The goal of libertarianism is maximum individual freedoms. According to libertarians, this is accomplished by a government that does not interfere with individual’s lives. This means there is no regulation of the economy, no laws limiting behavior so long as it doesn’t interfere with others’ lives, and no waging wars that citizens will fight in. This libertarian goal will not last under a libertarian policy. Here’s why.
Capitalism drives the people at the bottom towards socialism.
An advanced economy makes the essentials in life easier. When that happens, people don’t need to work as hard for the “essentials” needed to survive (housing, food). When this happens, there is an evaporative cooling of high value folks as life gets easier.
The world becomes less cut-throat as technology and division of labor increase the standard of living. This happens largely because high value individuals, as valued by the marketplace, are more likely to have fewer children than those that do not spend their reproductive years having children. It is compounded because there is less of a need for high value people because there are fewer hardships – due to the advanced economy that can solve most problems.
When there are fewer people being valued by the economy, they will seek to increase their value through other means. This can mean trying to bring down those that are valued.
A large reason for this is jealousy. So much demand is generated by advertising and marketing. Advertising and marketing target people’s insecurities to create a demand. Then the product is promised as an answer to that insecurity. This is problematic to libertarians for two reasons.
One, people will never find fulfillment in these things promised by companies. It means they will continue to want, and they will likely turn to more things to seek that fulfillment. While this grows the economy, which libertarians argue is good, it doesn’t answer people’s problems. People that cannot afford “the answer” to their insecurities will be jealous of those that can.
Two, most people aren’t wealthy. The majority of people cannot afford the extreme riches that are seen as fulfilling to the insecurities. This means that to reach the largest audiences, companies must cater to the people that cannot reach the highest levels of income and spend. This includes news and media companies. When the majority of people are looking for answers to their own insecurities, news and media companies must empathize with these people and create a solution. One solution is to tell them to work harder. That doesn’t sell as well as attacking the wealthy for not contributing their share to taxes and social benefits. Companies can actually profit by pushing socialist narratives. This is ironic, and it makes sense.
Another issue with libertarian policy is that totalitarianism can be accomplished by private companies. This was demonstrated over the last couple years with the growth of media platforms that then silence and cut funding from content creators that have ideas counter to the ideology of the company.
Just like the US Constitution restricts the power of the government, there must also be checks in place for private companies so they don’t become too powerful over others. There needs to be some regulation to advanced markets. Without this regulation, people will view private businesses as evil, which opens up an opportunity for socialist policies to attack businesses.
This makes socialist political parties appear like the good guys, even though large government is much more likely to turn totalitarian than private companies competing in a free market. There isn’t another option for governments, without going through significant hurdles.
Liberal social policies lead to socialism.
Just like an unrestricted free market leads to socialism, so do the social policies libertarians push for. I will use a couple examples to show this point: open borders and birth control, but this extends to other “social issues” in politics.
Opening borders to low value individuals invites more people that are likely to want socialism. The libertarian argument is that with open borders the economy will have more consumers and producers that can innovate and solve each other’s problems. Few of these immigrants have few skills that are valued in an advanced economy. The rest work for low wages and end up in the same pool as the citizens that are likely to turn socialist.
Birth control allows women to maintain a sexually active lifestyle and stay productive in the workplace. This is great for the financial economy but has negative effects on the happiness of both men and women because they aren’t realizing the promises they were given in grad school and the latest commercials. “Have sex and build your career while you’re young and then settle down when you’re older.”
Problem is, the qualities that make for an attractive man – strong in mind, body, and wallet, are not what make for an attractive female – youth and beauty. Because of that, the sexy man isn’t with options to date the young hottie isn’t going to be as interested in the older career girl.
As women continue to work as hard and as many hours as men without realizing the benefits in the sexual market, they will turn to other means to find their happiness. Since the free market didn’t work out, an obvious alternative is to seek socialist policies that promise equality and freedom. Just like the promises of advertisements and grad school counselors, the promises of socialism will not deliver.
For these reasons, a modern economy needs conservative social policy if the individual happiness is a priority. It should be.
Libertarianism is an unsustainable political ideology for the two reasons mentions. Capitalism, unconstrained, leads to totalitarianism through both monopoly over minds of consumers and from the tendency for individuals at bottom rungs to drift toward a preference for socialist equality. The social policies recommended will also lead to socialism by degrading the strength of individuals that free markets rely on.
The problem with libertarianism is that it puts the financial market as the primary good in the world. This goes against most psychological metrics, which would prioritize individual happiness or contentment, and economic metrics, which prioritizes utility – not just financial growth.
