That didn’t explain monogamy

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.

Bill Nye the Liberal Entertainer

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. 

1. Sex

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. 

2. Gender

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. 

3. Attraction 

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.

4. Expression

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.