How to restore a reproductively successful society

This might seem premature when there is a substantial ruling class faction that intends to steal the election again and implement a brutal totalitarian terror state similar to Starmer’s Britain and Zelensky’s Ukraine, and no namefag of the Christian Right anywhere in the Global American Empire dares raise the issue of the destruction of marriage, but I expect victory in the not very distant future, even though I also expect war internal or external or both, and also expect a high risk of democide — that they will attempt to immanentize the eschaton by physically erasing legacy Americans and the past.

After victory, possibly after a horrifyingly bloody and costly victory, have to restore sex, children, and grandchildren. The future belongs to those who show up.

Love is war, love is a battlefield. It should not be.

If women are not forced to choose at most once and only once, you get the game of players and bitches. At which only a small minority of men can succeed, and even successful players suffer burnout. A harem is great, but a rotating roster of sluts and whores is not a harem. No matter how alpha you are, there is always someone more alpha than you. After a while, even the most successful player realises the players are losing and the bitches are winning.

Betas think they want what alphas have, a long booty call list. But this is not the environment of successful reproduction, nor was it the environment of successful reproduction in the ancestral environment of evolutionary selection, so Gnon shaped us to just not like it. In Christian, rather than Darwinian terminology, the punishment of sin is more sin. In materialistic Game Theoretic language, hard to establish cooperate/cooperate equilibrium in a prisoner’s dilemma game with limited iterations, and by definition, no one likes defect/defect equilibrium.

When the sexual revolution was proclaimed from above, the promise was pornotopia. Men would have easy sex with lots of women. The promise was true for a brief period, about four years, but was obviously false by 1970, and things have been getting steadily worse since then. Things were good when there was social capital to burn, but we burned through it mighty fast.

Forcing a woman to choose once and only once is potentially harsh. She might unknowingly make a very bad choice. She might be forced by circumstances to make a very bad choice. But in an environment where female choice is restrained, it will generally be restrained by parents exposing her only to pre-approved suitors, or only one pre-approved suitor, or they might just marry her off kicking and screaming. And, in an environment of marriage 1.0, this control will generally be exercised by loving parents who have a lot more knowledge of what is a wise choice than she does. So, the price of forcing women to stick out horrible marriages for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, till death do you part, is a price we must pay to get most people in good marriages.

We have to implement virgin marriage, in that most women will have never slept with any man except the bridegroom before marriage. This is going to require alarmingly drastic coercion starting at a very early age. When a girl goes looking for a dicking she will find what she looks for. That is why we have to apply coercion to the girls, not the males. One pin can pop a hundred balloons. Sperm is cheap, eggs are dear. You guard what is dear, not what is cheap. The double standard is what works. If you do not have a double standard, you will not have children and grandchildren, and the state will not have soldiers.

Girls losing their virginity at ridiculously young ages has substantial impact on the supply of virgins, and this problem is particularly serious among the daughters of dual income families.

Why do you think a lot of societies apply female circumcision, despite its known adverse affect on male sexual pleasure?

The net effect of restraining middle class males from banging girls under eighteen is not a supply of eighteen year old virgins, but that middle class girls find non middle class adult males who are unresponsive to such incentives, and this teaches middle class girls that middle class males are beta, and underclass males are alpha.

Pre puberty sex is not readily observable, neither to beta males, nor to people who do not want to observe it. Pre puberty sexual interest is readily observable.

There is wide dispersion in the age at which girls become interested in men, with some not developing any interest until well after they have full equipment and nice boobies, and others beating themselves off long before they develop pubic hair, but the central tendency, the mean, the median, and the mode, is that they develop an interest in adult men at about the age that they first start developing their first fine pubic peach down.  Which happens long before they develop boobs, resulting in a long period when they want men, and men do not much want them. But if a girl is looking for a dicking, she will find some credibly alpha, credibly preselected, male to do it.

This is one of the many, many, many massive social problems of female misbehavior, where we declare the problem to be male misbehavior, apply draconian, but selectively enforced, laws against that male behavior, and then declare the problem to be solved, and declare anyone noticing the problem continues and is more serious than ever to be evil.

If you have strong laws punishing adult affluent white men, but not punishing underage girls, which laws are not actually enforced against underclass males, she will find an underclass alpha to do it, teaching her than underclass males are alpha and sexy, and middle class males are beta and unsexy. Recollect the Pakistani problem in today’s England.