Trump is disliked because he’s an arrogant billionaire. Trump is hated because he represents the results of following the laws of nature. He succeeded in business, marriage, and politics by exhibiting the uninhibited, natural behaviors that lead to those rewards.
It makes sense that the modern culture would resent this. The culture is trying to re-engineer what we think is natural. This happens with sex – look at rise in transsexual behavior and legislation, anal sex, and sex dolls. All of these replace the intimacy that naturally comes with sex. Let alone the baby that naturally follows sex and imposes commitments upon the doers. People have degenerate forms of sex not to have children and a relationship based on trust, but instead as a means to be seen as the type of person with high enough status to have lots of sex.
In the workforce, the best workers end up with status through promotions, wealth, and recognition. However, the culture wants us to believe that there is only oppressors and oppressed and that wealth is taken from the poor to be spent by the wealthy. In reality – in nature, wealth is not zero-sum, and economic value is typically created by the wealthy and shared with the lower classes through both taxes and incentivized employment. People join the workplace not to add value to the economy so they can share in trade, but instead join the economy to gain status in the eyes of others.
Despite thorough historical, economic, biologic, theological, and psychological literature on what constitutes natural, there continues to be this push toward a world that is more concerned with subjective equality and feelings not being hurt rather than actual, natural results.
Why would society push these lies? Mostly because it pays. Having more people in the workplace means companies will have larger profits because there are more people to produce and more money going around to consume. Having people insecure about sex means they will spend more money on products and services that claim to fill these shortcomings.
This is not sustainable. The more people ignore their own biology and the feelings that result from our evolutionary design, the more delusional we become with the natural world around us. We are lying to ourselves.
When we lie to others about what we want out of a relationship or what we want out of a career (status, instead of sharing with someone or the community), we lie to ourselves because our actions go against the natural feelings that occur in all of us.
By hiding our feelings from ourselves, we become less empathetic towards others. We assume our motives are virtuous, and that others’ motives are not virtuous. We become distrusting. When we are distrusting, we are less likely to have healthy relationships with others and less likely to be trusted by producers and consumers in trade. We are less likely to be rewarded in sexual and economic markets.
Trump participates in the natural markets. He built a business by being aggressive, hard working, and cunning – traits that are rewarded in the financial markets. He succeeded in the sexual market by developing the charisma, leadership, and powerful image that is attractive to chicks.
Modern society says that these traits aren’t what lead to success. We are taught that equality is the highest virtue. That giving to the less fortunate is the path to riches. That working long hours in a career is the way to status. That being nice, instead of powerful and charismatic, is the way to a woman’s heart and pants.
These virtues are not rewarded in the natural world. There is tons of evidence that supports this. The bad boy with the tattoos and motorcycle gets the girl instead of the “nice guy”. The sociopath that plays office politics gets promoted to CEO. This is only natural.
If we don’t get material reward, at least we have our dignity because we did the right thing as a culture, right? Wrong. We did the opposite of what is true, and we behaved that way because of dishonest reasons. We wanted the girl and the status, and those things never came. They never came because we never developed the skills necessary to attract these things.
In being dishonest, we destroy our own soul rather than build it up over the competitive womanizers.
Trump’s soul is healthy compared to people that say they hate him. He built the skills to succeed in business and in relationships. This goes against everything our culture tells us from the time we are little. We are unprepared to deal with the world, and we are unprepared to deal with someone who figured it out. We are told he is wrong, but we know deep down that he did the things that would lead to his definition of success, and we did the wrong things because we were lied to about what the right things were.
Do we yell at our parents, teachers, and entertainment heroes – all of our influences that made significant impact on our lives?
Unlikely. We are much more likely to take our frustration out on the man who did the right things. People hate that they’ve been lied to about what success looks like and what it takes to be successful. These people project this hate – the deception they’ve been through, onto others. Plus, our friends, entertainment heroes, parents, and teachers will share our frustration and we can be made together.
I watched another trash show that cloaks itself as “science” yesterday. This one, a new Netflix show called Explained: Monogamy, set out to explain how we are not meant to be monogamous and that culture instituted monogamy to suppress people’s sexual desires.
The show goes further. They take this fact and draw the conclusion that because sex with lots of people is natural because it feels good, we should therefore do it.
The documentary is right – it is unnatural to suppress our sexual appetites. And yes, that’s exactly why marriage and monogamy came about. That’s the point of marriage and monogamy. And that’s not a bad thing.
Monogamy gives us meaning. It’s good for culture. This isn’t because of arbitrary rules. It’s healthy when men at the bottom have a chance of receiving intimacy. Women don’t have this problem. Dudes at the top will have sex and share intimacy with many women.
Men at the bottom aren’t afforded that luxury. Men at the bottom do things like shoot up schools and commit crimes when they have no value and don’t receive intimacy.
