Sexual polarity, civilization and our myopic view

Seriouslypleasedropit has good post over at Calculated Bravery on some thoughts on sexual polarity. Started writing out a comment, but it got somewhat long so I figured I’d post about it since it’s good. I went a bit off topic one some of the comments as I wanted to provide some extra thoughts on the matter.

– The “ideal” member of the opposite sex, from a purely sexual point of view, will be at maximum sexual polarity.  Think Christian Grey and a mix between Audrey Hepburn and Jessica Rabbit.

– Sexual polarity is somewhat controllable.  Most advice in the manosphere is oriented towards increasing it—men are advised to do things that increase their confidence, to lift, to put energy into their careers, and women are advised to take care of themselves, dress in a feminine manner, and be supportive.

Agreed. I think it’s best thought of embodiments of masculine and feminine.

– Sexual polarity is, to some extent, a luxury good. That is: just because something is sexy does not mean that it is always a good idea. If you are bent under the sink, you don’t want to be wearing a miniskirt. If you have work to do, maybe those extra hours at the gym could be cut down a bit.

Agreed. Though becoming increasingly necessary have enough options so you’re not stuck with someone with a high risk of frivorce if your aim is to marry.

– Not only do cis characteristics sometimes have to be sacrificed in the name of practicality, but sometimes it even becomes expedient to adopt some behaviors typed to the opposite sex—women pushing harder for raises; men being quiet and supportive of a boss, etc.

– The above explains the “paradox” that in poorer countries there are more women in “typically masculine” professions like engineering. To an extent, the country “can’t afford” sex.

Women in the workforce is nothing really “new” exactly. Even Proverbs 31 describes a woman who runs a business out of her home, and there are numerous women in the Scriptures like Lydia who ran businesses.

We tend to have a false impression about that from western culture where a lot of wives want to or have the ability to stay home as housewives. This requires significant wealth acquisition, and is only really seen in first world countries. Women working, at least part time, or jobs that align with children (such as school teachers) tend to be the norm in most cultures across most times.

Additionally, the main thing with women is that while they may have a “masculine” job, they still like to be a woman or at least “feel” like a woman/wife at home. Even the high powered women in business want to come home to be with a masculine man who makes them feel girly.

– Those of similar polarity attract. Extremely masculine men and extremely feminine women gravitate toward one another. This does not make them superior, more self-actualized beings—a hard-drinking gym rat construction worker and a flaky stripper are both strongly sexually polarized, and could definitely end up together, but you don’t want to be either one.

– That said, the prevailing ethos in the West generally moves people to a lower level of polarity than they “ought” to be—as in, could stand/afford, and would enjoy.

In areas that are war torn like Eastern Europe and Russia post-WW2, you see much more strong sexual polarity. There is violence so the men have a very “hard” edge to them, and the women are competing for smaller pools of men so they have to be very feminine to attract men. Any random tourist to these areas can tell you that — the men are tougher and the women are more attractive.

The West has feminism. Feminism is a luxury delusion.

– There exists a class of situations and goals where, after a certain threshold, exerting extra effort fails to provide returns, and may even be detrimental. Examples include: you need a job to get experience/experience to get a job, confidence to build relationships/relationships to gain confidence, relaxation to achieve success/success to be able to relax, and faith to obey/the fruits of obedience to build faith.

– I’ve basically only come across two ways to break these impasses: either avoid them as unproductive in hopes that they will resolve themselves in time or as we labor in more productive arenas, or try to power through one of the steps despite the “necessity” of the other.

Even inside particular goals such as jobs and experience, there are usually systems in place that one needs to take advantage of in order to build a necessary resume. Volunteer work, internships, networking, and so on.

Some goals align with each other well and some don’t. For the ones that don’t, you have prioritize. No one person can do everything. Elon Musk is a good example.

– “It’s not so much that I’m shallow (although I am of course),” I thought. “It’s that I view the attractiveness of the woman I can attract as society’s opinion on me.”

