Women Have No Honor

There are lots of things I learned from the Red Pill subreddit, and women’s lack of honor is one of them. In this post, I will discuss what honor is and who has it.

The Red Pill Views On Why Women Have No Honor

First, the subreddit says that honor is a male abstraction. Lots of men have no honor, but only men can have it. It is something that often is found in warrior culture. If I understand TRP views correctly, lack of honor makes women only loyal to their feelings, while men can be loyal to principles :

“Honor is a male abstract, and women are only loyal to their emotions. Sure, you feel like you’d never cheat or leave your man, but if his frame slipped for whatever reason you’d naturally start evaluating other options. Granted, if he corrected the issue and restored attraction it would probably salvage the relationship. This is hypergamy in a nutshell, and being that it is an evolutionary trait it is neither good nor bad. RP men understand this and maintain a strong frame in order to balance it out. Many relationship issues originate when a man gets too comfortable (Betas out) and stops gaming his woman.”

I tried to find a good definition of honor, and found this.

The article says honor has two components. One is horizontal honor:

“Horizontal honor is defined as the “right to respect among an exclusive society of equals.” 

Horizontal honor = mutual respect. But don’t let the term “mutual respect” fool you. We’re not talking about the sort of watered-down “respect-me-simply-because-I’m-a-human-being” kind of respect that pervades our modern culture. For horizontal honor to mean anything, it must be contingent upon certain unyielding standards in order to maintain honor within the group.”

To remain in this group, you have to follow specific rules, or you will be dishonored and be kicked out of the “club”. But once in the club, you can gain what the writer calls vertical honor:

“To add on to my club analogy, vertical honor is like the awards and trophies that clubs bestow on members. To even be considered for the award, you need to be a member of the club; you need the membership card (horizontal honor). But being a card carrying member isn’t enough. To win a trophy, you must distinguish yourself from your peers by outperforming them and achieving excellence according to the club’s code.”

Here, anthropologist Julian Pitt-Rivers is quoted:

“Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellence recognized by society, his right to pride.”

Women can, at least according to this writer, have honor, but it’s different from the male honor:

“While honor is universal to both men and women, its standards have historically been gendered. While codes of honor have varied across time and cultures, in its most primitive form, honor has meant chastity for women and courage for men.”

To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.

This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.

Morality of Most People

How do most people decide what is right and wrong? The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg found we have three stages of moral development. The pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. In the pre-conventional stage, we are motivated mainly by self-interest, avoiding punishment and getting rewards from authority figures. People in the conventional stage of development tell right from wrong by looking at social norms and conventions.

The post-conventional stage means independently deciding what is fair. These people understand that laws and rules are not always fair. They put principles first instead. They can sometimes be confused with people on the pre-conventional level, because their actions are not in accordance with the rules of society.

Pre-conventional moral thinking dominates when we are children, conventional when we’re teenagers, and post-conventional is only reaches by a minority of the population.

Most people appear good when everything is well and social norms are not unreasonable. But once social norms and authorities demand something unethical, the majority of people show the darker side of the 2nd level of moral development. When authority tells us to do something and reassures us that it’s okay, we often do it. It was shown, for example, in the Milgram experiment . People were repeatedly told by the experimenter to electrically shock a guy hidden behind a wall, even after he started complaining of being seriously hurt and screaming. 65% reached the end of the experiment, where the strongest voltage is applied (although they were pained by having to obey):

“In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment’s final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1]

If you’ve heard of the banality of evil , you probably understand what this implies.

“Arendt’s book introduced the expression and concept “the banality of evil.”[1] Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.”

Now, I don’t know if most atrocities are performed by ordinary, authority-obedient people, but in my view, they enable a lot of it. They go along with lots of evil stuff that becomes obviously evil if you thought about it, and cheer when authorities do them.

There are also such things as deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility, in which people temporarily lose themselves and identify with their group:

“In 2008, a 17-year old man jumped from the top of a parking garage in England after 300 or so people chanted for him to go for it. Some took photos and recorded video before, during and after. Afterward, the crowd dispersed, the strange spell broken. The taunters walked away wondering what came over them. The other onlookers vented their disgust into social media.”

