FInd freedom: "Sex At Dawn"

[GrumpyParticipant]

MS

It’s all good. If one doesn’t eat well, one doesn’t s~~~ well, that leads to the brain reacting strangely. As well as other things.

I was about to hop all over you like an old Samsonite luggage commercial. Then realized what I heard in my mind wasn’t exactly what I read, so I had to re-read it. The big issue for me, was not separating history from modern society.

MadScientist wrote:

In other words, it is my contention that monogamy is an artificial construct imposed upon us, where promiscuity is our natural state. Biologically.

– Absolutely agree. It was a necessary construct for us as a species to evolve (that’s my opinion). IMHO monogamy gives us not so perfect looking, or resource poor, naked monkeys the opportunity to breed, and hopefully have an exclusive available sex partner for a long term. So when a couple decide that’s the route to go, BOTH partners are accountable, and have to follow the rules. The partner that decides to be promiscuous in an exclusive pair, and acts on it, should still be held accountable.  Modern civilization f~~~ed that up though. That is another story though

I try to be so cool, that Ice burgs sweat when I’m near them. 🙂 (only when I’m heavily medicated LOL)

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[MadScientistParticipant 131]

BrainPilot wrote:

mad,
48 years old, graduate level biology degrees here, long time student of evolutionary biology, but probably not what I would qualify as an ‘expert’ as I haven’t published on it. I’d like to have this discussion with you here as I’ve been interested in it for a long time, but it’s getting late where I am, I have much to write but lack the typing skills to write it quickly. I hope you’ll be around for a few more days.

Hey BrainPilot! I am not going anywhere. I have found a group of men who I can actually relate to, without constantly running into the weird bipolar thinking that is ‘men with girl’ vs ‘men without girl’, and then there is the ever popular ‘men conditioned by girls’, which I have been, just like so many of us. So yeah, I’d love to talk with you about this, anytime, and would love to hear your opinion, considering it is your specialty, and since I am a Physics and Math guy, just a field of interest for me.

And thanks Grumpy.. I think next time I broach any topic like this, I’ll put massive disclaimers on the top of it, so peeps can be aware I am going for a discussion, and not REALLY advocating anything. I certainly don’t agree with Cecilda on her points, but in re reading that, I remembered.. she is from North Africa.. not exactly the USA. So her point may have been more in that context. Either way, don’t agree that women should have ‘more power’, since they hold 90% of the cards already. I have been steeping myself in MGTOW videos and audio and omfg.. the red Pills.. they taste like sour cherries.. but thats great, because sour cherries go well with whisky 😉

I am on the autism spectrum (would have been called an aspie) but conquered that over time with meditation and education, and practice.. however I still say things and forget not everyone has the same things in their head that I do and screw up like this sometimes. I think this state of mind has saved me from more heartache, since I process most of my emotions through my brain, even while I am feeling them, so I tend to make odd, but reasoned, choices. Interestingly, it also gives me what my old professor used to call ‘demonic foxus’ when I am thinking about technical things 😉 I guess you get it back somehow. So please.. although I do get frustrated sometimes, I WELCOME the correction!!

I totally agree that in modern society promiscuity is legally penalized for men and legally rewarded for women.. that is 100% bulls~~~. What I am wondering about sometimes is, is it possible to create a social structure with the advantages of modernity, but without the baggage of the past, wherein everyone in it is equally, fairly treated and where everyone in it has the opportunity to get their needs met?

So that’s the whole reason why I brought this up. Hope all you guys are settling in to your flavor of MGTOW.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

MadScientist wrote:

What I am wondering about sometimes is, is it possible to create a social structure with the advantages of modernity, but without the baggage of the past, wherein everyone in it is equally, fairly treated and where everyone in it has the opportunity to get their needs met?

