Talk:Sexual Marxism

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Enforced Monogamy viewed in three lens[edit source]

Jordan Peterson's anti-incel antics and "Enforced Monogamy" (Joe Rogan being against that):

  • Enforced Monogamy is necessary for self-governance and freedom
  • Populist Totalitarianism relies upon resentment of the polygamous class vs the incel class
  • Females will lose their power with Chad, thus becoming sad
  • Extreme hierarchies (AKA inequality) are detrimental to society
  • The state is a stand-in for the children, Rogan's idea of "not having children" is not a good counter
  • Polygamy and Hypergamy are NOT like Free Markets

Sam Seder's Counter against Jordan Peterson's "Enforce Monogamy":

  • Females have the right to become femcel
  • instead of "universal basic income", it is better to see it as "maximal income"
  • the former can be resolved with sex work, rather than market regulation
  • the latter is of a Soviet mindset
  • There is no difference between incel class resentment induced Totalitarianism vs preemptive Enforced Monogamy

Rollo Tomassi's Counter:

  • Soulmate does not exist (near-perfect matches are impossible), therefore Enforced Monogamy cannot work
  • Polygamy is tradition, and Socially Enforced Monogamy is Modernism
  • Shakespear and Disney brings forth myths of "The One", and it feminizes boys

On comparisons between the Sexual Market and Economic Markets[edit source]

One of the reasons that Free Market Capitalism functions so well, despite or even because of the inequality, is because it has the ability to create wealth. Thus, as long as wealth is being created, everyone will benifit as a result (though the upper class benifits much more than the lower class); the economy is not a zero sum game were the success of one equals the failure of another (often the success of one man equals the success of other men). Sex, however, is drastically different. As the number of females is equal to the number of males, dispropotionate success with females from one male neccesarily results in the failure of another male; thus sex, unlike the economy, is a zero-sum game. The economy can generate wealth to benifit everyone, albeit unequally, whereas the sexual market is incapable of doing so (producing disproportionately more females).

Secondly, enforced monogamy is not analogous to 'sexual communism'. Chimpanzees are sexual communists whereby every male has sexual access to every other female though, like actual communism, some males are more equal than others and have more sex. Monogamy by contrast is better described as being sexually egalitarian.

Thirdly, enforced monogamy evolved in the absence of any top-down government regulation; thus people will socially enforce monogamy without the goverment intervening. It can be argued that government intervention within our economic and sexual lives is what has caused the abating of the enforcement of monogamy. Monogamy evolved primarily because of the atricial nature of human children. Thus women needed monogamy in order to solve this problem and attached themselves to husbands to provide and protect both themselves and their children. Humans were able to form closer bonds with their kin and form kin-based marital alliances due to the fact siblings would now be more genetically related to each other as full-siblings under monogamy in contrast to being only half-siblings. These kin-based marital alliances fostered trust between males and as a result societies become much more stable and violence declines.

Thus as long as the problem of finding a provider exists, women will naturally engage in monogamy in order to solve this problem. However because the state interfers with the sexual market by creating perverse incentive for women to do otherwise by solving this problem for them (through excessive wellfare) women no longer need to participate in monogamy in order to ensure reproductive success. This is a problem that dispropotionately affects the poor as the upper class (whom have for the most part have had relatively stable marriages) have little to gain relative to the socio-economic status from well fare compared to poorer women ($100 is a lot of money to a poor woman but is peanuts to a rich woman; the kind of wealth a rich woman wants can only be achieved through marriages with other upper-class men). Thus the libertarian solution to this is also the most empirically supported (backed by at least 2 million years of evolution). 'Solving' single mother-hood with welfare inadvertantly creates a worse problem as a byproduct.

Thus it is by the government staying out of the marriage market by dissolving the welfare state, instead of regulating the marriage market, that monogamy will once again make its ascendance. This is not to say that all regulations on sexuality are bad for reducing sexual ineqaulity however. One way to reduce sexual inequality amongst men would be to raise the age of consent to 21, instead of 18 in most western countries. The reason for this is because men of all ages consistently prefer younger women and thus will all be competing for them. By raising the age of consent to 21, we ensure that competition for women in the 18-21 age range (College essentially) is restricted to only other men of the same age. Thus young men do not need to compete with older men whom have massive advantages in terms of both wealth and status for the affections of women their own age.

However under this system minors (defined as being under 21 years old) will be restricted to having sex only with other people who are within three years of their age (whether or not they are a minor). For example a 14 year old girl can have sex with boys aged 11 to 17; a 20 year old woman can have sex with young men aged 17 to 23 (even though 22 year olds and 23 year olds are technically adults) however once a woman turn 21 she can have sex with anyone 18 and older. This is to ensure that adolescent males 12-18 don't face competition from their older peers as well as to ensure that extremely young minors aren't taken advatange by older minors. This also prevents a sexual relationship between 2 minors of disparate ages from becoming illegal once the other minor becomes an adult. For example if a 20 year old guy enters into a relationship with an 18 year old, said relationship does not become illegal when he becomes 21. Though this form of regulation doesn't fall under the the definition of enforced monogamy, it will reduce sexual inequality for younger men.

