Happier Abroad Forum Community

Roosh and his followers where socially conservatives, hence they always believed that "Hypergamy" and "Sexual Liberalism" went hand in hand.

However, if you look at it closely it might not be the case. For instance, let's take Sweden as an example. In Sweden it seems to be "Matriarchal Society" where women not only don't need men but they also pick whichever men they want. It's like saying, "We are better than most men, but I'll be down to hook up with a model if he's worth my time." It seem this kind of "Matriarchy" way of thinking is the one that has the most influence in the English speaking countries.

This type of "liberalism" would be "female sexual liberalism" where women are very picky and most men don't get laid. You have many virgins, incels and guys who have to travel to get any action. Its funny because I heard the Swedish men travel abroad to get experience with women.

In contrast, when I talk about "Sexual Liberalism" I mean more like a "Society wide liberalism where an average man can get laid" a "Free Love" type of society.

For instance, in seems historically there has been certain societies where this kind of movement was present. For example, my college buddy told me he had an uncle who live in the 1960s and Hippie society was much more like that where women were curious about sex and wanted hook up. I heard from a Spaniard who visited France at some point maybe 60s/70s where he thought the women were NOT hypergamous but rather as long as you were a "Alright guy" they'll hook up with you.

I'm not saying you don't have to be "Cool" to an extend but it seems there were certain societies where all you have to be is "Alright" and you'll get laid, there's more sexual liberalism and people don't 'idealize sex" where people would say, "Its just sex no big deal." Meanwhile, it seems the modern feminist matriachy societies Swedish are NOT that kind of society. Men in these societies idealize sex while the women reject most men.

Sexual liberalism will inevitably lead to hypergamy, not because of ideology but because of biology. I don't think anybody promoted promiscuity with the intention of creating a shitload of incels, but that is the inevitable result of promiscuity becoming accepted. The 1960s culture is what sexual liberalism looks like for a very brief period but kind of like all freedoms, they seem nice at first to people who took the old ways for granted but things quickly spiral out of control.

Well intentioned sexual liberals like to paint the following metaphor. Imagine you have a town with 100 jobs in it and 100 men. Traditionalists structure things so that each man has 1 job that he stays with for the rest of his life, therefore, every man gets a job. Some men get better jobs then others, but everybody has a job. Simple enough. Now sexual liberals would like to paint the following image... Why don't we work multiple jobs part time instead? Instead of each man having a full time job he stays with for the rest of his life, why don't we let each man have three or four jobs at a time but work less in each one? And when you get tired of one job, you simply quit and get another job and another man who's tired of his job will quit that job and take your job. Sexual liberals will claim that this is a better system because it increases everybody's freedom to work and quit each job when he is tired of it. Therefore, you continuously get to experience the novelty of a new job until perhaps you find one that you really like and settle down with it.

However, this is only what happens at the very beginning. Soon what emerges is that about 20 workers in the town become pretty good at doing about 50 of the jobs at any given time. The town's employer soon realizes he'd rather have those 20 workers doing 60 jobs even if that means lower productivity overall because its more profitable from the employers' perspective to stop paying 40 workers and have smaller production but still get the job done. Now, 20 workers do a little bit of 60 jobs, and another 50 mid tier workers do 40 jobs each. But now, 30 men are unemployed and cannot find any work.

Soon, because the employer is relying so much on the top 20 men to do half the work in the town, those 20 men become unbearably entitled. They think they deserve to be able to quit any job as soon as they feel tired of it, and get any job they want to replace it. Soon these men are quitting jobs after working them only one day, and some of them even start trying to steal jobs from the 50 guys who are steadily employed in one job, insisting that they could do any job better then anyone. Sometimes they even tell the men they are being selfish for guarding their job and that they ought to let one of them do their job for a little bit and then give it back to them after a few days. "I just want to try it for a little bit." The quality of work in the town collapses as a result of fewer people working even if the people losing out weren't as good at the time as the top 20 men are, but the employer doesn't give a shit because he is still personally profiting more off of this system even though productivity has collapsed. The unemployed men are miserable and living in poverty, and the 50 men who are steadily employed, depend on their job and love their job, have to live in fear of the entitled top 20 trying to steal their job from them and their employer not giving a shit about it and telling the man who has worked in the same job for ten years now to just find another job because "clearly you can't do it anymore."

That's the world of sexual liberalism in a nutshell, and that is why anybody who thinks sexual liberalism will not automatically lead to hypergamy is extremely naive. Nobody benefits from this system except for the top 20 men and the employer. The unemployed have no job now so they are miserable, the jobs are neglected and miserable because nobody actually loves doing them anymore, they are just being shared by everybody and nobody is doing the job properly anymore, and the 50 midtier guys who are fairly good at their jobs have to live in fear of their job being stolen from them because the employer is foolishly convinced that a top 20 worker can do the job better then a midtier guy can.

At first you might be thinking "okay, yeah, it seems like giving up some of my freedom for comfort and security really is the better option." But once you follow through on that idea for long enough, you realize that there's more to it then just that. You will realize eventually that the freedom you once thought of as a sacrifice wasn't at all a sacrifice to begin with. The idea of even wanting that freedom now seems ridiculous to you because you realize how much meaning there is to staying with your job instead of switching jobs all the time. The longer you stay with this job you find the more you love it. Maybe you weren't very good at it at first but you were getting better. Now the idea of having to leave that job breaks your heart because it held so much value and meaning for you and you don't want any other job because this is the one you learned to love and care about and you can't stand the idea of leaving it.

But alas, the job no longer exists, it has been terminated by your employer and other people simply tell you that "you'll find another one" as if that is supposed to reassure you. And you tell yourself its time to get over your loss and find another job but every time you think about it you look at other jobs and think "but I don't want any of those, I want my old one back." And meanwhile you have to sit there and listen to everybody talk about how the freedom to switch jobs whenever you want is somehow the greatest thing ever that we need to strive for and that actually we haven't gone far enough, we aren't free enough to switch jobs, we need to make it even easier for people to do that and degrade everybody else's ability to hold down one job even more.