The Advent of Polysexuality

The west takes a walk on the wild side!

Readership: All
Author’s Note: This post is based on a conversation between TheDeti and NovaSeeker and is coauthored by Jack. Links to original comments are listed under References.
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
Warning: Explicit language ahead.

In The Sexual De-Evolution (2021-07-28), Jack reported that Americans are having less sex on average, but there is a growing segment of the population that is engaging in sexual relations with multiple people. This post will take a look at how this segment has gained momentum.

Lightning Fast Changes over the Past Half-Century

I learned in high school in the mid-1980s that a historian maxim is “Change always happens slowly”. The history discipline might need to rethink that philosophy. Things have changed more rapidly and deeply in the past 30 years than they had in the previous 200 years, and more than at any other time in human history.

Much of this change is a result of the digital revolution.

For example, the way people buy and listen to music has been revolutionized several times over the past century:

78 rpm phonograph record (early 1900s to mid 1940s)
33 rpm vinyl LP record (mid 1940s to mid 1980s)*
8-track tape (mid 1960s to early 1980s)
cassette tape (early 1970s to mid 2000s)
CD (early 1980s to late 2000s)
MP3 (late 1990s to mid 2010s)
iTunes/Spotify/YouTube (mid 2000s to present)

* The LP record, in combination with vacuum tube amplifier technology, has slowly made a comeback among audiophiles due to its excellent analog sound reproduction.

This is phenomenally rapid. Within my own lifetime, I have bought music on 4 different mediums!

We have also seen a lot of changes in law and politics as well. In just 17 years, SCOTUS went from “It is NOT unconstitutional for a state to criminalize homosexual conduct” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986) to “It IS unconstitutional for a state to criminalize homosexual conduct” (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). For constitutional jurisprudence, this is incredibly rapid change – a 180° reversal in 17 years! Supreme Court decisions just do not go 180° oppositely that fast.

Well, they do now, and apparently once they do, they accelerate with lightning speed. Because in 12 years, we went from “It is unconstitutional for a state to criminalize homosexual conduct” in 2003, to “The Constitution guarantees same sex couples the fundamental right to marry” in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges).

Historical framework has lost all credence to the present jurisprudence. It has become unreasonable, or even a joke, for a lawyer to pose an argument on grounds of legal precedent.

The manner of sexual interaction has also been fundamentally transformed. Before the mid 1960s the typical course to intercourse was…

  1. Meet
  2. Date
  3. Date seriously
  4. Date exclusively
  5. Get engaged
  6. Get married
  7. Have sex

Sometimes the last two were flipped.

Since the turn of the century, the manner of sexual interaction has been…

  1. Meet online
  2. Meet in person
  3. Have sex
  4. Decide if you want to keep seeing each other. If not, then go to step 9.
  5. Date
  6. Date seriously
  7. Date exclusively
  8. Get engaged/married OR move in together OR break up
  9. Lather/rinse/repeat (serial pseudo-monogamy)

Having children is entirely optional to the woman and never to the man, and is possible anytime after step 3 is completed.

The Advent of Sexual Permutations

As you can see from the last list, sex has been moved up to the fore of the interaction. This is exactly what NovaSeeker described in his post, The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture (2021-02-08). Essentially, what has happened is that the recognition of others as unique individuals has been suspended in favor of objectifying others for the sake of maximizing sexual fulfillment. In other words, we value the opposite sex for their sexual market potential (or for QTBGL, their sexual identity), and we no longer value them for being made in the image of God. Thus, we tend to view the opposite sex as potential lays, and we no longer see them as human beings. The entire SMP has become a de facto eugenics program.

Once this intrinsic element of humanity is extracted from our consciences, and our psychological value systems have adjusted, the current transmogrification of sociosexual intercourse will have introduced the normalization of all manners of “alternative” lifestyles: polyamory, polygyny (e.g. soft harems), polyandry, gender fluidity, demisexuality, pansexuality, transgenderism, etc. This is painfully evident in the QTBGL crowd, who place their gender identity above all else, and demand others to recognize and accept this new identity.

The next wave of change will be p3d0philia and p3d3rasty.

We are already well down the road for poly/pan/demi/trans sexuality, and the last 2 will not be far behind.