– “Oh,” I thought. “Women must feel the same.”

Beauty is not shallow as God created man to behold beauty as sexually attractive. But if you’re weighing beauty as a measure of self esteem by society, then I suppose it’s shallow in the fact that it has become an idol. I don’t think anyone is immune to thoughts like that though; most men are proud to walk around if they perceive themselves to have a beautiful wife.

Both men and women do want to maximize, to some extent, the sexual attractiveness of someone they want to marry or be with. The issue is that most people, even Christians, hold beauty up over character and godliness. Ideally, you want both, but there is usually some sort of compromise there unless you’re blessed to be born with good looks genetics and/or are called to or work hard to be in a high status occupation. That or you are mega rich.

The fact that we are even having such a conversation about sexual dynamics is so far outside most of civilizations in human history. But then again most civilizations had children who had both their parents and were taught a family trade.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Sexual polarity, civilization and our myopic view

  1. Really interesting read, thanks!

  2. This having occupied my mind of late…

    One aspect of the distressed beta’s plight is failed reciprocity. “I like it when girls are nice to me,” he thinks. “So I will be nice to them.”

    But having swallowed the pill, he can find reciprocity again: “I want femininity,” he might think. “It is only just and right that I bring a similar amount of masculinity to the table.”

    In practice an “exchange” mindset has its pitfalls, because all bargaining is implicit rather than explicit, and terms are mostly enforced by the dude rather than the government, but as far as the SMP marketplace metaphor goes, the beta work ethic has something of an outlet, as it works toward masculinity (rather than “niceness”).

  3. Lance Roberts says:

    Business is different from work. As you pointed out, in Prov 31, the woman was involved in business, it was family business oriented. The two main points why it is biblically wrong for women to work a job outside the home (not talking about exigent situations, though that gets abused as people trade obedience for lifestyle) are 1) the Bible explicitly states that the man is supposed to provide for his family, or he is worse than an infidel and 2) it would put her under another’s authority instead of her husbands thereby giving her two heads and causing confusion. Jobs have only been around about 150 years, though there have always been other forms of slavery. Most of the women historically have worked within the family structure (think agrarian) and not for someone else. It has been one of the most destructive things in our culture for men to farm their wives out to work, trading obedience for lifestyle. It is one of the main factors contributing to the downfall of the family and is one of the prime tenets of feminism.

  4. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    In a world of arranged marriages there was less confusion about what was expected of men and women. Polarity or parity was not even a thing.

  5. earl says:

    There is violence so the men have a very “hard” edge to them, and the women are competing for smaller pools of men so they have to be very feminine to attract men. Any random tourist to these areas can tell you that — the men are tougher and the women are more attractive.

    I think the violence brought it about in creating countries that didn’t have much creature comforts…but those men faced harder times and it made them stronger internally. As in things like a woman’s feelings being hurt wouldn’t even register as a top 20 concern for the man (things like water, shelter, hunger, safety, staying warm in a cold winter would take precidence).

  6. bdash 77 says:

    @Lance Roberts

    yup
    Adam was called to work well before Eve came along
    and Eve came for companionship and to help
    not to submit to another man

    astonishes me how Christian women would rather submit to another man than their own husband.

  7. feeriker says:

    it astonishes me how Christian women would rather submit to another man than their own husband.

    Other men (i.e., bosses) have threatpoints to hold over women that their husbands don’t. A boss can fire or demote her if she doesn’t perform to his expectations. What can any husband do that is comparable that won’t get him arrested or bankrupt him?

    This is exactly the stuation our overlords intended: cuckholding of husbands by men in positional authority over their wives. One powerful way to contribute to the destruction of marriages and families.

  8. @ SPDI

    One aspect of the distressed beta’s plight is failed reciprocity. “I like it when girls are nice to me,” he thinks. “So I will be nice to them.”