People already tried that – it’s called Communism. Although it encouraged NAWALT behavior, women hated it exactly because of equality. This is the main reason women in Russia don’t endorse feminism.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[MadScientistParticipant 131]

I have to disagree with that.. The Soviet Union was most certainly not egalitarian, and the Russian Orthodox church maintained a lot of power on the d/l. There was a huge amount of craziness, and the state went wild with power. Stalin was, by the way, a seminary student before he became a dictator. I could go on, but the USSR was never a Communist country.

FYI I have a lot of on the ground details about how things actually were inside the USSR during supposed ‘communism’ from Russian friends.. it wasn’t. It was a totalitarian state that called itself Communist. What it really was, given the one party state that became resident in the Duma, was a Dictatorship of a few..an oligarchy, which used the Military to control the masses. They did absolutely crazy s~~~.. man.. the stories.. like salmon fishermen catching X quota of fish and then burying all of it in the forest because they didn’t have to ship it, only catch it to comply.. etc. Nuts. If it had ben Communist, it would have broken all the power up into small units and distributed it.. nothing like that happened.

The only place Communism has been able to be practiced successfully is in Kibbutz culture in Israel, and in a few Communes in the US, which still operate today, leading me to believe that Communism can’t work for large groups, only for small, family like structures. Marxism, in its pure form, is impossible. He simply is not taking into account basic human nature, and is pipe dreaming that “if only everyone were generous and no body gamed the system” but that won’t ever happen.

So I don’t think Communism or Marxism is viable at a level of The State. Which is one reason why I’m asking the question out loud 🙂

PS: If you are actually Russian.. did you live under the USSR at all? Do you have any stories to tell? I’m really curious if you do 🙂 Please, prove me wrong!! I like getting corrected on facts.

Also yeah, I know that women in the USSR didn’t like feminism.. they had equal work forced on them by the state, and were still expected to take care of the house, or get beaten up by their husbands/fathers/etc. From what I have heard, it was pretty rough for women under the USSR when they were given ‘equality’.

PPS: Man I think too much….. anyway.. I was actually thinking of egalitarian models rather than top down ones when I asked. I honestly don’t think that hierarchical systems can ever be fair, given basic human nature, and the lust for power.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

MadScientist wrote:

I have to disagree with that.. The Soviet Union was most certainly not egalitarian, and the Russian Orthodox church maintained a lot of power on the d/l. There was a huge amount of craziness, and the state went wild with power. Stalin was, by the way, a seminary student before he became a dictator. I could go on, but the USSR was never a Communist country.

Communism has two meanings:
– egalitarian utopia where everything is shared and there is no money
– dictatorial socialist tyranny where all means of production were owned and controlled by the government which existed in Soviet Union from 1917 to ~1994.

You are right that USSR was never a communist country since it never achieved the point when you could remove money from the equation and the house of cards was still standing. Comparty leaders were always telling the masses that yes – we are not there yet, what we have is a developed socialism, but another 5-10 years of hard work – and we will achieve communism. The whole idea of communism is to dangle a carrot in front of an ass so it would keep going.

There were no amounts of huge craziness – it was a calculated tyranny plan from the beginning – engineered and funded by the west.

Church of any kind was virtually non-existent (I don’t know how you came up with this d/l notion). Any church would be seen as an enemy of the state – a competitor to the communist party. State was the only available church.

MadScientist wrote:

The only place Communism has been able to be practiced successfully is in Kibbutz culture in Israel, and in a few Communes in the US, which still operate today, leading me to believe that Communism can’t work for large groups, only for small, family like structures. Marxism, in its pure form, is impossible. He simply is not taking into account basic human nature, and is pipe dreaming that “if only everyone were generous and no body gamed the system” but that won’t ever happen

Kibbutz is a voluntary option, and would never work as a mandatory country-wide structure. Unless, of course, it is mandated from above with instruments of control penetrating every sphere of social life like in USSR. You are right that it cannot work, but there is one exception – it would work if it was implemented on a global scale (which was the goal of USSR communism as well).
Communism, Marxism, or any other egalitarian construct is pure theory with no backing in real life. In reality – it’s just an excuse to establish a tyranny. When I use communism in a sentence, I am not referring to theory, but simply using it as a label for a tyranny. It’s basically one of many forms of tyrannical and oppressive regime.

