Posts Tagged ‘fitness test’

Women gone nuts

Friday, April 20th, 2018

The Zman asks “Why Did Women Go Nuts?

Simple. When you repress bad sexual behavior by males, and do not repress bad sexual behavior by females, you get very little bad sexual behavior by males, and a whole lot of bad sexual behavior by females.

I see women behaving as if raised by apes in the jungle.

Things are going to hell because we fail to restrain bad behavior that gets right in our faces.  Male sexual behavior in the workplace is nigh nonexistent and male heterosexual rape is nigh nonexistent, but to the extent that it exists, the man is looking for a warm wet pussy.  Female sexual behavior is different.  She is trying to disqualify males, testing as many males as possible to see if they meet her exacting requirements.  This testing is necessarily stressful, for she is stress testing men to see if they break under pressure, thus necessarily more disruptive than male sexual behavior, more damaging to workplace productivity, male cohesion, and social cooperation.

In a normal and sane society, ninety percent of fertile age women would within a few minutes of behaving as they now do, be whacked hard with a stick, like a stray dog harassing a farmer’s chickens.  And then they would stop.  Their owner would be called, and they would be hauled off on a leash.

Yet everyone around me acts like zombies and fails to notice.

It is completely obvious to me that women in the workplace continually disrupt the workplace by fitness testing attractive male co-workers, and a minor and infrequent side effect of these fitness tests, when the fitness test goes explicitly and overtly sexual, is that the woman complains, and entirely believes, she was sexually harassed.  So am I insane, or is everyone else insane?  Am I hallucinating disruptive sexual behavior right in front of my face by lusty women fitness testing every attractive male they meet to see if he has the stones to beat them and rape them, or is everyone else hallucinating chaste sexless angels persecuted by lecherous men?

Slate Star Codex recently attempted to survey co-worker sexual harassment complaints by workplace type, and reviewed existing surveys.  The major result was that the more women were outnumbered by men, (engineering, mining) the less that women experienced “sexual harassment”, and the more women outnumber men (supermarket checkout chicks, actresses) the more they experience “sexual harassment”.  These results were swiftly confirmed by subsequent work by other people, who also produced similar results for rape – or at least females complaining about “rape”.

But this only makes sense if incidents of men “raping” women and men “sexually harassing” women are generally female initiated, not male initiated, which is what I see in front of my nose, and what I see everyone else failing to see.   All workplace sexual harassment cases of males supposedly sexually harassing females, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are female initiated: It is a fitness test. The chick is looking for a coworker with the stones to beat her and rape her.

If workplace sexual harassment is male initiated, we would expect females in predominantly male workplaces to report a lot of it, in particular we would expect engineerettes and female miners to report lots of it, because outnumbered approximately a hundred to one by males, while we would expect actresses and supermarket checkout girls to report very little of it, because they heavily outnumber male co-workers. Survey data is the exact opposite. The more that female workers outnumber male workers (and thus the thirstier the female workers) the more “sexual harassment” by every plausible measure, indicating that all cases of males sexually harassing female co-workers are actually cases of female co-workers fitness testing attractive males, as near to all of them as makes no difference.

In the time period of the “Rape on campus” incident, University of Virginia investigated thirty eight rape complaints. None led to disciplinary action, therefore all fake, or University of Virginia horribly biased. The fallout of the “Rape on Campus” case indicates fake. If there were any real cases, Obama’s team would have come up with better poster girls. All reports of rape by white heterosexual males are lies, as near to all of them as makes no difference.  Recollect that the University of Virginia accusation “A Rape on Campus”, was driven by female sexual lust.

And, similarly, sex between middle aged men, and girls well below puberty.  Humbert Humbert wants to creep into bed with the sleeping twelve-year-old Dolores Haze, but does not do so, in part because she is not in her own bed, she has crept into the bed of the drunk and sleeping Jeremy Meeks.  Any time you hear that an old man has raped a female child, ascertain whose bed the “rape” occurred in.