In fact, Cambridge, Massachusetts now recognizes polyamorous partnerships,* thereby becoming the second municipality in the U.S. to legalize domestic partnerships between three or more people. The reason we didn’t see this on MSM is because TPTB know the wider populace is not ready for this… just yet… But wait…

Polyamory is already mostly accepted among the younger opinion making class. It will never be a majority practice, and it seems unlikely to me that it will get the same push for “equal rights” as QTBGL did, because there really isn’t a similar (if dishonest) “born that way” argument to be used to squeeze this into the race jurisprudence like Gay, Inc. managed to do for itself. The change here will be more social acceptance which, again, is already mostly there generationally. It’s possible we will see a push for poly marriage, but I don’t see it coming soon — most poly people don’t seem very interested in it, at least not anything like the energy there was behind QTBGL, probably because they are not into traditional arrangements by definition.

Polygyny is currently entrenched as the core feature of the SMP. Polygyny runs rampant in the form of soft harems**, but simply goes undiscussed. Leftist Liberal Robert Wright was already calling the post-sex-rev situation “de facto soft polygyny” back in the 1990s, before he was quietly told to STFU by his political fellow travelers, which he dutifully heeded, switching his lens to other topics since that time. Women don’t mind soft polygyny at all, which is why it isn’t a topic of critique. Hard polygyny, yes, that is disliked (which will also work against any momentum towards formally recognized polyamorous couples), but soft polygyny has been the dominant force in the SMP for decades now and is firmly entrenched. People just don’t use the word for it, often out of ignorance.

Polyandry is definitely a rising star to keep an eye on. If men’s ideal is the polygynous soft harem**, the female’s ideal is simultaneously having desire sex with hot alpha males while having a dutiful, loving, supportive beta male as a (backup) breadwinner, housemate, and co-parent (possibly as a human kleenex, but not a bedmate in the long term). Historically this hasn’t been realizable, pretty much at all, by women outside of hidden adulteries, because the beta husbands would not play along with that role.

However, that is changing somewhat. This is the “other side” of polyamory that no one ever talks about. When you do see poly couples in the media (in the obvious “trial balloon” articles that periodically appear at CNN’s site or elsewhere in the MSM about poly people), they are never polygynous and always poly-female — either polyandrous (H, W, and W’s BF) or poly-lez (two women and a man, but they hinge on the wife, not the husband). That is, the wife has a relationship with H and LezLove, but H doesn’t have sex with LL at all or, typically, even with W very much. In some cases H is merely a jealous, emasculated, throbbing-heart spectator brought on set merely to amp up the titillating prurience of the lecherous lesbian version of cuckoldry.

So poly stuff is growing, however small, so it shouldn’t be overstated in significance. The OASIS stuff Jack and NovaSeeker discussed (e.g. Instagram, OnlyFans, etc.) is much, much, much more significant than this is. But it is growing and therefore now is the time to become more aware of it and to observe it to see if it continues to grow. The limiting factor is obviously the willingness of men to “play ball”. With the increasing emasculation of younger generations of men becoming ever more obvious, it isn’t too much of a stretch to see this kind of thing continuing to grow on the margins. Again, something to keep an eye on.

Gender Fluidity is also growing, as masculinity continues to be attacked, and trans or “enbi” is becoming more commonplace. I do not think that this will ever displace typical gender expression, but I do expect that there will be an ongoing significant minority of non-conforming gender expression, and that the people who are “normies”, in terms of gender expression, will continue to be hectored by the culture making class as yet another means of fostering division among their “lessers”.

* H/T: Shadow to Light: Who is Pushing Polyamory? (2021-07-26)
** Soft Harem: A situation in which a man is bedding multiple women within the same time frame, either with or without their knowledge.

Rapid Vapid Change is the New Norm

We live in interesting – and rapidly changing – times.

The pace of change is breathtaking. So much so, that now we almost take it for granted. The young certainly do. That is, they do not expect anything but constant flux in all areas of life — how we live, relate, make money, interact… Even social norms and morality are subjected to post-truth subjectivity.

Men and women, people of all ages, will have to be agile, proactive, and immediately responsive in all areas of their lives, especially sexually and relationally. We can expect constant change, even constant disruptive change, in all of these areas, and on an ongoing basis.