    Expecting reciprocality is buying into the “works mentality” over “desire.”

    But having swallowed the pill, he can find reciprocity again: “I want femininity,” he might think. “It is only just and right that I bring a similar amount of masculinity to the table.”

    For sure masculinity attracts femininity, but the problem of the works mindset is still there. You have the covert contracts and all of that.

    In practice an “exchange” mindset has its pitfalls, because all bargaining is implicit rather than explicit, and terms are mostly enforced by the dude rather than the government, but as far as the SMP marketplace metaphor goes, the beta work ethic has something of an outlet, as it works toward masculinity (rather than “niceness”).

    Exchange mindset basically falls into the category of negotiation, which doesn’t work that effectively for any relationships, except maybe business.

    One has to leave their mindset of work for desire, which is emulated by God and Jesus and is a core component of faith.

  9. In today’s American Christian world / minmdset overall………………..you could still be that manly guy, move sixteen ton a day, go to church…..and not just hear The Word, but DO it and you’ll still be passed up….and maybe that’s a good thing. Marriage today in the American Christian realm is reserved for the “very good looking”

  10. earl says:

    Yeah but those good looks won’t do much for you if she’s suddenly unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapy.

    Really the biggest threatpoint is how she impliments the unjust state/family courts into tearing up the marriage if she doesn’t have the correct emotions.

  11. bdash 77 says:

    Why did men in the west allow this to happen?
    Allow women to walk over them
    or is it a punishment from God like in Isaiah?

  12. @bdash77:

    A few elites passed some laws that no one voted on by highly self-interested elites. (Marriage has always been different for the Elites than the rest of society.) Further, you can’t blame anyone born after about 1955, as they had no political power by the time all of the changes were established.

    There is no “Why did men…” discussions to ever be had. A small group of the powerful had been pushing certain ideological positions for years, and this was just one of the outcroppings. Go back and look at what was passed during the “Great Society” push. It set the course for Civil War 2.0 and we’ve all just been caught in the current.

    As for how the situation was eventually able to happen? You’ve got to get back into the 1700 & 1800s to find that answer.

  13. bdash 77 says:

    what did these elites push and why?

  14. @bdash77:

    For a more total picture, you’d need to do a lot of background reading on Cultural Marxism, the American Progressive movement and the “long march through the Institutions”. However, in the case of divorce, you’re looking at one trend and one localized issue among the Elites.

    Undermining Marriage has long been a Leftist position. The Soviets understood that the “nuclear family” was a core aspect of Western Power. You can look back to the earliest “Feminist” groups in the mid-1800s to see their views on Marriage and why they wanted to destroy it. However, that’s only a tool and a means by which this happened. Undermining Marriage is something that had been pushed for decades by the point of the “Divorce Revolution”.

    In the specific case of the Elite Men, they already viewed Marriage very differently. To the wealthy or elite, divorce was already a real possibility and it was simply a question of money. This is why the old families viewed marriages as business transactions, as much as anything else. They sold the changes as a way to “free” Women and be more honest about what was going on, for those at the top.

    Those with a lot of wealth can absorb stupid things like Divorce. Hollywood divorces have been a staple since the 1930s. That wasn’t the issue. The two major issues are the change from “Marriage-based” family structure to “child-support-based” structure. (This clearly doesn’t work, but was forced upon everyone without any input.) And what introducing divorce does to those without wealth. It slaughters communities. That was an intended outcome of the Cultural Marxists, but they happened to have people willing to go along with it because of cultural condition predating the events & personal interest on the parts of Men in Power to simply remove a headache.

  15. Novaseeker says:

    happened to have people willing to go along with it because of cultural condition predating the events & personal interest on the parts of Men in Power to simply remove a headache.