This is one thing that I noticed about feminism – it was supported and helped by men. And today men throw other men under the bus to “protect women” from “rape”, “abuse” and other evil male actions, even if abuse is loosely defined or unproven. And onlooking men and women don’t care about it, unless it bites them directly in the ass.

Does evolutionary psychology say women are disloyal?

Hypergamy is often cited as the cause of women’s lack of loyalty – they say women like to trade up. But I’m not even sure hypergamy is the strongest natural force here. Monogamy is usually seen as useful for beta males. Without it, lots of men would remain mateless. But if you think about it, monogamy serves women too. In the times when reliable birth control and welfare didn’t exist, would it really be wise for a woman to swing from branch to branch so much? As she only gets less attractive and less fertile with age, she can’t really upgrade so much. She can trade down and let some desperate omega make use of her in exchange for his recourses, but it’s not in her best interest. It’s in her interest to stay with the same guy she got in her youth, let him grow in SMV as hers drops. If he “drops his frame”, it only makes sense to switch to another man if she’s worth a better man.

How modern environment affects our actions

We shouldn’t forget that we aren’t living in the same environment we evolved in. We’re living in a pretty unnatural time. We have birth control, welfare, abundant energy and technology. We’ve gotten way too comfortable. And not only that, but we have feminism. Only the discomfort of one sex’s natural role has been addressed, and the other one was left as it is, except for some benefits which rubbed off as a result of women’s liberation. As women were liberated, men’s behavior was also restricted and demonized. An inequality of responsibility resulted. Usually, women’s sexual power is balanced out by men’s earned public and financial powers. Considering most people never reach the principled level or morality, is it surprising that men appear better and women worse? If there is banality of evil, I’m sure there could be a banality of good. The TRP reddit is full of former “good boys”, who found the hard way that society’s rules and laws are disadvantaging them.

One proof that is usually used to show that men are more loyal, is who applies for divorce more often. That is women. But considering their sexual and legal power in marriage, they hold more cards. The one who has more power should also be able to abuse it more often, initiating divorce robbery and divorce in general. Would men do any better if they had that kind of power? I don’t know. To check it out, we would have to find a time and place in history when men had the power to toss their wife out for any reason, take the kids and then be paid alimony. I’m not sure men ever had that kind of power. But in general, it’s easy to look moral when one has no power.

 “We don’t hate women, we just don’t expect much of them”

This is a common saying. But can it be true? Can you decide that someone is irreparably solipsistic, disloyal, only capable of being a good partner if kept constantly in check, AND still think it’s a good idea to spend your life closely connected to them? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t let that kind of person into my close circle of friends. There is a saying that goes “it’s better to go alone, than to go with just anybody”, and I’ve found the hard way that it’s true. I was better off alone than with shitty friends. But being with good friends was, of course, best.

This entry was posted in Women and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Women Have No Honor

  1. “We don’t hate women, we just don’t expect much of them”
    This is a common saying. But can it be true? Can you decide that someone is irreparably solipsistic, disloyal, only capable of being a good partner if kept constantly in check, AND still think it’s a good idea to spend your life closely connected to them? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t let that kind of person into my close circle of friends.

    Only because you’re a woman. A man isn’t trying to be “friends” with a woman; men want women for sex and children, everything else is a bonus. Vaginal sex and children are the only things that men can’t get for themselves.
    Because you’re a woman, you don’t have the same need for sex; a man’s need for sex is ten times greater than a woman’s. The ONLY REASON that we spend our lives closely connected to you is because you have a vagina, and we have a biological need to get in it, and said need overwhelms every other sense we have.
    Otherwise men would not be bothered with your solipsistic, drama loving, disloyal, hypergamous, need to be put in check selves at all. This is what fleshlights and sex dolls are about; men constantly trying to find viable substitutes for vagina.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Yes, I understand men want sex and babies. I also know their need for sex is larger. I suppose those needs overwhelm whatever ideas a man might have about a woman’s morality? But if a TRP guy had other outlets (prostitution, sex bots. etc), he’d see it my way, wouldn’t he?

