Unpleasantness in women at this moment in time, in the west viz. all the countries and women with IG has in part created this unpleasant combativeness toward men. It stems from an unpleasantness in women within. The interior disposition matches the exterior and then is fueled by IG and popular reality shows and female feminist commentators. Can you blame them? The modern feminist lacks all female-ness. It reduced the female to a utility and to a basically broken man without her own dignity, told things like careers, casual sex, products and cultivated online presence will make her fell happy.
(I say "broken man" since men who act like this have no control over there "lust" and are thus broken slaves to base desire) And for women when this fails, off to therapy and antidepressants. However this is not just young women in this boat but the middle aged, married, 2.5 middle class woman. They too are in the stew, so to speak. A culture in free fall.
Additionally, the high standard held by the new age women is due to casual sex. Many men will hook up with almost any girl, this includes most, that a man would not be seen in public with, let alone think about dating or marrying or having children with - mixing genes with - NO WAY! Woman are very different in this regard and typically will not sleep with men that would stand NO chance ever with them. Many of the best and fair looking men have hooked up with many to countless undesirable women. In the case of women, the women who sleep with men like this thinks more highly of herself because she has a hook up buddy that was very attractive and successful. Why would she ever settle for anyone else. (bottom dwelling men sink further into there own sexless, marriages depression). She thinks from past experience she can get a guy that is good looking and semi successful. Unrealistic standards are created. Equaling up happy women and unhappy men.
Here is the kicker of truth at the end for all eyes. For this to be fixed, men have to fix it. Since men, especially good looking ones, are the weird benefactors of free sex, to put a stop to the unpleasant women men need to be chaste, to be the choosy ones, this is only accomplished by Christian norms. Even more shocking for the readers, catholic norms that make sex between husband and wife for unitive and procreation not just pleasure - The moral component. The last religion that keeps it this way, a chaste marriage, with sex under control is the Catholics. Now for women, men need to re-elevate the women back to her dignity and NOT viewed as currently viewed a sex utility. Again is the only religion that elevates women in dignity is the catholic one. Now, last it is NOT the state that can do this work, not laws, but men - one at a time over the next several decades rejecting free sex and being chaste.
Although one thing I want to be more certain on being a non-American, has the amount of casual sex really gone up in the last 20 years? From what I know about America (from books, movies, social media) the 60s and 70s were when casual sex was at its peak and has been gradually in decline ever since. So much so that today for genZ, the number of sexless young people are highest ever and man (especially men) are afraid of approaching women in public in the post metoo world.
If that's true, then 20 years ago casual sex was more common than today, then how come women women today are more unpleasant than their counterparts 2 decades ago?
20 years ago there were still rather fixed rules regarding how to organize a romantic relationship (mainly one partner at a time and sexual fidelity). Today those rules are negotiable. I think that obligation to negotiate terms is the source of female unpleasantness in the dating market. Much more than the presence or absence of casual sex.
I came of sexual age in the '70s (was a late bloomer, first sex at 19, which was well above average even then). We were couples swingers in the '80s. The peak was just before Fauci declared (falsely as it turned out) that HIV was a big a threat to promiscuous WSM as MSM.
Nevertheless (my husband is a few years older & went to a large ethnic HS), the dating mores of the '50s & '60s still lingered. Most important, the default assumption was no, she didn't want you to screw her, unless she made it clear she did (with or without salesmanship by the guy). Even in swinging in the '80s (at least in our clubs), that was the default (and we strongly enforced it!).
That assumption was already changing in the disco pickup situation (if she's open to being picked up, she's open to screw) and now with dating apps, has completely eroded. Even so, I think a lot of guys never understand that fewer women are sexually interested in them than they are sexually interested in women.
>Those of us who ask for a more pleasant society should be careful what we wish for. Many times, we only get more unpleasant individuals instead.
Maybe people should be more rational instead of instinctual.
Also, is it really worse for there to be people who are unpleasant to people who need money and ask for it than for there to be laws forbidding asking for money that you need? Ffs.
