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?
“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.