Men are polygynous. Women are serially monogamous. Women are hypergamous.
It follows that the mean number of sexual partners a man has will always be enormously larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.
The mean number of sexual partners a woman has is necessarily equal to the mean number of sexual partners a man has.
It follows that the median number of sexual partners a woman has will always be larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.
Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.
But a patriarch cares even more for he sees as his male children than he does for those he sees as female children. I think that the way a patriarch gets more care for the females by taking a more hands-off approach on a national level, by allowing these women and girls to be cared for by their actual and biological fathers and male relatives. This happens when men, those the patriarch sees as his sons, are strengthened by a civil government that rules and directs with righteous authority, and not in a totalitarian or merely authoritarian way. And yes, these national sons, do have a sense of identity and purpose, as the patriarch leads all. That is what _patriarchy_ is to me.
A.J.P.
If that was the case, patriarchy would be a stable system. Because it is obviously untrue, patriarchy is difficult to create and sustain.
If we could genetically engineer the population to be like that, then patriarchy would be much easier to arrange.
Well, I took a look at that the Baronet, Sir Robert Filmer book called PATRIARCHA OR THE NATURAL POWER OF KINGS and it doesn’t have much about the national daughters. It does, however, have a lot of detail about the justices, magistrates, priests, officers and even princes all of whom would be men, or the male children of the nation, in relation to the patriarch, the king, during or before the 1680 authoring of that text by the Baronet.
Is there some other patriarchal society that you are referring to, “Jim” because as far as I know you are modelling after Restoration England.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
He was not facing a fertility collapse. We are. So, need to focus on daughters.
They’re already promoting breeding with nurseries, public service announcements, mater- and paternity leave, as well as tax write offs. The totalitarian aspect of these natalist policies has an opposite-of-intended effect and ends up furthering depression.
Women don’t become fertile unless they can exist within the protective frameworks created by their male relations, thriving on the confidence and culture which they discover through those same men. That is why Sir Filmer’s solutions would be the same as any who would want to enjoy a healthy and positive society: legions and legions of exclusively male institutions that would guide the rest of society in service to their patriarch.
A.J.P.
In patriarchal societies, men of high rank pay more attention to their sons, while men of low rank pay more attention to their daughters. Raising a beautiful, chaste, intelligent, and obedient daughter could be your family’s ticket out of poverty!
In a proper patriarchy that controls female sexuality there should be vastly less polygyny as well.
Reason? Less women available to service male urges
There usually are prostitutes, low women and mistresses in any society but the “average hypergamous chick” doesn’t exist
All women are hypergamous, and quite drastic measures are necessary to control her hypergamy.
Men are like dogs, women are like cats. We have domesticated men but not women. You don’t need to keep a cat in a cage all the time, but when you take a cat to the vet, or a new home, you really are going to need a cage. Cats are controllable most of the time. But some of the time, they are absolutely uncontrollable.
We want a society in which all prosocial men, all men who play by the rules, work hard, and are willing to kill and die in defense of property and order, get virtuous and obedient wives. So obviously we have to limit polygyny. This, however is hard to enforce, and particularly hard to enforce on women. Controlling women is difficult. In general, state and society are unable to directly control women, short of chains and cages, and rely on applying pressure through husbands, family, media, and a woman’s social circle. If the state tells women “you must do X”, women probably will not do X. If the state and society tells fathers “your daughters must do X”, has better success. And then on rare and extreme occasions, back up dad by actually caging his daughter until he picks her up.
The seventeenth and eighteenth century system that was applied to control women is that in order to get nailed, a woman will agree to absolutely anything, so you had her agree to an arrangement where her husband had absolute power over her, and then society and the state enforced that power, and prevented her from having sex absent such an arrangement. This state and social enforcement made the husband extremely alpha over his wife, and other men less so, so that women were not tempted to stray. Further, husbands were not tempted to abuse that power to mistreat their wives, because their wives belonged absolutely to themselves. As Saint Paul said
“We want a society in which all prosocial men, all men who play by the rules, work hard, and are willing to kill and die in defense of property and order, get virtuous and obedient wives.”