I think we might have a divide between Europeans and Americans here. In Europe, begging has been a big issue during the last decade.
In 2014, some laws of free movement within the European Union was extended to some countries in Eastern Europe. Among those were Romania and Bulgaria, two countries with big Gypsy populations. Very rapidly, Sweden was filled with beggars. And by "filled", I mean that exactly one beggar was placed in outside every grocery shop.
It became impossible to shop for groceries without encountering a beggar. And those beggars used people's instincts to be pleasant to cause their attention. "Hej hej", they said in Swedish (approximately like "hi there" in English.)
Being unpleasant to beggars through just ignoring them became an important life skill. Otherwise, one would be blocked from buying food. A national contest started over who was the best at ignoring the beggars. Those who felt bad over ignoring the beggars were bad people, the good people said. And those who suggested that the beggars were actually organized professionals were really, really bad people.
After a couple of years the good people got tired of that game. It was becoming too obvious that the beggars were actually professionals, organizing and exploiting each other. Among other things, in 2015 a begging slave was almost beaten to death by fellow Gypsies because he tried to escape, if I remember things right.
More and more people questioned whether giving money to beggars was actually a good thing to do. The beggars became fewer and fewer. Nowadays, a decade after it started, I occasionally encounter a beggar. But it is nothing compared to how things were during the begging explosion that happened ten years ago.
I've been wondering if you would want to know my culture's approach to this, as in Lakewood one can hardly shop in a grocery without encountering 2 beggars.
I don't want to sound at all preachy, but perhaps this will help you understand the secret recipe.
For now, I will post some links you may find interesting.
(For context to the second link: We don't use the term beggars. Rather, we call them meshulachim, sent ones, as if they are on a mission. Many of them are actually sent by institutions.)
Interesting! You surely are my best guide to the New York Times.
I see a lot of similarities between Lakewood attitudes to charity and how things were in Sweden before the Gypsies took over the begging trade. When I was a child, giving to charity was something rather big. For years, my friends and I busied ourselves with crafting stuff and giving the proceeds to charity - that was considered a normal thing to do by then. My children do not do that - things have changed.
The licensing of beggars has been discussed in Sweden too. I think there even were some locally licensed (gypsy) beggars. The difference is that all Lakewood beggars are Jews, and thereby somewhat understandable to licensing authorities and givers alike. Most Swedes understand very little of gypsy culture, which makes licensing an almost impossible tasks.
This post resonates a lot. Growing up with bullying, I got being unpleasant down to a fine art, but today my dating life is nothing to be envied. I'm almost never approached, which I used to appreciate when I was younger, but it can be a drawback too. It's really interesting to think about the way cultural expectations have shifted, and the unintended consequences of a culture with strict or loosening rules around the ways to engage people of the opposite gender.
Thank you for the insightful article. Your comparison of high school movies over the decades provided an interesting perspective on how societal expectations and behaviors have shifted. I appreciate the thorough analysis and personal anecdotes. It's a complex issue, and your exploration adds valuable depth to the conversation about dating dynamics and societal norms.
10 Things I Hate About You was one of the wave of Shakespeare plays turned teen comedies, based on The Taming of the Shrew. Fine movie, but maybe not representative.
I am old and way past my shelf life but I never really understood “casual sex”. Woody Allen had a great quote about it: “casual sex is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go it’s pretty good”
The problem with casual sex is you must be continually on the hunt. In a committed relationship (one hopes) there is a reliable supply. I always felt more comfortable in a committed relationship.