We don’t just have sex because it feels good. If we did we would be much more eager to fuck the new sex robots and we would be content masturbating. There wouldn’t be angry kids shooting up schools because they have an outlet of their hand and a video. But that’s not what we want. We want intimacy.
Monogamy is a recent invention. That was cited as a reason it shouldn’t exist. You know what else is a recent invention?
Democracy. Modern infrastructure. Transportation.
Society civilized when it became monogamous. No longer were people physically fighting each other to maintain a dominance hierarchy and access to the harem.
With monogamy, the average man had a chance to be with women they didn’t previously have access to. This allowed him to focus on actually being productive instead of fighting for access to pussy.
The documentary says monogamy started for property rights and alliances between families. That’s not true at all. We’ve seen kings and queens marry but kings maintain their harems. Marriage and monogamy did not start to help the one percent. It started to help the 90% that did not have access to women and resources.
90%? Yes. It was, and still is that large of gap between the attractive and unattractive. This is evident in the modern dating world. There’s published data from all the dating apps, but it’s also observable in bars – men find more women attractive than women find men attractive. We don’t date people we don’t find attractive.
Without monogamy, women wouldn’t date 90% of men. It’s because of this phenomenon there aren’t a lot of attractive men. “There’s someone for everyone.” No, there’s not. Not in a society where we go for what’s attractive.
It’s not a bad thing to have freedom and choices. It is a bad thing when there are consequences to those freedoms and choices that women aren’t told about. I want women to have freedom. I want them to be aware of the consequences to those freedoms.
When women chase what’s attractive and don’t enter a monogamous relationship when they are at their peak attractive level, they remove the option to be with a very attractive man (because they too have options). When women settle, they get unhappy because they’ve had “more attractive”. When women are unhappy in a relationship, they leave. Cue divorce rates, split families.
“If marriage wasn’t a thing we wouldn’t have divorce rates.” Sure, but it’s not just men who are unhappy following divorce (which are predominantly initiated by women). Women have been getting less happy for decades (by every measurable measure). This is despite all the freedoms women have been given.
Monogamy should be in place to restrict the options of attractive men – more so than restricting women.
Marriage for love is an even more recent idea. It’s only a few hundred years ago. There were critics. The documentary says there shouldn’t have been – that love is noble. There should have been critics.
Love is largely defined today as the feelings of attraction, which is aimed at those top 10% of men. That leaves scraps for the bottom of men, and started this long journey toward nonmonogamy. Love is to blame for today’s rampant divorce.
Darwin says man surpassed women in cognitive ability because of sex. The documentary says this is sexist. It is. There are differences between men and women and they exist because of sex. Men need to develop our socioeconomic status, intelligence, and social skill in order to receive intimacy. Women don’t. It is sexist. It’s not misogynist.
Are people jealous? Yes. It’s a natural emotion that surfaces when we want something we can’t have but feel entitled to. How about when a woman is monogamous with you (manifests entitlement) and cheats on you? Cue jealousy.
Commitment to monogamy and not the person is a good thing, contrary to the movie. Before love people were committed to monogamy for monogamy’s sake. You could call in and out of love, but you honored he relationship. This goes counter to the modern “do what feels good” mantra.
Relationships based on love don’t hurt the 10% that are attractive. Even relationships with multiple people can work well for these people at the top. These are the people that were interviewed for the film – people with active sex lives, including those with multiple partners.
But this doesn’t apply for the bottom 90% of men – none of whom were interviewed in the making of this documentary. It would have been an entirely different movie, with a different meaning, if it were lonely unattractive outcasts that were interviewed for the film.
Pleasure is natural. We evolved to feel it, and to want to give into it.
Honor is a virtue.
Virtue doesn’t become less attractive, addictive, and with diminishing returns. Pleasure does.
Enter relationships built in something that will last forever.
There were two school shootings yesterday. There’s been a comparatively large amount of mass shootings in the news over the last five years. These have been cases where young men have taken guns to public places to shoot and kill fellow citizens. Many of these high profile cases have been at schools where gunmen have brought death and destruction to children – usually fellow children.
The response from liberals and conservatives has been inappropriate. The left says ban guns and this won’t happen. Conservatives say keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and this won’t happen. They are both wrong.
We can’t ban guns in America. They have been a part of our culture since the nation’s founding. They are a right in our constitution to protect from tyranny and other people with guns. As a result, there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country. Hundreds of millions of guns don’t just go away. Nor should they. Also, we won’t be able to identify shooters using mental health tests. While mental illness is linked to higher rates of suicide, it does not correlate to higher instances of violence inflicted on others. Dismissing the rise in shootings as a result of mental illness is lazy, but it’s an important concept to understand.
