Now Auditioning Sister Wives In A Suburb Near You

Just in case this is your first time accessing the Internet since the middle of last week, let me be the one to break the news to you: The Supreme Court decided last week to override state definitions of marriage, be they the product of a state legislature, a referendum, or simple long-established tradition, in the name of Tumblr-style social justice. The minute the decision was announced, pretty much every corporation in America changed their logo to a rainbow version of their logo in an effort to suck up to Millennials.

If you ever needed a demonstration that this country’s so-called “left wing” has become entirely co-opted by corporate interests and marketing, this would be a good one. I remind you that job availability and economic conditions for so-called working-class Americans are the worst they have been in fifty years and that Mr. Obama is in the middle of selling the working American down the river with the super-NAFTA-sucking-sound disaster known as TPP. I also remind you that “Obamacare”, rather than delivering a European-style single-payer solution, is actually a method to force young people to line the coffers of the insurance companies who paid Mr. Obama’s re-election bill three years ago.

In other words, there is no longer a major political party in this country that gives a damn about anybody earning under, say, $100k/year, particularly if they are paid by the hour for assembly work. We are told that there just isn’t any way to establish a fair wage for Americans, that it would be impossible to adjust predatory trade practices from Asian countries and American multinationals, and that solutions like devaluing the dollar to more fairly reflect its worth compared to Asian currencies are utterly impossible.

To distract you from TPP, our Ministry Of Truth has lined up a Confederate-flag controversy and our Ministry Of #LoveWins has delivered gay marriage by judicial fiat. Did it work? I’d say so, because if you have a Twitter feed you will see nothing but social-justice news and nothing about economic justice or workers’ rights.

So what does gay marriage mean to you, my overwhelmingly straight and male readers? It means your gay friends can have a wedding and they can inherit stuff and they can be at their husbands’ bedsides. Good for them. (And for you, my gay male readers. Congratulations.) But the actual implications for you are far deeper — and since we live in the new Gilded Age, it should come as no surprise that some men will benefit tremendously while others will be actively contemplating suicide.


Let’s start with this fact. Not a value judgment, but a fact: Gay marriage is a destruction of conventional marriage, not an addition to it. I don’t mean “OMG GAYS ARE DESTROYING MARRIAGE”. I mean that the traditional purpose and construction of marriage cannot legally survive the addition of homosexual participants.

The reasons why are explained in this deliberate pot-stirrer piece on Politico, but here’s the money shot:

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?

I bolded the last part because it is an essentially inarguable assertion of the right to plural marriage. It’s also an inarguable assertion of the right of family members to wed. Why shouldn’t you marry your cousin, or your sister, or your mother? How dare the State stand in judgment of your desire to sleep with your sibling and inherit his or her property?

#LoveWins.

“Wait a minute, Jack,” my educated readers are already saying. “The media-corporate culture LOVES gay people and HATES Mormons/fundamentalists/hicks/and so on. The overwhelming tide of manufactured sentiment for gay marriage just won’t exist for plural marriage.” To those readers, I say:

* Congratulations for understanding how America truly works;
* It won’t be the hicks who bring plural marriage back. It will be progressive, feminist women.

To understand why, let’s take a look at what marriage used to be. It was an agreement in which both men and women contributed effort and expected results.

For men, the contribution/result matrix was this:

* Men agreed to support the woman. (Remember, we’re talking pre-1965 here.)
* Men agreed to support children that the woman bore.
* Men agreed to work as long and as hard as they could to earn money for the marriage.
* Men agreed to turn over the bulk of the money to the household. Yeah, there might be a mistress or a powerboat in the mix somewhere, but in general men gave up their income to the wife.
* Men agreed to stay with their wives even after their wives had “hit the Wall” and become post-menopausal or nonsexual, even if they did not feel that way themselves.
* Men received assurances that their wives were generally faithful and that their children were in fact, their children by blood.
* Men were freed from the day-to-day operations of the household.
* And the day-to-day operations of parenting.

For women, the reverse contributions and results applied. In exchange for sexual fidelity or at least reproductive fidelity, and in exchange for tireless work on behalf of the household, they were supported and protected by men.

In the modern era, where close to seventy percent of college students are women while men drift downwards to casual labor, construction work, and the ever-swelling ranks of the unemployed, the old order clearly no longer applies. Women don’t need men to protect them. They don’t need men to pay their bills. And they consume media like “Sex And The City” that promises them satisfying if promiscuous sex lives into their fifties.

In other words, women don’t need marriage any more. That would have been true no matter what the Supreme Court decided, and it’s reflected in declining marriage rates everywhere but in America’s upper-middle class, where people still give the tiniest damn about appearances. Sisters, as they say, are doing it for themselves.

There’s just one little problem. Now that women are no longer forced to marry the men they need, they are increasingly choosing to chase after the men they want. Which leads us to the tired and annoying but not incorrect alpha male/beta male business. Conventional marriage was how beta males got women. They traded security and support for sex and love. But women don’t need that security and support anymore.

