All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
19:46
3092 An Introduction to Sexual Market Value | Part 1

An introduction to the variable which ultimately runs the world.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So, this is an introduction to a pretty important topic we've touched on here and there, but I haven't sort of all put it together in one place.
And it is important to really gain a grasp On this subject, in my opinion, if you kind of want to understand society as it stands or at all or that kind of stuff, really, you've got to get this.
And the question or the topic is, what is sexual market value?
Sexual market value.
Worst porn ever.
And sexual market value is how much...
What does your sexuality go for in the genetic, socio-political, economic marketplace we call the planet?
What is your hoo-hoo or your pee-pee going for on the auction block of Gotta Have It?
Now, this is a very, very important question because it drives so much of social policy, and it really drives so much of what we call The welfare state.
And this is all really essential to understand.
Alright, enough prequel.
Let's get straight into it.
So, the two...
We're going to talk first of all about a free society.
And a free society is one in which there is charity for errors and problems and so on.
But there's conspicuously less charity...
For really bad decisions.
In other words, accidents can be remediated, but foolishness should not be subsidized.
And the reason for that, of course, is that if you remediate an accident, you do not create more accidents.
But if you subsidize Foolishness, well, you end up creating, lo and behold, more foolishness.
In fact, an almost infinite amount of foolishness, it seems like, sometimes.
Now, let me give you an example.
So, of course, if there's an accident in your life, you get hit by someone in a car and so on, right?
Then let's say you don't have insurance or you were just on your way to mail off, you know, whatever, some bad accident.
Not your fault, just the happenstance of life.
Well, you won't end up with people throwing themselves in front of cars in order to get a charitable payout.
So the charitable payout is enough That it takes away the pain, but not so much that it creates a positive incentive for whatever disaster there is.
And that's how finely tuned and calibrated charity has to be, which is again the last reason why you'd ever want to leave it in the hands of the government.
You want to give people enough money that their suffering is not exacerbated by worries about Whether they'll have anything to eat.
But at the same time, you don't want to give them so much money that you're incentivizing people to go out and slip on your sidewalk or whatever it is.
So those are accidents.
On the other hand, a woman getting pregnant is not an accident.
And of course, every woman can claim, and a lot of women do, well, I was using 12 different types of protection, and wouldn't you know it, one of those guys got past the goalie.
And, well...
It's impossible to verify, really, and in general, this is why premarital sex was frowned on prior to the welfare state, because you could never verify whether it was an accident, or a woman could cry rape, or whatever it is, right?
And so, generally, you don't want to subsidize alcoholism, but you do want to remediate negative effects of accidents.
Now, sexual market value for a woman has to do with fertility and for a man has to do with resources or money or whatever you want.
We'll just say resources because it's not just money, it's time and all that.
And so, when a woman's fertility is at its highest, her sexual market value tends to be at its highest.
And when a man's resources are at their highest, And his fertility is at some reasonable level, right?
So, I don't know, if Anna Nicole Smith accepted some 90-year-old guy is going to have some pretty creaky old sperm hanging around up there, you know, blow off the dust and torpedo the egg to produce a child with squid tentacles for eyeballs or something.
So, a man in his sort of prime, you know, 30 to 40, maybe early 50s, his sperm quality is still good, but he's got lots of resources and so on.
So the woman's sexual market value is very much dependent on her fertility, and a man's sexual market value traditionally is dependent upon his resources.
The reason for that, of course, is that children require a ridiculous amount of resources to grow to adulthood, and a woman can't provide resources when she's having children.
And so for women prior to the welfare state, having children Pretty much destroyed her sexual market value.
That's an important thing to understand.
That a woman hits her peak of sexual market value prior to being married and especially prior to having children.
Because once a woman has children, then her sexual market value becomes negative for the most part.
The reason being, of course, that once she has children, she comes not with the asset of future fertility for you, but with the liability of money to pay for other men's children or another man's children.
And so resources are gathered by ambitious and intelligent men in order to put a bid on the highest quality eggs that are around.
And a woman prior to being attached and prior to having children is in a free society at the peak of her sexual market value.
She's young.
And the men...
Are at the peak of their sexual market value when they're older, but in a free society, there will be greater social restrictions on sexuality Most likely.
It won't be sort of, you know, 1750s style, but there will most likely be significant restrictions on sexuality because women who get pregnant with the wrong guy's kid won't be able to run to the welfare estate and the governments and get, you know, subsidized housing and rent control and food stamps and free school.
They won't get welfare, right?
All that kind of stuff.
So...
A woman's sexual market value reaches its peak when she's young.
A man's reaches its peak when he's older, which is why if men can't have a lot of sex when they're younger, if sexual access is restricted, then what they have to do Is they have to get women to marry them prior to the peak of their sexual market value.