I think the mating dynamic of men pursuing women they don’t know is just fundamentally unnatural and unsustainable. For most of human history women chose mates from inside small tribes, and for civilizational history marriages arranged by families. In a culture where men are expected to make the first move, and it’s atomized enough that most have to seek outside their social circle, women will naturally have to become defensive to stave off unwanted attention, and men will be rewarded for traits like confidence at the moment of approach, aggressiveness, experience with women, which aren’t necessarily traits indicating they are a good long term partner. Maybe they’re confident because they are narcissistic or a huge player who approaches women like it’s a sport and got desensitized to it for example. Like in the airplane example, it’s in his interest to behave like that because there is a chance of success. If he was highly sensitive, humble, and empathetic he probably wouldn’t pursue at all or would do so meekly and rarely. I think women understand this innately which is why there is a growing campaign to be hostile towards and shame male dating strategies, regularly on twitter there are viral posts complaining about men approaching them in poor awkward ways or even just doing so at all. But at the same time there are viral posts complaining about men not approaching, which now get a barrage of replies from men saying “this is what you asked for!”. It’s because the set up puts people in a contradictory bind. Dating as a free and competitive market in a large atomized society seems to me to just not work long term.
I came to a similar conclusion after my divorce. What did I really know about him? Well, not as much as I thought, and my brain filled in a lot of the blanks. I realized that I assumed a lot about him. Knowing someone from childhood and from the same in-group with good values provides the necessary and valuable information to make the decision if someone will make a good long-term partner. But that's not how our society is set up anymore. A great deal more emphasis is placed on career rather than marriage and family now beginning in the 1960's.
"Picky" is a matter of opinion. It is an entitled view that using discernment instead of being readily available by anyone who begs, steals or performs/manipulates for it is problematic.
My love and naughty bits are mine to give, not anyone else's to demand. People who want sex are advised to become the type of people someone might enjoy having sex with instead of obsessing over it.
It's predatory and creepy to think we are entitled to sex from strangers just for existing. We all deserve love. Nobody is mandated or required to "put out" to anyone who asks and being pressured this way all the time is exhausting, understandably making someone less pleasant.
The sort of person to be upset about it may need to review consent and autonomy guidelines.
You sat through all those movies. You have the steely nerves of those found only in special forces.
I can barely get 15 minutes into those as a teen before I wanted to hurl the TV against the wall.
They are the most dysfunctional dance of mating I have ever seen in the animal kingdom. The only ones worse is all the 70/80 shows where women are overcome by men’s raw sexuality and just stand or lay there like fawns.
Men don't have raw sexuality (thank God) but the few that try are the trad husbands or their “dominate” brethren.
They are pathetically unable to look into their own souls and see their real needs. They are projecting for others some bizarre theatre.
But life is not theatre. If someone makes you act like it is, run away, fast and far. We are better off looking at primates in the wild than our own theatre for any help with understanding dating.
Now that I have a chance for a more meaningful comment, I will say:
* Your byline needs to be edited; "the obligation the be unpleasant" --> "the obligation to be unpleasant"
* This is part of the general trend for freedom to quickly drag cultural interactions to a lower level. Mature and socially sensitive people might be very good at sensing when romantic overtures will be reciprocated, but in a world where 18 year old girls are at the top of the desirability ladder, mature and socially sensitive people won't exactly be running the show.
* The 1990s movies you watched were already depressing, and are part of the reason I don't watch modern film or TV. A curtain really closed on good cinema with the turn of the century; nowadays I find myself watching movies produced before I was born in search of anything worth seeing.
Again I have the sense of an intense, clear scrutiny by a finely discerning intelligence being turned onto an aspect of behaviour. Thank you again, Tove.
I take your remarks and Kryptogal's as providing a mechanism for J. D. Unwin's thesis in "Sex And Culture" that over the course of a hundred years after a culture relaxes absolute monogamy, it, essentially, fails.
In the past such cultures were mostly subsumed by more energetic neighbours. Now, in the industrialised countries there is a little of this: recent migration flows are bringing in other cultures that are becoming increasing assertive; but the main problem, overwhelmingly the main problem today, is sub-replacement fertility. You have explained how the pairing process fails as a culture moves away from absolute monogamy and its rigidly prescribed pairing rituals.
Other commenters' remarks, such as that surveys show people are having less sex than in the past, actually confirm your explanation rather than disconfirm it. So does the relatively lower fertility in countries where the new male-female dynamic is more extreme. The move of relationship initiations online, I view as an accelerant, an intensifier of the process, rather than a primary cause of general behaviour change.