The mentally ill live worse lives than the rest of us. Depending on the illness, there can be physical problems or mental. Either way, life’s better healthy. It’s harder for the mentally ill to find their role in society. In a sexual marketplace that rewards value (good emotions, money), the mentally ill don’t have access to things like sex and intimacy and friendship because they have a difficult time relating to other people. It’s a struggle to find a way to give value when they are at such a physical and mental disadvantage from their illness.
This – the decreased perceived value of men, is what I believe to explain the increase in mass shootings. The increase in mass shootings is caused by a decreased perceived role of men in society.
Not all killers are schizophrenic loonies that “just snap”. Elliot Rodger, the college student that shot and ran over students at UC Santa Barbara, wrote a manifesto that detailed his anger at the world and at women, and he intended to bring harm to others.
While Rodgers did go in and out of counselors and medications, which does point to mental illness, his frustrations are not unique to the mentally ill, and they are becoming more common frustrations among Western men.
There are several reasons men are perceived as less valuable and less needed in society.
- Decreased perceived utility of fathers.
Men are not seen as a necessity in the home. There are more single mothers in the United States than anytime in history. Any psychotherapist worth her salt will tell you how terrifying that is. Children raised without a dad in the house are far more likely to commit crimes, end up in poverty, and be removed from socialization due to early developed narcissism instilled by the single parent.
There are a couple reasons we see the decrease in perceived need. Mothers are incentivized to leave and take the kids. Modern child protection and divorce laws actually give money to mothers that leave their husbands. These laws have the right intention – that families aren’t destroyed financially when a parent leaves, but they have the opposite effect in many cases. Mothers see a means of independence funded by child support court.
Related, there is an increase in divorces, and marriage is way down. Kids aren’t being raised by their fathers. Divorce is incentivized by moving half of a man’s assets to the woman after a breakup. This incentivizes women to get married, even without honoring the marriage, because they have an out that pays if they decide they no longer want to work on the relationship.
Relationships are hard work. Bouncing from person to person is easy. It’s even easier when it’s funded by an ex.
Elementary and middle school teachers are more than 80% women (US). Not only are children being raised without a father figure at home, but they are being raised without a father figure at school. I’m not saying teachers should play a role in parenting, but they do play a role in shaping the future and acting as role models for children.
- Decreased opportunities for the average man to experience intimacy.
Only the top few percent of men are the ones having all the sex. The top percent are the ones women find attractive enough to have sex with. Women find, generally, the same traits and therefore the same men attractive. Attractive men are strong, socially savvy, (generally) good looking, and have no insecurities – looks, financial, or otherwise. Also, attractive men spend time with attractive women. That’s a reinforcing loop – men are perceived more attractive when they are with beautiful women.
This benefits the top few percent of men in the modern dating marketplace. The United States has a strong hookup culture, spearheaded by feminism and attractive men. The hookup culture dictates that you should “have fun while you’re young” and bang attractive men, then “get serious when you’re older” which basically means marry a guy that can pay for you and your children. She can leave this less attractive man any time, which, when she’s had multiple sexual partners, greatly increases her chances of not staying in the relationship. It also increases the likelihood that she will settle with an attractive man, because attractive men that have options will opt for a woman that’s less “worldly”.
Whether it’s Tinder or bars or the office, it’s the cool, sexy guy that’s likely to make his move and be confident and attractive to women he comes into contact with. Once she is attracted to him, he can do anything he wants and she will find it intriguing. HR departments and hashtags the likes of Metoo will never hear of cases involving the attractive man.
This is dangerous for men that don’t have the sexual charisma to behave confidently and attract women. These men see the attractive men doing something and try to emulate it. They go out and say the same things and get turned down, and reported for sexual harassment and tweeted to the world. This greatly discourages men from trying to flirt with women. When you don’t try to flirt, you don’t get better at flirting. When you don’t get better at flirting, you remain a virgin that still wants to have sex. The man without social skills is discouraged from building the social skills required to be sexy.
One of the recent trends is for parents to raise their children to not be masculine or feminine. This means gender-neutral toys or toys that do not align with one gender (the GI Joes and the Barbie). The point of this is that men and women can be more free to be gay if they realize heterosexuality isn’t for them. The problem with this is that boys and girls aren’t raised to develop masculine and feminine traits that the other sex finds attractive. This is fine for five year olds at play time (maybe), but it is not fine when those boys grow up thinking it’s fine to express feminine qualities when they do want to attract women. It’s the boys and girls that grow up straight (95% of the population) that lose during this style of parenting. Masculine qualities are attractive to women. Feminine qualities are attractive to men.