Members of the younger generation who are growing up in this kind of environment are getting the implicit message that nearly anything goes. As such, young women, being the “gatekeepers of sex” that they are, have a smorgasbord of options to choose from. In our next post, Jack and I will be examining women’s responses to the influences of this culturally imposed sexuality.

Stay tuned!

References

  1. TheDeti’s comment 5550
  2. NovaSeeker’s comment 5556
  3. TheDeti’s comment 5559
  4. TheDeti’s comment 5560
  5. NovaSeeker’s comment 5573
  6. NovaSeeker’s comment 5574

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Collective Strength, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Elite Cultural Influences, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Holding Frame, Homosexuality, Influence, Internet Dating Sites, Polysexuality, Psychology, Relationships, SMV/MMV, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The Advent of Polysexuality

  1. info says:

    It replicates the Muslim SMP. Lots of incels and top men who monopolize the desirable women.

    Like

  2. Oscar says:

    “I learned in high school in the mid-1980s that a historian maxim is “Change always happens slowly”. The history discipline might need to rethink that philosophy.” ~ Deti

    Yeah, it’s more like how Hemmingway went broke; “Gradually, then suddenly.”

    I don’t want to hear another damned thing about “slippery slope fallacy”. Within my lifetime, sodomites went from “Please don’t bash us”, to “We just want tolerance”, to “We want equal rights”, to “We want to get married”, to “Bake the cake, or else, bigot!”, to “We’re coming for your children”, which was the plan all along.

    Anyone who still doesn’t recognize the facts that (1) we’re on a slippery slope, and (2) the slope is getting exponentially steeper is either too stupid to be worth speaking with, or a deceiver and an enemy.

    Oh, and by the way, notice that absolutely no one is acknowledging the fact that the “alarmists” who predicted this were right all along. No one who publicly insulted the people who accurately predicted the slippery slope is now publicly apologizing to the people who had the wisdom to see it decades ago.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Scott says:

      Its a good point. I have never really thought of “the slippery slope” as a fallacy. Its more like “the way the world works.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        In the beginning, any warnings were dismissed as a slippery slope fallacy. But the slippery slope argument is only a fallacy in certain cases. For example,

        If you don’t do your homework, you’ll fail the class.
        If you fail too many classes, you can’t get into a good university.
        If you don’t have a degree from a good university, then you can’t get a good job.
        If you don’t have a good job, then you’ll always be poor.

        So the conclusion is,

        If you don’t do your homework, then you’ll always be poor.

        For the case in point, it was truly “the way the world works.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        It’s the way sin works, especially sexual sin, especially culture-wide. Once you push a culture down the slope of sin, you don’t get to decide where it stops.

        The Christians who decided to relax the rules on birth control and divorce never intended for their great-grandchildren to be sexualized by sodomites, but here we are.

        You’d think at some point humanity would figure out that God knows better than we do, but no. It never fails. Some smartboi always shows up thinking he knows better than God, and fools follow him down the slope.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Oscar

        “The Christians who decided to relax the rules on birth control and divorce never intended for their great-grandchildren to be sexualized by sodomites, but here we are.”

        And travesty of domestic violence law in the Duluth Model, Divorce law and Family courts are all steps to the victimization of children by sodomites.

        Removing the Father or making him weak to be ruled over by his wife paves the way.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dpmonahan says:

      It isn’t the slippery slope, its the logical application of the new (unstated) principle.

      Like

  3. KJ says:

    “Women don’t mind soft polygyny at all, which is why it isn’t a topic of critique.”

    That’s because soft polygyny is the natural way of higher primates (which humans are, the “touch of God” within us notwithstanding).

    As has been said before in the ‘Sphere: Women would rather share a high-SMV man than settle for exclusiveness with a low SMV man. It’s the natural way women are wired.

    Monogamy – “one woman for every man” – is a function of civilization and might even be the foundation stone of civilization. Societies where there’s no control of the natural female instinct lead to the vast majority of males being shut out of the SMP completely. This leads to instability and violence; nothing gets done, nothing gets built, there’s nothing to motivate these men to contribute to society. They have no skin in the game.

    That’s what we see today in the West, with the removal of social controls on natural female sexuality.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      Monogamy – “one woman for every man” – is a function of civilization and might even be the foundation stone of civilization.

