{"id":1752,"date":"2018-11-23T19:07:39","date_gmt":"2018-11-23T19:07:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/?p=1752"},"modified":"2018-11-23T19:26:31","modified_gmt":"2018-11-23T19:26:31","slug":"why-a-new-sexual-deal-is-not-feasible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/2018\/11\/23\/why-a-new-sexual-deal-is-not-feasible\/","title":{"rendered":"Why a new sexual deal is not feasible"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Actually what we are living through is quite special in the history of the evolution of the species. When women gained control over their fertility in such a way as to make maintaining a pregnancy a fully \u201copt-in\u201d scenario, the rules around sexuality and mating were bound to change, because the underlying basis for them (female pregnancy and children) had been fundamentally altered scientifically. Yes, women are hypergamous since forever, but that had a *natural* check in the form of pregnancy and all that entailed for a woman (dependency, in particular) \u2014 the social norms around sex in the species in various cultures all developed around the premise that sex often led to female pregnancy, which created a serious situation for the woman and her children unless certain structures (marriage, patriarchal father rights and roles, etc.) were adhered to, as well as a lot of social pressure for women in particular to avoid sex outside of these structures. When you take away the basic underlying premise for all of that \u2014 that women simply *do* get pregnant from sex \u2014 by allowing women to fairly easily avoid and\/or terminate their pregnancies, the entire basis for the rest of the superstructure of social rules around sex collapses \u2014 which is precisely what has happened.<\/p>\n

This is not a minor thing, and it represents a major *discontuinty* with prior eras, and with the way hypergamy works itself out in human relations. The natural check on the expression of women\u2019s sexual hypergamy, which is pregnancy and the fear of pregnancy, has been artificially removed. This has created an imbalance between the sexes which is *structural*, given that the natural check on the expression of men\u2019s sexuality \u2014 women\u2019s sexual choice \u2014 has been strengthened both by this fundamental underlying change as well as a set of other social mores that came rushing in at the same time in response to this fundamental change. This, again, is a discontinuity \u2014 it is new. It is not something any men ever faced before in the history of the species. Yes, feminism in various forms has reared its head before, but never before have women had anything like this degree of reliable\/safe\/cheap\/accessible control over their fertility. The fact that men are largely floundering around in the wake of such a massive change in fundamental circumstances regarding female sexual expression is not at all surprising \u2014 in fact, it\u2019s to be expected. We have simply not evolved to counter the expression of female hypergamy which is not naturally checked by pregnancy and the fear of pregnancy, and our social institutions have not been developed to deal with this either \u2014 whether churches and doctrines\/praxis, social mores and rules, dating and mating scripts. It\u2019s all in the trash bin because the fundamental change of circumstances on the women\u2019s side has really made the old structures, rules and norms largely irrelevant other than for those few people who choose to follow them voluntarily based on personal conviction \u2014 something which can never form the basis of a social order, obviously.<\/p>\n

There is no way back. It\u2019s not like women are somehow going to have the control over their fertility taken away from them. What is needed is a more creative response \u2014 something which deals with the new reality of artificially liberated female sexual hypergamy in a way that doesn\u2019t rely on individuals voluntarily choosing to follow certain older order rules and norms out of personal conviction \u2014 I mean that is what many of us are doing, but it isn\u2019t the basis of a social norm and never can be. If you\u2019re interested in the bigger picture and the years ahead, you\u2019re best off focusing on discerning what a new set of rules looks like for the current scenario of liberated hypergamy (beyond the current \u201charm\u201d standard of \u201cno harm, no foul\u201d). I don\u2019t know what that looks like \u2014 no-one does, really, and so society is thrashing about on these issues because the situation has fundamentally changed, and everyone knows that it has, but there are still no new rules to address it which more or less everyone agrees upon other than \u201cdon\u2019t rape someone\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n

>If the fight were to be reframed as one group of men vs. another group of men \u2014 which is what I actually think the fight *is* anyway \u2014 there is some chance of building a resistance.<\/p>\n

No, there isn\u2019t, because that\u2019s not what the fight is about. The fight, like all conflicts, is about resources. In the kind of cases were discussing, the resources that matter are men\u2019s involvement and commitment to their communities and traditional responsibilities, and their communities\u2019 reciprocal compensation for that involvement and commitment.<\/p>\n

But our communities prefer to have the cheaper prices on goods and services provided through their willing self-sacrifice of male safety, health, and lives, instead of paying higher prices in exchange for having everybody value men and boys more highly.<\/p>\n

We indoctrinate everyone into believing that men and boys are less worthy of protection and concern so that they will be more likely to expend their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health and lives for the overall benefit of everyone in general. We also reinforce this belief throughout their lives by positive and negative behavioral modification; i.e. rewards and punishments for obeying and violating the norms and codes of masculine behavior.<\/p>\n

The problem is not some group of other men because most people in general benefit from the strict gender indoctrination of everyone into devaluing men and boys so that they become sufficiently willing to sell themselves cheaply enough.<\/p>\n

The fundamental problem with \u201ccalls to action\u201d like Larry\u2019s, etc. is that the recent considerable expansion of women\u2019s choices in life is the result of the child mortality rate decreasing to a mere fraction of all pregnancies, in combination with the general availability of safe, affordable, reliable birth control and a significant increase in labor-saving technology in women\u2019s traditional areas of responsibility, rather than angry and passionate activism.<\/p>\n