Furthermore, women are taking their long-term dating lessons from college, where women compete for the affection of a very small number of ‘fuckable’ men, leaving the rest to become involuntarily-celibate “incels”. It makes sense. If men don’t call or send flowers any more, and the hook-up is all there is, why not hook-up with the captain of the football team? What’s the point of having casual sex with a loser?

The end result of the sexual new order is this: Eighty percent of the women out there are fixated on twenty percent of the men. That’s a double Surf City: four girls for every boy! And that’s the ratio I’m seeing in real life, too. The best-looking, most successful, most charming men are sleeping with different women every weekend. The so-called “multiple LTR” is commonplace, where one man is boyfriend to multiple girlfriends, all of whom restrict their affection mostly to him.

And why not? If women are free to choose, they will create a market, because markets are the product of choice. And the most valuable men in the market will have multiple bidders, the same way every Rolex Milgauss that goes on eBay with no reserve winds up fetching seven grand. And for busy career women who don’t have every night free, one or two nights a week with a man who excites them is infinitely preferable to seven nights a week with a “beta”.

It stands to reason, therefore, that some men are going to see the virtue of having multiple wives. Let’s say you are one of the Anointed One Percent with “bases” in New York and Los Angeles. Why not have two wives? Or three? Let me ask you a serious question: Do you know any married woman out there who wouldn’t choose being Leonardo DiCaprio’s fifth wife over marriage to her current husband?

We could even see the return of the dowry, this time financed by career women who want to “buy in” to a plural marriage that acts with corporate power. Why not have a $3M home in San Francisco and share it with four other $250k/year earner wives? Why not have access to a rotating group of cars, vacation options, child care? If you are pretty enough and you can bring some money to the table, you’ll be able to do it.

In other words, polygamy empowers successful women to enjoy their preferred sexual options while also increasing their financial security. Robert Heinlein predicted this forty years ago or more: corporate marriages that looked out for the mutual interest of their members, required a buy-in, and attracted an educated, wealthy class of participants. Mark my words. Within a decade, some charming cad in Los Angeles or another place where home prices are in the stratosphere will marry two or three women and challenge the court on it.

As soon as plural marriage is widely accepted, the best men will slurp up the best women the same way our one percent slurps up money and business opportunities today. Seven out of ten men will find themselves out in the cold. Not to worry. They can participate in polygamy, too. You see, if you’ve trawled the bottom of Craigslist and Tinder and OKCupid (raises hand — but I swear, Your Honor, it was for research, just like Pete Townsend’s Internet Explorer cache!) you already know that there is a particular kind of “polyamory” out there…

…where one woman, usually dressed in vintage clothing stuffed to obscene proportions by 21st-Century cellulite and covered in meaningless tattoos, enjoys the adoring servitude of multiple omega males who will pay any price and bear any burden for an occasional escape from the masturbatory pornucopia set out by modern society for those of us who are too ugly or poor or socially awkward to seduce six-figure riot grrls from the Marketing Dep’t.

It’s common now for lower-class married women to openly date, sometimes for money and favors but also sometimes just for the thrill of it. I was recently informed by the Reddit Columbus forum that there’s some chunky faux-redhead who does a podcast explaining the polyamorous concept to women who would also like to be the leader of their own Asperger-ian tribe. And I assure you she has no shortage of men who would like to join her crew. As more and more women choose to be some charming alpha’s part-time lover, the remaining women will be able to leverage their assets very effectively, and one of them will eventually decide that she’d like to be married to five Java coders and enjoy a half-million dollars of household income. What can the Supreme Court do but nod its head?

One more data point. SeekingArrangment has 900,000 would-be prostitutes signed up. That’s almost one in ten college women. Not all SA sugar-babies are college students, but most are, so the ratio isn’t that deceptive. If you don’t think we are in an open sexual market today in 2015, you’re blind. All of those women are either being paid by beta males for sex or being held captive by older, successful alphas who also have a wife. Neither scenario bodes well for the bottom eighty percent of men.

None of this will happen overnight. But it will happen, and it will happen before some of you are too old to be affected by it. It will also happen to our children, male and female. Just like in the economy of the future, the winners will win big and the losers will take the scraps. I wish you the best, dear reader.

Which brings me to the young lady in the video heading this piece. She’s already married. But I have a friend who has expressed interest in marrying her when her current contract expires, so to speak, so I thought I had better put my hat in the ring. What more could you ask for in a second, or third wife, than a sense of the groove? Imagine having a twentysomething around the house to rub your back and play bass in your garage band. Why should she have to date some sad-sack Millennial when she could have as much as one-fifth of my attention? #LoveWins.

69 Replies to “Now Auditioning Sister Wives In A Suburb Near You”

  1. Cole

    I think you are right, but I don’t really see the problem. Why not allow people to pursue the relationships that meet their needs, and offer everyone the same kinds of legal protection? Which is worse, an incel or a woman who must pay for her safety and security with her body? There are elements of quid pro quo in any relationship. I’m no idealist. But whats wrong with evening the playing field? If those coders spent a few more minutes in the gym, reading a book, and trimming their beards, and a little less time complaining about the friend zone on reddit, maybe the manic pixie dream girls would notice them.