Social media magnifies the attractive men getting all the sex – it is sexy to have a large following and command attention. So women find them more attractive, but other men who are still becoming attractive have that to compare to. While some may be motivated to work harder or learn from the social media heroes, it’s also possible to be rejected by the pressure of social media. Also, social media sexualizes everything. Women get “likes” by sexualizing themselves. Porn has made its way into social media. Leggings and sexual clothing are advertised on the different platforms. Not only are men not getting sex, but they are seeing sex everywhere, which leads to the feeling that they are missing out, and that they are the only few individuals missing out, when really it’s over 90% of men missing out.
- Decreased perceived need in the workplace.
The rise of women in workplace has done wonders for our economy. We moved way beyond countries that don’t have women working. Output is high. We are productive. But, it’s not all roses and sunshine, as you may be starting to see.
The increased numbers of women in the workplace removes man’s need to provide finances. There is nothing wrong with this in itself. Everyone is free to compete in a capitalist marketplace, which I’m a fan of. However, financial provisioning was historically a way for men to exhibit sexual market value. Without this, a man has to come up with new ways to provide value, if value is what women are looking for.
In relationships, people either look for value or virtue. And we aren’t going to start having virtuous relationships any time soon.
The problem with women in the workplace is that even if we wanted to – which we don’t, the economy may is not reversible for people that want to maintain a standard of living. The Western world is expensive, largely because we have twice as many people producing than other countries. The expensive urban cities in America do not offer the luxury for a woman to just stop working if she wants to and be supported by her man. Two incomes are required in many places to meet rent or mortgage.
Women better educated getting good jobs.
- Decreased success in education.
Boys that cause trouble are “disruptive”, not boys that are different from their female classmates.
More than 80 percent of teachers in America are women. These teachers will teach to feminine because it’s what they know. It’s the role of the feminine to keep children safe and away from danger. But experiencing danger and chaos and learning how to deal with it is how children grow.
We aren’t teaching boys to develop their ability to deal with chaos and to deal with their anxieties and to deal with women. We teach them to behave like girls. This goes against every instinct in them, it’s not rewarded in the sexual market, and it limits their ability to deal with their true feelings.
What about guns?
The left says take their guns away. What will guns do to this? One argument is that men without perceived value should not have a gun. That without access to a firearm they will not kill many people.
That’s not unreasonable, except for the fact that it violates the constitutional rights of those individuals that otherwise aren’t mentally unhinged.
In addition, a perceived role of men, and a biological impulse, is to protect himself and his family and his tribe.
By removing guns and a man’s ability to protect, you remove one more instance of a man’s ability to be valuable to his loved ones.
I argue that removing guns would actually increase the number of men that carry out violent attacks to others as a backlash for their removed value.
I explained why men have a decreased perceived sense of value. How does decreased value jump to violence?
These pained individuals want to cause the most pain and destruction possible. Elliot Rodger saw the smart, handsome, fun person be evil. It wouldn’t have mattered as much if some nerd punched him. He would have been mad, but he wouldn’t have experienced evil. Rodger experienced evil when the jocks at the parties bullied and hit him, and were then rewarded with sex from the pretty ladies.
Not only did Rodger see evil in the world in the bullies, he saw that evil being encouraged by women. The jocks were evil. The women were evil. We all have evil in us. When people understand that there is the possibility of evil in all of us, we can do one of two things: act on it and bring destruction, or choose virtue despite of a proclivity to evil.
Another incentive for someone in this situation to bring destruction is the lack of attention they experienced. The Isla Vista shooter in 2014 articulated this quite nicely (hah). He wasn’t even seen by hot girls walking down the street. He wanted them and they didn’t even know he existed. That’s not the hot women’s fault, but it is a let down that the man doesn’t know how to go about getting their attention in a healthy way.
Elliot Rodgers knew one way to get attention. He knew his actions would end up all over Facebook. He knew the blonde hottie would notice him. He had an opportunity to become famous on Facebook, noticed by the people he always wanted attention from. And he took it.
So. Men have no perceived value and that perception is harmful to both themselves and innocent people.
- Family and parental values. Glorify the father and the mother. Marriage and parenting are foundational aspects of every religion for good reason. They provide meaning. They aren’t results of being someone of value. They have value in and of themselves. Disincentivize divorce by changing alimony structure, removing the punishments that fall largely on the man, and punish those who leave for no reason or poor reason.
- Actually accept diversity between the sexes. Value it. Men and women are different. Allow men to be their strong, masculine selves. Allow them to manifest their sexual identities just as women have. And allow them to try. Allow men to build social skills. We have given resources to women to allow them to be confident and successful, but it’s men who are now left without perceived meaning. We need to give men the skills to succeed in a world that no longer values their old skillset.
