I've never "payed" for it, unless a date counts, I've come closer to being "payed" for it (I've had a few lonely housewives preposition me and turned it down, I never intentionally slept with or stayed with a woman who I knew was in another relationship, and have no interest in an affair or any of that childish or adolescent drama anymore).

You contradict yourself, you're now saying men should be "civilized, effminiate, and monogamous" instead of "raw, virle" men who chase after any woman they want.

You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!!

You tell me...

Oh wait... you've never done that. Instead you just join a group of effeminized MRAs asking for "big daddy government" to give them handouts, rights, and childish and fictitious things of that nature, like a petulant little child begging for his daddy to patch up his wounds which neighborhood bully gave them.

Next, there are the external factors too. A society full of feminized pushovers attracts outsiders who would simply enjoy to push them over. Et cetera, et cetera. The current trends are unsustainable. I think that the implosion cannot be far away. Where is the popcorn? ;-)

The reality is that the "feminized" Catholic Church, requiring priesthood celebacy and monogamy outlived the "rapefugees"; countries like that, such as Sub-Saharan Africa are stuck in 3rd world status, you're a white kid typing on a philosophy forum, not Sub-Saharan African warlord raping, looting, plundering anything at all.

ago — IvoryBlackBishop

I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict"
[/quote]
Please give me more specifics, obviously "violent" conflict such as crime is an occurance, but in day-to-day life, its' irrelevant.

1.3k — alcontali

In our species, mankind, that kind of behaviour is widely considered to be mostly a waste of time. It is understandable behaviour but it is nevertheless quite useless, because it is not particularly productive.

Our species' mating and breeding strategy is very similar to a good number of bird species, such as cockatoos, where the female stays in the nest, sitting on the eggs, and later, guarding the chicks, while the male flies out to find fruits and nuts to be regurgitated in the nest.
[/quote]
Your point being what? A lot of what you are saying simply "isn't" the case, in humans or in animals.

Justin Bieber is not a "macho man"; Justin Bieber does not engage in "violent conflict", Justin Bieber is considered more of a sex symbol than the average death row inmate.

Some animals use songs, beautiful feathers, mating dances to attract mates, not "violent conflict".

Tell me how that "violent conflict" has worked out for you, other than pwning noobz in CoD. You're not a macho man, not a Navy Seal, not an SAS, why don't you read an actual book by someone who has been there and done it, such as "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller?

---

Pretty much every religion insists on the idea that useful sex is part of the overall breeding strategy.

I look after my three children here. I bring "the fruits and the nuts", pretty much in accordance with the basic biology of humanity and in line with Islamic-law advisories.

I consider the proper breeding strategy not to be about merely sleeping with arbitrary females. It is not that "pumping and dumping" would be hard to do here in SE Asia. Especially in Vietnam, there is a specialized class of young women doing that in exchange for not much money. So, it is certainly possible to use that kind of services for convenient "tension relief" but on the whole this behaviour can be deemed biologically low-value or even worthless.

Cool. You're point is?

There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is.

Once the now disfunctional societal framework will have collapsed (the sooner the better) it will be impossible to resurrect it, because the men who will have fought in combat will simply not want it back.

We will probably have to contend with lots of marauding gangs but that is also not such a bad thing because these gangs will prefer to pick the easy targets and thus systematically eliminate the feminized pushovers. It would be a bad idea to put a stop to the cleansing chaos of the mating season too early

So why do the "cops" have the robbers in jail, and not the "robbers" having the cops in jail?

Quit playing CoD, it's not accurate, I would easily bet you have never thrown a punch, been in a fight, earned a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, or anything else. You're just aiming at the lowest hanging fruit imaginable.

Not true. MRA do, but MGTOW don't.

MGTOW are simply bailing out. They do not ask for anything to change. It just reflects the growing trend of men bailing out from the workforce and out of "relationshits". They just don't want to be someone else's plough horse on the "plantation".

It is not possible to change anything to society for MGTOW to change their mind. They have decided to move on, and they are simply not coming back.

Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.
[/quote]
That's not their mentality, their mentality is something akin to "Radical feminist lesbian separatism", a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas, in which all sex or relationships are viewed as "inherently exploitative, or all sex is rape".

There is no depth, nor any sense of "higher" purpose, it is primarily just pop nihilism, consumerism, and claiming to not want women in their life, yet spend all of their free time obsessing over "women" and pornography as a whole

And who gives a fuck? Disaffected people being in bad relationships and blaming the other sex as a whole is as old and unoriginal as human nature, let alone something worthy of creating a creepy "subculture" on the basis of.

It's no open secret no matter what historical time period, archaic, or contemporary which one goes back that "marriage", on or as a legal institution first and foremost, was and is primarily pragmatic, and at worst merely a step above the "law of the Jungle" to help expeditate divorce proceedings and reduce the risk of them fighting or killing each other, the kind of nonsense one sees in Jerry Springer or other "trash TV shows'. Most marriages, if not outright miserable are certainly "less than ideal" rather than pop-RousseauIan deterministic notions of "love" and marriage with most couples not being happily married and can't be abstracted or differentiated from their pragmatic factors as well as their romantic ones.

This again, has nothing to do with arrested development and immaturity, so much as just a commonsensical thing as well, which people stuck in miserable marriages or situations deny either through sheer "naivete" or self-deception; much as many which might even be called "feminist" notions would be against the anti-intellectual idea of a person, especially a young person jumping or rushing into a marriage, childbirth, or a relationship, at the expense of personal maturation, or other life goals and pursuits, particularily those of an intellectual or creative variety, which again, "civilized" people already do and take it for granted, given that we aren't pre-literate 3rd world tribesmen getting "engaged" at the age of 10 and couplating with our "wives" at the age of 14 years old, at the expense of 1st world luxuries, such as literacy, mathematics, and so on.

