Theory A Radical Hypothesis of Society: “The Illusion of Society” and “Sex as the True Society”

[ResidentHell]

There are two hypotheses which I want to share because I believe there are some users on this forum that are capable of understanding it. My hypothesis is based on a theory of gynocracy - The theory that society is fundamentally structured around the welfare of the human female and protecting the human female (potentially at the cost of male lives)

The first hypothesis: The phenomenon of sexual intercourse (between consenting heterosexual partners) is the truest representation of a society, to the extent that in order to truly be a member of society, you must be a regular sexhaver. If you are not a regular sexhaver, you are the equivalent of a pariah or “living off-grid”. A person only ever contributes in society when AND ONLY WHEN they are having sex

The second hypothesis: Society outside of the subject of sexual intercourse does not exist, and is at best an illusory portrayal of “the true society”. This means all activities that do not involve penetrative sex between consenting, heterosexual sex partners, are ultimately anti-social or pseudo-social activities. All that happens outside of sexual intercourse, happens outside of society


If my hypotheses of society is applied to the human condition, it would be clear that:

1. Negroids, pajeets and afghans are the most social creatures and therefore have higher rates of participation in society, despite their lower average IQ + lower development indexes of their native countries
2. Caucasians (mostly Slavs, Anglos) and Mongoloids (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese etc.) are the most anti-social / pseudo-social creatures and therefore have the lowest rate of participation in society, despite their higher average IQ + higher development indexes of their native countries
3. High IQ people are less likely to participate in socialization and therefore are more likely to be a social outcast or “off-gridder”
4. Low IQ people are more involved in socialization and therefore are more likely to be an active member of societ
5. All activities not involving sexual intercourse (e.g., formal education, employment in non-sexual jobs, verbal or written communication), are ultimately anti-social or pseudo-social activities

TLDR The underlying idea is that civilization is primitive in its most unfiltered nature – A society is not only enabled through sex, its existence is proven through sex. In other words, heterosexual intercourse is the only way to prove that a society exists; having sex is the ONLY form of socialization. Furthermore a record of sex, (e.g. pornography), is a documentation of the proof of existence of civilization. It documents not only the fact that a female vagina is by a male cock - The documented act of sex “proves” that a society exists; it “proves” the phenomenon of socialization. Laws may regulate a society, but it is sexual intercourse that ultimately CREATES A SOCIETY. Thus, sexual intercourse is the human society. All that happens outside of sex, happens outside of socialization

 

[Ambatukam Alone]

I'm too drunk to read all of that but hope you're not serious.

 

[ResidentHell]

I'm too drunk to read all of that but hope you're not serious.

A hypothesis is a statement which its provability is contingent on whether there is a framework to support the statement. In order to agree with a statement, you must also agree with the underlying framework from which the statement is derived

My hypotheses of society are meant to be counter-intuitive to the common understanding of "society"

The traditional definition of "society" is understood as a collective of people forming a unit of interdependent individuals. "Interdependence" and "collectiveness" are the underlying concepts that shape one's understanding of "society". If you're a part of "society", then you are part of a "collective" and you in some way depend on others and others may also depend on you (assuming you "contribute" to society in some way)

But how do you "contribute" to society if you ultimately do not reproduce? In the long term, the average non-reproducing person who survives long enough will be more of a burden upon society than an active member of society. A society of non-reproducing individuals is at best a dying society. If no one reproduces, there will be no "society" that can sustain itself

Perhaps you glossed over one of the points I made about the implications of my hypotheses:

Caucasians (mostly Slavs, Anglos) and Mongoloids (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese etc.) are the most anti-social / pseudo-social creatures and therefore have the lowest rate of participation in society, despite their higher average IQ + higher development indexes of their native countries

Inevitabely, countries that are native to Caucasians and Mongoloids will suffer from having the highest social burdens due to their low fertility rates. A social burden is a burden to "society". A burden to society counteracts to the purpose that "society" serves

 

[Cuckoja]

True to an degree or just true, to be considered "accomplished" you need to have a wife and kids. Single male is the most distrusted individual.

 

[Ambatukam Alone]

A hypothesis is a statement which its provability is contingent on whether there is a framework to support the statement. In order to agree with a statement, you must also agree with the underlying framework from which the statement is derived

My hypotheses of society are meant to be counter-intuitive to the common understanding of "society"

The traditional definition of "society" is understood as a collective of people forming a unit of interdependent individuals. "Interdependence" and "collectiveness" are the fundamental underlying concepts that shape one's understanding of "society". If you are a part of "society", then you are part of a "collective" and you in some way depend on others and others may also depend on you (assuming you "contribute" to society in some way)

But how do you "contribute" to society if you ultimately do not reproduce? In the long term, the average non-reproducing person who survives long enough will be more of a burden upon society than an active member of society. A society of non-reproducing individuals is at best a dying society. If no one reproduces, there will be no "society" that can continuously sustain itself. Perhaps you glossed over one of the points I made about the implications of my hypotheses:

I think you're out of your depth, start with smaller topics and gradually work up toward bigger stuff.

 

[ResidentHell]

True to an degree or just true, to be considered "accomplished" you need to have a wife and kids. Single male is the most distrusted individual.

