The ‘Means of Reproduction’ and the Ultimate Purpose of Political Power

Laura Betzig, Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History (New Brunswick: AdelineTransation, 1983). 

Moulay Ismail Ibn Sharif, alias ‘Ismail the Bloodthirsty’, a late-seventeenth, early eighteenth century Emperor of Morocco is today little remembered, at least outside of his native Morocco. He is, however, in a strict Darwinian sense, possibly the most successful human ever to have lived. 

Ismail, you see, is said to have sired some 888 offspring. His Darwinian fitness therefore exceeded that of any other known person.[1]

Some have questioned whether this figure is realistic (Einon 1998). However, the best analyses suggest that, while the actual number of offspring fathered by Ismail is indeed probably apocryphal, such a large progeny is indeed eminently plausible for a powerful ruler with access to a large harem of wives and/or concubines (Gould 2000; Oberzaucher & Grammer 2014).

Indeed, as Laura Betzig demonstrates in ‘Despotism and Differential Reproduction’, Ismail is exceptional only in degree.

Across diverse societies and cultures, and throughout human history, wherever individual males acquire great wealth and power, they convert this wealth and power into the ultimate currency of natural selection – namely reproductive success – by asserting and maintaining exclusive reproductive access to large harems of young female sex partners. 

A Sociobiological Theory of Human History 

Betzig begins her monograph by quoting a small part of a famous passage from the closing paragraphs of Charles Darwin’s seminal On the Origin of Species which she adopts as the epigraph to her preface. 

In this passage, the great Victorian naturalist tentatively extended his theory of natural selection to the question of human origins, a topic he conspicuously avoided in the preceding pages of his famous text. 

Yet, in this much-quoted passage, Darwin goes well beyond suggesting merely that his theory of evolution by natural selection might explain human origins in just the same way it explained the origin of other species. On the contrary, he also anticipated the rise of evolutionary psychology, writing of how: 

Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. 

Yet this is not the part of this passage quoted by Betzig. Instead, she quotes the next sentence, where Darwin makes another prediction, no less prophetic, namely that: 

Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history 

In this reference to “man and his history”, Darwin surely had in mind primarily, if not exclusively, the natural history and evolutionary history of our species.

Betzig, however, interprets Darwin more broadly, and more literally, and, in so doing, has both founded, and for several years, remained the leading practitioner of a new field – namely, Darwinian history.

This is the attempt to explain, not only the psychology and behaviour of contemporary humans in terms of sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and selfish gene theory, but also to explain the behaviour of people in past historical epochs in terms of the same theory.  

Her book length monograph, ‘Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History’ remains the best known and most important work in this field. 

The Historical and Ethnographic Record 

In making the case that, throughout history and across the world, males in positions of power have used this power so as to maximize their Darwinian fitness by securing exclusive reproductive access to large harems of fertile females, Betzig, presumably to avoid the charge of cherry picking, never actually even mentions Ismail the Bloodthirsty at any point in her monograph. 

Instead, Betzig uses ethnographic data taken from a random sample of cultures from across the world. Nevertheless, the patterns she uncovers are familiar and recurrent.

Powerful males command large harems of multiple fertile young females, to whom they assert, and defend, exclusive reproductive access. In this way, they convert their power into the ultimate currency of natural selection – namely, reproductive success or fitness.

Thus, summarizing Betzig’s work, not only in ‘Despotism and Differential Reproduction’, but also in other published works, science writer Matt Ridley reports:

[Of] the six independent ‘civilizations’ of early history – Babylon, Egypt, India, China, the Aztecs and the Incas… the Babylonian king Hammurabi had thousands of slave ‘wives’ at his command. The Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten procured three hundred and seventeen concubines and ‘droves’ of consorts. The Aztec ruler Montezuma enjoyed four thousand concubines. The Indian emperor Udayama preserved sixteen thousand consorts in apartments guarded by eunuchs. The Chinese emperor Fei-ti had ten thousand women in his harem. The Inca… kept virgins on tap throughout the kingdom” (The Red Queen: p191-2; see Betzig 1993a).

Such vast harems seem, at first, wholly wasteful. This is surely more fertile females than even the horniest, healthiest and most virile of emperors could ever hope to have sex with, let alone successfully impregnate. As Betzig acknowledges: 

The number of women in such a harem may easily have prohibited the successful impregnation of each… but, their being kept from bearing children to others increased the monarch’s relative reproductive accomplishment” (p70). 

In other words, even if these rulers were unable to successfully impregnate every concubine in their harem, keeping them cloistered and secluded nevertheless prevented other males from impregnating them, which increased the relative representation of the ruler’s genes in subsequent generations.

To this end, extensive efforts also were made to ensure the chastity of these women. Thus, even in ancient times, Betzig reports: 

Evidence of claustration, in the form of a walled interior courtyard, exists for Babylonian Mai; and claustration in second story rooms with latticed, narrow windows is mentioned in the Old Testament” (p79). 

Indeed, Betzig even proposes an alternative explanation for early evidence of defensive fortifications

Elaborate fortifications erected for the purposes of defense may [also] have served the dual (identical?) function of protecting the chastity of women of the harem” (p79). 

Indeed, as Betzig alludes to in her parenthesis, this second function is arguably not entirely separate to the first. 

After all, if all male-male competition is ultimately based on competition over access to fertile females, then this surely very much includes warfare. As Napoleon Chagnon emphasizes in his studies of warfare and intergroup raiding among the Yąnomamö Indians of the Amazonian rainforest, warfare among primitive peoples tends to be predicated on the capture of fertile females from among enemy groups.[2]

Therefore, even fortifications erected for the purposes of military defence, ultimately serve the evolutionary function of maintaining exclusive reproductive access to the fertile females contained therein. 

Other methods of ensuring the chastity of concubines, and thus the paternity certainty of emperors, included the use of eunuchs as harem guards. Indeed, this seems to have been the original reason eunuchs were castrated and later became a key element in palace retinues (see The Evolution of Human Sociality: p45). 

Chastity belts, however, ostensibly invented for the wives of crusading knights while the latter were away on crusade, are likely a modern myth.

The movements of harem concubines were also highly restricted. Thus, if permitted to venture beyond their cloisters, they were invariably escorted. 

For example in the African Kingdom of Dahomey, Betzig reports: 

The king’s wives’… approach was always signalled by the ringing of a bell by the women servant or slave who invariably preceded them [and] the moment the bell is heard all persons, whether male or female , turn their backs, but all the males must retire to a certain distance” (p79). 

Similarly, inmates of the Houses of Virgins maintained by Inca rulers:

Lived in perpetual seclusion to the end of their lives… and were not permitted to converse, or have intercourse with, or to see any man, nor any woman who was not one of themselves” (p81-2). 

Feminists tend to view such practices as evidence of the supposed oppression of women

However, from a sociobiological or evolutionary psychological perspective, the primary victims of such practices were, not the harem inmates themselves, but rather the lower-status men condemned to celibacy and ‘inceldom’ as a consequence of royal dynasties monopolizing sexual access to almost all the fertile females in the society in question. 

The encloistered women might have been deprived of their freedom of movement – but many lower-status men in the same societies were deprived of almost all access to fertile female sex partners, and hence any possibility of passing on their genes, the ultimate evolutionary function of any biological organism. 

In contrast, the concubines secluded in royal harems were not only able to reproduce, but also lived lives of relative comfort, if not, in some cases, outright luxury, often being: 

Equipped with their own household and servants, and probably lived reasonably comfortable lives in most respects, except… for a lack of liberal masculine company” (p80). 

Indeed, seclusion, far from evidencing oppression, was primarily predicted on safety and protection. In short, to be imprisoned is not so bad when one is imprisoned in a palace. 

Finally, methods were also sometimes employed specifically to enhance their fertility of the women so confined. Thus, Ridley reports: 

Wet nurses, who allow women to resume ovulation by cutting short their breast-feeding periods, date from at least the code of Hammurabi in the eighteenth century BC… Tang dynasty emperors of China kept careful records of dates of menstruation and conception in the harem so as to be sure to copulate only with the most fertile concubines… [and] Chinese emperors were also taught to conserve their semen so as to keep up their quota of two women a day” (The Red Queen: p192). 

Confirming Betzig’s conclusions but subsequent to the publication of her work, researchers have now uncovered genetic evidence of the fecundity of one particular powerful ruler (or ruling male lineage) – namely, a Y chromosome haplogroup, found in 8% of males across a large region of Asia and in one in two hundred males across the whole world – the features of which are consistent with its having spread across the region thanks to the exception prolificity of Genghis Khan, his male siblings and descendants (Zerjal 2003). 

Female Rulers? 

In contrast, limited to only one pregnancy every nine months, a woman, howsoever rich and powerful, can necessarily bear far fewer offspring than can be sired by a man enjoying equivalent wealth, power and access to multiple fertile sex partners, even with the aid of evolutionary novelties like wet nurses, bottle milk and IVF treatment. 

As a female analogue of Ismail the Bloodthirsty, it is sometimes claimed that a Russian woman gave birth to 69 offspring in the nineteenth-century. She was also supposedly, and very much unlike Ismail the Bloodthirsty, not a powerful and polygamous elite ruler, but rather a humble, monogamously married peasant woman. 

However, this much smaller figure is both physiologically implausible and poorly sourced. Indeed, even her name is unknown, and she is referred to only as the wife of Feodor Vassilyev. It is, in short, almost certainly an urban myth.[3]

Feminists have argued that the overrepresentation of males in positions of power is a consequence of such mysterious and non-existent phenomena as patriarchy or male dominance or the oppression of women.

In reality, however, it seems that, for women, seeking positions of power and wealth simply doesn’t have the same reproductive payoff as for men – because, no matter how many men a woman copulates with, she can usually only gestate, and nurse, one (or, in the case of twins or triplets, occasionally two or three) offspring at a time. 

This is the essence of Bateman’s Principle, later formalized by Robert Trivers as differential parental investment theory (Bateman 1948; Trivers 1972).

This, then, in Darwinian terms, explains why women are less likely to assume positions of great political power.

It is not necessarily that they don’t want political power, but rather that they are less willing to make the necessary effort, or take the necessary risks, to attain power.[4]

This calculus then, rather than the supposed oppression of women, explains, not only the cross-culturally universal over-representation of men in positions of power, but also much of the so-called gender pay gap in our own societies (see Kingsley Browne’s Biology at Work: reviewed here). 

Perhaps the closest women can get to producing such a vast progeny is maneuver their sons into having the opportunity to do so. This might explain why such historical figures as Agrippina the Younger, the mother of Nero, and Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, are reported as having been so active, and instrumental, in securing the succession on behalf of their sons. 

The Purpose of Political Power? 

The notion that powerful rulers often use their power to gain access to multiple nubile sex partners is, of course, hardly original to sociobiology. On the contrary, it accords with popular cynicism regarding males in positions of power. 

What a Darwinian perspective adds is the ultimate explanation of why political leaders do so – and why female political rulers, even when they do assume power, usually adopt a very different reproductive strategy. 

Moreover, a Darwinian perspective goes beyond popular cynicism in suggesting that access to multiple sex partners is not merely yet another perk of power. On the contrary, it is the ultimate purpose of power and reason why men evolved to seek power in the first place. 

As Betzig herself concludes: 

Political power in itself may be explained, at least in part, as providing a position from which to gain reproductively” (p85).[5]

After all, from a Darwinian perspective, political power in and of itself has no intrinsic value. It is only if power can be used in such a way as to maximize a person’s reproductive success or fitness that it has evolutionary value. 

Thus, as Steven Pinker has observed, the recurrent theme in science fiction film and literature of robots rebelling against humans to take over the world and overthrow humanity is fundamentally mistaken. Robots would have no reason to rebel against humans, simply because they would not be programmed to want to take over the world and overthrow humanity in the first place. 

On the other hand, humans have been programmed to seek wealth and power – and to resist oppression and exploitation. This is why revolutions are a recurrent feature of human societies and history.

But we have been programmed, not by a programmer or god-like creator, but rather by natural selection.

We have been programmed by natural selection to seek wealth and power only because, throughout human evolutionary history, those of us who achieved political power tended, like Ismail the Bloodthirsty, also to achieve high levels of reproductive success as a consequence. 

Darwin versus Marx 

In order to test the predictive power of her theory, Betzig contrasts the predictions made by sociobiological theory with a rival theory – namely, Marxism

The comparison is apposite since, despite repeated falsification at the hands of both economists and of history, Marxism remains, among both social scientists and laypeople, the dominant paradigm when it comes to explaining social structure, hierarchy and exploitation in human societies.  