The “we” you refer to are a small subset of the population. White nationalist elitists. Good luck.
Now, was your wife obedient?
Yes, my wife was obedient.
And I am pretty sure that almost all the fighting men, all the soldiers, not counting the logistics people as soldiers, all the police, all the mercenaries, and all the rentacops want a society in which all prosocial men, all men who play by the rules, work hard, and are willing to kill and die in defense of property and order, get virtuous and obedient wives.
Pretty sure that almost everyone willing to kill and die in defense of property and order, want an order in which they get virtuous and obedient wives.
“And I am pretty sure…”
But you’re not absolutely certain, so there is a likelihood you do not know.
Regardless, men determine for themselves what is their own definition of virtuous and obedient wives. That is their liberty. That is their freedom.
Haha, you talk like it’s still he ’80s and liberated women who let you fuck their friends and mud sluts are cool.
You Jew-worshipping cuckolds will continue to believe in the inevitable arc of moral progress while you’re being strung up like wind chimes.
Feminism only works until you run out of other people’s money. Boomers gave all their worldly possessions, all their childrens’ worldly possessions, and all the stuff they could extort from the rest of the world with petrodollars, for the human equality project, and equality will die with them if we don’t pull the plug on it before the death panels pull the plug on them.
A few men are big pimps, and a few women are chaste.
devils advocate could it be that giving all those beta boys wives has turned us into a beta race
That’s what he’s saying, though. That access to women should be more restricted, V.
He and I are going back and forth a little bit about the nature of patriarchy vs. patriarchal societies, while at the same time bringing a recent discussion about whether patriarchy means controlling women.
A.J.P.
Yes, that is a problem. A very big problem. The problem can be mitigated by valuing the martial virtues more highly – soldiers and officers get more pussy, all respectable men have to participate in policing and law enforcement, all respectable men are liable to be summoned into the militia in an emergency, all respectable men required to own and train in weapons, all non respectable men forbidden to own weapons, and subject to stop and frisk.
This also aligns the rather primitive female concept of alpha male, with the males we would prefer her to think of as alpha. Nothing is going to stop females from thinking of violence as alpha, so we have to make respectable men more violent, and certain forms of violence more respectable. We have to get the men that we want women to marry involved in upholding order and property by physical violence, as well as authorizing them to employ corporal punishment on their wives and children.
If man A is socially and legally entitled to spank her, and man B is not socially and legally entitled to spank her, a woman will want to fuck man A and be disinclined to fuck man B.
If in a conflict between a white man and a black man, the state will back the white man, so that the black man had better back down, a woman will fuck the white man and not the black man.
Short of radical genetic engineering, we are never going to get women to like fucking peaceable men. So we have to make the prosocial and respectable male role less peaceable. We have to provide more opportunity and duty for prosocial violence.
There is a limit to how far we can go in telling women they are going to eat their spinach and like it.
“If man A is socially and legally entitled to spank her, and man B is not socially and legally entitled to spank her, a woman will want to fuck man A and be disinclined to fuck man B.”
Praytell, who determines this social and legal entitlement?
It is a complex procedure. Used to be called fatherhood and marriage, but all that has been illegal for a long time, and are being written out of history, so unsurprising that you are unfamiliar with it.
Girls used to have fathers, who had authority over them. Today, this is criminalized. It was impermissible to court a woman except with the permission of the father, and attempting to court a woman without such permission would likely result in immediate physical violence from the males of the girl’s family, and if you survived that violence without serious physical injury you would go to jail for rape. Back in the day rape referred to parental consent, not daughters consent.
Courting would eventually lead to the man asking the woman to marry him, and the woman saying yes. This was polite code for “If I have sex with you, I will marry you” Since women urgently want sex with a manly man (manliness also illegal these days, hence the fall in testosterone and the decline of sexual activity) they consented.
Marriage required the woman to honor and obey. It also meant that all her worldly goods where in the charge of her husband – she could not spend her own money except her husband allowed her to.
