Why Prostitution/Polygamy Beats Monogamy

In the beginning there was prostitution, “the oldest profession.” From there arose tribalism consisting of various units of polygamy, and “free agents” of both sexes who may have continued this commerce, married upon puberty, or remained celibate, depending on their positions in the hierarchy.

Generally speaking hierarchical authoritarian patriarchal systems result in more societal advancement over socialist matriarchal systems. The former tends to invade the latter or the latter self-implodes into regressive, self-destructive behavior over time.

While I understand that many female prostitutes believe that the state and its police ought to act as their pimp or protector against poor outcomes, however, I tend to support more patriarchal notions of prostitution, similar to polygamy. Specifically, one bordello owner/manager can police the goings-on to include male employees who balance the need for good relations with customers with the needs of the prostitutes themselves. A good business manager seeks to keep all parties happy about the relationship and I’ve never seen a woman do a better job in this respect than a man. This sort of relationship significantly unburdens the taxpayers in terms of overly aggressive or poorly protected prostitutes who encourage poor behavior in the neighborhood by serving as a magnet toward male miscreants while driving away productive citizens. It would seem that a manager is in a better position to keep his stable indoors, keeping the peace, while simultaneously promoting the business within community guidelines. Win/Win.

In a sense, this arrangement is like a polygamous marriage except that it is a given that the  “wives” will have sex for money with others. There is no religious prohibition of this arrangement to my knowledge; therefore, the only “shaming” engine comes from women who don’t like to compete with the prostitutes in terms of the attentions of their husbands and prospective husbands, and this “shaming” engine is perpetuated by various churches as a means of keeping the peace. After all, it is far too easy for a charismatic spiritual leader to collect “wives” in either sense of the word. If it benefits a community or religion to keep spiritual and sexual commerce separate, then it might easily come to pass that a church leader might decide that instituting a monogamy rule and banning prostitution might keep himself from getting tarred and feathered or driven out of town by jealous men. At the same time, in order to ensure that his income comes in he needs the support of the wives in terms of maintaining their social position and social power a.k.a. gynocentrism.

In this way, monogamy can ensure the stability of the church, as well as the stability of government and commerce. However, “stability” in these institutions can well take out a measure of stability in the economy, families, and relationships. Effectively not allowing sex for marginal men and marginal women has downstream deleterious effects. Allowing multiple wives and the keeping of prostitutes provides a place for those who would not otherwise be able to sustain monogamy. Meanwhile, it is quite likely, albeit hotly debated, that monogamy isn’t “natural” anyway.

Therefore, although I support the legalization of both prostitution and polygamy, there is more than one way to “legalize” anything. Most people have a hard time differentiating between morality and law and therefore the actual method of legalization or government aegis is highly debatable.

If the social power of women is conflated as “morality” by society and the church, this adds even more confusion. If women think that racism for example is unacceptable but yet demand protection from outside marauders, this is a conflict. Men are always going to be wary of outsiders in their duties to protect their women—as wives, daughters, siblings, or employees. Therefore, hamstringing the methods of their protection to not allow “profiling” is absurd.

Meanwhile no religion that I know of prohibits birth control, racism, slavery, prostitution, or ownership of women as chattel. So how did it come that “morality” came to be what women felt as the least amount of effort for the greatest possible choices of outcome to be guaranteed by the state? How can that be morality? I say that it was and is more in the interest of the church and megalomaniacal monopolists to prohibit these things, in terms of cementing the power of a few over the many with no hope of revolution or redress when leadership becomes tyrannical.

I think that monogamy has been the downfall of society in so many ways. Sure, it started out as an engine which aided megalomania, but eventually devolves into gynocentrism which, despite what so many angry MGTOWs believe doesn’t actually benefit either women or men except for the most shallow, regressive, and power-hungry.