      For a civilization to advance to modern (not post-modern, which is where we are now) levels of liberty and prosperity, you have to get rid of three things.

      (1) cousin marriage
      (2) polygamy
      (3) slavery

      The Church got rid of all three in Europe (which took centuries). That’s why Europe was able to leapfrog past the Middle East, China and Japan.

      Now, our culture is rejecting its Christian roots, which means all three of the things the Church got rid of will return with a vengeance. Nothing good can come from it. I’m praying for a backlash, and a revival, but it would not surprise me at all if Africans and Asians re-evangelize Westerners in the future.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        The African priests I have met are the most hardcore about orthodox teaching.

        Small “o” on purpose there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        From a speech by Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, an African delegate to the 2019 United Methodist Conference:

        https://cbmw.org/2019/02/23/african-methodism-will-not-bow-its-knee-to-us-progressivism/

        And then please hear me when I say as graciously as I can: we Africans are not children in need of western enlightenment when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics. We do not need to hear a progressive U.S. bishop lecture us about our need to “grow up.”
        …..
        We are seriously joyful in following Jesus Christ and God’s holy word to us in the Bible. And in truth, we think many people in the U.S. and in parts of Europe could learn a great deal from us. The UM churches, pastors and lay people who partner with us acknowledge as much.

        Please understand me when I say the vast majority of African United Methodists will never, ever trade Jesus and the truth of the Bible for money

        I literally cheered the first time I read that.

        God doesn’t need the West. The West needs God. I pray our people remember that soon.

        Liked by 4 people

      • info says:

        @Oscar
        Mass inceldom as a result of a few top Men monopolizing all the best women.

        Incentivizes all sorts of perversions by the lack of legitimate outlets for sex.

        And also incentivizes raiding enemy Nations of their women after killing the Men.

        This inceldom fuels the Military War Machine of Jihad.

        Like

  4. Red Pill Apostle says:

    A simple search for ancient fertility cults, the sexual practices during the Greek and Roman expires or even the cultures that the Israelites displaced, or were supposed to fully displace, in the promised land, shows that there really is nothing new under the sun. Along with the sexual deviations that Deti covered, I could easily see a return to worshipping fertility goddesses as large percentages of women delay family for career. But instead of images with features indicative of fertility being over exaggerated, the modern version will be a scientist in a white lab coat with cryogenically frozen eggs in a test tube.

    The pertinent questions are more around when and to what extent societally what Deti wrote about will exist.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. elspeth says:

    “When you do see poly couples in the media (in the obvious “trial balloon” articles that periodically appear at CNN’s site or elsewhere in the MSM about poly people), they are never polygynous and always poly-female — either polyandrous (H, W, and W’s BF) or poly-lez (two women and a man, but they hinge on the wife, not the husband).”

    I don’t know that this is true. If I had to estimate, I’d say they present such “families” about 50/50 with regard to which sex has multiple partners. Either way, I don’t ever envision a western culture (especially not in America) where men en masse accept being part of a harem.

    Even when women do it (and women are more likely to share in some cases), they do it with a very targeted if naïve plan to eventually be the only one; that is unless they are a part of a religious order that openly teaches and embraces polygyny.

    Our Western tendency towards romantic idealism will always keep this kind of thing on the fringes no matter how hard they push it. At least, I think so.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      @Elspeth
      Such a woman who wants to be only one in a Polygynous arrangement would in my estimation would try to become the Head-Wife. The one who is the primary object of Romance loved by the Man. Whilst the other women become concubines or remain concubines.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ info

        According to Muslim men I spoke with in the Middle East, the first wife needs to run your household, so you marry her for her competence. She doesn’t have to be pretty, she just needs to boss everyone around effectively. The second, you marry for love. The rest, you marry for status.

        It doesn’t work too well, though. The first-born son of the first wife is supposed to take care of the parents in their old age, so he gets the lion’s share of his father’s resources.

        The first-born son of each subsequent wife is supposed to take care of his mother in her old age. However, the father’s resources dwindle with each successive wife and her children, so there may be no resources for him. In a culture where patronage determines everything, that means later-born sons of later wives (and their mothers) are screwed.

        Polygamy is a terrible system. You’re right that it fuels jihad. Genetic studies conducted in the Middle East confirmed that, throughout millennia, only about 20% of men in the Middle East procreated. That leads to all kinds of destructive side-effects, including jihad.