    Well there’s an element to it that is similar to pushing drugs, really. Individual freedom run to an extreme is like an extremely addictive drug in the sense that once people get a broad taste of it, very few of them desire to stop exercising extreme personal freedom, even if they see that the results of everyone doing this is harmful, and even if they experience the harm of their own “free decisions” or those of others around them (like former spouse, etc), the still tend to strongly prefer maintaining maximal individual freedom of action as an overarching norm. It’s like an addictive drug that people can’t give up, do not want to give up, even in the face of clear and obvious harm resulting from the same.

    In Orthodox Christianity, our spiritual tradition refers to this as being “enslaved by the passions”, and undoubtedly this problem in our cultural has a spiritual root to it. But it isn’t very simple to uproot precisely for the reason that people *like* being enslaved by their passions, even if they see the downsides or harm to them, because they like indulging themselves too much.

    This is why we have the current situation where almost everyone realizes that “there is something rotten in Denmark” indeed when it comes to marriage in our society, and most realize it must have something to do with laws and mores around sex and marriage and children — but at the same time almost everyone wants to keep these rules the way they are because they themselves don’t want to “go back to” being more restricted for the benefit of everyone else. People can see the harm and “kind of know” where it comes from, what it results from, but they also don’t think hard about that because they do not want those things to go away, either, so they “tolerate” the bad results as a “cost” of maintaining maximal freedom. It’s an enslavement to maximalist individual freedom, which clearly has a spiritual root to it which is what makes it so difficult to unseat.

    It’s true that the elites *drove* the process, in other words, but at this point the masses themselves don’t want to change the rules back to what they were because they are addicted to maximalist individual freedom of action. A stable society — and a successful life — depends on restraining that freedom to channel it in socially beneficial ways. Those who are successful in our free-for-all world (not necessarily “elites”, but successful people) are the ones who restrain themselves voluntarily — this is obvious to anyone who has ever spent any time around people who are successful (not trust fund rich people … but people who are successful themselves). But even most of these people are not in favor of social rules that encourage or “force”, socially, people to behave in more restrained ways, because even theoretically they want the “optionality” of exercising that freedom (and likely they do themselves, in a restrained and controlled way, and enjoy that, too, such that they don’t want it to be completely off limits). And the masses of people below them who would benefit from more restraint (and may even know that) definitively do not want it.

    It’s a little but like the genie that is let out of the bottle, really. Once she’s out, she’s hard to put back in without some massive force doing so, and there is no source of that massive force in today’s society at all. So expect her to keep dancing away for the forseeable future. At least her tips are good, I guess.

  16. @Novaseeker:

    Energy. The current society is flush with energy & food, which means doing the “hard things” isn’t optimal for a person’s day to day life.

  17. Lost Patrol says:

    @Novaseeker

    Your comment really does shine a light on the bottom line. I found myself relating to it only too well. Autonomy is highly sought after and highly addictive when found.

    But it isn’t very simple to uproot precisely for the reason that people *like* being enslaved by their passions, even if they see the downsides or harm to them, because they like indulging themselves too much.

    Nobody wants to give this up for –
    1. Stop indulging yourself
    2. Deny yourself

    Those might sound the same but they actually represent a two stage process. Most people don’t even want to address item 1., for the reasons you explained.

  18. Pingback: Weekly Roundup #99 - Charles Sledge

  19. infowarrior1 says:

    ”Feminism is a luxury delusion.”
    Not anymore. Its being exported by NGO’s and educational systems around the world to poorer nations. Destroying sexual polarity and promoting the masculinization of women.

    A google search into what those “Aid” or “UN” organizations are doing as well as the spread of the feminist ideology shows its impact. I have also read magazine and news articles that document this spread due to western leftist influence.

    Women fight as warriors in certain cases in the frontlines as guerillas in many leftist groups one of which is made prominent in the Syria civil war consisting of YPG/PKK leftist kurdish groups.

    They are also taught self-defense and being poisoned against traditional Patriarchy. And 3rd world nations like india have become hostile to traditional gender polarity:
    https://themalefactor.com/

    The website documents feminism as it impacts india.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s