he had self respect. He probably at least shaved and wasn't a neck bearded slob, tucked in his shirt and had basic human dignity and self respect. Probably dressed well with the rest of humanity, got an education and didn't suck down Mt Dew all day while he played a little kids video game in his underwear.

I went on a camping trip this weekend and chaperoned a kids event there and the 25-50 year old American men were mostly pot bellied weaklings. The decline of this country, as seen in its men is remarkable now. The post WW2 generation men that I grew up with would throat stomp these chubby herb faggots in a heartbeat, and laugh while they did it.

Kids need good examples of men these days. They are in short supply. Snip or not, at least keep it together for the rest of us.

[Excelsior]

(06-04-2017 10:35 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

I also want to point out that the modern beta is relatively recent invention. If a guy was a little socially awkward/short/ugly or whatever, but he could still contribute to society, he would still likely have a height/weight proportionate teenage wife, be responsible for taking care of a family, looked up to and respected, appreciated, essentially be substantially more "alpha" than a similar modern guy condemned to lot of incel thirst for so many of his prime years.

You just defined beta welfare. The modern beta is just who he was all those years ago, he simply doesn't have a system designed to uplift him anymore.

The beta you describe didn't get all of those things by virtue of his own quality. He was handed those things by a society set up to serve him and provide him with a wife and a fiefdom.
His height/weight proportionate teenage prospects would, if given the choice, prefer to act in accordance with their natural hypergamy. That means chasing men closer to the top of the pyramid, not settling for Mr. 42nd Percentile who isn't physically attractive and has no other real quality markers of status (game, humor, social skills, etc) but is just solidly responsible and can provide. Honestly, if they had a choice, they'd probably prefer a piece of Mr. 85th than the whole of Mr. 42nd, and they'd act accordingly.

Ms. teen wife prospect is forced to settle for Mr. 42nd Percentile because society says she a) can't make a living without a man (limited job prospects for her mean the guy who is merely responsible and willing to provide is much more valuable - her alternative is poverty), b) she must be married quickly (spinsters are shameful and so are women who have sex outside of marriage), and c) she can't have children outside the confines of a monogamous marriage.

All of this combines to limit her choices - if she wants children, a decent standard of living, and any sort of social status (read: the chance to not live a life being shamed and demeaned as a whore, spinster, etc), she needs a man to marry. That is her key to everything. And each man only gets one woman, so odds are good she's going to need to settle not for a man who is closer to the top of the pyramid that might actually be able to turn her on consistently, but for a man closer to the middling/mediocre center. Enter Mr. 42nd percentile.

This isn't so great for her, but it works wonderfully for Mr. 42nd percentile. The factors above basically ensure that he gets a wife and a family. He's guaranteed to be the breadwinner, so he's king of the castle. As a result of that, he's looked up to, respected, and adorned with a certain level of status befitting the leader of a fiefdom (his family and his home).

All of that is artificial, however, because absent the factors that combined to limit his wife's choices he quite likely wouldn't have gotten her in the first place.

Fast forward to the present day. Mr. 42nd Percentile still exists, as does his desired teenaged height/weight appropriate wife prospect. Today, her choices are quite different. She can marry Mr. 42nd percentile still. However, in the modern day she can make her own living - she doesn't need Mr. 42nd to live above the poverty line. She doesn't need him to have children (out of wedlock births are not nearly as strongly prohibited as they once were) and she doesn't pay anywhere near the same social cost for staying a single woman later into her life. In short, she now has options. She even has more men to choose from than she would have all those years ago - that means more prospects for her to consider from more backgrounds and more places (her prospect choices were much more limited back in the day - no international, intercontinental, interfaith/social/racial unions to factor in).

All of this is important because Mr. 42nd Percentile has a lot less to tempt her than before. He has, as you described, a decent amount of things going against him: he's socially awkward, doesn't have much game, he has mediocre looks, and is otherwise pretty much marginal in every meaningful category. His main assets are that he has solid character, is responsible, and is willing to provide.

Under the old system, his assets meant more to his teenaged wife prospect and his weaknesses were minimized. Now, things are different: Mr. 42nd Percentile can no longer count on the system to hand him young pussy on a platter. She has more alternatives, and that means that he needs to do more himself so as to get her to overlook said alternatives and choose him.

In the past, height/weight appropriate teen wife prospect married Mr. 42nd percentile because she had to. She wasn't going to make a living on her own, she wasn't getting kids any other way (certainly not if she wanted to maximize their opportunity in life), and she would risk serious social costs for trying to have a romantic life outside of the confines of marriage.

Today, she can make her own living, the social costs of foregoing marriage are lower, and she can have kids outside the traditional marriage. It is far easier for her, if she decides she doesn't like Mr. 42nd's awkwardness, isn't too drawn by his personality, or just generally isn't too turned on by him, to simply leave him behind. She can decide to hold out for a better option (a risky strategy, as we know, especially if she doesn't have a realistic view of her own value), get a piece of a better man (more viable today than ever), or just do her own thing by herself.

She no longer needs him. Why? No more beta welfare. He only had what he had before because the system handed it to him. She only made the choices she made before because the system pretty much boxed her into a corner. Remove those restraints and expose both parties to a freer market, and the result is entirely predictable.

Mr. 42nd percentile fails today because he needs sexual socialism (beta welfare) to thrive. He can't hope to get that cute teen wife without a system behind him to curtail her own sexual prerogatives (which are hypergamous) and effectively bully her into the opportunity to spend a lifetime with him. He is not able to convince her to allow him to monopolize her youth and fertility without a system behind him to give her few other appealing options. He is not able to garner the respect, status, and admiration you describe betas as having had in the olden days without a system to effectively hand it to him by default and orient things in his favor (limit competition, limit the options for women, etc).