We should not “teach women not to lie about rape”. We should throw women in jail for lying about rape, or else legalize rape when done on private property that a woman voluntarily chose to enter. But, far more importantly, need to fire women who shit test co-workers in the workplace, because their disruptive behavior profoundly damages productivity and social cohesion.

To win, we are going to need a red pilled Christianity that is willing to enforce order, patriarchy, and orthodoxy.  We will need to spin the story of the fall not as a literal account of mankind’s descent from a higher plane of existence, but rather a parable or metaphor about men becoming black pilled when we realized large scale cooperation was hard, knowing good and evil, and knowing we screwed up.  Evolutionary psychology and game theory leads to conclusions that parallel the traditional Christian understanding of the fall.

All women are like that

Wednesday, December 27th, 2017

Women are attracted to arrogant violent men. They are attracted to IQ<80 criminals because criminals are allowed to be violent, while high status males are not, with the result that the status hierarchy as perceived by women winds up upside down from the status hierarchy as perceived by men. AWALT. All women are like that.

Hypergamy never sleeps, a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down.

(more…)

Women like sexual coercion

Friday, November 24th, 2017

Their resistance is merely a shit test, to separate the strong from the weak.

What they hate, hate, hate hate hate, hate with a hatred hotter than a thousand suns, is that some guy whom they had sex with turns out to be substantially less alpha than they thought.

You doubt me? Reflect on the current Hollywood drama. Everyone has always known about the casting couch but in actual practice women acted as if being sexually exploited by rich, famous, and powerful men was a fringe benefit, rather than an occupational hazard – until the advance of feminism turned previously arrogant and entitled Hollywood moguls into weak and timid betas using wealth, fame and power as a weak crutch.

Reflect on Sweden, rape capital of the world.

In June, a 12-year-old girl in the small town of Stenungsund reported that she had been dragged into a public restroom and raped by an older boy. Six weeks later the girl had still not been questioned by the police. Even though she believed she had identified the perpetrator, the police had yet to pay him a visit.

“We have so many similar cases,” a spokeswoman of the local police told the Swedish public television channel SVT on September 12, “and there are so few of us, that we simply don’t have the time.” She continued: “We have rape victims three years old,” and even their cases await investigation.

Needless to say, feminists, and indeed women generally, are totally untroubled by this, just as they untroubled by Rotherham.

What happened is that Swedes escalated the definition of rape, so that looking at a woman sideways was rape.

Then they de-escalated the punishment for rape, so that it was similar to letting your dog poop on the pavement.

And then they imported a million or so brown Mohammedans.

And when anyone noticed that a million old style knife to the throat rapes of white women by brown Mohammedans were happening, old fashioned actual rape type rapes, the criminal noticer got severely punished, hate speech being treated far more severely than mere rape. And if police attempted to arrest the brown guy with the knife: “Racism! Islamophobia! Police Brutality” Cars would be set on fire, and police would ticket the scorched ruins of the car for being illegally parked.

So police decided it was a lot more urgent to ticket people walking their dogs, and rapes by brown men got left on the back burner.

Swedish males are a little bit unhappy about this but, after all “We are not your women”, so they are not all that disturbed.

And what is the reaction of Swedish women? It is “bring in more refugees! We are not your women!”

Female resistance to rape is a shit test. It is not that they don’t want to be raped, it is that they don’t want to be raped by insufficiently powerful males. I say again: Female resistance to rape is a shit test. It is not that they don’t want to be raped, it is that they don’t want to be raped by insufficiently powerful males.

There is no college rape crisis, because if there were, female enrollment would be much higher.

Also, there is no college rape crisis, because the Obama Department of education subjected colleges to extreme and extraordinary pressure to identify and punish heterosexual white male college student rapists, and the colleges subjected coeds to extreme and extraordinary pressure to say that they had been raped, and despite all this storm and drama, the poster boy white male college frat rapist that they managed to turn up was glass rapist Haven Monahan, indicating that the number of affluent white frat boy rapists, the rapists that Obama was twisting the arms of university admins to find, is indistinguishable from zero, that every single rape accusation made against such men is false, for if one of the accusations was plausibly true, he would be the poster boy instead of Haven Monahan. Such a ridiculously low rate of rape indicates that our college boys are disturbingly emasculated, hence the female rage directed against them, and conspicuously not directed at groups that have a very high rate of actual no kidding rape type rape.

