Promiscuity Hurts Both Men and Women

[warryer]

I found this article and thought it was very interesting. It's a long read but, I think its worth it. I'm having lots of fun thinking about the implications of this article.

I think, more than anything, that this shows that people will take the easiest route simply because its the easiest. This is only one facet of what taking the easiest (not necessarily most responsible) route can lead to.

Another example is the rise of obesity and the available of good tasting, cheap, poor nutrition value food.

However this concerns easy sex and societal impacts. Is it really a "bad" thing to have easy access to sex? We can satisfy our primal urges but, for the good of society? This article says no.

I do agree with this position. For society, easy sex is not good. Sex is the greatest motivator.

If a man could fuck a women in a cardboard box, he wouldn't buy a house.

Hypothetical: Why should I even bother doing anything but the bear minimum if I can easily get my most primal urge met?

I'm interested in knowing what you think of this.

Why Marriage and Morality are Important for Society:

Spoiler

In a monogamous marriage system, each person is allowed one sex partner for life. This arrangement is highly unnatural and opposes many of our deepest instinctual human desires. However, this arrangement also promotes civility, cooperation and productivity within society. It's no coincidence that all of today's major civilizations arose under monogamous systems. Today, however, the widely accepted view is that singles should freely enjoy sex without social repercussions. The men who succeed in bedding the greatest number women are admired. Women are told that good sex is necessary for a fulfilling, exciting life. The media shows premarital and extramarital sex as normal and common. Those who aren't having sex are the odd ones.

Few people are questioning whether today's rampant promiscuity is having a positive or negative effect on society. Most young people think that premarital sex is natural and enjoyable, and that only religious zealots want a return to monogamy. Despite this conventional wisdom, there are rational reasons to support monogamy. Promiscuity does have real, negative social consequences. A thriving society must promote intelligence, cooperation and investment in future generations. The monogamous system did this. The promiscuous system does not.

The Consequences of Promiscuous Society:

Spoiler

An increasing proportion of children raised in broken homes - Increases in premarital sex have led to increased numbers of children being born out of wedlock. Illegitimacy rates have increased dramatically from 5% in 1960 to 34% in 2002 (National Marriage Project). High divorce rates also lead to an increasing number of children being raised by single parents. Single parents are overwhelmingly women, and men are investing much less in the upbringing of their children than they did when a lifelong commitment was required. This lack of investment from fathers results in children who are more likely to commit crime, less likely to pursue higher education, more likely to be teen parents and more likely to have low incomes than children raised in two-parent households. Children raised in single-parent households are less successful by virtually every measure (The Fatherless Family).

Successful people having fewer children - Ironically, as promiscuity has increased, the people who are best able to support and raise children are in fact having fewer children. Successful, well-educated people have access to birth control and abortion which allows them to put off pregnancy indefinitely. At the same time, a promiscuous society makes it much more difficult to find a marriage partner. (See There is No Longer Someone for Everyone) Because successful people are far less likely to have children outside of marriage, the birthrate among those who would make the best parents drops even further. On the other hand, the poor and uneducated are now able to practice promiscuous behaviors despite being unable to afford or effectively use contraception. Because of this, the people least capable of supporting children are more likely to get pregnant at a young age, without a stable family structure, and without adequate financial resources.

More time and effort pursuing sex partners, less time and effort spent raising children - Men and women now spend more of their 20's and 30's dating and seeking sex partners. Today's single twentysomethings spend their incomes on expensive clothes, cars and other items to impress members of the opposite sex. They also spend a lot of time and money in bars, nightclubs and on dating services in attempts to meet new partners. In prior generations, by the time men and women reached their mid-twenties, they were married and spending their time and resources providing for families. From a societal standpoint, resources spent on children are a much better investment than resources spent in the pursuit of sex.

Objectification of women, less respect for women - Writing about birth control in 1968, Pope Paul VI wrote:

"Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men--especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point--have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anticonceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

The Pope correctly anticipated the effects of contraception. Men pursuing women solely for short-term sexual pleasure primarily value physical appearance. Personality, goodness, intelligence and the other qualities that are valuable in a long-term partner are ignored. (Note: This site is absolutely non-religious, but in this case, the Pope had a good point.)

The better a man is for society, the less successful he is with women - Men who are nice and hard-working do not provide the kind of sexy, exciting, emotional pull that today's women are looking for. (See The Rise of Players and the Decline of Providers.) As women discourage "nice guys" and reward "bad boys" with sexual attention, more and more men are choosing to adopt aggressive, arrogant, chauvinistic attitudes. In addition, women who no longer require the financial support of men put less value on intelligence and education. In the past, women seeking marriage were looking for stable, solid men who made a good living. In the 1950's and 1960's, engineers, accountants and scientists were respected and sought as husbands. Math and science were highly emphasized in schools. Now, women pursue the sexiest men instead. More men are choosing to pursue entertainment careers that attract women, like sports, acting and music. These kinds of careers don't require education, and the number of men pursuing engineering, math and science degrees is falling each year. Even the percentage of men attending college has fallen significantly. Some of this shift is likely due to women's changing preferences. Men adapt their behavior to women's desires, and as women ignore stable men and pursue antisocial men, men have changed. As women reduce the value they put on intelligence, education and the ability to provide, men have also altered their choices.

Morality and the Social Good
A society will be much more successful if its citizens value honesty, productivity, intelligence, cooperation and other civilized virtues. Monogamous society promotes men and women with these kinds of qualities because it promotes attributes that are important in a long-term committed relationship over short-term, physical and emotional attraction. The majority of women who would like to get married and have families also benefit (See Women, Marriage and Morality). "Nice guys" become more desirable as partners because they're more capable and willing to provide for their families. All of this benefits children, who grow up in more stable two-parent families with greater parental and financial resources. When the children in a society are better off, and when nice, hard-working and intelligent men and women in a society are better off, society as a whole is much improved.

Promiscuity and Women:

Spoiler

Women often complain that they want marriage but can't find Mr. Right. In today's dating environment, attractive, intelligent, successful women are seeing their biological clocks expire before they can find a husband. Even among those who do get married, divorce is rampant. How did committed husbands become so rare? Why is it that women are the ones pursuing commitment now? Women who desire marriage don't realize that it is today's promiscuous culture that has turned the odds against them.


