Friday, January 23, 2015

Sexual Choices viz. Providers, Bad Boys, etc.

In The Occidental Quarterly, F. Roger Delvin writes Sexual Utopia in Power, in which he expresses in a coherent way many of the oft-mangled arguments of what we might stupidly call "the reactionary right" (or "Game" or PUA or any of that other stuff). The article is openly sexist, and subtly racist, and all that stuff, but it's worth a read-through, so give it a try even if you have to do so with a clothespin over some part of your limbic system.

What Delvin expresses is the popularly recognized viewpoint that (usually western) women make bad choices in men ("these days," probably more so than in others). In a less emotional way than you'll normally see, Delvin discusses the "Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks" theory (which is eminently searchable if you haven't encountered it) that, to him, is a threat to western society, which would be countered by the re-imposition of traditional marriage. If you can't handle the googling, AFBB is the theory that women ignore responsible men during their youth, and instead exploit their youthful good looks by swiving more physically desirable and/or assertive men ("Alpha" men), by which they have children; subsequently, as their youthful good looks fade, they search for reliable provider-men ("Beta" men) to pay for their old age, and the upbringing of their children.

Masculinist Counter

We've previously looked at versions of these arguments in How To Pick Up Women and How To Pick Up Women, Part 2, in the latter of which we reviewed how the "sexual marketplace" is an artificial (e.g., unnatural, un-biological, and something from which we cannot draw accurate conclusions about underlying human characteristics in a state of nature) construct derived from the marketing principles of our crony capitalist economies.

At this point, then, we understand that these reactionaries are deluded fantasists--ahistorically inclined individuals who presuppose the timeless existence and expansive relevance of their current cultural norms, extrapolating hundreds of thousands of years of biological and anthropological conclusions from the phony veneer of the suburban mini-mall. They are pitiful, wishful socio-capitalists who think that the extravagantly fragile, superfluously ridiculous economies of the post-industrial European colonial territories are some kind of model of objective reality, and that a game theory based on the rational actions of rats in this maze reveals to us the Great Truths about human sexual nature.

Understanding this, we're still faced with the behavior of women and men in these societies. The seeming conundrum of "Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks" is that young, attractive women pursue sexual relationships with commitment-adverse men who, as the old saw goes, "treat them poorly," while eschewing advances from commitment-desirous men. People stop pairing off as much, children grow up with single parents, and (if you read the article) birth rates decline, sometimes below replacement rates. That previously-mentioned old saw about "treat them poorly" tends to be accurate, too, as women struggle to pursue delinquent child support from across state or national boundaries, or the rugged, sexy men they wanted when they were young end up dead, in prison, or otherwise vanishing. All this while in the meantime, the responsible men who actually cared end up ignored until their 30s or 40s, when the then-30-40 women may feel they deserve marriage and financial support for the duration of their lives--from the background males whose attentions they ignored or derided when they were most attractive.

Assuming any of this is correct, why do some women (a majority of western women, if you're inclined to feel that way) make such choices? The conundrum is resolved, by the Game/PUA/etc. people, by concluding that women are stupid and/or shallow. The relevant literature looks at the data involved--divorce rates; birth rates, and births to which pairs of people; remarriage rates; social policy; societal fiscal distributions to different sexes--and concludes that western heterosexual/bisexual women's preferences overwhelmingly work that way. Namely, "nice guys finish last," or western women prefer to sleep around, postpone marriage, then throw expensive weddings and cram the motherhood they deserve into their late thirties, along with the help of fertility doctors.

It is to that conclusion that this one will speak here. The data is relatively solid in its support for the conclusions that younger western women prefer flings with non-provider-type men (while ignoring boring provider-type men), while aging western women suddenly prefer boring provider-type men. The feminist argument seems to be that women should have sexual freedom to make whatever choices they like, but that men who refuse to commit to women later in life are "childish" or "irresponsible," while men who pursue commitment with women early in life are "pushy" or "creepy." Ergo the problem is all a male one caused by patriarchal entitlement, which conclusions stoke the masculinist reactions: "Women are naturally stupid and selfish, therefore they have fun when they're good looking, then expect to be funded in their old age by the people they ignored when they were young."

Gaming the System

The marketers who exploit this system for money are a vile bunch. There are the ovocentric ponzis, who sell makeup and clothes to young women, encouraging them to exploit themselves to have a good time; who sell makeup and clothes to aging women, promising them that they can trick people into believing they're still young women and then exploit themselves to have a good time; and, who sell weighty tomes on responsibility and male failure to women of all ages, reassuring them that men who won't marry them are emotionally stunted, entitled patriarchs. And there are the player ponzis, who sell pep talks to men of all ages, encouraging them to believe that they can learn ways to game the system to trick women into bed.