    Reply
    • poolside

      Because society breaks down without incentives. The takeaway to betas/omegas? Make as little as you can to pay for a shitty apartment, data pipe for porn (or sexbot) and cheetos and then stop. Nobody paying taxes, or buying the useless shit that supports the consumerist machine keeping this fake debt driven economy and welfare/entitlement state afloat. Nobody innovating, building, fixing. The women certainly won’t do it.
      Then the barbarians come.
      End times.

      Reply
      • Dan S

        Just take a look at Japan, really. Case in point for what happens when you take away male incentives to perform in society.

        Additionally, that bottom 20% of women these days is pretty disgusting, at least in the west.

        The deregulation of the sexual marketplace is proving to be a very bad thing for society, especially when you consider that a pretty sizeable segment of the male population doesn’t get how competitive things are really becoming.

        Reply
    • everybodyhatesscott

      We’re going to see a lot more incel guys blow shit up and shoot up Churches. You think if that kid was getting laid, he’d have shot up a Church? (Relating to that Any thoughts on the Confederate flag Jack?) If 80% of the men drop out, society is screwed.

      Reply
      • Athos

        80% of men won’t drop out. The world is not a black and white, 1 0, on/off matter. It has several shades of grey (no related to the infamous book). You can apply a pareto analysis to those below the initial 20%, and then again. Who you think the ladies Jack is referring later will marry to?

        What he wrote is downright scary and yes, society is stuffed.

        Reply
      • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

        I have deliberately avoided Dylann Roof coverage, but IMO part of the problem as he saw it was that every white girl he tried to date was already under some black dude.

        So yeah, if there’d been a snowflake willing to take a shot for #TeamWhiteGuy none of this would have happened.

        Reply
        • jz78817

          “I have deliberately avoided Dylann Roof coverage, but IMO part of the problem as he saw it was that every white girl he tried to date was already under some black dude.”

          the thing people like him never realize- “If you only go looking for one thing, that’s all you’ll find.”

          Reply
  2. bkl

    Marriage exists so that we may be “fruitful and multiply.”. Children will suffer horribly if Jack’s prognostications come to be

    Reply
    • Cole

      Being fruitful and multiplying is a great idea when you need to make babies to raise crops and defend the old homestead. Numbers matter and average life expectancy isn’t that long. Been a while since that held true though.

      Reply
      • Gert Frobe Body Double

        The genes of the 22nd Century will come from those who had children, disproportionately from those who had a lot of children.

        And the genes matter a lot more than you think.

        Reply
  3. Domestic Hearse

    Be still my heart. Adorable little thing on the 5-string MusicMan StingRay (my current go-to axe of choice). It is a beast of an instrument. Big neck, big body, wide string spacing (makes slapping it easier, and it is a funk machine in that respect), and most weigh in around 13 pounds. But this little waif is pwning it like a boss. Note that in order to play the disco-octave patterns in the lower register, she has to use first-to-fourth fingers of her tiny left hand to cover a three-fret stretch. Right hand technique is also very good; she’s having to really reach to go from E to D strings in finger-funk style. Listen to the ghosted notes that give her a really tasty groove. Jack, you should really have her over some time to you know, wring out your bass collection ; )

    Reply
    • VolandoBajo

      I’ll bet Jack has already made out his list, checked it twice, found out who’s naughty AND nice, and said bassist is likely near the top of the list.

      Jack, you never disappoint. Not to brag, but I have an interesting enough life and enough gray matter that the typical People mag/tabloid/TV gossip show crap bores me to tears if I am exposed to it for more than about twenty two seconds, but you ALWAYS shine with something interesting, original and thought-provoking.

      I’m glad I am old enough, and have become a winner (after more than my share of tries) at the one on one game. But I worry for my bright, outgoing and clever, but decidedly not classroom oriented twenty one year old. Although he has an entrepeneurial streak that may net him enough wives to hide in plain sight, should ISIS end up imposing sharia on the US in his lifetime.

      But it is not now, and will not be in the future, a pretty picture for society as a whole. But as he is learning, rust never sleeps, and he keeps moving forward, with a purposefulness that might very well put him in charge of his own successful business, with an above average income, before he reaches his mid-thirties.

      And he couples that with a natural and unstudied indifference as to whether or not he has a GF of the moment…he has heard me preach the gospel of staying free and taking his time to find the best one he can find. Only now I may have to tell him the program has been revised: polygamy may be an option for him.

      And I thought I was the lucky one, being young and in my prime post-birth control pills and pre-HIV/AIDS epidemic, when nothing you could contract couldn’t be solved with a healthy dose of antibiotics.

      But I thought I was lucky pursuing serial monogamy, and at times, serial polygamy, minus the binding contract in most, though not all, cases.

      Young boy is going to be able to write his ticket even more to his individual tastes, if he just plays the hand he has been dealt, and well.