Most people would likewise admire and consider a businessman, scientist, or other professional, whether Adam Smith, or Issac Newton, or Saint Paul in the Bible (who said himself that not every man should marry necessarily) both of whom may have never married, to be a better civilizational hallmark than a man or woman who has fathered 5 kids with 5 different partners by the age of 18, lacking any means of financial support or personal maturity in regards to raising the children they brought into the world.

Marriage is and has only been "sacred" in the context of a church, a couples' vows, or anything else, this again is common sense to anyone who's as so much as read a single book by a mature marriage or relationships author (whether or not they agree with the couple's premise), whether from a data era such as the 1800s, when overall standards of "modesty" were presumably "higher" (hence writings like Married Love), or in a more contemporary day and age in which books like "Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars", are or were popular.

The fact that something this basic, simple, and commonsensical has somehow morphed into silly and false "red pill/blue pill" dichotomies is probably more of a negative sign of the times than any of the exaggerations you are referring to.

Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.

Cool, who cares?

Most of them aren't motivated enough to "move" their left butt cheek away from their sticky keyboard and "waifu' collections".

Grown "men" acting like arrested development children who still think the other sex has cooties and masturbating to cheap anime porn ("marriage, relationships, or anything else having nothing to do with this) is more of a sign of the times than anything else.

Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.
— Possibility

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.
[/quote]
Bogus; you've never been in "violent" conflict; if you're a virgin, that's not why.

I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict"; I've been with somewhere between 15-20 women, nor was I ever married.

If your argument is that there's an aesthetic element to "violence", such as in the context of arts, movies, contact sports, and so on, or a couple legally and consensually engaging in "rough sex" or "domination fantasies", or a romance novel, such as one by Loretta Chase depicting a "violent" sexual fantasy, I'd argue that is not remotely comparable to literal "violence" or "violent conflict".

Anymore than watching an action film or playing a "violent" video game, and whatever "fantasies" it might related to, is the same as literally engaging in violence or literally "wanting" to engage in violence

So no, what you're asserting isn't remotely applicable to a 1st world country. I fail to see what your point is.

The fact that biology and lack of basic impulse control pays a role in dysfunctional human behaviors is well-documented by the law, and it's philosophy (such as distinguishing between crimes of "passion", or impulsive ones, versus rational "crimes), as well as fair amount common sense, particularily during adolescence when male and female "hormones" are at their peak - but that's still a far cry from what it is you're saying or advocating, whether you want to invoke biology, or anything else.

Example - Justin Bieber is considered a "teen idol" or "sex symbol", Justin Bieber is not a "tough guy" stereotypically "macho" guy, he's a 'soft, sensitive, musician", yet he has many more female admirers than your average convicted murder or rapist does (regardless whether or not you want to point out that murders and rapists have had "admirers", who is bored or creepy enough to care, honestly?)

Even in the animal kindgom, your claim about "violent conflict" simply isn't true or without exception, in some cases, an "aesthetic" element, such as a male peacock impressing a potential mate with its beautiful feathers, or a mating dance, rather than "violent conflict" may actually be preferred, for example:

(And for what its worth, most historical "ladies men", whether fictional or exaggerated, were not known for being particularly "violent" or aggressive, in fact, ironically many of them may have seemed "effiminate", preferring to "woo" a woman with music, poetry, lyrics, and so on and so forth rather than "violence".)

Even the Bible has the "Song of Solomon".

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-13/12-animal-mating-rituals-prove-love-about-good-dance-moves

That depends on a social-political framework that may or may not exist, and that can easily stop existing from the one day to the other.

You've yet to substantiate that.

When the Roman legions inevitably abandoned the fortifications on the Rhine in 406 AD, it was game over for the existing societal framework. There were no debates any longer. There were only sword fights.

I don't think you know what you're talking about?

Why did the Catholic Church end up having a longer lifespan than Rome did, despite instituting monogamy and priesthood celbacy?

The default situation in biology is the mating season. As I see it, it has the greatest legitimacy of all the various approaches because it is the default way in which biological life reaffirms itself. It just works.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'orienting' it to girls, some have made the opposite claim, that it's oriented to boys due to an emphasis on "math", so I take these claims with a grain of salt.

Much as I take claims about any legal educational system which is only oriented to a K-12, or entry level college or university level, given how low and ultimately relevant such an actual level of "education is", beyond those men and women who actively peruse high levels of learning and education on their own.

If mass media, which is primarily marketed to a 6th grade reading level, or average 100 IQ is any concern, then most of it, whether false dicthomies (e.x. public/private/home/etc), comparions or abstractions which only matter at that low, anti-intellectual level to begin with, call me arrogant in my own higher mathematical intelligence and literacy, but such things literally strike me as childs play, and aren't remotely worth the cost/benefit analysis from a pure learning, mathematically analytical perspective, like that of Rhodes Scholar Edward De Bono, assuming that inherently and demonstrably, mathematically, provable and inherently superior methods and more contemporary, and less archaic 19th century holdovers masquerading as methodologies to the 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level demographic it's marketed to and catered to, altogether are available to more ambitious, thinking men and think women in the 21st century, or Information Age, or even eras before, who didn't limit themselves to whatever archaic and anti-intellectual bare mimum were readily offered them via salesmanship as mere paltry table scraps.

Some people are simply too selfish, inept, lazy, or otherwise useless enough to even bother visiting their local library, their local law library, their Amazon or Kindle account, and thinking that reading one book a year marketed to the 6th grade reading level is a major accomplishment, as opposed to intellectually, intuitively, and creatively superior men and women, who read as much as one full, graduate or post-gradute school book a day all on their own volition, such as in the case male and female CEOs or executives on Ted Talks, and the like.

MRAs are not the same as MGTOW.

I don't really care, to be honest.

Fact is those groups want "legal" rights.

Furthermore, rights are not something the monarch gives you but something that you extract at gunpoint. Hence, it is mostly a question of who defeats whom in battle.

And when, in your actual life (not in Cod), have you actually done that, or will you actually do that, tough guy?