Certainly, it has proven far more popular than any approach to understanding human dominance hierarchies rooted in ethology, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology or selfish gene theory

There are, it bears emphasizing, several similarities between the two approaches. For one thing, each theory traces its origins ultimately to a nineteenth-century Victorian founder resident in Britain at the time he authored his key works, namely Charles Darwin and Karl Marx respectively.  

More importantly, there are also substantive similarities in the content and predictions of both these alternative theoretical paradigms. 

In particular, each is highly cynical in its conclusions. Indeed, at first glance, Marxist theory appears superficially almost as cynical as Darwinian theory. 

Thus, like Betzig, Marx regarded most societies in existence throughout history as exploitative – and as designed to serve the interests, not of society in general or of the population of that society as a whole, but rather of the dominant class within that society alone – namely, in the case of capitalism, the bourgeoisie or capitalist employers. 

However, sociobiological and Marxist theory depart in at least three crucial respects. 

First, Marxists propose that exploitation will be absent in future anticipated communist utopias

Second, Marxists also claim that such exploitation was also absent among hunter-gatherer groups, where so-called primitive communism supposedly prevailed. 

Thus, the Marxist, so cynical with regard exploitation and oppression in capitalist (and feudal) society, suddenly turns hopelessly naïve and innocent when it comes to envisaging future unrealistic communist utopias, and when contemplating ‘noble savages’ in their putative ‘Eden before the fall’.

Unfortunately, however, in her critique of Marxism, Betzig herself nevertheless remains somewhat confused in respect of this key issue. 

On the one hand, she rightly dismisses primitive communism as a Marxist myth. Thus, she demonstrates and repeatedly emphasizes that:

Men accrue reproductive rights to wives of varying numbers and fertility in every human society” (p20).

Therefore, Betzig, contrary to the tenets of Marxism, concludes:

Unequal access to the basic resource which perpetuates life, members of the opposite sex, is a condition in [even] the simplest societies” (p32; see also Chagnon 1979).

Neither is universal human inequality limited only to access to fertile females. On the contrary, Betzig observes:

Some form of exploitation has been in evidence in even the smallest societies… Conflicts of interest in all societies are resolved with a consistent bias in favor of men with greater power” (p67).

On the other hand, however, Betzig takes a wrong turn in refusing to rule out the possibility of true communism somehow arising in the future. Thus, perhaps in a misguided effort to placate the many leftist opponents of sociobiology in academia, she writes:

Darwinism… [does not] preclude the possibility of future conditions under which individual interests might become common interests: under which individual welfare might best be served by serving the welfare of society… [nor] preclude… the possibility of the evolution of socialism” (p68). 

This, however, seems obviously impossible. 

After all, we have evolved to seek to maximize the representation of our own genes in subsequent generations at the expense of those of other individuals. Only a eugenic reengineering of human nature itself could ever change this. 

Thus, as Donald Symons emphasized in his seminal The Evolution of Human Sexuality (which I have reviewed here), reproductive competition is inevitable – because, whereas there is sometimes sufficient food that everyone is satiated and competition for food is therefore unnecessary and counterproductive, reproductive success is always relative, and therefore competition over women is universal. 

Thus, Betzig quotes Confucius as observing:

Disorder does not come from heaven, but is brought about by women” (p26). 

Indeed, Betzig herself elsewhere recognizes this key point, namely the relativity of reproductive success, when she observes, in a passage quoted above, that a powerful monarch benefits from sequestering huge numbers of fertile females in his harem because, even if it is unfeasible that he would ever successfully impregnate all of them himself, he nevertheless thereby prevents other males from impregnating them, and thereby increases the relative representation of his own genes in subsequent generations (p70). 

It therefore seems inconceivable that social engineers, let alone pure happenstance, could ever engineer a society in which individual interests were identical to societal interests, other than a society of identical twins or through the eugenic reingineering of human nature itself (see Peter Singer’s A Darwinian Left, which I have reviewed here).[6]

Marx and the Means of Reproduction

The third and perhaps most important conflict between the Darwinist and Marxist perspectives concerns what Betzig terms: 

The relative emphasis on production and reproduction” (p67).

Whereas Marxists view control of what they term the means of production as the ultimate cause of societal conflict, socioeconomic status and exploitation, for Darwinians conflict and exploitation instead focus on control over what we might term the means of reproduction – in other words fertile females, their wombs, ova and vaginas. 

Thus, Betzig observes: 

Marxism makes no explicit prediction that exploitation should coincide with reproduction” (p68). 

In other words, Marxist theory is silent on the crucial issue of whether high-status individuals will necessarily convert their political and economic power into the ultimate currency of Darwinian selection – namely, reproductive success

On this view, powerful male rulers might just as well be celibate as control and assert exclusive reproductive access to large harems of young fertile wives and concubines. 

In contrast, for Darwinians, the effort to maximize one’s reproductive success is the very purpose, and ultimate end, of all political power. 

As sociologist-turned-sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe observes in his excellent The Ethnic Phenomenon (reviewe here, here and here): 

The ultimate measure of human success is no production but reproduction. Economic productivity and profit are means to reproductive ends, not ends in themselves” (The Ethnic Phenomenon: p165). 

Thus, production is, from a sociobiological perspective, just another means of gaining the resources necessary for reproduction. 

On the other hand, reproduction is, from a biological perspective, the ultimate purpose of life. 

Therefore, it seems that, for all his ostensible radicalism, Karl Marx was, in his emphasis on economics rather than sex, just another nineteenth-century Victorian prude! 

The Polygyny Threshold Model Applied to Humans? 

One way of conceptualizing the tendency of powerful males to attract (or perhaps commandeer) multiple wives and concubines is the polygyny threshold model

This way of conceptualizing male and female reproductive and ecological competition was first formulated by ornithologist-ecologist Gordon Orians in order to model the mating systems of passerine birds (Orians 1969). 

Here, males practice so-called resource defence polygyny – in other words, they defend territories containing valuable resources (e.g. food, nesting sites) necessary for successful reproduction and provisioning of offspring. 

Females then distribute themselves between males in accordance with size and quality of male territories. 

On this view, if the territory of one male is twice as resource-abundant as that of another, he would, all else being equal, attract twice as many mates; if it is three times as resource-abundant, he would attract three times as many mates; etc. 

The result is rough parity in resource-holdings and reproductive success among females, but often large disparities among males. 

Applying the Polygyny Threshold Model to Modern America

Thus, applying the polygyny threshold model to humans, and rather simplistically substituting wealth for territory size and quality, we might predict that, if Jeff Bezos is a hundred thousand times richer than Joe Schmo, then, if Joe has only one wife, then Jeff should have around 100,000 wives.

But, of course, Jeff Bezos does not have 100,000 wives, nor even a mere 100,000 concubines. 

Instead, he has only one solitary meagre ex-wife, and she, even when married to him, was not, to the best of my knowledge, ever guarded by any eunuchs – though perhaps he would have been better off if she had been, since they might have prevented her from divorcing him and taking an enormous share of his wealth with her in the ensuing divorce settlement.[7]

The same is also true of contemporary political leaders. 

Indeed, if any contemporary western political leader does attempt to practice polygyny, even on a comparatively modest scale, then, if discovered, a so-called sex scandal almost invariably results. 

Yet, viewed in historical perspective, the much-publicized marital infidelities of, say, Bill Clinton, though they may have outraged the sensibilities the of mass of monogamously-married Middle American morons, positively pale into insignificance besides the reproductive achievements of someone like, say, Ismail the Bloodthirsty

Indeed, Clinton’s infidelities don’t even pack much of a punch beside those of a politician from the same nation and just a generation removed, namely John F Kennedy – whose achievements in the political sphere are vastly overrated on account of his early death, but whose achievements in the bedroom, while scarcely matching those of Ismail the Bloodthirsty or the Aztec emperors, certainly put the current generation of American politicians to shame. 

Why, then, does the contemporary west represent such a glaring exception to the general pattern of elite polygyny that Betzig has so successfully documented throughout so much of the rest of the world, and throughout so much of history? And what has become of the henpecked geldings who pass for politicians in the contemporary era? 

Monogamy as Male Compromise? 

According to Betzig, the moronic mass media moral panic that invariably accompanies sexual indiscretions on the part of contemporary Western political leaders and other public figures is no accident. Rather, it is exactly what her theory predicts. 

According to Betzig, the institution of monogamy as it operates in Western democracies represents a compromise between low-status and high status males. 

According to the terms of this compromise, high-status males agree to forgo polygyny in exchange for the cooperation of low status males in participating in the complexly interdependent economic systems of modern western polities (p105) – or, in biologist Richard Alexander’s alternative formulation, in exchange for serving as necessary cannon-fodder in wars (p104).[8]

Thus, whereas, under polygyny, there are never enough females to go around, under monogamy, at least assuming that there is a roughly equal sex ratio (i.e. a roughly equal numbers of men and women), then virtually almost all males are capable of attracting a wife, howsoever ugly and unpleasant. 

This is important, since it means that all men, even the relatively poor and powerless, nevertheless have a reproductive stake in society. This, then, in evolutionary terms, provides them with an incentive both:

1) To participate in the economy to support and thereby provide for their wife and family; and

2) To defend these institutions in wartime, if necessary with their lives.

The institution of monogamy has therefore been viewed as a key factor, if not the key factor, in both the economic and military ascendency of the West (see Scheidel 2008). 

Similarly, it has recently been argued that the increasing rates of non-participation of young males in the economy and workforce (i.e. the so-called NEET’ phenomenon) is a direct consequence of the reduction in reproductive opportunities to young males (Binder 2021).[9]

Thus, on this view, then, the media scandal and hysteria that invariably accompanies sexual infidelities by elected politicians, or constitutional monarchs, reflects outrage that the terms of this implicit agreement have been breached. 

This idea was anticipated by Irish playwright and socialist George Bernard Shaw, who observed in Man and Superman: Maxims for Revolutionaries, the preface to his play Man and Superman

Polygyny, when tried under modern democratic conditions, as by the Mormons is wrecked by the revolt of the mass of inferior men who are condemned to celibacy by it” (Shaw 1903). 

Socially Imposed Monogamy’?

Consistent with this theory of socially imposed monogamy, it is indeed the case that, in all Western democratic polities, polygyny is unlawful, and bigamy a crime. 

Yet these laws are seemingly in conflict with contemporary western liberal democratic principles of tolerance and inclusivity, especially in respect of ‘alternative lifestyles’ and ‘non-traditional relationships’.

Thus, for example, we have recently witnessed a successful campaign for the legalization of gay marriage in most western jurisdictions. However, strangely, polygynous marriage seemingly remains anathema – despite the fact that most cultures across the world and throughout history have permitted polygynous marriage, whereas few if any have ever accorded any state recognition to homosexual unions.

Indeed, strangely, whereas the legalization of gay marriage was widely perceived as ‘progressive’, polygyny is associated, not with sexual liberation with rather with highly traditional and sexually repressive groups such as Mormons and Muslims.[10]

Polygynous marriage was also, rather strangely, associated with the supposed oppression of women in traditional societies

However, most women actually do better, at least in purely economic terms, under polygyny than under monogamy, at least in highly stratified societies with large differences in resource-holdings as between males. 

Thus, if, as we have seen, Jeff Bezos is 100,000 times richer than Joe Schmo, then a woman is financially better off becoming the second wife, or the tenth wife (or even the 99,999th wife!), of Jeff Bezos rather than the first wife of poor Joe. 

Moreover, women also have another incentive to prefer Jeff to Joe. 

If she is impregnated by a polygynous male like Jeff, then her male descendants may inherit the traits that facilitated their father’s wealth, power and polygyny, and hence become similarly reproductively successful themselves, aiding the spread of the woman’s own genes in subsequent generations. 

Biologists call this good genes sexual selection or, more catchily, the sexy son hypothesis

Once again, however, George Bernard Shaw beat them to it when he observed in the same 1903 essay quoted above: 

Maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one” (Shaw 1903). 

Thus, Robert Wright concludes: 

In sheerly Darwinian terms, most men are probably better off in a monogamous system, and most women worse off” (The Moral Animal: p96). 

Thus, women generally should welcome polygyny, while the only people opposed to polygyny should be: 

1) The women currently married to men like Jeff Bezos, and greedily unwilling to share their resource-abundant ‘alpha-male’ providers with a whole hundred-fold harem of co-wives and concubines; and

2) A glut of horny sexually-frustrated bachelor-‘incels’ terminally condemned to celibacy, bachelorhood and inceldom by promiscuous lotharios like Jeff Bezos and Ismail the Bloodthirsty greedily hogging all the hot chicks for themselves.

