At its core, civilization is about the control of sexual impulses: the principal difference between ‘civilized society’ and the ‘state of nature’ is the amount of energy devoted to acquiring and maintaining access to sexual partners. In the state of nature, all of the central pillars of modern society ― technology, education, rule of law, etc. ― would be unthinkable, because there is no excess energy beyond the pursuit of sexual interests. Reproductive interests will always take priority over investment in the larger society, and so the only way civilized societies can arise is through artificial control of the sexual market.
Both inside and outside of the civilized state, human sexual interests are pursued in a market analogous to the markets of the commercial world. People use the currency (i.e. attractiveness) that they have to attract the best possible mate. In the uncivilized ‘state of nature,’ the sexual market is essentially uncontrolled: it is a ‘free market’ in the sense that there are almost no artificial constraints which obstruct competition at any stage. Men and women congregate at various points, but there is little concept of ‘family culture’ because people tend to remain ‘on the market’ in the competitive state throughout the whole of their lives. For this reason, there is almost no infrastructure for the purpose of transmitting advanced cultural information across generations.
Modern societies developed because they acknowledged this ‘hierarchy of priorities’ and took the appropriate course of action: they imposed constraints on the sexual market. These constraints were not overly stringent ― competition still took place, but it was kept within reasonable limits. People were able to focus on building the infrastructure of society without having to constantly worry about future sexual competition. The constraints made it impossible for a relatively small portion of the population to acquire a disproportionate influence over the reproductive direction of the society as a whole.
Even with such restrictions in place (in many cases enforced by law), modern societies still struggled to maintain a stable sexual marketplace; whether conscious of it or not, in their mission to uphold civilization they were confronting two extremely powerful forces which have troubled lovers of order and progress since the days of the primordial ooze: male variance and female hypergamy.
Male variance is one of the more well-established facts in the study of human differences; on virtually every trait worth measuring, men are much more likely to stray from the mean, and so the result is a rather complicated picture in which men are disproportionately represented at both the high and low ends of the spectrum. This is nothing other than nature unfolding as it should: male variance is precisely what keeps our species moving forward.
On the other hand, women are predisposed to select males based on status. This, in essence, is the phenomenon of female hypergamy: to prefer those who have obtained a high rank in the status hierarchy. The traits and behaviors which determine status may shift and fluctuate for a variety of reasons, but what stays unchanged is the fact that male status generally advantages a relatively small number and disadvantages a relatively large number. And, as it turns out, there is evidence that we as a species are predisposed to discourage the propagation of lower status males.
We have arrived at a paradox: civilization requires an elaborate cultural infrastructure which can only be maintained if the vast majority of society members are invested beyond reproductive pursuits, and yet our species tends to discourage most men from reproducing. Bearing these facts in mind, it is easy to see why controlled sexual markets are still chaotic: they are literally beating against our natural instincts!
So, the paradox of civilization is this: The continuation of civilized society hinges on a majority of society members being invested beyond the pursuit of sexual interests, and yet there is evidence which suggests that we are wired to discourage the reproduction of most men.
This is, perhaps, the greatest riddle of them all.
Cross-posted at Lost Historian.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Polygamy and monasteries, as I said. Only polygamy can channel hypergamy out from promiscuity. Monasteries make it possible for men to devote their energies to things not directly related to the family.
Interestingly enough, both Christianity and Islam seem to suppose that women are not hypergamous.
Christianity thinks that, because women would be naturally monogamous, they can bloody do as they like without upsetting monogamy. Not true.
Islam thinks women need be tightly controlled to prevent them from straying from the alpha men (to commit adultery with betas, LOL?). Not true either, but not as dangerous a mistake.
Since we have hordes of Moslems in this country these days, I’ve had the opportunity to look closely at Islamic beliefs about women. Let’s just say that they’re not afflicted by the feminist mush that is eating the Christian churches alive. At all.
Islam does not think women need to be tightly controlled to prevent “straying from the alpha men”. That’s so ridiculous it could only be some sort of projection from an Christian or post-Christian viewpoint. Islam is under no illusion about the nature of females and thinks controlling them is a public good full stop, no qualifiers.