Promiscuity vs. Marriage

Today's promiscuous culture has allowed women to enjoy greater sexual freedom than ever before. Women can freely pursue their instinctual desires for love and lust in a way that was impossible under the monogamous system. However, there is a tradeoff. The more freely women pursue sex, the more difficult it becomes to find marriage.

There are several reasons why marriage is becoming less common in today's culture. The most obvious is that when premarital sex is readily available, men lose one of the major motivations for marriage. (There is No Longer Someone For Everyone has a discussion of men's greater sex drive.) The monogamous system restricted male sexual desire so that women, by controlling access to sex, held a great deal of power to demand resources and commitment. Under the promiscuous system, that power is very much reduced.

Another consequence of the promiscuous system is that many women concentrate their attentions on a small number of very attractive men. Biology dictates that men can cycle through sex partners more frequently and for a longer part of their lifetimes than women can. (See There is No Longer Someone for Everyone) This creates an imblance where a large number of women are sexually and emotionally connected to a small number of men. In this case, simple math dictates that few of those women can get married to the man with whom they're having sex.

Another factor making things difficult for marriage-minded women are the kind of men they are instinctively programmed to pursue. Under today's promiscuous system, women "follow their hearts" and seek out the kinds of sexually attractive men who pique their emotions. Women think that intense physical attraction is necessary for the beginning of a lifelong relationship. In reality, the opposite is true. The forces of evolution have made women physically and emotionally attracted to the very kinds of "jerks" and "players" that are the least likely to get married, and most likely to cheat if they do get married. (See The Rise of Players and the Decline of Providers.)


The Slippery Slope of Promiscuity

Once premarital sex and adultery are tolerated, women must become increasingly promiscuous in order to attract men. When a man chooses between two women, if all else is equal, he will take the woman who is more sexually available. Because of this, women competing for attractive men are caught in a downward spiral where they must compete amongst each other with increasing promiscuity. Since the invention of the pill and the advent of the sexual revolution, women have had to become consistently more sexual in their clothing and behavior. Women who attempt to dress modestly and practice restraint have difficulty attracting men from their more sexually available competition.

Another change in the current dating system is that women can no longer delay sex to obtain commitment. In the past, women seeking marriage delayed sex in order to determine whether their suitors wanted more than just a short-term sexual conquest. Men unwilling to wait would be rejected. In the promiscuous system, delaying sex is not possible because attractive men have so many other sexual options. A woman who tries to delay for long will soon find her man contested by other more willing women.

In the monogamous system, social stigma and fear of pregnancy prevented women from using sex to compete for male attention. In that system, it was men who competed for marriage on the terms dictated by women. Women wanted men who could prove commitment through chivalry and courtship. Because all women demanded the same treatment, and because there were no other sexual options, men were forced to comply.


Seeking Marriage Later

Because the pill now allows women to put off pregnancy and marriage, many women wait until their late 20's to begin seriously searching for a marriage partner. Unfortunately, while these women feel pressure to settle down and marry, they still find themselves competing for male attention with younger, more promiscuous women. Younger women aren't facing the pressures of the biological clock, and don't demand commitment from men. This competition works against the women seeking marriage. Formerly promiscuous women who want to settle down as they get older must also contend with men's aversion to their sexual experience. In the end, the same promiscuity and sexuality that a woman must use to attract desirable men for short-term relationships reduces her attractiveness as a potential marriage partner.

Men prefer women with less sexual experience because of the biology of maternal certainty and paternal uncertainty. When a woman has a child, she can be 100 percent sure the child is hers. Her husband has no such assurances. In fact, out of 280,000 blood tests done in 1999, 28 percent of the time, the man tested was not the father (New York Times). From an evolutionary standpoint, a man who spends a lifetime of his resources raising another man's child is a genetic catastrophe, and men who are insensitive to the possibility of cuckoldry cannot survive long in the gene pool. The only way a man can be sure that a child is really his own is to make sure that his wife has not had sex with other men. This is the underlying reason why men prefer sexual inexperience in the women they marry. Men, particularly "provider" men who tend to have had fewer partners themselves, are less likely to consider a sexually experienced woman serious marriage material. (See David Buss, The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex.)


Marriage and Sexual Morality

Under the monogamous system, there were many layers of laws, religious rules, parental pressures and social norms that forced women to seek out men who would be good long-term providers. Women who had sex without commitment made marriage more difficult for other women, and their promiscuity was stigmatized. Nowadays, the old system of morals and rules is largely gone, and women can freely pursue their sexual instincts. Unfortunately, those same instincts are driving women onto a never-ending treadmill of relationships without commitment.

Many of today's women bought into the idea that they should freely exercise their sexual liberties. Many of those women also bought into the idea that they would be able to get married at the time and age of their choosing. As those women get older, they are finding that the rules of evolution and biology make promiscuity and marriage incompatible.

The Rise of Players and the Decline of Providers:

Spoiler

Why is it that "bad boys" are generally much more sexually successful than "nice guys" are? Intelligent, hard-working men who contribute to society in formerly respectable careers like engineering, accounting or science are now looked down upon by women. Athletes, rockers, rappers and actors don't work to improve society, yet many women desire sex with them. There is no longer a connection between a man's contribution to society, his options with women and his social status. Further, a man's ability and willingness to provide for a wife and children has little impact on his ability to attract women. This was not always the case.


How Women Choose Men

Women's attraction has shifted from dependable, nice provider men to exciting, unpredictable "bad boys." In order to understand this phenonmenon, one must understand how women choose men and how the process of mate selection evolved.

Millions of years ago, when our primate ancestors lived in small bands, the males who were the strongest, most aggressive fighters dominated the group. Because of the differential in male and female parental investment (Discussed in There is No Longer Someone for Everyone), competition among males was a winner-take-all affair. The winners, the alpha males, were able to monopolize sexual access to the females and have many offspring. The beta males were rarely able to have sex and rarely able to pass on their genes. Females thus developed an instinctual attraction to the physically strong "alpha" males because alpha male offspring were consistently more successful in the reproductive game. These instincts evolved over millions of years and still exist in today's women even though the attributes that made a winning fighter in primitive Africa are counterproductive to success in modern society. (For more information on sex and evolutionary psychology, see Matt Ridley's The Red Queen, Jared Diamond's Why is Sex Fun? and Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.)