        Manospherians who think we should adopt polygamy are clueless. They think they’ll be the cock of the walk with a harem of hens, but odds are they’ll one of the disposable incels.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KJ says:

        “Manospherians who think we should adopt polygamy are clueless. They think they’ll be the cock of the walk with a harem of hens, but odds are they’ll one of the disposable incels.”

        To be honest, I’ve never seen any Manospherians advocate for the adoption of polyGAMY, which is marriage to multiple wives. I’ve only seen Manospherians aspire to polyGYNY, which is dating/banging multiple women concurrently.

        The reason they aspire to this is because that’s what they see top SMV men doing – the top SMV men are (or seem to be) dating & banging multiple women concurrently. They’re forming “soft” harems, which is what happens when there are no social controls put on women’s sexuality.

        When women’s natural sexuality isn’t socially controlled, they’ll choose to sexually share a top SMV man with other women, rather than settle for a lower SMV man. Granted, they’ll compete for “top bitch” status amongst themselves and want to be his #1 piece, but they’ll be aware he’s nailing other options and still hang around.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        To be honest, I’ve never seen any Manospherians advocate for the adoption of polyGAMY, which is marriage to multiple wives. I’ve only seen Manospherians aspire to polyGYNY, which is dating/banging multiple women concurrently.

        Advocates of men having multiple wives are not hard to find. Check out the comments here.

        https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/polygyny/

        Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar

        In addition. Monogamy incentivizes Men to marry the best woman he can in terms of beauty of appearance and of high character.

        It’s best for wife quality selection compared to polygyny.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “It’s best for wife quality selection compared to polygyny.”

        This is the incentivization as seen from the perspective of men. Since monogamy is best for incentivizing men to get the best they can get, and hypergamy being what it is, monogamy also then incentivizes women to be the best wife they can be both in appearance and those qualities (character) that make a good wife. We can see the current situation eroding these incentives. In observing what happens when the patriarchy breaks down, and its absence freeing women’s sexuality, women pine for top tier men and we end up with the soft harems described in the above comments. Women default to improving their appearance because men with soft harems don’t have to care as much about the character of a woman.

        I hadn’t thought through the issue of polygamy/polygyny before in terms of incentives for men and women, but this seems to fit what we currently see.

        Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      @Oscar

      What they would end up doing would be an equivalent to extreme eugenics on the male side.

      I’d imagine several immoral adaptations. Including Spartan style infant selection of male babies relieving the excess of males. And the use of war to snatch war brides from rival cities, towns and states after slaying the Males.

      It’s nothing less than the replication of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck which leads to ~40% of the men reproducing with ~80% of the women.

      Like

  6. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: speaking of people who saw it coming…

    Liked by 2 people

  7. redpillboomer says:

    “When women’s natural sexuality isn’t socially controlled, they’ll choose to sexually share a top SMV man with other women, rather than settle for a lower SMV man. Granted, they’ll compete for “top bitch” status amongst themselves and want to be his #1 piece, but they’ll be aware he’s nailing other options and still hang around.”

    This seemed to be in the background of what Tomi Lahren went off on during her rant last year after she had broken off her engagement to her Alpha fiancé to chase some Country Western star (purportedly). The whole rant about “Thotiana’s” seemed to allude to Mr. CW star had them in his rotation (soft harem) and she lost out on being ‘top bitch’ among them. Actually, it might have been more like she wanted to run all of the “Thotiana’s” off so she could have him all to herself, and she ended up being the one to get dumped; hence the emotional “PSA for Boyish Men” rant that went viral last August.

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “Actually, it might have been more like she wanted to run all of the “Thotiana’s” off so she could have him all to herself, and she ended up being the one to get dumped; hence the emotional “PSA for Boyish Men” rant that went viral last August.”

