The collapse of sex and reproduction

So many women — an ever-increasing proportion of women—are unable to attain love, family, and children, and so many men — an ever-increasing proportion of men — are unable to attain sex, love, family, and children.

Women are encouraged to focus on career and education first and worry about love and children another day. But they have their whole lives for career and education, and only a very limited window for love and children.

For women, it is very difficult to “have it all”: to have a career, and marriage, and children. But many women are regretting having chosen a career instead of children. While a woman pursues education and a career, time is likely to run out.

Women complain of “Peter Pan syndrome,” but the women accusing men of this tend to be at the end of their own fertile windows, while the men they accuse are in the middle of their fertile window. Obviously, a male doctor will get a better marriage if he becomes established in his career and then marries an eighteen-year-old nurse who is still a virgin and just starting out in nursing, rather than with a female doctor who is equally established in her career. By the time the female doctor is established, she is starting to run low on eggs and probably has a high notch count. The established male doctor has a long fertile window ahead of him, while the established female doctor’s remaining eggs are getting stale.

Preselection means that the more previous sex partners a man has, the higher his notch count, and the higher his value, even though a high notch count makes him less likely to settle down with his latest partner. Women are choosing the men most apt to have “Peter Pan syndrome.”

On the other hand, the higher a woman’s notch count, the lower her value: she is a used car very rapidly accumulating far too much mileage. When a man has sex with her, his value appreciates and her value depreciates.

Hypergamy and the longer male fertility window mean that those few men who are visible to the vast majority of women have no need to settle any time soon, while women are on a clock that is rapidly running out.

A woman has her highest value as a sex partner near the peak of her fertility window, when she is about Sydney Sweeney’s current age. At the time of writing, Sydney Sweeney is twenty-eight.

But a woman has her highest value as a wife when most of her fertility window is in front of her, when she is about the same age as a waifu, which is to say eighteen or thereabouts, and possibly well under eighteen. Men want to have sex with Sydney Sweeney, but they want to have a romance with a waifu. Sexy stories for men usually depict a girl who looks like Sydney Sweeney—someone whose secondary sexual characteristics are fully developed, someone who is very obviously well past the age of majority. Romantic stories for men are apt to depict a girl who looks barely legal, if that: a girl who is of reproductive age, but appears to have only just entered it and may not yet be of legal age. The more it is male-oriented romance, and the less it is male-oriented fanservice, the less she looks like Sydney Sweeney and the younger she appears relative to the age of majority. Conversely, eye candy for a male audience tends to look like Sydney Sweeney, regardless of how old the male lead is. Even if the storyline identifies the male character as a high school boy and the female character as a high school girl, if it is fanservice rather than romance, she is depicted far beyond high-school age, or portrayed by an actress well past that age.

All the Bond girls in the classic James Bond movies were around twenty-six or so, regardless of the age of the actor playing James Bond.

In the anime Konosuba, Kazuma and Megumin frequently find themselves alone together and have a lot of physical contact. Kazuma, who is the main male character, is identified in the storyline as seventeen years old and is drawn as slightly younger; Megumin, who is the primary romantic interest, his waifu, his best girl, is drawn inappropriately young, and is identified in the storyline as inappropriately young even for a seventeen-year-old boy, but all the fanservice women, for example Aqua, are drawn as about Sydney Sweeney’s age. They are all drawn as obviously older than Kazuma, and most of them are identified in the storyline as inappropriately mature for a seventeen-year-old boy. All the other girls perform fanservice, and Megumin does not, but only Megumin gets time alone and extensive platonic physical contact with Kazuma. The storyline could be interpreted as the young main male character preparing her for a future marriage, while at the same time being distracted by all those attractive, far older eye-candy women, particularly Aqua.

At the time of writing, Sydney Sweeney is widely acclaimed as the sexiest woman around. But thirty is fast approaching and the wall is looming over her. The clock is ticking. She is making a lot of money now, but had better invest it wisely.