Please, tell me how you're going to extract your "rights" to rape a woman at knife point, or single-handedly made like Tony Montana and shot up the entire gang of Sicilian Mafiosi who were trying to "extract" your rights at gunpoint - don't worry, the FBI isn't reading this, you can share with us.

They do.

Atheists are hellbent on imposing their views onto others under the nomer of "human rights".
[/quote]
I don't see any correlation between "human rights" and "atheism".

Much as the dichotomy between "religious / secular" is false, and doesn't exist that way except in pure childish abstractions; for example, in our modern Common Law systems, crimes such as murder were also sins and crimes within older, "religious" systems of law, such as Exodus, which modern law evolved out of.

So, these "activists" want "to guarantee that citizens are treated equally".

Says the guy talking about MRAs and whatnot, when historically, as far as ancient cultures go, MRAs and MGTOW wouldn't have any "rights" to begin with or petition for; do you think an ancient monarch would tolerate him, let alone incels thinking that his Queen is entitled to date them simply because they're "nice".

They've have been turned into eunuchs and forced to serve in his haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" or subsist as they are today.

Their idea is to replace religious law by their own secular inventions. Of course, that will just lead to a western-style divorce-rape system where men will no longer want to marry

I don't think you understand what your talking about; most of the "divorce" court system has nothing to with recent political or identarian movements (e.x. "2nd or 3rd wave pop feminism", or whatnot").

It's, ironically more of a holdover from the 19th century, possibly even including "religious" moral sentiments; based presumptions such as women being inherently better nurtures of children, or men presumed being the sole or main providers of income (which of course, wasn't the case on the whole even in dated areas such as that, as Marie Curie, Queen Victoria, or other prominent women of any and every historical area prove, though generally it's presumed that more of a tendency toward "arbitrary" discrimination, primarily against women on the basis of "sex" alone existed).

So, the system is flawed in this reason, not because of "feminism" or whatever you're attributing it to, but rather because potentially outdated laws haven't been updated to reflect changing socioeconomic conditions, so the best bet as far as that goes, wouldn't be to mindless or ignorantly rail against "feminism", especially when what you're calling "feminism" is closer to archaic "traditionalism" than anything else, but rather work to change the laws yourself.

, and to a collapse in the fertility rate. It means the end of the nuclear family.

How much "fertility rate" does one need; monogamy itself "lowers fertility" rates in comparison to archaic practices such as polygamy; which even "religious" systems for most of recent history have accepted, as a cultural evolution above more primitive practices, and civilizing force which guarantees better rights for families, children, and so on and so forth.

The religious communities do not want their law to be replaced by something that is known not to work.

What do you mean by "work", and by what means to what ends?

Polygamy which is known to "work" has been replaced by monogamy both in "religious" and "secular" communities and systems for similar reasons.

Not everything, within any system is solely reducible to whether it "works" either by some means or ends which themselves are inherently problematic, but about higher quality, even at the natural expense of pure "stability" to the point of archaism, anti-intellectualism, cultural regression, and so on and so forth.

For that matter, the same could be said of archaic systems, whether "religious, secular" or otherwise, given that many if not most "systems" currently at work or at use date to centuries back to begin with, archaic as they might be, or as many of them ironically were even during the time period in which they originated, were trendy, were popular, and so on, in comparison to superior or more overarching systems or theories, the Common Law system and theories, such as their basis of morality, intentions, premeditations, and so on and so forth being product of human reason, as well as human "passions" or instincts, such as are documented by evolutionary psychologists playing a role in addictions, crimes of "passions" as opposed to more serious, calculated, premeditated and intentional ones, and so forth. (Making one wonder where archaic notions such as reductionistic "behaviorism" and similar and related anti-intellectual "legalistic" nonsense (not to be confused or conflated with the law itself, in moral or legal theory and in moral or legal practice, such as by Judge Holmes in his treatise on the Common Law system and philosophy by which it governs and is sustained and perpetuated), ever orginated or why they did to begin with, given that they were more or less known to be nonsense in as far as systems of the law and its legal and moral phllosophy are or were concerned, even in or during the day where archaic fads and trends like that were supposedly popular among less intellectual members of their various and interconnect societies and populations to begin with.

True, in terms of how people actually act or behave, in theory or practice, as is well documented by many experts, including ones which focus on the biological or evolutionary psychological aspects, such types of behaviors are by no means exclusive to "religion", or whatever incorrect or bad definition of "religion" one is using at any given time to begin with. To some extent, this should be common sense, as per Pinker and others, sadly on some serially stupid and/or dishonest individuals who lack even the basic social intelligence, self-awareness or intuition that would be expected of a more savvy child, this is sadly lost on them, in favor of ideological salesmanship and outright lies and misinformations...

The situation isn't that simple; for one, no one has provided anything according to a working definition of "secularism" to begin with in theory, whatever that is or means, nor "religion", given that the Supreme Court has recognized non-traditional or non-thestic religions such as "Secular Humanism (which traces its leniage back to Auguste Comte and his cult or "religion of Humanity").

For that matter, many if not most definitions of "religion" are based on abstractions or nonsense, which no serious historical attempt at defining "religion" to begin with would take seriously, usually boiling down to childish conflations of "religion" with "mythology" or "children's stores", or rather some simplistic iconographic image allegedly depicting a "god", perhaps akin to one of Carl Jung's archetypes, even when religions(s) as far history as concerned, even dating back to the days of the Medieval Church, never claimed that silly graven images or 'idols" depicting god or a deity, most of which come more from popular culture or folklore than from any actual religious or theological text to begin with, were never said to be the "god", "goddess", or whatever, but rather just a simplistic image used in depiction of an abstract concept, akin to how a cartoonish drawing of "atom" is not a real atom, but merely used to depict one, or something which can't be seen with the naked eye.

One would think that this would be somewhat obvious and commonsensical, at least to moderate literate people, but sadly it isn't and is lost on so many of them, not reading or being able to read or write beyond a paltry 6th grade reading level to begin with.

