Social Order, Sexual Restriction, and the Secret Society
Note from Chase: this is a very
thoughtful - and pretty deep - article by Alek exploring the cultural
mechanics underlying social controls placed on individual sexual
expression in modern Western societies. This isn't a "how-to" article;
it's more a "here's how things work a few levels down" type piece. It's
somewhat heavy stuff, but a rewarding read if you don't mind letting
your brain work a bit. Here's Alek.
After having produced a number of practical articles recently, I wanted to write a more theory-heavy post on sexual ethics.
Before I begin, I would like to deliver a disclaimer. It should be noted that this piece is purely theoretical and an abstraction of how the mating game works. The world is a complex place, and it is impossible to describe every aspect of a social phenomenon.
Further, I would also point out that even though this essay might have anthropological elements, it remains a work in political/social theory.
This means that this text is not only descriptive in its nature (i.e., explaining “what is the case”) but also has a normative essence with the means of explaining “for what reasons things should be the way they are” or “what should be the case”.
Commonly in societies, there are certain norms that works as restrictions on these societies’ citizens with the purpose of guiding their lives and creating civil order and a structure within the societies in order to avoid anarchistic circumstances.
Such anarchistic scenarios - where there is no rule and everything is one big free-for-all - result in chaos, conflicts, wars, and instability that again have nothing but a negative impact on our lives. Without balance, a society without restrictions will never make room for progress (cultural, technological and economical), as most of the society’s individuals’ efforts will be wasted fighting against one another. Such views in particular inspired by one of my personal all-time favourite contractarian philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan).
A society’s restrictions can either come into life by first and foremost by the imposition of common laws, for example restricting certain behaviours in order to protect citizens. But also included is the implementation of motivating incentives toward certain behaviours, another commonly used lever.
However, in this essay, what will interest us the most is society’s implementation of morality, including inserting a commonly accepted set of moral principles to guide our ways of living. There are of course many other tools a society can use to control its people. Basically, the whole discussion lies deeper, namely in the one between freedom versus justice.
In our case, when it comes to sexuality, this has been in the past regulated by laws. It was, for example, illegal in many countries to engage in promiscuous activities, or have pre-martial sex... the list goes on. As a result of the recent sexual enlightenment, most people today would not find any form of rationality in such a policy.
Yet, there are still certain incentives defining our attitudes toward sex. e.g., society has implemented tax reductions on married couples. Rewards have been given to people who follow the conventional way of living out their sexuality. But such rewards are slowly losing their power due to unlucky changes, such as feminism that makes life for married men more difficult than it used to be. As a result, the incentives for marriage have lowered drastically. I am not claiming that those have become non-existent; they have simply lowered in their magnitude. It should be pointed out that they still affect many of today’s world citizens (especially in the Western world).
Finally we have normative guidance, which basically is based on contractarian moral codes and norms that are being placed upon us. This is done through education, as well as through print, television, online, and social media – which we are all aware of having an impact on our views toward sexuality.
When it comes to sexuality, we cannot disagree with the fact that there is a lot of normative restrictions on how we should behave toward sexuality - "Don’t sleep around or you might get some serious STDs!" or "Don’t sleep around because you have a certain self-worth".
But aside from restrictions, we have also been taught how we should behave in the mating game and within sexuality. We should, for instance, pay great respect to sex because we start believing that there is something transcendental about it (which is not really true, but we often hear people talk about sex like that is the case). We have also learned how we should proceed to find a mate... for example we should be nice... we should do so-and-so. But again these behaviours are only there to enforce the status quo - i.e., which behaviours society wants to imprint on us.
It should be clear that society has no intention of guiding us toward a sexually liberated society. There are multiple reasons for that. The first reason being that a sexually free society will only enforce inequality – in the form of giving privileges to biologically attractive people. As we know, biology has made us different, but these differences have generated inequality as some people are born with certain qualities that others do not have. Some people are born with more benefits than others. Some people are more genetically attractive than others.