Communism in USSR was the closest attempt to egalitarian society. Contrary to what you know, I can assure you that it was really close. And I have to admit, that it somewhat worked, as far as creating equal opportunities to become a brick in a wall. The equality was true. But (as the proverb says) some people were still “more equal” than others. The only way for anyone to get ahead – was to get in bed with the party agenda. All other avenues of getting ahead were closed, including the one where a woman could prostitute her looks to the top of the food chain using male resources and manipulation. It kept them in check alright. I would actually go back in time and marry a woman in USSR and would be pretty sure it would turn out fine.

I could elaborate a  lot more, keep asking questions.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[MadScientistParticipant 131]

Thanks so much for replying.. you have really clarified a few things for me. I have gone out and looked at some sources, and this one is representative of what I have now learned about the orthodox church under the USSR:

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ussr3.htm

So, the church was still in operation, but under soviet management, and it was a lot more complex than even I had thought. There is a lot more about this.. Hitchens talks about it a bit.. and the fact that the Soviet model was essentially religion rebranded as government.. but that’s an entirely different thing 🙂 So, I’ll take that back as I stated it.

Next, I think we have different definitions of ‘ will it work?’. When I think of ‘will it work?’ I think of a society relatively free of oppression, smoothly running and viable. So, although there are terrible types of government that ‘work’ by the definition of ‘they have not collapsed yet’, what I mean is something different. Just clarifying that.

Thirdly, when I think of ‘egalitarian’, I am talking about equal opportunity, not equal outcome, which is what the Soviet system was. I would not consider it egalitarian at all, since it was outcome, not opportunity, based. No system that is outcome based will provide good results (results, yes.. good results.. no) Case in point: The idea of quotas is ridiculous.. what you are doing is lowering the quality of work, product, or anything else you care to mention. What you are not getting is quality.. you are constantly lowering quality to fulfill a quota, which is an outcome based measure, not an opportunity based one.

I am reminded of how affirmative action has damaged things in industry and business, and how if it had been done differently, it could have succeeded amazingly well. I don’t know how I would have guaranteed equal opportunity then, but now we have the possibility to be race/gender etc blind when we evaluate someone for a job. Why on earth do employers demand they know the sex or race or whatever of someone (now for sure, you can’t -require- it, but there are plenty of jobsites that list it as an optional box to check, and most people check it) ? There must be some way, other than rampant interracial f~~~ing, that we can approach True equal opportunity that will work, long term. It will just be difficult.. which is why, I am sure, the outcome based quota systems were put in place. Because that’s easy to measure.

So here is my new question: Do you think that the near total absence of Hypergamy (party members certainly had some power, as did police and military, to offer women) in a society that still believed in monogamous relationships was the reason women in the USSR acted differently? Or, are there many other factors?

[Sky-OParticipant 18943]

In societies that do not practice (or aspire to) monogamy:

They lack the ability for technological advancement.

Men are creators and inventors. For example – landing on the moon, medical science and advances that improve the living conditions of humanity.

All made possible because the great minds, creators and inventors had the ability to apply their skills towards the goals they were working on and did not have to worry if the woman they were with was out banging 50 other guys.

So in a sense, I’m saying that in any society that at the least adheres to the some level of monogamy or holds it up as an ideal that in some cases can be maintained: the men that create and invent are able to dedicate their time, effort and energy towards their work without (for the most part) having to worry if the slut they are married to is currently engaged in a gangbang with five other guys from the ‘tribe’.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

@madscientist

MadScientist wrote:

when I think of ‘egalitarian’, I am talking about equal opportunity, not equal outcome, which is what the Soviet system was. I would not consider it egalitarian at all, since it was outcome, not opportunity, based. No system that is outcome based will provide good results (results, yes.. good results.. no) Case in point: The idea of quotas is ridiculous.. what you are doing is lowering the quality of work, product, or anything else you care to mention. What you are not getting is quality.. you are constantly lowering quality to fulfill a quota, which is an outcome based measure, not an opportunity based one.