Fighting is no longer a part of daily life, yet today's women still have an instinctual attraction to strong, muscular men. Aggressive, unpredictable men are exciting and attractive to today's women, even though in the information age, the ability to cooperate and work with others in an quiet office environment is more useful to one's career success. Women are also attracted to indicators of high testosterone, like square jaws and broad shoulders. Evolution instilled these instinctual desires over millions of years, while civilization has existed for only a tiny fraction of evolutionary time. At an unconscious level, today's women are still deeply attracted to alpha male characteristics.

For men, sexual attraction has also been irrationally shaped by evolution. In primitive times, one of the most common threats to a man's offspring was infant mortality during childbirth. Because of this, men developed an instinctual attraction to women with wide, child-bearing hips. In modern society, infant mortality is rare, but men still have a vestigial attraction to women with the ideal waist-hip ratio. Men also have an attraction to women with large breasts since infant malnourishment was a problem in distant evolutionary times. In the developed countries of today, few infants starve, and many women don't breastfeed at all. The male obession with physical attributes is an evolutionary relic. However, because attractive prehistoric females did not have the same destructive behavior as our male ancestors, men do not have the same irrational attraction to physicality and aggression that women do.


The Development of the Provider

So, if women are attracted to physically dominant alpha male types, then how could geeky-looking, physically weak men ever evolve? The development of the "provider" type came about because of the development of intelligence within our human ancestry. As the predecessors of homo sapiens evolved greater intelligence, human babies were born less mature, and the time required to raise a human child required increasingly more time and resources. In most animal species, babies are born nearly self-sufficient. Within a few months, most other animal species can live independently of their parents. In contrast, a human baby is completely dependent for food and defense for at least five years after birth, and requires education and resources for many years after that.

As human babies took longer to raise, females found that they alone could not provide the resources necessary to support their children into adulthood. They needed help, and they found ways to get help. Beta males who were not physically strong enough to dominate the other males found that by providing food and other resources to females in the group, they could bargain for sex from those females.

Interestingly, the same high testosterone that provided alpha males with greater physical strength and natural aggressiveness worked against them as providers. Studies have shown that men with high testosterone have lower intelligence and less ability to concentrate on mental tasks. High-testosterone men are less likely to hold white-collar jobs, more likely to hold jobs that require manual labor, and are more likely to commit crime. (See Heroes, Rogues and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior.) Thus a spectrum of men emerged. Strong, aggressive, dominating men existed on one side of the spectrum and intelligent, nice, cooperative men existed on the other.

Eventually as civilization developed and intelligence and financial success became more important than physical strength, females who chose males with "provider" characteristics produced more successful offspring than those who chose alpha males. Over time, there was a reduction in the proportion of high-testosterone males. Social and religious customs like the monogamous marriage system further increased the proportion of providers. Women looking for lifelong commitment and wanting to avoid a lifetime of unhappy marriage put a higher priority on companions with agreeable personalities and financial resources and a lower priority on looks and alpha maleness. In the last forty years, however, that trend has been reversed. (Note: Men making a lifelong commitment under the monogamous system were also more likely to value a woman's companionship and personality than men who are pursuing short-term sex, where physical appearance is of primary importance.)


The Pill, the Provider and the Alpha Male

In recent years, the nice provider personality has become decidedly unpopular, while the aggressive alpha male personality types are celebrated and envied. Professional athletes, rock bands, and hip hop musicians have eclipsed doctors, lawyers and engineers in social status. "Players" who take advantage of the weaknesses in women's sexual instincts are celebrated while faithful providers are not.

Over the last forty years, birth control has removed the practical reasons for a woman to choose a provider male (See The Pill and the Decline of Dating and Marriage). Women unafraid of pregnancy can have sex with the sexiest men and fulfill their instinctual desires without apparent consequence. They can "follow their hearts," even when the emotions they perceive as love or passion are irrational vestiges from the evolutionary past. Providers are also devalued because financially self-sufficient women no longer need a man to provide resources for them.

Because women no longer put a high value on providers, the social position of those men has fallen while the player/alpha male personality type has begun to dominate society and culture. As women encourage more "bad boy" behavior by their sexual choices, men and society are becoming less considerate, less cooperative and less civilized.

There is No Longer Someone for Everyone:

Spoiler

One of the common myths about dating is that there's a soulmate out there for everyone. Dating services have made millions promoting the idea that your perfect partner is out there, you just need to try harder to find them. This seems to make sense since there are an equal number of men and women. The reality is that in promiscuous culture, a small percentage of men can monopolize sex with a majority of women. When this happens, the matching up process does not occur, and singles end up floating indefinitely around the dating pool.


The Attractiveness Hierarchy

In the monogamous marriage system of the past, the majority of men and women found mates and got married. In that system, singles knew roughly where they were ranked in overall attractiveness and married a mate of roughly equal rank as soon as they could, usually by their early 20's. There were strong economic and sexual pressures to marry early, and this motivated singles to quickly find a mate of roughly equivalent attractiveness rather than wait for their "perfect soulmate." In the monogamous system, if one waited too long, the pool of eligible mates shrank, and it became more difficult to find a quality partner. (See The Pill and the Decline of Dating and Marriage).

In today's society, birth control removes the incentive for singles to settle into their place in the attractiveness hierarchy. Because women freed from birth control can have sex without marriage, they can engage in temporary physical relationships that have no marriage potential while they wait and hope for Mr. Right. These strings of temporary relationships help women meet their short-term emotional needs but delay them from pursuing serious marriage partners. Men have a greater evolved desire for unfettered sex, and generally prefer more sex partners rather than a commitment to marriage and raising children. Because women are willing to have premarital sex, the attractive men who have ready access to many new sex partners have little incentive to pursue marriage at all. They generally prefer to circulate among women rather than settling down.

(Note: Robert Trivers' 1972 parental investment theory proposed that men's stronger sex drive and stronger desire for variety in their partners is the result of a basic biological difference between the sexes. In order to procreate, men need only invest the few minutes to have sex, while women must invest at least nine months of pregnancy to bear the child. From a biological standpoint, sperm is cheap and easy to produce, while wombs are much, much more valuable. Women possess the more valuable reproductive resource, so sex and pregnancy imply a much greater investment on the part of women.