  2. People are selfish, morality is imposed on us, and men and women are identical in that respect. Men and women use different forms of social organization, but both sexes are equally likely to socially defect when it serves their perceived interest.

    People are capable of mutually beneficial cooperative exchanges such as marriage and society. But they are also capable of defecting on those arrangements. So, if you expect too much from anyone, man or woman, you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment. Idealists end up as bitter cynics, realists create win-win relationships.

    You have an interesting blog.

  3. “To check it out, we would have to find a time and place in history when men had the power to toss their wife out for any reason, take the kids and then be paid alimony. I’m not sure men ever had that kind of power. But in general, it’s easy to look moral when one has no power.”

    Except for the part about the alimony, men had this power and more in pre-christian societies. The Roman pater familias, for example, quite literally had the power of life and death over the members of his household, and men in Jewish societies of the time could divorce their wives for such transgressions as burning the matzoh, even once (‘any and every reason’).

    IIRC, there was still a financial penalty, in terms of having to pay back whatever dowry the wife had come with, but I think the husband still kept the kids.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    You seem to have confused “fairness” with “justice”. “Fair” and “just” are not the same thing.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I use them to express the same thing, but I might be wrong to do so (English is not my first language). What’s the difference?

      • JCLogos says:

        Hi Emma,

        “fairness” is based on a subjective assessment and judgment of how things should be. You can already tell that it has a lot to do with emotional responses and not so much taking into account objective facts and reality. An example would be a younger sibling demanding for sweets when its elder sibling has been given them as a reward, even when the younger one did nothing to earn it. Or, in the case of feminists, demanding equal pay for lesser work and lower risk, because it’s only “fair” that women earn as much as men (and if you disagree, you must hate women or something, because you’re not being fair).

        “Justice”, on the other hand, is based on objective standards, which is most of the time, the law (this is another can of worms: philosophy of law is intensively studied even today, and the main question is usually “Is there a higher law than what a country’s legislation has laid down?”). Justice is about being impartial and applying the standards consistently without the judgment being affected or compromised by emotional reactions or personal dispositions. It is just if the same sentence were passed on a female murderer as a male one. It is just if a rapist were charged, no matter what the personal circumstances were. It is just if a woman takes home what she has earned, no matter how much she “feels” she has contributed.

        Other people probably have other definitions, but this is the general spirit you’ll see.

        In any case, keep up the good work! This is an interesting blog you have here.

  5. Pingback: Women Have No Honor | Truth and contradictions ...

  6. “we would have to find a time and place in history when men had the power to toss their wife out for any reason, take the kids and then be paid alimony. I’m not sure men ever had that kind of power. ”

    The power of husbands to jettison their wives was usually at least countered by the power of other men – the wife’s male relations. And in a village or small town, the tainting of the man’s reputation would be a further check. But large urban centers have removed this preventative mechanism…

    Honor is a great aid in facilitating self-control, and the stifling of base impulses, and thus it can be argued that it is a particularly masculine trait. Furthermore, the honorable man acts a certain way not because of how he feels, but because he recognizes it is the right thing to do, and his reason allows him to conclude this. The unavoidable emphasis on action again tells us that honor is a masculine trait.

    As you more or less state, the only honor women are expected to exhibit is to keep their legs shut to anyone except their husband, a seemingly low bar. I have written about honor before on the Spearhead. I think you touched on several of the same points I made back then (please read the comments, too – there is an epic debate in there between commenter “snark” and myself, which is one of the only times the internet has lived up to its potential as a venue for dialogue):

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/09/is-honor-obsolete/

    Would like to hear you take on it…

    • Liz says:

      “As you more or less state, the only honor women are expected to exhibit is to keep their legs shut to anyone except their husband, a seemingly low bar.”