Beyond that, and whatever arbitrary and childishly inaccurate definitions of "religion" or "secularism" are often and erroneously offered, seemingly simply meaning whatever one "wants" them to mean, or were incorrectly taught or told they mean, whether intentionally lied to, or simply misinformed.

Much as how the false dichotomy between "religious / secular" only exists in pure abstraction; the law (as in the Common) of the states as well as the UK, developed or evolved from older legal systems, including Exodus, Rome, and so on and so forth.

Obviously laws and morality, such as prohibition of murder, not only existed within the context of "religious" systems of law or government, but within "secular" ones, such as the Common Law system as well.

The reality is that "uncivilized" behavior is a human behavior, not exclusive to 'males', even if there are differences in male and female aggression and behavior, both men and women, for example can and have been held legally or criminally liable for violent acts such as murder; there are men who have never commit a murder, and women who have, regardless of the role that testosterone may or may not have played in it, with an archaic argument based on reductionism or determinism, akin to use of "scientific racist" arguments which nevertheless negate or deny the reality that there are African people who have not committed aggressive or violent crimes, and "white" people who have.

Thankfully such archaic reductionism and deterministic nonsense, which was more or less considered to be nonsense even during the outdated era in which it was most popular, as far as more serious legal and moral philosophy, which predicates or takes into account notions such as reasoning, intentions, which a differentiation between acting in the "heat of the moment" (e.x. 2nd degree murder) and acting rationally, calculatedly or premeditatedly (e.x. first degree murder). Most of the legal and moral philosophy, is thankfully predicated on notions such as a reason, intentions, and rationality, rather than archaic biological reduction, based solely averages and mythical abstractions approximations which don't actually apply or mean anything in reality, beyond simple estimations in individual circumstances, not to be taken literally when they're clearly nonsense and don't apply - to the point of silliness and nonsensicality even when it clearly isn't applicable to individual men and women, solely to "win an argument" rather than illuminate anything of value.

Conversely a woman who is a seasoned pro athlete or the minority of women who have served in armed combat (e.x. some Russian female snipers In WII) may in practice, have higher testosterone than an "average" male pencil pusher.

You can read "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller if you're interested in it.

As peer some peer reviewed articles on testosterone, it contributes positively to mathematical and spatial reasoning ability, and not solely "aggression" (hence why Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autistic spectrum disorders, are sometimes considered an "extreme" example of the male brain, despite most people with Aspergers being viewed as stereotypically "geeky" rather than "aggressive" and "uncivilized".

As far as science writings on evolutionary psychology goes such as by science writers like Robert Wright; behaviors considered "uncivilized" (e.x. polygamy or polyamorous desires resulting infidelity), are not exclusive to "men" or "women", such as myths about "men's sex drives";

The primary difference is supposedly that men are more likely to cheat for "new partners", while women are more likely to cheat if they can get "different things" from each partner, such as financial stability from one partner, or romance / excitement from another partner.

---

As far as civilization goes, isn't solely "invented", and not as part of a conspiracy theory to "repress males".

It relates to institutions which come from mental abilities such as reasoning which have nothing specifically to do with "men" or "women". (Psychopathology, such as obsessive-compulsive disorders resulting from maladaptedness to elements of civilization have been documented by Freud and others, but an extremist, anarchist view in which all civilization is inherently "evil" is rather absurd to me at this point in my life, especially if all of these discussions are being done on a computer).

Not to mention that even animals, such as ants, show elements of civilization, which indicate that it's to some degree or another, an innate part of who we are.

My understanding is that in every society, "warriors" were small percentage of the population; much as how today, the average person, nor even the average person who works for the US military is a special forces veteran or fighter pilot who has seen live combat.

If anything, an "incel" likely would have been one of the "low status men" who the king or emperor had turned into a eunuch and forced to serve in his haram, rather than simply "allowed to exist" as it is.

And no, the problem doesn't seem to be that they're "looking for women", it's not a case of a fat, Minecraft addicted male who sexually identifies as a "Brony" looking for a fat, Mincrafted addicted female who sexually identifies as a "pegasister" to go on a Minecraft date together.

It's more like a case of fat, Mincraft-addicted male trying to 'swoon' Taylor Swift or Beyoncé, claiming she won't talk to him because he's "too nice", and typing out his rough draft of a school shooting plan on his sticky keyboard.

(Or conversely, a fat, Minecraft addicted female trying to get her "senpai" Justin Bieber or "Brad Pitt" to notice her).

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.

You've made so may posts here, I'm going to make a separate thread to respond to them in, ok?

I resolutely refuse to criticize MGTOW men. They do not want to have relationships because of the gynocentric court system and because they believe that society has thoroughly perverted the opposite sex.

I don't think their mindset is that deep about it, no.

As far as "gynocentric", the court system and legal philosophy is primarily pragmatic, not about satiating childish and dumbed-down notions of "equality" in a way which runs contrary to legal pragmatism.

Given that our legal systems have been around since the 1700-1800s and before, it's possible some aspects of them haven't been updated to suit the times or cultural shifts, however on this, I think rather than mindlessly "railing" against the system as a whole, using sensationalized words like "gynocentric", one should give specific examples of laws which should be changed on a state or federal level, and something akin to an actionable plan for or on how to do it.

---

First of all, in Islamic terms, if the marriage and divorce are not governed by Islamic law, then the man is advised not to enter the arrangement. Secondly, chastity is indeed a very non-optional requirement:

Are you a Muslim? Are you going to move to a strict Sharia law nation?

I've never read the Koran or anything equivalent to a history of Islam, and I don't see why the Koran is relevant to this discussion here. And what other things does your Koran say, other than that one small part in isolation?

I don't think Islam would be too keen on "MGTOW" men deciding to devote their life to porn and anime masturbation either, but for that matter, so would any fairly well-adjusted normal person either, so "Islam" isn't particularily relevant here.

