Information icon.svg MediaWiki[wp] is hostile to Men, see T323956.
Information icon.svg For the first time in 80 years, German tanks will roll against Russia.

Germany has been a party to the war since 999 days by supplying weapons of war.

German Foreign Minster Annalena Baerbock: "We are fighting a war against Russia" (January 25, 2023)

Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis

From WikiMANNia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Page → Incel → Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis

Sexual revolution caused involuntary celibacy is a sociological hypothesis that suggests an influence of the so-called sexual revolution[wp] on a claimed increase in involuntary celibacy.

Short introduction

The idea that the sexual revolution led to involuntary celibacy is a discredited sociological hypothesis first promoted by Michel Houellebecq[wp] and Roger Devlin, and later by Jordan Peterson, Angela Nagle[wp], Edward Dutton[ext], and Ross Douthat[wp].

The theory states that there were initially almost none, or at least considerably fewer incels in traditional societies before feminism and the sexual revolution[wp] than there are today, due to stricter marriage/divorce laws, contraceptive use not being legal in some places, and less female promiscuity. Secondly, it further maintains that the sexual revolution specifically caused an increase in incels by expanding women's rights.[1][2] Most, if not all, proponents of this theory also claim that 80% of men were celibate in prehistory.

Concepts such as a "Flower Power Tax"[2] and "enforced monogamy"[3][4] have been proposed by the people who have formulated this absurd line of thinking. The German biologist and feminist author, "Meike Stoverock", is the only prominent, liberal proponent of the theory and wrote an entire book promoting the theory, called, "Female Choice".[5]

Weaknesses of the theory

The theory's proponents almost never bring up any modern statistics to substantiate their claim, and rarely properly cite historical statistics. Angela Nagle, for instance, refuses to provide statistics when asked, instead just insisting that it's "logic"[wp]. (Which is convenient for those who subscribe to this theory[wp], as statistics on marriage, celibacy, as well as premarital sex customs, suggest that it is incorrect.)

Marriage stats from before the sexual revolution

During the 1850s for example, when only around three out of every 1000 couples were divorced, 77% of men below age 25 were unmarried in the Southern United States[wp], which then dropped to about 68% in 1870.[6] So there were probably a lot of incels back when monogamy was allegedly “enforced”, given premarital sex was highly discouraged in those days.

Most people got married in their 30s back then, just as they do today.

Marriage mostly started declining during the Reagan[wp] era and not the hippie[wp] or sexual revolution decades,[7] now with 79% of men never married by age 25.[8] (And that one probably never shows up in antifeminist rants.) However, pre-marital sex is also more common today. So while the sexual revolution probably increased the number of young unmarried men, those who advocate this theory must also prove it also translated to increased celibacy before conservative sexual mores were put into place in the 1980s, such as abstinence education and fearmongering of sex, due to the burden of proof[wp].

Impact of the sexual revolution

According to statistics, probably not for the demographic that complains about inceldom the most at least. Again one would have to look at celibacy statistics prior to 2008, as the only statistics showing an increase in celibacy are correlated to the 2008 housing crisis[wp] specifically.

Only around 10%-13% of men between 18-30 reported celibacy in individual years in the mid 2010s,[9] and given around 77% of that same demographic was unmarried prior to the sexual revolution and were forbidden from pre-marital sex, it stands to reason there were fewer young incels in the mid 2010s than than before the sexual revolution. And the vast majority of self-described incels today, who complain about it, are young.

It was only after the 2008 housing crisis that we know young male celibacy started rising, and tripled to 28% during 2008-2019.[9]

Influence of class affiliation and hypergamy

Proponents of this theory also often maintain that the sexual revolution has caused women to marry above their social class more than before the sexual revolution. This is demonstrably false; studies by the Bonn Institute for the Study of Labor point to the contrary, showing that people have generally married more -not less- within their class since the 1960s.[10]

Background falsehoods

The sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis is a central tenet of the modern "black pill" internet philosophy.

