Humans, at the time of writing, aren’t biologically suited to our current social environment. As technology has increased, we’ve entered into a cushy material existence that we aren’t adapted to thriving – let alone surviving – within. Because of the greater agency that comes with increased technology, we have freedoms and choices we never had access to and weren’t even prepared genetically to be able to handle. You may have heard people bemoan dating. I always thought people were being overly dramatic, until I got there myself …. There’s many challenges the modern human goes through with regards to laying the foundations of stable long term relationships that result in children.
In the years after WWII in America, and increasingly in the rest of the modern first world as it recovered from the war, being useful to capitalism has trended towards requiring greater and greater specialization and training. In addition to our economic environment requiring higher levels of education in an increasingly expensive educational system, we’ve also been victim to declining wages, skyrocketing costs of living, and record-setting levels of competition for the diminishing amounts of middle class jobs left.
Meanwhile, as the economy’s wealth and the physical security it can provide for people only grows as the means of production and surveillance advances, a foundation of legacy wealth and physical security has been laid out in America that enables the rise of progressivism. Progressives, with beliefs so rooted in idealism and Utopianism, are a product of an age in which more voters than ever aren’t involved in the production process at all and subsist off of welfare, parental support, and other forms of assistance. While some may say it’s a great success that our society can support this many maggots, the fact of the matter is that no animal has ever given over its decision-making powers to its parasites like our country has and no carcass, no matter how fleshy it is, lasts forever.
While progressivism may be a valid indicator of the wealth a society possesses, it’s an even better indicator of how a society will fare in the future. When we look at the hordes of childless liberals today, who act like teenagers well into their later years, we aren’t witnessing the dawn of a golden age but rather, the end of one. While we can ask why settling down and having children stopped being so attractive for people, the fact is that these lifestyles evolved out of people dealing with an increasingly scarce environment for younger generations in capitalism. When we look at the class known as the precariat, who often struggle with job security, it encompasses a great deal of workers today who work in occupations that don’t afford them property and career ladders. For these people, the goal of settling down and having children is largely unattainable because it’d require having a stable job and property to raise kids within.
As the people of today become poorer than the peasants of our past in all the ways that are critical to survival, more Americans are adopting the behaviors of the lumpenproletariat. Progressivism, which espouses universal assistance and tolerates a range of behavior wider than any we’ve seen previously, enables the escapist hedonism that people are being increasingly pushed into. While it may seem that this has nothing to do with dating today, it absolutely does because it changes the incentives and goals we have in pursuing relationships. While in the past, marriages were built strictly on economic terms, with parents arranging them, dowries being exchanged, and so on, marriage evolved as humans became increasingly urbanized and wealth became increasingly tied to skills, appearance, and networking, rather than land. While in the past, dowries were used to provide incentives for otherwise unappealing marriages, in industrial society, where families were often separated far apart, the process of romancing and courting fell on the individual. Due to the fact that there no longer was an exchange of compensation between families when one partner was better than the other, dating tended towards people dating within their own “league” both in terms of class, education, and appearance.
Progressivism today is largely tolerated and embraced at all because it’s allowed for by our advanced economy and needed for psychological reasons by society’s weaker members. It’s no shock that it’s championed by women as females have a genetic aversion towards acknowledging natural inequality. While we can go in-depth into the reasons why women avoid addressing natural inequality, it comes down to women having a survival incentive to prevent resentment, and consequently, conflicts arising from natural inequalities. The best example of this can be found on social media, where more attractive women frequently
lavish compliments on fatter and uglier women. A woman, not having physical confrontation as a tool in her arsenal, and furthermore, pregnancy as a vulnerability, feels a natural incentive to encourage self-destructive behavior in her competitors under the guise of tolerance. Women do this in order to gain favor, while subverting their competitors’ status for her own gain secretly. When we look at the Progressive takes on dating and mating, there’s a reason that they are so twisted and warped: the propagators are carrying out their natural patterns of promoting self-destructive behavior, and enforcing a veneer of equality. When progressives control a great deal of the narratives in society, people on average become increasingly tainted by these views and adopt increasingly unrealistic mating strategies and goals. White knighting, low-status polyamory, experimental same-sex coupling, etc become more common, as more people in both genders fall victim to the delusional, emotional safety-net propaganda of progressivism.