If young pussy isn't handed to him on a silver platter by a system designed to ensure he gets it, he's not getting it. That is what condemns him to "incel thirst", even as his female peers (the ones who would have married him in 1950 under the old system and have now chosen to ignore him in favor of other options they wouldn't have had back then) seem to have no trouble finding sexual opportunities.

(06-04-2017 09:39 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

Great post, but I want to also point out that it wasn't just welfare for betas, it was welfare for women as they got older. Every person had someone "assigned" to take care of them, it covered weaknesses for both sides. What happens to the concubine when she's 50 years old?

In most places, the nuclear family is not as heavily emphasized as it is in k-selected scially imposed monogamy systems behind the Hajnal line, This means that extended kinship networks (cousins, nephews, nieces, grandchildren, etc) tare not as strongly de-emphasized and can more readily be relied upon by women for all manner of things (ex: childcare, welfare, old-age assistance, etc). The woman would also have her children.

In fact, I'd contend that the beta welfare system didn't do that great a job of ensuring care for women in their later years given the sheer number who ended up in nursing homes. Women in this system often have fewer people to interact with and look after them than women abroad in societies where said beta welfare (strict socially imposed monogamy) was less prevalent, children are culturally expected to assist older parents more, and extended families tend to be closer.

Quote:

You shit on betas, but not everyone can be the leader, and the betas do most of the actual work. We have the amazing society we do because it was an amazing engine for motivating people and giving everyone a stake in society that made them bust ass for a better life for their family. Also, increased political stability because you don't have a bunch of frustrated womanless guys running around stirring up trouble (a la Islam). We're seeing the consequence of this ourselves in our own way (whether dropping out and playing videogames, enjoying the decline, or needily becoming a male feminist SJW).

The insanity of family court and modern debtor's prison is a direct result of that system of monogamy breaking down on a large scale.

Also worth noting that societies with these monogamous nuclear families brutally out competed all the societies doing it otherwise. It's truly an amazing system for harnessing human energies. Slave payments, serfdom and threat of debtor's prison just aren't doing it as well.

I fully acknowledge the upsides of the beta welfare/socially imposed monogamy system. I covered that already in my earlier responses.

What I'm also acknowledging is its inherently temporary nature and its built in poison pill. No system that forcefully restricts female hypergamy and instead effectively bullies them into sex exclusively with betas is going to last for long. Women hate betas, and they will naturally hate that system. All of the breakdowns you are seeing are part of their rebellion against said system and were inevitable. They aren't going to tolerate beta welfare forever. Even the betas, for their part, aren't terribly keen on the system. It simply isn't a setup that can last indefinitely.

[Excelsior]

Oh, one more thing to add to that last post: there are Darwinian implications here as well.

The system of socially imposed monogamy ensures more betas are bred than would otherwise be. Why? Because it ensures more betas have wives than would otherwise have them.
Long term, if you are of the belief that the beta/alpha dichotomy has at least a partially genetic component, this system ensures that beta traits gain a much larger share in the gene pool than they might otherwise get. Long term, the inevitable result is a society of betas.
That might play a role in creating some of the long-term societal consequences people are pointing out here. It is worth thinking about, in any case.

[Dan Woolf]

(06-05-2017 02:20 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

*snip* (no pun intended)

And that's why men of all ages are dropping out of society. The fact is that women only want the top 10-20% of men and no matter how hard men try, you can't find 100% of men into that 10-20%, so the unwanted men (80%) draw their own conclusions. And now we are getting articles like "where have all the good men gone?", "video game playing manchildren are to blame for women not getting married!" and "the ranks of idle men are growing, what is happening?" every week. When a big proportion of men can't get pussy, it always inevitably leads to all kinds of instabilities in the society. Time will tell what will happen to the West now that female hypergamy has been fully unleashed from all shackles.

Sure, it's natural that women chase those top men and treat the "average" men with contempt, only to get pumped and dumped by snipped alphas and ending up lonely, childless, bitter cat ladies. Natural ≠ good. Sometimes when someone wrongs me, a faint voice inside me tells me to kill him, and the only reason I don't is because of societal restrictions placed upon me - those are artificial. I think we can all agree that those restrictions are beneficial to all even though it's not natural.

[Excelsior]

(06-05-2017 07:53 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 02:20 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

*snip* (no pun intended)

And that's why men of all ages are dropping out of society. The fact is that women only want the top 10-20% of men and no matter how hard men try, you can't find 100% of men into that 10-20%, so the unwanted men (80%) draw their own conclusions. And now we are getting articles like "where have all the good men gone?", "video game playing manchildren are to blame for women not getting married!" and "the ranks of idle men are growing, what is happening?" every week. When a big proportion of men can't get pussy, it always inevitably leads to all kinds of instabilities in the society. Time will tell what will happen to the West now that female hypergamy has been fully unleashed from all shackles.

Sure, it's natural that women chase those top men and treat the "average" men with contempt, only to get pumped and dumped by snipped alphas and ending up lonely, childless, bitter cat ladies. Natural ≠ good. Sometimes when someone wrongs me, a faint voice inside me tells me to kill him, and the only reason I don't is because of societal restrictions placed upon me - those are artificial. I think we can all agree that those restrictions are beneficial to all even though it's not natural.

As I said before, the process is inevitable. We can be as fearful of coming "insecurities" as we like, but at the end of the day beta welfare was never going to last.