A result of this investment differential was that before the invention of contraception, sex improved the reproductive potential of man much more than it did a woman. When a man had sex with more women, he could have more children. One prolific example, Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty, fathered 888 children out of a harem of 500 women. A woman, on the other hand, can have only one child per nine months no matter how many men she has sex with. Because of this differential, over the course of evolution, women became pickier about the quality of their sex partners while men became the more sexually aggressive and less choosy gender.)


Circulating around the Pool

The promiscuous system allows very attractive men to avoid commitment and be continually available for sex. Because these men can have more sex, women have sexual access to more attractive men than they would have been able to attract as marriage partners under the monogamous system. However, there is a downside for many women and men. For most men, it means that the few particularly desirable men at the top of the attractiveness hierarchy can monopolize many of the women. By having many relationships, many sex partners and even multiple wives in serially monogamous fashion, the most attractive men can consume the prime reproductive years of multiple women. For biological reasons, a woman's fertile lifetime is much shorter than a man's, making it even easier for some men to consume an unequal share of female reproductive resources. When some men consume more than their share of women, there will necessarily be other men, lower on the attractiveness hierarchy, who will have no suitable women available for marriage at all. This also means that all of the men who are not at the top of the hierarchy must lower their standards.

Most men don't realize that rampant promiscuity hurts them. They think that the pill and sexual revolution have brought them a sexual boon. They don't realize that promiscuity prevents them from finding high-quality women. The monogamous marriage system allowed a man only one woman, which meant that virtually all men got at least one woman. In the monogamous system, attractive women were more evenly distributed so the majority of men were able to attract more desirable women than they could attract under the promiscuous system.

For women, the transition to the promiscuous system has made it more difficult to find a marriage partner as well. The attractive men don't commit because they have new sex partners constantly available. Lower-status men shun marriage because they hope to gain more options as they gain status and rise into the ranks of the highly attractive. Women who are accustomed to having sex with highly attractive men also don't want to "settle" and marry the kind of less sexy man that would be willing to marry. Men don't want to to be settled for, either. This means that both men and women remain circulating in the dating pool for long periods without settling into marriage. Shows like Sex and the City and movies like Bridget Jones' Diary resonate because this experience is so common among modern metropolitan singles. As promiscuity increases, marriage declines and fewer singles can find lifelong partners.

The Pill and the Decline of Dating and Marriage

Spoiler

The invention of birth control made possible a series of unprecedented changes in the relations between men and women. Few people realize that the chain of incentives that provided the foundation for monogamous marriage no longer exists. Prior to birth control, men and women were motivated by biological and economic forces to get married and begin families by their early 20s. Today's singles lack those incentives and thus inhabit a relationship world that is completely unfamiliar to their parents and grandparents.


Why Marry At All?

Throughout civilized history, men and women have entered into monogamous relationships at an early age and begun raising families. This happens much less frequently today. Marriage is becoming more rare and singles who do get married, marry later. Families are also becoming smaller and less common as men and women now have fewer children later in life. The age of marriage has risen by about five years since 1950, the marriage rate has dropped about forty percent, and the fertility rate has also dropped about forty percent according to the National Marriage Project. In order to understand the root causes of these changes, one must understand what the dating environment was like prior to the widespread use of birth control in the 1960's.

Before the pill, marriage was necessary for practical reasons. Men and women were much more dependent on each other and there was a defined division of labor. This division of labor was necessary because of a basic biological difference between the sexes. Women can bear children, men cannot. Before contraception, a woman could not readily control when pregnancy might take her out of the workforce. Women unable to control reproduction also had more children and spent more of their lives pregnant or with young children. These factors made it difficult for women pursue careers in the long-term. The difficulty in pursuing work made it necessary for women to find a husband who would provide financial resources for her and her children.

Restrictions on premarital sex also encouraged marriage. Before the advent of birth control, premarital sex was risky and had potentially drastic consequences. A woman who had premarital sex could become pregnant with an illegitimate child, which would severely restrict her marriage options. This was a serious handicap in a system where marriage was essential in society. A woman who had an unintended pregnancy might also be forced into an inescapable shotgun marriage with a man she didn't really want, and who was a poor choice as a lifelong partner and provider. In either case, premarital sex could doom a woman to a lifetime of difficulty, and women had to exercise restraint.

Before the invention of the pill, the sexual behavior of men was also necessarily less promiscuous. Under the monogamous system, sex without commitment was rarely available, so a man had to court a woman for an extended time and then get married before a woman would consent to sex. Because women were not economically independent, society strongly sanctioned men who impregnated women and then left them without the means to support themselves. When an unmarried woman did become pregnant, marriage was often forced upon the man. Premarital sex could result in a lifetime commitment for men as well, so men too had to be more discerning in their choice of sex partners.


Why Marry Young?

For the reasons listed above, women in the pre-pill era did not generally pursue careers. In order to take the burden of support from their parents, women needed to attract a husband while young, and were also incented by the need to attract a mate while at the peak of their fertility and physical attractiveness. (A woman's fertile lifetime is shorter than a man's because of differences in their reproductive systems. A woman's reproductive system must support a developing baby for nine months. This requires a vastly more complex system that is more biologically difficult to maintain and more susceptible to aging. The male reproductive system produces only sperm, which is much simpler.) The biological and social pressures that encouraged early marriage were reinforced by social customs and pressures that promoted marriage, such as older sisters having to marry before younger sisters were allowed to.

Men were incented to get married early by a combination of sexual desire and the fact that single women became scarcer with age. Because most women were married and raising children by their early 20s, a man who remained unmarried much past that age faced a dramatically shrinking number of eligible women within his social group. This resulted in the vast majority of men seeking marriage in their youth as well. In today's society, many singles postpone marriage to pursue careers or delay in the hope of finding more attractive mates. In the past, the lack of premarital sex and eligible partners made it much more difficult to wait.


Why Stay Together?

While the features of the pre-pill dating environment encouraged marriage at a young age, it also provided incentives for couples to stay together once married. When physical attraction inevitably waned, there were many practical reasons to stay married.

The fact that there were relatively few singles available in the dating market discouraged infidelity and divorce. Men and women married early and spent their 20's raising children. The social scene for singles was much smaller than it is today. Women's time was filled with child-rearing duties in the home and they had few interactions with single men. With few single women in their social circles, married men also had fewer temptations for infidelity and fewer options for remarriage if they were to get divorced.