Marriage gave the man absolute power over the woman, but woman voluntarily consented to this, because horny. Sometimes they were not horny enough, hence ballroom dancing. Parents would compel their daughter to dance with the guy they wanted her to marry, and forbid her to dance with anyone else. This involved the woman continually being touched by the suitor, and continually following his non verbal commands, which usually got her juices flowing and then she would consent to marriage.
So the practical effect was that the father owned the daughter, transferred that ownership to the husband. Women had to voluntarily consent to this, but the system was set up so that they had to consent if they wanted to get nailed.
Fine insights, and a plausible reason for why classical dancing had established itself.
Quite unrelated, but since I would like to ask you: How do you see Western Europe playing out in the next 5/20/50 years from now? What scenarios are realistic?
Will there become an exodus of productive European beta males into other nations, where their 50%+ taxes are not fed to unrelated women and immigrants? Or will they simply sit back and take the humiliation and continue to get cucked? Or do you expect a European male revolution (probably not).
Lot of valuable stuff in Western Europe, no one willing or able to defend it, most likely outcome is the men get murdered and the women enslaved.
The nation state inherently derives its cohesion, its strength, its military prowess from what is now called ethnocentrism, or racism, or patriarchy, or bigotry, or ignorant superstition or capitalism/imperialism/exploitation etc.
The transnational progressives are attempting to use the power of the state to suppress that which gives the state cohesion, sawing off the branch on which they stand.
And because they have in substantial part succeeded, Europe suffers from extraordinary military weakness. Europe could not defeat the Serbs, could not defeat the Taliban. The British could not hold the most crucial oil port in the world against Sadr’s forces.
Hence the inclination on the right to predict the collapse of the EU or some of its component states. The prediction seems absurd. The states of Europe have police, tanks, bombers and an immense budget, whereas the various threats to their existence are tiny and have nothing much – but the threats have internal cohesion, and the states of Europe do not.
“Lot of valuable stuff in Western Europe, no one willing or able to defend it…”
Willingness and ability to defend are being thoroughly suppressed by the state and the media, and expressing them is illegal, so you’re getting a somewhat distorted picture.
A few refugee centers have inexplicably burned down with no culprits identified. This doesn’t happen in America.
Nazis after WWII of necessity tried to play the US and USSR, but the USSR collapsed. Most neo-nazi fantasy novels from the end of the 20th century had the USSR or Russia playing a leading role in the collapse of the American empire following which nazi states would organically emerge in all White areas.
The petrodollar is soon to collapse. Printing dollars to make up for manufacturing lost to ideology makes the world resentful, and the increasingly incompetent American military can’t threaten everyone all the time.
The collapse of the Harvard consensus is sure to follow.
Western Europe is not just GenX cucks. Their Boomers aren’t all cucks. Without the American empire breathing down their necks, well, they’re currently figuring things out right now.
Austria is poised to elect a Nazi and everyone knows Le Pen is a shoo in next election in France. Britain needs another round of cuckservatism and Germany currently has cuckservatives in charge.
Hungary and Poland would take many years to reintegrate into the Harvard consensus if the EU assumes dictatorial control, but it’s just as likely to collapse as soon as it tries.
What can’t continue won’t, and collapse is imminent.
Stefan Molyneux just did a two and a half hour lecture on the fall of Rome, his verdict was economic collapse and a crushing tax burden to pay for unreliable mercenary legions.
The US empire is poised for economic collapse in a single stroke when no one wants the QE dollars that don’t pay for oil and thus iPads, followed by the government trying to appropriate physical things as taxes to pay for the legions of niggers. However long it takes for the White nationalism of the Founding Fathers to be reasserted here, the collapse in the US means freedom for Europe.
Correct.
Of course Washington DC is also collapsing in America.
“It is a complex procedure. Used to be called fatherhood and marriage, but all that has been illegal for a long time, and are being written out of history, so unsurprising that you are unfamiliar with it.”
[Laughs] that’s why you are gleefully insane, Jim. Fatherhood and marriage clearly are legal. It has assuredly morphed with progress. That’s the evolution of history.
“Girls used to have fathers, who had authority over them. Today, this is criminalized.”
Fathers still have authority over their girls, from birth to 18. Women who turn 18, like men who turn 18, are considered adults, and may live their own lives. There is nothing criminal, or anything that led it to become criminalized, about this liberty enacted by men.