I would disagree that the system was outcome based. It was opportunity-based, but the opportunities we’re talking about here were very very limited. Because regardless how hard you would try – you couldn’t accumulate any capital or compete with the government-offered options and still win – which leads us to the main fallacy of such system – if there is nothing to strive for – there is no incentive to try hard. It was a no-carrots-all-sticks scenario.
State monopoly on everything, centralized planning, and the corresponding bureaucracy – this is the reason behind quotas and quality issues. Not because of ideology or human nature or any other reasons, but mainly because it is next to impossible to manage such systems in a productive way. And don’t believe the hype about burying the fish nonsense. Sure – the paperwork would say that the fish was buried, but instead – it would be sold for profit by someone who has knowledge and power to game this inefficient system. Corruption and theft was huge. Anyone with any access to any resources would be a fool to not use that access to his advantage.

MadScientist wrote:

So here is my new question: Do you think that the near total absence of Hypergamy (party members certainly had some power, as did police and military, to offer women) in a society that still believed in monogamous relationships was the reason women in the USSR acted differently? Or, are there many other factors?

You got me thinking there, and I think the main reason women were acting differently – was lack of mobility. Second main reason – societal slut shaming. Basically, a woman couldn’t pull off something outrageous because she would still have to live in the same town, work at a same job, and everybody would knew what she did and wouldn’t touch her with a 10 foot pole. Hope this explains

 

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[John DoeParticipant 743]

MadScientist wrote:

But first.. PLEASE read (or watch) the stuff written by Dr. Ryan if you can. He is a hell of a lot more clear about it than I am.

If we have to read it in order to understand it, because you cannot convey it accurately enough, then how do we know that even you understand it?  I deal with a lot of these conversations (here and in real life) and I think the promoter of the argument is often times deceived by a “wow factor” when a complex argument is presented by another researcher/author/etc.  Complex arguments are complex arguments, they are not necessarily true or false.

A man can have a “flawless” or “elegant” argument but if the premise is “off” by just a little, then it would be the equivalent of making a sculpture out of s~~~.

With that being said, to reduce humanity down to nothing but biological impulses introduces a whole litany of problems.  That premise alone can have books and books argued about it.  It also lends itself to an objective valuation of men and limits them to nothing more than “robotic” beings which are a means to an end.   This is contradictory as we are arguing that men are not a means to an end and that they do have intrinsic worth on there own terms.  I am very skeptical of this book/argument based on what I have observed so far.

Also that “peer review” argument you presented (which validates the author) lends itself to a whole host of problems because many of these “peer review types” also give credence to feminism.  People forget that “peer review” is just as much of a political process as is scientific.  Am I against peer reviews making an author relevant?  No, in many aspects it is necessary.  However that alone does not give credence to an argument being correct.

[ComingInHotParticipant 160]

 

I find it very hard to compare homo sapiens to anything else, I find it a fallacious argument of a weak analogy.

I would imagine that most animals have sex for pleasure and not only to reproduce, I have seen it in dogs, rats, orca, dolphins, and the primates you listed.  We dont know why anything really evolves the way it does beyond shear speculation and that is fact.

For decades people have said lions see in black and white, that’s why zebras have stripes for camouflage, then I read an article in college saying it is to fend off mosquitoes.   That “hey they have a small penis and large b~~~~ because a single male runs the primate troop.”  We would like to think our theories and hypothesis are true, but when it comes to evolution and evolutionary psychology, a lot of it is hypothesis that cannot really be proven, unless you could travel in time and ask them in their native language or watch and observe their behavior.