Who Opposes Polygyny, and Why? 

However, in my experience, the people who most vociferously and puritanically object to philandering male politicians are not low-status men, but rather women. 

Moreover, such women typically affect concern on behalf, not of the male bachelors and ‘incels’ supposedly indirectly condemned to celibacy by such behaviours, but rather the wives of such politicians – though the latter are the chief beneficiaries of monogamy, while these other women, precluded from signing up as second or third-wives to alpha-male providers, are themselves, at least in theory, among the main losers. 

This suggests that the ‘male compromise theory’ of socially-imposed monogamy is not the whole story. 

Perhaps then, although women benefit in purely financial terms under polygyny, they do not do so well in fitness terms. 

Thus, one study found that, whereas polygynous males (unsurprisingly) had more offspring than monogamously-mated males, they (perhaps also unsurprisingly) had fewer offspring per wife. This suggests that, while polygynously-married males benefit from polygyny, their wives incur a fitness penalty for having to share their husband (Strassman 2000). 

This probably reflects the fact that even male reproductive capacity is limited, as, notwithstanding the Coolidge effect (which has, to my knowledge, yet to be demonstrated in humans), males can only manage a certain number of orgasms per day. 

Women’s distaste for polygynous unions may also reflect the fact that even prodigiously wealthy males will inevitably have a limited supply of one particular resource – namely, time – and time spent with offspring may be an important determinant of offspring success, which paid child-minders, lacking a direct genetic stake in offspring, are unable to perfectly replicate.[11]

Thus, if Jeff Bezos were able to attract for himself the 100,000 wives that the polygyny threshold model suggests is his due, then, even if he were capable of providing each woman with the two point four children that is her own due, it is doubtful he would have enough time on his hands to spend much ‘quality time’ with each of his 240,000 offspring – just as one doubts Ismail the Bloodthirsty was himself an attentive father his own more modest mere 888. 

Thus, one suspects that, contrary to the polygyny threshold model, polygyny is not always entirely a matter of female choice (Sanderson 2001).

On the contrary, many of the women sequestered into the harems of rulers like Ismail the Bloodthirsty likely had little say in the matter. 

The Central Theoretical Problem of Human Sociobiology’ 

Yet, if this goes some way towards explaining the apparent paradox of socially imposed monogamy, there is, today, an even greater paradox with which we must wrestle – namely, why, in contemporary western societies, is there apparently an inverse correlation between wealth and number of offspring.

After all, from a sociobiological or evolutionary psychological perspective, this represents something of a paradox. 

If, as we have seen, the very purpose of wealth and power (from a sociobiological perspective) is to convert these advantages into the ultimately currency of natural selection, namely reproductive success, then why are the wealthy so spectacularly failing to do so in the contemporary west?[12]

Moreover, if status is not conducive to high reproductive success, then why have humans evolved to seek high-status in the first place? 

This anomaly has been memorably termed the ‘The central theoretical problem of human sociobiology’ in a paper by University of Pennsylvania demographer and eugenicist Daniel Vining (Vining 1986). 

Socially imposed monogamy can only go some way towards explaining this anomaly. Thus, in previous centuries, even under monogamy, wealthier families still produced more surviving offspring, if only because their greater wealth enabled them to successfully rear and feed multiple successive offspring to adulthood. In contrast, for the poor, high rates of infant mortality were the order of the day. 

Yet, in the contemporary west, it seems that the people who have the most children and hence the highest fitness in the strict Darwinian sense, are, at least according to popular stereotype, single mothers on government welfare. 

De Facto’ Polygyny 

Various solutions have been proposed to this apparent paradox. A couple amount to claiming that the west is not really monogamous at all, and, once this is factored in, then, at least among males, higher-status men do indeed have greater numbers of offspring than lower-status men. 

One suggestion along these lines is that perhaps wealthy males sire additional offspring whose paternity is misassigned, via extra-marital liaisons (Betzig 1993b). 

However, despite some sensationalized claims, rates of misassigned paternity are actually quite low (Khan 2010; Gilding 2005; Bellis et al 2005). 

If it is lower-class women who are giving birth to most of the offspring, then it is probably mostly males of their own socioeconomic status who are responsible for impregnating them, if only because it is the latter with whom they have the most social contact. 

Perhaps a more plausible suggestion is that wealthy high-status males are able to practice a form of disguised polygyny by through repeated remarriage. 

Thus, wealthy men are sometimes criticized for divorcing their first wives to marry much younger second- and sometimes even third- and fourth-wives. In this way, they manage monopolize the peak reproductive years of multiple successive young women. 

This is true, for example, of recent American President Donald Trump – the ultimate American alpha male – who has himself married three women, each one younger than her predecessor

Thus, science journalist Robert Wright contends: 

The United States is no longer a nation of institutionalized monogamy. It is a nation of serial monogamy. And serial monogamy in some ways amounts to polygyny.” (The Moral Animal: p101). 

This, then, is not so much ‘serial monogamy’ as it is ‘sequential’ or non-concurrent polygyny’. 

Evolutionary Novelties 

Another suggestion is that evolutionary novelties – i.e. recently developed technologies such as contraception – have disrupted the usual association between status and fertility. 

On this view, natural selection has simply not yet had sufficient time (or, rather, sufficient generations) over which to mold our psychology and behaviour in such a way as to cause us to use these technologies in an adaptive manner – i.e. in order to maximize, not restrict, our reproductive success. 

An obvious candidate here is safe and effective contraception, which, while actually somewhat older than most people imagine, nevertheless became widely available to the population at large only over the course of the past century, which is surely not enough generations for us to have become evolutionarily adapted to its use.  

Thus, a couple of studies have found that that, while wealthy high-status males may not father more offspring, they do have more sex with a greater number of partners – i.e. behaviours that would have resulted in more offspring in ancestral environments prior to the widespread availability of contraception (Pérusse 1993: Kanazawa 2003). 

This implies that high-status males (or their partners) use contraception either more often, or more effectively, than low-status males, probably because of their greater intelligence and self-control, namely the very traits that enabled them to achieve high socioeconomic status in the first place (Kanazawa 2005). 

Another evolutionary novelty that may disrupt the usual association between social status and number of surviving offspring is the welfare system

Welfare payments to single mothers undoubtedly help these families raise to adulthood offspring who would otherwise perish in infancy. 

In addition, by reducing the financial disincentives associated with raising additional offspring, they probably increase the number of offspring these women choose to have in the first place. 

While it is highly controversial to suggest that welfare payments to single mothers actually give the latter an actual financial incentive to bear additional offspring, they surely, at the very least, reduce the financial disincentives otherwise associated with bearing additional children. 

Therefore, given that the desire for offspring is probably innate, women would rationally respond by having more children.[13]

Feminist ideology also encourages women in particular to postpone childbearing in favour of careers. Moreover, it is probably higher-status females who are more exposed to feminist ideology, especially in universities, where feminist ideology is thoroughly entrenched

In contrast, lower-status women are not only less exposed to feminist ideology encouraging them to delay motherhood in favour of career, but also likely have fewer appealing careers available to them in the first place. 

Finally, even laws against bigamy and polygyny might be conceptualized as an evolutionary novelty that disrupts the usual association between status and fertility. 

However, whereas technological innovations such as effective contraception were certainly not available until recent times, ideological constructs and religious teachings – including ideas such as feminism, prohibitions on polygyny, and the socialist ideology that motivated the creation of the welfare state – have existed ever since we evolved the capacity to create such constructs (i.e. since we became fully human). 

Therefore, one would expect that humans would have evolved resistance to ideological and religious teachings that go against their genetic interests. Otherwise, we would be vulnerable to indoctrination (and hence exploitation) at the hands third parties. 

Dysgenics? 

Finally, it must be noted that these issues are not only of purely academic interest. 

On the contrary, since socioeconomic status correlates with both intelligence and personality traits such as conscientiousness, and these traits are, in turn, substantially heritable, and moreover determine, not only individual wealth and prosperity, but also at the aggregate level, the wealth and prosperity of nations, the question of who has the offspring is surely of central concern to the future of society, civilization and the world. 

In short, what is at stake is the very genetic posterity that we bequeath to future generations. It is simply too important a matter to be delegated to the capricious and irrational decision-making of individual women. 

__________________________

Endnotes

[1] Actually, the precise number of offspring Ismail fathered is unclear. The figure I have quoted in the main body of the text comes from various works on evolutionary psychology (e.g. Cartwright, Evolution and Human Behaviour: p133-4; Wright, The Moral Animal: p247). However, another earlier work on human sociobiology, David Barash’s The Whisperings Within gives an even higher figure, of “1,056 offspring” (The Whisperings Within: p47). Meanwhile, an article produced by the Guinness Book of Records gives a figure of at least 342 daughters and 700 sons, while a scientific paper by Elisabeth Oberzaucher and Karl Grammer gives a figure of 1171 offspring in total. The precise figure seems to be unknown and is probably apocryphal. Nevertheless, the general point – namely that a powerful male with access to a large harem and multiple wives and concubines, is capable of fathering many offspring – is surely correct.

[2] The capture of fertile females from among enemy groups is by no means restricted to the Yąnomamö. On the contrary, it may even form the ultimate evolutionary basis for intergroup conflict and raiding among troops of chimpanzees, our species’ closest extant relative. It is also alluded to, and indeed explicitly commanded, in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Deuteronomy 20: 13-14; Numbers 31: 17-18), and was formerly prevalent in western culture as well.
It is also very much apparent, for example, in the warfare and raiding formerly endemic in the Gobi Desert of what is today Mongolia. Thus, the mother of Genghis Khan was, at least according to legend, herself kidnapped by the Great Khan’s father. Indeed, this was apparently an accepted form of courtship on the Mongolian Steppe, as Genghis Khan’s own wife was herself stolen from him on at least one occasion by rival Steppe nomads, resulting in a son of disputed paternity (whom the great Khan perhaps tellingly named Jochi, which is said to translate as ’guest) and a later succession crisis.
Many anthropologists, it ought to be noted, dismiss Chagnon’s claim that Yanomami warfare is predicated on the capture of women. Perhaps the most famous is Chagnon’s own former student, Kenneth Good, whose main claim to fame is to have himself married a (by American standards, underage) Yąnomamö girl – who, in a dramatic falsification of her husband’s theory, was then herself twice raped and abducted by raiding Yanomami warriors.

[3] It is ironic that John Cartwright, author of Evolution and Human Behaviour, an undergraduate level textbook on evolutionary psychology, is skeptical regarding the claim that Ismail the Bloodthirsty fathered 888 offspring, but nevertheless apparently takes at face value that claim that a Russian peasant woman had 69 offspring, a biologically far more implausible claim (Evolution and Human Behaviour: p133-4).

[4] There may even be a fitness penalty associated with increased socioeconomic status and political power for women. For example, among baboons, it has been found that high-ranking females actually suffer reduced fertility and higher rates of miscarriages (Packer et al 1995). Kingsley Browne, in his excellent book, Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality (which I have reviewed here), noting that female executives tend to have fewer children, tentatively proposes that a similar effect may be at work among humans:

Women who succeed in business tend to be relatively high testosterone, which can result in lower female fertility, whether because of ovulatory irregularities or reduced interest in having children. Thus, rather than the high-powered career being responsible for the high rate of childlessness, it may be that high testosterone levels are responsible for both” (Biology at Work: p124).

[5] However, here, Betzig is perhaps altogether overcautious. Thus, whether or not “political power in itself” is explained in this way (i.e. “as providing a position from which to gain reproductively”), certainly the human desire for political power must surely be explained in this way.

[6] The prospect of eugenically reengineering human nature itself so as to make utopian communism achievable, and human society less conflictual, is also unrealistic. As John Gray has noted in Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (reviewed here), if human nature is eugenically reengineered, then it will be done, not in the interests of society, let alone humankind, as a whole, but rather in the interests of those responsible for ordering or undertaking the project – namely, scientists and, more importantly, those from whom they take their orders (e.g. government, politicians, civil servants, big business, managerial elites). Thus, Gray concludes:

“[Although] it seems feasible that over the coming century human nature will be scientifically remodelled… it will be done haphazardly, as an upshot of struggles in the murky realm where big business, organized crime and the hidden parts of government vie for control” (Straw Dogs: p6).

[7] Here, it is important to emphasize that what is exceptional about western societies is not monogamy per se. On the contrary, monogamy is common in relatively egalitarian societies (e.g. hunter-gatherer societies), especially those living at subsistence levels, where no male is able to secure access to sufficient resources so as to provision multiple offspring (Kanazawa and Still 1999). What is exceptional about contemporary western societies is the combination of:

1) Large differentials of resource-holdings between males (i.e. social stratification); and

2) Prescriptive monogamy (i.e. polygyny is not merely not widely practised, but also actually unlawful).