Those who know how to pick a spouse, marry, and reproduce healthy productive citizens ought to be encouraged to do so; but those who fail time and time again, over generations, really ought to consider either side of the prostitution exchange. Just my opinion. At the same time, plenty of prostitute/john relationships eventually end in marriage, and that’s OK too. I just think there would be a lot fewer rushed foolhardy born-to-fail marriages with damaged children in their wake if there was another option in terms of providing unmarriagable women some security ideally through a pimp or brothel such that they are buying into an effective insurance policy against obsolescence, and men are getting a sexual outlet outside of either marriage, rape, or disingenuous seduction. Or reverse the sexes. Whatever works.

I suppose when two “clients” or “prostitutes” meet each other and want to have sex then it’s a barter exchange. That’s apparently legal but imagine all the miscues and recriminations that result when it turns out that a party had differing expectations or was otherwise not operating from a position of parity (which is always). Arguably, a man who operates with an overfixation on women and his mother has one sort of vulnerability, whereas a smaller-brained woman who is less capable of logic and rationality operates from another sort of vulnerability.

Propaganda, consumerism, and even fairy-tale notions of “romance” all increase these vulnerabilities in those who were the least well parented, creating more vulnerable babies over generations, and making slaves of us all.

13 thoughts on “Why Prostitution/Polygamy Beats Monogamy

  1. Pingback: Why Prostitution/Polygamy Beats Monogamy – Manosphere.com

  2. Isn’t monogamy better understood as a deal between alpha and beta males to build civilization together? Alphas can have only one public girl, but they can run an informal harem in private if they can hack it.

    As for religions not having a problem with a polygamy/pimp arrangement, what about all of the fornication not to mention adultery?

    • It is, but, it’s under the assumption that female “morality” rules society. It is a sleight of hand that could not have been accomplished without the gender-neutralization of the “holy spirit”, in my view. That’s a devious construct with perhaps “good intentions”, but a trick nonetheless.

      Under legal brothels, which are fun places, to include booze, music, gambling, and camaraderie, productivity of the beta males can be exchanged for the reward of their choosing. As for the Biblical rules of sex, including extramarital, I defer to the scholarship of https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/the-top-5-things-christians-believe-that-arent-true/ . Adultery is only “adultery” if you are having sex with another man’s wife or a wife is having sex with another man without the parties having permission of the wife’s husband. If she’s a prostitute or concubine, then there are different rules. Other religions have similar constructs.

      The modern concepts adopted by Churches use the fixation on the “innocence” of womanhood as a method of keeping order. However, that fixation is a counterweight toward devotion to God and therefore cannot be allowed to overwhelm devotion to God, which, of course, includes sex. It’s a gift from God. Obsession disguised as “chivalry” pulls society away from God. I’ll say the same thing about “equalism.” And women don’t even really like it, but have been conditioned to believe that lack of chivalry in all things means that they aren’t feminine enough. Chivalry, in my view, ought to be reserved for another man’s wife as demonstration that you have no interest in committing adultery with her even if you’d like to, or your mother, daughter, or sister.

      These are my views, of course, but I’ll stand by them.

  3. Gynocentrism comes first, then comes enforcement, then comes collapse.

    Under a monogamous church at first the gynocentrism is held back by the assignment of a woman to every man. No man worships any woman because he is guaranteed a wife and no woman demands to be worshipped or she is deemed unmarriagable by the church. Then it creeps back in as life expectancy grows and women gain financial leverage independently of their husbands. The woman no longer fears the man or the church and plays her body to gain awe and adoration from all men who see her. So the men revert to gynocentric behaviour believing this will placate her and enamour her to them, making her a good wife again.

    Under a brothel at first the gynocentrism is held back by the assignment of sex to every man and of wealth to every woman. No man worships any woman because he has a set price to pay for sex and the ability to have sex with any woman in the brothel. No woman demands to be worshipped or she is deemed a poor prostitute and denied income. Then it creeps back as wealth grows and men seek to have children and families. The women no longer fear financial insecurity once they have gained a husband and use their bodies to keep men controlled. So the men revert to gynocentric behaviour believing this will get them the easy sex they enjoyed at the brothel.

