Sexual revolution caused incel people hypothesis

From IncelWiki.org, the incel encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sexual revolution)

The sexual revolution caused incel people hypothesis (SRCIH) is a discredited sociological hypothesis, initially promoted by Michel Houellebecq and Roger Devlin, and then later by Caamib, Jordan Peterson, Angela Nagle, Edward Dutton, Ross Douthat.

The theory states that there were initially almost none, or at least considerably fewer incel people in traditional societies before feminism and the sexual revolution 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 incel people by expanding women's rights.[1][2][3] 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"[3] and "enforced monogamy"[4][5] 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".[6] In 2022, a conservative feminist named Louis Perry started promulgating the hypothesis as well.[7]

Why this logic fails[edit]

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". (Which is convenient for those who subscribe to this theory, as statistics on marriage, celibacy, as well as premarital sex customs, suggest that it is incorrect.)

Stats from before the sexual revolution show more inceldom among young men[edit]

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, which then dropped to about 68% in 1870.[8] So there were probably a lot of incel people back when monogamy was allegedly “enforced”, given premarital sex was highly discouraged in those days.

So right off the bat, there were tons of incel people before the sexual revolution, completely taking the bottom out of this theory. Most people got married in their 30s back then, just as they do today.

Marriage mostly started declining during the conservative Reagan era and not the hippie or sexual revolution decades,[9] now with 79% of men never married by age 25.[10] (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.

Evidence shows that the sexual revolution increased the amount of sexual partners young men were having by an order of magnitude. During the 1920s, 62% of never-married men had no sex partners ever. During the 1960s only 8% of never-married men had no sex partners ever. In other words, the sexual revolution decade saw at least 92% of young unmarried men have sexual partners, an increase of 54% since before the sexual revolution.[11]

Today, about 35% of never married men have never been in a sexual relationship, which is half the amount since before the sexual revolution.[12][13] In other words, there is no argument to be had that the sexual relationship worsened the sexual opportunities of young men. If the sexual revolution had any influence at all, it likely increased the sexual success of young men broadly.

Class and hypergamy[edit]

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 demonstratably 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.[14] Again, blackpillers never cite statistics like this in their reactionary rants about how "feminism bad, feminism misandristic!!1!!!11!"

When and why did male celibacy increase?[edit]

The only statistics showing an increase in celibacy are correlated to the 2008 housing crisis specifically.

Only around 10%-13% of men between 18-30 reported celibacy in individual years in the mid 2010s,[15] and given around 77% of that same demographic was unmarried prior to the sexual revolution and were forbidden from pre-marital sex, it also stands to reason there were fewer young incel people in the mid 2010s than than before the sexual revolution. And the vast majority of self-described incel people 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.[15] You would think therefore that most self-described incel people would be at least redistributivist, but they don't look at statistics or narratives outside of their echo chamber and are obsessed with traditional conservatism to a point it clouds their ability to see the real world as it is.

Background falsehoods[edit]

The sexual revolution caused incel people hypothesis is a central tenant of the modern "blackpill" internet philosophy and traditional conservatism in general.

Golden age fallacy[edit]

Followers of these schools of thought believe in a delusional "good ol' days". In their ideal, "trad society", Western women are second class citizens and low status men, "win sexual capital", through patriarchy and forced marriages. 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 often forbidden from marriage due to the male patriarchs themselves.[16] The traditionalist conservative 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[edit]

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", incel people often say that 80% of men were left masturbating in bushes in prehistory, and couldn't find any sexual access. These incel people 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", 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".[17] 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[edit]

While a 4:1 historical reproductive ratio isn't promoted in academia, at least one academic (Roy Baumeister) 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.[18] 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.[19]

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.[20]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Proponents of the sexual revolution caused incel people hypothesis will claim that feminism is giving rise to polygynous harems. And in a way that any currently existing polyandry isn't "shoring up" incel people, 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%).[21]

Proponents of the sexual revolution caused incel people 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%.[22]

Quotes[edit]

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

The French author Michel Houellebecq:

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:

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:

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:

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:[23]