[8] Quite when prescriptive monogamy originated in the west seems to be a matter of some dispute. Betzig views it as very much a recent phenomenon, arising with the development of complex, interdependent industrial economies, which required the cooperation of lower-status males in order to function. Here, Betzig perhaps underestimates the extent to which even pre-industrial economies required the work and cooperation of low-status males in order to function. Thus, Betzig argues that, in ancient Rome, nominally monogamous marriages concealed rampantly de facto polygyny, with emperors and other powerful males fathering multiple offspring with both slaves and other men’s wives (Betzig 1992). Similarly, in medieval Europe, she argues that, despite nominal monogamy, wealthy men fathered multiple offspring through servant girls (Betzig 1995a; Betzig 1995b). In contrast, Macdonald persuasively argues that medieval monogamy was no mere myth (Macdonald 1995a; Macdonald 1995b).

[9] Certainly, the so-called NEET and incel phenomena seem to be correlated with one another. NEETs are disproportionately likely to be incels, and incels are disproportionately likely to be NEETs. However, the direction of causation is unclear and probably works in both directions. On the one hand, since women are rarely attracted to men without money or the prospects of money, men without jobs are rarely able to attract wives or girlfriends. However, on the other hand, men who, for whatever reason, perceive themselves as unable to attract a wife or girlfriend even if they did have a job, probably see little incentive to getting a job in the first place or keeping the one they do have.

[10] Indeed, during the debates surrounding the legalization of gay marriage, the prospect of the legalization of polygynous marriage was rarely discussed, and, when it was raised, it was usually invoked by the opponents of gay marriage, as a sort of reductio ad absurdum of changes in marriage laws to permit gay marriage, something champions of gay marriage were quick to dismiss as preposterous scaremongering. In short, both sides in the acrimonious debates regarding gay marriage seem to have been agreed that legalizing polygynous unions was utterly beyond the pale.

[11] Thus, father absence is a known correlate of criminality and other negative life outcomes. In fact, however, the importance of paternal investment in offspring outcomes, and indeed of parental influence more generally, has yet to be demonstrated, since the correlation between father-absence and negative life-outcomes could instead reflect the heritability of personality, including those aspects of personality that cause people to have offspring out of wedlock, die early, abandon their children or have offspring by a person who abandons their offspring or dies early (see Judith Harris’s The Nurture Assumption, which I have reviewed here). 

[12] This paradox is related to another one – namely, why it is that people in richer societies tend to have lower fertility rates than poorer societies? This recent development, often referred to as the demographic transition, is paradoxical for the exact same reason that it is paradoxical for poorer people within western societies to have have fewer offspring than poorer people within these same societies, namely that it is elementary Darwinism 101 that an organism with access to greater resources should channel those additional resources into increased reproduction. Interestingly, this phenomenon is not restricted to western societies. On the contrary, other wealthy industrial and post-industrial societies, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, have, if anything, even lower fertility rates than Europe, Australasia and North America.

[13] Actually, it is not altogether clear that women do have an innate desire to bear children. After all, in the EEA, there was no need for women to evolve a desire to bear children. All they required to a desire to have sexual intercourse (or indeed a mere willingness to acquiesce in the male desire for intercourse). In the absence of contraception, offspring would then naturally result. Indeed, other species, including presumably most of our pre-human ancestors, are surely wholly unaware of the connection between sexual intercourse and reproduction. A desire for offspring would then serve no adaptive function for these species at all. However, this did not stop these species from seeking out sexual opportunities and hence reproducing their kind. However, given anecdotal evidence of so-called ‘broodiness’ among women, I suspect women do indeed have some degree of innate desire for offspring.

References

Bateman (1948), Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila, Heredity, 2 (Pt. 3): 349–368.
Bellis et al (2005) Measuring Paternal Discrepancy and its Public Health Consequences. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59(9):749.
Betzig 1992 Roman Polygyny. Ethology and Sociobiology 13(5-6): 309-349.
Betzig 1993a. Sex, succession, and stratification in the first six civilizations: How powerful men reproduced, passed power on to their sons, and used power to defend their wealth, women and children. In Lee Ellis, ed. Social Stratification and Socioeconomic Inequality, pp. 37-74. New York: Praeger.
Betzig 1993b. Where are the bastards’ daddies? Comment on Daniel Pérusse’s ‘Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16: 284-85.
Betzig 1995a Medieval Monogamy. Journal of Family History 20(2): 181-216.
Betzig 1995b Wanting Women Isn’t New; Getting Them Is: Very. Politics and the Life Sciences 14(1): 24-25.
Binder (2021) Why Bother? The Effect of Declining Marriage Market Prospects on Labor-Force Participation by Young Men (March 1, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3795585 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3795585
Chagnon N (1979) Is reproductive success equal in egalitarian societies. In: Chagnon & Irons (eds) Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective pp.374-402 (MA: Duxbury Press).
Einon, G (1998) How Many Children Can One Man Have? Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(6):413–426.
Gilding (2005) Rampant Misattributed Paternity: The Creation of an Urban Myth. People and Place 13(2): 1.
Gould (2000) How many children could Moulay Ismail have had? Evolution and Human Behavior 21(4): 295 – 296.
Khan (2010) The paternity myth: The rarity of cuckoldry, Discover, 20 June, 2010.
Kanazawa & Still (1999) Why Monogamy? Social Forces 78(1):25-50.
Kanazawa (2003) Can Evolutionary Psychology Explain Reproductive Behavior in the Contemporary United States? Sociological Quarterly. 44: 291–302.
Kanazawa (2005) An Empirical Test of a Possible Solution to ‘the Central Theoretical Problem of Human Sociobiology’. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology. 3: 255–266.
Macdonald 1995a The establishment and maintenance of socially imposed monogamy in Western Europe, Politics and the Life Sciences, 14(1): 3-23.
Macdonald 1995b Focusing on the group: further issues related to western monogamy, Politics and the Life Sciences, 14(1): 38-46.
Oberzaucher & Grammer (2014) The Case of Moulay Ismael – Fact or Fancy? PLoS ONE 9(2): e85292.
Orians (1969) On the Evolution of Mating Systems in Birds and Mammals. American Naturalist 103 (934): 589–603.
Packer et al (1995) Reproductive constraints on aggressive competition in female baboons. Nature 373: 60–63.
Pérusse (1993). Cultural and Reproductive Success in Industrial Societies: Testing the Relationship at the Proximate and Ultimate Levels.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:267–322.
Sanderson (2001) Explaining Monogamy and Polygyny in Human Societies: Comment on Kanazawa and Still. Social Forces 80(1):329-335.
Scheidel (2008) Monogamy and Polygyny in Greece, Rome, and World History, (June 2008). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1214729 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1214729
Shaw GB (1903) Man and Superman, Maxims for Revolutionists.
Strassman B (2000) Polygyny, Family Structure and Infant Mortality: A Prospective Study Among the Dogon of Mali. In Cronk, Chagnon & Irons (Ed.), Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (pp.49-68). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection & the Descent of Man, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 136-179. Chicago.
Vining D 1986 Social versus reproductive success: The central theoretical problem of human sociobiology Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9(1): 167- 187.
Zerjal et al. (2003) The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols, American Journal of Human Genetics, 72(3): 717–721.

Pornographic Progress, Sexbots and the Salvation of Man

Women are like elephants – nice to look at but I wouldn’t want to own one.
WC Fields

In my previous post (“The Sex Cartel: Puritanism and and Prudery as Price-fixing among Prostitutes”), I discussed why prostitutes and other promiscuous women have invariably been condemned as immoral by other women on account of their promiscuity, despite the fact that they provide pleasure to, in some cases, literally thousands of men and, therefore, according to the tenets of the theory of ethics known as utilitarianism, are literally giving ‘the greatest happiness to the greatest number’ as Bentham advocated and ought therefore to be lauded as the highest paradigm of moral virtue right up alongside Mother Theresa, who, although she dedicated her life to heeling, feeding and caring for the sick, poor and destitute, never went as far as actually sucking their cocks.

Who can seriously doubt that a few dollars for magazine full of beautiful women expertly fucking and sucking who, on the page, remain young and beautiful for ever, and which costs only a few dollars at most, is better value than marriage to a single solitary real-life woman, who demands half your income, grows older and uglier with each passing year, probably wasn’t exactly a Playboy centerfold even to begin with, and who is legally obligated to fuck you only during the divorce-settlement?

The answer lay, I concluded, in the concept of a price-fixing cartel that I christened The Sex Cartel which functions to artificially inflate the price of sex, to the advantage of women as a whole, by stigmatizing, and where possible criminalizing, those women (e.g. prostitutes) who provide sexual services at below the going rate (e.g. outside of marriage). Puritanism and prudery are thus, I concluded, nothing more than price-fixing among prostitutes.

 In the current essay/post, I expand on this theory, extending the analysis to pornography. In doing so, I explain the gradual liberalization of attitudes towards sexual morality over the course of the twentieth century as a rational and inevitable response to what I term ‘Pornographic Progress’.

Finally, turning my gaze from the past to the future, I prophesize that the future of fucking and the eventual emancipation of man from the sexual subjugation of The Sex Cartel, will come, not by political progress reform, revolution or insurrection, but rather from Virtual Reality Pornography and so-called ‘Sexbots’.

Thus, the so-called ‘Sexual Revolution’ of the Swinging Sixties was but barely a beginning. The Real Sexual Revolution may be yet to come.

In Praise of Pornography

Across a variety of jurisdictions and throughout much of history, pornography in general, or particular genres of pornography, have been outlawed. Moreover, even where pornography is legalized, it is almost invariably heavily restricted and regulated by the state (e.g. age-restrictions).

Indeed, traditionally, not only pornography, but even masturbation itself was regarded as immoral and also a health risk. In the Victorian era, various strategies, devices and mechanisms were invented or adopted to prevent masturbation, from circumcision to Kellogg’s cornflakes.

Therefore, if men had really listened to their self-appointed moral guardians, their doctors, their medical experts, church leaders and other assorted professional damned fools who sought to dictate to them how they should and shouldn’t behave in public and in private and what they should and shouldn’t insert their penis inside of, they would have been completely reliant on women for their sexual relief and women’s sexual subjugation of men would have consequently been complete.

Today, the opposition to porn is dominated by an Unholy Alliance of Radical Feminists and Religious Fundamentalists, who, despite professing to be enemies, appear to be in complete agreement with one another on every particular of the issue.

This is no surprise. Despite their ‘left-liberal’ pretensions, feminists have always been, at heart, puritans, prudes and prohibitionists – from prohibition itself, largely enacted at the behest of women’s groups such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, to the current feminist crusades against pornography, prostitution and other such fun and healthy recreational activities.

Why then is porn so universally condemned, criminalized and state-regulated throughout history and across the world?

The production and consumption of pornography is, of course, a victimless crime. The vast majority of women who appear in pornography do so voluntarily, and they have every economic incentive for doing so, earning, as they do, substantial salaries, many times greater than the salaries commanded by the more talented male performers alongside whom they perform, who do much more difficult jobs.

Indeed, far from being inherently harmful, pornography provides joy and happiness to many men, not least many lonely and disadvantaged men, and a lucrative livelihood for many men and women both. There is even evidence it may reduce levels of sex crimes, by providing an alternative outlet for sexually-frustrated men.[1]

Why then is pornography criminalized and regulated?

The usual explanation is that pornography is demeaning towards women.

Yet what is demeaning about, say, a Playboy centerfold. Far from demeaning women, soft porn images seem to involve putting women on a pedestal, as representing something inherently beautiful and desirable and to be gazed at longingly and admiringly by men who pay money to buy pictures of them.

Meanwhile, even most so-called ‘hardcore’ pornography is hardly demeaning. Most simply involves images of consensual, and mutually pleasurable, sexual congress, a natural act. Certainly, it is no more demeaning towards women than towards men, who also appear in pornography but typically earn far less.