If a high status fraternity really could get away with glass raping coeds, the way that Swedish and English Muslims get away with raping very young girls, there would be a horde of coeds hanging around the frat house carrying glasses.

The extraordinary and vicious rage and hatred directed at high status white male heterosexual frats is because they do not dare rape, dare not sexually coerce women, having too much to lose, and thus feel like fake alphas. And nothing enrages a woman worse than having sex with a seeming alpha and finding he is not actually all that alpha. That is a thousand times worse than being raped, and they are getting it all the time from frat boys.

If high status frats really could rape girls and get away with it thanks to their immense social status, girls would be as relaxed about it as they used to be about the Hollywood casting couch, and even more relaxed than they are about Sweden and English Mohammedan rapes.

And, also, the success of the eighteenth century Australian authorities in turning sluts into respectable wives for respectable men. Cartoonishly extreme coercion, which moderns, and even Victorians, would regard as enslavement and rape, was on the books, but very seldom need to be actually applied. Faced with a firm hand, women internalized the values commanded, and hastily volunteered for respectable marriage. Often very hastily.

Today’s coercion turns virgins into whores. Early Australian coercion turned whores into wives. But both ways, in both directions, it is clear that women rather like sexual coercion.  Harvey Weinstein’s problem was that despite being rich, famous, and powerful, he so internalized leftist dogma that he acted beta.  He swallowed the blue pill. If he had acted arrogant and entitled, he would have been fine. He should have hit those whores with a stick.

We ban rape because we are not allowed to ban what we really want to ban – other men having sex with our women.

Shit tests are designed to be passed

Friday, May 13th, 2016

This is not a PUA blog.  Not going to tell you how to recognize a shit test or how to pass it.  I myself am not all that good at such things.  But I will tell you that you need to know such things.

Mostly the red pill is the rediscovery of stuff that back in the fifties and sixties everyone knew but no one would plainly say.

Shit tests, however, represent a new and clearer understanding.  The Taming of the Shrew is all about passing shit tests, so this is not a completely new discovery, but we understand shit tests better than men in the past.

Girls cannot help shit testing men that they like, any more than a man can help looking at a woman’s breasts.  When acquiring a girlfriend, you will be hit by shit tests.  When trying to keep your wife or girlfriend in line, you will be hit by shit tests.

A shit test is a power struggle.  If the girl wins, for example getting you to apologize, making you hold her bag, making you try to please her in ways that can never please her, she loses.  If you win, you win.  Never apologize, never explain.

I think girls are genuinely unconscious of shit testing men. They think their supposed attitudes are sincerely held, though their attitude evaporates in a puff of smoke when you blow off their shit test.  (Some shit tests, like showing up late, or going home to mother, require a bit of patience before you will see the attitude change.)

And it is hard to tell the difference between a shit test and girl really not liking you, or really not wanting to have sex with you.  Except that shit tests are designed to be passed.

And shit tests are often horrifyingly harsh.  It is often hard to pass a shit test, because they are really meant to be hard to pass.  And if you fail a shit test it is likely to become retroactively true that the girl really did not like you, or really did not want to have sex with you.  Hard to tell the difference between a thermonuclear shit test and a thermonuclear rejection.  Except that one will reliably get you laid and the other one will not.

I am not going to tell you how to detect a shit test.  You just have to intuit it.  After a while you get a reflexive feeling of resentment “Hell, this girl is out of line.  She is behaving improperly”. But you should not react to a shit test by getting hostile and angry since such an attitude assumes in advance you will fail the shit test, rather than pass it and claim your startlingly generous reward. Rather, you should assume she will be happy to be gently but firmly put in her proper place.