(I first became aware of Unwin's work through Arctotherium's "review" of it here on Substack--more of an extrapolation than a review, really.)
Tove, you have young children, so you are likely young yourself, and will likely live to the 2060s to see how things turn out. I will be long gone, though. Best of luck. I hope Unwin was wrong this time.
That's an interesting hypothesis. Other than our own, which civilizations have rejected monogamy?
The polygynous empires (Chinese, Ottoman) had centuries of success, but the Chinese went monogamous & the Middle East remained polygynous (and backward).
I am surprised to hear that the Ottoman empire and any of the Chinese empires were polygynous other than at the very highest ranks of the nobility, certainly in their dynamic, expansionary phases. They had centuries of rule, yes, but not of expansion or material progress.
Rome is Unwin's main example. In the empire, women were granted right of divorce and various other rights of independence, so monogamy became "modified" rather than "absolute" in Unwin's ontology. Alaric sacked Rome with a small and inept force compared to Hannibal's that the Roman Republic successfully fought off six centuries earlier.
(Note that Unwin expressed support for feminist aspirations of the 1920s and 1930s. He said he hoped ours could be the first civilisation to continue progressing under modified monogamy.)
Good points. What is the definition of a monogamous society? One where even high-status men are expected to by monogamous (with exceptions for a side piece, generally not publicly acknowledged). In polygynous societies, many men are simply incels, cannon fodder or at worst eunuchs (all true in ancient China & Turkish empires).
This is very intelligent, congratulations.
Unpleasantness in women at this moment in time, in the west viz. all the countries and women with IG has in part created this unpleasant combativeness toward men. It stems from an unpleasantness in women within. The interior disposition matches the exterior and then is fueled by IG and popular reality shows and female feminist commentators. Can you blame them? The modern feminist lacks all female-ness. It reduced the female to a utility and to a basically broken man without her own dignity, told things like careers, casual sex, products and cultivated online presence will make her fell happy.
(I say "broken man" since men who act like this have no control over there "lust" and are thus broken slaves to base desire) And for women when this fails, off to therapy and antidepressants. However this is not just young women in this boat but the middle aged, married, 2.5 middle class woman. They too are in the stew, so to speak. A culture in free fall.
Additionally, the high standard held by the new age women is due to casual sex. Many men will hook up with almost any girl, this includes most, that a man would not be seen in public with, let alone think about dating or marrying or having children with - mixing genes with - NO WAY! Woman are very different in this regard and typically will not sleep with men that would stand NO chance ever with them. Many of the best and fair looking men have hooked up with many to countless undesirable women. In the case of women, the women who sleep with men like this thinks more highly of herself because she has a hook up buddy that was very attractive and successful. Why would she ever settle for anyone else. (bottom dwelling men sink further into there own sexless, marriages depression). She thinks from past experience she can get a guy that is good looking and semi successful. Unrealistic standards are created. Equaling up happy women and unhappy men.
Here is the kicker of truth at the end for all eyes. For this to be fixed, men have to fix it. Since men, especially good looking ones, are the weird benefactors of free sex, to put a stop to the unpleasant women men need to be chaste, to be the choosy ones, this is only accomplished by Christian norms. Even more shocking for the readers, catholic norms that make sex between husband and wife for unitive and procreation not just pleasure - The moral component. The last religion that keeps it this way, a chaste marriage, with sex under control is the Catholics. Now for women, men need to re-elevate the women back to her dignity and NOT viewed as currently viewed a sex utility. Again is the only religion that elevates women in dignity is the catholic one. Now, last it is NOT the state that can do this work, not laws, but men - one at a time over the next several decades rejecting free sex and being chaste.
Insightful.
Although one thing I want to be more certain on being a non-American, has the amount of casual sex really gone up in the last 20 years? From what I know about America (from books, movies, social media) the 60s and 70s were when casual sex was at its peak and has been gradually in decline ever since. So much so that today for genZ, the number of sexless young people are highest ever and man (especially men) are afraid of approaching women in public in the post metoo world.