- Get off Instagram and Facebook. Instagram and Facebook create mass negative emotion do to our proclivity to compare and to seek validation from others, that can never be fulfilled by more “likes”. It gives a platform for horrible people, and silences the majority of moderates who “aren’t interesting”. Life is lived by the average but we compare ourselves to the outliers that rise in popularity because of their wild ideas and actions. Sometimes, like in professional sports, that is inspiring. Sometimes, like the 17 year old with fake tits or Elliot Rodgers, it’s damaging and sad.
- Value the individual. We are all unique and all have our contributions. Allow the individual to try and fail. Again, don’t stop him before he can try, without giving him a chance to see what doesn’t work.
A new article came out claiming that involuntary celibacy (incel) in on the rise among unmarried men. This is dangerous because this has been quoted as a reason for some of the high-profile mass shootings in the recent news.
The problem with involuntary celibacy is it is a result of a man failing in the sexual market, where so much of our value is determined, and where so much of our psychology is dependent. We are programmed to reproduce. If we fail at that, or are incapable of that, we are genetic failures. Plus, it feels good, and we don’t get those good feelings we don’t get when we want. Plus, sex with beautiful people is associated with status. So, if you’re not having sex with beautiful people, you are both low-status because you can’t have sex, and you are low status because you aren’t and aren’t seen having sex with beautiful women.
When people have no value, and that lack of value manifests in the the sexual market, and these individuals see others as having no value, then we get the mindset conducive for a killing spree. It’s dark. And it’s becoming more common.
Sex is everywhere. When someone can’t have sex when they want to (this is a male problem), seeing sex around them reinforces that others are having sex and they aren’t. It’s a constant reminder. They see this in marketing with sexual ads, with women wearing provocative outfits (leggings), and on TV, movies, and social media. It’s the girls with the least clothing getting the most likes.
Social media has made it much harder for the average man to get sex. By showing some skin and acting slutty a girl can quickly rack up followers and “likes”. Women get an ego boost out of this and become dependent on social media for attention and good feelings. So they continue to publish more content in less fabric.
When a woman increases the amount of attention she receives, her perceived sense of her sexual market value increases. 6s think they’re 9s because so many men “like” their picture. When 6s think they’re 9s, they don’t have sex with 6s. Nor do they have sex with 7s or 8s. It takes a man who’s a 9 to have sex with the 6.
Guys that are 9s are absolutely crushing pussy. They have their pick of the litter, and the sexualization of women has made it easier for 9s to have sex with more women, rather than settling down with one good one. While it was never hard for a 9 to have sex with a beautiful woman, now they have more women actively looking to have sex with them, and no one else.
Guys that are nines are becoming more rare and its becoming harder to become a nine as a man. For one, a lot of men’s sexual market value used to be tied to how much money he makes. These days, that’s not the case. Women are in the workplace, especially young women out of college, and they are making just as much money as men. They aren’t financially dependent on a man, and they aren’t looking to start. That’s actually another way men have less perceived value than they used to. Not only do men risk the increasing chance that their actions or words will qualify as sexual assault of some kind, but they are not rewarded by the sexual market for their efforts in the workplace. Which, again, reinforces negative perceived value of the individual.
Men have to be sexy. They have to be charismatic, bold, confident, and have advanced social skills to manage any social situation. Throw in good looking if they are going to have a chance with online dating.
The problem with being attractive by building social skills is that this is becoming more and more difficult for men. #metoo, which has great intentions of stopping abuse and harassment, if it grows too encompassing of behaviors and actions of innocent-intentioned men, can have dire consequences. In addition to getting people fired from their job or industry, strict harassment rules can decrease the opportunities for men to try to develop the social skills that are needed to have sex in the modern world.
Anti-harassment rules and laws discourage men from trying to flirt with women. That’s great – it means women won’t be uncomfortable because they won’t be hit on by uncomfortable (creepy) men. This doesn’t apply to men that are attractive (not just physically) – they will always be able to flirt and converse and touch as they please – as long as they are still seen as attractive.
Men who aren’t skilled socially are just as uncomfortable approaching women as the women being “creeped out”. It’s scary for these guys. They are taking a chance. They are trying. When guys are told not to try because they are creepy, or will be fired, or will be shamed on social media, they won’t develop experiences to become better and more socially equipped.
What is the result? Men will stop. They will back out of the workforce because their efforts aren’t recognized, and their lack of value will continue to be magnified for their failures in the economic and sexual markets.
How do we turn this around? Few things.