      I disagree. A woman is expected to honor her vows (or at least should be expected to honor her vows). This includes far more than simply keeping one’s legs shut. Women can certainly act dishonorably in more ways than sexual profligacy.

      Long ago I read a journalistic account from a former Red Cross nurse who lived in France during the second war. She began working for the RC when she was only 16, and became a member of the underground French resistance (as a nurse). She had to leave home without a word in order to do so…in fact, she had to leave blindfolded in the middle of the night….her family had to believe she was abducted so that information could not be forced from them, and she had no idea of even the real names of her comrades (same reason, if she were captured is best not to know the names or background of anyone).
      It was quite an interesting story. She was interrogated eventually but made it out. There were many instances that I would cite as examples of a woman behaving honorably.

    • meistergedanken says:

      Hellllooooo? Anyone there?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Sorry about the delay, I’ve been busy looking for a job. I read the thread and it was interesting, but I haven’t formed any new thoughts yet.

        What a masculine or feminine trait is, is also an interesting question. I usually define it as a trait more often found in men, or women, cross-culturally. So far I don’t know if self-control is the domain of one or another, as adults generally have to practice self-control if they want to survive and get what they want.

  7. Pingback: Impressions | RedPillPushers

  8. Liz says:

    If there are honorable actions then both women and men can behave honorably or dishonorably. Being honorable means to behave honorably. So I don’t know why it would be stated that a woman cannot have honor. It isn’t a feeling, it’s an action, right?

    • emmatheemo says:

      What I read about honor makes me believe it’s a group thing. If there is no special group instilling it, there shouldn’t be any honor, either. But what could be, is integrity and principles of an individual. As you can see, I don’t have a lot of use for honor and think it’s overrated, even if I know it can be good for society because few people care about principles naturally.

      The thing that makes me think there is SOME truth in the “women have no honor” thing, is because of feminism and lack of expectations. Men don’t have their own widespread counterpart, freeing them from society (I guess MGTOWs count?..).

      So yes, both women and men can have principles and integrity, but you can only have honor if you had any honorable group to join.

      • Thanatos says:

        You’re close. Actually, this was rather insightful:”Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.”

        I wanted to say that you were wrong immediately,but thought about it, and you’re right,except it’s not group rules. It’s group expectations.

        They’re not commandments, not even indirect ones. One is free to honorably refuse completely to perform according to expectation and still acquire a different sort of honor, as in the case of Buddhist or Christian monks. When you think about it, Christian monks completely gave the finger to the traditional idea that a man was supposed to acquire property and become a father by his twenties,but no one would say that they had shirked their duty.

        While a man is nudged by his parents,friends, or acquaintances towards these endeavors, he is never exactly commanded to do any particular thing.

        The problem with communicating this sort of lesson to women, as discovered by moral philosophers like the Buddha, is that it is like porting Windows over to a Speak N’ Spell.

        There is simply a lack of “morality” jacks in a woman’s brain,or, I don’t know, perhaps her soul so that one can no more mount the morality software on a woman’s social programming than a woman can give someone a facial in the sexual sense.

        A woman can only understand morality and honor in the most cartoonishly distorted sense. A society based on their understanding of these would be epically comi- pathetic from a God’s-eye view perspective,like the Africans that build supposed space vehicles out of bailing wire and empty canned vegetable cans, and also one of the most miserable places you can imagine.

        Honorable things women could do would include such things as:

        Not gossiping,rather,keeping people’s confidence faithfully
        Remaining chaste until committed,at which point
        Remaining not just sexually but emotionally faithful to her mate
        Living unadorned and spartan lives in order to maximize the happiness of her children,family,friends and mates
        Going beyond this to productively contribute not just held wealth but personally generated wealth to maximize the comfort and happiness of her ACTUAL genetic or national tribe- family,friends,mate,or country, not “starving Ethiopians”
        Combating,vigilante-style, the vices other women are prone to such as lying,deception, child abuse, infidelity,etc, acting outside the formal channels which give women a pass to make sure that justice is done anyway

        As you can see, what I have compiled here is a list of things you couldn’t induce a woman to do at GUNPOINT,proving that while a uniquely feminine honor is POSSIBLE, it is highly improbable. Women have no honor,and cannot have it. They also do not experience internal shame for dishonorable behavior and cannot do that either.