When it comes to men, we would often see a clear form of inequality. It is a fact that a small minority of privileged men gets to have the possibility of sex with vast amounts of females, whereas the majority might have the chance to mate a handful of times in their lifetimes. Not every man is born with the tools or the inclination to develop attractive traits such as good looks, ambition, and confidence. Some attractive traits come with the birth of a man, the others are developed over the course of a lifetime. In the first case, a man cannot have any power over his raw physical characteristics (height, facial symmetry, jawline, etc.), whereas in the other case, he does, but it is a well-known fact that not every man has the guts and the motivation to become an attractive man.
When it comes to women, it all seems fairer. Women between each other are living in a more egalitarian scenario, as there are more attractive females than males (and most females are somewhat more equally attractive). Most women would not have any difficulties in finding a partner. Whereas for men, we often see a majority struggling, while at the same time a minority of men are getting the all the attention of women.
An anarchist world, overshadowed with male inequality, leads to nothing but chaos and conflicts, as the majority of average men who constantly have to live with the fact that a small majority gets everything while they receive nothing only leads to envy and jealousy that again lead their emotions into an instinctive state of war.
For pragmatic reasons then, equality in the mating game had to be introduced in order to secure peace and remove the source of conflicts.
Further, the second reason we have a sexually restricted society is because a sexually free society is simply not beneficial. It first of all doesn’t lead to economic and cultural growth. As sexual restrictions somewhat remove mating from individuals’ attention by minimizing the role of sex in an individual’s life, these restrictions make sure that the society’s people become more focused on creating and seeking material goods, which results in the economic and cultural growth of a society. It should also be pointed out that within a sexually restricted society, finding a mate becomes more difficult, which makes the society’s people work harder to get their mates – i.e., work harder, produce more, and spend more money.
A sexually free society additionally enhances competitive behaviour that can lead to violence, as men compete for different women. It also enhances behaviours that makes society lose a certain amount of control over its individuals – e.g., if people mate with everybody, it becomes very difficult to guarantee a safe parenting of the newborn children, as we end up with difficulties knowing who the parents of these children actually are (and thus, who’s responsible for raising them).
The bottom line is this: a sexually free society leads only to chaos. And as a result, to prevent the outbreak of chaos, these restrictions on our sexual freedom have evolved into our societies:
Each man should only have one life-partner. With the introduction of monogamy, we pretty much set the status quo. With monogamy, we restrict each man to only have one mate, which means that no man can steal the female of another male (in theory). We also implement the value of love, which is a socially constructed term for emotional connection. But love is more a spiritual and religious term rather than a scientific one, which means that we can easily define it as something good that is good in itself, making its meaning hard to falsify.
The options for the attractive males should be limited. Monogamy also plays a role here, but there are other crucial elements that factor in. Judging, in the form of giving social sanctions for promiscuous behaviour, also limits our sexual freedom. For example, having multiple partners is often viewed as being something negative. A man who is being a typical "player" is often viewed as a bad person. Men who have multiple options when it comes to females will often meet negative reactions from ordinary men - unless the ordinary man can take advantage of the presence of the attractive male.
But the best way to limit a man's sexual freedom is by limiting the sexual freedom of females. By restricting the sexual freedom of women, we are obviously restricting the sexual freedom of heterosexual males. Women will now avoid having multiple sex partners that will result in presenting various difficulties for the attractive males. Attraction would now not be enough anymore in order to mate a girl as she is now limited by society.
What defines an attractive man should be changed; it should not be anything of biological nature, but instead of a social nature. Therefore, that which decides what we find attractive should be imposed by our society. These attractive traits should lead to beneficial outcomes for the common good. Further, most men should easily possess these attractive traits, thus making most men sensible enough mating choices, and enabling monogamy to make sense. Welfare and “good behaviour” should therefore now become the major element in what defines attractiveness.
Society, being pragmatic would like to define traits that benefits society in ways that generate:
Economic growth (by motivating men to become wealthy - by implementing an ideal of generosity and high social status as attractive traits)
Enforced morality that in turn enforces equality in the mating game (by motivating men to go for monogamous relationships - making fidelity into an attractive trait)
Enforced control over the population (again enforcing people to live together in monogamous relationships)
What we will now refer to as “socially attractive” are the traits that society dictates as attractive, whereas “biological attractiveness” is what is naturally attractive.