“It was impermissible to court a woman except with the permission of the father, and attempting to court a woman without such permission would likely result in immediate physical violence from the males of the girl’s family”
Yet, you wholeheartedly endorse the pump and dump lifestyle as advocated by Roissy and Roosh. Hypocrite.
“and if you survived that violence without serious physical injury you would go to jail for rape. Back in the day rape referred to parental consent, not daughters consent.”
That society was based exclusively on religious tenets. American society is generally secular. Damn those Founding Fathers for separating church and state, e.g. no official national sponsored religion.
“Since women urgently want sex with a manly man (manliness also illegal these days, hence the fall in testosterone and the decline of sexual activity) they consented.”
You have yet to establish any scientific basis regarding the fall of testosterone levels and the illegality of manliness. More madness on your part.
“Marriage required the woman to honor and obey. It also meant that all her worldly goods where in the charge of her husband – she could not spend her own money except her husband allowed her to.”
BIBLICAL marriage.
“Marriage gave the man absolute power over the woman, but woman voluntarily consented to this, because horny.”
Not because of horny, but because of the increase in power and authority of the family.
“Sometimes they were not horny enough, hence ballroom dancing. Parents would compel their daughter to dance with the guy they wanted her to marry, and forbid her to dance with anyone else. This involved the woman continually being touched by the suitor, and continually following his non verbal commands, which usually got her juices flowing and then she would consent to marriage.”
Sources?
“So the practical effect was that the father owned the daughter, transferred that ownership to the husband. Women had to voluntarily consent to this, but the system was set up so that they had to consent if they wanted to get nailed.”
BIBLICAL marriage.
Why do you insert [laughs]? Because liberals do nothing but posture, giving yourself stage directions is only natural.
Things called fatherhood and marriage are legal, but have been entirely emptied of any real content. The functions and activities of fatherhood and marriage are strange and unfamiliar to you, so that they need to explained by reference to eighteenth century history.
Morphed into mere names, unable to serve the purpose and function that they have performed for the past several thousand years.
Marriage is a socially and legally enforceable contract to stick together. It is now illegal for a man and a woman to contract to stick together, to make a commitment that can bind. This makes it extremely difficult to reproduce. This is the abolition of marriage. And with it, the abolition of fatherhood. We are all bastards now.
That is the system we had till 1800 or so. And pro forma, the system people tended to think we had, went through the motions of having, till 1960 or so, so that even though marriage was no longer legally enforced, indeed legally forbidden, it was to some considerable extent socially enforced, all the way to the late sixties. Marriage existed within living memory, though soon the generation that remembers marriage will die off.
As the market economy is a system that allows humans to prosper, marriage is a system that allows humans to reproduce. We have lost that system, and unless we recover it, will disappear from history.
Peppermint: I’ve noticed that Corvinus uses [laughs] and the words “rhetoric” and “dialectic” a lot. It just so happens these are mannerisms and vocabulary frequently used by Vox Day.
I’d guess it’s a sort of autistic cargo-cult Internet aping of masculinity.
It’s called discourse. Try it sometime, Epimetheus.
Jim…
“Things called fatherhood and marriage are legal, but have been entirely emptied of any real content. The functions and activities of fatherhood and marriage are strange and unfamiliar to you, so that they need to explained by reference to eighteenth century history.”
So now you backtrack again. You said fatherhood and marriage were illegal, now they are legal but lack “real content” because “real marriage and fatherhood” had an 18th century backbone to it.
There is a thing called progress, Jim. You and I despite our hemming and hawing can’t stop it. WHITE MEN made the changes for a host of reasons. Progress.
” It is now illegal for a man and a woman to contract to stick together, to make a commitment that can bind. This makes it extremely difficult to reproduce. This is the abolition of marriage. And with it, the abolition of fatherhood. We are all bastards now.”
According to these antiquated notions. That’s not how the world works.
“We have lost that system, and unless we recover it, will disappear from history.”
Men and women marry. Men and women have children. The system is present, just different. You can’t do anything about it. Most people are fine with this system.
