Sunday, July 10, 2011

Sex, Love, and Marriage in Modern Society: The Clever Pointlessness of “Game”

For ages, I’ve wanted to write an article about sex, love, and marriage in modern society, but I’ve been daunted by the amount of time, energy, and just plain thinking that would be necessary to write such a comprehensive piece.

Finally, a tragic killing spurred me to put pen to paper.

On August 5, 2009, 48-year old George Sodini walked into a Pittsburgh health club and murdered 3 women before turning the gun on himself. In his online diary, Sodini reveals himself to be a sexually-obsessed, but also a sexually-deprived human being.

For example, on Jun. 5, 2009, Sodini wrote...

I was reading several posts on different forums and it seems many teenage girls have sex frequently. One 16 year old does it usually three times a day with her boyfriend. So, err, after a month of that, this little --- has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48. One more reason. Thanks for nada, b----! Bye.

On Jul. 20, he complains…

“I have slept alone for over 20 years. Last time I slept all night with a girlfriend it was 1982. Proof I am a total malfunction…Girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE. There is something BLATANTLY wrong with me that NO goddam person will tell me what it is.”

I have to admit, Sodini’s words could’ve been written by Brian Raines (the main character in my book) if Brian had never met Heather Manning and crawled alone into middle age. But I digress…

Why did this happen? Why couldn’t George Sodini find a sexually-fulfilling relationship? Why did women reject him? Why did his failure lead to murderous rage? Are there more George Sodinis out there? Can we learn anything from this incident?

On his blog, In Mala Fide, Ferdinand Bardamu writes…

Not too long ago, there existed an unwritten contract between men and women in America and the West at large. Men spent their years working at shitty jobs, working their asses off every day and shortening their lifespans, obeying the laws and generally staying on the straight and narrow, and in return, they had guaranteed access to women through the institution of marriage.

If George Sodini had been alive as late as the 1950’s, he would likely have been able to get married in his 20’s to a reasonably attractive woman (6 or 7, possibly an 8) and have children. He would not have spent twenty years in an involuntarily celibate torture, allowing his mind to warp in all sorts of perverted ways. He would have been normal, because the situation that led to his mental abnormality – his inability to get laid – would never have happened.

The contract between the sexes is no longer valid. The wheels had been in motion for decades prior, but the motions that destroyed the contract for good occurred in the late 60’s and 70’s. Women were liberated from their contractual obligations…And yet, despite giving women the freedom to do as they wish, polite society still holds men to their contractual obligations. We guys are expected to go to college and rack up five-to-six digits worth of debt in order to get a spirit-crushing job in order to be worthy of a woman’s attention…Even worse, popular culture is engaged in a massive campaign to hide the truth from our eyes.

In the past, men who played by the rules won out in the end. No more. Women of all types are spreading their legs exclusively for pick-up artists, cads, players, badboys, and other men whom a healthy society would regard as the scum of the earth. Men like George Sodini who succeed and contribute to society have only their right hands for company, while bottom-feeders are drowning in more vaj then they know what to do with. Is this just?

Slowly but surely, the men of this country are realizing that they have been lied to their entire lives…They’ll likely get angry and react in myriad ways…A slim minority of men, such as George Sodini, will flip out, grab their guns, and go on a spree in the nearest public square.

I’m not holding Sodini up as a hero or someone to be emulated like some other people I’ve been reading. He was a nutcase who deserves to be scorned for what he did. That said, the greater sociosexual issues that dragged him that down that road cannot be ignored. Rage killings are a staple of our modern society – they almost never happened pre-1965. And gender-motivated rage killings DEFINITELY never occurred. Incidents like this are emblematic of deeper problems within our culture.

Why did the pre-1965 social contract between men and women break apart? Obviously, the “Sexual Revolution.” As all "good people" know, the Sexual Revolution created equality between the sexes. Once the Revolution swept through, sexual pleasure was no longer the exclusive domain of males. Women could (finally!) join in the fun!

But is the nature of female sexuality really the same as male sexuality?

Not so, according to Roger Devlin. In his article, Sexual Utopia in Power, Devlin wrote…

The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own {hypergamous} utopia, not that of men.

What is “hypergamy?” Devlin again…

The female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and second, he “commits,”or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males.

The sexual revolution asserted the right of each individual to sex on his or her own terms… When the initial excitement of abandoned restraint had died down it was noticed that the promised felicity had not arrived. And one reason, it was soon realized, was that the terms men wished to set for sexual conduct were not identical to those desired by women.

What happens when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate for wives, but many women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a very few exceptionally attractive men. These men, who have always found it easy to get a mate, now get multiple mates.

And what is the quality of these potential “mates?” What is the character of the modern woman? Devlin again…

Men of the older generation are insufficiently aware how uncouth women have become. I came rather late to the realization that the behavior I was observing in women could not possibly be normal—that if women had behaved this way in times past, the human race would have died out.

The reader who suspects me of exaggerating is urged to spend a little time browsing women’s self-descriptions on Internet dating sites. They never mention children, but almost always manage to include the word “fun.” “I like to party and have fun! I like to drink, hang out with cool people and go shopping!” The young women invite “hot guys” to contact them. No doubt some will. But would any sensible man, “hot” or otherwise, want to start a family with such a creature?

If Devlin, Bardamu, and others are correct, through the Sexual Revolution, women acquired many of the vices of men, while acquiring few of their virtues. Meanwhile, men as a whole were unchanged. If that is true, the quality of women (from the perspective of a man) has been in decline for many years, and continues to fall unabated. What are the consequences of such a “quality gap?” In particular, what are the consequences for the “beta men” (the less-desirable men)?


The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot.

We need a new strain of conservatism that acknowledges the realities of human sexuality while maintaining its ideological integrity.

Fair enough. So what kind of “conservatism” do we need?

According to Bardamu – and other bloggers - we need “Game.”


Post a Comment