True, there is a minor subgenre of so-called ‘male domination’ within the BDSM subgenre. But this is mirrored, and indeed dwarfed, by the parallel genre of ‘female domination’, which seems to be the more popular fetish and involves images at least as demeaning to men as those depicted in ‘male domination’ are to women.[2]

True, if pornography does not portray women in a negative light, it does perhaps portray them unrealistically – i.e. as readily receptive to men’s advances and as desirous of commitment-free promiscuous sex as are men. However, as psychologist Catherine Salmon observes:

“[Whereas] pornography imposes a male-like sexuality on females, a fantasy of sexual utopia for men… consider the other side, the romance novel, or ‘porn’ for women. It imposes a female-like sexuality on men that is in many ways perhaps no more realistic than [pornography]. But no one is out there lobbying to ban romance novels because of the harm they do to women’s attitudes towards men.[3]

As Jack Kammer explains in If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules, while pornography represents a male fantasy, BDSM apart, it involves a fantasy, not of male domination, but rather of sexual equality – namely a world where women enjoy sex as much as men do, “participate enthusiastically in sex… love male sexuality, and… don’t hold out for money, dinner or furs”, and thereby lose their sexual power over men.[4]

On this view, Kammer concludes, “pornography does not glorify our sexual domination of women” but rather “expresses our fantasies of overcoming women’s sexual domination of us”.[5]

Pornography and The Sex Cartel

Yet this does not mean that the opposition to pornography is wholly misguided or irrational. On the contrary, I shall argue that, for women, opposition to pornography is wholly rational. However, it reflects, not the higher concerns of morality in which terms such opposition is typically couched, but rather base economic self-interest.

To understand why, we must revisit once again “Sex Cartel Theory”, introduced in my previous post. Whereas the prevalent prejudice against prostitutes reflects price-fixing among prostitutes, opposition to pornography reflects rent-seeking, or protectionism, among prostitutes.

Like price-fixing, rent-seeking and protectionism is a perfectly rational economic strategy. However, again like price-fixing, it is wholly self-interested and anti-competitive. While benefiting women, the rest of society (i.e. men) pay a concomitant cost.

An example is where practitioners in a certain industry (e.g. doctors, physio-therapists, lawyers) seek to prevent or criminalize others (often others lacking a requisite qualification) from providing the same or a similar service rather than allowing the consumer free choice.

It is my contention that when women seek to restrict or criminalize pornography or other form forms of sexual gratification for men, they are also engaging in analogous behaviour in order to reduce competition for their own services.

Catherine Hakim explains:

“Look at social exchange between men and women in terms of women gaining control over men and gaining resources by regulating men’s access to sexual gratification. If pornography is an alternative source of such gratification for men, it… reduces women’s bargaining power in such a sexual/economic arena.”[6]

The essence of my argument is explained by psychologists Baumseister and Twenge in their article in the journal Review of General Psychology in 2002 which I quoted in my previous post. Here, Baumseister and Twenge observe:

Just as any monopoly tends to oppose the appearance of low-priced substitutes that could undermine its market control, women will oppose various alternative outlets for male sexual gratification, even if these outlets do not touch the women’s own lives directly.[7]

As I explained in my previous post, these ‘alternative outlets for male sexual gratification’ include, among other things, homosexuality, sex with animals, corpses, inflatable dolls, household appliances and all other such healthy and natural sexual outlets which are universally condemned by moralists despite the lack, in most cases, of any discernible victims.

However, although homosexuality, sex with animals, corpses, inflatable dolls and household appliances all represent, in one way or another, ‘alternative outlets for male sexual gratification’ per Baumseister and Twenge, undoubtedly pornography is first among equals.

After all, whereas most other outlets for sexual gratification (e.g. homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia and inflatable dolls) will appeal to only a perverted and fortunate few, and will wholly satisfy even fewer, the same is not true of pornography, whose appeal among males seems to be all but universal.

Women are therefore right to fear and oppose pornography. Already pornography represents a major threat to women’s ability to attract and retain mates. Increasingly, it seems, men are already coming to recognize that pornography offers a better deal than conventional courtship.

For example, in one study published in the Journal of Experimental Research in Social Psychology found that, after viewing pornographic materials, men rated their commitment to their current relationships as lower than they had prior to being exposed to the pornographic materials.[8]

This should be no surprise. After all, compared to the models and actresses featured in porn the average wife or girlfriend is no match.

Who can seriously doubt that a few dollars for magazine full of beautiful women expertly fucking and sucking who, on the page, remain young and beautiful for ever, and which costs only a few dollars at most, is better value than marriage to a single solitary real-life woman, who demands half your income, grows older and uglier with each passing year, probably wasn’t exactly a Playboy centerfold even to begin with, and who is legally obligated to fuck you only during the divorce-settlement?

Yet this desirable state of affairs was not always so. On the contrary, it is, in terms of human history, a relatively recent development.

To understand why and how this came to be and the impact it came to have on the relations between the sexes and, in particular, the relative bargaining positions of the sexes in negotiating the terms of heterosexual coupling, we must first trace the history of what I term ‘pornographic progress’ from porn’s pre-human precursors and Paleolithic Pleistocene prototypes, to the contemporary relative pornographic utopia of Xvideos, Xhamster and Pornohub.

A Brief History of Pornographic Progress

Pornography is, I am convinced, the greatest ever invention of mankind. To my mind, it outranks even the wheel, the internal combustion engine and the splitting of the atom. As for sliced bread, it has always been, in my humble opinion, somewhat overrated.

The wonder of porn is self-evident. You can merrily masturbate to your cock’s content in the comfort and privacy of your own home without the annoyance, inconvenience and boredom of actually having to engage in a conversation with a woman either before or after. These days, one need never even leave the comfort of one’s home.

However, though today we take it for granted, porn was not always with us. On the contrary, it had to be invented. Moreover, it’s quality has improved vastly over time.

Proto-Porn and Pre-Human Precursors

Our pre-human ancestors had to make do without pornography. However, the demand was clearly there. For example, males of various non-human species respond to an image or representation of an opposite-sex conspecific (e.g. a photograph or model) with courtship displays and mating behaviour. Some even attempt, unsuccessfully, to mount the picture or model.

Ophrys
By mimicking the appearance of bees to induce the latter into mating with them, Ophrys flowers function as ‘Nature’s prototype for the inflatable sex doll?’

Ophrys flowers, a subfamily of Orchids, take advantage of this behaviour to facilitate their own reproduction. Orchids of this family reproduce by mimicking both the appearance and pheromones of female insects, especially bees.

This causes male wasps and bees to attempt to copulate with them. Naturally, they fail in this endeavour. However, in so failing on successive occasions, they do successfully facilitate the reproduction of the orchids themselves. This is because, during this process of so-called pseudocopulation, pollen from the orchid becomes attached to the hapless male suitor. This pollen is then carried by the male until he (evidently not having learnt his lesson) attempts to mate with yet another flower of the same species, and thereby spreads the pollen enabling Orchids of the genus Ophrys to themselves reproduce.

Ophrys flowers therefore function as nature’s prototype for the inflatable sex doll.

In mimicking the appearance of female insects to sexually arouse hapless males, Ophrys flowers arguably constitute the first form of pornography. Thus, porn, like sonar and winged flight, was invented by nature (or rather by natural selection) long before humans belatedly got around to repeating this feat for themselves.

At any rate, one thing is clear: Though lacking pornography, our pre-human ancestors were pre-primed for porn. In short, the market was there – just waiting to be tapped by some entrepreneur sufficiently enterprising and sleazy to take advantage of this fact.

Prehistoric Palaeolithic Pleistocene Porn

Early man, it appears, developed porn the same time he developed cave-painting and art. Indeed, as I shall argue, the facilitation of masturbation was likely a key motivating factor in the development of art by early humans.

Venus Figurine
Venus figurines: ‘Palaeolithic/Pleistocene Proto-Porn?’

Take the so-called Venus figurines, so beloved of feminist archaeologists and widely recognised as one of the earliest forms, if not the earliest form, of sculpture. Countless theories have been developed regarding the function and purpose of these small sculptures of women with huge breasts and protruding buttocks.

They have been variously described, by feminist archaeologists and other professional damned fools, as, among other things, fertility symbols, idols of an earth goddess or mother goddess cult (the sole evidence for the existence of which are the figurines themselves) or even symbols of the matriarchy supposedly prevailing in hunter-gather bands (for which alleged social arrangement the figurines themselves again provide the only evidence).

The far more obvious explanation, namely that the figures represent portable, prehistoric Palaeolithic Pleistocene porn – sort of the stone-age equivalent of a 3-d Playboy – has been all but ignored by scholars.

True, they are, to say the least, a bit fat for modern tastes. However, as morbidly obese women never tire of reminding us, standards of beauty vary over time and place.

After all, if, as popular cliché has it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, then sexiness is perhaps located in a different part of the male anatomy (‘sexiness is in the cock of the beholder’?), but is nevertheless equally subjective in nature.

Of course this may partly reflect wishful thinking on the part of fat ugly women. Research in evolutionary psychology has demonstrated that some aspects of beauty standards are cross-culturally universal.

Nevertheless, to some extent (albeit only in some respects) the fatties may be right.

After all, in other respects besides their morbid obesity, the images are obviously pornographic.

In particular, it is notable that no detail is shown in the figurine’s faces – no nose, eyes or mouth. Yet, on the other hand, the genitalia and huge breasts are rendered intricately – a view of the important aspects of female physiology unlikely to find favour with feminists.

Surely only a feminist or a eunuch could be so lacking in insight into male psychology as to flick through the pages of Playboy magazine (or, if you prefer, the buried archaeological remains of Playboy magazine a few thousand years hence), observe the focus on unfeasibly large breasts, protruding buttocks and female genitalia, and hence conclude that what he (or, more likely, she) had unearthed or stumbled across was the holy book of an Earth-Mother-Goddess cult!

Art as Porn

I am thoroughly convinced of the thesis that the ultimate function and purpose of all art, and thus indirectly arguably of civilization itself, is the facilitation of fapping

For the next 20 thousand years or so, pornography progressed only gradually. There were, of course, a few technological improvements – e.g. in the quality of paints, canvasses etc. However, the primary advancements were in the abilities and aptitudes of the artists themselves, especially with regard to their capacity for naturalism/realism.

Goya
Eighteenth Century Porn by Goya

Thus, by the early nineteenth century, there were classical nudes. Notwithstanding the pretensions of intellectual snobs towards higher forms of appreciation, anyone with a functioning penis can clearly perceive that the primary function and purpose such works is the facilitation of masturbation.

At this juncture it is perhaps appropriate to declare that I am thoroughly convinced of the thesis that the ultimate function and purpose of all art, and thus indirectly arguably of civilization itself, is the facilitation of fapping.

Crucifix
Crucifixes: An early form of sadomasochistic gay porn?

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has jealously guarded its own monopoly on pornography catering for more niche tastes. I refer, of course, to the ubiquitous crucifix, which no Catholic Church or pious papist home can ever be complete without.

Yet, on closer inspection, this familiar image is clearly, by any standards, rather suspect, to say the least. It represents, after all, a nearly naked man, wearing nothing more than a loin-clothe – and usually, I might add, a suspiciously lean and rather muscular man, who invariably sports a six-pack – writhing in pain while being nailed to a cross.

In short, the registered trademark of the One True Faith is, in truth, a blatant and undisguised example of sadomasochistic gay porn.

Indeed, it represents precisely the sort of homoerotic sadomasochistic imagery which, if depicted in any other context, would probably be condemned outright by the Church and banned along with The Origin of Species and Galileo. No wonder the Catholic priesthood and holy orders are, by all accounts, so jam-packed with perverts, sadists and pederasts.

Photography, Printing and a Proletarian Pornography for the People

 

The facilitation of masturbation forms the ultimate function and purpose, not only of all art, but also of all significant technological advance, from photography and the printing press, to the internet, robotics, virtual reality and beyond

However, crucifixes were clearly a niche fetish. Moreover, churches, unlike adult booths, generally neither facilitate nor encourage masturbation.

Meanwhile, classical nudes were necessarily of limited distribution. Worth a great deal of money and painted by the great masters, they were strictly for the rich – to hang in the drawing room and wank off to once the servants had safely retired to bed.

Clearly there was a need for a more widely available pornography, something within the grasp of all, howsoever humble. I refer to a Proletarian Pornography, suited to the age of democracy and socialism. A true Pornography for the People.

The invention of photography and of the printing press was eventually to provide the vehicle for this development over the course of the nineteenth century. By the dawn of the twentieth century there were magazines, both cheaper and better than the classical nudes that had preceded them. A true People’s Pornography had arrived.

Yet, once this process had begun, there was to be no stopping it. Soon there were moving pictures as well. It is a little known fact that, in France, the first pornographic movies were filmed within just a few years of the development of moving images in the late nineteenth century. (Here’s another one. But, be warned, pornhub it ain’t and tissues are probably not required.)

From this invention of photography and the printing press onwards, the history of pornographic progress is irretrievably bound up with scientific and technological progress itself.