What was called marriage and fatherhood for the last several thousand years is now illegal. Hence the radical fall in total fertility.
If you can refuse to have sex with your partner, if you can terminate the “marriage” at whim, if you cannot bind yourself and your partner to stick together regardless, it is not marriage. And men and women do not have children, but bastards, and not very many of those.
— There is a thing called progress
Once upon a time, White English girls were prohibited from exploring their sexuality with old mudslimes and experience group sex, but fortunately White men have seen the error of their ways and made the necessary social progress.
“Men and women marry.”
http://www.prb.org/images10/usyoungadultmarriage.gif
“Men and women have children.”
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/usafertility19802010.png
Jim…
“If you can refuse to have sex with your partner, if you can terminate the “marriage†at whim”
Doesn’t work that way in modern society.
“if you cannot bind yourself and your partner to stick together regardless, it is not marriage.”
YOUR definition of marriage.
“And men and women do not have children, but bastards, and not very many of those.”
Nope. Men and women who are married and have children, their children are not bastards.
Everything you are saying sounds like a desperate old scold.
pdimov…
I didn’t make the claim that MORE men and women marry or MORE men and women have children. Then your charts are relevant.
For women it works that way, plus cash and prizes.
But even if we only had divorce for fault and with severe penalties, it would still work out that way. If you stop fucking your fertile age partner, she or he is bound to fuck someone else sooner or later. Having divorce for fault with penalties for fault only makes sense if it is compulsory to sexually gratify your partner, and if women who fail to do so are subject to corporal punishment.
The relevance is obvious and independent of what claims you have not made.
People are getting married less and less. This is in line with Jim’s claim that what is today called “marriage” is not binding and is therefore just an empty word without any substance. Which is why people see no point in getting married.
People have fewer children. TFR less than 2 -> extinction.
Marriage means you:
* pay several thousand dollars upfront for a ceremony
* maybe make some of it back in taxes
* get visas for your spouse and their extended family
* have to pay alimony and child support by default regardless of whose kid pops out
* wear a ring I guess
The interracial (n.b. not Black/White, these are White/mud; now that there is no stigma associated with true nigger sexuality niggers don’t bother marrying White women they knock up) couples I know are married; of the White couples I know, few are married.
Gas the kikes, race war now.
Peppermint…
“Gas the kikes, race war now.”
Why don’t you practice what you preach? Take the first shot…
Pdimov…
“The relevance is obvious and independent of what claims you have not made.”
So you make up statements that I haven’t made yet and offer rebuttals. That’s new.
“People are getting married less and less. This is in line with Jim’s claim that what is today called “marriage†is not binding and is therefore just an empty word without any substance.”
No, it is NOT in line with his dubious claim.
“People have fewer children. TFR less than 2 -> extinction.”
The white race is not anywhere near of becoming extinct.
“So you make up statements that I haven’t made yet and offer rebuttals. That’s new.”
It’s not.
It’s not hard to conclude from the statements you have made that your underlying assumption is that things are going fine, it’s business as usual, the meaning of marriage may have changed, but that’s just progress and who cares, things will go ahead as they always have.
It’s not hard to conclude from that that you may not be aware of the rate of marriage dropping like a rock.
Not hard to conclude that you haven’t quite internalized the effects of that and the associated fall in fertility.
“The white race is not anywhere near of becoming extinct.”
It’s not, not yet, which is why we’re having this conversation in this particular medium in this particular language.
But the trends are clear.
https://atlanticcenturion.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/mapping-the-rising-tide/
And if the trends hold, the outcome is clear.
Sure, extinction is not yet imminent, there will be other events along the way, all predictable. Maybe you will live to see them, maybe you won’t.
My dad lives in an affluent all-white suburb in a liberal state. Whenever I point out a social or economic problem not covered by the jews media, he answers, “It’s not happening here!”
“So far, so good”, we say as we fall past another ten floors of the Empire State Building, “People are still finding jobs, getting married, and having children!”
Just ever fewer of them. Fewer children, and of those children fewer are finding jobs, and of those that find jobs fewer are getting married.