As for what is natural and what isn't, I actually would contend that it isn't natural for women to " chase those top men and treat the "average" men with contempt, only to get pumped and dumped by snipped alphas and ending up lonely, childless, bitter cat ladies."
What would be natural would be for those women to chase top men and for said top men to procreate with all of them. They wouldn't end up bitter and childless at all, they'd actually all have children. They just wouldn't all have a top man to themselves.

We instead see these women getting pumped and dumped by snipped alphas and ending up lonely/childless because of the long-term side effects of socially imposed monogamy. Remember what I said above: when a society has spent 1000 years shaming women into believing that any kind of procreation outside the realm of a monogamous, traditional marriage is utterly sinful at worst and downright scandalous at best, they're not going to have many options left when the beta welfare train slows down and we have a freer sexual market. The society has insisted that the only way to do things is via that trditional, strictly monogamous marriage. However, we have a problem because a) the men don't want to do that anymore and b) the women (who hate the men they wouldve married) dont want it either. So what's left?

Empty casual sex with men getting snipped and women remaining childless. There aren't really many other options if you don't want the traditional marriage and yet are disinclined (largely because of the way society has conditioned things for 1000+ years) to have children outside the confines of that strictly traditional monogamous setup. When you don't want the marriages but can't procreate without them (or, as a woman, follow your natural hypergamous instinct to its natural polygamous conclusion), odds are good that you'll just be left with empty, casual sex.

What we had here was not natural, but what we have isn't entirely natural either (though it is closer). The influence of the old strict socially imposed monogamy ways can still be felt.

If that influence wasn't there, those women wouldn't be childless cat ladies. They'd be gunning for the top 20 (and, failing that, top 30-40%) of men and sharing a few of them, with all of them having children.

Guys on the bottom of the pyramid (well below that top 20% or even top 40%) can't expect society to hand them pussy forever. This is not the natural order of things, and in this case I am not convinced that natural is not better.

Also, I don't buy your murder analogy. Aside from the sheer size of the difference between the things we're talking about (mating patterns vs. murder - there's really no comparison here), the cold hard fact is that if the only reason you aren't murdering people is because of societal statutes and laws, you've got bigger problems.

[Dan Woolf]

(06-05-2017 11:25 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Also, I don't buy your murder analogy. Aside from the sheer size of the difference between the things we're talking about (mating patterns vs. murder - there's really no comparison here), the cold hard fact is that if the only reason you aren't murdering people is because of societal statutes and laws, you've got bigger problems.

I think they are very comparable. Men were designed to fuck and kill. And in nature there's no "murder". If I hadn't been taught that killing other people is wrong, I probably wouldn't think it's wrong. That upbringing is form of a societal restriction, too.

(06-05-2017 11:25 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

If that influence wasn't there, those women wouldn't be childless cat ladies. They'd be gunning for the top 20 (and, failing that, top 30-40%) of men and sharing a few of them, with all of them having children.

Even without vasectomies, those women would end up alone because high value men would still have no reason to commit. Sure, the women would have children then, but we all know what happens to children of single moms. Or maybe you're supporting some sort of polygamous society where the top 10% of men live like kings with harems full of women and the rest of them blow up, rape and behead other people? Would YOU want to live in a society like that?

But anyway, I'm not proposing that any of us should fight against these changes that are happening, quite the contrary. I've already decided to ride the wave many years ago. I'm just telling it like it is: this will/has lead to all kinds of problems and eventually our civilization will crumble. Period.

[rudebwoy]

(06-06-2017 06:54 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

Even without vasectomies, those women would end up alone because high value men would still have no reason to commit. Sure, the women would have children then, but we all know what happens to children of single moms. Or maybe you're supporting some sort of polygamous society where the top 10% of men live like kings with harems full of women and the rest of them blow up, rape and behead other people? Would YOU want to live in a society like that?

But anyway, I'm not proposing that any of us should fight against these changes that are happening, quite the contrary. I've already decided to ride the wave many years ago. I'm just telling it like it is: this will/has lead to all kinds of problems and eventually our civilization will crumble. Period.

You cannot say 100% that these women wouldn't be able to lock down high value men, or shall we call them high earning men.

Making money doesn't always ensure that you have game to outwit these skanks. After all, why would these young guys need to go to the drastic measures of getting a vasectomy.

Maybe where you live things are different, I still see dudes marrying women with kids. There are some famous athletes that make millions, yet quite a few of them marry women who have had children.

I have never been to Russia, but isn't it common knowledge for these oligarchs to have harems of young women!

[Excelsior]

(06-06-2017 06:54 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(06-05-2017 11:25 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Also, I don't buy your murder analogy. Aside from the sheer size of the difference between the things we're talking about (mating patterns vs. murder - there's really no comparison here), the cold hard fact is that if the only reason you aren't murdering people is because of societal statutes and laws, you've got bigger problems.

I think they are very comparable. Men were designed to fuck and kill. And in nature there's no "murder". If I hadn't been taught that killing other people is wrong, I probably wouldn't think it's wrong. That upbringing is form of a societal restriction, too.

I find that line of reasoning wholly unconvincing. Society alone should not be the only motivator for one's belief that killing is wrong and, if it is indeed only societal restrictions that give you pause before taking a life, I think there are other issues.

In either case, this is beside the point even if I were to accept your line of reasoning. Societal restrictions on killing are wide spread, even in societies where there is no socially imposed monogamy. Societal restrictions on killing have arisen organically in every human society. Socially imposed monogamy arose organically in only one corner of the world (and was largely imposed on other parts of the planet from there) - it has never been anywhere near as widespread or generally appealing to humanity on a broad scale. These are not comparable things in their natural appeal, seriousness (imposing a ban on killing people is a far cry from imposing monogamy), importance (a societal restriction on killing is vastly more valuable and important for overall safety), or general spread around the world.