While on the outside, it may seem that there’s little to complain about in these “modern” sexual relationships, the fact of the matter is that this propaganda, hand in hand with ever higher stakes, financial competition and conditions, convinces people to willingly go extinct. For bloodlines, progressivism is completely a fatalistic ideology in America. For men that have survived amidst this cultural hellscape, creating stable careers and accruing wealth, the risk they run by marrying a woman is higher than it’s ever been. For men, risking their properties, hobbies, and friends in pursuing a romantic partner is already a high cost to bear, and when we factor in the tainting of mostly female minds with unrealistic progressivism, the decision to marry becomes even riskier. For the average man in America, child support is materially speaking a more attractive option than marriage and that shows in the rising rates of single mothers. The emerging issue of single mothers in the United States does not lend itself to long term stability or prosperity, with a lack of masculine role models and only female authority figures leading to more progressivism. Without these masculine role models in the lives of children, the way they approach the world is increasingly one-sided in terms of gendered perspectives, which in turn feeds into the feminist delusions.
Additionally, through progressivism, contraception, and technology, sexual access becomes subsequently as free and egalitarian as we want it, while still carrying the same stigma/drive to us biologically. Women in their high sexual value prime, will sexually engage with more top-level men a lot more readily than other lower-value men. More evidence of the asymmetric sexual dynamic with men can be seen with only fans and e-subscription pornography. Men aren’t wired to value women as long-term partners who seem to give out sexual access to other men easily, readily, or obviously, in much the same way that women are not programmed to settle down with men below them in value or financial status. This is a problem since women, gatekeeping access to sex, have a blind spot regarding how this renders their long term partner value to men null, since feminism deluded them from engaging in behavior espoused by traditional values (i.e. ones that men biologically prioritize). This creates an environment where maintaining an exclusive relationship has a higher and higher opportunity cost, even before throwing in the costs of raising children.
This isn’t even touching on the natural sexual marketplace dynamic. As much as feminists may logically protest, you can’t unwire your own biology, and it’s futile in the long run to fight it. Women need men to be higher in terms of status than them to justify the risk of carrying a child. With fewer men able to claim higher status than women thanks to the financial landscape and technology, fewer and fewer women see a good ROI to reproduce or date for marriage, similar to how men see less of a ROI in typically attractive female mate traits thanks to (affirmative action and) technology bolstering women’s status and power. This isn’t to say society hasn’t had massive inequality before. Obviously, few societies have held greater difference in power than monarchies of old, but at least back then they didn’t have contraception, meaning that even though status was more unequal, it would have still resulted in children. Genghis Khan is an obvious example of this, so much so that 8% of modern Asian men carry his genetics. Despite this shifting in the power balance uprooting traditional gender norms, and consequences, not all is lost.
Even if we factored in the many problems we listed above, this isn’t to say these issues will make dating impossible. Until society collapses or significantly revamps, it will just feel like more and more of a chore for us all that weren’t blessed with statistically rare and attractive traits from the jump, because technology forces us into a social environment for which our current genes have yet to catch up. Humans are complex in terms of mating strategy, being r- and k-selected. This is to our advantage in terms of survival of the species, but surely shines light on some ugly truths for the future of dating in an environment with increasingly egalitarian sexual access.
In the world going forward, dating will become a process of screening out badly raised and brainwashed individuals. The ROI in marrying a woman who likens marriage to a frivolous activity cannot be understated in how poor it’ll be, while the ROI in marrying a man raised on fantastical and cushy ideals of masculinity propagated by his mother will generate a similarly poor ROI. While in the past, dating and marriage revolved more around religion, genetics, and wealth, in the future dating for reproductive-minded people will revolve increasingly around the values ingrained in their partners. The fact of the matter is that we can’t control from where attractive people get their values. Excelling in the dating market of the future will require restraint and planning. If your high-income country has become particularly progressive infested and/or competitive, you may do well to relocate. If your community has become completely destroyed, it may only require you to alter your lifestyle choices in terms of what organizations you contribute to and participate in.
While in the United States, there are certainly states that are economically and culturally distinct enough that this is not a problem yet, in states like California this is the norm. As the times continue to change, this trend will only continue to emerge most likely. While it may seem silly to say this, humans in the first world are facing the most severe bottleneck in history. Those who keep their wits about them can prevail, while those who take this function of life for granted will mostly fail in the coming years. The end is nigh for those who fail to learn in time to circumvent the problems that modern society has heaped on us. At the end of the day, Social Darwinism may come down to how much of the propaganda from society that we accept, as those that accept too much will themselves go into extinction and those that fail to maintain a facade of normalcy will find themselves in a similar deadend. The future in such a degenerative landscape belongs to the conservatives who can keep their mouths shut long enough to reproduce and raise viable offspring.
Tldr, first world-dwellers, on average, because of how disruptively powerful technology has become to the natural sexual marketplace fabric dynamic relative to the rest of human history, and barring significant change in society, will have to settle more and more to achieve a Nash equilibrium of worthwhile value to justify raising children.