Even sadder, perhaps--because they're not making money off it--are the people who aren't running ponzi schemes, but who just believe this stuff themselves, and propagate it without making $800 per-seat-per-seminar or $299 per sample kit, dutifully convincing people that the right cosmetics and/or attitude will obtain sex without being hot and/or rich first. Hey, at least put up some on-page ads, guys (oh wait--you already have).

On the Nobility of Female Behavior

We're going to do two unpleasant things here. As usual, we'll make everyone angry, place the blame upon High Arka, and continue to be the internet's Least Popular Blog™. We'll accomplish the task in the normal fashion, by demonstrating how everyone else is a little bit correct while also being extremely wrong, myopic, and selfish.

First, we'll upset feminists: the female behavior described by the masculinist assholes is, by and large, correct (correct in the sense that it does occur that way). It's a stereotype, and it doesn't apply to every woman, but it's generally true. That's how the bulk of western women behave when it comes to their courtship and mating rituals.

Now, we'll piss off all the people who like to categorize men using the small set of Greek letters they learned from someone else's pickup blog: when western women behave this way, they are doing the right thing. The productive, reliable men they are rejecting in their twenties in favor of having fun during their selfish, wasteful "party years," do not deserve them. That isn't to say the opposite isn't true, either, but it is to say that western women are making the noble, moral choice by spending their beauty ignoring social conformists and writing letters to people in prison, or sleeping with various "thugs" they meet at nightclubs.

Is everyone mad, yet? Here's the problem: these dull western guys are born, and they want to succeed in school, get a reliable job, marry a woman, and have a family. Sounds great, but every time they try to approach this idea with western women, they get rejected. The straight-A student finds out that his last three crushes are dating morons on the football team, who will, later in life, be arrested for dealing meth, then die in a prison shower sometime in their late thirties (after they lost their jobs at the carwash, nach). All the responsible, decent, hardworking men complain that women don't want providers until they're older, their pussies (to employ the vernacular) are "old and rancid" or "used up," and they maybe have children from earlier flings, for which their "beta" man is supposed to provide.

All these guys, these hopeless romantics, think that it's cruel and manipulative of women to act this way. So they sit at their computers and type up bitter anti-women blogs, much like the one linked above (the pdf of the Devlin article was hosted on, which is a suitable example).

Now, twenty years ago, you could've laughed at this collection of pasty-faced IT guys and other office employees, sitting chubbily in their chairs in Mom's basement, and used their physiques or life situations to justify their lack of female attention. Not anymore, though--these dweebs are at the gym several times a week, eating their own organic swordfish that they cook themselves, and pulling down respectable paychecks from their home-based network consulting business. So none of those things work anymore to dismiss them.

And yet, the "problem" (and it is, in some ways, a problem) remains: young western women keep rejecting commitment to these guys until their later years, when they have a divorce or two under their belt, and they still don't treat these guys with the respect the guys think they deserve. What's the problem?

(Really, though, even if you're the one feminist who's still here, why would women who want to get married and have children waste their twenties having relationships with a series of loud, pushy "Alpha" men at dance clubs, getting abused and ignored, getting left alone, and then complaining in their thirties that all the men with good jobs are either taken or don't want to get married? If you're going to make the rational choice, as an independent, free-thinking individual, to get married and have kids, wouldn't it be better to do it with someone who gives a damn? I guess you could believe that the whole phenomenon of western club culture is imaginary, and that these women are being "tricked" into it, but if you give them more credit, you have to assume an element of responsibility and independent decision-making is involved. Give them some credit.)

Why all this? Because of the inherent aggregate nobility of female choice. The respectable, responsible provider--the "Beta" male, as the dating ponzis call it--in today's western societies is a terrible creature. He is a drab, boring cog in a massive and deadly machine. The man in America, Canada, Britain, France, or the other westernized societies, who works hard and provides for a traditional family and saves for retirement, is either a stupid man or an evil man. He sells his years away in order to support a depersonalized murder machine. His work is almost certainly a boring activity detached from notions of community or human decency, and the greatest part of his efforts supports the lush lifestyles of distant tyrant-lords who bomb and starve children on a daily basis.

Here's where racism comes in: the masculinist guys who run these Game/PUA/Alpha-whatever blogs are, almost of necessity, racist, because in order to justify why they should be getting more girls, they have to point to their contribution to modern western society. That means that they have to trumpet their pithy little contributions to the sanctions, the drones, the police, et cetera. If people shouldn't be getting murdered in the streets; if little dark children shouldn't be starving; if the latest trillion-dollar fighter jet shouldn't be built: if these things aren't necessary, then what of the "responsible" man's contributions?