Furthermore, this whole argument rests firmly on the implication that civilization cannot exist absent strictly imposed monogamy (just as we know it could not reasonably exist absent a general societal restriction on killing). That's a falsehood. A society absent a restriction on killing is far closer to the "state of nature" of which you speak than a society that simply lacks strictly imposed monogamy.

Quote:

(06-05-2017 11:25 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

If that influence wasn't there, those women wouldn't be childless cat ladies. They'd be gunning for the top 20 (and, failing that, top 30-40%) of men and sharing a few of them, with all of them having children.

Even without vasectomies, those women would end up alone because high value men would still have no reason to commit. Sure, the women would have children then, but we all know what happens to children of single moms. Or maybe you're supporting some sort of polygamous society where the top 10% of men live like kings with harems full of women and the rest of them blow up, rape and behead other people? Would YOU want to live in a society like that?

Those women would not have monogamous commitment from those men. They would still have some relationship with them.
I'm not against a polygamous society. There's more to the creation of a society in which individuals are blown up, raped, and beheaded en masse than simply allowing polygamy or multiple marriage.

Quote:

But anyway, I'm not proposing that any of us should fight against these changes that are happening, quite the contrary. I've already decided to ride the wave many years ago. I'm just telling it like it is: this will/has lead to all kinds of problems and eventually our civilization will crumble. Period.

Said crumbling was inevitable, and the root cause of it goes well beyond the changes you're seeing on the surface, as I've explained.

[Dan Woolf]

(06-07-2017 01:25 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

There's more to the creation of a society in which individuals are blown up, raped, and beheaded en masse than simply allowing polygamy or multiple marriage.

When 80-90% of men can't find a woman and the top 10-20% have multiple wives/harems, what do you think is going to happen? Do you think they will just fade away gently and let the top guys enjoy the spoils?

[Excelsior]

(06-07-2017 01:42 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 01:25 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

There's more to the creation of a society in which individuals are blown up, raped, and beheaded en masse than simply allowing polygamy or multiple marriage.

When 80-90% of men can't find a woman and the top 10-20% have multiple wives/harems, what do you think is going to happen? Do you think they will just fade away gently and let the top guys enjoy the spoils?

In that scenario (which is not inevitable, btw - there are other plausible outcomes in the multiverse of possibilities here), they will adapt or die, as they always have.

[Samseau]

(06-04-2017 05:17 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 01:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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"?

Because the distinction is meaningful. "Socially imposed" is just a term of art used to refer to the scale and strictness of the imposition.

As noted above, socially imposed monogamy is of the stricter form we've come to know in Western Europe. It arose there in the middle ages and has become the defining form of modern monogamy in our minds.
It goes above and beyond monogamy in its prohibition of polygyny, shaming of out of wedlock children, and its limitations on female sexuality.

I still see no difference between "socially imposed monogamy" and a "monogamous society." The idea that monogamy is natural, or hypergamy is natural is a debate on the word natural.

Is it natural for humans to behave like apes and monkeys? Or is it natural for humans to conform to social standards, as we are social and political animals that do not live apart from one another?

I say hypergamy is not anymore natural than monogamy for humans because we do indeed only exist within groups, which therefore means hypergamy can only exist and be sustained if there is constraints on male violence (which is also perfectly natural to all animals).

This whole idea of a few select men monopolizing all the women never existed outside of societies with rich powerful rulers to keep the "betas" at bay. And these societies do not last for long - these rulers and their families rarely survive more than a few generations.

Quote:

In a strict system of socially imposed monogamy, women have very limited opportunities to openly express their hypergamy. Elite men cannot have open multiple marriage, concubinage, or harems. The best they can do is keep a few discreet mistresses, with any children produced of those unions never in a good place and limited in the opportunity available to them. The women who would instead be getting a piece of the top 20% of men are forced to settle for someone below that level in a long-term, monogamous relationship.

I still cannot see a difference between a monogamous society and "socially imposed monogamy." They mean the exact same thing.

As for monogamy being unnatural, I do not see a case for that either. It is very difficult to say whether or not something is natural or not for humanity. Humans are by definition "unnatural" - we are unlike anything in nature, and constantly modify the environment to our needs.

Whether or not monogamy is natural for women is irrelevant. The question is if it produces good effects or not.

Quote:

This is why I say that socially imposed monogamy is the ultimate form of beta welfare. It is the most forgiving to the average man and the harshest on women and elite men. It goes further than all other systems in ensuring that every sub-elite male can gain sexual access and the privilege of being a patriarch. It is peak betaffirmative action.

As someone else has noted in this thread, monogamy also has property ownership. It's not just socialism or welfare. It's a mixed system.

Quote:

Systems that promote monogamy while still openly sanctioning and allowing concubinage (these were common in east asia) are distinct in that they do more to serve the desire of elite men to have more than one woman and the desire of women to express their hypergamy relatively free of consequence.
Systems that openly allow polygamy go further still, obviously. Both of these systems are less deferential to the average man.

East asia was vastly a monogamous society, elites withstanding.

Quote:

Quote:

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."

There is no such line and there is no such prohibition in the Old Testament. Men in the Old Testament were openly permitted to have multiple wives. Polygamy was sanctioned and is not prohibited in the Old Testament.