      And of course being female, and thus by nature fully solipsistic, she had no clue that the object(s) of her rant, the one(s) to whom she was directing it, would never hear it and would never absorb it or care even if it was heard. Instead it was heard almost exclusively by “lower order” men whose almost universal reaction was along the lines of “some guy dodged a lethal bullet” and “this chick is gonna end up spending her life with cats and booze.” If it was sympathy from men that Tomi hoped to gain by publicly ranting, her ploy backfired quite badly. No doubt this reality flew completely over her head and another similar, more virulent rant (as she ages) will be issued at some point in the not-so-distant future, with similar effect as the first.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        Just listened to her follow-up with one of the RP content creators analyzing it. You’re absolutely right, this was exactly what I thought:

        “… universal reaction was along the lines of “some guy dodged a lethal bullet” and “this chick is gonna end up spending her life with cats and booze.”

        She looked attractive enough on the outside, but on the inside, she is very ugly. Her two clips from last summer, “PSA for Boyish Men” and the Follow-up to the first PSA, dissected by insightful RP content creators, should be required listening for all men. IMO she is an archetype for what men are dealing with the majority of the females in the western world. The only difference in her and a lot of today’s women is that she has money and a level of fame from her broadcasting career. Other than that, she is a poster child for what’s wrong with our western women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ feeriker & RPB

        “…it was heard almost exclusively by “lower order” men whose almost universal reaction was along the lines of “some guy dodged a lethal bullet” and “this chick is gonna end up spending her life with cats and booze.”

        That was my reaction as well. I heard her damage-control follow-up, and it was even more hilarious. She claimed that a bunch of “great guys” she knows emailed her to thank her and ask her advice.

        Right. And I’m a Nigerian prince.

        If all these “guys” are so “great”, why isn’t she dating one of them? Either no one emailed her thanking her and asking her advice, or if someone did, she doesn’t think they’re “great guys”. Either way, she lied.

        I just hope no one is dumb enough to put a ring on that.

        Liked by 3 people

  8. feeriker says:

    “She looked attractive enough on the outside, but on the inside, she is very ugly.”

    This is a truth that it seems most women cannot grasp: a stunningly beautiful exterior can hide a very ugly and toxic interior — but only for so long.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      We need to teach young men to see past the exterior sooner.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        Agreed. They need to learn to think with their big head instead of their little head, very tall order I admit! It’s always been true, certainly never been universally followed by men (not even close); however, the stakes are getting so high for the young men interacting with young women today, they need to know, imo, as a minimum, 1) What red flags to look out for, and 2) What society can do to them if they violate one of it’s gynocentric social constructs, the spectrum of hurts it can put on them just for being a man.

        Like

  9. Pingback: The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women | Σ Frame

  10. thedeti says:

    This all shows that what the sphere has been saying about women has been 100% correct. Women are essentially as depraved as men if not more depraved. Women are NOT more moral or “better people” than men are.

    Women absolutely love sex with attractive men. Women will lie and cheat to get what they want. When given a choice between sharing a high value man and exclusive access to a low value man, women will pick the former, every time.

    It all really comes down to power. Women have all the power in the sexual and relationship markets now. When women have all the power, what we get is polyandry. Women realize their highest sexual goals: Sex with at least one sexually attractive man, and provisioning from a capable man. Until recently, women had to compromise, so they’d usually settle for the latter. Presently, women don’t have to do this. They can, and will, choose a series of men for sex. Then choose a capable man for provisioning who she’ll have sex with sometimes. Then, if she wants, she will choose other sexually attractive men for sex with the provider’s full knowledge.

    Some women are choosing even more men: A sexually attractive man for sex and sperm. A provider for money. And comfortable men as friends and social companions.

    This is what happens when we give women any kind of power.

    Of course, the notable exceptions are the Manosphere Ladies Auxiliary. These women have achieved the impossible: Sex, provision, comfort, and companionship all rolled up into one man. One wonders why it is that the only women who have ever been able to achieve this are all concentrated into one corner of the internet that just happens to discuss and explicate on sexual dynamics. Mysteries never cease.

    Like

    • DicamVeritatem says:

      LOL Manosphere Ladies Auxiliary. All those attributes all rolled up with one “faithful” man, too. Were it not for the internet, I’d go through life without ever meeting a one of them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Patriarchy helped satisfy women’s hypergamy by more Men high status. The fall of Patriarchy in this respect is a disaster.

      I don’t fault women for hypergamy per se, only when they allow it to grow out of control.

      Like

  11. Pingback: The Influence of Pornography and OnlyFans on Women | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: The Feminine Secret | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Incentives for Bimbofication | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Is Our Fallen Nature as God Designed it? | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s