      But this makes me arrive at the following question: in that brave new world, where will an alpha male of marriageable age stand in the game, if he willingly foregoes the option of polygamy, and is willing to ultimately throw down with just one alpha female?

      My money would be on the idea that this would prove to be a stronger hand than even the alpha male with a rotating stable of career women.

      But since your analyses often reach to depths that go beyond the obvious conclusions, I’d be curious to know your take on the strategy of an alpha male aggressively still seeking a traditional one man/one woman marriage. Better off, or worse off, than the past, and why?

      You are a dangerous guy, Jack. Telling the truth for all to see, and throwing in a complete review of the emperor’s new ensemble while you are at it, just for lagniappe.

      I hope you keep writing, frequently, and on a wide variety of topics.

      When is your next Huracán style article due to arrive, and in what venue, for what set of wheels?

      Reply
      • AoLetsGo

        “But this makes me arrive at the following question: in that brave new world, where will an alpha male of marriageable age stand in the game, if he willingly foregoes the option of polygamy, and is willing to ultimately throw down with just one alpha female? My money would be on the idea that this would prove to be a stronger hand than even the alpha male with a rotating stable of career women.”

        Good point I think one alpha male paired up with one alpha female will always do very well.
        I am currently binge-watching House of Cards, Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright make one formidable team.

        Reply
  4. Tyler

    You have also basically described the sexual economics of gay males, at least as explained by my gay friends. There is a smallish subset of upper-class gays interested in genuine commitment. The gaybar set, however, has the same Pareto-Darwinism going on.

    Reply
  5. Kevin Jaeger

    Your future dystopia is already reality among American blacks, where the institution of marriage has essentially collapsed. Lower class whites are maybe 20-30 years behind, but clearly headed down the same path.

    I don’t have strong opinions on homosexuals getting married. The courts imposed it 10 years ago on us here in Canada and only a tiny percentage of homosexuals actually form any sort of lasting relationships – of those they are mostly aging lesbians.

    I used to think the rule of law and respect for the constitution was much stronger in America and you would resist a court-imposed result like this. But obviously that’s not true anymore.

    Reply
    • kvndoom

      The incentives for serial pregnancy for the poor and single are too great. Irresponsibility is rewarded with a free ride, while the “nuclear family” gets no handouts and has to break their backs for 40 years to retire and make ends meet. And be lucky and thankful if they have a house paid off and a running car by the time they get there.

      If I lose my job, I lose everything. The people in Section 8 apartments a mile up the street are getting paid to not work, so long as they keep spitting out kids. Can you really blame them for their behavior?

      Reply
    • VolandoBajo

      Those of us who were educated/indoctrinated by the public school system also formerly believed that our Constitution was too strong to allow manipulation primarily according to popularity of opinion.

      But that system was wrong, and we were wrong for believing its stated position.

      Reply
      • jz78817

        Those of us who were educated/indoctrinated by the public school system also formerly believed that our Constitution was too strong to allow manipulation primarily according to popularity of opinion.

        Did they somehow skip over the 18th and 21st Amendments?

        Reply
  6. Carl Kolchak

    Although I am one the other side, strongly disagreeing with same sex marriage, i think you are spot on with the polygamy/ incest argument. The assertion is consent is all that is needed (therefore you can’t marry your pet). You think a lover’s triangle is bad, try a lover’s octagon.
    You are also dead on as to the corporations. If my side, (I’m a very Conservative Evangelical) ever started boycotting pro-gay companies and spending their money with companies that are neutral or pro-family, the corporations would change there tunes quickly. Corporate America sees the gay comminuty as big money and since we do not squeak, we get no grease, In the abscense of a strong underlying basis (ie Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-a or even Ben and Jerry;s) “Follow the Money” usually plays out.

    Reply
  7. Power6

    I tend to agree with your evolutionary based relationship analyses. I do wonder what is your ultimate point? whether a same sex couple can marry doesn’t change the reality you describe. The acceptability of divorce has done more to weaken marriage than anything else.

    What you are describing is a weakening of the desire for pair bonding which pre-dates the idea of a social construct to go along with it.

    Reply
    • The_F0nz

      As I read it, it looks to me like the return of cave man days. The previous poster was right on point with the parallels that are going on in Japan right now. It is unsettling to say the least.

      That being said, I’ll throw in my ramblings and hope people can follow:

      My money is on the fact that this is a cyclic issue. Women are coming into their own and finding tons of freedom, but will return to what actually achieves happiness in time. Alpha and Beta men who have found success have done it for generations. Much like famous musicians (Clapton, Vaughn, Mayer all come to mind), the god complex has many phases. Fulfilling physical (sex/drugs) urges gives way to fulfilling material wants, then suddenly rock bottom hits. Afterward people (notice I’m talking women and men) fall apart or start to seek out balance and happiness.

      I married a lady who wants it all. She is constantly battling the urge to become the CEO of a company by the time she is 35 or start a family. If she wants both, (and both done right) it will take a family (likely the extended family as well) to keep it all from imploding. She knows this.