Answer: they are worthless. They are less than worthless, in fact, because they are evil. The hard-working American student who bustles off to Raytheon to spend a stable, responsible career programming better guidance systems is the anathema of humanity. He is an unthinking dolt; a terminator; a malignant pustule oozing a steady supply of filth across the human genescape.

Therefore, to justify the horrid expectations of the responsible western man, all of the bad things done by society have to be right. There must actually be a clash of civilizations, in which the man is a heroic participant by filling out paperwork or mistakenly shooting children at a checkpoint; there must actually be a transcendent purpose in running a cartel of liars and thugs that generates piles of money at the expense of the rest of society. Anthony, Don, and Walt must be thought of as heroes, their petty thuggery elevated to glorious heights--because, after all, money.

No Relief for Feminists

There is no relief for feminists, here, in the finding that the lustfully angry, testosterone-supplementing office drones of "the west" are wrong in their complaints. By and large, western women, including the ones who still say they're feminists, line up to support pet personal causes that underscore these same noxious societies. In their own careers and lifestyles, they offer their own version of support to these societies.

Yet it is in the better side of their natures that we see them seeking (before, perhaps, the fear of dying alone in a state-run nursing home sets in) those partners who, in some small way, reject the abhorrent behavior called for by modern western society. By spending their most fertile years in comparative disarray, and advocating for the right to not be burdened by passing on the experience of life, western women are expressing a powerful message about the world in which they find themselves: a sorry story, true, but one less sorry than a dutiful, mechanical compliance.

These votes of no confidence are surely temporarily selfish on the parts of many individual women, and may not be even in their most selfish of self-interests, in terms of what will benefit them when they are forty through seventy versus what will benefit them when they are fifteen through twenty-three. Acting contra "rationality," though, inside a system where the rules of success are such terrible ones, can be an effective protest, or even a noble act. Nobler, certainly, than the complaints of a hard-working engineer who wonders why no woman will talk to him until he's 35, and who is most committed to building up his T. Rowe Price 401(k) with the end goal of his life being a gated community insulated from a world of slums, golf every other day, and dialysis once a week.


  1. LOL, oh awesome! Thank you for this post, you made my day.

    Genetically speaking, biologically speaking, picking an alpha when you are young is the best thing for the continuation of the species. Women are often drawn to some pretty obnoxious qualities in men, but those same qualities are genetic fruit, so to speak. They are the qualities that will produce the strongest offspring.

    The more spiritual aspect of that is that women are compelled to fix men, to bring our their higher selves, to tame tigers. It may become pathological, but we are driven to heal broken men. If you already have all the answers, you have little use for us and vice versa.

    And lastly, yes some women are stupid and make poor choices, but many of us can see the inherent goodness in a proper pirate or a good rogue, where as the self righteous moral superiority of those men allegedly doing the right thing in Western society don't fool us at all.

  2. Haha, I am soon expecting a baby girl, and perhaps 15 years from now I will not be all "I have a .45 and a shovel. I doubt anyone will miss you" to her boyfriends.

    I went through a very mild version of the 'provider disappointment syndrome' myself. Raised in a (mostly...) good (mostly) middle class family, I was imbued with the whole hard work nonsense. My teenage rebelliousness was pretty mild, and most important, most of those years were occupied by an affair with an older woman - so I didn't have enough opportunities or time to be rejected by young girls my age. Interestingly, she had already had one divorce (to a provider type), and her second marriage was to a no-good, poet-drunkard-security-guard thug. Apparently that wasn't non-conformist enough, hence, hanging out with teenagers.

    Anyhow, even this didn't cure me from provider tendencies, and I am sure this is one reason my first 'real' GF in my mid-twenties dumped me, in order to pursue hopeless, but apparently more fun prospects.

    I am now 37, married, and finally sufficiently disillusioned with the system i have been 'working hard into' so that I no longer take any pride in "taking care of business" (although I must and will continue to do so, in order to feed my kid). I am also much more attractive to women than I ever was, and I don't know it it is because I finally look like a man, or because my disdain for the systems that feed me is not so subtle occasionally. It is warm under the wing of the dragon. But, I don't have to like it.

    In any case, looking back I have absolutely no hard feelings about any woman has ever treated me. I was never treated bad, actually, I simply finally appreciate the instincts that make them act so "stupid". young girls do have power, and people don't like when it's not excercised precisely to our benefit, but whatever, the whole universe is female.

  3. Once I discovered prostitutes, all generic objections to women's conduct I may have had up until that point, simply disappeared.