It’s traditional sex roles week at Return of Kings, but the objection has been laid out from some quarters that they don’t actually want traditional sex roles. Runsonmagic, with whom I’ve been having an interesting (and perfectly civil) back-and-forth conversation about these issues, has addressed whether or not sexually-unrestricted men such as himself actually do want traditional sex roles, in his post Does The Manosphere Really Want Traditional Sex Roles?
I’d like to respond to some of his points today and explain what both sexes need in order to make traditional sex roles possible, and then tomorrow I will outline what I think it would take to create a society founded on traditional sex roles.
The objection that the men in the manosphere “don’t really want traditional women, because then you couldn’t sleep with as many women as possible” is incorrect. Men want to experience as much feminine quality as possible, not quantity.
What he means by experience of course is sleep with. Why talk around that point? This really does make me have to ask though, “Why should women care about improving the quality of the female herd so that men can have casual sex with us?” It’s sort of like telling women More of you need to be sweeter and prettier so that we have a larger and better quality pool of women to have casual sex with. Oh, and bake us multi-layered cakes after we f-ck you, please. What kind of deal is that? Our youth and beauty are limited resources; if we give them to a man, we need to be sure he’ll stick around when they’re gone. Just like I wouldn’t counsel a man to marry a 30-something career woman who’s had multiple sex partners, so too I don’t advise a woman to learn how to cook and to make herself pretty for a man who offers her no commitment in return. She should make herself pretty and learn to cook simply because those things are valuable in and of themselves, but she shouldn’t offer to give those things away for no purpose. Likewise a man should not give away his commitment for no purpose. The purpose of traditional sex roles is to enable family formation.
Now, it turns out, there are apparently lots of women who will profligately spend their youth, beauty, and cakes on men who aren’t offering anything in return. I do not fault a man for accepting a woman’s youth, beauty, and cakes and offering nothing in return. She is the fool in that situation. But I’m not going to encourage foolishness in young women, either.
This objection also assumes game doesn’t work on “good girls.” It does. Game works on all women, the same way feminine beauty works on men. A man of character might resist the advances of a beautiful woman, but he’ll still be tempted.
I’ve been assuming game works. There was a lot of discussion on other sites about a pick up artist named Krauser who apparently posted some of his stats and it didn’t look as if game was any better at getting women into bed than just approaching a lot of women would be. I really have no dog in that fight. I’ve never said game doesn’t work on good girls. I don’t even really care about that issue, to be honest with you.
Still, if more feminine and traditional women meant less sleeping around, it wouldn’t mean taking “pay cut” for most game aware men, because while they might have less quantity, they’d have better quality. They’d still be at the top of the market, even if it’s a different market.
Once again, I have to ask – better quality for what? What incentive is there for a woman to make herself better quality for a man who is only offering to use up a bit of her youth while investing nothing in her in return? I know it isn’t men’s fault that women are willing to engage in this kind of deal, and so I don’t particularly blame men like Runsonmagic for taking advantage of the situation, but telling women they need to re-embrace traditional sex roles in order to make themselves more attractive for short-term dating and sex strikes me as complaining about the fact that the free beer isn’t cold enough.
I lay the blame for the mess we’re in pretty heavily at women’s feet (ah, but really it’s the fault of the cultural elites and their fiat dollarz, lzozlzozl), but I’ll be darned if I’m going to tell them to gussy themselves up in order to be more attractive to users. I advise them to improve themselves while keeping their legs shut until they are married, and then to keep their pretty legs wide open for their husbands after marriage.
Pick-up artists aren’t change agents. They are simply rational actors in a particular type of market.
I agree. Our society – by fiat redistribution of resources – has incentivized pick up artistry and disincentivized traditional husbandry. I don’t expect pick up artists to be change agents at all. Neither do I agree with feminists that most pick up artists are misogynistic pscyho-rapists. They accept what is on offer and try to convince more girls to offer them what they want. PUAs have been helpful to me in identifying what the problems in our current culture – and in our churches – are and what needs to be done to fix those problems, and they’ve generally been darn nice about talking to me, so I’m not going to complain overly much about them. It wouldn’t do any good to complain about them anyway because they don’t care what I think about their lifestyle. My goal is to teach women to be good wives – pretty, feminine, loyal, sexually-generous, good mothers, and selfless helpers – and to avoid being players’ prey.