Pretty much this. They are also the most easily disposable and easily neglectable members of "society"

If there is a shortage of essential resources, the welfare of women and non-single men (with children) will have the highest priority

If there is a shortage of available roles in "society", undesirable males are more likely to be outcasted in favor of the woman's interest. That is, to pair her with desirable males who have received those active roles in "society" that undesirable males are likely to be excluded from

 

[ResidentHell]

I think you're out of your depth, start with smaller topics and gradually work up toward bigger stuff

You haven't actually provided a remotely substantial response to my post, even though you decided to respond any way

The "society" is the most fundamental concept of the social science, and my hypothesis clearly pertains to the social sciences

If you mean "small" in terms of precedence, the "society" is one of the "smallest topics" in the field of social science,

Name a topic in social science that precedes the concept of "society". I'll wait

(Do not say "traditions", "religions", "cultures", "social classes"; these are all proponents of "society")

 

[Redbeard7]

How does consensual heterosexual intercourse via escortmaxing pertain to this?

Post-escortmaxing thoughts

The main flaw of my piece "The Gospel of Ascension" was to assume that ascension required some kind of metaphysical “pure feminine validation” (which even sex-having normies apparently don’t experience, “chad-only”). But ascension isn’t fundamentally about external female desire (a deeply...

incels.is

 

[ResidentHell]

How does consensual heterosexual intercourse via escortmaxing pertain to this?

Post-escortmaxing thoughts

The main flaw of my piece "The Gospel of Ascension" was to assume that ascension required some kind of metaphysical “pure feminine validation” (which even sex-having normies apparently don’t experience, “chad-only”). But ascension isn’t fundamentally about external female desire (a deeply...

incels.is

The connection between escortmaxing and my radical hypothesis of "sex as the true society" can be summarized by the points below:

(1) Escortmaxers "pay with money to participate in society", as compared to Chads and other PSL gods (Tyrone, Chang etc.) pay with their genetics. In some cases, "paying with status to participate in society" may also work for statusmaxed non-Chads

(2) "Society" as I've described it in my radical hypotheses, is more or less founded on the economic transaction of sex. In other words, the exchange of goods and services in return for sexual contact (with the woman's body), is the foundation of human civilization

This point might be more understandable if you learn that prositution / sex work is said to be "the Oldest Profession" in human society. It suggests that human civilization would not exist if not for the female's ability to offer her body to be groped or penetrated by males in return for economic resources. I think this theory is plausible --- By what other motivation could a woman possibly offer her body to other men for sex on a regular basis if not by economic motivations? It would have to be based on "emotional motivations" rather than economical (e.g. her "love" for the other man, or her fear of being hurt or killed if she does not fulfil the wishes of the other man)


As you already know, females are generally incapable of "loving" males that are not above-average in SMV or wealth, due to the hypergamous instinct that is seemingly hardwired into her reptilian brain. If you consider this factor, it means the vast majority of males in the human species would otherwise be incapable of procuring women for sex under an agreed mutual exchange that did not involve a direct threat to the woman's wellbeing as part of the agreement. Basically, sub-Chad men will mostly have to offer something other than their looks to convince women to give them "that time of day". In most cases, that other thing will be economic resources (or social resources)

The transactional element of sex must persist in order for non-Chads (who are also the majority of men), to have enough sexual access to women without pretty much having to resort to raping them or coercing them into sex via direct threat (of kidnapping, creating a hostage situation, injuring or killing them etc). This is only possible under the condition that "society" exists as I've described it in OP

You can read the second hypothesis for clarification; "consenting" is a key word here:

The second hypothesis: Society outside of the subject of sexual intercourse does not exist, and is at best an illusory portrayal of “the true society”. This means all activities that do not involve penetrative sex between consenting, heterosexual sex partners, are ultimately anti-social or pseudo-social activities. All that happens outside of sexual intercourse, happens outside of society

It has been said that marriage was a common method that was traditionally used by women to indirectly exchange their bodies for sex in return for social and economic stability. Now marriage rates are at an all-time low in the developed world, more men particularly among younger generations, have inevitably been forced into long-term celibacy or reduced rates of sexual contact with the opposite sex. Regular access to pornography may be the only thing that is pacifying those men enough, so that they don't go outside at large and hunt for women to rape or threaten into sex

 

[Pikacel]

Sexhavers who look down on incels and give moralising lectures will always look pathetic. Especially women.

As you said, this ‘contributing to society’ ‘being a man’ ‘going through hardship’ is based on the assumption that you have sex regularly. If you don’t then these obligations don’t apply to you.

Because how can someone who gets access to warm wet tight pussy every day complain about hardship or run from responsibility? Society has given you access to one of the greatest pleasures, so suck it up work hard and take responsibility. People who complain while having sex are inherently pathetic.

None of this applies to incels or celibates. Celibates don’t have any obligations to society outside of their close family. They don’t need to feel ashamed about anything. Do they have a wife and kids they must take care of? No so who cares.

Hence celibates can do what they feel like doing, whether it’s becoming a monk, a NEET or a hobo.

It’s inherently evil to be a deadbeat or act weak despite willingly fucking a woman and fathering kids. Or act like a teenage slut despite being a mother with children

People nowadays focus on incels and NEETs instead of criticising people who genuinely harm society