How does it affect you though?
By Cyrus O’Neill
You can see this seemingly quasi-libertarian phrase uttered most commonly by a certain demographic: young women in their late teens and early 20s. These women have Instagram accounts, they go to their state universities, and most of them probably have thot eyebrows.
What I have noticed as I have come of age is the inflection of the phrase in the rise of what I would call “bio-commercial” transactions. Historically speaking, the bio-commercial transaction was prostitution. However, bio-commercial transactions aren’t always about an exchange of fluids. There are new articles being published nearly every other month denoting the marked increase in men paying for affection that is much less sexual but perhaps just as intimate, like cuddling or mere hand holding.
Nick Land spoke about how Capital reengineers all human interactions into “flexible, contractual relationships.” However bio-commercial transactions extend themselves to situations in which money isn’t expected to be offered such as flirtationships. These interactions have become increasingly cut-throat and high-stakes. Make a wrong step and one of these women will screenshot your failed opening one-liner and post it to Twitter to the tune of 50,000 likes overnight.
It’s not simply potential romantic or sexual encounters that fall within the domain of bio-commercial transactions. It is this fluorescent green Tron grid layered over a black void on which all human interactions, which are abstracted, contractualized, commercialized, take place. You can see the notion of non-sexual bio-commercial transactions in funny memes: “I gave my Uber driver 5 stars because he didn’t talk the whole ride.” Your cab driver would talk to you, probably complain about wife, but your Uber driver doesn’t because he wants you to give him a 5-star rating and all the signaling power stored in such.
Other times you can see it arise with absolute scorn, like regarding the recent issue about Incels. “Socially enforced monogamy” i.e. marriage, is met with bitter rage not only by young women with perfectly trim thot eyebrows but by careerist women in their late 20s and 30’s along with their carb-bodied numale thirst squad.
It must be noted that these people, in all other issues such as funding for schools, gender pay gap, gentrification, and matters concerning bathrooms and cakes, are “liberal”. However, when approached with the Incel issue these rainbow flag waving, ACLU donating, poverty tourists molt into Randian, Brutalist bio-commercial Darwinists.
“A woman’s body is NEVER obligated to a man.” This is well and good, to which I agree. Continually restricting sexual selection would be increasingly dysgenic. Yet this seemingly rhetorical coup de grace on their part can easily be parlayed into accepting a whole range of libertarian ideas: I agree that the sweat of your tramp stamp is owed to no man, just like how my income shouldn’t be alchemically churned into tax dollar funding for the government.
This response is never appreciated. The demystified, secular, blood-and-dirt materialist worldview these women have is immediately ejected in favor of a metaphysical approach. Suddenly they begin to espouse Enlightenment ideals of bodily autonomy, of the individual’s sovereignty, of inalienable rights (something they never afford to occupants of their wombs). The espousal of these ideals is a façade. Feminism is a sexual selection strategy (hypergamy) contra the Mannerbund (socially enforced monogamy).
It must be understood that these women aren’t hypocrites. Women who practice the art of hypergamy are doing so at the behest of their biology, which can be seen manifest in desiring both a high-status career and high-status man. It is their genetic prerogative to reproduce with a man of high quality. This is a no-brainer: women can only give birth to so many children in their lives, their window of fertility is only open for so long, they have long gestation periods, when they are pregnant they are consuming calories for two, not to mention a myriad of other aspects and issues that might arise from pregnancy.
When women in early hunter-gatherer tribes practiced hypergamy it could also be considered “Pareto Patriarchy” (most women reproduce yet only a few men do so). It is a Patriarchy in that men were the ones taking risks, shouldering societal volatility as their responsibility. It was their duty to bring home calories, to ward of hostile tribes, and to lead the group through uncertain times (meteorological phenomenon, disease, etc.).
When men of the tribe were not fighting other tribes, they were struggling with and another to establish a dominance hierarchy within their own. It is from this totem pole that women picked men as their mates. Why reproduce with the guy who cannot hunt when you can bag the guy who brings home a deer a week? It is self-evident that his genes are good. Stacey chooses Chad for a reason.
There are several variables that are foundational to this dynamic. The first is that due to martial conflict and hunting accidents there is an almost guaranteed gender imbalance in tribe that results in more women in comparison to males. This helps grease the wheels of hypergamy/polygamic relationships. The second is that the tribe, sexual selection, is occurring in a resource-scarce environment. Your choices matter, choose wisely. Lastly, and what I believe to be the most important, is that a person’s stated and revealed preference will seemingly always be the same thing given the resource constraints of their environment and the distinct lack of privacy in a hunter-gatherer tribe who’s numbers fall within Dunbar’s Number. One was honest with themselves, with others, about their desires. If everyone was acting without pretenses, then their actions are more wholly understood and contextualized. “Of course, you would go for the best hunter. He can feed you. He will give you strong children. Who cares if he has two women already?”
There was no ability to defer responsibility to another person, to an institution, to a code of laws. If another man in the tribe stole your woman, the only recourse was to fight him or to simply let him have her. Again, if a man was able to steal you away from your previous mate, chances are he is also good at hunting. Eugenic!