Indeed, I am firmly of the opinion that the facilitation of masturbation forms the ultimate function and purpose, not only of all art, but also of all significant technological advance, from photography and the printing press, to the internet, robotics, virtual reality and beyond.

The Genre That Dare Not Speak Its Name

However, there remained a problem. As we have seen, the Sex Cartel, in order to maintain its jealously guarded monopoly over the provision of male sexual gratification, has sought to limit the distribution of porn. In addition to employing legal sanction to this end, they have also resorted to the court of public opinion – i.e. shaming tactics.

Thus, men who are make use of pornography are subject to public censure and shaming, and variously castigated as ‘perverts’, ‘dirty old men’ and ‘losers’ incapable of attracting real-life women or girls for themselves.

The result is that the purchase of pornographic materials had long been subject to stigma and shame. A major component of Pornographic Progress has therefore been, not just improvement in the quality of masturbationary material itself, but also ease of access, enjoyment and privacy/anonymity involved in acquiring and making use of such material.

This is illustrated in pornographic publications themselves. Before the internet age, pornographic publications almost invariably masqueraded as something other than pornography. Pornography thus became ‘the genre that dare not speak its name’.

For example, magazines invariably titled themselves with names like ‘Playboy’ or ‘Mayfair’ or ‘Penthouse’, as if wealthy, indolent and promiscuous millionaires were the only people expected, or permitted, to masturbate. Curiously, they virtually never adopted titles like ‘Horny Pervert’, ‘Dirty Old Man’ or ‘The Wanker’s Weekly – a Collection of Masturbationary Aides for the Discerning Self-Abuser’.

Elsewhere, pornography was disguised in sex scenes in mainstream movies, TV shows and newspapers. While page three is well known, even ‘respectable broadsheets’ were not immune, articles about the evils of pornography often written largely, I suspect, as an excuse to include a few necessary illustrative examples beside the text. All of which evasions were, I suspect, designed to deflect some of the shame involved in buying, or owning, pornography.

A major part of pornographic progress is therefore the migration of pornography from adult booths and adult cinemas to the privacy of bedrooms and bathrooms.

Thus, a major development was home-video. Videos might still have to be bought in a shop (or they could be ordered by mail from an advert in the back of a magazine or newspaper), but masturbation itself could occur in private, rather than in an adult booth or seedy cinema.

Pornography was beginning to assume its modern form.

Then there were DVDs and subscription-only satellite TV stations.

Eventually came the Internet. People were spared even the embarrassment of buying porn in a shop. Now, they could not only watch it in the privacy and comfort of their own home – but download it there too.

Pornography had, by this point, assumed its contemporary form.

Pornographic Progress and the Sexual Revolution

What then has pornographic progress meant for the relations between the sexes in general and the terms of romantic coupling in particular?

It is my contention that the gradual liberalization of the standards of sexual morality over the course of the twentieth century is a direct result of the process of pornographic progress outlined in the previous sections.

Whereas most people view the increased availability of pornography as a mere symptom rather than a cause of the so-called ‘Sexual Revolution’ of the Sixties, my theory accords pornographic progress pride of place as the decisive factor explaining the liberalization of attitudes towards sex over the course of the twentieth century.

In short, as pornography has improved in quality and availability, it has come to represent an ever greater threat to women themselves and, in particular, their ability to entrap men into marriage with the lure of sex.

As sexual gratification was increasingly available without recourse to marriage (i.e. through pornography), men had less and less rational reason to subject themselves to marriage with all the inequitable burdens marriage imposes upon them.

After all, when pornography was restricted to Venus Figurines and cave paintings, virtually every man would prefer a real-life wife, howsoever ugly and personally obnoxious, to these poor pornographic substitutes.

However, when the choice is between an endless stream of pornographic models and actresses catering to every niche fetish imaginable expertly fucking and sucking as compared to marriage to a single real-life woman who grows older and uglier with each passing year and is legally obligated to fuck you only during the divorce settlement, the choice surely becomes more evenly balanced.

And, today, in the internet age, when images of Japanese girls in school-uniforms defecating into one another’s mouths are always just a mere mouse-click away, it comes close to being a no-brainer.

In response, as the quality and availability of pornographic materials increased exponentially, women were forced to lower their prices in order to compete with porn. The result was that promiscuity and sex before marriage, while once scandalous, became ever more common over the course of the twentieth century with increasing numbers of women forced, through increasing competition from pornography, to give up their bodies for a price somewhat less than that entailed in the marriage contract.

The male marriage strike is therefore a reaction, not only to the one-sided terms of the marriage contract, but also the increasing availability of sexual relief outside of marriage, largely thanks to the proliferation of and improvements in pornography.

Whereas in the Victorian era, men had little option but to satisfy their biological need for sexual relief through, if not wives, then at least women (e.g. prostitutes), now increasingly pornography provides a real and compelling alternative to women themselves.

The average woman, being fat, ugly and old, is simply no match for the combined power of xvideos, xhamster and pornhub.

The Present

This then is the current state of play (or of playing with oneself) with regard to pornographic progress. The new face of porn is thus the internet.

Nudie magazines are now officially dead. Playboy magazine is now said to lose about $3 million dollars annually, and the company now seems to stay afloat largely by selling pencil-cases to teenage girls.

However, there is no reason to believe that pornographic progress will suddenly stop at the moment this article to published. To believe this, we would be as naïve as the publishers of nudie mags were when they failed to see the writing on the wall and make the move into the virtual sphere.

The current age of internet porn will come to an end, just as peep shows, adult cinemas, nudie mags and Venus figurines did before them. Just like these obsolete mediums of masturbationary-aid were replaced by something altogether superior, so internet pornography will be replaced with something altogether better.

Wanking will only get better. This much is certain. The only uncertainly is the form this improvement will take.

The Future of Fucking

Predicting the future is a notoriously difficult endeavour. Indeed, perhaps the one prediction about the future that we can hold with confidence is that the vast majority of predictions about the future will turn out to be mistaken.

Whereas in all previous porn, it was women themselves who swallowed – along with the cum – the majority of the profits, with virtual reality porn and sexbots, actresses will digitally-generated and women themselves wholly bypassed to cut costs.

Nevertheless, I am sufficiently confident about the future of pornographic progress to venture a few guesses as to the nature of future pornographic progress.

One possibility will be what I term Virtual Reality Porn, namely an improvement in gaming technologies able to provide a more realistic simulation of real-life. The result may be something akin to the ‘holodeck‘ in Star Trek, the pornographic potential of which is only occasionally alluded to in the series.

However, this is not, on reflection, the direction in which I expect pornography to progress.

There are two problems. First, for the moment at least, even the most state-of-the-arc gaming technologies represent a crude simulation of real life, as anyone who has ever played them for more than a few minutes soon realizes.

Second, although the characters with whom one interacts may come to look increasingly beautiful and lifelike, there is still the problem that one will not be able to touch them. In lieu of touching the virtual porn stars with whom one interacts, one will be obliged instead (as in most contemporary pornography) to touch oneself instead, which is, as always, a poor substitute.

I therefore confidently predict that, in the short-term, pornographic progress will come in another sphere instead, namely robotics.

Sex Dolls

Already the best in Japanese sex dolls is better looking than the average woman. In addition, it does not nag, spend your money or grow fatter or uglier with each passing year. It is true that they remain utterly inert, immobile, and unresponsive. However, on the plus side, this also means they already have a personality more pleasant than the average woman.

Whereas all but the most rudimentary ‘Virtual Reality Porn’ remains the stuff of science fiction, the development of, if not true ‘Sexbots’, then at least of their immediate pornographic precursors, is surprisingly well advanced. I refer here the development of sex dolls.

Although they are not, as yet, in any sense truly robotic, sex dolls have already progressed far beyond the inflatable dolls of bawdy popular humour. In Japan – a nation always at the cutting-edge of both technological progress and sexual perversion – sex dolls made of silicone are already available which not only look, but feel to the touch, exactly like a real woman.

As of yet, these sex dolls remain relatively expensive. Costing several thousands of pounds, they are not an idle investment – but are probably, on balance, still cheaper than a girlfriend, let alone a divorce settlement, but not yet comparable to a trip to, say, Thailand.

In some respects, however, sex dolls are already better than a real woman – or, at least, better than the sort of real woman their customers, or, indeed, the average man, is likely to be able to attract.

Already a Japanese Candy Girl (or even its American equivalent Real Doll) is better looking than the average woman. In addition, it does not nag, spend your money, get upset when you have sex with her best friend or grow fatter or uglier with each passing year.

And, of course, they are not yet, in any sense, truly robotic.

In terms of physical appearance, they are distinguishable from a real-life woman only by their physical beauty and lack of imperfections. However, they remain utterly inert, immobile, unresponsive and incapable of even the most rudimentary and inane conversation of the sort in which women specialize.

However, on the plus side, this also means they already have a personality more pleasant than the average woman.

One might say that they are… as lifelike as a corpse.

From Sex Dolls to ‘Sexbots’ – The Future of Pornographic Progress

All this, however, could soon change. Already American manufacturers of real doll, who market themselves as producing “the world’s finest love doll”, have begun experiments to turn love dolls robotic. In other words, within this year, the first so-called ‘SexBots’ – robots designed for the purpose of sexual intercourse with humans – may come off the assembly-line.

Within a few decades, Sexbots will be exactly like women themselves, save, of course, for a few crucial improvements. They will not nag, cheat on you or get angry when you cheat on them. Moreover, they will be designed to your exact specifications of beauty and breast-size and, unlike real wives, will not grow older and uglier with each passing year or seek to divorce you and steal your money.

In addition, they will have one crucial improvement over every woman who has ever existed in every society throughout human history howsoever beautiful and slutty – namely, an off-switch and handy storage place in the cupboard for when one tires of them or they become annoying and clingy. This is both cheaper than divorce and easier to get away with than murder.

The Campaign Against Sexbots

Perhaps the best evidence of the coming obsolescence of womankind is the reaction of women themselves.

It is notable that, although sexbots remain, for the moment at least, a figment of the male imagination, a thing of science-fiction rather than of science, the political campaign against them has already begun. Indeed, it even has its own website.

Just as feminists, moralists and other professional damned fools have consistently opposed other ‘alternative outlets for male sexual gratification’ such as pornography and prostitutes, so the campaign against Sexbots has begun before the first such robots have even come off the assembly line.

Not content with seeking to outlaw sex robots before they even exist, opponents have even sought to censor free speech and discussion regarding the topic. Thus, an academic conference devoted to the topic had to be cancelled after being banned by the authorities in the host nation.

No prizes also for guessing that the campaign is led by a woman, one Dr Kathleen Richardson, a ‘bioethicist’ – or, in layman’s terms, a professional damned fool – who has recently launched a campaign against the (as yet) non-existent sexbots.

It is also no surprise either that the woman herself is, to put it as politely as possible, aesthetically-challenged (i.e. as ugly as a cow’s ass) and therefore precisely the sort of woman who is likely to be the first casualty of competition from even the most primitive of sexbots.

(Just for the record, this is not an ad hominin or gratuitous personal abuse. Whether she is consciously aware of it or not, the fact that she is hideously and repulsively physically unattractive is directly relevant to why she is motivated to ban sexbots. After all, whereas more physically attractive women may be able to fight off competition from robots and still attract male suitors for somewhat longer, it is ugly women such as herself are sure to be the first casualties of competition from even the most rudimentary of robots. Indeed, one suspects even an inflatable doll is more visually alluring, and is probably has a more appealing personality, than this woman.)

There is a key giveaway to the real motivation underlying this ostensibly moral campaign, namely, these same bioethicist luddites have, strangely, never, to my knowledge, objected on moral grounds, let alone launched high-profile media campaigns against, vibrators, dildos and other sex toys for women.

Yet vibrators are surely far more widely used by women than sex dolls are by men and also far less stigmatized. As for actual sexbots, these have yet even to be invented.

So why campaign only against the latter? This is surely a classic example of what feminists are apt to refer to as ‘sexual double-standards’.

Are Women Obsolete?

Within perhaps just a couple of decades, women will be obsolete – just another once useful but now obsolete technology that has been wholly supplanted by superior technologies, like typewriters, video recorders, the Commodore 64 and long drop toilets.

There has, in recent years, been something of a fashion within the publishing industry, and among feminists, for books with outlandish titles like Are Men Necessary? and The End of Men which triumphantly (and gendercidally) hail the (supposed) coming obsolescence of men. Such hysterical ravings are not only published by mainstream publishers, but even taken seriously in the mainstream media

This is, of course, like most feminist claims, wholly preposterous.