There will be no female problem in the Caliphate. All Islamic problems are directly connected to the Moslem male.
Most of the problems of the Moslem male is not having a clear path to decent families due to polygamy. The historical Muslim solution was to raid other tribes for their women which continues on a smaller scale today. The historical christian/Chinese solution was giving ever man a chance at a wife as long as they had enough resources to own land directly or indirectly. Men would would work themselves silly building up enough cash to marry during most of Europe’s history.
“In the state of nature, all of the central pillars of modern society ― technology, education, rule of law, etc. ― would be unthinkable, because there is no excess energy beyond the pursuit of sexual interests. ”
You meant, “no excess energy beyond the pursuit of hunting, gathering and sheer survival”.
Native Swede, is it true immigrants are raping native Swedish women at unprecedented percentages, or is it just anti-immigrant propaganda?
Polygamy 1.0 created misery and instability by depriving lesser status men of opportunities for sex and family. Traditional Western monogamy allowed men sex with a wife, prostitutes, and possibly mistresses. 1916-1965 style monogamy tried to oppress men by criminalizing sex outside monogamy and forcing men to stay with one aging woman. Today’s feminist hypergamy does much to the male sex in the West that old fashion polygamy did to the lower orders of men.
Polygamy 2.0 would be superior to all of this. A cult could be formed that demanded total servility of women to their husbands in the traditions of Fundamentalist Mormonism and Islam. Women would be told to service their husbands totally; but do it in an unreproductive manner. Couples then could use microSort to take the husband’s semen and separate it into male and female. The man’s wife could then be artificially inseminated with his juice to the favored sex.
A cult could organize its births. Each couple could have 4 girls a piece and 1 boy. They could then grow the children to legal age and trade the girls off to the men and boys as multiple wives. Each new wife could give her husband 4 girls and 1 boy.
With this system there would be none of the contemptiable stories of Muslim men with no prospects for a wife turning violent or the disgusting fraud evictions of boys that Fundamentalist Mormons justly receive condemnation from the outside world for.
There might even be left over girls from the trading and no male would ever be expelled on trumped up charges so someone else could steal his share of poon. If a man wanted to join and bring his wife and/or girlfriends, he could and then use microSort to start the system in his family. A single man who wanted to join could offer skills or money. Suppose a doctor or engineer or someone needed wanted to join. He could be rewarded with a wife or wives. Suppose a billionaire wanted to join. He could give a sizeable financial gift to the community.
For the wider world, outside of my theoretical cult (which I would love to see become a reality) I favor reinvigorating men by bringing back legal brothels, fault divorce, and male infidelity not being legitimate grounds for divorce.
Polyamory and open marriage are the way of the future, for both sexes. Mark my word a few decades from now. You heard it here first. From Mick.
I do not think the violence inherent in polygyny is necessarily a bad thing, and unlike Muslims, I am not opposed to monasteries.
Monogamy leads to feminism and abortion, and ironically, to the killing of captured women. Compare Khaybar to the Holocaust, for example. If Hitler were polygynous, Jewish women would be spared.
Human sexuality is the core of human civilization. There must be an acceptable sexual life style in any human civilization. Matching up male sex drive with female sex drive is a major construction. An acceptable sexual life style must be based on satisfying both men and women sexually.
http://spiritofnature99.blogspot.com/
You have a good head on your shoulders Mick. You are probably right!
“Civilization” = “The Art Of Living In Cities”.
That’s it.
All the other things you ascribe to “civilization” are actually traits of our culture, the medium within which our civilization (our urban centers) takes place.
While you can certainly take a sexually-oriented approach to the hows and whys cities exist, the fact is that they exist in a variety of cultural contexts, employing a wide variety of marriage norms. The main advantages of urban life — “civilization” — are specialization, collective security, higher standard of living than rural life, monetization, and eventually industrialization. It’s the industrialization and monetization that really had an impact on the economy, and therefore the culture and mating habits. When women could earn money on their own, which can only happen in an urbanized society, their dependence on men declined to the point where it affected the way people mated.
Whether or not polyamory becomes dominant (and I don’t think it will) there’s no doubt that its an option. But if you want to find good mates for all of those Betas out there, the best way is to change the culture by teaching them how to find their Alpha sides, take the Red Pill, and competing the way men have always done.