    Ultimately, men love women too much to not give us the power we demand. Low ranking men cannot control most of what they give away, as they have always been more gynocentric than high ranking men. And when the majority of men give the majority of women power, the financial infrastructure collapses as we regress to our primitive state of bartering over wombs.

  4. I dont think official prostitution is incompatible with monogamy; low status women taking up sex work instead of families would have a rough eugenic effect imo tbh fam.

    • Agreed. Monogamy however means “one wife.” More than one wife is “polygamy”. More than one husband is “polyandry”. Allowing polygamy is not the same as deliberately choosing monogamy despite the ability. Similarly, monogamy with or without voluntarily availing oneself of prostitutes is a choice. I think people would sort themselves out better given all the options.

  5. >I think people would sort themselves out better given all the options.

    Id say given the historical track record people ‘sorting themselves out’ has accrued heretofore, legally coercive patriarchy is likely your only safe bet.

    At the end of the day you cant really drive around the central trouble that betas just plain have difficulties in generating gina tingles when they rely on their own instincts. Betas are very useful to have working for you if you are a ruler though, so you have social superstructures and customs that help prop them up and provide and roadmap for navigating that strange world called ‘social interaction’.

    Anyone who reads through places like, say, /r9k/, wizardchan, or the like, and doesnt understand or have an answer for the troubles those young men face, has only at best an incomplete picture of the ails of society. They are canaries signaling more diffuse and distributed difficulties many more people face by degrees in finding their place with other people and life in general.

    • By “sorting themselves out” I don’t mean that I don’t believe in an authoritarian structure assisting them in that regard only that it is easier to direct water downhill than uphill.

      Meanwhile, at the risk of sounding gynocentric, these Leftists demand that all women adopt the pedestal of their design or they’re ready to destroy her. That’s definitely a case of pushing water uphill. Not a peep in terms of how they are castrating their own sons. I think they just hate everyone especially themselves.

  6. People not getting nookie is surely a most serious issue for society. If betas are not getting nookie, they become disaffected and despondent. If betas dont believe their hard work will *reward* them with nookie, they will despair and detach. If betas dont *have* to work for nookie, they would be shiftless and unmotivated. Its an environment ripe for social unrest with multiple failure modes.

    Patriarchal monogamy is basically the socialization of pussy contra a ‘free market’ of alpha harems and sexless underclass; it is betas seizing the means of reproduction.

    To put pussy on a pedestal is very near the default state of the beta mindset, and in todays ideological environment that instinct is inflamed even higher. Thousands of years of selection in western european populations has generated a mindset that says: ‘if only i work hard enough, i will surely get my just desserts eventually.’ The question is, is it easier to A. change people to fit society, or B. change society to fit people?

    The leftist, who is insane, tends to lean A.

    Personally, i would prohibit men from marrying *before* a certain age, like say age 30. This accomplishes several things in my mind, such as how it reflects the differing peaks in sexual market value (women in their late teens-early twenties, who should marry early, and men in their early thirties, who should marry later).

    Chief among them however, is that it obliges men to bond *with other men*. To spend the heady years of early adulthood like they should; going forth in adventure and carving out a space for themselves in this world, putting tfwngf outside of his mind untill they are established and ready for it. A man without a group of male friends is like a free radical in the bloodstream of society, causing oxidization wherever it goes. He is necessarily gynocentric, as women are the biggest, or only, source of validation he has.

    The mannerbund is surely the basic building block of civilization, and surely one of the greatest benefits it provides is minimizing the siren call of pedestalization. The beta so often believes that the only way to get a deep and abiding relationship, to stop that aching need in his soul, is with a woman. He will go to any lengths, support any ideology, even start revolutions, in pursuit of this quioxtic quest. The mannerbund puts this to lie.

    Only a man who can go without women, is ready to go with a woman.

  7. When a man seeks to prove himself to other men, that is when civilization is born. The true alpha is the leader of men.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s