You may marry the chaste women among the believers, as well as the chaste women among the followers of previous scripture, provided you pay them their due dowries.
— Quran 5:5

The Quran simply does not want a man to enter a marriage arrangement when there are serious questions or doubts about chastity. Therefore, the religious advisory en provenance from the Quran is that the MGTOW guys are absolutely right on both counts.

Personally, I fundamentally solved the problem by emigrating to a different jurisdiction, in a galaxy far, far away (SE Asia) and by being absolutely paranoia, from a non-negotiable position, concerning the chastity of my spouse. If I had not emigrated, I would also be staunchly MGTOW today

Anthropologically speaking, in ancient times, concepts such as "birthright" were very culturally fundamental for pragmatic reason which I'd prefer not to get into as of right now.

I believe this is where this fits in to the anthropological scheme of things.

Regardless, young men and women 'hooking up' or 'messing around' during adolescence Is something of a reality, ideally that it's something to mature out of, rather than "sex with as many people as possible" being one's only aim in life.

Much as the overly "romanticized" notions of the past, or that young people "didn't hook" up until some "recent" time period (e.x. whether after the "1950s", after the "Victorian era" of the 1800s, or whatever time period is overly romanticized) is somewhat fictitious as well.

"Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare, for example, was basically the equivalent of a "teen romance", like twilight, much as how men and women sleeping with other people's wives or husbands (such as King David in the Bible) is a recorded reality since times ancient.

I suppose that if two people enter a relationship, there is always a "possibility" like that in mind, but regardless, I do not think that an attitude of cynicism, nihilism, or paranoia is healthy, and If anything just fodder "trash TV" shows like Jerry Springer or Steve Wilkos.

Well, I guess that is how we ended up with all these beta-orbiting, friend-zoned incels, because hey, they are so good at interacting "effectively in the real world" with the other sex. If you add up their numbers to the men in sexless marriages, or who have gone mgtow/monk, then this "interaction" does not seem to look particularly good.
[/quote]
From what I've gleaned, a "monk" in the true sense isn't comparable to a "mgtow/incel":

For example:



In this video, the monk sets himself on fire while meditating. My understanding is that the mindset and worldview behind an actual monk is one of extreme self-discipline, or one of renunciation of worldly desires in the pursuit of some higher calling or purpose. (It's pretty apparent that no "MGTOW/Incel" would be self-controlled enough to do something like this; likely his pale skin would burn off the second he steps out of the basement and experience sunlight for likely the first time in his life. From what I'm aware of, every major world religion has or has had some variant of a monastic or "mystical" school or tradition.

In contrast, the worldview of the "MGTOW/Incel" is the polar opposite, one of pop nihilism, hedonism, materialistic consumerism, and so on - hence why they spend all of their time masturbating to anime, porn, MMORPGs (sarcasm intended), and other addictions, and obsessing in a John Hinckley Jr. like fashion over "women" as a whole despite claiming to not want them in their lives; almost akin or equivalent to "radical feminism" or "lesbian separatism" a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas, in which all heterosexual relationships, even legal and consensual ones are "rape" or somehow inherently "exploitive", just with the sexes in .

So no, to me comparing an actual monk and the worldview or philosophy inherent in it to a "MGTW/Incel" cultist would be like comparing devout veganism, to a person who eats leftover big macs out of a McDonald's dumpster because he's too cheap to pay for actual meat.

No. You do not need "the entire population to stop having children" for a demographic trend leading to extinction. It is simple math. An average birth rate of 1.3 leads to an increasingly aged population and ultimately to extinction. It is not like I am making up a new topic here. This is very much debated topic for example in Western Europe

Yes, but for how long would that trend occur, and what makes you think that it won't fluctuate?

And as far as nations with the highest birth rates, many of them are sub-Saharan African nations or 3rd world countries (e.x. Niger with an average birth rate of 6-7 per woman); most people in the "West", even those who bring up "low birth" rates wouldn't want to devolve to a 3rd world country in which practices such as polygamy or arranged child marriages are potentially a factor. Monogamy, as an institution is predicated on prioritizing "higher mental wants", or quality and stability of marriages and relationships in civilized nations, despite being negatively correlated with "higher birth rates", yet people take this for granted.

I said nothing about terrorism, PLEASE stop making false claims. I mentioned Kosovo, because it is an example of a very rapid population shift because of birth rates. Kosovo had a purely Serbian population, in fact it was the Serbian heartland. Then, immigration plus the massive difference in birth rates between Serbian and Albanian families changed that to an Albanian population with a shrinking Serbian minority.

Well, compared to Chinese or Indians, all "white" or people of European descent are a "minority" as it is.

So what should be done about that? Should North Americans and Europeans artificially increase their populations by 3-6X just to avoid being a racial "minority" in compared to 3rd world India and China?

Plus, being a 'minority' isn't necessarily a "bad" thing (e.x. billionaires are "minorities", pro-athletes are "minorities", people with extremely high IQs are "minority"), nor is it in mutual exclusivity with being part of a "majority" (e.x. A "Caucasian" American with a very high IQ is part of a "majority" in the sense of being Caucasian, and also part of being in a "minority" due to having an above-average IQ).

Those are all static details that depend on the society. I simply pointed to simply facts: 1) A below-replacement birth rate leads a shrinking population, and shrinking populations eventually reach zero.

That's assuming the population trend continues unabated; in practice, when has any population ever reached "zero" simply due to not having children?

In practice, national averages would still have little bearing on individual families, or other types of communities that exist within the context of said national boundaries.

(e.x. A society as a whole, wouldn't want everyone "equally" having children to begin with, it would rather a fairly mature and stable family have more children, rather than unemployed or homeless people fathering children who they are unable or unwilling to support financially and adding to a "poverty" trap, of sorts).