      The alternative in the sad world talked about here? Single CEO mother, no time for child, part time dad, screwed up kid with no morals, no happiness in sight for anyone involved.

      Reply
    • jz78817

      I’d argue that human nature makes marriage an inherently weak institution. all that stigmatizing/banning divorce does is make kids endure an unhappy and unhealthy environment. “Staying together for the kids’ sake” is the worst thing you can do; you may not think they know what’s going on, but they do.

      Reply
  8. Pch101

    You’ve gone out of your way to allow something that isn’t your problem to become a problem.

    The government has decided to create a form of legal contract called “marriage” that provides certain benefits to those who have such a contract. If governments are going to be handing out such privileges, then they can’t have arbitrary standards for rejecting some members of the society who want them.

    There is no sound legal justification for segregating one class of citizen, and that’s all that matters.

    Reply
    • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

      “If governments are going to be handing out such privileges, then they can’t have arbitrary standards for rejecting some members of the society who want them.”

      Caesar Augustus set the precedent:

      http://www.ancient.eu/article/116/

      ” He felt particularly strong about encouraging families to have children and discouraging adultery. As such, he politically and financially rewarded families with three or more children, especially sons. This incentive stemmed from his belief that there were too few legitimate children born from “proper marriages.” On the other hand, he penalized unmarried men older than 38 years old by imposing on them an additional tax that others did not have to pay. They were also debarred from receiving inheritances and attending public games.”

      Who among our current lawmakers has the vision of Augustus? Think anybody will be reading “The Audacity Of Hope” two thousand years from now?

      Reply
        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          Ad hominem, unworthy of you.

          And in an era where American servicemen are still fighting and dying for pretty much no reason overseas, oddly blinkered of you, as well.

          Reply
          • Pch101

            Augustus was a dictator. Not ad hominem, just historical fact.

            And no, I don’t want a democratic government to look to imperial rule for its inspiration.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            It’s ad hominem to associate the virtues of a course of action to the person who originated that course of action.

            Much of American public policy today, from welfare as we know it to the single-payer systems like TennCare et al, to say nothing of Medicaid, was first suggested by Marxists. And Stalin killed more people than Augustus ruled. So are we going to abandon all of that because it has Soviet roots?

            What about gun control? The GCA 1968 is virtually a directly translation of Nazi law from thirty-five years prior. Senator Dodd requested a translation of the Nazi firearms control laws for Jews then used them as a basis for GCA. Are we going to repeal that?

            Augustus believed that families were the strength of his republic or any other. He was right. You cannot have a country full of single people fucking randomly. It will fall apart. It is falling apart.

          • Pch101

            If you wanted the powers-that-be to build a new interstate, would you base your argument on the premise that Der Fuhrer was a fan of multi-lane limited access highways, or would you try to find a better way to present your case?

            If your version of family values is such a great idea, then you should be able to find a better role model than a dead military dictator from a very different era. The fact that you find the need to turn to examples of those who don’t have knowledge or appreciation for our Bill of Rights or much respect for personal liberty ought to tell you something.

        • Harry

          I think I catch your meaning, perhaps is you ad “further” in front of emulate, and “the forms of” in front of military dictator. Many of Agustus’ reforms were an absolute political necessity given the previous 75 years of Roman republican civil war. If an american president were able to assemble a consensus to pass modern versions of his reforms democratically, history may laud that president.

          Those reforms (not so much the social engineering ones, those are always a crapshoot of unintended consquences) executed under the aegis (of a slightly more strict interpretation) of our Bill of Rights could result in a more politically inclusive society that is more prosperous. Mostly what we object to in Agustus is the manner he in which he imposed those reforms, as well as certain norms from back then that we consider abhorrent now.

          It is important to remember that he curtailed the power and influence of a very small very monied class to rip a nation state apart multiple times in a generation for no other purpose that their own dignitas. Draw your own parallels to our time.

          He set the ground work for increasing the base of citizenship, integrating the peoples of provinces outside of Italy, and curtailing the ability of private citizens to raise private armies to wage private warms of conquest.

          For better or worse he did create a system of remarkable stability and peace that lasted hundreds of years. Our founding fathers would be ecstatic if their system lasts nearly as long.

          Reply
          • Pch101

            I wouldn’t compare Augustus to Pol Pot, but I don’t want to use either one of them as role models for constitutional interpretations in today’s America.

            The Supreme Court didn’t do the “right” thing here, it did the only logical thing. Being terrified of social change is not a valid argument for depriving a class of citizen of his or her liberties. The opponents of legalized gay marriage don’t have a sound argument that has any basis in law; the appeals to emotion make it clear that the antis are driven by animus, not the Constitution.

  9. Shaolin Six Sigma

    Jack, come spend some time in West Coast cities. This is *already* happening. But in general the beta males find ways to make themselves awfully useful and liked around these households. The ladies do some self-selection between foot-to-the-floor careerism and those with a less economically lucrative but socially-respected nurturing role. Everyone has a role to play, it’s just even more specialized and not particularly specialized along gender lines.