      • Liz says:

        Yeah, I’ll have to say I don’t think honor is a “group concept” necessarily. I think one could be the only honorable person in a group…if one behaves honorably. There usually honorable and dishonorable people among collections of people.

      • Liz says:

        I’ll go further and state that the manosphere is the only place I’ve ever heard of the concept of honor applied in this way. Yes, honor might be the meme or theme of a group …this doesn’t indicate honor is a group-only principle. Taking this argument to the extreme no one would say “all Americans have honor” because they are all part of the American group (and all covered under Constitutional principles…at least in theory). There are dishonorable people within honorable groups and what one does when no one is looking is as much or more a measure of a person’s honor than how they act among the group.

      • emmatheemo says:

        But they don’t say all men have honor and all women don’t. There are lots of dishonorable men out there.

        I guess we can agree to disagree for now, to me honor is def. a group thing. I might be wrong, but it only became a personal thing when we moved towards individualistic culture more.

      • Liz says:

        Invoking Godwin, what would we call Schindler? He went against the group…was this a dishonorable action? Or did he have to join some other group that would give honor to his actions? The argument is ludicrous in the extreme.

      • emmatheemo says:

        According to the group, it was dishonorable. And in some places, killing your daughter for dishonoring the family name is a display of honor. Can you tell yet that I don’t put honor on a pedestal? ;)

  9. Pingback: Contempt is easy, freezing your emotions is easy, numbing yourself is easy, Buddhism is difficult | vulture of critique

  10. Exfernal says:

    Policing behavior of others, “vigilante-style” in order to boost ones reputation? Ha! Looks like the female version of white-knighting.

    • emmatheemo says:

      What are you talking about? (not rhetorical)

      • Exfernal says:

        Combating,vigilante-style, the vices other women are prone to such as lying,deception, child abuse, infidelity,etc, acting outside the formal channels which give women a pass to make sure that justice is done anyway

        White knighting for women, apparently.

        I have nothing against taking action AFTER noticing incriminating behavior. But actively seeking for it…?

    • Liz says:

      White wenching!

  11. FuriousFerret says:

    “Would men do any better if they had that kind of power?”

    Fuck no. I assure you that if the average guy had the means to screw tons of women concurrently, he would do so. If the situation was reversed and for some reason, guys had the society set up for their needs and their needs alone, the vast majority would have some type of harem arrangement.

    Most people are good simply because they are weak, spineless and can’t get away with being bad. End of story. That’s why bad behavior is so appealing because it signals that here is a top man, because only big chief gets away with not playing by the rules.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “If the situation was reversed and for some reason, guys had the society set up for their needs and their needs alone, the vast majority would have some type of harem arrangement. ”

      I tend to think the same way.

      “That’s why bad behavior is so appealing because it signals that here is a top man, because only big chief gets away with not playing by the rules.”

      That’s an interesting take.

    • hoellenhund2 says:

      Nonsense. History shows that the more power fathers have over their families, the lower the divorce rate is and the less widespread promiscuity is. Men are naturally imbued with a sense of morality. Women aren’t.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Their power over his family implied responsibility. I’m pretty sure he had to answer to his town/village and society for it. Women’s power today implies none.

      • Liz says:

        Everyone acts in his/her own self interest.
        What you call morality is just a different variation of self-interest. It isn’t some inherent sense of altruism.

      • FuriousFerret says:

        “Men are naturally imbued with a sense of morality. Women aren’t.”

        Because men are kept in line by other men and most men aren’t powerful enough to be the top dog.

        Women are raving bitchy entitled cunts today because they are allowed to be. Men would be boorish pigs if for some reason society was set up to pamper them as well but doesn’t happen because they are biological expendable and low value until proven otherwise.