“Whether or not polyamory becomes dominant (and I don’t think it will) there’s no doubt that its an option. But if you want to find good mates for all of those Betas out there, the best way is to change the culture by teaching them how to find their Alpha sides, take the Red Pill, and competing the way men have always done.”
Polyamory works for beta guys too, probably moreso than alphas. A couple have their home, their family, their commitment to building a life together, but they are open to each other dating and relating to outside people. That doesn’t mean every night each one is with a different partner. Remember, they have a family to take care of. But, in the course of living, if they become attracted to other people (almost inevitable) and if the attraction is mutual, they can spend some time with that person, with the full consent and encouragement of their spouse/main partner.
This guy appears pretty beta and yet he’s doing it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEIOMPO8wNs&feature=related
Polyamory is a staple of Beta guys, whether they are aware of it or not (lol).
Yeah Eric, that’s one reason why its the wave of the future. Betas have figured out how to get their cake and eat it too.
Polyamory with modern laws means that the girl never needs to get off the alpha cock carousel after they settle fro a beta. The beta schlub that can’t find a mistress now won’t be able to find a girl to fuck him in an open marriage either.
Damn Mike I think you are right, it will be the norm. And I can’t even imagine the betas of 2040 to demand the child they are financing be theirs, if anything I can even imagine promotion of the whole disgusting “cuckold” fetish thing becoming the next big feminist thing.
Fuck this, coexistence with women is too dystopian, lets just move off to a all male planet with hot vixen sexbots, gay guys can come to. Lets leave this stupid bullshit behind and conquer the galaxy while the wimmenz grow ever more crazy with their massive shit tests and enslavements of the remaining Earth herbs.
I finally see that full male separatism is the only way towards freedom and personal fulfilment. Women have nothing to offer. I don’t need the “love” of such treacherous creatures. Why not build the perfect creature to love us if sexbots aren’t good enough for some idealistic chaps?
Read this story:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/xu/failed_utopia_42/
Does anyone doubt which planet will be the shithole and which the seed of a universe conquering civlization?
React Konk, but the guy in the videos I posted is a BETA guy. He’s got a wife totally committed to him and the family, as he is also committed, but he also sees other women, with his wife’s consent, as she sees other men with his.
I don’t see what the problem is in this.
Good article and thread.
Woe to the fools whom underestimate the scorn of beating hearts that pump the crush adrenaline through effervescent veins. Woe to the land the where youth and energy suppressed for elders’ sake. Woe to the few whom scorn the meek for weak lambs may turn to wolves and shred to feed their egos’ pride.
People forget historical contexts “rape of Sabine women” was not an isolated event there were many ‘carrying off’ tumults with society on the brink of destabilization and people simply roving in bands of like mindedness and taking what they want. Order does not transition from one state to another without reorganization of society at basic level.
“We have arrived at a paradox: civilization requires an elaborate cultural infrastructure which can only be maintained if the vast majority of society members are invested beyond reproductive pursuits, and yet our species tends to discourage most men from reproducing. Bearing these facts in mind, it is easy to see why controlled sexual markets are still chaotic: they are literally beating against our natural instincts!
So, the paradox of civilization is this: The continuation of civilized society hinges on a majority of society members being invested beyond the pursuit of sexual interests, and yet there is evidence which suggests that we are wired to discourage the reproduction of most men.”
You don’t make sense. The reason why men are discouraged from reproductive pursuits (if that’s even the case which i dont think it is), is precisely BECAUSE we are meant to be “invested beyond the pursuit of reproduction”. In other words, we are higher/better than just that. So you are proving them right with your “argument”.
Still I dont see men being discouraged from reproducing. We are in fact encouraged to “settle down and start a family”.
“Bearing these facts in mind, it is easy to see why controlled sexual markets are still chaotic”
Bull. What about an arranged marriage society? Their controlled sexual market is not chaotic.
First of all, great article. I enjoy this blog but rarely comment.
it is easy to see why controlled sexual markets are still chaotic. they are literally beating against our natural instincts!
