Too much pointless complaining from men these days

[Money & Muscle]

alpha males survives

Right now, we argue that 5-20% of men are "alpha males".
I'm saying that the margins for this are likely shrinking, and with the right technology and infrastructure - could easily be reduced to 1% or less. Sex isn't even required anymore.

It's really not that hard for a few men to repopulate the earth.

 

[forcerecon01]

Right now, we argue that 5-20% of men are "alpha males".
I'm saying that the margins for this are likely shrinking, and with the right technology and infrastructure - could easily be reduced to 1% or less. Sex isn't even required anymore.

It's really not that hard for a few men to repopulate the earth.

Probably like in Japan

 

[Money & Muscle]

In other words, a large segment of the male population WAS NOT able to mate in earlier centuries

About 40% of men historically have reproduced.
About 80% of women historically have reproduced.

We can probably get that number down to 1% of men and 80% of women though.
Anyone want to guess what that bodes for society, if only 1% of men get sex?

 

[Manure Spherian]

Anyone want to guess what that bodes for society, if only 1% of men get sex?

Likely not much of a society at all.

 

[Manure Spherian]

"There were a number of measures the West took to have most men able to get a home, wife, and kids if they wanted to do so. Not all, but most"

The Industrial Revolution definitely made it possible for millions of men to achieve a level prosperity which had previously been inaccessible to all except the aristocracy and landed gentry. This wasn't the result of a benevolent cabal in Washington, London, or/and Berlin deciding "We need to make the lives of men easier, out of the goodness of their hearts"

Actually, most humans have more female ancestors than male https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool In other words, a large segment of the male population WAS NOT able to mate in earlier centuries

"But sure, not every man got those and some died incel"

As the evidence demonstrates, it was more than just a few

"There were also actual communities, institutions, and social scenes that made it easy for men to get women"

Unless a fella is living in the wilds of Alaska, or deep in the hurt of. The Amazon Jungle, here in The 21st Century he's living in a community replete with more food, clothes, books, entertainment, and yes women than at anytime in history. Yeah, there are currently some policies which obstruct many citizens(especially men)from gaining the proficiencies necessary for them to climb the socioeconomic ladder, and it's wise to pursue the amendment or abolishing of these policies, but this is a separate conversation from the one we're having now

"None of my uncles or grandfathers struggled or had to become some dumb bullsh-t to find mates"

Yeah, our ancestors either married the gal they went to prom with or acquiesced to marriages which had been arranged by someone other than themselves. Can't help but suspect that a world where we're free to pursue the women we desire, or choose not to pursue at all, is much more desirable, for all it's occasional hassles

I will try to address your post later or tomorrow as I left some nuance out of my post.

For now I will post this quote from a very informative article in which the author puts things better than I can.

“To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?”

And yes, I’ve been aware of the “only 40% of men reproduced” stat for a long time, and it’s mentioned in the article too.

https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

 

[BaronOfHair]

Adapt as in do whatever women want men to do?

This argument among men("We should be able to behave like the antithesis of sane, psycholgically mature men if we want, and still be enjoy great lives!!!")is eerily similar the one surrounding so-called respectability politics among Non-Caucasians in The US today

Black Men Need To Cut Their Dreads If they want to work For White People (Steve The Dean)

Here we go.

www.youtube.com

 

[Manure Spherian]

"We should be able to behave like the antithesis of sane, psycholgically mature men if we want, and still be enjoy great lives!!!"

I don’t know what you mean.

 

[forcerecon01]

I will try to address your post later or tomorrow as I left some nuance out of my post.

For now I will post this quote from a very informative article in which the author puts things better than I can.

“To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?”

And yes, I’ve been aware of the “only 40% of men reproduced” stat for a long time, and it’s mentioned in the article too.

https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

very eye awakening. Life is sad.....

 

[Manure Spherian]

very eye awakening. Life is sad.....

I suggest you read the entire article.

 

[BaronOfHair]

I will try to address your post later or tomorrow as I left some nuance out of my post.

For now I will post this quote from a very informative article in which the author puts things better than I can.

“To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?”

And yes, I’ve been aware of the “only 40% of men reproduced” stat for a long time, and it’s mentioned in the article too.

https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

I will try to address your post later or tomorrow as I left some nuance out of my post.

For now I will post this quote from a very informative article in which the author puts things better than I can.

“To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?”