Larger families were another reason couples stayed together. Women could not easily avoid pregnancy and had more children. Managing a large family required a great deal of time and effort, particularly without modern conveniences. A single parent would be unable to both manage a family and earn a living. Thus, women without a means to support themselves couldn't leave their husbands. Husbands who left would be abandoning their children to lives of poverty. Harsh community sanction from one's friends and social group resulted in either case. Religious rules and social norms further enforced the practical reasons to avoid adultery, avoid divorce and stay married.


* * * * *

In the past, the social practices defining dating and marriage were based on underlying biological and economic rules. Those rules made marriage a practical necessity. The advent of birth control decoupled sex from reproduction and the changes have rippled through the system. Premarital sex no longer carries the threat of pregnancy. Families have gotten smaller and more manageable. Women can work and are capable of supporting themselves and their children. Instead of being practical necessities, today's singles often believe that the point of marriage and sex are to provide emotional and romantic bliss for the individuals involved.

While birth control's conquest over biology may seem to have provided many benefits, it has also had many unintended consequences. There are fewer reasons to get married, so men and women are staying single longer. Now that premarital sex is possible, dating has transformed from a search for marriage into a pursuit of sex. Sex is now prerequisite for beginning a relationship. Rather than being forced to marry early, singles find it increasingly difficult to find partners willing to marry at all. Men and women seeking sexual relationships value members of the opposite sex based on instinctual emotion and physical attraction rather than valuing the virtues and personality traits that make a good long-term partner. The interdependence between men and women has been severely weakened, resulting in rising illegitimacy, single parenthood and divorce. Birth control was the catalyst that swung the pendulum from monogamy to pervasive promiscuity. The consequences for singles and for society have been considerable and widespread.

 

[Puffy]

Sounds like someone bemoaning the change in the world - I assume most generations at some point feel "just not how it used to be." I mean on some points, like the objectification of women, he is certainly right, but a feminist will have something to say - quite rightly - about the abuse of women in any society, and for different/ similar reasons. At times he implies that women's empowerment is negative, that they should not pursue careers so they can pursue "provider types" rather than "players." Why try and defend women in one point and then imply the benefit of their disempowerment in another? Inconsistent.

He makes some good points, but at the same time it comes across like he just has faith in the older "marriage system" and so assumes it's better. It felt like he asserted promiscuity as negative in some cases without explaining why - it makes it look one-sided.

I personally admire fluidity and flexibility as opposed to rigidity as I think it allows more room for growth and expansion, I know this from personal experience, but I'm not a family orientated person, and so I guess a product of the culture he's arguing against. :P

 

[Puffy]

^ Though, when I say that, I don't mean I'm necessarily against monogamy, as long as both people are growing in mutually beneficial directions..

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Sounds like someone bemoaning the change in the world - I assume most generations at some point feel "just not how it used to be." I mean on some points, like the objectification of women, he is certainly right, but a feminist will have something to say - quite rightly - about the abuse of women in any society, and for different/ similar reasons. At times he implies that women's empowerment is negative, that they should not pursue careers so they can pursue "provider types" rather than "players." Why try and defend women in one point and then imply the benefit of their disempowerment in another? Inconsistent.

He makes some good points, but at the same time it comes across like he just has faith in the older "marriage system" and so assumes it's better. It felt like he asserted promiscuity as negative in some cases without explaining why - it makes it look one-sided.

Yea, the article made a ton of sweeping generalizations, and divided men and women into classic black-and-white gender role stereotypes that are self-evidently not (always) true.

 

[pjoa09]

I think promiscuity hasn't changed anything. In arrange marriage, parents pursue your mate through social status and wealth. Women just keep fucking the same type of guys anyways. Being a 'jerk' or a 'dick' is essentially confidence or "fake confidence". Something necessary to be a leader among chimpanzees. It still holds true with modern society. Most entrepreneurs are either confident or arrogant. It was never the males job to help raise children until civilization came through.

I think that somewhere along the lines promiscuity reduced social status among cultures. That fucked it up for this chimpanzee behavior. Now that it is being accepted again, I am trying to fuck the fertile healthy one and she's trying to fuck the rich healthy one.

 

[Cognisant]

Hypothetical: Why should I even bother doing anything but the bear minimum if I can easily get my most primal urge met?

Simply because older men don't stop wanting young beautiful women.

My father and I were at one point both dating twenty six year old women, I'm twenty one, he's almost in his fifties, and his was a gymnast, damn the old bastard knows what he's doing.

 

[Jah]

before reading: Bullshit.

 

[Fukyo]

Recently, I've been hearing a lot about monogamous marriage being the cornerstone of civilization; how true is it though?

I think the article makes some presumptions in the service of his favorization of monogamous marriage. Afaik, medieval Muslim societies were thriving back then, and had some the (if not the) most advanced medicine, and scientific knowledge.

On what grounds is he drawing the conclusion that premarital sex leads to broken marriages?

 

[Jah]

after reading, Still Bullshit.

Promiscuity does have real, negative social consequences. A thriving society must promote intelligence, cooperation and investment in future generations. The monogamous system did this. The promiscuous system does not.

Yeah. sure, dude... Now remind me why liberated sexuality is inherently destructive as to intelligence, cooperation and investment.
(as a side; I'll give you the example of one of our modern geniuses, Feynman, who tended to spend time at a strip-bar, working over equations, sometimes watching the show, sometimes engulfed in his work.)
I've met sexually liberated people who have children, who don't have children, who are pursuing intellectual accomplishment and people who are innovative in the realms of business.

The monogamous system stifles creativity; as do most, if not all, of these strict socio-religious codices.


It's more of a problem with the people who try to earn money out of people's insecurities. (some of these surround sexuality, but most of them are from all other kinds of social pressure. Sexuality is but one facet of human nature.)

The better a man is for society, the less successful he is with women - Men who are nice and hard-working do not provide the kind of sexy, exciting, emotional pull that today's women are looking for.

(again, look to Feynman. ?)
Why would being nice factor in here ?
(also, that can get you laid, no problem, just don't be a pushover. Personal boundaries, self-security and confidence from your own achievements and your forthcoming achievements, these things are all attractive things, which are somewhat unconsciously sought after. Be yourself, but be it completely.)

Sexy means more being in touch with yourself, and your sexuality, than some mask you put on to get laid...