When it comes to mating, an internal conflict takes place. Namely, that what is biologically attractive is often contradicting social attractiveness. This creates a certain element of bi-polarity when it comes to attraction.
As a result, most men and most women will often at times go for what is socially attractive and feel morally good about it (as they are following the rules and they are therefore perceived by others as a decent person). At other times, they might go for what is biologically attractive and feel bad about it, because they are breaking the rules - they are acting in an immoral way; they are enjoying something they shouldn't be enjoyed.
This is especially the case for women, as they are the most sexually suppressed (as suppressing their sexuality is the most efficient way to indirectly suppress the sexuality of men). Sometimes women go for what we would call a “provider” - a man who is attractive according to societal standards - a good guy who is nice to her (i.e., communicating fidelity - which contradicts the biological trait of having multiple sex partners), who shows off wealth, who treats her as a non-sexual being. He cares too much about getting her as a girlfriend because his options are limited (either by his own biology or by society - making him even less biologically attractive). Even still, this man remains attractive in the societal standard.
However, women also being led by biology will at times seek a man that is purely sexually attractive. A woman would go for example for a man we would call "a lover", who might be a little bit selfish and who does not care too much about her (i.e., immoral according to society, but biologically-speaking displays an attractive trait), who might be unfaithful (also immoral according to the norm, but also biologically attractive), who shows his true sexual sides and treats women like sexual beings, leading their emotions into a state of horniness (promiscuous behaviour is also viewed as a negative thing), a man who is dominant and confident (dominance and confidence are signs that the man won't bow to societies conditioning).
Such a man won't lead the girl into socially accepted sexual relationship (this relationship will most likely not end up as a monogamous marriage). For this, the punishment is usually a severe social sanction, such as shaming in different forms (for example “slut shaming”). This would not have been the case if the woman committed to a relationship that was socially accepted with a man who was attractive according to societal standards. But, biology being stronger than social conditioning, committing to a man who is only socially attractive alone will not make her sexually satisfied, because certain human [sexual] needs remain unsolved.
The clue is the following. Biological attractiveness is stronger in its nature because our biological instincts are a stronger drive than socialization when it comes to defining our behaviour. However for a female, following her biological needs when it comes to sexuality has its cons. First of all going, for a male that is typically sexually attractive is often viewed as immoral, making the woman feel bad about following her biological instincts. For following her biological instincts and seek a biologically attractive male, she will face social consequences. The reason is exactly because society does not want people (particularly females) to go for what is biologically attractive, but rather what is socially attractive.
But the real issue comes when a female goes for a provider (a man who is socially attractive), which entails a long lasting monogamous relationship, where she at one point will be driven by her biological needs and oftentimes cheats on her husband for a man who is biologically attractive. The true conflict lies when a woman wants both types of men at the same time.
Men will of course face similar issues in long-term monogamous relationships. They will, like women, be driven at some point in the relationship by their biological instincts and seek a new partner.
But the major differences between men and women is that women get judged and sanctioned for being with biologically attractive men – and the more biologically attractive mates she has mated with, the more she will be judged. Men on the other hand get judged and sanctioned from simply being biologically (sexually) attractive. They get labelled as “immoral beings”. People call them dishonest (as they are often unfaithful), childish (grow up and become monogamous!). One cause is these biologically attractive men enhance the inequality in the mating game because they have way more options than a man who is simply socially attractive. Truth is, only a minority of men are biologically attractive, giving them more leverage because they are a product that is in demand, and they also stimulate women's instinctual sex drive, something far more powerful than merely being able to satisfy her social needs.