And yes, I’ve been aware of the “only 40% of men reproduced” stat for a long time, and it’s mentioned in the article too.

https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

I don't disagree that promiscuity is undesirable, nor am I opposed to more people speaking out about this publicly. Insofar as hypergamy goes, let's not forget that this topic is more complicated than many segments of The Manosphere have led us to believe

Dr. Shawn T Smith Podcast - The Truth About Hypergamy

0:00-5:15 The Manosphere 5:15-14:04 Redpill, Hypergamy 14:04-16:45 Self improving 16:45-21:28 Conformation biases, Jordan Peterson21:28-27:08 Why do most rel...

www.youtube.com

Any theory that tries to attribute the problems of the modern world to intellectually flimsy concepts like this, and which takes the notion of "alpha" and "beta" literally is highly questionable, right out of the gate. This stuff is essentially an inversion of the turgid ramblings one finds in Intersectionalist textbooks

 

[Pandora]

Men complain of women not being relationship material yet these are the same men who jump on a ONS any day when given an opportunity with a 4/10 and they don't want to put in effort for actual dates. Men complain of women being terrible humans but the only women that interests these men are ones with mental illness' because they're more exciting. Men complain of women being shallow when these men themselves don't look their best, yet when asked about their standards, they want a model. Men complain of women being gold diggers when they got absolutely nothing going for them. Men want a stay at home mom that cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids when these same men only make 50k. Men will want a low body count girl when they themselves have a body count through the roof. Any time theres deep resentment or an emphasis on complaints, it's usually just due to a lack of self awareness and just plain hypocrisy. It's also a victim mindset and it's always easier to be a victim than to work for what you want.

This is so true. Many of us could have had a faithful female. We let a few good girls slip away because we still wanted to play the field and they were not " hot" enough. I was a hypersexual emotionally stunted man in my 20's. I slept with anything half decent, I had no solid career prospects and was not even thinking about a family. I chased after the crazy chicks just because they were hot. I was no different than a hypergamous female.

It is hypocritical of me to judge thots when I was just as lost in my 20's. Women model themselves after the men in the society. This is a tough pill to swallow. Luckily the universe blessed me with my current fiance and this time I am mature enough to handle it.

In summary I agree. Many of us should stop complaining because we had enough SMV to get a couple decent girls. We messed it up. I am still haunted by the hearts I broke ( of good women) in my 20's.

 

[BaronOfHair]

About 40% of men historically have reproduced.
About 80% of women historically have reproduced.

We can probably get that number down to 1% of men and 80% of women though.
Anyone want to guess what that bodes for society, if only 1% of men get sex?

Hey, I think it's sad for anyone(Male or Female)to go without human warmth and comfort. Once one reaches the age of majority, acquiring those things is a personal responsibility. Here in '24, we have a civilization where a substantial portion of the citizenry CHOOSES to live online, instead of spending more time out in the fresh air, among other humans. You aren't likely to find mates, doing the former

 

[Manure Spherian]

I don't disagree that promiscuity is undesirable, nor am I opposed to more people speaking out about this publicly. Insofar as hypergamy goes, let's not forget that this topic is more complicated than many segments of The Manosphere have led us to believe

Dr. Shawn T Smith Podcast - The Truth About Hypergamy

0:00-5:15 The Manosphere 5:15-14:04 Redpill, Hypergamy 14:04-16:45 Self improving 16:45-21:28 Conformation biases, Jordan Peterson21:28-27:08 Why do most rel...

www.youtube.com

Any theory that tries to attribute the problems of the modern world to intellectually flimsy concepts like this, and which takes the notion of "alpha" and "beta" literally is highly questionable, right out of the gate. This stuff is essentially an inversion of the turgid ramblings one finds in Intersectionalist textbooks

Got it.

What do you mean by this?

"We should be able to behave like the antithesis of sane, psycholgically mature men if we want, and still be enjoy great lives!!!"

 

[BaronOfHair]

Got it.

What do you mean by this?

"We should be able to behave like the antithesis of sane, psycholgically mature men if we want, and still be enjoy great lives!!!"

What I mean is that many men today are practicing a reverse version of the sort of Rad Fem espoused by Andrea Dworkin and her later imitators

"Refusing to groom, becoming morbidly obese, not washing your a-s on a daily basis, foregoing cologne&deodorant, dressing like a child who's still in junior high, developing a hair trigger sensitivity to the slightest transgression(real or perceived), and speaking exclusively in jargon/buzzwords is authentic. Doing the opposite of these things will make you more attractive, not just to women, but to sane people more generally, and this is upholding Gynocentrism/Fueling The Feminine Primary Social Order"

 

[Manure Spherian]

What I mean is that many men today are practicing a reverse version of the sort of Rad Fem espoused by Andrea Dworkin and her later imitators espoused:

"Refusing to groom, becoming morbidly obese, not washing your a-s on a daily basis, foregoing cologne&deodorant, dressing like a child who's still in junior high, developing a hair trigger sensitivity to the slightest transgression(real or perceived), and speaking exclusively in jargon/buzzwords is authentic. Doing the opposite of these things will make you more attractive, not just to women, but to sane people more generally, and this is upholding Gynocentrism/Fueling The Feminine Primary Social Order"

When I wrote “do whatever women want?,”I I was not thinking of this perspective, nor do I think the aforesaid slobs should talk to women.

