Illosophical Inquiry

knightowlspecial:

Philosophy will not give you the answers you seek in life. Philosophy will only teach you how to ask better questions.

So finally I get to the true heart of the purpose of this blog - where I actually post entries of some of my thoughts. Don’t really care for good grammar or diction in this place, just informal rambling thoughts.

I do a great deal of research on the topic of sexual and social behaviors. The area in particular that has always fascinated me was gender roles, and the ones that are artificially created by civilization and tradition. There is no better and more glaring example of this than the near-universal societal tradition of female chastity. I have an affirmed belief that most of society places such restriction on woman’s sexual freedom (and this includes virginity, abortion, freedom to choose who to mate with) because they feel that females having sexual freedom would be chaos. Why? Because society  is written by beta males.

The entities at the top - in Church, in politics, in law…they are succesful, sure…but very few of them are what would be called “alpha males” in a nature sense. Therefore, my theory centers around the idea that most of our unnecessary learned behaviors are those furthered by Beta Males….Alpha Males aren’t too worried about keeping civilization since they are very much benefitted by how things are the “natural” way…as they would be in charge in a state of nature.

The way this applies to sexual freedom and abortion and sexual education is that these are dangerous things for most of the male population. Assuming women had full sexual freedom, and mating was in a natural state of reproduction as opposed to monogamy…it can be concluded that only a minority of men would be granted reproduction, and this belief is pretty much supported by most mammal species. So in order to keep a competitive balance, this sort of shit is put in place, and these rules are laid one on top of the other, over centuries, with civilization snowballing and growing and becoming more exact and concise. We can say religious groups find abortion wrong because The Bible says its wrong, but thats still a bad answer because it doesnt say anything as to WHY. With Religion, and the state…most are set up by those who are more than happy to move away from nature (where they would be unfit and wouldnt reproduce) and more towards social constructs which give them an equal standing…things like monogamy, and marriage, and marriage vows, virginity and holding off til marriage… to me it just all comes across as mechanisms to take away sexual freedom and knowledge from females.

This idea seems like I’m being totally pro-females but girls have a bit of difficulty with my view. Because a) minority of males reproducing means that only a fraction of males will be a prospective father, and b) this means that most (attractive) girls would be sharing a baby daddy with the other girls in the group. It sounds unattractive in a SOCIETAL sense, it sounds like a harem, like a pimp and hoes or whatever, but in a state of nature what would make humans any different from other species? if you were to take humans and have them act completely out of a sense of nature and not force feed any artificial/societal traditions or customs on them…then the sexual/mating behavior would truly reflect the Alpha/Beta dichotomy, and that for women..selecting a mate would entail a much more emphasized sense of genes and security, in addition to selecting a mate who she feels will help raise a kid. I think by nature, women’s instincts are programmed to be less offended by sharing a mate with other women as long as he is a high commodity, and more disgusted by the idea of carrying the genes of an undesirable/unfit mate. They’d take option A over the latter any day.

It may sound harsh and all, and people have told me that a world where only a select group of males get to reproduce sounds bleak but honestly -  it sounds about right to me. Maybe that’s just Nietzsche influencing me but I see no problem in nature working itself out in this way. Evolution is all about the fittest surviving and making the best possible offspring, so that it too can be fit to survive and repeat the cycle…so a process with strict selection is NECESSARY, and totally appropriate. I have no problem with the Alpha/Beta theory, I think the world pretty much goes off this dynamic as it is, its just shrouded and draped by society and so it appears less so than it does in wolf packs.

So when you wonder why Christians are so vehemently against abortion, or why conservative cultures are offended by women who are confident in their sexuality - it isn’t because a religious text said so. This sort of belief is a product of centuries of social tinkering and dialectic of mores, pushed along by those who wish to bring a balance for themselves…in a world that does not reward balance and equality. 

I don’t mean to paint it as if Beta’s are the only males able to have power in society. Alpha males still fight to success and are able to retain their traits even within a societal scope. The point with it is that the laws we have are very Beta in nature. Most things that try to “equalize” everybody are counter-effective to nature. Sounds barbaric, but take a look around. Entities like Religion and politics (which dictate our laws/traditions) are unique in that they are arenas in which even a beta male can excel and rise (while still retaining their traits), which would be impossible in a level/natural state. 

Alpha males do come to dominate society in many arenas, though in a strictly evolutionary scope they are more advantaged in natural settings (settling things on the streets, in the jungle, etc) than in purely societal settings (winning a lawsuit)…as society moves more and more towards constructed dynamics, natural traits are irrelevant and thus betas are able to have clout that they otherwise wouldn’t have.

Alpha males do want to dominate, but the bare instinctual desires are to dominate in a sense of the gene pool. This means having the most (and best) mates, and being able to protect/provide for them. In this way, the sexual dynamic is one of the main barometers of “success” when it comes to nature. We even see it now, where even if a guy is over a lower class, he is looked at with a level of respect if he is able to consistently have attractive female mates. A man’s sexual prowess can outweigh his financial situation, on an instinctual level. Thus, a women’s sexual freedom benefits alpha males, and it certainly does not benefit Betas because it puts them right back as it was in a pure state of nature. Hence..stuff like religion and society evolves and adjusts, mainly by beta mentality in order to keep things “civilized” (aka equal). Wasn’t always this way, either. Ancient cultures retained very much of the tribal/primitive values, and with limited resources men were only rewarded for courage and strength. The barometer of a man was in his ability to be one from a natural scope, and not so much to fit a rubric of unnecessary pansy emotions that the modern era has. 

You can see all the manifestations of this even with people our age. Guys who are getting theirs don’t sit and whine too much about how girls are whores and how we need to go back to old values and how women used to have class and BLAH BLAH, when you see a dude post the cliche thing about how a girl took a great guy for granted and went and had sex with the asshole, that typical crybaby nonsense, doesn’t that just SOUND beta? It’s basically a self-indictment. Dont those guys sound like if THEY ever reached a position of power/authority, they would be on the side of restricting women’s sexual freedom? They would be, it totally benefits their mentality. And this is a majority of guys, it seems like, so I stick with my perception that there is a correlation between the natural alpha/beta minority/majority and the same proportion of it in humans.

In many mammal species - 90% of the females are impregnated by 10% of the males. That is quite the overlap. Humans would be no different. Our cranial capacity is what makes us attempt to outsmart ourselves, as well as nature.  

M.