Being biologically attractive can be defined as being good looking, ambitious, confident, independent and self-aware (and of course much more). Monogamy negates most of these traits as in a monogamous relationship a good look becomes reduced to something pretty much useless. Ambitious men become limited by monogamy and lose their confidence because they lose their purpose in life (finding more mates - men in long-term monogamous relationships experience steep drops in testosterone, which impacts drive, motivation, production, and achievement negatively). Even worse, monogamy enforces the complete opposite of independence. Finally, we come to “self-awareness” – being a reflective man will always wake up rebellious traits that would challenge society’s controlling spirit.
The Secret Society
For women and the males who have the chance to be or to become biologically attractive, the choice between living in congruence with one’s own nature or living in accord with conventional norms becomes a difficult choice. The one offers sexual fulfilment, which is a very important human need; the other gives us social acceptance, which might be a less important need, but an important one nevertheless.
The choice might become so hard, that it crosses the line to become an impossible one. What happens then to women and the small minority of attractive males? Well, they won’t have to choose and in fact they will live in congruence with both ways of life. Superficially, they will live a socially accepted life (often in form of having short term monogamous relationships and even in some cases long-term ones) while at the same time displaying their biological attractiveness in the form of living a sexually fulfilling life.
It should be pointed out that those two notions contradict each other. Most individuals (in most of the cases the “average judgemental men” but also other women who are forced to judge promiscuous women in order to not release the judgemental wrath of average men upon themselves) would dramatically judge someone who lives a double life in a monogamous lifestyle. Therefore, such promiscuous behaviour cannot be known to the public. As a result, these attractive people (most women and a small minority of men) will publicly appear as “normal” people in public (i.e., conventional) but in secret they will live a rather promiscuous lifestyle in order to satisfy their [sexual] needs.
We can label this the “secret society” where, hypothetically speaking, women and the few attractive men gather in “secret” and have casual sex in order to not awake the attention of the public (i.e., the judgemental average unattractive men). This way, they can safely live a dual life and have both sets of needs fulfilled. The secrecy, however, remains important, as women will thus become protected from the slut label, whereas men will avoid facing the jealousy from other men.
Empirically speaking, this can be seen in real life at any time you see one of the few very attractive men out there engaging women. You will see that both of them work on the same team that the man is some kind of an “insider” and sex basically just happens without any implication and very low amounts of resistance. Again, very few men out there are “secret society” members, but they do exist. Personally, being into the art of seduction for many years, I have had many personal experiences that truly back this view of the world up. Multiple well-known experienced players have arrived at the same conclusion.
In this article, we laid out how society manages to control humans’ sexual behaviour. The purpose of this is to create social order and stability. In order to accomplish this, society uses different tools to influence our views of dating, sexuality and relationships.
The reason for this restriction is because society wants to implement a notion of equality in the mating game, as only a minority of men are attractive. Further, society also wants to remove any sources of conflict in the mating game, removing barriers to a more economically and culturally beneficial way of life.
As a result, society manages to control our sexual behaviour. It not only restricts us, but also redefines attractiveness in a way that benefits the common good – such as welfare, morally just behaviours.
However, social conditioning cannot completely win the fight against our biology, which results in people facing conflicting desires and needs.
In order to stir away from such internal conflicts, the secret society allows these few attractive males and women to live in congruence with the conventional sexual lifestyle superficially while at the same time living a sexually harmonious life full of promiscuity.
Now, the purpose of this site is to MAKE YOU into one of these attractive males.
Welcome to the secret society.
Hope you enjoyed,
Get Your FREE eBook on Texting Girls
Sign up for our email insights series and get a copy of our popular ebook “How to Text Girls” FREE. Learn more ...
Trying to piece together a seduction strategy bit-by-bit, article-by-article, question-by-question? Stop killing yourself doing it the slow and difficult way - and get it all spelled out for you instead, in detail, in exactly the order you need to learn it... with homework, too.
With our complete mastery pick up package, you'll get our 406-page how-to eBook How to Make Girls Chase, our 63-minute long video Spellbinding: Get Her Talking, and 3 hours of audio training - all for less than the price of the book and video alone.
Quit banging your head against the wall - get it now, to speed your learning curve up dramatically... and start really getting the women you want to want you too. You can go right here to get started and be downloading your programs in minutes: How to Be a Pick Up Artist.