If that's true, then 20 years ago casual sex was more common than today, then how come women women today are more unpleasant than their counterparts 2 decades ago?
20 years ago there were still rather fixed rules regarding how to organize a romantic relationship (mainly one partner at a time and sexual fidelity). Today those rules are negotiable. I think that obligation to negotiate terms is the source of female unpleasantness in the dating market. Much more than the presence or absence of casual sex.
I came of sexual age in the '70s (was a late bloomer, first sex at 19, which was well above average even then). We were couples swingers in the '80s. The peak was just before Fauci declared (falsely as it turned out) that HIV was a big a threat to promiscuous WSM as MSM.
Nevertheless (my husband is a few years older & went to a large ethnic HS), the dating mores of the '50s & '60s still lingered. Most important, the default assumption was no, she didn't want you to screw her, unless she made it clear she did (with or without salesmanship by the guy). Even in swinging in the '80s (at least in our clubs), that was the default (and we strongly enforced it!).
That assumption was already changing in the disco pickup situation (if she's open to being picked up, she's open to screw) and now with dating apps, has completely eroded. Even so, I think a lot of guys never understand that fewer women are sexually interested in them than they are sexually interested in women.
>Those of us who ask for a more pleasant society should be careful what we wish for. Many times, we only get more unpleasant individuals instead.
Maybe people should be more rational instead of instinctual.
Also, is it really worse for there to be people who are unpleasant to people who need money and ask for it than for there to be laws forbidding asking for money that you need? Ffs.
Do you care about people who need money so desperately that they have to beg for it?
Or do you only care about the unpleasantness of being asked for it?
Fwiw, I very rarely meet beggars (I don't live in a city) but the ones I have met haven't been particularly unpleasant IIRC.
I think we might have a divide between Europeans and Americans here. In Europe, begging has been a big issue during the last decade.
In 2014, some laws of free movement within the European Union was extended to some countries in Eastern Europe. Among those were Romania and Bulgaria, two countries with big Gypsy populations. Very rapidly, Sweden was filled with beggars. And by "filled", I mean that exactly one beggar was placed in outside every grocery shop.
It became impossible to shop for groceries without encountering a beggar. And those beggars used people's instincts to be pleasant to cause their attention. "Hej hej", they said in Swedish (approximately like "hi there" in English.)
Being unpleasant to beggars through just ignoring them became an important life skill. Otherwise, one would be blocked from buying food. A national contest started over who was the best at ignoring the beggars. Those who felt bad over ignoring the beggars were bad people, the good people said. And those who suggested that the beggars were actually organized professionals were really, really bad people.
After a couple of years the good people got tired of that game. It was becoming too obvious that the beggars were actually professionals, organizing and exploiting each other. Among other things, in 2015 a begging slave was almost beaten to death by fellow Gypsies because he tried to escape, if I remember things right.
More and more people questioned whether giving money to beggars was actually a good thing to do. The beggars became fewer and fewer. Nowadays, a decade after it started, I occasionally encounter a beggar. But it is nothing compared to how things were during the begging explosion that happened ten years ago.
I've been wondering if you would want to know my culture's approach to this, as in Lakewood one can hardly shop in a grocery without encountering 2 beggars.
I don't want to sound at all preachy, but perhaps this will help you understand the secret recipe.
For now, I will post some links you may find interesting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/the-beggars-of-lakewood.html
https://issues.thevoiceoflakewood.com/3dissue/032124/index.html pg. 220
(For context to the second link: We don't use the term beggars. Rather, we call them meshulachim, sent ones, as if they are on a mission. Many of them are actually sent by institutions.)
Interesting! You surely are my best guide to the New York Times.
I see a lot of similarities between Lakewood attitudes to charity and how things were in Sweden before the Gypsies took over the begging trade. When I was a child, giving to charity was something rather big. For years, my friends and I busied ourselves with crafting stuff and giving the proceeds to charity - that was considered a normal thing to do by then. My children do not do that - things have changed.