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 incel people come from, that's why we have a rise in incel people, because we have a lack of regulation of female sexuality, with the breakdown of patriarchy and the breakdown of monogamy

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. https://theoutline.com/post/8936/coffee-capitalism-economy-starbucks-brazil
  2. https://www.wonkette.com/jordan-peterson-somehow-worse-today-than-yesterday-2575567723-1
  3. 3.0 3.1 https://www.academia.edu/40699045/Flower_Power_Tax_Academic_Supports_FULL_
  4. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
  5. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3k3ex/jordan-peterson-enforced-monogamy-incels
  6. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/zukunft-der-menschheit-evolutionsbiologin-viele-maenner-100.html
  7. Perry, L. (2022). The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. United Kingdom: Wiley.
  8. 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.
  9. Randy Olson. 144 years of marriage and divorce in the U.S. CDC NCHS. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  10. Nathan Yau. Percentage of People Who Married, Given Your Age FlowingData. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  11. Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Sexual Inactivity During Young Adulthood Is More Common Among U.S. Millennials and iGen: Age, Period, and Cohort Effects on Having No Sexual Partners After Age 18. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 433–440. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0798-z
  12. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/
  13. Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Sexual Inactivity During Young Adulthood Is More Common Among U.S. Millennials and iGen: Age, Period, and Cohort Effects on Having No Sexual Partners After Age 18. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 433–440. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0798-z
  14. Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner, Georgi Kocharkov, Cezar Santos (January 2014). [http://ftp.iza.org/dp7895.pdf Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality] Bonn Institute for the Study of Labor. Retrieved September 29th 2020
  15. 15.0 15.1 Christopher Inghram (March 29, 2019). The Share of Americans not Having Sex Has Reached a Record High Washington Post. Retrieved September 25th, 2020.
  16. http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/paupers.html
  17. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
  18. Baumeister, R. F., 2010: Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Oxford University Press, New York.
  19. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/chair-of-entrepreneurial-risks-dam/documents/dissertation/favrethesis.pdf
  20. 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
  21. https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2021/11/18/religious-people-abstinent-pandemic/
  22. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr051.pdf
  23. 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

This page borrows from RationalWiki. Borrowed material has been altered. Text is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) unless otherwise stated on the page. Unchanged text is credited to the authors of the RationalWiki page here.
Protocels

Anthony PerkinsCharles BukowskiCharles FourierChristine ChubbuckDaniel JohnstonFriedrich NietzscheGiacomo LeopardiH.P. LovecraftHenri de Toulouse-LautrecHenry FlyntJoseph MerrickLudwig van BeethovenNikola TeslaOtto WeiningerQuasimodoVincent van GoghHenry CavendishOliver HeavesideJeremy BenthamJuliette Récamier

Protochads

Arthur SchopenhauerGiacomo CasanovaJohn Humphrey Noyes

History articles

History of female sex-favoritismHistory of the incelosphereHistory of the Love-shy RevolutionSexual revolutionLumpenproletariatDC9 Facebook Group

Books

A History of CelibacyCreepFacial Aesthetics: Concepts and Clinical DiagnosisHoney Money: The power of erotic capitalKill All NormiesMännliche Absolute BeginnerMarsSex and CharacterSex and CultureSexual Utopia in PowerShyness and LoveSind Singles anders?The Great UnmarriedThe Love-Shy Survival GuideThe Manipulated ManThe Myth of Male PowerUnfreiwillig SingleUntouchedWhateverWomen As Sex VendorsIncel: A novel

Researchers

Alfred KinseyAngela NagleAntoine BanierArne HoffmannBeate KüpperBrian GilmartinCarol QueenCatherine HakimDenise DonnellyDustin SheplerEdward DuttonFranco BasagliaJ. D. UnwinJordan PetersonKristin SpitznogleLaura CarpenterMichel ClouscardMichel HouellebecqMike CrumplarOlaf WickenhöferRebecca KarlénReid MihalkoRobin SprengerRoger DevlinScott AaronsonScott AlexanderTalmer ShockleyTim SquirrellWalter M. GallichanWilhelm ReichVox DayThe Jolly HereticMenelaos Apostolou
William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson