zazen

Consequences of a unregulated dating market on society

28 posts in this topic

Disclaimer: These are not my words but an interesting thread I came across elsewhere and would like to share, and have a healthy discussion on. 

Just a definition of Hypergamy : the action of marrying or forming a sexual relationship with a person of a superior sociological or educational background. Women's instinct to mate with superiors genes basically for  the betterment of the species (evolution)

 

Unless you're chad, famous or a sociopath - you won't have multiple women in love with you at the same time. Unless you're a ridiculously beautiful and sweet woman - you won't ever marry an "elite high value man™" Hypergamy and polygamy whilst complementary, are not sustainable. They are not sustainable, because they exclude the vast majority of the population. Most men are by definition, not elite high value men. Most women are not exceptionally beautiful and chaste, nor of the correct temperament and genetics to be marriageable for an elite man.

 

The role of religion in society, in large part, is to regulate the dysfunction that results from these instincts. It forces the men who can have many women to pick one, and all the average woman who think they deserve a top 0.1% man to date a man at their own level. So civilizational monogamy is probably the greatest gift of religion. It essentially ensures the vast majority of the population gets a mate, by curbing natural instincts and holding people accountable to their families and communities. Atomised irreligiosity breaks this. You won't "fix society" if you allow hypergamy and polygamy to run amok unchecked. Without adequate social pressure, most women would rather die alone surrounded by cats, than date a man at or just above their own level - especially if a superior man used and left her before.

 

A woman who has had sex with top tier men thinks she is deserving of a top tier man for marriage and refuses to "lower her standards" - not realising that she never met those men's standards for marriage to begin with - hence why they're gone. Men sleep with women they wouldn't marry and can detach emotion from sex. So women are not only naturally predisposed to feel entitled to the best for no logical reason whatsoever, irrespective of their own value and what they bring to the table, but are furthermore susceptible to even greater delusion when said men give them an oxytocin induced taste. This is why the dating market, like so many markets, needs regulation. When it's laissez-faire, the majority of people lose out whilst a few winners get more than their fill. And society stops working properly when the majority of people are forever single or divorced.

 

Traditional Abrahamic religion of course, is that form of regulation. Extreme feminism is the antithesis, because it is anti-regulation. It promotes a free for all, which naturally means a lot of sex for a minority of men, and a dearth of loving committed relationships for most women. You can, quite literally, trace the problems with the mating market today back to the absence of religion. What other system regulates mating practices? None. Doesn't matter how you feel about God or religion - that's irrelevant. What's important is a functioning system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As leo mentioned in one of his videos regarding we need regulation on devilry ie in our hunter gatherer days we could get by without much regulation but at scale we need government and regulation or else civilisation won't work. In today's society the only regulation force on our sexuality is ourselves. It is only our level of awareness of our human nature and by choice and consciousness we can make decisions that are good for us in the long term and for society at large. This will be the greatest test of our times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygamy works for me ;) Even though I am not a "Chad". You just need women who have a different take on love, relationship and marriage.

In my personal experience it´s just about showing women you don´t just want them for their body, but you truly see them as a "soul". They will naturally "feel" that you aren´t just in because you want to "fuck" them. 
Most girls don´t really want to just be "fucked". They may think they want that, because they never had "spiritual sex" and also sometimes use "fucking" as a way to fill a deep whole in their own self-esteem with it. 

I also realized (for myself) that a lot of girls won´t even have "Sex" with me, because they have a deep fear of getting in a truly emotional-connection. Which "spiritual-sex", where you don´t threat each other as "objects" always is. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen Sounds like you’re from the red pill community.


"Wanting keeps me from the awareness I already have it. I already am it.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

@zazen Sounds like you’re from the red pill community.

Nope. Just seeking truth. Had this same post in the dating thread but thought it would be better here to see in particular the societal affects. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BadHippie said:

Polygamy works for me ;) Even though I am not a "Chad". You just need women who have a different take on love, relationship and marriage.

In my personal experience it´s just about showing women you don´t just want them for their body, but you truly see them as a "soul". They will naturally "feel" that you aren´t just in because you want to "fuck" them. 
Most girls don´t really want to just be "fucked". They may think they want that, because they never had "spiritual sex" and also sometimes use "fucking" as a way to fill a deep whole in their own self-esteem with it. 

I also realized (for myself) that a lot of girls won´t even have "Sex" with me, because they have a deep fear of getting in a truly emotional-connection. Which "spiritual-sex", where you don´t threat each other as "objects" always is. 


 

 

You provide them with a sense of security, that you will be there for them after having slept. As in, your not there just for their body so they feel 'seen' more deeply. Of course, their biology will also respond to your if you display a character of strength which is sexy. And by strength that doesn't mean physically but also emotionally mentally spiritually. If your all sexy and strong women will be wary because they fear being left after the act. They seek that strength over a long time, they wish to secure strength one could say. They all go for strength in the hopes of securing it, but a lot of these alpha males don't settle themselves unfortunately, and it ends up embittering women's view on men when its just on a subset of men and not all men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zazen said:

Unless you're chad, famous or a sociopath - you won't have multiple women in love with you at the same time.

This is a toxic red pill idea. Get it out of your head. 


"Wanting keeps me from the awareness I already have it. I already am it.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen

What you're saying sounds exactly like Jordan Peterson's ideas on mono- and polygamy. I assume that's where you got this from?

What you're describing is a spiral dynamics stage blue approach and not functional in our stage orange/green society anymore. We are past the point of society pressuring its members into monogamy.

The dating market is unregulated, yes. So what? It doesn't help to whine about it and play victim.

7 hours ago, zazen said:

Unless you're chad, famous or a sociopath - you won't have multiple women in love with you at the same time.

There actually aren't that many men who would want a situation like that, you know... 

7 hours ago, zazen said:

The role of religion in society, in large part, is to regulate the dysfunction that results from these instincts. It forces the men who can have many women to pick one, and all the average woman who think they deserve a top 0.1% man to date a man at their own level. So civilizational monogamy is probably the greatest gift of religion. It essentially ensures the vast majority of the population gets a mate, by curbing natural instincts and holding people accountable to their families and communities. Atomised irreligiosity breaks this. You won't "fix society" if you allow hypergamy and polygamy to run amok unchecked. Without adequate social pressure, most women would rather die alone surrounded by cats, than date a man at or just above their own level - especially if a superior man used and left her before.

This is exactly the stage blue kind of I was referring to. This approach will not work anymore because it's (severely) regressive to the stage of our (western) society's moral development. 

Forcing people into monogamy is not going to solve any problems, if anything, it would make things worse. The only way is forward - which would be stage green And the way stage green deals with relationships and sexuality is a lot more developed than stage orange. 

Stage orange is what you're criticizing; completely hedonistic polygamy and treating sex like a commodity in an unregulated free market where the winner takes it all. 

Stage green treats sex and relationships much differently; they become a lot more intimate, but nevertheless, people are still very free in their sexual life and choices, whether it's polygamy or monogamy. It's free love. That way, the unhinged dating market that you are criticizing calms down a bit, because people don't treat each other, sex and relationships like commodities anymore. 

Now, stage blue is the most regressive of them all: stage blue values things like chastity, virginity, anal retentive kind of self-control, sexual restraint and monogamy. These values are, as far as the western world is concerned, of the past. They were the values with which our grandparents and their parents grew up. IN our society 80 years ago, it worked pretty much exactly the way you are describing it here

7 hours ago, zazen said:

The role of religion in society, in large part, is to regulate the dysfunction that results from these instincts. It forces the men who can have many women to pick one, and all the average woman who think they deserve a top 0.1% man to date a man at their own level. So civilizational monogamy is probably the greatest gift of religion. It essentially ensures the vast majority of the population gets a mate, by curbing natural instincts and holding people accountable to their families and communities. Atomised irreligiosity breaks this. You won't "fix society" if you allow hypergamy and polygamy to run amok unchecked. Without adequate social pressure, most women would rather die alone surrounded by cats, than date a man at or just above their own level - especially if a superior man used and left her before.

It's not possible for us to go back to that mode of being. 

 

Beware of such ideas and victim-hood mentality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tim R said:

@zazen

What you're saying sounds exactly like Jordan Peterson's ideas on mono- and polygamy. I assume that's where you got this from?

What you're describing is a spiral dynamics stage blue approach and not functional in our stage orange/green society anymore. We are past the point of society pressuring its members into monogamy.

The dating market is unregulated, yes. So what? It doesn't help to whine about it and play victim.

There actually aren't that many men who would want a situation like that, you know... 

This is exactly the stage blue kind of I was referring to. This approach will not work anymore because it's (severely) regressive to the stage of our (western) society's moral development. 

Forcing people into monogamy is not going to solve any problems, if anything, it would make things worse. The only way is forward - which would be stage green And the way stage green deals with relationships and sexuality is a lot more developed than stage orange. 

Stage orange is what you're criticizing; completely hedonistic polygamy and treating sex like a commodity in an unregulated free market where the winner takes it all. 

Stage green treats sex and relationships much differently; they become a lot more intimate, but nevertheless, people are still very free in their sexual life and choices, whether it's polygamy or monogamy. It's free love. That way, the unhinged dating market that you are criticizing calms down a bit, because people don't treat each other, sex and relationships like commodities anymore. 