The self-same women who loudly proclaim that men are obsolete live in homes built by men, rely on clean water and sewage systems built and maintained by men, on electricity generated by men working in coal mines and on oil rigs and, in the vast majority of cases, live in whole or in part off the earnings of a man, whether that man be a husband, an ex-husband or the taxpayer.

In short, as Fred Reed has observed, Without men, civilization would last until the oil needs changing.

However, while talk of the End of Men is obviously not so much premature as positively preposterous, the same may not be true of the End of Women. As Steve Moxon suggests, were Freud not a complete charlatan, it would be tempting to explain the bizarre notion that men are about to become obsolete by reference to the Freudian concept of projection.[9] For the painful truth is that it is women who on the verge of obsolescence, not men.

Already the best in Japanese sex dolls are better looking than the average woman and lose their looks less rapidly. Already, they are cheaper than the average divorce settlement. And, being unable to speak or interact with their owners in any way, already they have personalities more pleasant and agreeable than the average woman.

Soon with developments in robotics, they will be vastly superior in every way.

Sexbots and the End of Woman

It is time to face facts, howsoever harsh or unwelcome they may be in some quarters.

Sexbots will have one crucial improvement over every woman who has ever existed howsoever beautiful and downright slutty – namely, an off-switch and handy storage place in the cupboard. This is both cheaper than divorce and easier to get away with than murder.

Within just a couple of decades, women will be obsolete – just another once useful but now obsolete technology that has been wholly supplanted by superior technologies, like typewriters, video recorders, the Commodore 64 and the long drop toilet.

Like all cutting-edge scientific advancements and technological developments, sexbots will be invented, designed, built, maintained and repaired almost exclusively by men. Women will thus be cut out of the process altogether.

This is a crucial development. In all pre-existing forms of porn since the development of photography, the primary financial beneficiaries of porn have always been women themselves, or at least a small subsection of women (namely, those willing to undercut their sex industry competitors by agreeing to appear in pornography).

While it was men’s technological expertise that created photography, moving pictures and the internet, and men’s entrepreneurial vision that created the great commercial porn empires, real-life women still had to be employed as models or actresses, and typically demanded exorbitant salaries, many times those of the male performers alongside whom they performed (and whose jobs were much more difficult), for jobs that often involved nothing more than posing naked or engaging in sexual acts in front of a camera.

In short, although it was men’s technological and entrepreneurial brilliance that produced porn, it was women themselves who swallowed – along with the cum – the majority of the profits.

However, with Virtual Reality Porn and Sexbots, there will be no need of ‘actresses’ or ‘models’. Already magazine pictures are digitally-enhanced to remove imperfections. In the future, porn stars will be digitally-generated. Women themselves will be wholly bypassed in order to cut costs.

Increasingly, women will find themselves rendered superfluous to requirements.

From blacksmiths and tailors to cobblers, weavers and thatchers – technological advance and innovation has rendered countless professions obsolete. Soon perhaps the Oldest Profession itself will go the same way. It’s called progress. The Real Sexual Revolution has but barely begun…

After all, who the hell would want a real wife or girlfriend or even a whore when you can download something just the same or better from a hard disk or purchase it as a self-assembly robot for a fraction of the price – minus the incessant nagging, endless inane chattering and obnoxious personality? Plus, this one can be designed according to your precise specifications and doesn’t mind when you screw her best friend or forget her anniversary.

Soon women will be put out to tenure just like any other outdated machinery. Or maybe displayed in museums for educational purposes to show how people used to live long ago.

If it is deemed desirable to maintain the human species, then, so long as a womb is necessary to incubate a baby, a few women may be retained for reproductive purposes – perhaps housed in battery cages for greater reproductive efficiency.

This is why women so despise pornography, with a passion and venom unmatched by other forms of Puritanism. That’s why they create entire ideologies – from Radical Feminism to Religious Fundamentalism – dedicated to its destruction. Because it represents a threat to their own very existence, livelihood and survival!

But the good news is – Women Cannot Win. The ferocity of the feminist onslaught only confirms that what women must already intuitively grasp – namely, the writing is already on the wall.

Technological progress is, for better or worse, unstoppable.

Like the mythical Ned Ludd and his followers who, in response to being rendered unemployable by the mechanization of labour, smashed workplace machinery across the north of England in the Nineteenth Century in the vain hope of stopping progress and their own inevitable obsolescence – the prudes, puritans, luddites and feminists are destined to fail.

Like it or not, Virtual Reality Porn and Sexbots are on the way. The ultimate salvation of man from the tyranny of the Sex Cartel will lie, not in men’s rights activism, campaigning, political action, reform, rape, nor even in revolution – but rather in sexbots and hardcore virtual-reality porn.

After all – from blacksmiths and tailors to cobblers, weavers and thatchers – technological advance and innovation has rendered countless professions obsolete. Soon perhaps the Oldest Profession itself will go the same way.

It’s called progress.

The Real Sexual Revolution has but barely begun!

_________________

Footnotes/Endnotes

[1] E.g. Diamond, M. (1999) ‘The Effects of Pornography: an international perspective’ in Porn 101: Eroticism, Pornography, and the First Amendment

[2] For example, as an admittedly rather pseudo-scientific measure of the popularity of the two genres, it is notable that TubeGalore.com – in my own extensive experience the most comprehensive of the various porn search engines – returned over twenty-five times as many results for the search “Femdom”, as for “Maledom” (284377 vs. 11134).

[3] Salmon C ‘the Pornography Debate: what sex differences in erotica can tell about human sexuality’ in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 2004) by Crawford C & Salmon C (eds.) pp217-230 at p227

[4] If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules (2002): p56.

[5] If Men Have All The Power How Come Women Make The Rules (2002): p57.

[6] Salmon, C ,‘The Pornography Debate: what sex differences in erotica can tell about human sexuality’ in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 2004) by Crawford C & Salmon C (eds.) pp217-230 at p227

[7] Baumeister, RF, & Twenge, JM (2002). ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’, Review of General Psychology 6(2) pp166–203 at p172

[8] Kenrick, Gutieres and Goldberg, ‘Influence of popular erotic on judgements of strangers and mates’ Journal of experimental Social Psychology (1985) 29(2): 159–167.

[9] Moxon S The Woman Racket: p133.

The Sex Cartel: Puritanism and Prudery as Price-fixing Among Prostitutes

“There would seem to be, indeed, but small respect among women for virginity per se. They are against the woman who has got rid of hers outside marriage, not because they think she has lost anything intrinsically valuable, but because she has made a bad bargain… and hence one against the general advantage and well-being of the sex. In other words, it is a guild resentment that they feel, not a moral resentment.”

HL Mencken, In Defence of Women 1922

“Why is the woman of the streets who spends her sex earnings upon her lover scorned universally?… These women are selling below the market, or scabbing on the job.”

RB Tobias & Mary Marcy, Women as Sex Vendors 1918

In my previous post, I discussed the curious paradox whereby prostitutes and other promiscuous women are invariably condemned by moralists as sinful and immoral despite the fact that they provide pleasure to, in some cases, literally thousands of men. Therefore, according to the tenets of utilitarianism, they are literally giving the greatest happiness to the greatest number as Bentham advocated and ought therefore to be lauded as the highest paradigm of moral virtue right up alongside Mother Theresa, who, although she dedicated her life to heeling, feeding and caring for the sick, poor and destitute, never went as far as actually sucking their cocks.

Why then are prostitutes invariably condemned and castigated as immoral?

Broadening the scope of our discussion, we might also ask why so many other sexual behaviours – from homosexuality and masturbation to pornography and sex with household appliances – have been similarly condemned as immoral despite the lack of a discernible victim.

In this post, I attempt to provide an explanation. The answer, I propose, is to be sought, not so much in arcane theorizing of moral philosophers, nor in the endless hypocritical moralizing of moralists and other assorted ‘professional damned fools’ but rather in the dismal science of economics.

Thus, far from being rooted in morality or ethics, the phenomenon is rooted, like so much else in life, in base economic self-interest – or, more particularly, the base economic self-interest of women.

___________

The entire process of conventional courtship is predicated on prostitution – from the social expectation that the man pay for dinner on the first date, to the legal obligation that he continue to support his ex-wife, through alimony and maintenance, for anything up to ten or twenty years after he has belatedly rid himself of her. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a prostitute as ‘a person who engages in sexual intercourse for payment’. That’s not the definition of a prostitute. That’s the definition of a woman! The distinguishing feature of prostitutes isn’t that they have sex for money – it’s that they provide such excellent value for money.

To understand this phenomenon, one must first register a second curious paradox – namely, that the self-same women who liberally and routinely denounce other women as ‘whores’ and ‘sluts’ on account of the latter’s perceived promiscuity themselves qualify as ‘prostitutes’ by the ordinary dictionary definition of this word.

In The Manipulated Man, her masterpiece of unmitigated misogyny (which I have reviewed here), prominent anti-feminist polemicist Esther Vilar puts it like this:

By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given intervals.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a prostitute as ‘a person who engages in sexual intercourse for payment’.

That’s not the definition of a prostitute. That’s the definition of a woman!

The distinguishing feature of prostitutes isn’t that they have sex for money – it’s that they provide such excellent value for money.

After all, who can seriously doubt that thirty quid for a bargain basement blowjob in an alleyway or Soho flat provides better value than conventional courtship? Marriage is simply a bad bargain.

If you want sex, pay a hooker. If you want companionship, buy a dog. Marriage is not so much ‘disguised prostitution’ as flagrant extortion. Frankly, in the long-run, one is likely to get better value for money in a Soho clip-joint.

___________

Yet, whereas marriage is a raw deal for men, it is, for precisely the same reason, a very good deal for women. The more that men are obliged to pay out in exorbitant divorce settlements and maintenance demands, the more women receive in these same divorce packages. In short, courtship is a zero-sum game – and women are always the winners.

It is therefore no surprise that, as the feminists incessantly remind us, men earn more money than women. After all, why would any woman take the trouble to earn money when she has the far easier option of stealing it in the divorce courts instead? Moreover, there is no fear of punishment. Far from the courts punishing the wrongdoers, the family courts are actually accessories and enablers, who actively aid and abet the theft.

Marrying money is both quicker and easier than earning it for yourself. Thus, just as slaveholders had a vested interest in defending the institution of slavery, women in general, and wives in particular, have a vested interest in defending the institution of marriage.

However, in doing so, they are faced with a difficulty, namely that no rational man would ever voluntarily choose to get married any more than he would choose to voluntarily enslave himself. It is, as we have seen, simply a bad bargain. Some combination of prostitutes, promiscuity, pornography and perversion is always preferable.

Since women have a vesting interest in defending and promoting the institution of marriage, women also therefore have a vested interest in discouraging these alternative outlets for male sexual desire that threaten the institution of marriage by offering, on the whole, a better deal for men. This then is where sexual morality comes in.

___________

“Just as any monopoly tends to oppose the appearance of low-priced substitutes that could undermine its market control, women will oppose various alternative outlets for male sexual gratification”

The key factor uniting pornography, promiscuity, prostitution, perversion, masturbation, homosexuality, sex with corpses, with animals, with inflatable dolls, with household appliances and all other such fun and healthy activities that are universally condemned by moralists, feminists, politicians, assorted do-gooders and other professional damned fools despite the lack of any discernible victim is that each represents a threat to the monopoly over the provision of men’s sexual pleasure jealously guarded by ‘respectable’ women.

These respectable women, to maintain their monopoly, therefore seek to stigmatize, or even, where possible, criminalize these normal, healthy and natural alternative outlets for male sexual gratification.

Take, for example, pornography. Not only are the performers, producers and consumers of pornography widely stigmatized (as ‘whores’ and ‘perverts’ respectively), but also, in virtually all times and places, pornography is heavily regulated and restricted, if not wholly illegal and an unholy alliance of religious fundamentalists and radical feminists endlessly campaign for still further restrictions.

Thus, in Britain so-called ‘hardcore’ pornography (i.e. featuring real sex between actors) was only legalized in 2000, when the pressures of European integration and the internet had made this change unavoidable. In recent retrograde measures, governments have even tightened restrictions on the porn, even criminalizing mere possession of certain varieties of so-called extreme pornography.

Why is this? Simply because pornography represents a threat to women’s marriage prospects by offering men an alternative outlet for sexual gratification that provides better value for money than marriage.