There is no social reward for male fidelity or being a provider in the present sexual marketplace.
I agree, there really isn’t much social reward for this. Men who offer it have been getting kicked in the teeth by a system that is set against them thanks to feminism and even worse, Christo-feminism. However if we are talking about how to fix the situation, we must also acknowledge that in a sexual marketplace where there is no male fidelity or providership, there is no incentive for women to do anything to cultivate their traditional femininity. We’re in a bit of a stalemate situation here, wouldn’t you agree? I don’t have the whole solution, but what I’ve been telling women is to go first. Return to seeking marriage when you are young; stay chaste; seek your husband’s good; be loyal to your man. Will some women end up getting hurt by this? Maybe, but it’s unlikely to be even close to the number of men who’ve been hurt in our current system, which is unworkable in the long-term.
Most of the traditionalists criticizing PUAs for their behavior have the luxury of being married, women, or having gone MGTOW and given up on the sexual marketplace entirely. In other words, they don’t have to live any of the advice they’re giving.
This depends on the traditionalist. Being married isn’t exactly a luxury; it’s a conscious choice in a culture that is actively hostile to traditional marriage.
I’m sure it’d be easier for the traditionalists if all the single men just “manned up” and did what they were told without any incentives or reward.
It would be better for the sort of slick pastors who masquerade as traditionalists but who are really feminist-enablers exhorting betatized men to marry the thirty-something, used-up careerist sluts. It would not be easier or better for those of us who are serious about a functional, healthy society which enables people to get all of what they need and some of what they want. Much of the focus of my blog has been on encouraging women to make traditional marriage rewarding for men who want that.
I’ve lived as the blue-pill traditionalists suggested. It lead to loneliness and unhappiness. Now that men are taking the red pill en mass, traditionalists are suddenly saying “well, it game but don’t do it.”
Personally I haven’t particularly objected to game nor have I supported the use of game; what I’ve objected to is Christian men going to pick up artists for advice on how to get or maintain marriage. However, I also don’t advise men to offer themselves up as living sacrifices on the altar of Churchian Christo-feminism. I’m atypical among Christians, unfortunately. Much of what the modern Church encourages men to do definitely leads to those men being lonely and unhappy, and to no purpose because what they suggest doesn’t even honor God.
I actually want children and family someday. As I see it now, the best strategy is to become high status, have abundance with women, and eventually pull the best one from a traditional culture.
Telling men to go abroad to have sex with an abundance of traditionally-feminine women is simply using up the remaining dregs of social capital in their cultures. You’ve gone to a place where the women are not yet totally degraded so that you can finish the job. I am saying this in the most neutral way that I can, without judging your motivations or morality. But this is what it is, so we might as well state that plainly.
The reason men want traditional sex roles is the same reason men learn game. It makes finding a high quality woman easier.
Finding high quality women for what purpose, though? Aye, there’s the rub. When you finish with her, sir, she is no longer a high quality woman.
What Runsonmagic – and perhaps the other RoK writers – are calling for strikes me more as pretend traditional sex roles for the purpose of making sex more fun. I agree that traditional sex roles make sex more fun, the way frosting makes cake tastier, but when you base those roles on short-term sexual relationships, they lose all meaning and they are just a charade. Once sex is over, the roles will have to be dropped if they aren’t truly part of the social fabric. A society founded on egalitarian sex roles discourages family formation and thus is doomed to fail because there will be an unsustainably low birthrate; traditional sex roles, in addition to making sex more fun, also stabilize society by enhancing family formation, but such roles involve significant responsibilities for both sexes. Runsonmagic just wants to lick the frosting off the cake (or multiple cakes, as the case may be).
Here is my analysis of the situation:
The only way that it is safe for women to engage in traditional sex roles – keeping the home, nurturing the young, caring for the old, ministering to the sick and the poor – is if they can depend on the support of a husband and kin network. And the only way it’s safe for men to engage in traditional sex roles – providing for and protecting women and children – is if their investment in their families is protected from destruction and theft by corporations, governments, and the women themselves.
Tomorrow I will outline what I believe needs to happen, legally and socially, for it to be possible for traditional sex roles to return at the society-wide level.