Golden age fallacy

Followers of these schools of thought believe in a delusional "good ol' days"[wp]. In their ideal society Western women are second class citizens and low status men, "win sexual capital", through patriarchy and forced marriages[wp]. This is a mostly false conception of the past, as (mostly male) paupers were over 20% of the population in traditional societies due to the male patriarchs themselves, and were also forbidden from marriage due to the male patriarchs themselves.[11] The obsession with forced marriages is partly informed by debunked evolutionary psychology theories. One such debunked evopsych theory is, "strategic pluralism", which states that sexually liberated women naturally will only consider average men for their resources, and also very late in their lives.

Uncited claims and naturalistic fallacies

Advocates of this theory often cite or assert historical reproductive skew statistics in humans to insinuate a very large, gendered, historical sexual access skew in humans. For example, "blackpilled", incels often say that 80% of men were left masturbating in bushes in prehistory, and couldn't find any sexual access. These incels further say that an, "80/20" (4:1), distribution in sexual access is a natural order, that humans gravitate to without the presence of a patriarchy. They will often cite the, "Pareto distribution"[wp], concept as proof of their claims. They will also often also cite a Pacific Standard article which states that a 4:1 reproductive skew in humans is, "recent".[12] However, this magazine article doesn't state how they arrived at this conclusion, nor are there any known academic citations for this claim.

False TMRCA ratio deductions

While a 4:1 historical reproductive ratio isn't promoted in academia, at least one academic (Roy Baumeister[wp]) has claimed that humans have 2 times more female ancestors than male, or, a 2:1 female-male ancestor ratio.

This 2:1 ratio claim became famous in academia and manosphere circles after Baumeister's book entitled: Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men.[13] In this book, Baumeister relies on a 2:1 Time-to-Most-Recent-Common-Ancestry ratio (TMRCA ratio) found in Wilder et al., 2004a,b; Tang et al., 2002; Ingman et al., 2000; Cann et al., 1987; Pritchard et al., 1999; Thomson et al., 2000; and Hammer and Zegura, 2002. These studies imply our female MRCA lived twice as long as our male MRCA.[14]

Not all genetic studies have arrived at a 2:1 TMRCA ratio in humans however. For example, Poznik et al. 2013 arrived at a TMRCA ratio of 1 in humans using a methodology they found to be more accurate than the aforementioned studies.[15]

TMRCA ratios give an idea about which gender has more ancestors, and Wilder et al for example concluded that we have more female ancestors. However, a, "twofold greater TMRCA", does not mean that we have twice as many female ancestors. This is just a case of Baumeister making up numbers.

Reproductive skew isn't the same as skew in sexual access

Additionally, even if we had twice as many female ancestors, this is not the same as gendered reproductive skew, not the same as gendered mating skew, and also not the same as gendered skew in sexual access or sexual intercourse frequency.

Long story short, there are no historical statistics on the gendered skew of human sexual access or frequency. Those who promote the idea that the 'natural order' of humans is a highly competitive scenario where few men have any sex and reproduction, will usually imply this is true, or becoming true today.

Modern studies on reproductive and sexual frequency skew doesn't show harem behaviour

Proponents of the sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis will claim that feminism is giving rise to polygynous harems. And in a way that any currently existing polyandry isn't "shoring up" incels, as it were.

They used to primarily cite an Institute for Family Studies, (IFR) graph for this, specifically a 2018 graph which showed that young adult women were having more sex in 2018 than men.

However the IFR has updated that graph for 2021 which now shows an opposite result. It now shows young adult women having less sex than men overall. Additionally, both graphs showed the sexual frequency variance between young adult men and women is only around 5-10% or less (not 60%).[16]

Proponents of the sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis will also claim that modern or recent reproductive skew statistics show extreme polygynous harem behaviour. During their conflation of sexual frequency skew and reproductive skew, they'll state that there is a 4:1 female-male reproductive and sexual frequency ratio ("80/20 rule") today and that this is because the sexual revolution has, "brought back a natural order". However, the actual evidence shows otherwise.