To say that scientists know something for sure regarding certain aspects of evolution and evolutionary psych is kinda BS.  We just discovered the  higgs boson or god particle.  We cant even nail down when the earliest man made civilization was: some say 15k years ago after the last ice age, some say Sumer was some 5k years ago.

All of these theories or hypothesis are as my professor says:

“Its all tentative until somebody comes and sinks your battleship, then its back to the drawing board.”

We cant even find the missing link that made homo sapiens branch off and made us have the genes for a larger brain and primary vocalization and speech ability.   We or most of us have 2% neanderthal DNA in us, but we still cant figure out why we evolved the way we did.

All I can say is, why aren’t guerrillas and all these other primates building cars and civilizations, they have been around for just as long as us if not longer.

Another thing to ponder:  technology and inventions change civilizations, they change the societal relativism and norms, they change the thinking, the acting, the behaving.  We really don’t know if monogamy works for humans or it doesn’t.  You would need thousands of years of statistical data to see if it does or does not.  Back in the day women were happy to fulfill their obligations, now with all this technology, and TV and this and that, women see one thing, they can get away with anything and everything and they will exploit it.  Its just normal behavior, think of pavlov and his dogs with the bell.  They would drool when they heard the bell because they equated it to a free meal and not having to do anything, conditioned behavior.  That is women when they see a man they can walk over or divorce and take half or be spoiled narcissistic brats, they hear the bell and they drool.

Rant over…

 

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Solid points, Cominginhot.  +1

[MadScientistParticipant 131]

All good points, guys. I can’t address them all, but Im going to try another approach.

I do understand what he is getting at in the book, but it requires a bit of reading and contemplation to get to. I’ll try to boil an important part of it down. By the way, we wouldn’t have these problems with divorce if there were zero reward for getting one for anyone involved, so there is that. Risk/Reward. So, Alimony is non existent, and child support based on a universal formula that has NOTHING to do with the parent’s earning power, but only has to do with cost of living. That kind of thing. I mean this is a tough problem to solve without screwing someone in the deal. In Traditional families, extra resources were spent on children.. resources that were earned by men for the most part. The only reason the post war boom happened was because we had a HUGE economy boost, and most of the world was practically our servants, so we got a lot of stuff for free. That, along with total control of oil post war, is what did it. We don’t have those circumstances now, so it would likely end up very badly. There is just NO WAY I would consent to marrying and supporting a woman and children in modern society, even if it were facilitated by the state. No way.

Anyhoo, Here is the an important point I got from Sex At Dawn, and from the ‘argument from biology’ as well as the currently functioning (though small.. the Mosuo are the largest and they only have about 100,000 people) cultures that practice non monogamy: We are, by nature, promiscuous. Male and female, and sex is primarily a bonding, not a reproductive, activity.

If we disconnect that from any idea of resource hoarding, and look at it strictly as propagation of species, it makes a lot of sense, in the very long term. We would not be here if we had not been promiscuous. Hidden estrus is what made all human advancements possible, and promiscuity is what glued us together during the hardest times.. during global disasters and ice ages (look at the ancient Inuit, for example).

Civilization short circuited that metric by instituting laws, resource hoarding, legal restrictions, currency, monogamy, etc. It instituted laws that at first encouraged, then demanded sexual monogamy and split people up from large bands to small family units, thus to be more easily controlled by the state. This was not a survival strategy for the people, it was a power play for the State, primarily through Religion. And it worked very, very well. It also had the unintended consequence of increasing surplus because everyone had to work much harder to make a surplus, which could then be appropriated by the State, and used for whatever purposes it deemed fit.. usually war/technology, but sometimes art and architecture. So, States continued their winning strategy.

We have no way of knowing for certain that another method might have produced similar, or even better, results. What we do know is that this was never about morality.. it was about consolidating State Power by removing the ability of people to form close, bonded units of 100+, and thus, not need the State at all for their protection or support.

