Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a psychology theory about human motivation. The idea suggests that people’s needs are like a pyramid. Sex lies at the bottom of the pyramid and more abstract needs exist at the top. The theory goes that men will climb the rest of the pyramid after they’ve made sexual conquests. When men cannot conquer the world sexually, they wave the white flag and give up on climbing.
Many men in the manosphere identify with being starved of sex. These men sleep at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid like homeless bums and see no reason to risk venturing higher. Men argue it’s easier to live off whatever scraps are thrown down to them by their ancestors than to try climbing to the top to taste the fruit of their own labors. We’re left with a society that scavenges on the achievements of it’s past.
If sex alone was the culprit of laziness though, wouldn’t unlimited sex reinvigorate men to climb higher? We should point out that some men under the current system already enjoy unlimited sex. For every one hundred men starving of sex under modern culture there’s one greedy man hoarding a harem of 100 women. I question if these lucky men contribute a 100 times more to society. Lets look at a list of the biggest sexual conquests of the 20th century:
Jack Nicholson = 2,000 women
Hugh Hefner = 2,000 women
Julio Iglesias = 3,000 women
Ron Jeremy = 4,000 women
Gene Simmons = 4,600 women
Charlie Sheen = 5,000 women
Umberto Billo = 8,000 women
Warren Beatty = 12,000 women
Wilt Chamberlain = 20,000 women
Fidel Castro = 35,000 women
The list shows three actors, one pimp, one porn star, two musicians, one athlete, one hotel porter and one politician. If all of these men were erased from history today, would society grieve their loss? Or are they replaceable? I’d say their contributions are negligible. On the other hand here’s a list of men with some of the biggest technological contributions of the 20th century:
You’ll see that the two lists do not match. If sex was the sole accelerant for driving society forward then the former list would dominate the latter. Sex alone did not fuel the 20th century’s greatest achievements. There was something in the latter list that drove men further.
So what drove men further? I would argue the greatest crime of modern society isn’t depriving men of sex. Sex is the most obvious way to see a man starve. And every man who’s starving can’t see past his own hunger. However the inverse scenario of unlimited sex that most men could only dream of is actually a much more effective way to destroy motivation.
No man can turn away unlimited sexual pleasure. Women are men’s natural drug of choice. Since any successful man under the current system is guaranteed to get unlimited pleasure it also follows that any successful man is most likely to be lured to his own sexual abyss. Men are effectively overdosing on their own sexual conquests. This is why in spite of some men succeeding sexually under the current system, there are no great minds produced. A society of sexually overdosed men are just as lethargic at climbing Maslow’s pyramid as sexually starved men.
Of course a man could get “unlimited” sex from his wife or from prostitutes. Many men qualify under these conditions, including the former list of 20th century inventors. However there’s something called the “Coolidge Effect”, whereby men lose interest in mating with their same sexual partner. While a wife could offer a husband unlimited sex, the Coolidge Effect limits this.
On the flip side prostitution would seem to offer a way to circumvent the Coolidge Effect. What’s to stop a man from overdosing on prostitutes? Since prostitutes aren’t free, cost is the limiting factor. However even if cost wasn’t an issue, prostitutes operate with another limitation. Prostitutes are mechanical. Since they’re mechanical they don’t offer Intimacy, which is one of Maslow’s higher needs.
Intimacy is the reason why in spite of some men having the ability to completely circumvent the Coolidge Effect and only use prostitutes they still return to their wives. Surviving solely on prostitutes is a very lonely existence. The optimal arrangement for a man is to have a wife and also visit prostitutes. This arrangement is optimal because it circumvents the Coolidge Effect that men encounter with their wives. Under this scenario what appears to be an unlimited sexual arrangement for a man is actually a closed loop circuit designed to steer men back to intimacy with their wife. The further a man strays from his wife, the more his interest renews in her.
Intimacy is what bridges the gap between mechanical sex and higher goals. Only once men experience intimacy do they see a society worth investing more labor in. Men don’t overdose on sex in this scenario because the more intimate they are with their wife, the more their focus shifts to being industrious.
The modern arrangement offers the worst of both worlds. Successful men who date casually receive neither intimacy nor variety. These men experience a string of mechanical flings. Unlike prostitutes, promiscuous women won’t tolerate competition. So men use promiscuous women effectively as longer term prostitutes and then dump them.
Of course MGTOW and PUA’s won’t agree with this. Since most of them will never get a notch count anywhere close to Wilt Chamberlain though, they will never fully overdose. They will remain in starvation mode.
Men whom have access to both options will need to choose one. You can choose a lifetime buffet of prostitutes or try getting intimacy from one woman. While the ideal scenario would be to get intimacy from a wife and variety from prostitutes, modern women will irrationally reject this arrangement. Therefore modern society isn’t compatible with the most optimal arrangement. No man can reach his full potential under the current system. But casual sex guarantees the lowest level of development. Settling for one woman is a middle ground that will still enable you to climb higher up the pyramid.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|