Throughout here I get the sensation that sex is viewed as a bad thing.
It can be a form of Art, Expression, Meditation, Bonding, Relaxation, etc. etc.



I'm getting the feeling that whoever wrote this article hasn't really been too successful himself. (and it's probably a him.) neither in accomplishments nor with women.


Women are, and will always be, attracted to men who know themselves, who aspire to accomplishment, who are self-conscious and strong in their resolutions. I don't give a shit if it's geometric algebra you're doing or if it's a sport. If you do it unabashedly, you're sure in who you are, unapologetic about yourself, you're what would be called an Alpha male.

Sheldon from the Big Bang theory is an Alpha Male, from what I've seen. (and he, were he so inclined, could easily get girls... I'll stand by that statement.)

A society will be much more successful if its citizens value honesty, productivity, intelligence, cooperation and other civilized virtues.

Yeah, like the Ancient Greeks. (famous for what ? )

The most obvious is that when premarital sex is readily available, men lose one of the major motivations for marriage.

And this is a healthy reason for wanting to commit for a life to another person ?
Sex ?

cliché: Whatever happened to love ?

What about a mutual desire to support eachother, an actual investment in eachother's lives, children and all that jazz ?

Somehow this seems even more bizarre now.




There's not much to say.
I'm not convinced by this article.

And drawing in the Pope in articles about sexuality seems.... well, it's obvious what it seems.

Especially statements from a time when the sexual revolution was already starting, Of course it's going to be more extreme in early years, as are all revolutions.


Pope doesn't prove anything. Just weakens the argument to associate with one.

 

[Hadoblado]

I actually found this really interesting, maybe 'cos it speaks to me about why I'm not getting any laylay

I don't think pointing to individual counter examples and calling bullshit is quote sufficient to disregard much of this reading; the author is writing about trends and social factors, not concrete principles or mechanics.

It's good food for thought at the very least.

 

[Jah]

Yeah, you're right.


I still think we're more like Bonobo-apes by nature.
And, careful not to over-romaticize nature, it won't do us a lot of good repressing nature indefinetly. (think Freud and the Return of the suppressed.)


(though the article does acknowledge the fact that we are very much sexual beings)

It does seem like the article is a lamentation from someone who's put all his eggs in the edumacation-basket, and is now worried that things will go wrong.



But I cannot see how the better man for society is not the man who has perseverance to get what he truly desires...
How can the best man be the standard cog ?


I guess what I'm really opposed to is : I don't want to be that guy.
I don't want to be the "best guy for society" in accordance with what it seems in the article.

Mindless consumerism of sold culture, not endeavoring to decide for oneself, not pursuing the women one wants in one's life.
Holding back, but for what ?


Here's a kicker; those guys who get laid a lot usually do it because they have high self-esteem, or come across as having high self-esteem, while the "nice" guys are the ones over-thinking the whole thing.

But why do they over-think it ?
Because they have ambitions, they desire to become better, to improve themselves. Thus always comparing themselves to what they perceive as their best, their Ideal, which is what they strive to become... They ultimately allow the useless clowns with no ambition to rule the show. (by default.)

How's about doing the girls the favor of drawing confidence from the fact that you are actually going to do something about your life ?



/tangent, I guess.

 

[Puffy]

I actually found this really interesting, maybe 'cos it speaks to me about why I'm not getting any laylay

I don't think pointing to individual counter examples and calling bullshit is quote sufficient to disregard much of this reading; the author is writing about trends and social factors, not concrete principles or mechanics.

It's good food for thought at the very least.

I guess if you're going to present a problem it's nice to propose a solution to, and I guess most people don't feel the solution proposed [older monogamous based system] is appropriate.

For one I don't see how you would encourage people to move back to it, given that a "promiscuous" life offers more opportunities. A solution needs to be found within the current culture, in my opinion, rather than a dream of things going back to how they were in the good ole days, which isn't likely.

Also, as far as I recall the argument presented against possible laylay, is that women target players rather than "nice guys", and no offence, but that's a pretty wide-circulated hypothesis. My Mother's been telling me for years to wait until I'm older when women apparantly, and most magically, become interested in "nice" guys - whatever that means, am I a nice guy? The child in my garage doesn't think so.

 

[Puffy]

He keeps calling me Humbert Humbert as well, which really pees me off - I've never sexually abused him - and I'm far too young to be a pedophile anyway, god dammit!

 

[Hadoblado]

On rereading the article just a little I realize that I completely disregarded the prescriptive nature of the article, reading it more as a description of what is happening in comparison to what used to happen, rather than a solution to an explained problem.
My earlier comments were based on this perspective, I'm not much for marriage (I'm not even that interested in monogamy ), but it is interesting to read some of the possible repercussions of our new found freedom. A lot of what was written resonates well with my own experiences and makes sense of what I perceive as irrational decision making. Despite any issue I have with what the author feels is a promising solution, he has connected all the dots for us quite well.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I'd rather suffer the consequences of a promiscuous society than to have moral guardians deny people the freedom.

 

[Da Blob]

Ho Hum. Surely someone has actually thought about this?

Sex is one of the currencies of Pleasure. Pleasure is not a bad thing in itself, but for some who worship pleasure Orgasm is the name of their god. If there is an abundant supply of this currency, then an inflationary scenario dominates the economy of man and woman. The things that can be paid for with sex becomes fewer and fewer and of relatively little value. Sex could become worthless and therefore the promiscuous would have little value.

The promiscuous cheat themselves, making sex a game, because sex is an act of reproduction - with the too often side effect of producing babies. Babies do so much better in life if they have two parents who care for them and not just one (if that). Children do so much better if they have two parents that care for each other, as well as caring for their offspring.

However, what man in his right mind would willingly take on the role of a Father - if sex had nothing to do with becoming a Father ?
So there are few volunteer Fathers in this world. Most 'sperm donors' have to be 'drafted' by the government to even pretend to be fathers, then only occasionally, if paternity suites are brought forth or child support is really demanded.

So everyone is free to have sex and everyone is free to ignore the children that are created in pursuit of the 3-second long Orgasm. The government becomes every child's Daddy and they grow to love their Big Brother...

Lotsa Sex = Few Fathers (Lotsa sperm donors)
Few Fathers = Few 2 parent households
Few families = fewer 'normal' kids'
etc.
etc.

societies can not survive without sexual mores

Unfortunately, I do not know if there has been any set of sexual mores that have ever been 'fair' to women.