Freud wrote about this in Civilisation and Its Discontents, but I think we’re overcomplicating things a bit. Most men don’t want monogamy or marriage, they just want sex. This is why so many plain janes and blubbery fatties are hit on so often that their egoes swell up like tumescent members at a teenage porn party, while super-hotties sit home alone on Saturday night (if you don’t believe this, ask some of the super hotties and they’ll tell you, if they’re honest). Men don’t usually seek out the best or most attractive women, they simply hit up the most available. Hotties are seen as a challenge, whereas fatties are seen as easy pickings, and ironically, the numbers of men who chase the fuglies make them harder to land than the hot chicks.
I digress a bit, but I hope my point muddles through. Men don’t really care whether the woman they’re banging is a 10 as opposed to a 7. They just like the idea of having a chick to bang. Civilization needs not furnish most dudes with hotties, or even with variety; but it better give them something marginally better than the hand. Right now, North America is trying to furnish the majority of men with porn while the women (hotties and fatties alike) join harems. Hence the collapse. Forget about transmission of cultural values or the outgrowth of rampant polyamory, we’re not going to see any civilisation at all in a couple of generations.
Polyamory=euphemism for ‘soft’ polyandry.
As we have ‘soft’ harems now, what is the bloody problem with formal polygyny?
“Polyamory=euphemism for ‘soft’ polyandry.
As we have ‘soft’ harems now, what is the bloody problem with formal polygyny?”
That’s not the direction the world is going. Formal is out, soft is in. More and more people are opting for “commitment ceremonies” over legal and religious marriage. I see it as a good thing. Less beaurarcracy and more individual autonomy.
Mick is a non self aware thrall.
The only thing that creates actual autonomy is isolation. In the case of modern society that means space travel.
What mick is advocating –from his below average IQ– is breeding for non self aware strains of polygynistic [add up the lovers, no less suitors, of the average citizens] biped things in a giant gear-and-sprocket hierarchies that go way way over his head.
Lost Historian: “they imposed constraints on the sexual market. These constraints were not overly stringent ― competition still took place, but it was kept within reasonable limits. People were able to focus on building the infrastructure of society without having to constantly worry about future sexual competition.”
And there you have it… the rational argument for monogamous marriage leading to civilization as we know it.
All this talk of polyamory, polygyny, poly whatever… is nonsense. If THIS is what you want… you WANT to go back to the cave and brutal tribal living.
But then again… for those who don’t believe in God/spirit… why would there be a problem with sleeping around with however many people you want, just like the apes and chimps we are supposedly descended from right?
Look… a poly-whatever sexual marketplace is EXACTLY why civilization is currently fucked up and headed for total collapse. You can’t have people running around like animals and expect to have running hot water, bridges and penthouses… it is simply not going to happen.
The only reason we had such a society pathetic society at one time… called matriarchal/matrilinial/goddess… is because men did not KNOW about paternity, their role as fathers. Once that little nugget of knowledge was uncovered, the whole ball game changed for the girls and there was no going back to the days of free sex for all (or the few to be accurate). Until today that is and the above eunuchs who seem to think spreading the love around is the future of sexual relationships.
What you are all describing as some ‘utopia’ of enlightened sexual relations is nothing more than a return to man’s utter base animal nature living under female rule. If you want to go back to living by pussy rules… that is fine by me… I will have none of it.
I can’t find the book for a direct quote, but in my reading on Islam, I found an author describe the times before the revelation of the Quran.
Men and women would run naked around the kaba celebrating goddess sexual practices. Large groups of men would have sex with one woman… and if she become pregnant, she would simply line all the men up and point to the one who would be the father. Prostitutes abounded. All manner of sexual activity was permissible, as one would expect to find in a PRIMITIVE and TRIBAL society. Some people partnered in a more or less monogamous way, but for the large majority of pagans and polytheists… it was a sexual free for all… anything goes with anyone you wanted to do it with.
Islam came along and decreed marriage to one partner for life, restraining sexual relations between husband and wife, reducing its outward manifestation in loose dress and morals and stressed THE FAMILY (father, mother, children) as the central unit of society.
And BANG… one of the fastest and most innovative empire’s the world has ever seen, leaving Europe in the dark age dust until the Crusader’s had their eyes opened to what was possible if they stopped mixing science and religion.