No. http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-17.htm

Quote:

And he doth not multiply to himself wives, and his heart doth not turn aside, and silver and gold he doth not multiply to himself -- exceedingly.

Quote:

The best anti-polygamy line in the bible comes from the New Testament, specifically Matthew 19:3-9, when Jesus says: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Of course, this passage has multiple interpretations and is not a clear prohibition on polygamy, though many have interpreted it to be such. Though only one wife is implied here, there is dispute over the notion that man can only cleave and become "one flesh" with a single woman - polygamists will contend (and there is nothing in the bible to firmly contradict them) that one can become one flesh with multiple woman, and that a second wife becomes one flesh with both the husband AND his first wife.

The fact that there is no other passage in the New Testament explicitly prohibiting the taking of multiple wives for men who were not figures in the church (indeed, the New Testament is largely silent on the issue of polygamy) lends credence to this interpretation - all bans on polygamy by the church are based on implications and interpretations. There is no solid prohibition. The Bible, quite frankly, isn't very firm in any stand against polygamy and isn't a very good source for substantiating a prohibition on it.

Incorrect on many levels. First, Jesus is quoting the OT. Therefore you aren't quoting the NT, you're quoting the one of oldest books in the world, Genesis 2:24:

Quote:

therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.

From the above line, combined with prohibitions on adultery (defined in the OT as taking a man's wife), you get a 90% or more monogamous society. The exceptions were rich Jews who captured concubines in war, bought concubines in slavery, or divorced aging wives to get a new one.

Second, Jesus did give separate commands for monogamy, namely from the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:28:

Quote:

but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

Thus a married man cannot even look at porn without committing adultery on his wife. When a man is married, he must only have eyes for his wife or risks hell.

Jesus also gave prohibitions on divorce within the Sermon on the Mount. The OT gives rationale for monogamy, but with the allowances for fun before marriage and the ability to divorce. The NT says monogamy or you risk hell, no divorces except for adultery. As for premarital sex, I made a huge thread about this topic in the Deep Forum and it's still an inconclusive answer but I think I can update the thread now with even more detailed answers.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Partially correct, but not quite to the point. The key issue here is that in these societies strict monogamy was universally enforced even among the rich and powerful, which is why mistresses were kept with discretion and any children produced of those unions were at a substantial disadvantage (illegitimacy was a black mark). These plural relationships existed in the shadows precisely because they were not sanctioned, and they were not sanctioned because there was a strict prohibition on multiple marriages.

I think you're overplaying the effect that social stigma played with bastard children. Fact is, even without social stigmas against bastards, bastards do not receive the same amount of attention from loving fathers (if at all). They grow up to be less educated on average, less talented, and have fewer opportunities to succeed.

Quote:

This stands in firm contrast with systems in which concubinage and/or polygamy were openly allowed. Discretion was not required, children produced of said unions had many more opportunities (illegitimacy was far less of a black mark), and the hypergamy of the women involved was satisfied far more effectively (an official concubine or 2nd/3rd wife had much more in the way of stability and status than a discreet mistress, she was not looked down upon or shamed nearly to the extent that mistresses were, and her kids were better off too).

Such concubines generally were still worse off than legitimate children from the same upper class men.

While a bastard may have been better off than the lower classes, they were not compared to those in their social strata.

Quote:

These systems were, of course, worse for average men, but we've been over that.

And since it is average men who create civilizations, this is why monogamous systems are the strongest in the long run.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Alright, I am going to start by focusing again on the statement that is bolded.

You say "women" generally, but, as I noted earlier, I know plenty of women who are having plenty of kids. Birthrates are high across many parts of the world.

And the places with high birthrates are unsustainable. They come from poverty stricken cultures that are utterly dependent on the disappearing first world.

Quote:

A glance at fertility rates in Africa (North and South), West Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean/Central America + South America, as well as those of their kin who have migrated elsewhere, would seem to indicate that there is a general tendency to have kids (at least to have enough to replace themselves) and a preference for doing so.

All the places you've mentioned are unstable cultures constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.

Quote:

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

They are in developed cultures.

Quote:

So, again, I have to ask: what "women" are you talking about who are not having kids (but need to be having kids, according to you, lest the world be imperiled)? Can you be more specific?

Very easy - the richest societies are having the fewest children. The most intelligent women have the fewest children. The effects are most pronounced with White and East Asian women.

Quote:

Now, on to the talk about the virtues of monogamy. As I said earlier, strictly imposed monogamy is distinct in that it is the most beneficial of all systems for the average man. If we're talking about the virtues of monogamy, then we have to make this distinction because the average man is not as well off in a system that encourages monogamy but openly sanctions concubinage or multiple marriage. Socially imposed monogamy (which is what I have been calling this stricter system that we've come to know in the western world) is the ultimate form of beta welfare. There is no better system for the average man, and no worse system for women and above average men.

Not sure why you would say it's bad for women - ugly women benefit tremendously from monogamous societies. I would say monogamous societies not only take care of the weakest members of society, but also produces the highest quality men on average.

It is a central reason why Whites came to dominate the world.

Quote:

I do not buy the notion that the destruction of the form of monogamy we have seen dominate the west has led to women not having kids. You don't need a system of socially imposed monogamy to get women to have children. If anything, maintaining such a system increases the risk of fewer children down the road and any "baby-bust" is actually the product of that socially imposed monogamy.

The fact is, among higher cultures (Whites and East Asians, specifically) monogamy has been virtually bred into them. Most people from these cultures instinctively know better than to have kids outside of marriage. It is social habit ingrained from over 1500 years.