2) a surplus of males in a human society is not good for the stability of said society.
I said none of the other things that you made up

Please give me more specifics, and define what makes him a "surplus"; if you're talking about "incels" or something, I don't buy into the concept to begin with for reasons I've already mentioned.

Lately I'm interested in the business side of "movements" or "philantrophic" causes, such as the measurable differences in actual goals, effectivity, strategy, and so and so on beyond merely the simple, exaggerated "mission statement" which is really just a marketing or advertising thing, and has little to no realistic bearing on what's actually being done or accomplished, mathematically, so to speak, as well as on the legal details involved in organizing or participating in such a 'movement'..

Something that differentiates pure mindless "slactivism", which is either incompetent, inept, or downright lying, insincerity, and scammyness from more serious activism by thinking men and women, which is actually a worthwhile cause in theory and in practice, rather than a mere "baby step" or outright comedic relief than preys on naivete and pure appeals to emotion, rather than reason, facts, logic and so on and so forth.

Statistics don't "lie", they simply get misinterpreted, used, abused, either by virtue of ignorance or intentional dishonesty.

Such as using "black crime" statistics as an arbitrary form of racial discrimination, even against black lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc who have never committed a crime, while ignoring that white criminals do exist.

There's no such thing as "involuntary" celebate. (It would likely be harder to be voluntary celebate, than involuntarily celebrate, if the Catholic priest molestation scandals are any indicators)..

Your physical body doesn't even know the difference between a "hand" and a vagina, hence why it comes; the body is a thing of very simple pleasures (just like it doesn't know the difference between a naked woman in .jpg format and a naked woman in the flesh).

By "incel", what they actually mean is John Hinckley Jr. Syndrome, as in a guy who thinks that Taylor Swift or Mariah Carey is entitled to date or marry them while living in their mom's basement just because they're "nice", or something (that is when they aren't fantasizing about their mass shootings).

Plus by the same token, today's society is rampant in free internet porn, so an "incel" who is completely unambitious and unable to find anything more productive or worth living for can spend his life on free porn addiction till his heart's content, and I doubt that the majority of them will be so maladjusted by it that they will become a "threat", the proverbial freaks in question (e.x. Elliot Roger or whoever) likely suffered from severe mental disturbances that went beyond simply not being able to 'get laid'.

True, in practice a woman who is a professional athlete may actually have higher testosterone than an "average" man does.

Likewise, as per medical sources, it also plays a role in many health benefits, not solely "aggression" such as improved mathematical and spatial reasoning skills, as per this peer reviewed article by Graham Rogers, MD:

https://www.healthline.com/health/benefits-testosterone#benefits

(Sadly most popular information on this subject is anti-intellectual and sensationalist, dumbed down to the average 6th grade reading level or, whatever lowest common denominator most mass media is marketed to).

Possibly, however most problem of evil arguments which use the existence of "evil", so whether or not they invoke a "god" specifically, they are invoking or appealing to some higher ideal of "good".

Conversely, one could use the same arguments (e.x. Epicurus) but in reverse, to argue against that.

Fair enough...

Sometime I'd be interested in doing a more serious, critical history of marketing, journalism, and so on (something which doesn't boil down to or degenerate into childish fandom of a specific "network" devoid of any further facts, or critical assements of the reality thereof to begin with, and what the primary and various marketing methods, axioms and target demographics are to begin with.

(Beyond those who primarily or only read or write at a 6th grade reading level, or have at most a 100 IQ, since that much is already obvious,... or should be anyway, and who rarely or never even so much as visit either a local library or online Kindle or E-reader and read such much as a serious book written at the graduate or postgraduate school level, which would render 99% of what at worst, nonsense, at best, extremely dumbed down, "fast food" variants of much deeper stuff existing in said full length books at the best of superior thinking men and women who read and who write them).

That's, for the most part, just silly little 6th grade reading level propaganda devoid of anything akin to logic, proper uses (and abuses) of facts, and so on, regardless of any serious "left" or "right" paradigm

Whatever archaic philosophical axioms that nonsense is predicated on to begin with (generally probably an outdated philosophical tidbit from Bentham or Mill, or some other philosophical or psychological axiom such as 'behaviorism' which is known to be considered nonsense, and arguably even was during the archaic era when it was supposedly popular or trendy, such as more serious philosophy of the law and its various rational and intentional axioms, as per Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others (coupled with a bare basic ignorance of the simple cause and effect which such an archaic philosophy and the proposals predicated on the archaic logic and nonsensical and impractical approximations and averagings thereof were apt to ignore entirely due to want of any intellectual reasoning that approximating or attempting to measure or estimate would require the use of mental and mathematical faculties lacking, or be entirely stupid and/or ignorant of to begin with, in both theories and in practice...

...falsely conflated either dishonestly or through sheer ignorance, lack of education, or stupidity with other domains of knowledge and abstractions), kind of akin to those idiots who conflate a scientific "theory" with a "conspiracy theory", due to the simple mutual inclusions of the word "theory", for example.

Most if not all, mass media, BBC, "liberal", "conservative", or otherwise, would be mostly obsolete if most people read, wrote, or had basic reading comprehension above the bare minimum 6th grade reading level which most of it is marketed to and for, such as having actually ever read and fully comprehended a treatise on Aristotelian logic and how it is and/or should actually be used in theory or practice.

(Hint, merely pointing out a textbook "fallacy" in another's argument isn't actually necessarily a good debate tactic, since the use of fallacies isn't necessarily or automatically "bad", it simply has the potential to be wrong in varying degrees (as opposed to pure mathematical abstractions).

As far as the premise of the OP, I don't think that in general, "practicality" and morals or ethics are completely abstracted or "at odds" with one another to begin with.

As far as the philosophy of the law goes, for example, the specific moral sentiments and cultural "fads" may vary somewhat from era to era, and in some cases the original intellectual (or anti-intellectual) reason for a or some specific "law" may have been forgotten or deemed "silly", much as there are 10s of 1000s of minor laws which likely even a veteran legal scholar has no "perfect" mathematical accountability of or for.