The licensing of beggars has been discussed in Sweden too. I think there even were some locally licensed (gypsy) beggars. The difference is that all Lakewood beggars are Jews, and thereby somewhat understandable to licensing authorities and givers alike. Most Swedes understand very little of gypsy culture, which makes licensing an almost impossible tasks.
This post resonates a lot. Growing up with bullying, I got being unpleasant down to a fine art, but today my dating life is nothing to be envied. I'm almost never approached, which I used to appreciate when I was younger, but it can be a drawback too. It's really interesting to think about the way cultural expectations have shifted, and the unintended consequences of a culture with strict or loosening rules around the ways to engage people of the opposite gender.
Thank you for the insightful article. Your comparison of high school movies over the decades provided an interesting perspective on how societal expectations and behaviors have shifted. I appreciate the thorough analysis and personal anecdotes. It's a complex issue, and your exploration adds valuable depth to the conversation about dating dynamics and societal norms.
10 Things I Hate About You was one of the wave of Shakespeare plays turned teen comedies, based on The Taming of the Shrew. Fine movie, but maybe not representative.
It is enough for me if the following equations are representative:
Naive, lovely and a bit stupid girl = normal
Angry feminist = abnormal
As I remember it, that was how people saw things in the late 1990s.
(It is a lot to ask for that I should watch a really, really representative high school movie. I mean, that could be painful.)
I am old and way past my shelf life but I never really understood “casual sex”. Woody Allen had a great quote about it: “casual sex is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go it’s pretty good”
The problem with casual sex is you must be continually on the hunt. In a committed relationship (one hopes) there is a reliable supply. I always felt more comfortable in a committed relationship.
I think the mating dynamic of men pursuing women they don’t know is just fundamentally unnatural and unsustainable. For most of human history women chose mates from inside small tribes, and for civilizational history marriages arranged by families. In a culture where men are expected to make the first move, and it’s atomized enough that most have to seek outside their social circle, women will naturally have to become defensive to stave off unwanted attention, and men will be rewarded for traits like confidence at the moment of approach, aggressiveness, experience with women, which aren’t necessarily traits indicating they are a good long term partner. Maybe they’re confident because they are narcissistic or a huge player who approaches women like it’s a sport and got desensitized to it for example. Like in the airplane example, it’s in his interest to behave like that because there is a chance of success. If he was highly sensitive, humble, and empathetic he probably wouldn’t pursue at all or would do so meekly and rarely. I think women understand this innately which is why there is a growing campaign to be hostile towards and shame male dating strategies, regularly on twitter there are viral posts complaining about men approaching them in poor awkward ways or even just doing so at all. But at the same time there are viral posts complaining about men not approaching, which now get a barrage of replies from men saying “this is what you asked for!”. It’s because the set up puts people in a contradictory bind. Dating as a free and competitive market in a large atomized society seems to me to just not work long term.
I came to a similar conclusion after my divorce. What did I really know about him? Well, not as much as I thought, and my brain filled in a lot of the blanks. I realized that I assumed a lot about him. Knowing someone from childhood and from the same in-group with good values provides the necessary and valuable information to make the decision if someone will make a good long-term partner. But that's not how our society is set up anymore. A great deal more emphasis is placed on career rather than marriage and family now beginning in the 1960's.
"Picky" is a matter of opinion. It is an entitled view that using discernment instead of being readily available by anyone who begs, steals or performs/manipulates for it is problematic.
My love and naughty bits are mine to give, not anyone else's to demand. People who want sex are advised to become the type of people someone might enjoy having sex with instead of obsessing over it.
It's predatory and creepy to think we are entitled to sex from strangers just for existing. We all deserve love. Nobody is mandated or required to "put out" to anyone who asks and being pressured this way all the time is exhausting, understandably making someone less pleasant.
The sort of person to be upset about it may need to review consent and autonomy guidelines.