Consider the Disney movie “Frozen” It is a romance. The story line tells us the elder sister is eighteen, therefore younger sister is around sixteen or so, the story is about the younger sister’s romance, and the younger sister is the insert character for nine year old girls, which is to say, the insert character for girls who are not yet menstruating, do not yet have breasts, but do have peach fuzz pubic hair.

Bad guy romantic interest is depicted as early twenties, but is performing the social role of a much older male – he commands troops. Nice guy romantic interest also depicted as early twenties, but he is also performing an older social role. He is an independent businessman.

From which you can infer that nine year old girls like men, not boys. Disney has a business model built around this interest. And since girls are more interested in a man’s social role than his physical appearance, you can deduce what age group the nine year olds represented by the insert character have in mind. Except that the independent businessman is apt to be a drug dealer, and the commander of men is apt to be the gang leader.

Absent disturbingly drastic measures, what girls want, girls will get. And what girls want tends to destroy the family, society, and civilization.

Women are hypergamous, and very young girls are very hypergamous. If you don’t have money, charisma, and substantial and obvious adult female preselection, you are invisible to them. You should not conclude from your own invisibility that they are not into sex. Plot line of “Cinderella”: He is a prince, he is rich, and older higher status females want him.

At age eleven or so they lose interest in Cinderella’s prince, and become interested in music stars, but the difference between a moderately successful rock musician and Cinderella’s prince is insignificant. Both exemplify preselection and status. Both are essence of hypergamy.

If you have charisma for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and a display of nice stuff for the purpose of acquiring adult women, and then you get preselection from adult women, then their little sisters, often very little indeed, are apt to sexually harass you.

Freudians are correct about what fitting the glass slipper stands for. Conan has his terrible swift sword, Cinderella has her glass slipper. The eagerness of all the adult women to try the glass slipper is preselection both literal and metaphorical. Literally, all the girls of the land demonstrate their extreme eagerness to marry the prince (preselection).  Metaphorically, the prince fucks all the girls of the land (preselection) until he finds the girl who fucks like Cinderella.

How did a sane and healthy society deal with young girls looking for a dicking?

Well first, Victorian England was not a sane and healthy society. Everything that today afflicts reproduction and relationships between men and women started to go wrong when the Regency ended. For a sexually sane society, you want to look at the Regency and earlier in England and Australia, and in pre revolutionary Virginia.

And during the Regency and earlier – well you know how if you try to keep a a sexually intact female cat indoors so that it will not have kittens, it is apt to go crazy and create big problems. There was plenty of that craziness during the regency and earlier, and they tended to deal with it by marrying off misbehaving girls at age ten or so.

Early marriage was not common, but neither was it rare. Most of the time girls got married well after puberty, but well before puberty was unsurprising and unremarkable. And girls who were not married until well after puberty going crazy and creating big problems because their family kept them indoors to stop them from getting popped were pretty common also.

In pre-revolutionary Virginia marriage before female puberty was normal and normative among the better people.

Late virgin marriage during the Regency and earlier reflected and required extreme coercion, similar to that routinely applied to prevent a sexually intact female cat from getting kittens, and there were plenty of extreme reactions to that extreme coercion, as there are with cats – and plenty of very early virgin marriage (counting shotgun marriage following very early sexual activity as virgin marriage) and plenty of non virgin marriage.

If you want a society of virgin marriage, have to do something drastic to prevent girls from subverting it, and these quite drastic measures have to start very early. And, because of the likely frequent failure of these very drastic measures, you are going to have to have quite a lot of very early marriage. Very early marriage will have to be normal as in Regency England, or normative and modal as in pre revolutionary Virginia. And if it is merely normal but not normative, if marriage before puberty is normal, but marriage well after puberty is modal, as in Regency England, we are going to have to apply a lot of quite forceful coercion, resulting in quite a lot of young girls going over the top crazy, like a female cat in heat locked inside your house. Not most of them, probably not that many of them, but enough of them that dealing with the problem will be significant.

Today girls cut themselves because though they are getting a dicking, they are not getting a dicking from a man strong enough to give them the whipping that they need and unconsciously want. A society of late virgin marriage, like Marriage 1.0 west of the Hajnal line, will have different problems, but had quite serious problems coercing women in the past, and it will have quite serious problems in the future. A society of early virgin marriage, like marriage 1.0 east of the Hajnal line, will be substantially easier to enforce.

The Amish have virgin marriage well after puberty, but they lose a lot of girls in each generation. They have been selecting their females for willingness and ability to tolerate late virgin marriage for many generations, and the selection process still has not produced a reliably compliant female population.