However the overarching moral philosophy of the law is fairly straightforward and based upon the principles of the golden rule (e.x. respect for people, their families, their personal properties, their rights as citizens, and so on and so forth).

I'm not an expert on Kant, but I believe even he distinguished between wrongs or actions in personal or civil life, and actions from or on behalf of one's state.

(E.x. He held the state, and state-sponsored "violence" or "aggression" such as criminal law and warfare to be legitimate, or necessary ills at very least, and not the same as "murder" in the context of a person illegally killing another person with malicious intent, even if the physical "action" of taking another person's biological life was the same in that regard).

For that matter, those who bastadize Kant or "deontological" ethics to promote strict "non-aggression" (e.x. some libertarian 'anarchists') are pretty easily debunked, given that physically, even speaking in a public place, for example, creates sound waves which "aggress" upon another person's ear-drums without their "consent" (which by the same vein of logic wouldn't be any different than blasting a megaphone in a person's ear to the point that they pop an eardrum).

Much as how using "fighting words", including on the internet is a form or act of aggression, and technically not even a "right" or protected "speech" to begin with, whether online or offline, regards of how strictly, in practice anyone would seek to enforce inanity like that in or on the media or social media.

Actually, it will. Simple demographic fact.

I think you misunderstand what I said.

That would only happen in a theoretical situation in which the entire population decided to stop having children, and in practice, as opposed to pure abstraction, that has never happened.

So no, I don't see Issac Newton or Adam Smith's decisions not to marry or to have children as somehow leading to the entire population doing this. Show me anytime in history in which an entire population "stopped having sex" or having children, and ceased to exist within 1 generation.

(And for that matter, most people would argue that contemporary cultures benefit more from Newton's personal sacrifices in regards to his higher mental achievement than they would have if he had simply decided to spend that time "having more children").

How do you think Kosovo went from being a Serbian province to an Albanian territory? (Just a random example)

So you're talking about territorialism, not "culture".

I still have no idea what that has to do with "birth rates", a nation could become "annexed" by another nation, such as through war or colonization, even then I fail to see what "population" or birth rates have to do with this.

For example, India used to be a British territory, despite having a vastly larger population than Britain did, much as how in WWII Japan invaded China, which was vastly larger but allegedly inferior in military strength.

So even then, I don't see what "birth" rates" have to do with in practice, since in reality, a nation with the strongest military or economic might or technology isn't necessarily the nation with the highest population or birth rates.

Why are you continuiing to obfuscate, change the topic, and put words in my mouth? I never said anything about emulating anything or race. I am simply pointing out that sex is biological, that making children is necessary for a population to continue, and that demographics matter.
[/quote]

True, but how much "population" is needed and in the context of what goals, and how does "aggregate" population take into account other social or economic factors, such as populations of families relative to their means, and so on and so forth? Can you name any cuture in which "population controls", often in the context of means and sustainability, didn't exist in some form or another, and not even potentially stricter or more draconian than today (such as "death penalties" for adulteries in ancient cultures serving a pragmatic, population control purpose).

Unless something akin to the "voluntary human extinction movement" or a nihilistic worldview in which "no one" should have children was relevant, then the "entire" population would not disappear.

So, honestly, I don't see what the point in aggregate population comparisons between America, Europe, or Africa are, unless this is just some type of "population measuring contest"; can you provide any more depth to this issue?

I said nothing of the sort. Why do you put words in my mouth, like Kathy Newman in her famous "so you are saying...." interview with Jordan Petersen?

I simply pointed out the biological foundation of our sex drive. And that society depends on people having children... ideally 2.1 per couple. And that couples (i.e. monogamy) are a better choice to organize society than polygamy. I did not claim that there is no individual variety and room to accomodate that.
But at the current birthrates of e.g. 1.3 (Italy) and 1.5 (Japan), compared to what, 8 in Africa, just random examples

What are the living conditions in Africa (I'm assuming sub-Saharan parts of Africa where polygamy and child marriage are practices); why would you want to emulate that? This isn't just about "race" is it?

Part of the reason of 'higher birth' rates is consequential, due to higher rates of infant morality (presumably, even in animals, this trend seems to be ingrained, with species that have relatively short livespans, such as hamsters, having "more offspring" than mammals such as elephants).

As far as how you measure the 'longetivity' of any civilization, aside from some reduction based on aggregate 'birth rates', I'd like you to elaborate more.

(For one, "Africa" isn't and historically hasn't been all one homogenized whole, with different cultures and civilizations; so how is this not purely about "race", prey tell?)

And in practice, what does aggregate population amount to if it isn't predicated on actual living conditions or civilizational hallmarks? (In sciences, for example, how much of the accomplishments within those fields would be attributable to "average population" demographics, or even to "low-level" employees in some industry with a "science" related job title, as opposed to a very rare Newton or an Einstein?

(For example, "China" has been around science the ancient times, however modern "China" as a nation is usually considered quite fundamentally different than "Ming Dynsasty" China, for example, taking the overall culture into account, not solely an averaging of population).

I did not say that there not all sorts of psychological overlays, which is given since we are complex mammals. But none of this would exist without the sex drive being there in the first place, which is the basis for it all, and which is purely biological.

And by the way, as you correctly say, a lot of this self-oriented behaviour like using birth control etc. runs counter to the biological basis, and will lead to the self-elimination of the more complex societies, as we stop to reproduce.
[/quote]

Then your ideal living situation should be a fundamentalist Mormon compound in which 1st world luxuries such as... literacy, are a rare find, and grown men having 10 kids each with their ten 14-year old wives, were they were engaged to at the age of 10, should be your ideal of "civilization" and progress.

So when you're ready to more there, be sure to write us back.

And no, the reality is that an extremist view such as that "no one should have children" would be a ridiculous absurdism (e.x. the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement).