Even as a woman becomes, like Sydney Sweeney, hotter and hotter, her ability to get the marital partner she wants is steadily declining. Miss Average is only willing to date a man who is six feet tall, has a six-pack, and has a six-figure income. But would such a wealthy, well-off bachelor with plenty of options (the man who is six feet tall, has a six-pack, and has a six-figure income) want to take Miss Average as his wife? Or even marry Sydney Sweeney? He likely very much wants to have sex with her, but marrying her? If he has substantially younger options, he’s bound to give it some thought. And he is going to think quite hard if the hotter, but older, choice has racked up a considerable notch count over the years, whereas the younger alternative’s notch count is nil or close to it — the archetypal sweet, innocent waifu.

Hypergamy and preselection mean that women only want to have sex with men who neither need nor wish to stay put with them, whereas the men who might stay put with them are invisible to them. They will be far more attractive at twenty-eight than at eighteen, yet will probably be less appealing as potential wives, while becoming ever more alluring as options for a fling.

The problem is not that women are unaware of sexual marketplace realities. It is that they *refuse* to be aware of sexual marketplace realities, and become outraged if these are brought to their attention. To notice what matters in the sexual marketplace is “gender essentialism”. To notice that there *is* a sexual marketplace is “gender essentialism”. It is terribly oppressive to value men on male things and women on female things. It is horribly evil and oppressive to engage in “gender essentialism”. Well, it may be oppressive, but reality is that if a man is looking for a woman, women *do* value him on male things, and he *does* value them on female things. Reality is so horribly oppressive that we should all pretend it is not so. Unfortunately pretending reality away does not, in practice, result in love, sex, children, and family.

Of course, when women value men on male things, it is not “gender essentialism” and does not oppress men, while when men value women on female things, it is “gender essentialism” and does oppress women. When women care about things that indicate ability to protect and take care of a woman, wealth and status, and things that in the ancestral environment indicated ability to protect and take care of a woman, height and strength, this is not “gender essentialism” and does not oppress men. When men care about youth and her remaining fertile window, it is “gender essentialism” and oppresses women. When women want a man with a high notch count, it is not “gender” essentialism and does not oppress men. When men want a woman with a low notch count, it is “gender essentialism” and does oppress women.

Why do women admire a man with a high notch count, while men despise a woman with a high notch count? It is because men do not bring their bastards home, which is sex essentialism, yet remains true nonetheless.

Why do women engage in vicious intrasexual competition, every woman trying to disrupt, harm, and reduce the fertility of every other woman, while men do not attempt to harm the reproductive success of other men? It is because one pin can pop one thousand balloons, which is “gender” essentialism, yet remains true nonetheless.

Reality is that sex is essential to love, sex, family, and children, and to deny “gender” essentialism is to deny men and women love, sex, family, and children. Indeed, to use the word “gender” to mean sex is to deny men and women love, sex, family, and children.

Every teenage girl swiftly discovers that her market value as a sexual partner is way higher than that of Mister Six-Foot-Tall-Six-Figure-Income-with-a-Six-pack. She just has to snap her fingers and he appears and bangs her like a drum. Therefore, she reasons, her value as a relationship partner and as a wife should be at least equal to his, if not better. She is *entitled* to Mister Six-Foot-Tall-Six-Figure-Income-with-a-Six-pack and to cast doubt on this is insulting, dehumanizing, degrading, and constitutes toxic masculinity. She is a person, she proclaims, and not a used car that is accumulating too much mileage.

The reason that so many people are unable to have children, family, and sexual love is partly that women are maladapted to an environment of sexual freedom, resulting in the self-destructive and absurd behavior that we see among women, and partly because it is *impossible* for women to adapt to an environment of sexual freedom, because they cannot solve the ensuing prisoner’s dilemma. A prisoner’s dilemma with limited and predictable iterations can only be fixed by external coercion. For men to have love, sex, and children, for women to have love and children, and for the human race to survive, sexual freedom has to be limited, and female sexual freedom has to be limited severely. Marriage has to be sustained by coercion, and female sexual choice restrained by coercion, or else we get the defect/defect equilibrium in sexual behavior that we observe. Sexual freedom is not working for men or women, and it cannot work for game theoretic reasons.