There is also the problem of military weakness. We will not be allowed to quietly dwindle. We are fast reaching the point where people are going to come and kill us and take our stuff.
Indeed, it is already happening (Ferguson, Rotherham, Dearborn) but the media refuses to notice. We do not have enough young men of military age, and those that we do have are demoralized, emasculated, and demotivated. We are losing in Ferguson and Rotherham for much the same reasons as we are losing in Afghanistan.
If I was running the operation, I would offer the troops one obedient virgin wife for every sixty Muslim testicles they brought in, thus solving the problem of emasculation and demoralization right away, and solving the shortage of young men in one generation.
**”It’s not hard to conclude from the statements you have made that your underlying assumption is that things are going fine, it’s business as usual, the meaning of marriage may have changed, but that’s just progress and who cares, things will go ahead as they always have.”**
The two links you provided were in direct response to something I did not reference, no matter how you spin it.
On this separate point**, the majority of white Americans are concerned about their nation, not Western Civilization. The majority of white Americans are concerned about exercising their liberties to date, mate, and procreate with whomever they desire, white or non-white. The majority of white Americans make their own racial decisions.
“It’s not hard to conclude from that that you may not be aware of the rate of marriage dropping like a rock.”
I am quite aware of this statistic, but white men and women are still marrying and still having kids.
“Not hard to conclude that you haven’t quite internalized the effects of that and the associated fall in fertility.”
I am quite aware of this silly notion of “below white replacement level”. American whites in general see little need to be concerned of such things, they are more focused on the human race.
“The white race is not anywhere near of becoming extinct.â€
No, not yet, not ever. There will be tens of millions of Americans who identify as white, but more importantly, as simply Americans. That trend is clear.
“Maybe you will live to see them, maybe you won’t.”
Like the impending race war?
“There will be tens of millions of Americans who identify as white, but more importantly, as simply Americans.”
Tens of millions, you say.
Anyway, they may well identify as white or as American, but the words will no longer have the same meaning. Like people today who identify as married but are not actually married by the historical meaning of “married”.
“Like the impending race war?”
Race war? I doubt it. It will be a prolonged process of the white character of the country disappearing along with the white portion of the population.
Anyway, they may well identify as white or as American, but the words will no longer have the same meaning.”
Yes, they will have the same meaning. Quite being a dramatic little girl.
“Race war? I doubt it. It will be a prolonged process of the white character of the country disappearing along with the white portion of the population.”
Whites aren’t disappearing, nor going anywhere, in America. Why do you believe in such foolish things?
Whites disappeared from the inner city, they disappeared from Detroit, and now they are disappearing from Milwaukee. We see on television on nonwhite activists explicitly committing themselves to the disappearance of white males from all of the Americas in the very near future, in the 2024 election season. I believe them. They mean what they say and they say what they mean. Why should I not believe them?
Corvinius,
We live now in the world Liberals made. It’s a nightmare and it’s bankrupt in every sense including of course in money.
It’s going to end and badly.
It deserves to.
“It’s going to end and badly. It deserves to.”
I’ve heard these pronouncements time and time again from armchair warriors. You’re not even getting off your couch to do anything about now, what makes you think your going to do something about it in the future.
HILLARY???
Your conclusion (median woman having more lovers than median man) does not follow from your premises and goes contrary to experience in most countries.
Just use a unimodal, fat-tailed distribution for men and a bimodal distribution for women. You’ll see that women may have a lower median than men while having the same mean. In other words: if 90% women are relatively chaste and 10% women are whores (including the paid type), women have the same mean than men but it follows that their median is lower than men.
No matter what social standards are, there will always be more men related to prostitution (as clients) than women (as providers). It’s in our genes.
Prostitution thrives under patriarchy because there, it’s the only reliable option for most men to have sexual variety. With prostitution/patriarchy, a few women have a vast number of partners, most men have a few partners (one wife and a few hookers) and most women have one partner (their husband).
Since the male and female means are always the same, with prostitution/patriarchy, the situation is as you describe it: the male median is over the mean, the female median is under the mean.
But here we are not dealing with prostitution/patriarchy, but the contemporary situation of late sexual revolution/unleashed female hypergamy, in which a few men have a large number of partners, most men have a few partners and women have an intermediate number.