Not going to tell you how to pass them.  I am not particularly good at passing them.  They are hard to pass, particularly in a society that gives women nuclear weapons.

Consent does not make sex right, and lack of consent does not make sex wrong.

A porn star is apt to wind up feeling mighty bad about sex and her life, even though she gets formally videotaped giving explicit verbal consent to absolutely everything. Most women married by abduction or by arrangement feel pretty good about their marriage, and all the better if husband firmly insists on sex every night.

Women do not really like needing to consent to sex, let alone consent moment to moment. Which is one of the reasons you will probably strike out if you try to get a woman to give you explicit verbal consent. They much prefer “It just happened”.  Women really don’t want to succeed in getting their own way on sex, because if they get their own way, that kind of implies that the person they are having sex with is weaker, needier, or lower status that they are.  In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, if a woman really does not have much choice in who’s semen gets thrust into her pussy, it is probably better quality semen from the standpoint of Darwin, and more honorable and legitimate sex from the point of view of the God of the old Testament.  They like to be dominated and commanded into sex.  So a girl losing shit tests is her warm up to getting nailed.  Just as every time a man looks at a girls boobs, he is thinking about having sex with her, every time a girl shit tests a man, she is thinking about being overcome, overpowered, dominated, and submitting sexually to that man.

I took a lady friend, and her good friend, to a resort, because I hoped for a threesome.  This was extremely stupid of me, because one is never going to make a threesome with one’s lady  friend’s good friend, because they will fear breaking up their friendship, but, hey, all the blood had as usual rushed from brain to my little man.

Let us call my lady friend girl 1, and her good friend who failed to have sex with me and distracted the attention of girl 1 away from me girl 2.

I met a man at the resort, and he wanted to join my group, and that was fine with me because he, being an outsider trying to join the group, was unavoidably confirming my alpha male status with every move he made, so I asked him to join us.  We will call him beta man.

Eventually he very delicately sort of asked which girl was surplus to my requirements, which girl was the third wheel on the bicycle.  To which I straightforwardly replied that girl number 2 was the extra, but he could not have her.  He should hit on some other girl.

And, predictably, everyone acted as if I was being completely reasonable and had rightful authority over girl 2’s life.  But, of course, girls do not take this kind of treatment lying down. Or rather, standing up.  If you tell a girl she cannot have something, she is going to want to have it.

Predictably, after a while girl number 2 just happened to wander off so that she is as far from me as she can be while still remaining in line of sight.  And I pretend to not look at that line of sight.

And Beta man disappears, takes a circuitous route while out of sight, and just happens to reappear near girl number two.

I pretend to not look, while glancing every now and then out of the corner of my eye

I know he is going get an absolutely brutal shit test, because, he, and she, are literally sneaking behind my back, and thus he is acting beta.  To get enough alpha cred to nail her, he needs to pass a brutal shit test, and she is going to give him the opportunity to gain enough alpha cred to nail her.

So he chats to her, she chats to him.  I cannot hear them and they are too far away to see very clearly, but suddenly he acts has though she has stabbed him with a spear, the spear is sticking all the way through him and out the other side, and he is coughing blood.  He flees in shame and horror.

The poor man was severely traumatized, perhaps for life.  The next day we saw him in town, and my girls called out to him to join us, and he acted like we were opening fire with a machine gun.  He fled again in abject terror.

But I know girl number 2 liked him, and wanted to spend a night in his room at the resort, because she was disappointed when he fled.

Had he joined us again, he would have faced an even more brutal shit test, to give him the opportunity to gain the alpha cred he lost by being beta to my alpha, and failing the first shit test.  But if he had passed – well, it was obvious to me that girl number two had plans, though I don’t know if it was obvious to her.

Maybe like Roger Elliot he spent the rest of his life creepily staring at women from a great distance waiting for them to approach him, then fleeing in terror if approached, and finally broke down, killed a bunch of people and committed suicide.  Maybe he became a hairy hermit in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest.  But it was obvious to me that girl number two had conscious or subconscious plans to spend the night in his room, rather than on the spare bed in mine, and was visibly disappointed when her plans fell through.

