No Sex For You, Young Man - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Rich
#14997437
SolarCross wrote:The problem comes from a slacking in the enforcement of monogamous legal conventions.

The problem with seeing this as the problem, is that even if we wanted to go back, the question is back to when? Our societies have been in social, moral and cultural turmoil since the invention of the printing press. Obviously things have speeded up in recent times, but social morality has never been static. I agree with Conservatives that Liberals haven't a clue about the consequences of their actions, I just also agree with Liberals that we can't go back, and that we probably can't even stick with where we are.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are prone to their own forms of utopian delinquency.
#14997439
Rich wrote:The problem with seeing this as the problem, is that even if we wanted to go back, the question is back to when? Our societies have been in social, moral and cultural turmoil since the invention of the printing press. Obviously things have speeded up in recent times, but social morality has never been static. I agree with Conservatives that Liberals haven't a clue about the consequences of their actions, I just also agree with Liberals that we can't go back, and that we probably can't even stick with where we are.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are prone to their own forms of utopian delinquency.

Don't think of it as going "back", that makes no sense, because monogamy is not rooted at some particular point in the spacetime continuum. It was not time that enforced monogamy it was people and people are still around.
#14997459
Go out and do stuff. If you want to meet real live people, it is easiest when going out to organised social activities. Examples include church, local sports leagues, community theatre, political activism, and neighbourhood parties. Yes, it is possible that you will meet the love of your life on a political internet forum, but most of us are not so incredibly lucky.
#14997526
Even if there were polygamous marriages, the same men would be getting multiple wives, because they are the most fit to do so.

SolarCross wrote:the problem of 10% of guys getting 90% of women is as old mankind itself
That's probably not far from the truth. The thing is, you want to work so you can get into that 10%. Most men are absolutely capable of that with a bit of self improvement, experience, and hard work. I'd like to think I'm in that top 10%, given my success with women, but I doubt very much I'd have been in that category 20 years ago.

Young people are just living with the reality of a society where "social contact" seems to be what some people consider FaceBook or Twitter, to be... :hmm:
#14997527
SolarCross wrote:Don't think of it as going "back", that makes no sense, because monogamy is not rooted at some particular point in the spacetime continuum. It was not time that enforced monogamy it was people and people are still around.


What do you mean by “enforced monogamy”?

If you mean a society that enforces the four legal conventions that you previously mentioned, it is too late for that.

Sex before marriage is now the norm.

While monogamy in marriage is the norm, many couples are polyamorous or have open relationships or swing. This really seems like one of those things that involves consenting adults, would be difficult to police, and were always available to those in power anyway.

If we define adultery as willfully deceiving your spouse by having sex with anouther person and not telling your spouse, then I would think this actually happens less now, and that it is even more frowned upon.

And it would take a miracle to get rid of no fault divorce laws. No fault divorce has been linked to lower rate of domestic abuse and suicide.
#14997528
Wow this thread is just... :eek:

As an observer of males I will put my 2 cents in.

A major problem in today's world is the idealization of sex. Men and women talk about or long for "great sex" or "the hottest sex ever" and there are numerous articles and books advising people on what great sex is about. So people have all these expectations, many of them could be unrealistic or just unnecessary. People have always been shallow but it is concepts like "hot" that make us even more shallow in our thinking. Appearance is not everything.

This whole rating system by appearance is another really shallow concept, IMO. On a facebook app many years ago, I was rated as a 3 and even though I don't care about my looks much, it still hurt. It was kind of like being called untouchable. So people who are rated a 3 might not attract the notice of a 6 or 7. If people can look past the number, they might just find that the 3 person is actually better personalitywise than the women who is a 7.

Young people these days seem to be more anti-social. They are glued to their phones, their gaming consoles or their couches. There is a whole lot more entertainment at the fingertips than in the 90s. I grew up in the 90s and I remember spending more time with family or outside than in front of a screen. I miss those days. I feel like people are more like zombies the more time that they spend with multimedia screens. So how can any of the zombies feel like getting out there to get laid?
#14997531
Pants-of-dog wrote:What do you mean by “enforced monogamy”?

If you mean a society that enforces the four legal conventions that you previously mentioned, it is too late for that.

Sex before marriage is now the norm.

While monogamy in marriage is the norm, many couples are polyamorous or have open relationships or swing. This really seems like one of those things that involves consenting adults, would be difficult to police, and were always available to those in power anyway.

If we define adultery as willfully deceiving your spouse by having sex with anouther person and not telling your spouse, then I would think this actually happens less now, and that it is even more frowned upon.

And it would take a miracle to get rid of no fault divorce laws. No fault divorce has been linked to lower rate of domestic abuse and suicide.