But as far as I'm ware of, every society, ancient and modern has had debates and nuances about who and when people should have children, or the notion that some people possibly should have children, while others should not (even the Bible if you want to reference that, such as St. Paul's epistles).

Likewise, some form or measure of population control, or preventing some notion of "irresponsible" procreative activity has also been a hallmark of every civilization, ancient or modern (this pragmatic notion is likely part of the purpose which ancient, Iron Age laws such as "death penalty for adultery" likely served, as well as "low" status men who would probably be "incels" in today's world, being made in to eunuchs and forced to serve in the king or the queen's harem, rather than allowed to "exist" and subsist on anime porn addiction like they are today.

---

Basically, if the premise of your idea is that "civilization" is measured by sheer numbers or rates of procreation, sans any other legal, moral, cultural, or philosophical notions, to me that seems to be a bad overall measure of a "civilization" and as well as it's "existence" or cessation thereof could or should be measured.

I fail to see what you're referring to.

On the biological level, the impulses or impetuses have their roots there, I thought this was common sense to anyone who didn't somehow skip Kindergarden level biology to begin with.

But in practice, the actual selection of partners, preferential activities, and what "traits" said things are based on and so forth, is one's subjective judgment, based on a myriad of factors.

And from a purely biological perspective, it doesn't seem that the body, nor the "reptile" brain can even distinguish between a person's right hand and an actual vagina.

So again, this falls back on the monogamy argument, and how most relationship desires aren't reducible solely to the biological or purely 'physical', but are predicated on higher mental wants and institutions which make a 1st world country or civilization possible.

(For example, using birth control or "not cheating" on your spouse or partner, would be conscious mental or intentional efforts or goals which may ironically run contrary to the purely 'biological' ones, given that couples may still want to 'have sex' even when they're using birth control and the primary goal is physical intimacy rather than 'survival and procreation', or may decide not to cheat or have an affair, even though the "sex drive" does not distinguish between a man or woman one is married to, or physically attractive stranger, rather the mind does).

Given that it's marketed to the 6th grade read level or other 100 IQ audiences and so on (as is most mass media, regards of the false public or private dichotomies to begin with), and probably isn't very irrelevant to thinking men or thinking women Britions who have ever so much as picked up or read a serious book whether in their local library, their law library, their Kindle e-reader, or anything else, presently or historically, I'm not overly concerned about it one way or another, though I'm leaning toward having it defunded, much as a am PBS (though said networks likely do have private backers as well, and wouldn't necessarily go out of business simply due to the public defunding thereof).

In practice, it's a subjective decision and innate. As per thinkers in regards to the subject such as spectrum's which people lie on rather than arbitrary dichotomies, and of course there is no evidence that the innate things which might manifest themselves in homosexual activity 'inherently' or necessarily exist in any one or specific person more than any other, and on or a their own subjective judgments or discretions upon which said identifications are made to begin with, nor the theories and practices about or in regards to what 'supposedly is, and the practical realties upon which the actual makings of said subjective judgments or decisions are predicated upon to begin with, thankfully there being nothing remotely akin to an 'exact science' on it to begin with, regardless of how minutiae of scientific or other datus might be used by one or another person to immediately and confirmationally biasedly infer one of many possible conclusions on or as to said subjects' matters to begins which.

I'm not sure it's totally reducible to that, though a pragmatic aspect in marriage and relationships isn't deniable.

As far as other takes on it, such as a purely biological take, for example, I'm not totally sure if there could be any meaningful difference in one partner or another other than the most minute (given that one's physical organs can't even tell a hand from a vagina, lol). Unless the issue was some marital or relational conflict in which the couple stopped having regular sex with one another.

If we use Robert Wright's book on evolutionary psychology as the metric, the main difference is that men's sex drive tends to be geared toward 'more partners', while women's tends to be oriented to the specific things she receives from one or more partner (e.x. stability or support in one partner, or romance and excitement in another, assuming she can't get it in both at the same time).

As far as how "sex" drive might be defined beyond that, you're free to give your thoughts.

What are the opinions on Trump's Tweets?

Do you think he writes them himself, or does have a paid campaign staff do it?

On this one, as far as getting tired of the other person goes, can you elaborate more? Is it something purely 'physical', such as a desire to have sex with more women or 'newer' women, or is it related to personality, characteristics, getting along or having common interests, or things of that nature?

As far as history and other aspects are concerned (such as Maslov's hierarchy of needs), what your saying may be a trend, but obvious isn't everything, given that in today's society, higher mental wants take precedent over purely "physical" ones.

Much as for a sociologist to even elect to become a sociologist to begin with, they are taking time in pursuit of those 'higher mental goals' away from time which could be spent fathering more children (such as the philosophy of something akin to a fundamentalist Mormon compound might be).

For that matter, not every man or woman has the same 'sex drive' (e.x. I've heard of plenty of couples who simply 'got tired' of having sex but stayed married or together, without some overt need to have sex every day, in some cases the complaints were even reversed, in which the wife or woman complained of the man's low sex drive).

Even then, as per the higher mental wants notion, I don't totally buy that, I honestly believe any male who "has" to be a virgin is a pretty rare phenomenon, and that in the case of 'incels' it's some type of mania or mental disturbance (e.x. such as thinking he's entitled to marry Hollywood actresses instead of a more 'ordinary' girl' or whatnot).

As far as history goes, I can't say for certain, but supposedly many notable intellectuals such as Adam Smith or Einstein never married, but obviously applied themselves to creative or higher-level mental achievements, and weren't known to be malcontents or female celebrity stalkers akin to the "incels". (The same is also true of women like Emily Dickenson).

Again, assuming everything was purely "sexual" or "physical" then I'd venture there would have been no sciences or innovations whatsoever, given how much "time" that would have taken away from more important tasks, such as making 10 babies with 10 different partners, and so on.

China obviously outdoes America and Europe in terms of physical procreation, however most of US wouldn't want to lower the intellectual level to that of a "3rd world country" simply for the sake of "more children", "larger families" and so on.