I know I am not going to find any fans here on promoting marriage… especially today and there are many reasons to avoid it like the plague in the west, do not misunderstand me. But, there are good women out there and if not, I certainly don’t see the answer being to go BACKWARDS in time to a more PRIMITIVE way of life.
I guess all of you must have NO EMOTIONS involved in sex. You can imagine your partner sucking and fucking some stranger because you are allowed to as well. No… no… that woman will NEVER get jealous of you spending more time with your “fun” side-pussy now will she? After all… if sex is no problem… why should demoting one woman to #2 and promoting another to #1 be a problem right? RIGHT? She won’t mind if you up and take your resources and spend them on another woman… right.. RIGHT? Same goes for the lady if she decides she not only wants to keep fucking other guys… she has decided to take you out of rotation entirely! It’s all good… you got your other plates spinning right? RIght.. right.. oh wait.. that’s what we have now, a few high status males fucking all the girls while the rest sit around watching. (No wonder porn is so addictive to many men, it’s all their ancestors used to do!)
Come on. Am I the only person to see how insane that is to contemplate and reject as IMPOSSIBLE for a stable and peaceful society? (Let alone a civilized one.)
You can only have high status males… if you enable a society to keep 99% of the other males down and out. If you have a civilization, which by definition is run by man made/religious laws, not the law of nature, then you have every man able to work out his own “high status” in the community and women will naturally find many more men attractive to mating. But… that would mean those few psychopathic bastards (usually) at the top would have to “share” the wealth… and we all know how well THAT is going in America today now don’t we?
The whole argument about alpha and beta males reduces man to his animal nature and I won’t deny the author’s assertion, since it is true, that men tend to clump at the ends of the spectrum, loser or winner. But to say that means nature wants no other men to reproduce is to fly in the face of the fact many do, all the time, and it is only the status obsessed men and women that are obsessed with whether or not they are in the winner/loser category. High school all over again. You have a bunch of sex obsessed CHILDREN running around fucking each other animals… while the rest of us quietly go about our business forming loving and emotional relationships and starting families that last generations. This is why the Quran speaks of peoples coming and going… the one’s that pass away abandon God and the family… the ones that endure or come to know God’s favour are the ones that control and channel their base, animal nature into monogamous marriage and children.
Chucking marriage and life-long partnerships is precisely what the elite want. Why do you think Islam is under so heavy an attack? It is the LAST die-hard marriage/family faith/meme out there that still has teeth and convictions amongst its adherents. For all of you walking away from marriage as the sham it is… you are walking away from an institution that YOU have helped to bring down and degenerate into the hypocritical way of life you say it is. Marriage is not as fucked up as you think it is… I know many great marriages. All that has changed is that it is HARDER to find a good woman, and most of the reason for that is also due to the fact there are very few good men who actually want to have a family and long term marriage anymore.
You… MEN… have to make women see the light. If you don’t curb your sexual drives, why should they? Men are the gender that impose the sexual restraints on female sexuality by CONTROLLING thier’s because we know women will not, they simply follow nature because THEY are the sexual gender, not the male.
So.. go ahead you pussy worshipers… run around the kaba naked laughing it up at the gods and have sex with as many people as you want. When this shit storm passes over… there will either me a nation of men that sack up and put their penis away for the greater good of humanity and therefore force women to follow suit… or we will all be back in Hobbes brutal state of nature where men live lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Check the first two for me… preparing to make it through the next two and avoid the last one.
I don’t agree at all. The primary purpose of civilization is to allow the intelligent to rule over the unintelligent, which achieves better long-term results because it makes all of society as effective as its smartest members. The paradox of civilization is that by making the unintelligent effective, they survive at greater rates, which given their greater reproduction rates means they rapidly drown out the intelligent and reverse the advances of civilization.
@Maximus
Maybe it makes sense to ban polyandry. Male sexual frustration is an engine.
@Brett Stevens
A rapidly breeding underclass is only a problem in monogamous and promiscuous societies.
Humans don’t come from matriarchies made patriarchal through civilization.
No matter how many times you _NUTS_ say it, it aint ever gonna be true.
——
And correction:
I meant above, _polyandronistic._