British manboob Ian Douglas has a nifty brain-fart on display over at the Telegraph that’s so absurd I see no point in addressing the article itself. Suffice to say I suspect some random weekend night for Ian it might lead to a conversation like this:
IAN: I have no problem whatsoever with having sex the first night you meet someone. Women are entitled to express themselves sexually just the same as men.
POPPY: You are so understanding. It’s wonderful to meet a man who won’t be such a prude. In fact, I feel better about myself already. (She grabs her phone from the table.) In fact, I’m going to text back Greg, and tonight, I’m going to give him the ride of his life! Thanks, so much. (Quick kiss on the cheek.)
However, I did find a gem in the comments. Never before have I seen the depths to which Western Civilization has summed up so perfectly in a single comment. [ed: it’s a Disqus comment, so the link might not go directly to it. If you want to read it in it’s original form, it was posted on 6/1/2013 at 3:19 AM. I’m also copying it in it’s glorious and uncut entirety at the end of this post.]
Somebody before her suggested that biology might somehow interfere with men’s predisposition to fall in love with women who give it up at the drop of a coconut, and somebody else suggested the book Sex at Dawn (about which I know nothing). Amy was having none of it:
May I recommend you read the book “Sex at Dawn?” That “evolutionary biology” crap about women being valued more for being monogamous to prove paternity has pretty much been debunked as biased interpretations of the data by male scientists.
I”m certain it’s been debunked, but can we therefore safely assume it’s wrong? Hell, no. Can we safely assume that all “male scientists” are objective analysts of whatever data come before them that refute theories that they don’t like? Again, hells to the no. However, it sounds good when you’re trying to make a point.
Early female humans were polyandrous and all males assumed paternity of all children, because paternity could not be determined. This worked BETTER for the raising of children. So…don’t believe the hype.
Anyhow, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Amy is correct in her belief regarding the polyandrous nature of primitive human females (but NOT her attitude in that it was a good thing). For all I know, that’s how it really was.
In such a world, could we also safely assume that “paternity could not be determined”? To the extent that savages in the frozen fjords of Norway thousands of years BC couldn’t get a DNA test, perhaps. But can we also safely assume that they couldn’t make any sort of substantive guess? Hardly.
Let’s imagine that Sven had a big hooked nose, but Olaf, Arik, and Brad didn’t. Yet if somehow half the kids in their little tribe were all born with big noses, eventually Olaf, Arik, and Brad might get wise to the possibility that they might not be procreating as much as Sven. They might also notice that Frida and Helga spend a lot more time with Olaf, so even if they get some action on the side once every few months or so, they might suspect that Sven’s seed is blossoming with more frequency than their own.
But never fear, for in Amy’s utopia, even if just one guy got to make all the babies, all of them will get to raise them, together, as a community. Of course there’s no way in hell that she or anyone else can tell if this “worked BETTER for the raising of children”, but you can bet your hypergamic tail that it worked “BETTER” for Frida and Helga.
Paternity and chastity only became important after agriculture and private property were invented as an ECONOMIC consideration. Now that we’ve removed women’s economic dependence on men, we are returning to our TRUE evolutionary roots.
Right, before farms nobody gave a damn if they were gored by wild boars for their own kids or those of that other dude got all the chicks. How could it possibly bother anyone to NOT get to create the kid yet share in its upbringing right alongside the guy who keeps boffing all the girls you want? Again:
Women are horny, multiply orgasmic and, in societies where women are not judged for multiple partners, research shows the men are sexually satisfied and emotionally content. When women are free to have sex, there’s more sex for men.
But like most women, guys who aren’t physically attractive are damn near invisible (unless they need help studying for the statistics midterm). It never occurs to them that in a polyandrous society that some guys might have all the fun and others might be SOL, whether it’s in today’s society or one two hundred thousand years ago. Those guys are (were) just losers who can’t get laid. No need to even consider their very existence.
And this leads to the Rousseauian assumption that marriage, paternity, and private property were simply “invented as an ECONOMIC consideration.” Rousseau assumes that the first guy to declare a parcel of land his own was performing a naturally exploitative act instead of a defensive one, and I’m sure that Amy would agree that the same applies to marriage. “Everything belongs to everybody” sounds wonderful until you realize that sometimes “everybody” doesn’t include you.
Likewise, it never occurs to them that women having sex with “everyone” only means women having sex with “everyone” they want to have sex with. Under such a system, damn near every female is going to get at least some action, but lots of guys won’t. This means you either have to make them serve you, or eventually they wise up and stop doing anything.
Which might be why we “evolved” beyond such a system and developed property rights and *gasp* monogamy. Maybe more “advanced” societies figured out that to get the most out of everybody that everybody should have a reason to do what needs to be done besides White Knighting or the tip of a spear in their ass.
Letting women have a complete monopoly on who has sex with whom can’t cut it, because they all want the same few dudes. Hence, monogamy. Alpha males have to cool their jets a bit, females have to pay attention to male traits other than what makes them tingle, and lesser males actually have a fighting chance to have a kid or two (that’s actually their own).
Evolution is supposed to be about improvement, be it cultural, economic, or biological. Therefore, the “return to our TRUE evolutionary roots” for which Amy pines can actually be better defined as devolution.
And such devolution is the expressed goal of modern feminism. No restrictions whatsoever on female horniness (restrictions on male horniness depend entirely on the worth of the male), lactation breaks paid for by everybody else, communal child-rearing, infinite funding for “education”, government and/or employer paid daycare and healthcare, divorce on demand, etc. All of it nothing but Rousseau’s pre-civilization paradise with a modern technological twist.
Rousseau had the gumption to reject civilization outright. Has it ever occurred to Amy that part of the reason she even has a computer on which to type her nonsense is that we’ve “evolved” beyond the societal structure to which she hopes we revert? She probably doesn’t give a damn about the plumber who hasn’t gotten any since 2006, but he probably gives a damn about himself, and he’s not going to fix her toilet forever if he’s completely ignored by the modern female no matter what he does.
But she probably votes Democrat in hopes of forcing him to do it through taxation and government programs because that’s what “highly evolved” women like her do.
On her Facebook profile, Amy lists the Hunger Games as one of her favorite books. I suspect that thirty years from now, she’ll like it even more. But she won’t see it as some future dystopia, it will represent a lost potential paradise in comparison to the crumbling world around her.
May I recommend you read the book “Sex at Dawn?” That “evolutionary biology” crap about women being valued more for being monogamous to prove paternity has pretty much been debunked as biased interpretations of the data by male scientists. Early female humans were polyandrous and all males assumed paternity of all children, because paternity could not be determined. This worked BETTER for the raising of children. So…don’t believe the hype.
Paternity and chastity only became important after agriculture and private property were invented as an ECONOMIC consideration. Now that we’ve removed women’s economic dependence on men, we are returning to our TRUE evolutionary roots. Women are horny, multiply orgasmic and, in societies where women are not judged for multiple partners, research shows the men are sexually satisfied and emotionally content. When women are free to have sex, there’s more sex for men. 🙂
NOTE: Amy is a jackass, but she does NOT deserve to be hounded, stalked, or hassled online in any other way. Any personal information on her I’ve provided could have easily been accessed by you with just the link to her comment, so I’m not responsible for any issues, but that doesn’t mean I want there to be any. Nevertheless (and I’m not accusing my readers, most of whom strike me as well-behaved), LEAVE HER ALONE unless you somehow strongly feel the urge to engage her in a substantive debate or something.
But I have no idea in hell why you’d want to.
ADDENDUM: It turns out I’ve been writing about Miss Cougar International (even though she doesn’t like the term “cougar”)! That means she’s a public figure.