Moreover, single moms just don't produce high quality men on any sort of scale that supports advanced civilization. There was plenty of time in the past for non-monogamous societies to prove their worth, and they never did. Hence it is exceedingly likely they never will.

Quote:

Let's illustrate this with a hypothetical that parallels what we've been talking about: what we are talking about is a system that effectively would have forced the women living under it to marry betas and forego any chance at getting a piece of men closer to the top of the pyramid.

Women of all kinds hate betas, so that was going to come crashing down at some point, and when it did this society was going to be in a pickle: because said society would have spent about 1000 years shaming the women to death for having children outside of the confines of a 1 woman-1 man union, the women living under it who rebelled against such unions would naturally feel uncomfortable having children (because they feel compelled to be inside the unions in order to do so).

At the same time, because this society has also spent 1000 years insisting that the women under its dominion are wrong to want to share a few elite men and shaming them for following their instinct to do so while also making it illegal (no polygamy, no sanctioned concubinage), its women won't feel comfortable procreating in those unions either (they are, after all, not the 1 man/1 woman unions they've been trained to believe are essential to procreation).

In short, such a society (which is a society of the kind you're promoting as ideal) would have left very few options for its women. Under the dominion of said society, women are only allowed to procreate in strictly monogamous unions...but they hate the men they are forced into these unions with since most are betas and they hate betas. They also despise the society broadly for its forcing them into unions with said betas. They aren't allowed to procreate outside of said unions (by, for example, sharing one or two elite men), so...no procreation.

Women only hate betas because they are exposed to alphas. A chaste society keeps women from being tempted as much as possible, so women do not know what other alphas they could have.

Television probably did more to destroy marriage than anything. The internet only makes it worse. Any pretty woman dreams of some dream man, not knowing she is nothing more than a fuck toy for these men. Or even worse, the women decide it is better to be a fuck toy for an alpha than to be mother with a less "successful" man.

Quote:

The lack of children shouldn't surprise you at all. The strict nature of the system of socially imposed monogamy I have been talking about would inevitably lead to this outcome, as would contact with other societies in which things were not nearly as strict (ex: access to a greater pool of potentially better-than-beta men).

The only reason the lack of children has come is because men have lost their spiritual grounding in the case for monogamy. This as a result allows the top men to loosen laws girding monogamy so they can indulge in pussy. This then emotionally destroys the women which kills the birthrates.

All of the lesser people's you've mentioned with higher birthrates around the world are doing is relying on feeding on the developed countries to sustain their bastard birthrates.

As the developed world continues to shrink poverty will become crushing in these places, and people will starve (including bastard children). This is why Blacks and Muslims in the past never out populated Whites and Asians, despite Whites always having lower birthrates.

K-selected societies win through attrition, while r-selected societies are subject to the ebbs and flows of economic shocks. When times are good r-selection booms, when times are bad population crashes.

Quote:

Fortunately, these women aren't the only women in the world. Other women can procreate too and those women have come from societies with fewer restrictions, so women will continue to have kids.

It just may not be the type of woman you, in particular, want to be having kids.

No, it's unsustainable and will sadly result in massive death and destruction. In many places around the world this process has already begun. It will only accelerate as long as developed civilizations continue their demographic decline.

[Excelsior]

(06-09-2017 03:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The fact is, among higher cultures (Whites and East Asians, specifically) monogamy has been virtually bred into them.

....All of the lesser people's you've mentioned with higher birthrates around the world are doing is relying on feeding on the developed countries to sustain their bastard birthrates.

Glad we've cleared the air there.

(06-09-2017 03:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:

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."

There is no such line and there is no such prohibition in the Old Testament. Men in the Old Testament were openly permitted to have multiple wives. Polygamy was sanctioned and is not prohibited in the Old Testament.

No. http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-17.htm

Quote:

And he doth not multiply to himself wives, and his heart doth not turn aside, and silver and gold he doth not multiply to himself -- exceedingly.

Quote:

The best anti-polygamy line in the bible comes from the New Testament, specifically Matthew 19:3-9, when Jesus says: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Of course, this passage has multiple interpretations and is not a clear prohibition on polygamy, though many have interpreted it to be such. Though only one wife is implied here, there is dispute over the notion that man can only cleave and become "one flesh" with a single woman - polygamists will contend (and there is nothing in the bible to firmly contradict them) that one can become one flesh with multiple woman, and that a second wife becomes one flesh with both the husband AND his first wife.

The fact that there is no other passage in the New Testament explicitly prohibiting the taking of multiple wives for men who were not figures in the church (indeed, the New Testament is largely silent on the issue of polygamy) lends credence to this interpretation - all bans on polygamy by the church are based on implications and interpretations. There is no solid prohibition. The Bible, quite frankly, isn't very firm in any stand against polygamy and isn't a very good source for substantiating a prohibition on it.

Incorrect on many levels. First, Jesus is quoting the OT. Therefore you aren't quoting the NT, you're quoting the one of oldest books in the world, Genesis 2:24:

Quote:

therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.

From the above line, combined with prohibitions on adultery (defined in the OT as taking a man's wife), you get a 90% or more monogamous society. The exceptions were rich Jews who captured concubines in war, bought concubines in slavery, or divorced aging wives to get a new one.

Second, Jesus did give separate commands for monogamy, namely from the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:28:

Quote:

but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

Thus a married man cannot even look at porn without committing adultery on his wife. When a man is married, he must only have eyes for his wife or risks hell.