- Honor the man. It’s important that we recognize the efforts of men in both the workplace and the sexual market. We are all sexual beings, even men who only work and play video games and don’t venture outside. Let’s accept that and celebrate that. Don’t go have sex with a dude that’s nerdy and unattractive, but don’t shoot him down hard for being creepy.
- Glorify marriage and parenting. Marriage and parenting are foundational aspects of every religion for good reason. They provide meaning. They aren’t results of being someone of value. They have value in and of themselves. Disincentivize divorce by changing alimony structure, removing the punishments that fall largely on the man, and punish those who leave for no reason or poor reason.
- Get off social media. You’re a six.
Milo Yiannopoulos said on the Anthony Cumia Show the other day that the country is divided, and that the division is between the good looking and the ugly. Everyone laughed.
The comment struck a nerve with me.
I’m a good looking dude. But I like to attribute all my successes, and even my looks, to hard work.
I worked my ass off in the gym and ate the right things for years in order to be good looking. I bought clothes that don’t suck. I earned it. I think anyone can be good looking.
That will be the slogan if I ever open a gym: “Anyone can be a six”.
But that’s not where the divide is. It’s not necessarily good looking versus lazy. I’m not going to get into why some people are good looking. I’m going to talk about how they are better than ugly people.
It really starts with the development of social skills.
We call someone “good looking” when they are sexually attractive. Meaning, we want to have sex with them. There is more to being sexually attractive than just good looks, for men, but that’s why we use the term good looking. It refers to good genes, which is a positive reproductive characteristic.
That more is multiplied by being good looking. Again, they develop the social skills, which is most of what women find attractive.
Social skills not only provide the ability to charm her, but also the status that comes with being able to deal with social pressure. Again – good reproductive traits.
Good looking people develop social skills because people want to have sex with them.
Because more people want to have sex with them, the good looking are put in more social situations than ugly people.
Because they are put in more social situations, they can be more selective about the social situations they end up in.
Because they are both choosy and the raw numbers are higher, good looking people will be in more difficult social situations.
Because they are put in more social situations, and more difficult social situations, good looking people will develop social skills at a faster rate than ugly people.
These social skills provide an advantage in the dating market, the job market, and community leadership positions (politics) where sharp social skill is a requisite.
Because the good looking have them leadership positions, they will make more money, as there is more money in leadership.
Because they have the same jobs and the same friend circles that were found by filtering out less fun people with worse social skills, good looking people will tend to hang out together.
This concentrates the wealth, the beauty, and the charisma.
If you’re still not sold that beauty is better than the alternative, there are still more pros.
People that grow up good looking are constantly told they are good looking.
When you are constantly told something, you start to believe it. When that thing is a good thing, you start to be confident about it, because it’s something you can enjoy and rely on to bring positive results.
Good looking people can feel good about looks, and develop a confidence about this. Not only are they not insecure about looks, but they will gain confidence faster than ugly people because their confidence is reinforced by the sexual market, compliments, and, soon social scenes.
In the world of social media, where looks and money are visible for all, the good looking rule. Confidence rooted in looks, perceived value, and perceived status are all reinforced with “likes” on different social platforms.
Perceived status can be backed up when you actually are in exclusive social circles and have the charisma to show for it.
Not “you”, but good looking people.
There is an inequality gap in America and in the world.
There is inequality with income. There is inequality with perceived status (“likes”), and there is inequality with real status (jobs and dating market options).
All this inequality exists because of the divide between the good and the ugly.
Well. Some of it.
Bill Nye is anything but a science guy in his episode about genders during his Netflix show, Bill Nye Saves The World.
He talks about gender, but he also discusses sexuality, of which gender is a part of. Bill gives four qualities that comprise sexuality: sex, gender, attraction, and expression. He doesn’t argue, but instead regurgitates what we hear from “politically correct” sociology majors (about the furthest thing from science possible).
I argue he is wrong on all four accounts, and that all four of these are not a choice, but a function of masculine/feminine behavior, which is a function of evolutionary biology.
Sex is male or female. We have a penis or vagina, and that determines our sex. You can cut off your dick or strap one on (I don’t know how transgender works) but you start off with one or the other. Bill gives statistical outliers to prove his point that people have different genitalia. They don’t. The exception makes the rule.
Bill Nye says gender is “How you identify?” Not, “Do you have a penis?”
I don’t disagree with his definition. I disagree with his conclusion that you choose your gender.
Thing is, having a penis has a massive influence on how people identify. This is because a penis (being a boy) is massively correlated with higher testosterone.
Not just higher testosterone in a “patriarchal world that encourages men to eat red meat and lift weights and women to eat cheese and do yoga.” Higher pre-natal testosterone. Boys form ball sacks and begin producing testosterone in far superior quantities than women before they pop out of the estrogen hole and can even utter the word “patriarchy.” It’s not a problem. It’s how we are.