I would be curious to know just what modern women would consider fair to men and fair to children if they had the responsibility of creating a new set of sexual mores for the future.

Such a thing has to be done, IMO

 

[Jelly Rev]

A nice guy is a nice guy bc he is weak, he accomodates and supplicates. The women are not to blame for these weak man.

If you know a nice guy who is also confident, he is most likely in a relationship for he is a good guy.

________

The real problem is that women have implied value by their looks, while men have value dictated by value(socially, resources).
Women bam age 18 are valued highly if they are attractive, while men of the similar age have no value socially.
This leads many men to be weak because they compare and then believe they are of lower value than that women, prolly true.

One of the few ways to obtain value at a young age is to be good at something, and be socially admired for it.
Another prolly the most powerful way to have value as a young man is to have control of a group of valued women. What guy does not get invited a party who will bring 2 or more single attractive women, even if he is a douche he will get invited.
Of course this is only when the person knows you.

At the bar a man's value is unknown so the women can only go off what she sees at that moment. This is also known as confidence, confidence is the belief in yourself that you are of at least equal value, this is all the women can go by until she learns more information about him.

 

[crippli]

The real problem is that women have implied value by their looks, while men have value dictated by value(socially, resources).
Women bam age 18 are valued highly if they are attractive, while men of the similar age have no value socially.
This leads many men to be weak because they compare and then believe they are of lower value than that women, prolly true.

One of the few ways to obtain value at a young age is to be good at something, and be socially admired for it.
Another prolly the most powerful way to have value as a young man is to have control of a group of valued women. What guy does not get invited a party who will bring 2 or more single attractive women, even if he is a douche he will get invited.
Of course this is only when the person knows you.

At the bar a man's value is unknown so the women can only go off what she sees at that moment. This is also known as confidence, confidence is the belief in yourself that you are of at least equal value, this is all the women can go by until she learns more information about him.

It's also reflected in the suicide rates in this age group. 1 to 5? I'm not sure there is much you can do about it. The fact is that one guy can impregnate a 100 women. So if you have 100 women, and 100 men. And there are resources. So for growth it would be a catastrophe if 90 women was extinguished. It may not make much, if any difference if 90 men was extinguished. But this is true only as long as there is a need for reproduction. I think all off this will change. And perhaps one shouldn't be caught up to much in this. Biologically it's about the same amount of males and females produced, that would for me indicate that the inherent value is about the same. Perceived values are then more functions of the moment.

 

[SkyWalker]

OK things are changing in society, and its a big change, i agree. But the opening post assumes its a change for the worst, which is not proven at all to me by the arguments in the post.


1I think the writer feels that he is a beta male and has some grudge against alpha males.
The writers says that rappers, athletes etc are valued highly by women but actually the writer thinks they have low value instead? What is value? Value is how much pleasure you give another (or how much pain you take away). Entertainers have in fact, really, higher value than most other men, because they give more pleasure! A programmer is not better than an entertainer. Unless the programmer can make something extraordinary, then the programmer has higher value. its a fair competition to whom can give the most value (e.g. bring the most pleasure or take the most pain away) to society.
the sexual market is a free fair market, which evolves towards the most pleasurable experience for humanity (e.g. towards heaven on earth, the ultimate purpose).

any woman would find it a more pleasurable world where all men would be more attractive (e.g. more confident etc, including having brains).

any man would find it a more pleasurable world where all women would be more attractive (e.g. more visually appealing etc, including having brains).

actually forced marriage and all that old religious crap has gone against the natural drive of evolution. although the forced marriage culture was once at its peak (in the beginning when the people not yet genetically modified by the practice yet), the practice has, after generations, gone against evolution of attraction, and dumbed down the genes and now these cultures are all a bunch of morons. Go take a look at fanatic religious cultures and see for yourself.

Birth control might be unnatural as well and is also against evolution, but at least it freed us from the religious crap, and gave as an alternative way out of that brain wash.

 

[SkyWalker]

in humans: the purpose of sex is not only for reproduction, its also for bonding.

if you have great sex you'll likely stick with the other person, be happy and happily raise happy kids.

if you would marry in old religious culture and got stuck with a partner with bad sex (because the other is not attractive), you'll be frustrated for the rest of your life and this would be bad for raising your children.... You'll probably kick their ass extra hard out of frustration.

 

[pjoa09]

in humans: the purpose of sex is not only for reproduction, its also for bonding.

if you have great sex you'll likely stick with the other person, be happy and happily raise happy kids.

if you would marry in old religious culture and got stuck with a partner with bad sex (because the other is not attractive), you'll be frustrated for the rest of your life and this would be bad for raising your children.... You'll probably kick their ass extra hard out of frustration.

And in bonobos!

 

[warryer]

I would be curious to know just what modern women would consider fair to men and fair to children if they had the responsibility of creating a new set of sexual mores for the future.

This would be very fascinating.

@SkyWalker, Da Blob

My opening post was for a challenge of thought. I wanted to see what the consensus of the forum would be.

I agree that there is no way to define what is actually 'good' for society. The article suggests that this change is bad, based on the fact that society as it was is dying out. There are those who will see it as bad, those that see it as good and those who see it as simply change.

It is clear that the traditional roles of males and females is dying out because the influence of the environment is minimalized through technology. We are still not completely free of the environment just yet though.

You two both brought up the idea of pleasure. I think this is a profound thought. We could say that value is truly determined by energy invested vs. pleasure returned. That which require high energy input with low pleasure returns has low value... Sexonomics.

The problem now seems to be that the avenues for obtaining 'cheap pleasure' are not sustainable - in the grand scope of society. Energy is not freely available. We still have some more technological advancements to achieve before we can get there.

I think, for the time being, that promiscuity is going to be limited based on the pool of available energy. I think that promiscuity in society is analagous to parasitism in the animal kingdom. Parasitic organisms put the least effort into survival because they don't have to work for their energy, they let their hosts do the work for them.

Or the real problem may be; that there are those who have to put more effort into obtaining sex because genetics,psychology, moral codes fight the individual. These are the individuals likely to resist the change into a more promiscuous society. These are the people most likely to be responsible for bringing us closer to a totally promiscuous society.