The moral of the story is:  Pass your shit tests.  The rewards are great.  The punishment for failure is dire.  And it is easier to pass your shit tests if you believe in the chain of being:  Beasts < blacks < children < women < men < angels.

But the trouble is that society arms women with nuclear weapons against being hit on by upper class males, and in particular white males.  This makes upper class men less sexy than lower class men, and lower class men less sexy than underclass men, and white men less sexy than black men.  It is harder to pass a shit test the higher your social class.

Emancipation of women was a fitness test that we failed

Friday, February 26th, 2016

Hence the collapsing birth rate.

Fitness tests:

A fitness test is usually applied by a woman to a particular man she is thinking she might like in her pussy. When applied in this manner, a fitness test is what pickup artists call a shit test.

For example, suppose one schedules to meet a girl at ten in the morning. One is planning an all day first date with a variety of activities, since one hopes for a first date lay. She is late. A little after ten in the morning she messages one saying she will be there around eleven, twelve, or so. If one says “sure, I will wait for you baby”, one will wait and wait for she is not going to turn up at all. If one says “forget it”, departs the agreed meeting place without looking back or looking around, (she is likely not late at all, but stalking and watching) does not return when she promptly responds that she has arrived (swift forgiveness of drama leads immediately to more drama, not sex), and then goes silent for a few days, then soon she will be pestering one for a date. See the wise and great, Heartiste, minion of Satan, for a lengthy elucidation of shit tests.

Women cannot help shit testing men any more than men can help looking at women’s breasts. This is instinctive and unconscious. They genuinely believe their postures, attitudes, and demands are sincere, genuine, and deeply felt, like a four year old’s temper tantrum, and are entirely unaware that when their bluff is called, they will fold like cheap cardboard, and feel a deep relief, like a child in her father’s arms.

Emancipation of women leads to population collapse:

To reproduce it is necessary that a man and a woman form one household, one flesh. Sharing kids between two households is often tried these days, with results that are uniformly horrifying. One household must have one captain, and that captain the man, for women by their nature will not have sex with kitchen men.

And to reproduce, it is necessary that they are stuck in this arrangement.

If it depends on moment to moment consent, then we have prisoner’s dilemma. Women cuckold their men, and men spin plates. We get tit for tat defection. Tit for tat can only produce good results in iterated prisoner’s dilemma, and with reproduction, there are not many iterations.

Thus, for successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage.

Emancipation of women leads to the welfare state, marriage to state, low IQ women having eighteen thuglets by eighteen different thugs, high IQ women having cats in place of babies.

The late nineteenth century, Victorianism, demonstrated that emancipated women without the welfare state means a whole lot of women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain to a fatherless child.

Victorianism was an effort to control this problem by dialing up censorious sexual moralizing to eleven, while simultaneously denying fathers the power to control their daughters and husbands the power to control their wives. Dialing up the sexual moralizing failed, and failed spectacularly. Recall Florence Nightingale’s wealthy gentleman friends, and Queen Caroline attending a ball naked from the waist up, and going back to her hotel with a man she picked up at the ball. Both of them needed a good whipping. No amount of pious moralizing will substitute for a father or a husband equipped with a stick no thicker than a woman’s thumb. Victorianism failed, and failed hilariously badly.

If you give women freedom of choice, a great many women make such terrible choices that men have little alternative but to pay for women’s choices. If you emancipate women to make their own decisions, you have to pay for their decisions, have to have a welfare state, because their decisions are frequently so bad. This profoundly impairs the freedom of men, that they have to pay for bad choices that they have no power over and receive no benefit from. Some thug knocks up some idiot, and the man with a job has to support another man’s child and a woman who is not giving him sex and domestic service.

This is pretty much what “Les Misérables” was about. “Les Misérables” argues that we need a welfare state to take care of criminal men and immoral women. And indeed that is true, if you reject the obvious alternative of coercively, involuntarily, and forcibly subordinating criminal men and immoral women to good men, of enslaving bad men and shotgun marrying independent fertile age women.

