There are R strategists and K strategists. R strategists are fast life strategists – live fast, die young. Don’t worry about the future. Follow your impulses. If it feels good, do it. That applies to sex, drugs, everything. If the climate is warm and life is not too difficult, people might as well be fast life strategists. People coming from warmer climates follow this modus operandi more than Northern Europeans for historical and geographical reasons. People living through chaotic times where the future is highly uncertain due to political facts, or imagined environmental catastrophe, are also more likely to pursue this way of life.
K strategists have to have higher impulse control. They are future oriented – sometimes planning very far into the future. Food and shelter cannot be taken for granted. Given a tough climate, men, women, and perhaps extended families will have to work in concert towards a common goal. They will need to be prosocial; agreeable, so they can get along with each other, and conscientious; applying themselves steadily to their work. Higher intelligence helps quell native impulses and instincts so that will be selected for. East Asians excel in all these regards.
K strategists are patriarchal. If the husband and father is going to stick around and invest heavily in his children, he will want to be reasonably sure that he is not raising someone else’s kids. Female chastity will be crucial and for this to occur there will have to be some kind of dominant/leadership role of the man. In fact, predominance of male leadership seems necessary for society to function. The rise of feminism has been historically associated with social dissolution, e.g., the fall of Rome. Female led institutions, like colleges and schools, tend towards misguided equality and compassion. A never-ending concern for the lost lamb. Many universities are now abandoning the use of SAT scores as entry requirements as “white” and oppressive. Equality dissolves social structures and makes education impossible, partly because professors cannot be expected to be respected, and partly because education means mastering difficult and demanding subjects that are “higher” in some sense than the norm. Clicking a link provided by a college email recently took me to an article about the problem of whiteness. It was disconcerting. It seemed like the provider of the link had accidentally submitted her incredibly deranged browsing history. Another article by the same gentleman related a story of using a computer to grade essays submitted to gain entry to elite high schools. The idea of using the computer was to remove any possible accusation of bias on the part of human graders. Mr. Anti-whiteness was apoplectic. The computer grading people were totally missing the point. Having any standards at all is discriminatory because it produces racist results. Systemic racism exists in having any sorting mechanism and it matters not a whit (white?) if the discriminating / differentiating into chosen and not chosen is done by a person or a computer program. Hopefully, the aforementioned gentleman eventually recaptured his composure. He did make some legitimate points about the stupidity of computer programs and their inability to understand anything of what they “read.” But, one can see why the poor educators were trying to find some method of having standards where they would not get called racists.
The R strategist oddly rather resembles Rousseau’s fantasy of the noble savage in The Discourse on Inequality. There, Rousseau describes human mating as a quick satisfaction of bodily needs and nary a backward glance upon completion. Men are more prone to this R strategy than women since they are not stuck with the consequences of the sexual act, at least not biologically. An R strategy culture means no pairing up because life is relatively easy. This can include government provided welfare programs for single mothers. Men, in this context, take no propriety interest in the sex lives of women who can do what they want because men are investing nothing in them. The women themselves are evolved to be more masculine because they need to take on some aspects of the male-role and look after themselves to a larger degree. Black women are, as a group, more masculinized in this way for historical and geographic reasons and tend to be regarded as a bit less attractive by all races for that reason. An academic at the London School of Economics nearly got nearly canceled for publishing his research in that area. He apologized and kept his head down ever afterwards. Men gravitate towards more feminine women. Black men are extra masculine, since they are following the rather more manlike R-strategy, and women like masculine men. Consequently, black men and white women is a rather common combination.
So, the alternative to patriarchy is to follow an R-strategy of pump and dump, as Ed Dutton puts it in an intentionally unflattering unsympathetic manner, and to let women fend for themselves with men taking no interest in their offspring. Genetically and statistically, having multiple children with lots of women, means some of them will probably survive, no effort required. Sexually promiscuous women mean that a K-strategy makes no sense. And yet, American women would seem to want to somehow combine sexual license with family life, or, at the very least, with the biological fathers being on the hook financially for the children. That would seem to be the worst of all worlds for men. No children in any social sense, and yet paying for them anyway. Hence, MGTOW, men going their own way.
Sam Vaknin imagines that men love this state of affairs. More intelligent men are K-strategists, dumb ones, R-strategists. Dumb people do not think about the future and live for the short term. So, perhaps he means that dumb men are happy about casual sex. A thoughtful man is not. Any activity where one’s emotions are not engaged is inherently desultory and boring – even playing a video game must be emotionally stimulating in order for it to be enjoyable. Being liked and admired by someone you respect and admire is nice; even, tremendously so. Being admired by someone for whom you have no respect, is positively horrible. It is not even ego-boosting. Promiscuous sex is not even fun. It is not even fun because spending time with someone you consider to be stupid, boring, immoral, ugly, and humorless is painful. And if you meet someone who is smart, interesting, beautiful, moral, and has a sense of humor, you will be having a great time and you will want to see her again. It is human nature to want to repeat experiences that are very rewarding. No one says, “That meal was truly delicious. I am never coming back.” To summarize an article of mine called “The Fantasy of Promiscuity” from years ago, as soon as meeting someone is truly emotionally rewarding and fulfilling, then the fantasy of promiscuity is over. Promiscuous sex only exists so long as you are not particularly enjoying yourself.
Vaknin also forgets that in out of control hypergamy nearly all the women gravitate to the very few men who are unusually attractive – the top 4%. So, though some of that tiny number of men might be enjoying themselves, at least for a while until they get sick of it, 96% are not. So, his claim that men like promiscuous women should include the fact that 96% of men do not, since women are not being promiscuous with them.