One thing that also seems to be the case, is that western dominance is an accident, as was Sino-Asian dominance. Although it doesn’t address the latter, the former is well addressed in “Guns, Germs and Steel”. What seems to be the common thread is that most advances in the West were all accidents of geography and development, and that War was the driving factor for technology.

I don’t know about you, but I would much rather live in a bucolic, rural 15th century with its risks than a modern one, where death, political slavery and war are constant risks. There was a brief window during the settling period of our country where we could keep what we proved.. and some did just that, starting with nothing. That is so difficult now, its beyond ridiculous. Nowadays, its more like 0.1% who make it to genuine “Wealth” (I am not including people who won the lucky sperm club award)

My point is, there is nothing particularly impressive about our technological advances with respect to how well we treat each other as human beings. Most of those advances were made by groups of people in spite of our technology. Yes, we can argue surplus allowing for the extra time for peace movements to evolve, etc.. however there is just one thing we would have to do to create a veritable paradise on Earth for all of us, in perpetuity:

Population control. Real population control. If we can actually figure that out.. if we could get over the various cultural and political bumps, we could live here forever, in peace. Every argument against feminism has its roots in child birth and sexuality control, as does chauvinism.

I don’t think we can figure this out right now. We may never do it. I am proposing that simply, this is a very large, very difficult Red Pill to swallow. Why do you care about female promiscuity? Why does it make any difference, outside pregnancy? What if we could eliminate most STDs, or reduce the risk by significant factors? Then what? What if we removed the stigma of Male Sexuality (players/douches/etc), and the Stigma of Female Sexuality (whores/sluts/etc) and we could just not give a damn about it all, and start worrying about sending people to Alpha Centauri, or discovering clean energy?

I am bitter about the legal bulls~~~ around feminism, just like anyone else. I see the problems there. But all of that vanishes if we just don’t give a damn about sexuality as an issue.. if we correctly identify it as a child rearing and population issue, and solve it by some other means.

For example: What if there was a heavy Tax on both parents, as determined by a mandatory Paternity test, for having more than one kid (for a woman), but a small reward for the first and only? In other words, slightly incentivize the first, heavily penalize the second, and even more heavily penalize the third, etc. What about that? Are there other, non Authoritarian ways to lower the birth rate and eliminate the burden of sexual politics? I don’t know… that’s what I am thinking about right now.

I don’t have the answer for this.. honestly… I have no idea of any of this would work long term, nor does anyone else. However, universal biological promiscuity is fact, as far as the numbers and anthro go, and I think we need to recognize it, and formulate our strategies based on it, and on Population Control, rather than continually try and fight it, or to return to some idea of Traditionalism which only returns us all to Slavery of a different kind. I do NOT want to go back to 1950. I believe that would very quickly violate so many human rights, including men’s rights, our heads would spin.

[MadScientistParticipant 131]

By the way, I do believe people have their own worth, of course I do! We are talking about large, socio-political concerns here though, and so talking about what motivates us from our limbic brains is important, and relevant to the larger system of human agency. At a large enough scale, we do form patterns of behavior that can be predicted if we have the right theory and data. What I am suggesting is that this particular pill is very difficult to swallow because we are all very deeply hurt by women, and perhaps we seek to have our power back. I understand that, and I feel that way sometimes as well… have felt it over and over again throughout my life. But I’ve come to this conclusion, not JUST because of this book but as a result of life experience I have had in open relationships over about 20 years or so.

WHat I am doing is trying to elucidate a point that is difficult to swallow, and one I have witnessed every day around me, for my whole life, but never really had any understanding of until perhaps.. 15 years ago when I had my first awakening.

So, while I agree with everything about individual liberty and rights, I also recognize that we, as a species, behave in predictable patterns that can be traced to our biology, and am drawing conclusions on that.

[Author]

Posts