It is not that she really thinks that because she can get semen from Mister One-in-Two-Hundred, she can be cherished and receive economic support from Mister One-in-Two-Hundred. It is that she thinks she is morally entitled to be cherished and economically supported by Mister One-in-Two-Hundred. And, of course, in the traditional Christian social order, if Miss Average gets banged by Mister Average, she *is* morally entitled to be cherished and economically supported by Mister Average, and state, church, family, and society will attempt to make sure that she gets what she is entitled to. If, however, she gets banged by three successive Mister One-in-Two-Hundreds while two hundred Mister Averages remain invisible to her, she is not entitled to it. In the traditional Christian social order, she will be deemed a filthy trash slut who deserves to suffer, and state, church, family, and society will make sure she does suffer.

Even though Miss Average is theoretically strong, independent, empowered, and all that, she becomes extremely sad, angry and bitter when Mister One-in-Two-Hundred bangs her and does not cherish her. So she bangs another Mister One-in-Two-Hundred, who does not cherish her either, and she becomes sadder, angrier, even more bitter, and full of hatred for men. Then Miss Average bangs Mister Six-Foot-Tall-Six-Figure-Income-with-a-Six-pack, because she has decided she wants to settle down and have children, yet due to the fact that men are evil, sexist, patriarchal, and toxically masculine, settling down and having children fails to ensue. “I am willing to settle”, she says, “why are men in no hurry to settle?”

Despite theoretically believing in feminist ideology, despite theoretically being strong, independent, empowered, and all that, she feels that the man that she has sex with should be obligated to cherish her and give her economic support. And of course he should. But she herself ought to be under an obligation to keep away from any man who hasn’t made it plain that he wants to tie the knot, or who doesn’t have what it takes to take care of a wife. In particular and especially she should be obligated to refrain from having sex with the man who has pre-selection from half a dozen women younger and prettier than she is. Cooperate/cooperate equilibrium in reproduction (escape from Prisoner’s Dilemma) is caring husbands *and chaste obedient virgin wives*. If no chastity, then no caring either.

We are all animals. If women do what they are doing, what are men going to do? Men will do what men are doing. It is the battle of the sexes. Love is war, love is a battlefield. It should not be this way, but to stop it from being this way, women have to be stopped from doing what they are doing.

It should not be this way, and it does not have to be this way, for seventy years ago, it was not this way. But this is what we have now. It is horrifying. This has to end, or our race and our species will end.

Christianity set a higher standard for what men and women should be, but progress said, “oh, that is unequal, that is unjust, that is cruel and harsh”. How are equality and justice working out? Even the winners are losers.

You think you can fix it by addressing housing costs, subsidizing children and all that? Many governments have tried all that sort of thing, and nothing moves the needle. We know what the actual problem is. It hurts. Just pay attention to where the pain is coming from. What hurts is not taxes, subsidies, wage stagnation, student debt, blah, blah, blah and all that. It is that men and women are not loved. Everyone is unhappy about housing and all that, but the elephant in the room is that men are unhappy about women, and women are unhappy about men. If a man loves a woman, and a woman loves a man, the two of them will be happy in a tent. Everything else is just evasion and denial of the elephant in the room.

Those who deny the differences between men and women claim to be caring and ethical and all that, but are strangely oblivious to the immense suffering that they are causing.

It was not this way seventy years ago. What were they doing differently? You can watch old movies and old black and white television shows like “I Love Lucy” and see what they were doing differently. What they had worked, and what we have is not working.

The more empowerment, emancipation, liberation, and all that that women get, the more they become angry and bitter. Because empowerment, emancipation, and liberation mean Miss Average can bang Mister One-in-Two-Hundred, and Mister One-in-Two-Hundred is not going to cherish and care for all the Miss Averages. And once her notch count gets large enough, Mister Average is not going to either. And here we are.

Everyone longs for the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction, and strong, independent, empowered women did not successfully reproduce back then and are not reproducing now.