Not every man will be masculine and not every female feminine. This can be influenced heavily by the quantities of pre-natal sex hormones the child develops. This is also influenced by post-birth influences that are both hormonal and other, such as the values from your parents.
Higher testosterone effects our brain and bodily development. This sex hormone leads to brain development that will assume “masculine” qualities such as strength and an attraction to danger.
That’s the physical. the mental and emotional differences are also clear.
The mental and emotional correlation is most proven by rules of attraction. Masculine attracts feminine. And vice-versa. We see this in behavior and evolutionary study of animals and humans. There are qualities that fall under masculine and feminine. This is Bill’s third criteria.
Attraction is not a choice. Genuine desire is not a choice.
If it was, the nice guy would always win. But he doesn’t. The nice guy struggles to finally luck into a relationship that is likely to end in divorce because he isn’t attractive. He assumes a feminine persona, which doesn’t appeal to the feminine.
A man acting feminine, coming from a man that wants to attract a woman, is seen as dishonest because it’s not his primal instinct. He’s going against his biology and lying about it.
And, if he is being honest (because of what he sees in movies and TV), those qualities are less attractive to a woman that wants a more masculine man. Why? Because it goes against her animal instinct.
Expression is cultural but attraction triggers aren’t and expression is often to signal attraction triggers. Attraction triggers aren’t cultural. They are psychological, which is driven from biology. Expression is used to attract the other sex, so that one can attract a high-quality mate. Science.
There are other evolutionary attraction triggers. Confidence is attractive to women. Strength. These are universal, because we evolved to be attracted to things things hundreds of thousands of years ago.
One claim from the show is that Korean men use makeup. Only two dudes were interviewed about men having makeup, and they are obviously gay. These gays could identify as female and have more female psychology. They are attracted to, and signal masculine (gay) men. This again proves that gender is only male or female – not the opposite.
Then Bill gets emotional, which is the appeal of this show and the foundation of his “argument”. He says, “What’s the big deal? Just get over it. What do you care? Those people are not going to try to have sex with you. Move on.”
I agree. It’s not a big deal for people to choose to be goofy and do what they want. But the term “gender”, which describes the psychological differences of the sexes, is a big deal. Words mean something. Without words representing something, there is no meaning. We have a definition for gender. Don’t stretch that definition.
From American Gangster:
What you want, Frank? You want me to change the name on it?
Frank: I would have to insist that you change the name.
Frank’s cousin: Fine by me, Frank. I’ll call it Red Magic, even though that don’t sound as good.
Frank: I don’t give a fuck what you call it. Put a chokehold on the motherfucker and call it Blue Dog Shit.
Don’t call what’s not a gender a gender.
Nye uses ice cream as a comparison. Saying chocolate and strawberry ice cream are their own flavors and uses vanilla to signify heterosexual male and female, which says all flavors should just be vanilla.
This is so obviously an invalid comparison because ice cream is man-made and does not have an evolutionary makeup. There is no DNA, there is no brain built and developed over millions of years of evolution. Ice cream is simple. Malleable. So are social trends. Sort of. Psychology is not.
Humans have evolutionary beginnings and cannot just change. We don’t choose attraction; we don’t choose our gender. We may not have the same gender as our genitalia, but we don’t choose.
The show concludes with a sexual trash song voiced by a lesbian whore that just shoves the lack of femininity and anti-Christianity and anti-evolutionary psychology in our face.
Nye says culture is providing more ways of expressing this gender spectrum, and that is progress that should be celebrated. Really, culture is getting us further away from the truth of the way people are. To find happiness, it does no favors to reject the truths of evolved male and female dynamics.
Science is the mathematical and statistical method of determining the truth. In this episode of Bill Nye there was no experimenting other than asking people their opinions. Opinions are highly biased and therefore are not controllable in an experiment setting. Further, his panel consisted of a gay black comedian, a black sociology professor, and a chick sociology professor. Hardly the diverse authorities on the subject. This doesn’t count as an experiment. This isn’t science.
Bill Nye is an entertainer. To call him the “science guy” is a misnomer. He did little but follow popular liberal outcry, and followed it up with, not numbers but, the opinions of sociology professors that are also likely to buy into liberal outcry.
The whole point of science is to reduce outcry – liberal or otherwise, so that we may continue to be productive and seek further truth. To that end, Bill Nye the Liberal Entertainer did the world a disservice. This is the only episode I watched because I wanted to see if a proclaimed science guy did address the “gender issue” from a biological, evolutionary, or behavioral angle of problem solving. He did not.