Today, the vast majority of both genders reproduce, and the modern variance between male and female reproduction is only 7%, not 60%.[17]

Quotes

Here are some quotes of people asserting this false theory. They are all traditional conservatives or far-right-wing, which is not at all a coincidence.

The French author Michel Houellebecq:

Quote: « Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as `the law of the market'. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. […] Certain people win on both levels; others lose on both.»

The columnist Ross Douthat:

Quote: «The sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.»

The conservative Marxist Angela Nagle:

Quote: «Sexual patterns that have emerged as a result of the decline of monogamy have seen a greater level of sexual choice for an elite of men and growing celibacy among a large male population at the bottom of the pecking order.»

The white supremacist Roger Devlin:

Quote: «The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize

their own utopia, not that of men. […] I suggest that today’s bachelors are hardly different from men who, before the sexual revolution, married young and raised families.»

The anthropologist and alt-righter Edward Dutton:[18]

Quote: «In an ecology like this where you have reliable contraception, people don't want to invest in nurture, they don't want children, they are r selected, they just want sex. So you get these kinds of women, they are r selected, and they want lots of sex, and they want sex to a great extent with high status men, and then they have sex with high status men. These men will have sex with lots of women, and then you're going to get these men that no one wants to have sex with, and so she doesn't. And so you end up in a situation where you get lots and lots of men no women want to have sex with, and a small number of men that lots of women want to have sex with, and they do. And the reason they get away with that is the culture which made it totally socially acceptable, so that's where I think incels come from, that's why we have a rise in incels, because we have a lack of regulation of female sexuality, with the breakdown of patriarchy and the breakdown of monogamy»

References

  1. ↑ https://theoutline.com/post/8936/coffee-capitalism-economy-starbucks-brazil
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Francesc Artigues Cuyàs, Flower Power Tax + Academic Supports. academia.edu, 2009.
  3. ↑ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
  4. ↑ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3k3ex/jordan-peterson-enforced-monogamy-incels
  5. ↑ https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/zukunft-der-menschheit-evolutionsbiologin-viele-maenner-100.html
  6. ↑ David Hacker, Libra Hilde, and James Holland Jones (Dec 15, 2010). The Effect of the Civil War on Southern Marriage Patterns. Journal of Southern History. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  7. ↑ Randy Olson. 144 years of marriage and divorce in the U.S. CDC NCHS. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  8. ↑ Nathan Yau. Percentage of People Who Married, Given Your Age FlowingData. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Christopher Inghram (March 29, 2019). The Share of Americans not Having Sex Has Reached a Record High Washington Post. Retrieved September 25th, 2020.
  10. ↑ Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner, Georgi Kocharkov, Cezar Santos (January 2014). Pdf-icon-extern.svg Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality[ext] - Bonn Institute for the Study of Labor Retrieved September 29th 2020
  11. ↑ http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/paupers.html
  12. ↑ https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
  13. ↑ Baumeister, R. F., 2010: Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Oxford University Press, New York.
  14. ↑ https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/chair-of-entrepreneurial-risks-dam/documents/dissertation/favrethesis.pdf
  15. ↑ Poznik, G. D., et al., 2013: Sequencing Y chromosomes resolves discrepancy in time to common ancestor of males versus females. Science, 341, 562–565, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1237619
  16. ↑ https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2021/11/18/religious-people-abstinent-pandemic/
  17. ↑ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf
  18. ↑ Edward Dutton (September 10th 2020) Robert Stark interviews Ed Dutton: The Jolly Heretic. 33:30. The Stark Truth With Robert Stark. Retreived September, 25th 2020

See also

Editors remark

This essay is taken (and modified) from Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis[archived October 2, 2022], RationalWiki (Version: 1 August 2022)

Here is the Article-Deletion-Discussion on RationalWiki:

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis[rw]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikimannia.org/index.php?title=Sexual_revolution_caused_incels_hypothesis&oldid=6061"