I doubt it is "too late" but the turn around would take decades at least and require virtually totalitarian measures. Polygamy as the default for humans is like laissez faire economics, while monogamy is an artificial ideal to create an egalitarian outcome that must be maintained by considerable enforcement and so is more like socialism. There are pros and cons to all things so I don't pretend polygamy is without its problems but then neither is monogamy.
#14997543
Or, we could do away with the idea of norms altogether and let each person have whatever sort of arrangements they want as long as it involves consenting adults.

Most people would probably choose heterosexual monogamy anyway.
#14997608
Pants-of-dog wrote:Or, we could do away with the idea of norms altogether and let each person have whatever sort of arrangements they want as long as it involves consenting adults.

Most people would probably choose heterosexual monogamy anyway.

I'm down with that but the biological realities are of free choice is that a significant minority will be polygamous and because the sexes shake out in roughly even numbers that causes a significant minority of males to be doomed to inceldom and they won't all be hideous freaks that no one would want breeding but really just ordinary mediocrities, the kind of people socialists are supposed care about above all else ie: "working class" as you call them.

Free choice is polygamy by default.

The winners of polygamy are: high quality males because they can maximise their reproductive potential with multiple mates and less obviously but certainly so the other winners are low quality females because they have far better chances of obtaining high quality semen.

The losers of polygamy are low quality males as the low quality females they would pursue can rebuff them in one way or another for high quality males. The other less obvious loser is high quality females as they are obliged to share their high quality male with a bevy of low quality females.

I just find your sexual capitalism strangely inconsistent with your economic socialism. Your objection to economic freedom is that it is a capitulation to the Pareto distribution but it seems you are entirely ready to capitulate to Pareto distributions on matters of sexual reproduction. The working class joe probably cares more about the latter than the former.
#14997621
SolarCross wrote:I'm down with that but the biological realities are of free choice is that a significant minority will be polygamous and because the sexes shake out in roughly even numbers that causes a significant minority of males to be doomed to inceldom and they won't all be hideous freaks that no one would want breeding but really just ordinary mediocrities, the kind of people socialists are supposed care about above all else ie: "working class" as you call them.


This run on sentence makes little sense and is probably incorrect.

Also, why should we care if a few men cannot get dates? That does not seem like reason enough to force women to date them.

Free choice is polygamy by default.


No. Free choice is some people being polygamous, some being monogamous, some being single, some doing something else, etc.

The winners of polygamy are: high quality males because they can maximise their reproductive potential with multiple mates and less obviously but certainly so the other winners are low quality females because they have far better chances of obtaining high quality semen.

The losers of polygamy are low quality males as the low quality females they would pursue can rebuff them in one way or another for high quality males. The other less obvious loser is high quality females as they are obliged to share their high quality male with a bevy of low quality females.


Why do you assume only males get to be polygamous?

I just find your sexual capitalism strangely inconsistent with your economic socialism. Your objection to economic freedom is that it is a capitulation to the Pareto distribution but it seems you are entirely ready to capitulate to Pareto distributions on matters of sexual reproduction. The working class joe probably cares more about the latter than the former.


Actually, I have explained my actual objection to capitalism many times to you already, and it has nothing to do with Pareto.

You seem to have this incorrect idea in your head about Marxists motives that does not change no matter how many times it is explained to you.
User avatar
By Ter
#14997632
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, why should we care if a few men cannot get dates? That does not seem like reason enough to force women to date them.


So OK, what should they do then ?
Visit prostitutes ? No, very bad. Verboten.
Get a realistic sex doll ? No, very bad, Verboten.

From what I saw here, only masturbation would be allowed and politically correct.

Or go to South East Asia and pick a young beautiful sexy one that would marry you for your money and place in society.
#14997636
Pants-of-dog wrote:This run on sentence makes little sense and is probably incorrect.

Also, why should we care if a few men cannot get dates? That does not seem like reason enough to force women to date them.

Maybe we shouldn't and arguably a social darwinist should be happy they don't get dates but if we don't care about them getting dates then why should we care about them getting jobs or getting paid more for those jobs or having any income at all? There is some very selective "caring" going on here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Free choice is some people being polygamous, some being monogamous, some being single, some doing something else, etc.

The presence of some polygamy proportionately causes some inceldom, the more polygamy the more inceldom.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you assume only males get to be polygamous?

That's how it shakes out both by observation and logical necessity due to the asymmetries in biology of sexual reproduction. I realise you don't really accept the existence of sexual dimorphism so this basic reality is difficult for you to process. I can explain in detail the ins and outs of why it happens if you like.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I have explained my actual objection to capitalism many times to you already, and it has nothing to do with Pareto.

You seem to have this incorrect idea in your head about Marxists motives that does not change no matter how many times it is explained to you.

Link please.
#14997642
Ter wrote:So OK, what should they do then ?
Visit prostitutes ? No, very bad. Verboten.
Get a realistic sex doll ? No, very bad, Verboten.