You sat through all those movies. You have the steely nerves of those found only in special forces.
I can barely get 15 minutes into those as a teen before I wanted to hurl the TV against the wall.
They are the most dysfunctional dance of mating I have ever seen in the animal kingdom. The only ones worse is all the 70/80 shows where women are overcome by men’s raw sexuality and just stand or lay there like fawns.
Men don't have raw sexuality (thank God) but the few that try are the trad husbands or their “dominate” brethren.
They are pathetically unable to look into their own souls and see their real needs. They are projecting for others some bizarre theatre.
But life is not theatre. If someone makes you act like it is, run away, fast and far. We are better off looking at primates in the wild than our own theatre for any help with understanding dating.
Now that I have a chance for a more meaningful comment, I will say:
* Your byline needs to be edited; "the obligation the be unpleasant" --> "the obligation to be unpleasant"
* This is part of the general trend for freedom to quickly drag cultural interactions to a lower level. Mature and socially sensitive people might be very good at sensing when romantic overtures will be reciprocated, but in a world where 18 year old girls are at the top of the desirability ladder, mature and socially sensitive people won't exactly be running the show.
* The 1990s movies you watched were already depressing, and are part of the reason I don't watch modern film or TV. A curtain really closed on good cinema with the turn of the century; nowadays I find myself watching movies produced before I was born in search of anything worth seeing.
It’s funny that you used 10 Things I Hate About You as a basis for part of your argument. I have something coming out about it in the near future.
This essay made me think. Super interesting ideas.
Again I have the sense of an intense, clear scrutiny by a finely discerning intelligence being turned onto an aspect of behaviour. Thank you again, Tove.
I take your remarks and Kryptogal's as providing a mechanism for J. D. Unwin's thesis in "Sex And Culture" that over the course of a hundred years after a culture relaxes absolute monogamy, it, essentially, fails.
In the past such cultures were mostly subsumed by more energetic neighbours. Now, in the industrialised countries there is a little of this: recent migration flows are bringing in other cultures that are becoming increasing assertive; but the main problem, overwhelmingly the main problem today, is sub-replacement fertility. You have explained how the pairing process fails as a culture moves away from absolute monogamy and its rigidly prescribed pairing rituals.
Other commenters' remarks, such as that surveys show people are having less sex than in the past, actually confirm your explanation rather than disconfirm it. So does the relatively lower fertility in countries where the new male-female dynamic is more extreme. The move of relationship initiations online, I view as an accelerant, an intensifier of the process, rather than a primary cause of general behaviour change.
(I first became aware of Unwin's work through Arctotherium's "review" of it here on Substack--more of an extrapolation than a review, really.)
Tove, you have young children, so you are likely young yourself, and will likely live to the 2060s to see how things turn out. I will be long gone, though. Best of luck. I hope Unwin was wrong this time.
That's an interesting hypothesis. Other than our own, which civilizations have rejected monogamy?
The polygynous empires (Chinese, Ottoman) had centuries of success, but the Chinese went monogamous & the Middle East remained polygynous (and backward).
I am surprised to hear that the Ottoman empire and any of the Chinese empires were polygynous other than at the very highest ranks of the nobility, certainly in their dynamic, expansionary phases. They had centuries of rule, yes, but not of expansion or material progress.
Rome is Unwin's main example. In the empire, women were granted right of divorce and various other rights of independence, so monogamy became "modified" rather than "absolute" in Unwin's ontology. Alaric sacked Rome with a small and inept force compared to Hannibal's that the Roman Republic successfully fought off six centuries earlier.
(Note that Unwin expressed support for feminist aspirations of the 1920s and 1930s. He said he hoped ours could be the first civilisation to continue progressing under modified monogamy.)
Good points. What is the definition of a monogamous society? One where even high-status men are expected to by monogamous (with exceptions for a side piece, generally not publicly acknowledged). In polygynous societies, many men are simply incels, cannon fodder or at worst eunuchs (all true in ancient China & Turkish empires).