Now, stage blue is the most regressive of them all: stage blue values things like chastity, virginity, anal retentive kind of self-control, sexual restraint and monogamy. These values are, as far as the western world is concerned, of the past. They were the values with which our grandparents and their parents grew up. IN our society 80 years ago, it worked pretty much exactly the way you are describing it here

It's not possible for us to go back to that mode of being. 

 

Beware of such ideas and victim-hood mentality. 

These are not my words but from else where, found it interesting. I agree stage green and free love is where we are headed but isn't that a far off dream.. 

They somewhat tried it in the 70's with the free love movement and here we are today. Peoples consciousness hasn't evolved to that level and it takes a lot of time for our biological evolution to catch up to our cultural evolution. Biology is slow, culture is fast. Our biology will fight us, mens biology will fight us to mate with women bigger, much older than us, less fertile. Women's biology will fight them to not mate with weaker, smaller men who aren't confident or spiritually alive and strong either. 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zazen said:

Our biology will fight us, mens biology will fight us to mate with women bigger, much older than us, less fertile. Women's biology will fight them to not mate with weaker, smaller men who aren't confident or spiritually alive and strong either. 

That's still red pill thinking. Watch where you're getting your rhetoric. Biology isn't as simple as that. Chemistry is unpredictable. The main thing is keep dating and your confidence builds naturally. You may also be surprised at who you find attractive and vice versa. I went out with 90+% matches from OK Cupid who turned me off or who were not into me. I ended up meeting my now wife from a Craigslist ad, both of us on paper were not matches physically or personality-wise, but we've been inseparable for nearly 10 years at this point. The spirit plays a role. You have to give it room to maneuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why few mention humanity’s migration from rural agrarian setting to an urban setting. Imagine sleeping around in a small town. Village folks or farmers wouldn’t stand for it. Now however, with huge metropolitan city settings are people more anonymous to do what ever. Less societal pressure from peers or neighbours. Not saying our current situation is good or bad, but it need to be pointed out that humanity went from mostly rural living to today mostly urban living. If the setting has a prominent or subordinate influence on our value is less important, but I bet that cities has had an impact on the dating market, as most markets are affected by urbanisation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ArcticGong said:

I wonder why few mention humanity’s migration from rural agrarian setting to an urban setting. Imagine sleeping around in a small town. Village folks or farmers wouldn’t stand for it. Now however, with huge metropolitan city settings are people more anonymous to do what ever. Less societal pressure from peers or neighbours. Not saying our current situation is good or bad, but it need to be pointed out that humanity went from mostly rural living to today mostly urban living. If the setting has a prominent or subordinate influence on our value is less important, but I bet that cities has had an impact on the dating market, as most markets are affected by urbanisation. 

Yes, its all about incentives. There is instinct, intelligence and the incentives that interact with the two. In big cities as urbanisation increases, our animal instincts are in over drive, especially mating instincts. Sex and the city isn't just a series but a real phenomena. Our hind brain keeps second guessing our partner in todays modern environment and won't allow us to rest as there's always the better option out there in the city, its a constant tease. Internet and in particular social media now has also given us access to unlimited potential mates. A girl living in rural america can get dm'd by a top tier man in New York / Miami / La and be flown out. 

 

Our instinct is to gorge food, and have sex / reproduce ad naseum. But we temper that with our intelligence. Rite now the reason for obesity and unstable relationships / hook up culture is due to our environment incentivising our instincts at a heightened level, which is a test for our intelligence and level of conscious control on ourselves. Fundamentally, our primal instinct, conscious intelligence, and modern environment are at war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are these ‘top tier 10%’ men that you speak of? And what makes them so special that every girl apparently wants to date them?  If you are talking about ceo, wall street types who are dating other celebs and models etc. then who the hell cares? I agree with the other poster that this is very stage orange stuff. If you wanna be like them then you should follow the path of making money and creating a hot shot high status for yourself.  Because supermodels and millionaires will keep mixing whether you like it or not, because that is their social circle… there is really not many ‘normal’ women out there who will try and get a high status boyfriend, unless she’s a gold digger.  But the majority of women simply aren’t mixing in those high class social circles. 
Most ‘normal’ or non-rich people meet eachother and have relationships by socialising and building connections…
yes, women typically want a man who shows emotional strength and who makes her feel secure in this world, and you don’t need to be high status to make a woman feel taken care of. So what? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tangerinedream said:

Who are these ‘top tier 10%’ men that you speak of? And what makes them so special that every girl apparently wants to date them?  If you are talking about ceo, wall street types who are dating other celebs and models etc. then who the hell cares? I agree with the other poster that this is very stage orange stuff. If you wanna be like them then you should follow the path of making money and creating a hot shot high status for yourself.  Because supermodels and millionaires will keep mixing whether you like it or not, because that is their social circle… there is really not many ‘normal’ women out there who will try and get a high status boyfriend, unless she’s a gold digger.  But the majority of women simply aren’t mixing in those high class social circles. 
Most ‘normal’ or non-rich people meet eachother and have relationships by socialising and building connections…
yes, women typically want a man who shows emotional strength and who makes her feel secure in this world, and you don’t need to be high status to make a woman feel taken care of. So what? 
 