    Honestly, it works a helluva lot better than the stifling bullshit that is the stereotype of American marriage in the post-WWII era.

    Reply
    • Dan S

      Who exactly does this system work better for?

      The beta schlub who stay at home doing housework and wonder why their wives aren’t sexually attracted to them? Theither ones who hit 40-whatever, finding themselves divorced and paying child support for someone else’s kids?

      The women who go out and fuck 20-50 thugs before settling down with said loser? Or settling for a similar loser with a lot of cash?

      The kids growing up in broken households?

      Who’s better off here?

      Reply
        • Dan S

          Spending some time in the UK recently has been enlightening like that. There are some beta-provider types still kicking around, but the number of tatted-up aggressive guys you see pretty much EVERYWHERE is surprising. 80% of them look like basement-dwelling MMA wannabes

          Reply
          • Andy

            Ha ha, too right! Where did you spend time in the UK? I’d say that your description is right for most medium-sized provincial towns and cities in the UK.

  10. Orenwolf

    Wow. Jack, I love you (in the platonic sense) but *man*, you’ve got a jaded worldview.

    The fact that a bunch of folks *who were already living together in most cases anyway* can now get married isn’t going to change anything, except, you know, make it a non-issue in a few years.

    Hetero pairings *today* cheat the rules in marriage for tax savings, etc. It’ll always be there.

    Don’t go giving the mostly white, male subset of your audience who are also either bigoted or masogynistic a voice just because.

    And nice try, but if people don’t know what the TPP is now they wouldn’t have cared regardless of what else was going on in the world. That’s the whole “why discuss cars when there’s starving children in africa” rule. And it’s frankly as shortsighted as the people who used to bitch when their story wasn’t above the fold in the newspaper. *really*?

    Reply
    • The_F0nz

      We actually had a wonderful year last year, but had to put off marriage for tax reasons. Thousands and thousands (5+) of dollars because we would be married without kids.

      Reply
      • Orenwolf

        I wonder if that’s a uniquely American issue or not? Up here in the Great White North(TM), most of the issues surrounding marriage are optional (I can claim my partner as a spousal amount or not depending on our income). Is the tax law perhaps less flexible south of the border?

        Also, as a point of note, long before same-sex marriage was legal here, common-law partnerships had the same force-of-law as marriage, requiring living together for a year as the only requirement. And our society didn’t fall apart. 🙂

        Reply
  11. VicMik

    So we’re in a Downward Spiral (cue ‘Closer’) towards a society that looks like what? (…Like an animal…) Anything goes as long as it’s consensual between two or more adults. Adultery. Polygamy. Homosexuality. Incest. Sodomy. The Christian values that this nation was founded upon never stood a chance to survive the freedoms that were unleashed during the sexual revolution and the information age.

    A free society should not legislate morality outside of individual rights. If two dudes want to enter into a contract to love and to hold till death does them part then have at it…just don’t call it marriage. Have your civil union and be happy….don’t force your lifestyle upon the neighborhood cake shop.

    The issue is not with the outcome of the SCOTUS decision but how they arrived at it – this is completely outside of constitutional bounds that should have been punted back to the States.

    But congrats! You may now kiss the bride (?) and suffer in the institution of marriage with the rest of us!

    Reply
    • Bill Malcolm

      “Adultery. Polygamy. Homosexuality. Incest. Sodomy. The Christian values that this nation was founded upon never stood a chance to survive the freedoms that were unleashed during the sexual revolution and the information age.”

      Those Christian values apparently included having what Americans have deluded themselves into thinking are truisms, while outside of Jefferson’s mansion, black folk were mowing the lawns with one-handed scythes, picking cotton and happy as hell to get free room and board, considering they weren’t even regarded as human beings. Sure. That’s the happy intellectual society of the 1780s.

      Christianity? Just a basis to excuse one’s hatred of different people who don’t conform to what some gimlet-eyed nitwit has decided the Bible says by paraphrasing every sentence under candle-light. So that their version can be promulgated as the truth, and death or social opprobrium to the dissenters. I have similar disdain for the other organized religions. A pox on them for establishing a social rigidity that excludes other points-of-view. And then praising themselves for organizing jihads on people who don’t fit some social mode they have deemed correct.

      Reply
      • Orenwolf

        Precisely.

        I am honestly shocked at the amount of entitlement in these posts. So men have had their pick of women, or at least could bribe them with security and support. Now that there may be equality and, I don’t know, freedom of choice, it means the end of civilization? I suppose the end of the belief that what the Man wants he gets, or maybe that there was some sort of pre-ordained right to the women of your choice if you worked hard or were “nice”, but wow is that a twisted view of the “American Dream”.

        It wasn’t until the events of the last few days that I finally understood how far mysogony is still ingrained in the American “privileged male”. It’s disgusting.