That she thinks that she is entitled to be cherished by Mister Six-Foot-Tall-Six-Figure-Income-with-a-Six-pack is maladaption to sexual freedom. But that she is not going to get it is sexual freedom just not working, regardless of whether women are adapted to it or not. Prisoner’s Dilemma with finite and predictable iterations must result in defect/defect unless external coercion fixes it, and this coercion has to be applied very differently to the two sexes. Men must be forced to look after their wives, and women forced to marry, obey, and submit. (Or forced to remain virgins if obedience and submission seem too oppressive — but fortunately history tells us that back then when faced with that choice, few women chose virginity.)

The problem in our society is not that women have the choice of economic independence, for they have always had that choice, but that they now have the choice of economic independence while getting banged by a long succession of Misters One-in-Two-Hundred. Both men and women now have the option of defecting in a game of Prisoner’s Dilemma, and a woman will reasonably complain that if she does not defect, the man very likely will. Indeed, Mister One-in-Two-Hundred definitely will, which he can excuse by pointing out that by sleeping with him, Miss Average has already defected on her future husband, and will likely defect again. If she does what she desired this time, she will likely do what she desires the next time. Mister Average wants a wife, and cannot get one. Mister One-in-Two-Hundred wants a harem, but he cannot get a harem either. What he gets instead is a rotating collection of filthy trash sluts, which rotates distressingly faster than he would prefer. “She was never yours. It was just your turn.” Hence the phenomenon of player burnout. Even the winners are losers.

Men want to own a woman, and women want to be owned by a strong man. Sexual freedom means no one gets what they want, for sexual freedom means each gets freedom to defect on the other. What men and women both want is the ancestral environment of reproductive success, in which environment no one had sexual freedom, and women had far less than men.

The vast majority of divorces are female-initiated, but the vast majority of divorces have a bad outcome for the woman, a worse outcome for the children, and a considerably less bad outcome for the man, for the additional mileage of a divorce is a millstone around her neck, while adding to his status among women. Every man thinks a divorcee is dangerous to be around, while women are drawn to a divorced man. Men avoid dangerous women, while women are attracted to dangerous men. Most women who initiate a divorce regret it. She is shocked when her husband winds up with a woman considerably younger than herself, instead of endlessly attempting to win her back, and shocked to find that she winds up alone. Women who divorce expect never ending romantic excitement, with her ex-husband forever pursuing her to win her back and a never-ending parade of new suitors. She expects to be the prize. What she gets instead is that the moment the divorce goes through, her husband writes her off as a dead loss, and all the men she was committing adultery with, or chatting with while contemplating adultery, men who were handsomer and wealthier than her husband, stop calling her because she is now likely to cause trouble, and she now has the opportunity to cramp their style.

No one wants to be stuck with their spouse for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, but they all very much want their spouse to be stuck with them for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. Without sexual freedom, men and women, especially women, can get stuck in very bad situations. With sexual freedom, it becomes very difficult, and for most people impossible, to accomplish a good situation.

Women are the weaker vessel, easily tempted, vulnerable to bad influences. They tend to jump into sexual opportunity, even if they know it is likely to have a bad outcome for them, just as they are apt to eat one more potato crisp or one more scoop of ice cream. Indeed women, unlike men, find sexual opportunity more attractive when it is likely to produce a bad outcome for themselves. Women find danger sexy and find dangerous men sexy. A woman needs protection, and most of all she needs protection from herself. In traditional Christian society, men have an obligation to protect women, and men have the obligation to protect a woman from herself, and there is usually some man with the authority to do so. Freedom means no one has an obligation to protect her from anything, least of all her own foolish choices. Women are maladapted to freedom, because they are the weaker vessel, and because in the ancestral environment of successful reproduction and evolutionary adaptation, they were not free.

Lack of freedom makes men unhappy, and freedom makes men happy, but freedom is, in practice, making women unhappy, partly because they are maladapted to it, partly because in the ancestral environment of evolutionary adaptation, women who chose freedom did not have children, or did not have children who survived, while men who chose freedom had a better chance of reproductive success.

Sexual freedom is just not working for men, nor for women, nor for the survival of the species. Everyone is unhappy, and women are the unhappiest of all.