Since we don’t want to pay for eighteen thuglets, and we don’t want women giving birth in a dark alley in the rain, we have to keep women under male authority that supervises and restrains their sexual choices.

The eighteenth century system of guardianship was in large part a system for coercively marrying off young women who would have otherwise become independent women of property. They were generally married off to their guardian, or their guardian’s son. Guardian/ward marriages were the normal outcome of guardianship, and though theoretically consensual were usually clearly involuntary or the result of rather forceful manipulation. When the ward was taken into the guardian’s family at a very early age she was usually married off to a family closely related to their guardian’s family as soon as they came of age, to avoid psychological incest. Psychologically incestuous marriages between guardian and ward, in effect adopting a child with the intent of marriage at puberty, were not illegal but were subject to social disapproval, immoral but legal. Though legal, seem to have been extremely rare. If it was necessary to raise a female ward from an early age, she was raised in a household separate from her intended husband and transferred to her intended husband’s household at puberty.

Our society encourages gay men to adopt small helpless children as sex slaves, so we should not get agitated about eighteenth century guardians, who had to marry their wards for life in order to have sex with them and to keep charge of their ward’s property and dowries.

It is not clear what happened to poor independent young women, but somehow, in the eighteenth century, there do not seem to have been many poor independent women, so I suppose that something was done.

What was done with convict women in the early days of Australian settlement gives us a hint as to what was done with poor independent women in eighteenth century England.

When the convict ships landed in Australia, the convict women, now far away from family restraints, and free to mingle with men, acted like it was spring break in Cancun or Woodstock Revival. None of these women were there because of convictions for prostitution, and though they all acted like whores in eighteenth century meaning of the term, they don’t seem to have been selling sex, rather the reverse. The popular stereotype of a transported woman was a servant girl who stole something from her employer to give to her unreliable bad boy lover, who showed up at infrequent and unpredictable intervals to rough her up, have sex with her, and take her stuff. These days we longer call such women whores, because all women are like that, except for those few who have chosen to submit themselves for life to the firm hand of a strong man who is better than that.

If you read secondary and derived sources about the convict women in Australia they all invariably depict them as poor pitiful victims who were cruelly coerced into having casual sex by economic pressure or rape. This nineteenth and twentieth century account flatly, directly, and blatantly contradict what the primary sources and contemporary sources that they supposedly draw upon depict. What primary and contemporary sources all uniformly and consistently depict is Woodstock Revival and spring break on the shores of Port Jackson: Girls Gone Wild: “their desire to be with the men was so uncontrollable that neither shame nor punishment could deter them”. We don’t see contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until twenty years into the nineteenth century, three decades after settlement began – which is to say we don’t see contemporary reports of convict women in Australia trading sex for money until the coercion to impose monogamy was considerably reduced.

There is no contemporary report of convict women being forced into casual sex or paid for casual sex. What they do however report is women being forced, often by disturbingly severe violence, into monogamous sex, but resisting that coercion with amusing vigor and flair.

To solve the problem of spring break on the shores of Port Jackson, the authorities would frequently line up newly arrived female convicts in front of the female factory, and bring a bunch of preapproved males to marry them. Each male, on seeing a female he liked, would drop a small gift at her feet. If she picked it up, they were married (even if the female convict was already married to someone else in England). Any girl left over after every male had walked past was forcibly assigned to some male for seven years as servant and concubine, so it was advisable to pick up one of the gifts.

Upon arrival female convicts had to make a hurried choice between monogamous durable consensual marriage, or monogamous durable non consensual concubinage. Thus, for example, most, probably all, of the females that arrived on the Brittania in 1798 were either immediately married, married within a few weeks, or assigned to men to whom they subsequently bore children. They were swiftly taken out of circulation one way or another way. In some cases, many cases, they were taken out of circulation coercively by assignment. In the other cases, they voluntarily took themselves out of circulation with a swiftness that indicates very forceful pressure. Earlier and later convict women mostly got married in a less hurried manner, but they got married fast enough to suggest that pressure was applied case by case, and/or that they were shotgun married upon getting pregnant, but not shotgun married shortly after showing up on the docks like the girls of the Brittanica and other ships arriving around that time.