The Mannerbund was at first a sexual-reproduction (these two things meant the same thing for most of human history) strategy used by lower-status men to seize the means of reproduction from high status men through leveraging their violence against them. The bell curve of sexual dynamics basically came to resemble the bell curve of female/male IQ differences layered onto each other: almost all women still reproduced while most men now get to reproduce. Extremes at the end of the male spectrum meant that top percentage of high-status men were still able to practice polygamy and incredibly low-status men continued to go without reproducing.
The Mannerbund is a trade-off between lower status and higher status men. High-status men were still allowed for their proclivities to be satisfied while lower status men were given a stake in the tribe. This is a crucial. Look at all the wars and mass migration patterns throughout history. They were mostly carried about by this very same demographic: lower-status young men with little to no stake in the regime. Likewise, in our current history regarding Islamic terrorism in the West, what demographic is doing the attacks? Young men with little to no stake in whatever regime they reside.
The Mannerbund is a social institution/technology/dynamic that subdues violence within the tribe by smoothing out the volatility of the tribal sexual dynamics. In place of immediate, violent, and direct sexual competition with each other, men were guided by virtues of honor culture. It is still a form of “Patriarchy” (Paternal Patriarchy) in the sense that men are dictating the course of the tribe, but it is not to be confused with the hypergamous/polygamic “Pareto Patriarchy.”
The timeline of the industrial revolution, of increased commercialization and commodification of goods and services, of expanding occupational niches, of growth of the welfare state has allowed women to side step traditional gender roles as well as the Mannerbund by allowing them to return from the hunt with the deer. What we are witnessing is a return of a sort of inverted “Pareto Patriarchy”, a return to tribal sexual dynamics not because high status men have reassumed control of the tribe but because women having their own careers.
Technological advancements, the expansion of market economics, and ultimately the Pill (crude materialisms) have done more to “liberate” women than any kind 2nd wave feminist sexual theology. Ideology is a post hoc rationalization. What good does a vote do? Can you eat it?
No other dynamic best captures the return of “Pareto Patriarchy” than Tinder. Tinder doesn’t simply coordinate sexual encounters for college students, it is an invaluable tool: it allows us to understand and study the demarcated points of stated and revealed preference, its demonstrates the results of female sexual selection, and it quantifies one’s attractiveness on an elo scale as if it were League of Legends matchmaking (Chicks dig elo).
Tinder is no debutante ball. Debutante balls allow for eugenic sexual selection to occur within the confines of the “Paternal Patriarchy” of the Mannerbund. You can dance with whomever you like but eventually you must go home with somebody.
With Tinder, there is zero input cost for merely browsing potential suitors behind a veil, and the selection of mates is vastly increased. What occurs next is what is colloquially referred to as “pussy inflation.” Since more and more men are captured in any one given sexual market the total number of men who fall outside the top percentages of “Pareto Patriarchy” increases. Competition becomes increasingly stiff at the top as men compete for what is a rather unchanging (qualitatively) supply of women. What you can buy with your unchanging amount of SMV bucks further slims, a sexual price floor is established, and lower status men are priced out.
Low-status men are being priced out of the sexual market place but even a humble female can garner the attention of a high-status male, if only for a night. The sexual encounters young women have in their late teens to early 20s, the peak of their attractiveness, influences how they act outside of an environment intended for education. They wait for a high-status male to finally decides to come to their good senses and settle down with them. .
How does it affect you though?
Well, how are women affected? They are being taught they can have it all. In the early parts of their adult lives, they have the upper hand in almost all these bio-commercial transactions. Ideologies and social movements like Feminism and Body Positivity provide women with Carte Blanche to act in whichever way they way and to handwave away the ill effects of egregious lifestyle choices. They can sleep with whomever they want, they can drink all the wine they want, do well in school, snag a great job at Fortune 500 company. Their youth allows them to outpace their consequences. But we all age. Women are propositioned fewer times as they grow older. Birth control use is linked to depression. More women are deciding to freeze their eggs and not their careers. Type in “depression with wine” or “birth control with wine” into the Twitter search bar.
What is going to fix this? I have seen some suggestions from right wing women that men need to stop creating thots with their own promiscuous behavior. This is understandable, and should be done, yet this return to the struggle between “Paternal Patriarchy” and “Pareto Patriarchy” would have little effect as we in the West are no longer operating in resource-scarce environment that predicated the tribal sexual dynamics of the past. Women would still have their hypergamous instincts intact despite any suggested change in male behavior.
Men could relegate women to some Handmaiden’s Tale like fantasy lifestyle by force but given the prevalence of our regime ideology of Neoliberal Egalitarianism, doing so appears to be increasingly untenable. We would be better off hoping for some Deus ex machina that pulls the rug out from underneath the current sexual market by outlawing abortion and making birth control inaccessible. This would force both sexes to return to the default assumption that sex means babies and babies are resource intensive, which would lead us back to pre-pill social arrangements.
The ball is in the court of women. The current economic and ideological superstructure allows for and promotes women to have high time preference behavior. Women can explore their sexuality, go to college, have good careers, be mothers, travel the world, but they cannot do all of these. We are all bound by our biology, and tough choices must be made. Men have a duty to guide those close to them, friends and family, but ultimately the light switch will need to be flipped by a woman.
The future is female.