Jesus also gave prohibitions on divorce within the Sermon on the Mount. The OT gives rationale for monogamy, but with the allowances for fun before marriage and the ability to divorce. The NT says monogamy or you risk hell, no divorces except for adultery. As for premarital sex, I made a huge thread about this topic in the Deep Forum and it's still an inconclusive answer but I think I can update the thread now with even more detailed answers.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Partially correct, but not quite to the point. The key issue here is that in these societies strict monogamy was universally enforced even among the rich and powerful, which is why mistresses were kept with discretion and any children produced of those unions were at a substantial disadvantage (illegitimacy was a black mark). These plural relationships existed in the shadows precisely because they were not sanctioned, and they were not sanctioned because there was a strict prohibition on multiple marriages.

I think you're overplaying the effect that social stigma played with bastard children. Fact is, even without social stigmas against bastards, bastards do not receive the same amount of attention from loving fathers (if at all). They grow up to be less educated on average, less talented, and have fewer opportunities to succeed.

Quote:

This stands in firm contrast with systems in which concubinage and/or polygamy were openly allowed. Discretion was not required, children produced of said unions had many more opportunities (illegitimacy was far less of a black mark), and the hypergamy of the women involved was satisfied far more effectively (an official concubine or 2nd/3rd wife had much more in the way of stability and status than a discreet mistress, she was not looked down upon or shamed nearly to the extent that mistresses were, and her kids were better off too).

Such concubines generally were still worse off than legitimate children from the same upper class men.

While a bastard may have been better off than the lower classes, they were not compared to those in their social strata.

Quote:

These systems were, of course, worse for average men, but we've been over that.

And since it is average men who create civilizations, this is why monogamous systems are the strongest in the long run.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Alright, I am going to start by focusing again on the statement that is bolded.

You say "women" generally, but, as I noted earlier, I know plenty of women who are having plenty of kids. Birthrates are high across many parts of the world.

And the places with high birthrates are unsustainable. They come from poverty stricken cultures that are utterly dependent on the disappearing first world.

Quote:

A glance at fertility rates in Africa (North and South), West Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean/Central America + South America, as well as those of their kin who have migrated elsewhere, would seem to indicate that there is a general tendency to have kids (at least to have enough to replace themselves) and a preference for doing so.

All the places you've mentioned are unstable cultures constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.

Quote:

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

They are in developed cultures.

Quote:

So, again, I have to ask: what "women" are you talking about who are not having kids (but need to be having kids, according to you, lest the world be imperiled)? Can you be more specific?

Very easy - the richest societies are having the fewest children. The most intelligent women have the fewest children. The effects are most pronounced with White and East Asian women.

Quote:

Now, on to the talk about the virtues of monogamy. As I said earlier, strictly imposed monogamy is distinct in that it is the most beneficial of all systems for the average man. If we're talking about the virtues of monogamy, then we have to make this distinction because the average man is not as well off in a system that encourages monogamy but openly sanctions concubinage or multiple marriage. Socially imposed monogamy (which is what I have been calling this stricter system that we've come to know in the western world) is the ultimate form of beta welfare. There is no better system for the average man, and no worse system for women and above average men.

Not sure why you would say it's bad for women - ugly women benefit tremendously from monogamous societies. I would say monogamous societies not only take care of the weakest members of society, but also produces the highest quality men on average.

It is a central reason why Whites came to dominate the world.

Quote:

I do not buy the notion that the destruction of the form of monogamy we have seen dominate the west has led to women not having kids. You don't need a system of socially imposed monogamy to get women to have children. If anything, maintaining such a system increases the risk of fewer children down the road and any "baby-bust" is actually the product of that socially imposed monogamy.

The fact is, among higher cultures (Whites and East Asians, specifically) monogamy has been virtually bred into them. Most people from these cultures instinctively know better than to have kids outside of marriage. It is social habit ingrained from over 1500 years.

Moreover, single moms just don't produce high quality men on any sort of scale that supports advanced civilization. There was plenty of time in the past for non-monogamous societies to prove their worth, and they never did. Hence it is exceedingly likely they never will.

Quote:

Let's illustrate this with a hypothetical that parallels what we've been talking about: what we are talking about is a system that effectively would have forced the women living under it to marry betas and forego any chance at getting a piece of men closer to the top of the pyramid.

Women of all kinds hate betas, so that was going to come crashing down at some point, and when it did this society was going to be in a pickle: because said society would have spent about 1000 years shaming the women to death for having children outside of the confines of a 1 woman-1 man union, the women living under it who rebelled against such unions would naturally feel uncomfortable having children (because they feel compelled to be inside the unions in order to do so).

At the same time, because this society has also spent 1000 years insisting that the women under its dominion are wrong to want to share a few elite men and shaming them for following their instinct to do so while also making it illegal (no polygamy, no sanctioned concubinage), its women won't feel comfortable procreating in those unions either (they are, after all, not the 1 man/1 woman unions they've been trained to believe are essential to procreation).

In short, such a society (which is a society of the kind you're promoting as ideal) would have left very few options for its women. Under the dominion of said society, women are only allowed to procreate in strictly monogamous unions...but they hate the men they are forced into these unions with since most are betas and they hate betas. They also despise the society broadly for its forcing them into unions with said betas. They aren't allowed to procreate outside of said unions (by, for example, sharing one or two elite men), so...no procreation.

Women only hate betas because they are exposed to alphas. A chaste society keeps women from being tempted as much as possible, so women do not know what other alphas they could have.

Television probably did more to destroy marriage than anything. The internet only makes it worse. Any pretty woman dreams of some dream man, not knowing she is nothing more than a fuck toy for these men. Or even worse, the women decide it is better to be a fuck toy for an alpha than to be mother with a less "successful" man.