The first batch of convict women tended to produce children of uncertain paternity in brief and transitory relationships. Women off the Brittanica, who were swiftly married or assigned, generally produced children of known paternity in durable relationships, often durable relationships of assignment that they were forced into with open and unambiguous coercion, suggesting a harsh crackdown against immoral relationships and in favor of monogamy at about this time.

I would guess that what happened to poor independent fertile age women in eighteenth century England was something intermediate between what happened to rich independent fertile age women in eighteenth century England, and what happened to fertile age convict women on the shore of eighteenth century Port Jackson but I have no data supporting this conjecture, other than that eighteenth century England, unlike Victorian England, did not much resemble spring break in Cancun.

While the nineteenty century theory was that women were so naturally pure and chaste that all the apparatus of coercion to keep them from misbehaving was sheer cruelty and could safely be discarded, the eighteenth century view was that women had to be in the custody of someone with a duty and practical motive to keep them from engaging in sex, and the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in sex, or else married to a husband who had the authority and power to coercively prevent them from engaging in extra marital sex. Eighteenth century people believed that fertile age women urgently needed sex, and if prevented from getting some were apt to take alarmingly drastic measures or go into hysterics, while from the mid nineteenth century to the present, people seem to think that sex is something alarming and unpleasant imposed on women by men. The nineteenth century treatment for hysteria reflects the realistic but unmentionable eighteenth century belief as to what caused it.

Harem formation


If female choice is unrestrained, twenty percent of the males get eighty percent of the pussy. But they don’t get it in any stable way. A girl spends a few months as number three on some man’s booty call list, then realizes she has little chance of making it to number two, so gets herself a position on some other man’s booty call list. So nobody gets to reproduce, whereas in old fashioned harems formed by male power, rather than female power, she would be stuck in one man’s harem, so she and that man would get to reproduce.

Harem formation, whether the result of female control of sex, or a few powerful men controlling sex, has a detrimental effect on the rapidly diminishing number of men in the society. Without access to pussy, they are disinclined to work or fight in defense of order, peace, and their society. Instead they hang out in mom’s basement.

Monogamy and chastity can be understood as socialism in pussy, the seizure of the means of reproduction by beta males.

The King is worried that men do not seem keen on working, paying taxes, or soldiering. So he price controls pussy down to something ordinary men can pay. Bride price shall be low or zero, women shall obey their husbands, not their fathers or their own whims. Price control causes a shortage, as always, so the King and the high priest introduce rationing. Only one pussy per customer.

This works if you have non consensual marriage, if marriage is handshake between the groom and the father of the bride, or between the father of the bride and the father of the groom. But what if you have, partially or wholly, romantic and consensual marriage? In which case the woman is likely to delay marriage hoping for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks until her eggs start to dry up.

So the high priest deems that going out on booty calls will result in eternal damnation. This, however, has curiously little effect. So the King and the high priest say that if daughter goes out on a booty call, the father is dishonored, and possibly punished. This works, assuming the King backs parental authority over daughters. Or the King could give all women the status of pets, and the high Priest switches marriage to being a handshake between the father and the groom. Or the King could give only misbehaving women the status of pets, and have consensual romantic marriage normal and normative, but only normal and normative for virtuous women, which is to say virginal women, or women plausibly presumed virginal, under paternal supervision. (Which is of course the solution that I favor.)

This is not necessarily a literal account of the origins of monogamy, rather I have personified the motives leading to monogamy as the motives of individual powerful people.

Most societies seem to have used, somewhat inconsistently, hypocritically, and irregularly, a mixture of these tactics, with marriage being mostly consensual and romantic, but female choice severely constrained by the authority of the father and pressure to get married, particularly severe pressure to get married in the event of illicit sexual activity or illegitimate pregnancy.