Even to the casual observer, the realities of western dating today can seem bizarre. Contradictions are everywhere. How are there so many promiscuous, “slutty” women around, and yet so many desperate twentysomething virgin males? How are there so many “alpha” males with extensive dating histories, and yet many attractive women lamenting the lack of “decent” men anywhere?

But there is an answer, one the manosphere has been aware of for some time, but often has trouble articulating. Here then, I shall attempt to explain it in useful chart form.

The reality of the past fifty years, of the rise of second and third wave feminism, of the culture wars and the collapse of the family unit, could be summed up in one word—deregulation. In short, people are no longer beholden to a great deal of legal and social restrictions on their behavior, particularly when it comes to their sexuality. A whole host of sexual behaviors, once rare (or at least taboo) are now increasingly common—sex before marriage, “open” relationships, one-night stands, masturbation, childbirth outside of wedlock, single parenthood…the list goes on. In most western countries, divorce rates are now pushing 50%.

Now in our modern, globalized world, the idea of “deregulation” may sound appealing. What need was there, many wonder, for such restrictions in the first place?

A reality of human behavior, one which today’s feminists resolutely ignore, is the obvious fact that men generally desire sex a great deal more than women. Surveys across the board indicate that men masturbate, or else desire sex, about three times as often. By rejecting this, feminists decide to ignore all of the implications it has in our society.

We could depict this difference in libido between the sexes like so:

Clearly, when it comes to sex, women are in far greater demand. In our politically correct society this reality is often denied, but let’s face facts.

The question of how to divide up this relatively limited amount of desire among women is one every human society has struggled with. Basically, if you fail to regulate the market, the logical result is a small minority of men garnering the attention of the vast majority of all women. Not totally dissimilar to a lion pride, a handful of males can service a much larger number of females.

To prevent this, societies have almost always regulated women’s sexuality to some degree. Certainly some individuals (generally the nobility and others with a great deal of wealth and power) got more than their fair share of attention, but by and large most men were guaranteed a wife. This was necessary in order to maintain social stability.

The pre-1960s dating market thus looked something like this:

Over the last fifty years however, these ancient rules have been discarded, leading to exactly the situation described above. Rather than a roughly equal distribution of partners, a small minority of men have come to command most of the attention of the fairer sex, while the rest are left out in the cold:

Annotated further, we get this reality:

Looking at this overview, a great deal of mystery about the modern day sexual marketplace evaporates. Studies consistently show that, when it comes to number of sexual partners, men come first in both the lowest (i.e. zero partners) and highest (say, ten or more) categories.

The rich, the famous, and the physically most attractive are in the latter group. This then leaves a huge portion of the male population who are forced into what has lately been called “involuntary celibacy” (or incel for short).

Of course, there is still some natural variation in the quality of partners. The least attractive women are still unlikely to score the most attractive men, but they are consistently able to punch above their weight. You can find countless news articles about women in their 40s and 50s foraying into online dating and successfully bedding desperate guys half their age. Such articles are typically clueless on the actual causes of this phenomenon. “Young men now actively seeking older women!” the headlines proclaim—not realizing that only a lack of suitable partners their own age has driven them to this.

Aside from the media headlines, most people can probably relay a number of anecdotes that reflect this new reality. Personally I know of a number of men (generally older, wealthier ones, men who travel to Thailand a lot, younger buff guys, and guys in bands) who have slept with likely dozens of women. At the other end of the spectrum I still know of a great number of virgins, even though most of my friends (and former classmates who I keep in touch with) are now in their early 20s.

Loading...

It’s worth mentioning at this point, that even the “winners” of this new reality may not necessarily be better off. For the vast majority of men, this new order could rightly be described as soul-crushing of course, but for the top-quota men and women who have seen the quality of their sex lives go up, most of what they’ve got is just that—sex.

There’s no denying that long term relationships are on the decline. Social conservatives are often described as hateful and misogynist for railing against promiscuity, but the statistics don’t lie. Marriages in which the wife was a virgin have an 80% chance of succeeding, while the figure for brides who have had 15 or more premarital partners is just 20%.

Basically, there’s an ever-increasing number of washed-up old hags out there who are coming to regret their earlier promiscuity, and are now facing the realization that they will probably die alone and childless. Whatever “decent” men there might be out there are typically dating women half their age, while older women quietly seethe at a younger generation doing exactly what they did when they were that young.

This has economic effects as well. The elderly used to be looked after by their partners or their children once they got too old, but an increasing number are now destined for retirement homes—ones for which the taxpayer will no doubt have to fork over the cost. Here in Australia, the decline in average household size (from 3.1 in 1976 to 2.6 today) means there are just over one million extra houses today than there otherwise would be.

That’s a million extra fridges running 24/7, and hundreds of thousands of extra dishwashers, microwaves, washing machines, cars and other devices. No wonder the cost of living is continuing to skyrocket.

As for the younger generation, the blurred line between alphas and betas, where marriageable men may still be found, seems to be shrinking every year. ROK author Tuthmosis covered this brilliantly in a post last year.

The real problem with this new reality however, is found in the hordes of thirsty young men who fall outside the fortunate group at the top. The reality can no longer be ignored that the deregulation of the sexual marketplace has disenfranchised millions of young men across the western world. Elliot Rodgers is merely among the most extreme examples. Others have written detailed articles on his story.

Aside from mass-shooters, there is also the reality that young men commit suicide at around four times the rate women do. Furthermore, the number one cause cited for such deaths is actually breakups—a factor in a whopping 75% of cases.

One can also see how this crisis of intimacy has divided the male community. We can outline three groups—the manosphere, PUA-hate and white knights.

The first group basically accepts the new reality, and generally consists of men who are (or think they have a decent shot of becoming) in the top portion of men who have much to gain on the sexual market. “PUA-hate” refers to those who are rallying against the new reality, and we can include Elliot Rodgers among them. The last group basically rejects the whole thing, and thinks that either stable marriages can still exist in our society regardless, or that it doesn’t matter much anyway.

I would hope to count myself among the first group, but that isn’t to say the other two are completely inferior. If only a minority of men stand to gain from this new order, then the betas of PUA-hate will always outnumber the alphas of the manosphere, and if a revolution ever comes, like the Proles in 1984—it will come from them.

The new reality

If there’s one thing socialists have always understood, it is that you can only deregulate a market so far before the losers, justly or not, begin to respond violently. This is because violence, more than any other currency, is not a distortion of the free market; it is the ultimate free market.

The collapse of the family unit could be compared to Russia after the fall of Communism—society may have become “freer,” but it also became more unequal and actually poorer. Unemployment and poverty, previously almost unknown, became commonplace. Similar trends are now seen in western countries regarding sexuality. Involuntary celibacy, the social equivalent of unemployment, is increasingly common, and the latest surveys show that people are actually having LESS sex today than they used to.

No resolution to these problems seems to be in sight. Even trying to admit their existence will bring social justice warriors crashing down on you, hurling the tired old labels of “sexist” and “misogynist.” It is a crying shame that, while the left typically comes out against excessive inequality, since we’re discussing women’s issues this is trumped by feminist dogma.

Just as wealth inequality will surely drive up crime rates and destabilize a society, it is not hard to see that this newfound crisis of inequality of intimacy is causing much the same thing. Our society is largely blind to this reality, but chances are we won’t be able to ignore it forever.

Read More: The Father Of The Term “Sexual Marketplace”