        Reply
        • Rock36

          If, for the sake of Jack’s argument, 80% of women are competing for 20% of men, make no mistake, those 20% of men are still in control and getting what they want when they want…. regardless of what freedom of choice women had in chosing which 20% of men to focus their interests on.

          Reply
          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            That’s the miracle of feminism: it reduces the value of a woman to men who can get them and reduces the availability of women to men who value them!

        • Dan S

          How exactly is this misogyny and privilege ingrained in American males?

          Is it wrong to want to reproduce and settle down with a woman? Maybe not the girl of your dreams, but a nice girl whose on your level in terms of attractiveness?

          Is it wrong to object to your resources being forcibly taken to support other men’s children because we give money to poor single mothers and the family system in this country has completely broken down?

          And please, Tell me how it’s hateful and wrong for a man to want to be treated like a human being instead of an ATM?

          Jack’s got it down, modern feminism has vastly reduced the value of women to the top tier of men, and has left the other 80% in the dust. That doesn’t make for a functional society.

          Reply
      • VolandoBajo

        So I take it then that you have done an extensive survey of all Christian churches, since you are so anti-bias in theory, yet are so clearly biased against Christianity?

        It’s not that I haven’t seen a few gimlet-eyed interpreters of the Bible, but rather that I have seen many more people who sought to carefully understand the Bible, and not to use it as an excuse for bad behavior.

        And if it were not for our Founding Fathers in the USA, many of whom advocated for religious freedom and tolerance, rather than mandated religion as was the case in Europe, if it were not for them, I doubt you would be living in a place where you were free to express your biases without fear of retribution or legal consequences.

        Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

        And yes, I concede that Christianity has been used on occasion to justify mistreatment of others. But why do you focus only on that ideology? Are you totally oblivious to the wrongs done by so many other ideologies, or is it just that you had a bad experience with one church and one gimlet-eyed preacher, so now you rail against every Christian?

        It has always amazed me how some people can be so blind and biased in their condemnation of the blindness and biases of others.

        Reply
  12. VolandoBajo

    Just in case you felt a direct reply was in order, I’m postin this, as I inadvertently truncated my email address in previous posts.

    Your writing is more interesting and relevant than a dozen NPR, BBC or NatGeo shows (unless you include Car Talk, in which case it is more interesting and relevant than a HALF dozen such shows.)

    Nicely played debate with Mr. 101, who lives and dies for the most part by the ad hominem argument/attack.

    And you might have thrown in the argument about birth control and the avowedly racist policies of Margaret Sanger and others, as another data point re: the argument vs. the proponent. Could have swept up another whole group of ad hominem-nators.

    Keep on fighting the good fight. It needs all the help it can get, and you bring it in triplicate.

    Reply
  13. Danio

    So we’re reverting back, maybe it really is time to start over. I’ve never really been one for authority anyway.

    Reply
  14. Mopar4wd

    I’m not convinced this will be so bad. For one thing I belive the number of people who will want to maintain multiple partners at the same time while the age will be diminishingly small lots of people will try it but let’s face it maintaining relationships is a bitch even if your the boss. I think in the end high divorce rates starting in the 70,s did more to damage the family unit then letting more people into the marriage pool ever will.

    Also if you want some one who actually seems to care about blue color workers in modern politics check out Bernie.

    Reply
    • kvndoom

      The high divorce rate is a product of people marrying young for all the wrong reasons.

      For one, we are pressured from childhood into accepting marriage as our destiny and responsibility. It gets thrown in children’s faces on TV, in magazines, dolls, goading by relatives, you name it. Children are being indoctrinated before they can even spell or add.

      Then we men wind up marrying or trying to marry the pussy instead of the woman. Good pussy doth not a good woman make. And face it, people in the their 20’s have NO FRIGGIN CLUE what they want out of life. They’ll say they do, they’ll swear they have it all figured out, then look back 15 years later and shake their heads at how dumb they were. There is so much Navy where I live and there is so much married Navy pussy to be had (had a little myself in the previous decade, but I’m out of that game now). Who the fuck marries someone who isn’t home 6 months at a time? While husband is out on deployment fucking, wife is at home fucking. Check your calendar shipmate- are you SURE you were still in Norfolk when she got pregnant???

      Older generations stayed in marriage even if they were miserable. Everybody puts on a good game face when they have company over; even the worst of marriages look beautiful from outside the house. The lower divorce rate back then absolutely does not mean people were happier and more faithful.

      Reply
      • kvndoom

        Clicked send too soon…

        I think now young people do not feel as obligated to get married, nor do they feel as obligated to stay married. And it’s not “teh evil gayz” that are causing that shift.

        Reply
      • jz78817

        the problem is the generation running shit now thinks reruns of Leave it to Beaver are an accurate depiction of 1950s America.

        and no offense, but talking about “good pussy” and “married Navy pussy” makes you sound like a 15-year-old.

        Reply
        • kvndoom

          I can’t let my inner 15 year old die, so he gets to come out every so often. 1986 was an absolutely awful year, so he’s having his time now. 🙂

          Reply
  15. VolandoBajo

    “blue color workers”…would those be the Smurfs, or Avatars? Or the strangled videographers who dare to film UK bus drivers running red lights?