Quote:

The lack of children shouldn't surprise you at all. The strict nature of the system of socially imposed monogamy I have been talking about would inevitably lead to this outcome, as would contact with other societies in which things were not nearly as strict (ex: access to a greater pool of potentially better-than-beta men).

The only reason the lack of children has come is because men have lost their spiritual grounding in the case for monogamy. This as a result allows the top men to loosen laws girding monogamy so they can indulge in pussy. This then emotionally destroys the women which kills the birthrates.

All of the lesser people's you've mentioned with higher birthrates around the world are doing is relying on feeding on the developed countries to sustain their bastard birthrates.

As the developed world continues to shrink poverty will become crushing in these places, and people will starve (including bastard children). This is why Blacks and Muslims in the past never out populated Whites and Asians, despite Whites always having lower birthrates.

K-selected societies win through attrition, while r-selected societies are subject to the ebbs and flows of economic shocks. When times are good r-selection booms, when times are bad population crashes.

Quote:

Fortunately, these women aren't the only women in the world. Other women can procreate too and those women have come from societies with fewer restrictions, so women will continue to have kids.

It just may not be the type of woman you, in particular, want to be having kids.

No, it's unsustainable and will sadly result in massive death and destruction. In many places around the world this process has already begun. It will only accelerate as long as developed civilizations continue their demographic decline.

I'm just going to handle a few points here since I doubt we'll convince each other of much.

Monogamy is unnatural, and you've already proven it. You advocate for the need to keep women blindfolded to the world around the (and the man alpha males in it) just to keep the system of monogamy you are proposing running and maintain female interest in the men who you believe need to be marrying them. You know what would happen if that blindfold was removed - you know what those women would do and you know what those mediocre men would end up with (not much). That's the natural outcome. What you're proposing is the opposite.

Deuteronomy 17-17 is discouraging polygamy for Kings, not men generally.
Genesis 2:24 cannot, as I noted in a portion of my post you didn't quote, be interpreted as a ban on polygamy. To note:

Quote:

this passage has multiple interpretations and is not a clear prohibition on polygamy, though many have interpreted it to be such. Though only one wife is implied here, there is dispute over the notion that man can only cleave and become "one flesh" with a single woman - polygamists will contend (and there is nothing in the bible to firmly contradict them) that one can become one flesh with multiple woman, and that a second wife becomes one flesh with both the husband AND his first wife.

Finally, polygamy is not adultery. Adultery is a sexual relationship between a man and a married woman. Adultery is not committed within the bounds of a valid marriage. A man can take a second wife without committing adultery. I maintain that there is no firm prohibition of polygamy in the bible. Said prohibitions were added by Jews and Christians of their own volition, largely for the same reasoning discussed here re: the downsides of polygamy (societal stability).

We'll need to agree to disagree with regard to the distinction of socially imposed monogamy. I've been as clear as I can be on that. If you still don't see the line I've drawn there, you're not going to.

I'm not overplaying the social stigma on children born outside of wedlock at all. The very existence of the term "bastard" and the negative connotation associated with it is a product of said stigmas. The difference in the way they are treated as a class is a product of said stigmas. These are factors that are simply not as pronounced in societies that do not host people for whom it is the case, as you say, that "monogamy has been virtually bred into them". When monogamy is "social habit ingrained from over 1500 years", the concept of being born out of wedlock takes on a whole new meaning. Hence, bastardy and all of the negative connotations it brings.

The overarching truth, however, is that you are correct in the way you characterize the relationship between those you claim to be the "higher peoples" of the planet and monogamy. The institution is a part of them now. I cannot reasonably expect that to change, and I also cannot reasonably expect those who are heavily invested in said institution (ex: advocates of traditional patriarchy like yourself who descend from these societies) to speak against it.

I maintain that, for a variety of technological, biological, and social reasons, this will create problems in the long run for the societies that remain so invested and the outcomes you have in mind for the "lesser peoples" are not likely to come to pass, but those assertions can't be proven now regardless of how much time we spend debating.

One final point:

Quote:

Women only hate betas because they are exposed to alphas. A chaste society keeps women from being tempted as much as possible, so women do not know what other alphas they could have.

Any society that relies on keeping women in what effectively amounts to a box while blindfolded to the world around them is not a society that can sustain itself, especially not today.

No society claiming an abundance of strong, high quality men (the ones you claim to be more prevalent in societies that engage in this blindfolding) requires such an act. This also stands in firm contradiction to the fundamentals of game (the original foundations of the red pill) that motivated the establishment of this forum and others like it - game concepts in this view have been subverted in favor of a view in which society goes out of its way to blind women and get them to act as far in contradiction to their nature as possible so as to hand them (and all of their youth, fertility, and sexuality) to otherwise undeserving men on a silver platter.

That's not a sign of a society well tuned to produce quality. That's just weak men promoting beta welfare to get themselves more play than they'd ever get if women could take off the blindfolds they forced on them. That's a recipe for more weakness, not strength.

That's all I'm going to say. You can have the last word if you want it.

[Dan Woolf]

To sum this up:

Excelsior's point is that natural=good. The point of others is that natural ≠ good.



I'm firmly in Excelsior's camp. I think we should take it further and abolish modern medicine completely. I'm sick and tired of weak boys and men living longer than they were supposed to. It's just a form of welfare for the genetically inferior so they can get themselves more opportunities than they'd ever get if it weren't for these unnatural means and is in no way conducive to producing quality. That's a recipe for more weakness, not strength. If you are genetically inferior, why should society help you to live and reproduce? Just kidding.