From what I saw here, only masturbation would be allowed and politically correct.


In my first post in this thread:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Go out and do stuff. If you want to meet real live people, it is easiest when going out to organised social activities. Examples include church, local sports leagues, community theatre, political activism, and neighbourhood parties. Yes, it is possible that you will meet the love of your life on a political internet forum, but most of us are not so incredibly lucky.


If you still cannot get a date after that, maybe the problem is that you are not attractive, kind, intelligent, funny, rich, or creative.

Because most men who are at least one of these things can usually find a partner if he goes out and socialises.

If men need society and/or the state to force women to like men, then the problem is men.

Or go to South East Asia and pick a young beautiful sexy one that would marry you for your money and place in society.


This is obviously @Godstud bait.

——————————

SolarCross wrote:Maybe we shouldn't and arguably a social darwinist should be happy they don't get dates but if we don't care about them getting dates why should we care about them getting jobs or getting paid more for those jobs or having any income at all? There is some very selective "caring" going on here.


Yes, your idea that we should force women to distribute sex equally, but everything else should be unequal, is very selective.

Anyway, do you have evidence that these herbivore males are lonely because of sexual liberation?

Sc wrote:The presence of some polygamy proportionately causes some inceldom, the more polygamy the more inceldom.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

Sc wrote:That's how it shakes out both by observation and logical necessity due to the asymmetries in biology of sexual reproduction. I realise you don't really accept the existence of sexual dimorphism so this basic reality is difficult for you to process. I can explain in detail the ins and outs of why it happens if you like.


I have observed women being polygamous, and I have not observed men being more polygamous except in those societies where men were allowed but women were not.

Nor does it seem logically necessary due to our biology. So, yes, please explain this.

SC wrote:Link please.


It is in the last thread you started about how we should control women’s sexuality. Remember that you tried to use a Marxist argument, but your fellow right wingers used the abortion argument instead?
#14997646
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have observed women being polygamous, and I have not observed men being more polygamous except in those societies where men were allowed but women were not.

Nor does it seem logically necessary due to our biology. So, yes, please explain this.

Women do polygamy differently due to their different reproductive physiology. Reproductive acts for men are cheap and low risk it only costs a teaspoon of semen consequently they tend not to care overmuch about quality mates so much as quantity of mates. In contrast reproductive acts are high risk and expensive for women because it costs 9 months of pregnancy followed by a several months of breast feeding then dozens of years of close care and so they tend to be much more discriminating on quality of mates.
#14997647
SolarCross wrote:Women do polygamy differently due to their different reproductive physiology. Reproductive acts for men are cheap and low risk it only costs a teaspoon of semen consequently they tend not care overmuch about quality mates so much as quantity of mates. In contrast reproductive acts are high risk and expensive for women because it costs 9 months of pregnancy followed by a several months of breast feeding then a dozens of years of close care and so they tend to be much more discriminating on quality of mates.


Since the vast majority of polygamy these days has nothing to do with reproduction, this distinction is irrelevant for modern dating.

So, I assume you have no evidence that sexual freedom or polygamy is responsible for incels or herbivore males.
#14997649
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since the vast majority of polygamy these days has nothing to do with reproduction, this distinction is irrelevant for modern dating.

Why do you say that?

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, I assume you have no evidence that sexual freedom or polygamy is responsible for incels or herbivore males.

Monogamy reduces reproductive freedom for both high quality males and low quality females, when those restrictions are relaxed low quality females are free to pursue high quality males at the expense of low quality males. That's the causation of the tide going out for low quality males.
#14997650
SolarCross wrote:Why do you say that?


Because people do not date solely to reproduce. In fact, reproducing is something you do after you have finished with the dating scene.

The few who are polygamous after or while reproducing tend to only reproduce with one person.

Monogamy reduces reproductive freedom for both high quality males and low quality females, when those restrictions are relaxed low quality females are free to pursue high quality males at the expense of low quality males. That's the causation of the tide going out for low quality males.


Yes, I am familiar with the incel theory.

What I ased for was evidence that it is true.

And you seem to not have that.
#14997651
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because people do not date solely to reproduce. In fact, reproducing is something you do after you have finished with the dating scene.

The few who are polygamous after or while reproducing tend to only reproduce with one person.

Dating is a method for discovering a suitable reproductive partner. They are related activities.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I am familiar with the incel theory.

What I ased for was evidence that it is true.

And you seem to not have that.


Differential reproduction for men and women.

This page collates dozens of different research papers on the subject.
Another school shooting

People like you and the left-wing lunatic types d[…]

Ideality

An emphasis to remind myself of is that ideality i[…]

This is absolutely insane. https://www.youtube.co[…]

Someone tell me of 1 prediction made by mainstrea[…]