    But I guess that would explain why some people believe that it is about white privilege…after all, the good jobs are all going to “white color workers”, right?

    People make it so easy, sometimes…

    Reply
  16. VolandoBajo

    “…makes it clear…driven by animus…”

    Does no such thing. You may choose to wish to ignore people’s consciences or their sincerely held religious beliefs, and we have already seen that you think such individuals do not deserve a rational discuss, but instead should be called names, as if that will strengthen your cause.

    But you seem to have completely missed Jack’s point that you are fixated on an ad hominem argument.

    He is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and says that that is beneath you. I am not so sure, after seeing your reaction to people like myself who felt that individuals should have the right not to participate in homosexual weddings, even if they are in business.

    To you, per your own words, there was no need to debate the point…for you it was straight to name calling, and justifying it by saying anyone who didn’t agree with your position that no one has or should have, the right to recuse themselves from such participation, if they chose to exercise their right to only enter into business contracts with individuals who were not acting in a way that was contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

    It’s a pattern with you…scorn all those who don’t agree with you.

    Jack may be right, certain things may be beneath you. But you repeatedly demonstrate that you have no problem lowering yourself to that level whenever you either run out of rational arguments, or just feel like scorning all those who don’t agree with you.

    And I am not the only one who has noticed this about you and pointed it out. In this case, Google is not your friend, but it is a microscope into your repeated narrow vision.

    And yes, I already know your response “you deserve only a snarky response.” Because you have no other leg to stand on sometimes, and this is yet another of those times.

    I don’t expect that you will wake up, but perhaps a few others will learn to see through your shallow “debating” techniques.

    Reply
  17. VolandoBajo

    pch101 talking about respect for personal liberties, after his flaming attack of anyone who would defend the right of people to refrain from participating in any manner in a gay wedding, would be hilarious, if it were not so blatantly hypocritical.

    You have no right to seek to cloak yourself in an argument about personal liberties while simultaneously seeking to deny the personal liberties of those who cannot or will not support causes you are not satisfied to merely be able to enjoy, but feel that all must be made to bow down to and show respect for.

    Personal liberty means that I don’t have to like, or participate in, something just because you have a right to do so.

    I do not deny your right to enter into a homosexual marriage, although I may not approve of it, but I have, or at least should have, the right not to have to participate in that marriage, as part of my personal liberty, if I choose to disagree with the concept. Yet you have clearly stated in the past that you feel that no such right of personal liberty exists….that anyone who wishes to sell goods or services to people, must do so to and for even those who do something contrary to that person’s conscience and/or religious beliefs.

    Either you support personal liberty for all, or it is just a smokescreen you use to try to win an argument, when and only when, it suits your need for you to support such liberty. I maintain that your past actions prove that for you it is the latter, and only the latter.

    Reply
  18. VolandoBajo

    Young bull to old bull: “Look at all those young heifers! Let’s run down the hill and each get us one!”

    Old bull: “Let’s walk down the hill and get them all.”

    This will be the new world order of alpha males, without a doubt.j

    Personally, I walked down and got the one I wanted. YMMV. And at the time, I was neither old or young.

    The picking is always right, if you make sure you are right, and you know what you want.

    Reply
  19. VolandoBajo

    “so m any people pretending to be thugs.”

    Because it doesn’t make sense to go fishing someplace other than where the fish are biting.

    I have suspected for a long time now that the main beneficiaries of this fact are the tattoo parlors and tattoo artists.

    Though I suppose if your objective is just to get laid, and other than looks, not much else matters, then it really doesn’t matter to the player if they are getting laid for their tattoo(s) or for some other reason. After all, if those players/thugs wanted reason, they would be enrolled in a logic class at college, instead.

    Not that I can claim to have been much different in my twenties. Strike while the iron is hot, settle down when you have had your fill of the game and want something a bit better and a bit more long lasting. As in for the last twenty five years for me.

    Still, I was glad I got it out of my system before I settled down. And there are a lot of people out there today who are getting busy, getting it out of their systems. But I don’t know if it’s just me, or what, but it seems that the quality has declined at the same time that the quantity has increased. Then again, I quit doing field research a while ago.

    Reply
  20. Orenwolf

    It’s not wrong for males to want attractive females. It’s wrong for males to believe they are *entitled* to this because they are awesome or rich, especially if their issue is now that women will suddenly be self-sufficient and not “need” them anymore. Women have as much right to choose the man of their choice, as vice-versa. It will not bring about the End Times simply because women can choose as freely as men now in modern society.

    Reply
    • Pch101

      What’s amusing is to see a bunch of guys who are fair-to-middling on their best days who are upset that they can’t date up, while they are agitated that there are women who expect to do the same. An odd blend of narcissism and self-pity.

      Reply
  21. Pingback: The 80/20 Rule And The Civil War To Come - Riverside Green

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.