Perhaps in the future the currency will be pleasure. (Or perhaps this is how it is today but, my current mode of thinking is distorted) When an individual gains pleasure they pay out from their pool of pleasure (like a bank account today). When the individual gives pleasure, they make a deposit into their pleasure pool.

That's enough for now, the pleasure:energy coefficient is rapidly dropping as i get more tired .

Curious to see the responses.

 

[Da Blob]

I do not know, if the term Sexonomics is original, but there really should be a science of the economy of sex and reproduction per social utility.

Despite wishful thinking, pleasures derived from a biological source are necessarily limited by the 'rules/structure' of that source. The function of the orgasm is bait for a trap. If current sexual mores allow males to take the bait, without taking responsibility, I do not see how society can continue.

There indeed, there may have to be a new society, one without fathers. Males relegated to the roles of infertile temporary lovers, disposable and expendable. As it is now those males who are trained in the art of deception and seduction are being rewarded and are reproducing, while those few males that are still trained to be fathers are not rewarded and are not reproducing. It is said that intelligent women are seeking out fathers for their children by lovers, but their function is as babysitters allowing the women the 'freedom' to seek out 'real men' as lovers...

As far as women creating a new a system of sexual mores, I do not know if such a thing is possible.

I do not believe the biology of the female allows for any sort of sexual morality?

I would like to know how and if I am mistaken in this seemingly bigoted observation

 

[kantor1003]

"The better a man is for society, the less successful he is with women."
This got to be a joke. A man would be hard pressed not to be successful with women if he has in any major way got recognition for contributing to society. Be it as an entrepreneur, artist or politician.

 

[Da Blob]

"The better a man is for society, the less successful he is with women."
This got to be a joke. A man would be hard pressed not to be successful with women if he has in any major way got recognition for contributing to society. Be it as an entrepreneur, artist or politician.

Yes, but success for a man may come late in his life after decades of work and well after his biological prime and the "window of opportunity" for production of offspring.

Besides most young men still define success in terms of the number of sexual experiences and in fact, unfortunately, modern puberty ritual seems to involve loss of virginity, rather than developing the real strengths that characterizes the adult male.

 

[Jelly Rev]

epigenetics will have to dealt with. The destuction of stable childrearing will cause issues in the gene-enviroment interaction.

Loss of virginity is a peer societal rite of passage for young males. It indicates he has adequate value to attract a mate.

Perhaps in the future the currency will be pleasure. (Or perhaps this is how it is today but, my current mode of thinking is distorted) When an individual gains pleasure they pay out from their pool of pleasure (like a bank account today). When the individual gives pleasure, they make a deposit into their pleasure pool.

Interesting. In economics this term is known as utility, utility also includes needs.

 

[SkyWalker]

There is only the pain and pleasure economy, there is nothing else.

value is what brings you closer to pleasure and/or further away from pain

Why do you guys think that is bad or something?

- There is nothing cheap or short term about that. There is also long term pleasure. or the pleasure of anticipation for possible pleasure (Ne-function for example).

- There is also nothing egoistical or narcisstic about it. Pain and pleasure can also be felt for others, which is called empathy.


In the normal money economy all pleasures are counted, except sexual or social pleasures. It's normally "not counted" unless you are a prostitute. But money doesnt exist (its just a paper bill or computer memory state) and in the end there is just all the pain and pleasure which really count, whether actively counted by a rational system such as money or approximated by "feeling"


Also some people like short term pleasure (Se) and some people like long term pleasure (Ne).

So for the Se-dom 5,000 now is more pleasurable than 1000 per month for the rest of its life.
While for the Ne-dom 1000 per month for the rest of its life is more pleasurable than 50,000 now


So in the economy there is also trade in swapping long term for short term and vice versa, for each type its preferred one is more valuable than the other, because the pleasure signal for that particular thing is stronger within its brain. Thus our pain/pleasure is not calibrated the same as everybody else, we all have a different setting. so its not that the other one is stupid, it would be actually smart for you as well if your pain/pleasure would be caibrated in the same way


oh and when you say "energy cost" you actually mean enduring pain investments for greater net pleasure in the end.
dont use energy, its a stupid word to use in this context.
- energy is a word for power generators.
- your cells burn calories, thats energy!
the human mind is not a power generator, there are no calories burned!
so please dont use the word energy for the mind, its such a new age kind of word that says nothing and makes it all magical nonsense.

 

[Luzian]

Promiscuity hurts losers

 

[Jah]

Promiscuity is natural. Monogamy is natural (but not so much to humans).

Natural selection seems to favor a freer sexuality than the societal norm, Thus those who know to capitalize on this will be more likely to have children (and STDs)


If you are personally offended by nature taking its course, even within human society (which we do try so hard to shield from the harsh reality of natural processes), then it's up to you to create a way around it. (Cyborgs/clone army/Artificial Intelligence/Intelligence uploaded to the internet... whichever)

 

[Da Blob]

Deferred gratification is the hallmark of intelligence. The investment of patience and non-pleasurable time in the anticipation of Pleasure separates man from beast. The creation of a trade imbalance between Pain and Pleasure is the goal of the human economy. A little Pain traded for a great deal of Pleasure is the transaction of desire.

However, and unfortunately (?), a human can trade an Other's Pain for one's own Pleasure. Rape has always been a profitable transaction for unintelligent males.

Hence the need for a moral system, within which Pain and Pleasure are experienced as a group, a family, a society and the trading with Others' Pains as currency, is discouraged - only within that particular group that shares that particular moral code.

Promiscuity is natural. Monogamy is natural (but not so much to humans).

Natural selection seems to favor a freer sexuality than the societal norm, Thus those who know to capitalize on this will be more likely to have children (and STDs)


If you are personally offended by nature taking its course, even within human society (which we do try so hard to shield from the harsh reality of natural processes), then it's up to you to create a way around it. (Cyborgs/clone army/Artificial Intelligence/Intelligence uploaded to the internet... whichever)

I disagree! Where is the evidence that promiscuity offers an evolutionary advantage? The promiscuous have always been viewed as anti-social individuals, with little or no social status. The word, bastard, seems to have lost meaning in this modern world. However, there really have been very few bastards, offspring of the promiscuous, that have accomplished much, historically. Bastards are at a disadvantage, socially and because humans are social animals, any genetic 'advantage' bastards could have is of little utility in the environment of the bastard.