Status isn't just someone who is a ceo or star. Emotional strength is held in higher status/regard in the mind of women also, all forms of strength are in some way status for women, be it physical, emotional, mental, social, financial and spiritual. Besides the elite social circles even amongst the average places, there is always those few men who get women's attention. They may not have financial strength but they have emotion strength , are funny , know how to socialise etc. In the past these men wouldn't be able to just sleep around with women because of social stigma, and every women had a mate who would come knocking on that mans door. Today its a different story, and college has a hook up / hoe phase culture.

So now these women have intense emotional experiences with these men which can taint them in their later years and in their future relationships. They crave the sex they got from such men but the security of the nice guy who is too timid in that department. Her body wants the alpha, but her mind tells her to stay with the stable/secure man for long term. This split causes emotional distress in women, and why they find it harder to happy in relationships. Not only do they bring financial debt from the degrees, but emotional debt you have to deal with of their past hook ups with such men. I say all this with the utmost empathy for both men and women. Not sure what the solution could be. Theres clearly a mismatch of our instinct to our environment. The environment tugs away at our animal instincts, that is the problem we face today. 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen I agree with most aspects of your assessment. Modernity doesn’t favour the old school pair bounding at the same rate. Look at non-western industrialised countries such as South Korea and Japan. Furthermore,  declining birth rates is a global phenomena. Russia and former soviet republic are struggling with that to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all impressive-sounding theories, but they're still just red pill propaganda. Something to make you feel victimized when you're really just afraid to try. Red pill talk keeps you from confronting your shadow. When you don't address your shadow, you will project it on others and that will make you unattractive to women, no matter how you look physically or how much money you have. It's toxic and it'll make you toxic. If you don't deal with your insecurities you will project them on others and your personality will turn women off.

This may not be describing you, but if red pill propaganda is resonating with you that's a danger sign. If you stay with it you're going to end up lonely and bitter. Coming to this forum for self-improvement and spirituality is a much healthier direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Late Boomer said:

Those are all impressive-sounding theories, but they're still just red pill propaganda. Something to make you feel victimized when you're really just afraid to try. Red pill talk keeps you from confronting your shadow. When you don't address your shadow, you will project it on others and that will make you unattractive to women, no matter how you look physically or how much money you have. It's toxic and it'll make you toxic. If you don't deal with your insecurities you will project them on others and your personality will turn women off.

This may not be describing you, but if red pill propaganda is resonating with you that's a danger sign. If you stay with it you're going to end up lonely and bitter. Coming to this forum for self-improvement and spirituality is a much healthier direction.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A holistic perspective includes the material and the spiritual. The blind side of materialists is they exalt only our animal nature (and the cruel darwinian zero sum game aspect of it only) BUT the blind side of so called spiritualists is they exalt only our divine nature and deny the animal nature (as its cold and hurts our sense of morality on some level) and think all is just lovey dovey. The fact these truths sting a little is good, it shows sensitivity and that we are human and attuned to something higher in us that wishes to move away from that animal instinct, and to move towards intelligent living. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen We hardly know something about our "true" nature.

We are this kind of animal who can adopt to any form of behaviour.

Science is very limited and its conclusions relative to the culture it studies. Also it's a very biased territory.

The only things you can be sure about are those:

1. Those who have a vagina, womb and breast (females) are able to get pregnant while those who don't have vagina, womb and breast (males) aren't able to get pregnant.

2. Those who have dick and balls (males) are physically stronger than those who don't have dick and balls (females).

 

The other differences are on question mark.

Edited by Random witch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is on the dating forum where their has been a interesting back and forth of opinions and insights. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Late Boomer Very good answers!

@zazen Did you watch and understand Leo's series about Spiral Dynamics? Red Pill is a low conscious ideology at a range from high red over blue to low orange. The idea promoted in your quote is nothing but reactionary, sexist pants. And, by the way, today's relationships are already much happier than all the centuries ago, when people just married anybody and were stuck on each other for the rest of their lives. Thinking these couples were somewhat happy is as delusional as thinking you will be happy when you will finally have found a woman to settle down with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now