Enforced monogamy is not the enforcement of monogamy by the state but rather by the dominant culture. For example, slut shaming, far from being a reprehensible misogynistic behaviour, is actually a means of enforcing monogamy and is thus laudible (as evidenced by the fact that most slut shaming is done by women). Shaming deadbeat fathers who sire children from multiple women but whom do not want to take responsibility for their children also serves the same effect. Castigating public figures whom engage in infidelity, especially rich and powerful men, serves the same purporse. If Sam Seder can't tell the difference between this and government totalitarianism, then (pardon my language) Seder is f*cking retarded.

On The "Monogamy is a recent invention" point[edit source]

Contrary to popular belief, humans were most of their history monogamous (that is the past 200,000 years) though our more recent ancest within the homo line were polygynous. Hunter-gatherer societies make it difficult for one man to accrue enough resources to provide for children from more than one wife; however with the advent of agriculture(10,000 or so years), this became much more easier and polygny was back in fashion. Though we're the descendants of a polygnous mating system, and have for much recent history engaged in polygyny, much of our evolutionary history as a species was monogamous.

On Monogamy as Sexual Regression[edit source]

If humans were historically monogamous, but polygyny allows humans to evolve faster, through quickening natural selection, would it be considered that it is inherently good? Alternatively, if the beta orbiters can be subdued with "bread and circus", would that negate the necessity of monogamy? The only downside to this is polyandry and female social rejects being bred out of the picture, and they are most likely to instigate feminism and cause instability, which monogamy cannot easily solve.

Also, on Seder's inability to distinguish dominant cultural norms vs totalitarian sexual regulation, would it be considered that they see the Islamic polygyny to be the progressive model of sexual operation, and throws "human rights" and "social justice" out the window? In order words, are they conceding that Chad should "get the girls" and orbiters should make it stick? This leads to the "sex-negative feminism" (delaying parenting) and "sex-positive feminism" (promoting mating) debate.

Well the first point that requires discussion is whether or not it would be 'good' to allow polygyny as it would function as an evolutionary catalyst. It doesn't follow that, if we grant that polygyny serves as an evolutionary catalyst, natural selection acting faster is neccesarily a good thing. Evolution can either be slow and gradual or rapid and sudden (see Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium) depending on how quickly the enviroment changes. If the enviroment is static (i.e the challenges that the species faces stay the same) then evolution would be slow as the species in question will be reasonably well-adapted to its enviroment (there's no need for evolution to speed up). If the enviroment experiences rapid changes (i.e the challenges that the species faces have now radically changed) then evolution will be quick as most members of the species in question will not be well adapted enough to survive in the enviroment (there's a great need for evolution to speed up, or else extinction happens). Humans live in a relatively stable enviroment; thus intensifying selection processes does not neccesarily benifit the species.
The second point to be considered is, if polygyny functions as a catalyst, down which evolutionary path does it speed us down? We can once again point out the many undesirable qualities of polygynous societies and our polygynous cousin, the gorilla. Gorillas engage in infanticide, male-male competition is intense and fatal, we lose the advanatage of having close bonds between full-siblings and females don't have it nearly as good under polygny than they do under monogamy. Those four points alone to dissuade me from any notion that polygyny ought to be the future of the human race. Polygynous societies, like the Islamic ones, are incredibly violent. When the women run out there is the tendancy for these nations to wage wars and raids on their neighbours in search of wives (Muhammed and his followers certainly didn't mind the odd sex slave or two).
On the point of satisfying betas with pornography as a substitue for real women, we would still have the economic problem of women needing a provider (the state can do so if it wishes, but fathers do so a hell of a lot better than the government). As for the femminist point, it's no skin off my back if the female idealogues desire to commit genetic suicide; if anything we should encourage women who have the genetic procilivity for belief in radical ideology to cease reproduction as it would save us a massive headache in the years to come.
Finally on the Seder point, I find it hypocritical that Seder and his ilk will often find Economic Inequality reprehensible (possibly even evil), disparaging billionares like Bezos because of his immense wealth but at the same time (some) of them find Sexual Inequality perfectly fine (possibly even laudible) and do not possess a hint indignation of the sexcapades of Chads like Wilt Champerlain. But for some reason when those at the bottom of the sexual hierarchy point out the Sexual Inequality, they are maligned (sometimes justifiably, but for the most part no) as resentful and misogynistic [A classic case of pot calling the Kettle black].
As for Seder's adulation of Islam, I believe that those on the progressive spectrum of things only ally themselves with Islamic types nominally (as their beliefs are diametrically opposed). As for the promotion of the various Shades of 'sex-negative' and 'sex-positive' feminism, I think it's clear that feminism as an idealogy is not conducisive to reproductive success and is very likely maladaptive. Thus it's proponents can't keep promoting their idealogy forever, eventually there numbers will dwindle to the point where they no longer hold the influence the currently do.