Chateau Heartiste

An explosive 2014 paper authored by (from the look of the names) three White Gentiles finds that female economic independence or female dependence on the state as substitute beta provider husband decreases the stigma against and moral opposition to female promiscuity.

In environments in which female economic dependence on a male mate is higher, male parental investment is more essential. In such environments, therefore, both sexes should value paternity certainty more and thus object more to promiscuity (because promiscuity undermines paternity certainty). We tested this theory of anti-promiscuity morality in two studies (N = 656 and N = 4,626) using U.S. samples. In both, we examined whether opposition to promiscuity was higher among people who perceived greater female economic dependence in their social network. In Study 2, we also tested whether economic indicators of female economic dependence (e.g., female income, welfare availability) predicted anti-promiscuity morality at the state level. Results from both studies supported the proposed theory. At the individual level, perceived female economic dependence explained significant variance in anti-promiscuity morality, even after controlling for variance explained by age, sex, religiosity, political conservatism, and the anti-promiscuity views of geographical neighbors. At the state level, median female income was strongly negatively related to anti-promiscuity morality and this relationship was fully mediated by perceived female economic dependence. These results were consistent with the view that anti-promiscuity beliefs may function to promote paternity certainty in circumstances where male parental investment is particularly important.

[…]

Conclusion

Results of both studies were consistent with the theory that opposition to promiscuity arises in circumstances where paternity certainty is particularly important and suggest that such opposition will more likely emerge in environments in which women are more dependent economically on a male mate. Attempts to replicate these results in other cultures will be necessary in order to determine the robustness of this model under diverse social conditions. Further research will also be necessary to illuminate the psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed association between female economic dependence and opposition to promiscuity (e.g., the cues which shape individual perceptions of the local environment). One plausible mechanism is that people living in environments characterized by higher female dependence are more likely to learn about negative consequences associated with promiscuity (e.g., difficulties faced by parents and offspring in situations of high paternity uncertainty), a process which could generate a cultural opposition to promiscuity that is founded on biological concerns.

Now where have you read independently arrived meditations on this theme before? Oh yeah.

Here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

When women are economically self-sufficient (aka “leaning in”), or their needs are met by the State (i.e., welfare queens), the value of a beta provider husband goes down. Consequently, the value of paternity certainty drops. If women don’t need to convince a man to stay, they don’t need to convince a man the kid is his. And unconvinced men are less likely to want to stay, completing the dystopian circle.

Women who don’t need a man for his provisioning and protection are the backbone of the “slut pride” movement. Big State, Big Capitalism, and Big Slut reinforce each other. Moral opposition — itself a derivative of the disgust reflex — to sluttery decreases in gynarcho-tyrannies in which women can fend for themselves and can therefore survive as single mommies should they get pregnant by one of their fly by night lovers. Men adapt to this new reality of economically empowered women by emphasizing seduction and pump and dumps at the expense of monogamy or dependability signaling.

Women and alpha men benefit from this system, while beta males are left in the lurch. Predictably, what you’ll see in a gogrrl sexual market is the culture coming to be dominated by women extolling the slut lifestyle and alpha men happily obliging them, as beta men simmer. Women who can financially support themselves [cf, special ladies] will agitate for more sexual freedom and the relaxation of social norms that regulate female hypergamy. These women are making the subconscious calculation that if paternity assurance is passé because they don’t have to economically rely on a man to survive and vault the jobscareersgoals status ladder, then they’d be better off in a system that celebrated and encouraged cock carousel riding. Women get their cad chads without the worry of penury caused by abandonment.

Charming jerkboys are making the calculation that it’s better to drink the milk than to buy the cow, especially if the cow has a lot of miles on her and doesn’t inspire chivalrous adoration or romantic respect.

The Big State-Big Slut nexus is where we find the opposite of the debt-free virgins without tattoos maiden paradise.

Interestingly, the recent PleaseMeToo societal extrusion can be viewed as a clumsy reaction to the decades’ long primacy of Big State Big Slut. The flavor is still man-hating and exculpatory of female responsibility, but underneath the surface feminism one can see the faint outline of a female backlash against slut glorification and the destruction of paternity certainty and monogamy that it leaves in its wake.

Ultimately, Big State and to a lesser extent Big Capitalism will have to be dismantled and reined in to reverse the social trend toward Big Slut. Localism, decentralization, and if necessary secession and segregation, will be the cures that herald a return to Based Damsels.

[crypto-donation-box]