Baumeister and Twenge explain the basic economic logic in their article ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’ published in the journal Review of General Psychology in 2002:

Just as any monopoly tends to oppose the appearance of low-priced substitutes that could undermine its market control, women will oppose various alternative outlets for male sexual gratification[1]

This is because “pornography and other forms of sexual entertainment… offer men sexual stimulation” and, in doing so, “could undermine women’s negotiating position” in their relations with men.[2]

In short, women oppose pornography because they recognise that porn offers manifestly better value for money than does marriage and conventional courtship.

After all, a magazine full of beautiful women expertly sucking and fucking and who remain, on the pages of the magazine, young and beautiful forever is surely better value for money than just a single real-life wife or girlfriend, who grows older and uglier with each passing year and is legally obligated to fuck you only during the divorce proceedings.

In short, a picture of a naked woman in a magazine is usually better value than the real thing. As WC Fields observed, women are like elephants, nice to look at – but I wouldn’t want to own one’.

___________

“A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex.”

But if, as we have seen, all women are in some sense prostitutes, then why are prostitutes themselves subject to stigma and moral opprobrium? A pornographic magazine, dvd or inflatable doll can indeed be viewed (per Baumeister and Twenge above) as a ‘low priced substitute’ for a real woman. However, the same cannot be said of prostitutes themselves, since most of the latter (rent-boys and transsexuals apart) are themselves women.

Key to understanding the stigma and moral opprobrium attaching to prostitutes and other promiscuous women is the concept of a price-fixing cartel.

By offering sex to men for a cheaper price than that demanded by respectable women, prostitutes and other promiscuous women threaten to undercut the prices other women are able to demand.

In short, if the town whore gives blow-jobs for twenty quid while Miss Prim and Proper in the house next door demands an engagement ring, a wedding ring, a marriage certificate and the promise of a cushy divorce settlement a few years’ hence, then obviously anybody with half a brain knows where to go when they want a blowjob and Miss Prim and Proper is likely to be left curiously bereft of suitors.

The basic economic logic is explained thus by Baumeister and Vohs in their paper ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’, published in 2004 in Personality and Social Psychology Review:

A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex.”[3]

However, as every first-year economics student knows, a price-fixing cartel is inherently unstable. There is always the ever-present threat that some party to the cartel (or an outsider to the agreement) will renege on the agreement by undercutting her competitors and reaping the resultant windfall as customers flock to receive the lower-priced goods or service. This can only be prevented by the existence of coercive apparatus designed to deter defection.

This is where sexual morality comes in.

In short, women have therefore sought to discourage other women from undercutting them through a quasi-moral censure, and sometimes criminalization, of those women generous enough, enterprising enough and brave enough to risk such censure by offering sexual services at a more reasonable price.

On this view, sexual morality essentially functions, in economic terms, as a form of collusion or price-fixing. As Baumseister and Vohs explain in their article on ‘Sexual Economics’ published in Personality and Social Psychology Review in 2004:

“The so-called “cheap” woman (the common use of this economic term does not strike us as accidental), who dispenses sexual favors more freely than the going rate, undermines the bargaining position of all other women in the community, and they become faced with the dilemma of either lowering their own expectations of what men will give them in exchange for sex or running the risk that their male suitors will abandon them in favor of other women who offer a better deal.”[4]

This is what I refer to as: ‘The Sex Cartel’ or ‘Price-Fixing among Prostitutes’.

___________

On this view, women’s prejudice against prostitutes is analogous to the animosity felt by trade unionists towards strikebreakers during industrial actions.

After all, on the face of it, one would not expect a strikebreaker or scab to be morally condemned. After all, a so-called ‘scab’ or strikebreaker is simply a person willing to perform the same level of work for less remuneration or in worse working conditions than other workers who are currently striking for better pay or conditions. This willingness to do the same work while receiving less in return would, in any other circumstances, be considered a mark of generosity and hence a source of praise rather than condemnation.

Yet, in working-class communities, the strikebreaker is universally scorned and despised. Indeed, his violent victimization, and even murder, is not only commonplace, but even perversely celebrated in at least one well-known English folk song that remains widely performed to this day.

Why then is the scab universally hated and despised? Simply because, in his otherwise commendable willingness to work in return for a little less than his fellow workers, the scab threatens to drive down the wages which the latter are capable of commanding.

And despite its hallowed place in socialist mythos, a trade union (or ‘labor union’ in American English) is, in essence, an anti-competitive monopolistic worker’s cartel, seeking to fix the price of labour to the advantage of its own members. Like all cartels, it is inherently unstable and vulnerable to being undercut by workers willing to work for less. This is why trade unions invariably resort to intimidation (e.g. picket lines) to deter the latter.

The same rational self-interest, therefore, explains women’s hatred of whores. As leading early twentieth century American socialist Mary Marcy observed of prostitutes in the passage quoted at the beginning of this post: “These women are selling below the market, or scabbing on the job”.

This is why TheAntiFeminist has characterised feminism as “The Sexual Trade Union”, representing the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of ageing and/or unattractive women.
___________

However, whereas the striking miner or manual labourer sometimes wins our sympathy simply because he occupies, as socialists have rightly observed, a relatively disadvantaged position in society as a whole, the same cannot be said of wives and women.

Although, as feminists never tire of pointing out, men earn more money than women (not least because they work longer hours, in more dangerous and unpleasant working conditions and for a greater proportion of their adult lives), women are known to be wealthier than men and dominate almost every area of consumer spending. According to researchers in the marketing industry, women control around 80% of household spending.[5]

A more appropriate analogy is therefore perhaps that provided by Baumeister and Vohs themselves. These authors view women’s attempt at artificial price-fixing as analogous to“other rational economic strategies, such as OPEC’s efforts to drive up the world price of oil by inducing member nations to restrict their production.”[6]

The appropriateness of this analogy is underscored by the fact that the exact same analogy was adopted by Warren Farrell, the father of the modern Men’s Rights Movement, a decade or so previously in his seminal The Myth of Male Power (which I have reviewed here). Here, Farrell observed:

In the Middle East, female sex and beauty are to Middle Eastern men what oil and gas are to Americans: the shorter the supply the higher the price. The more women ‘gave’ away sex for free, or for a small price, the more the value of every woman’s prize would be undermined”.[7]

___________

This then explains the prevalence of prejudice against prostitutes and promiscuity, and why this prejudice is especially prevalent among women. Only by slut-shaming whores and other promiscuous women can The Sex Cartel’s monopoly ever be maintained.

In contrast, men’s interests are diametrically opposed to the Sex Cartel. Consistent with this theory, men are found to be more tolerant, liberal and permissive in respect of virtually all aspects of sexual morality.

Thus, one study from the late-Eighties found that the vast majority of women, but only a minority of men, were wholly opposed to prostitution in all circumstances, whereas, in contrast, three times as many men as women saw nothing wrong with the sex trade.[8] Likewise, more women than men report that they are opposed to pornography.[9]

Of course, feminists typically explain so-called ‘sexual double-standards’ as some sort of male patriarchal plot to oppress women. In fact, however, women seem to be more censorious of promiscuity on the part of other women than are men. Thus, ‘sexual double-standards’, to the extent they exist at all, are largely promoted, and enforced, by women themselves. Thus, one recent meta-analysis found significantly greater support for ‘sexual double-standards’ among women than among men.[10]

Men, in contrast, have little incentive for slut-shaming. On the contrary, men actually generally rather enjoy the company of promiscuous women – for obvious reasons.[11]

There is, as far as I am aware, only one exception to the general principle that men are more tolerant and permissive on issues of sexual morality than are women. This is in respect of attitudes towards homosexuality. Here, strangely, women seem to be more permissive than men.[12]

However, opposition to homosexuality can still be explained compatibly with Sex Cartel Theory. Warren Farrell suggests in The Myth of Male Power (which I have reviewed here):

Homophobia reflected an unconscious societal fear that homosexuality was a better deal than heterosexuality for the individual. Homophobia was like OPEC calling nations wimps if they bought oil from a more reasonably priced source. It was the society’s way of giving men no option but to pay full price for sex”.[13]

___________

The Sex Cartel’s efforts to de-legitimize the sex trade involve the stigmatization, not only of prostitutes, but also of their clients. Indeed, these days the patrons of prostitutes seem to get an even worse press than do prostitutes themselves. On the one hand, they are castigated for exploiting women. On the other, they are also derided for being exploited by women and having to pay for what (it is implied) ‘real’ men should have no business having to pay for.[14]

In addition to moral sanction, the force of the criminal law is sometimes co-opted. Thus, around the world, prostitution is frequently wholly prohibited, and, if not, is almost always heavily regulated and restricted, such that both prostitutes and their patrons find themselves subject to the full force of the criminal law for partaking in a victimless and mutually-consensual commercial transaction.

Again, the current trend in law-enforcement is to target the customers rather than the prostitutes themselves (i.e. men rather than women) – a policy that manages to be both inefficient and unjust and is roughly comparable to prosecuting occasional pot smokers while letting drug-dealers off scot-free.

___________

Every woman, from the Whore to the Housewife, the Prostitute to the Prude, the Puritan to the Princess, is each, in her own way, forever a Whore at Heart.So, ironically, for all their fanatical feminist flag-waving and sanctimonious puritanical moral posturing, the real reason women hate prostitutes is precisely because women are prostitutes. Like any other class of commercial trader, they just don’t like the competition.

In reality, however, prostitution per se is never wholly criminalized or prohibited. If it were, then virtually every woman in the country would be behind bars – and so would virtually every man.

After all, as perceptive observers (end even a few feminists) have long recognised, one way or another, all women are prostitutes, according to the ordinary dictionary definition of this word.

Indeed, the entire process of conventional courtship in Western society is predicated on prostitution – from the social expectation that the man pay for dinner on the first date, to the legal obligation that he continue to support his ex-wife, through alimony and maintenance, for anything up to ten or twenty years after he has belatedly rid himself of her.

All the world is a red-light district. And all the men and women merely tricks, suckers, johns, punters, hookers and whores – plus perhaps an occasional pimp. Every woman, from the Whore to the Housewife, the Prostitute to the Prude, the Puritan to the Princess, is each, in her own way, forever a Whore at Heart.

So, ironically, for all their fanatical feminist flag-waving and sanctimonious puritanical moral posturing about saving women from sexual slavery and exploitation, the real reason women hate prostitutes is precisely because women are prostitutes. Like any other class of commercial trader, they just don’t like the competition.
_____________

[1] Baumseister RF & Twenge JM (2002) ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’, Review of General Psychology 6(2): 166-203 at p172.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Baumeister RF & Vohs KD (2004) ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4) pp339-363 at p344.

[4] Ibid, at p358

[5] See Kanner, B., Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today’s Most Coveted Consumer – Women: p5; Barletta, M., Marketing to Women: How to understand reach and increase your share of the world’s largest market segment: p6.

[6] Baumeister RF & Vohs KD (2004) ‘Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4) pp339-363 at p357

[7] Farrell, W, The Myth of Male Power (reviewed here) (New York Berkley 1994) at p67.

[8] Klassen, AD, Williams, CJ, & Levitt, EE (1989). Sex and morality in the U.S.: An empirical enquiry under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute Middletown: Wesleyan University Press: cited in Baumseister RF & Twenge JM (2002) ‘Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality’ at p190. More precisely, 69% of women were wholly opposed to pornography in all circumstances, as compared to only 45% of men, whereas 17% of men versus only 6% of men saw nothing wrong with prostitution.

[9] For example, Lottes, I, Weinberg, M & Weller, I (1993) ‘Reactions to pornography on a college campus: For or against?’ Sex Roles 29(1-2): 69-89.

[10] Oliver MB and Hyde JS (1993) ‘Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Meta-Analysis’ Pyschological Bulletin l14(1): 29-51

[11] Though it is true that men may not wish to marry a promiscuous women. Here, concerns of paternity certainty are paramount.

[12] Harek G (1988) Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences Journal of Sex Research 25(4); Lamar, L & Kite, M. (1998) Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians: A Multidimensional Perspective The Journal of Sex Research 35(2): 189-196; Kite, M. & Whitney, B. (1996) Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexual Persons, Behaviors, and Civil Rights A Meta-Analysis Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22(4): 336-35;Lim VK (2002) Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality Journal of Homosexuality 43(1):85-97.

[13] Farrell, W, The Myth of Male Power (reviewed here) (New York Berkley 1994) at p87.

[14] These two claims are, of course, wildly contradictory. Moreover, it is notable that, while men who pay for prostitutes are routinely ridiculed for ‘having to pay for it’, the same stigma does not attach to the man who takes his girlfriend out to dates at expensive restaurants, buys her jewellery or, worse still, pays the ultimate price by subjecting himself to marriage – yet the latter surely incurs a steeper financial penalty in the long-run.