Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Sex and the Meaning of Civilization

"In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…" - Michel Houellebecq

The purpose of civilization is at least two-fold: to repress and punish all the bad stuff (murder, theft, etc) and to create the conditions for eudamonia for the largest number of people.

While I am closer to being a libertarian than anything else, I am not a libertine, i.e., a hedonist. When you have a totally hedonistic culture (complete sexual freedom, for example) Pareto's 20/80 law comes into play: 20% of the men get most of the girls, and the other 80% get few. That's why Houellebecq wrote what he did,

I first noticed this in college. I lived in a house with a bunch of guys. I wasn't all that popular, but I did get girls. The others in the house got none. The end result? Envy and various kinds of attacks on me - always behind my back.

In college I was friends with a guy who looked like Thor. 6'2", 200 pounds, very lithe, square chin, long blond hair (he told me he had a twin brother!) He also mentioned he was once attacked by four guys. They couldn't knock him down and when he turned around and punched one, the rest fled. Why did they commit these unprovoked attack on him? I never mentioned it to him, but it was clearly envy.

This is why I've written articles about so-called "Betas" and "Omegas" and the rest of the Greek alphabet soup killing "Alphas" - or at least ones they think are "Alphas." Ones who think others have what they don't have at all.

It's not only coming; it's already here. Think Elliot Rodgers and James Holmes.

Lunatic leftist feminists of course claimed the problem is that these guys thought women "owned them sex." Whatever. These women never talk about the fact they think men owe them protection and support - the fact that men created everything in the world, and without men, women would be in a world of hurt, contrary to their hallucinations.

So, in a completely free, libertine world, the ostracized guys are going to start murdering. Think George Sodini.

There won't be that many...but even one is too much. But there will be more Elliot Rodgers, mark my words. And it's always the same thing: feeling of humiliation, followed by revenge - which is the attempt to replace shame with pride. Envy. You might as well memorize the Seven Deadly Sins.

Some of the other outcasts will got MGTOW. Understandable. The problem with this is that these men are not going to produce any excess wealth. Why should they? What's in it for them? Very little. Somewhere in their heads they are doing a cost/benefit analysis and deciding the costs are far in excess of the benefits.

And when guys do produce excess wealth, as in the case of game designers, women try to move in and destroy them. Think the skank Adria Richards, who got two designers fired for making "dongle" jokes. Thank God she got fired. And those who supported this dimwit will never understood they were in the wrong.

Then there are the PUAs, and I've known several of them. Weak, self-centered, impulsive, manipulative cowards. If they make a lot of money it flows through their hands. Nothing productive comes of it.

The day will comes when the government cannot sustain its destructive economic policies, and women's make-work jobs will go way. So "feminism" is really self-correcting.

And what incentives do men have except to kill, desert society, or to abuse women sexually? Where are the incentives to marry and work? (Freud, who was mostly a nut, did say happiness came from "love and work.")

Marriage is at a 93-year-low. That, too, is understandable. For 20% of the men it is a feast, and for the other 80% it's a famine. That's what comes of a libertine society, when the basis of society (marriage) is disintegrating before our eyes,when civilization is in the process of slowly collapsing.

"1. Incentives count.

"2. There's no such thing as a free lunch" - Borepatch

4 comments:

Novaseeker said...

I don't think it will be more violent.

The reality is that most men sate their sexual urges with pornography. I am not an advocate of doing that (far to the contrary, as anyone who has seen what I have written over the years knows), but realistically looking at what is going on, millions of men are getting enough of the edge taken off their drive by using HD internet porn such that they remain in buy-in mode to the system, reasonably productive, and not shooting people.

Widespread HD internet porn pumped to cell phones and tablets (i.e., highly portable devices which can be used in a way people think is private -- although anyone should know better after the NSA scandals that this is not the case, people still do use them as if they are private, and they are more private than a TV in the middle of the house is) is a crucial element of keeping the sexually disenfranchised guys Houllebecq was writing about at bay. Interestingly, it wasn't the thing it is now when he was writing his most scathing books like Extension du domaine de la lutte ... they were prior to the ballooning of internet porn and specifically prior to the rise of smartphones and tablets over the last few years which has been huge in the world of porn. It's porn that keeps the men sated, slaked and takes just enough of the edge off of their drive so as to keep them in the system.

Of course, it's a form of slavery, and self-inflicted to boot. It becomes a dopamine-fueled addiction like any other over time, and has all sorts of terrible impacts on the users running from masculinity to testosterone levels to incentives to self-improve and so on. But one "side effect" is that it makes for fewer truly violent guys, leaving the more baroquely disturbed like Rogers and Sodini as the ones who lash out regardless. The regular guys who aren't baroquely disturbed are too busy fapping to HD porn on their iPads in precisely the specific narrow flavor they want at that time, on that day, and getting off doing it.

Sad, but it's how life is. It would be interesting if Houllebecq wrote a book about the rise of internet porn and its impact on human relationships and specifically the disenfranchised he discussed in a few of his earlier novels.

Bob Wallace said...

I expect the violence to level off at about one a year - but I suspect it will be men who are outcasts getting revenge on women - Rodgers, Holmes, Sodini.

I didn't realize this much easy porn would have this effect, but it has, but it's not a good one.

The future is indeed going to be an interesting, and I suspect not all that good of a one.

kurt9 said...

With regards to sexual and other decadence, I don't think things today are any worse than, say, 1979. Most of you are too young to remember, but the late 70's was a very decadent time. In many ways it was worse than anything we see today. Crime, drug use, and teen pregnancy were all much worse in the late 70's than today. White and Hispanic guys were as rough and violent then as black guys are today.

The late 70's was a wild time. As worse case scenario, we simply return to an analogous period.

Anonymous said...

"Of course, it's a form of slavery, and self-inflicted to boot. It becomes a dopamine-fueled addiction like any other over time, and has all sorts of terrible impacts on the users running from masculinity to testosterone levels to incentives to self-improve and so on."

In some ways sex addiction, especially to pornography, is worse than drug addiction, because (excepting STDs and really sick practices like those of the late Mr. Carradine) it can't kill you. If you're a drunk or a heroin user whose addiction is getting progressively worse, you eventually face the choice of "Get clean right now, or die very soon". A porn addict can just keep increasing the dosage with more and more bizarre and explicit images. Even erectile dysfunction can't break the cycle, now that there's Viagra.