Advances in the actual expression of human rights are, as a rule, far more the result of the scientific and technological improvements which make them possible than they are the result of angry and passionate advocates, as can be seen by the consistent comparative failure of anger and passion to change reality throughout human history measured against the effects of science and technology.<\/p>\n

Sorry to ruin the illusion, but that\u2019s just how it is.<\/p>\n

We may like to believe that it is our angry and passionately motivated activism which changes the world, but the truth is that it is improvements in science and technology which create the possibilities for large-scale change, and our activism only exploits them as they become available. As Novaseeker says,<\/p>\n

>There is no way back. It\u2019s not like women are somehow going to have the control over their fertility taken away from them. What is needed is a more creative response \u2014 something which deals with the new reality of artificially liberated female sexual hypergamy in a way that doesn\u2019t rely on individuals voluntarily choosing to follow certain older order rules and norms out of personal conviction \u2014 I mean that is what many of us are doing, but it isn\u2019t the basis of a social norm and never can be.<\/p>\n

Exactly so. If you want to change the current conditions, you need to change the environmental conditions that created them. We have no-fault divorce and the other corruptions of the culture because we reached a point where technological progress made them affordable. This is also why MGTOW has become A Thing today. The technology curve is catching up to men\u2019s traditional responsibilities, which were, and remain, harder to industrialize and automate. We have MGTOW to the degree we do today because we can likewise finally afford it.<\/p>\n

And no amount of marching and shouting and posting and demonstrating and trying to \u201cactivate\u201d other men is going to change that. The only thing that has a chance of changing it is the same thing that IS changing it: technological advance.<\/p>\n

Men have cheaper, better, and more alternatives to their traditional social contract than ever before in history, and that trend is only accelerating. \u201cJoi\u201d from Blade Runner is literally right around the corner:\u00a0https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8-oHdR_-l6o<\/a>\u00a0. That kind of technological advance is only going to accelerate MGTOW. It will raise men\u2019s prices in the social involvement and commitment market from the bottom right on up to the top, because those prices are fungible across male quality categories.<\/p>\n

So the only worthwhile option communities have is to increase their compensation to men for engaging in that traditional social contract. But instead, they\u2019re trying to clamp down harder and harder on men, which only further drives the exodus. And so, in turn, they\u2019re not going to increase their compensation until MGTOW reaches a sufficiently painful tipping point economically, and that\u2019s not likely to happen before a crisis of civil violence starts really tearing things down, because part of that traditional social contract is keeping the borders secure and maintaining internal order, and they won\u2019t compensate enough men well enough to do those things well enough.<\/p>\n

There is only one technological advance on the horizon that I can perceive which would provide a way out of this trap, and it wouldn\u2019t even be that hard. It\u2019s arguably within our arms\u2019 reach. But it involves a Better Pill For Men, one that has been shown to work reliably and reversibly for over a couple of decades now, and that\u2019s not going to get anywhere with the traditionally religious population around here.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s the only way I can see out of the current trap. If sperm becomes expensive, communities will either change how they compensate men for their involvement and commitment, or they will die out. And that\u2019s when \u201cmen standing together\u201d will matter, to ensure that the compensation meets the necessary requirements \u2014 particularly the return of the guarantee of paternal custody and authority again, because that\u2019s the core, fundamental social contract of civilization.<\/p>\n

\n

Answer:<\/strong> In my opinion, the new deal is already between us. It is the \u00abchild support\u00bb family model explained by Dalrock, feminism, promiscuity, the whole nine yards. Of course, it is a new deal that produces the decline and fall of Western civilization (and its conquest by patriarchal civilizations, such as Islam).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Nothing new under the Sun. The matriarchal late Rome used so much the contraceptive weed called \u00absilphium\u00bb that it became an extinguished species. Rome was conquered by the patriarchal barbarians. The matriarchal late classical Greece was conquered by the patriarchal early Rome. The matriarchal Abbasid caliphate (believe it or not there was feminism in this Islamic civilization) was conquered by the patriarchal Turks and so on and so forth.<\/p>\n

I guess that, when you talk about the \u00abnew deal\u00bb, you mean \u00aba new deal that is not self-destructive\u00bb, but I don’t think this is feasible. What we have right now is the law of the jungle: since everybody is free to do as he wants, the powerful ones (women, alpha) impose their will. Freedom means \u00abpeople do what they want\u00bb, that is, what the human instincts tell them to do. In turn, human instincts are programmed during a matriarchal Stone Age culture and produce a matriarchal society.<\/p>\n

A new deal would mean that, like with the old deal, somebody has to renounce his selfishness for the entire society to work. When I say \u00absomebody\u00bb, I mean \u00abthe powerful ones (women, leaders, alphas)\u00bb. This is against human nature. And without a religion and hard times, simply impossible.<\/p>\n

The only way out is to have a Dark Age so the powerful ones suffer and decide that they have to give in (so it is a selfishness move again) as a lesser evil. It is better if this is complemented with a religion telling you that, if you are selfish and have anti-social behavior, God will punish you. It seems to me that we will see nothing of this in the foreseeable future. So I guess we will only experience a constant decline.<\/p>\n

If I am wrong, please tell me. Nothing is better than to learn and I have been wrong many times.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Actually what we are living through is quite special in the history of the evolution of the species. When women gained control over their fertility in such a way as to make maintaining a pregnancy a fully \u201copt-in\u201d scenario, the rules around sexuality and mating were bound to change, because the underlying basis for them … Sigue leyendo Why a new sexual deal is not feasible<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1752"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1756,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1752\/revisions\/1756"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}