There, the situation is as Jim describes it: the male median is under the mean, and the female median is over the mean.
If we are not dealing with prostitution, then we are dealing with a fairy-tale country, since prostitution exists and is very significant in all countries. It’s the oldest job, hence it will be the last job to disappear (Lindy effect).
If we are talking about the US, there are maybe around 2 million prostitutes (no one knows for sure) providing sex to around 30 million men. That means less than 1% women are likely having thousands sexual partners. Thus, the distribution is bimodal, as I argued before.
This disagrees with my intuitions and observations about female behavior.
Prostitution clearly does not thrive in Timore Leste or Afghanistan, the two most patriarchal non black countries known to us.
The Philippines are mildly patriarchal, and have a lot of prostitution, but I am pretty sure that the Philippine distribution is not bimodal, but rather prostitutes represent merely the tail of the distribution. There are a very large proportion of Filipinas who will sleep with a wealthy guy, more because of his status than the expectation of money. A large proportion of those then after sleeping with him hit him up for gifts. The widespread prostitution is just the tail of this behavior.
Pretty sure the female median is very low in Afghanistan and Timore Leste, but still higher than the male median. Female median is disturbingly high in the Philippines, infamously so, and substantially higher than the male median.
Jim: “Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.”
Have you ever addressed the role of the female peer group in maintaining individual female chastity?
For much of history (at least European history) one powerful check on female infidelity has been the social disapprobation of other women.
It seems to me that this function should be seen as part of the overall punishment/reward nexus; i.e., a judgmental and observant group of females can act as a tool of Patriarchal enforcement. As they might say today, the Patriarchy can be served through female bodies.
In villages in the days of yore, young wives were sharply watched, often by the Mother-In-Law, who acted as a supervisor/disciplinarian/jailor. The Husbands interests were kept in observance, not only in terms of sexuality, but also productivity and thrift.
Additionally or alternatively, the women of a European town would socially stigmatize errant females, to the point in which *they* had to be restrained by the Law, lest they overstep their roles as punishers and social gate-keepers. Women could be quite ruthless in punishing female misdeeds. One reason the Witch Trial arose as an institution is because the rough justice served up by the enraged townsfolk was seen as unseemly, too brutal, and too chaotic.
Women, individually, have always been hard to control, as you say. The Patriarchy had tools for use in cases of recalcitrance.
But other women (perhaps assuming that if a girl/young woman was sexually “loose”, she may end up dallying with her own husband, and at the least was a disruptive actor) were a key ingredient in the social control of the nearly uncontrollable. Extreme offenders were run out of town. This level of social rejection is death to a woman.
The women would share damaging information among themselves, and also inform their own husbands, so that the proverbial case would sometimes occur in which the cuckolded Husband was literally the last person in town to know of his wife’s infidelity.
Contrast with today, where women operate in a “Sex in the City” mode, giggling and sharing intimacies over their sexual misdeeds.
When women themselves take up the role of monitors and harsh critics of those females who threaten Patriarchal values, then we will know we have truly turned the ship around.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/there-isnt-really-anything-magical-about-it-why-more-millennials-are-putting-off-sex/2016/08/02/e7b73d6e-37f4-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
Do you think that’s for real, Jim? I am pretty much WTF there.
Absolutely real.
There has been a massive decline in male testosterone – I think the average now is similar to the typical eighty year old when they first started measuring it, and men have been forbidden to emit the signals that trigger women into having sex. As I remarked earlier, if you are looking for affirmative consent, you are not going to get it. Hence this chick finds that cuddles just happen, instead of sex “just happening”.
From 1987 to 2004, male testosterone declined 17%, 80 year olds in 1987 had on average higher testoterone levels than young men 2004
Also, women will only fuck their superiors, and men are terrorized into inferiority. I have remarked how men give way to a woman when she walks, oblivious, down the middle of the corridor, how women interrupt their boss and talk over him. If she interrupts you, if she talks over you, she is not going to want to fuck you. If she walks down the middle of the corridor and you scurry out of her way, she is not going to want to fuck you.