 

[BaronOfHair]

When I wrote “do whatever women want?,”I I was not thinking of this perspective, nor do I think the aforesaid slobs should talk to women.

I never meant to imply that you personally were promoting such a perspective; I was merely pointing out that a significant slice of the male population, influenced by modern day versions of Tom Leykis(Yeah... He could be entertaining at times. Many of his listeners took everything he had to say seriously though, and are now imparting this braindead ideology onto unsuspecting young males)are perpetuating the sort of crap Joan Rivers called Marlo Thomas on back in The 70s, when she pointed out that MT wasn't empowering herself or other women, by not shaving her legs

 

[forcerecon01]

I never meant to imply that you personally were promoting such a perspective; I was merely pointing out that a significant slice of the male population, influenced by modern day versions of Tom Leykis(Yeah... He could be entertaining at times. Many of his listeners took everything he had to say seriously though, and are now imparting this braindead ideology onto unsuspecting young males)are perpetuating the sort of crap Joan Rivers called Marlo Thomas on back in The 70s, when she pointed out that MT wasn't empowering herself or other women, by not shaving her legs

I listened to Rush Limbaugh

 

[BaronOfHair]

I listened to Rush Limbaugh

Poor you

 

[forcerecon01]

Poor you

Quite refreshing take on conservatism at the time

 

[CornbreadFed]

I disagree. Why are sexlessness stats so high right now?

Based on my opinions only...

A). Pointless sex is not in high demand- Men would rather suffer long dry spells and jerk off than have sex with a girl that they are not emotionally/physically. It is not that hard to have sex with a woman that does not meet your physical preferences, but it is more difficult to get laid with a woman that does.

B). laziness and arrogance- A lot of men can get laid with a reasonably attractive woman, but they do not want to put in the blood and sweat in finding this woman and would rather sit in their comfort zone and wait for a golden opportunity to fall on their laps. For example, it took me years of bullshvt to get good at OLD, but I toughened it out and learned the ropes. I went from zero matches and constant flakes to girls asking me on dates and me flaking on women, so yes, it is very possible to become proficient in OLD. Your average male would give up at the first instance of a flake and cry to the internet or his friends about how rigged OLD is.

Mid-tier men did better when women were more economically dependent upon men. There have always been top tier men like what is called a 'Chad' or 'Tyrone' now. Women didn't brazenly seek top tier men through their actions as much in the pre-2000s era as they have since the 2000s. The combination of feminism, careerism, social media, swipe apps, and smartphones has made women think they are entitled to top tier men. Additionally, Millennial women were raised by Boomer parents who emphasized self-esteem and made their daughters believe that they were entitled to the best. This is a phenomenon far more common with White Millennials than non-White Millennials.

I disagree because I believe that women are simply more allowed to be open and upfront in today's world. Back then, a woman engaging in promiscuous behavior could result in harsh consequences for her, so hiding her actions meant life or death in some cases. Additionally, there were no paternity tests, making it impossible to prove that a woman was engaging in promiscuity unless she was deliberately caught in the act. If you questioned whether your child was the milkman's, what could you do besides making a blind accusation? Last, your wife was an essential part of the household too, so keeping her was vital. Today, all you have to do is at worse pay court fees and alimony/deal with child custody pains while your grandparents would have lost an essential functioning part of the household. As a result, you had no choice, but to lay in bed with this wife that cheated or continued to cheat on you, or deal with the dire circumstances of getting rid of her.

What you described is not really a modern phenomenon, as our elders have references to this, such as "the milkman's child," "rolling stone," "love child," and so on. In addition, concepts like hypergamy and girls pursuing the hottest bad boy down the street are documented in plenty of literary works and history. I feel like you are looking at this era through rose-colored glasses. Yes, a man could attract a woman simply by being a provider, but he had to deal with much more adversity than we do now. You can get laid easily today without having to work from dawn till dusk to support a family, without being pressured to have kids by the age of 18, without having to live with a cheating wife forever with no way to prove it, without being pressured to marry the first person you kissed, without being forced to accept a partner regardless of their personality or baggage due to limited options in a small town, and so on.