        I seriously doubt that men are actually more morally superior than women in a vacuum. Don’t drink the kool aid. PEOPLE are inherently selfish and evil.

      • zhai2nan2 says:

        >History shows that the more power fathers have over their families, the lower the divorce rate is and the less widespread promiscuity is.

        I think trying to find data on the history of divorce across the centuries, and across different races, is pretty darn difficult.

        http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/middle-east-history/marriage-money-and-divorce-medieval-islamic-society

        >High rates of divorce, often taken to be a modern and western phenomenon, were also typical of medieval Islamic societies. By pitting these high rates of divorce against the Islamic ideal of marriage,Yossef Rapoport radically challenges usual assumptions about the legal inferiority of Muslim women and their economic dependence on men. He argues that marriages in late medieval Cairo, Damascus and Jerusalem had little in common with the patriarchal models advocated by jurists and moralists. The transmission of dowries, women’s access to waged labour, and the strict separation of property between spouses made divorce easy and normative, initiated by wives as often as by their husbands.

        The above is just an arbitrary example – I am no historian, I don’t know where to begin researching this.

        If there are real historians reading this – Is it possible to get some citations? If we know all this stuff from history books, we should be able to post titles and authors, right?

        And – in the interests of science – does this same historical lesson appear for all races? Was a Chinese head-of-household different from a Roman paterfamilias?

        Did some Roman husbands lack the full powers of a paterfamilias? (I believe so.)

        >Only a Roman citizen held the status of pater familias and there could only be one holder of the office within a household.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

        I expect we will find that once we factor in different regions and different races, it will be very hard to generalize.

  12. Liz wrote:
    ” What you call morality is just a different variation of self-interest. ”

    Oh, for cryin’ out loud, read some Plato, why don’t you! He definitely refuted your assertion over 2,000 years ago.

    • Liz says:

      “Read some Plato”.
      Yeah, thanks. I’ll get right on that. You should read some stuff too. Like the history of everything that has happened in the past 2000 years since Plato.

      • Liz says:

        Edited to add for the benefit of lurkers:
        Life is a cost to gains equation.
        People weigh the cost to gains when they perform an endeavor. This is why we see rampant predatorial violence in lawless societies. This is why tribal societies usually have much stricter laws and religion (to curb predatorial practices that happen without the benefit of functionally effective and efficient law enforcement). If I want a piece of fruit/jewelry/ect and it’s there for the stealing I might take it. The things that would stop me from taking it are either values that I have been taught (in which case the mental pain of taking something would override the benefit of having it), religion (in which case I believe in either a form of karma and/or angering a higher power which would over ride the benefit), taboo (in which case the culture shame of being caught and subject to public scrutiny would out weigh the benefit), or law (anything from a mild scolding to removal of one’s hand or death in some cultures…and my cost to gains equation would vary accordingly).

      • Yeah, I have. And you know what? Truth has a nasty habit of being unchangeable over time. And so does human nature.

      • Liz says:

        Agreed. And if the annals of history have informed you that people are not motivated by self interest we must be posting from parallel universes.

  13. ivanhoseph77 says:

    You should read a bit about J.D. Unwin, British ethnologist and anthropologist –

    “In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] “Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance,” Aldous Huxley wrote;

    Unwin’s conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.[2]

    According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:

    The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.[3]

    He claims that a culture that adopts liberal sexual morality cannot survive one generation as evidenced by historical research. He also concludes that there is a direct correlation between traditional monogamy and societal progress. Of course the pill, other birth control, abortion and antibiotics have thrown a major monkey wrench into his conclusions. Clearly pregnancy and veneral disease would have been a major contributer to the collapse of such cultures.

    It remains to be seen if women can have their BB cock and eat it to, so to speak, in this iteration of society without it collapsing…

  14. Mr.Bart says:

    No honor, no sexual value, no nothing.
    “A girl’s sexual value decreases dramatically after her early twenties. This is a fact, it is accepted everywhere by anyone whose ego is not damaged by it.” LaidNyc

  15. It’s foolish to generalize.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s