So, obviously, no sex. It simply getting harder and harder for a woman to find a man that is alpha enough that she wants to fuck him.
jesus, the study was composed of randomly selected men (aged 45-79 years) living in the Boston area. Jim is trying to say that this study is somehow directly related to the link regarding male millennials having less sex.
Regarding the study Jim referred to…
“The researchers concluded that the decline in testosterone “does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle changes such as smoking and obesity.†These factors are potential explanations both because they are associated with testosterone levels and also because they have changed across generations”. For instance, there were increases in obesity and medication use, but a decrease in smoking. By the last phase of the study, the researchers found that 719 (52%) of the participants reported at least one chronic illness, 340 (25%) were current smokers, 296 (22%) were obese (BMI >30) and 300 (22%) reported using at least three prescription medications. The researchers wondered whether these factors are contributing to the generational decline. “We know that people in all age groups are heavier today than they used to be. Similarly, they’re taking a lot more medication, which has an influence on endocrine health, and they are smoking a lot less, which is good. Smoking is associated with higher testosterone levels; if you stop smoking that can bring levels down.”
In other words, there’s a ton of factors that could account for the lowering of testosterone. Linking that study to today’s young men and their apparent lack of sex drive, well, you need to conduct research along those lines.
Thus far, however, it does not appear that these factors can explain the declines in testosterone, Travison said.
The simplest explanation is probably true, unless it is politically incorrect, in which case more research is needed.
But why is the idea that White men are socially prohibited from certain behaviors that feminists want to socially prohibit White men from politically incorrect? And why is it politically incorrect that White men have low testosterone when it isn’t politically incorrect to accuse them of having testosterone poisoning?
There is a glaringly obvious factor that is reducing testosterone. When you submit, your testosterone falls. When someone interrupts you and you fall silent, your testosterone falls. When someone walks down the middle of the corridor, and you get out of the way, your testosterone falls.
Observe that women continually interrupt men, even their bosses, observe women swaggering down the middle of the corridor and men scurry out of the way. Observe the ridiculously unmanly, weak, and effeminate behavior of male protagonists in recent movies, for example the shameful and shamefaced behavior of Achilles in “Troy” or the latest James Bond. If I behaved like that, like Achilles or the latest James Bond, my testosterone would drop like a stone. If I behaved like the earlier James Bond, my testosterone would soar.
All this stuff kills men’s sex drive.
“There is a glaringly obvious factor that is reducing testosterone. When you submit, your testosterone falls.”
Here is the definition of submitting –> accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.
In your case, the person referred to is a woman, and accepting or yielding is a man.
So, you are going to have to prove scientifically that a man’s testosterone levels fall whenever he submits to a woman. Any DIRECT research on this topic will suffice. Note that I specified DIRECT, i.e. an actual study on your exact inquiry.
I concede it’s certainly possible from a biological perspective, but given your history of flinging bullshit on a wall and hoping it sticks, you are held to a different standard.
— making shows of submission lowers T
— but does making shows of submission to a woman?
It’s almost like women were just invented and you aren’t quite sure how they fit in with the rest of reality.
I’m also still kind of figuring it out.
> “A lot of them are afraid that they’ll get into something they can’t get out of and they won’t be able to get back to their desk and keep studying.â€
This strokes with my experience. Flirting becomes risky in bureacratic environments so women block it (except when the flirting is with a superior).
“Men are polygynous. Women are serially monogamous. Women are hypergamous.”
No, no, and maybe. You are making shit up again.
Men and women equally decide what type of sexual behaviors to engage in. They may each be monogamous. They each may sleep around, either as living single lives or being married. Men and women decide for themselves to “marry up”, although in the past it was more likely for women to hitch up with a man who have money and influence.
“It follows that the mean number of sexual partners a man has will always be enormously larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.”
WTF???
“The mean number of sexual partners a woman has is necessarily equal to the mean number of sexual partners a man has.”
Statistics? Evidence?
“It follows that the median number of sexual partners a woman has will always be larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.”
Statistics? Evidence?
“Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.”
Men in their own lives decide on their own patriarchy, not you.
Moron