"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.
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