Now, that's tough, right?
It's one thing to buy a stock in IBM or Apple or whatever when it's high and so on.
But a young man is like playing the penny stocks, right?
Because you have to try and figure out whether that young man is going to grow up to be a stable provider.
Someone who's going to stick around, someone who's going to provide resources, who's not going to become an alcoholic, who's not going to run off with another woman, who's not going to become a drug addict, who's not going to become some lazy, unemployed, leachy bum, who's not going to be constantly hitting up your relatives for loans, promising he's going to get a job next week, he's got a lead on a real solid prospect, and you know, all this kind of stuff, right?
So, A woman has to choose a man when she's young and when he's young.
A woman has to choose a man On the expectation that he's going to make a decent amount of money.
But usually, at least nowadays, that's prior to him actually making a decent amount of money.
Now, in a free society, a man's capacity to prove that he can make a decent amount of money would be established by the time he gets married, usually in his early 20s.
Because, you know, you wouldn't need to spend all this time in crap government schools followed by crap universities and all that kind of stuff, right?
But the woman still has to marry a guy and have kids with a guy at least 10 or 20 years before he hits his peak earning potential.
Well, that's a bit of a gamble, right?
Which is why women have been sort of evolutionarily primed.
To really be able to figure out which man has potential and which man doesn't.
And again, I took this course in 18th century literature, and we read book after book after book, training women on how to figure out the dads from the cats, right?
Oh, he's very pretty, but he's too arrogant, or he's wealthy, but he's cold-hearted.
He's not going to be a good father, even though he has money.
Or this guy, Diamond in the Rough...
He's a poor guy, but he's got diamonds on the soles of his shoes.
He's a poor boy.
And so, the training of women on how to spot the diamond in the rough, on how to get the guy who's going to make a lot of money and be faithful and so on.
Well, of course, religion had a lot to do with that and...
The vouching of the elders, the quality of his family, right?
Because if you look at a man whose father is an entrepreneur or a doctor or a lawyer who's intelligent and whose father, you look at a man whose father is still married to the same woman and, you know, they're part of the same religious belief, well, that's pretty good.
You know, that's pretty good.
The old song's The Son of a Preacher Man.
Well, preachers have to be verbally fluent and intelligent and charismatic, at least they used to be.
And Joel Alston, I guess.
They have to look like tousled Christian Ken dolls.
So, the woman had to kind of roll the dice a little bit.
Now, of course, the man had to roll the dice quite a bit as well, because he might marry what would biologically be a dad, right?
A woman who, for whatever reason, endometriosis, premature ovarian failure, whatever it's going to be, there would be a potential that he would marry a woman who was unable to bear And depending on the belief system around, that may be a good enough reason to not be married to her anymore if she can't provide children.
So there's risk elements on both sides of the equation, as I'm sure you can understand.
Now, A man who wants children, if his wife can't provide or produce children, then he can divorce her.
At least that's sort of been the case.
Infidelity and abuse were the traditional ones, depending on the belief system.
It could include infertility and so on.
But generally, it was rather frowned upon to divorce your wife because she couldn't give you kids.
Now, The man that the woman chooses may become a great provider, or he may have some sort of secret, dark, fatal flaw.
And if you look at the propensity of women to gossip, which is to share the deep and dark secrets of those around them, I think you can see why this would have developed itself evolutionarily, right?
Which is that, well...
Women kind of need to know the deep, dark, and dirty secrets of those around them because, you know, if your daughter is going to get married to a guy who seems like a great guy, but his father's a drunk, you know, his father seems like a great guy,
but his father's actually, despite being the town lawyer, is like a secret drunk or something like that, and is wildly unfaithful to his wife, and, you know, they need these deep, dark, and dirty secrets so that they can map out The values of those around them.
Men look down on gossip, but that's because you don't need gossip to find out if the woman is fertile.
You just look at her crow's feet or lack thereof.
You look at her hip-to-weight ratio.
You look at subcutaneous fat deposits on the hips.
You look at lustrousness of hair.
You look at evenness of features, and you can get a rough proxy of fertility and genetic quality.
But the deep, dark secrets that, you know, You know, there's these little ads on the web, you know, the shocking secret Ellen has been hiding from her fans and she's crying.
Women need to know these shocking secrets because they have to figure out the quality of men that they're going to commit to and have kids with long before those men actually achieve or don't achieve their potential.
So I think that's important to understand.
Now, the welfare state, of course, changed all of this insofar as a woman who got pregnant with the wrong guy's kid no longer lost as much sexual market value as she used to.
And in some ways and in some environments, you could actually argue that I think quite convincingly as well, that the welfare state changed the equation so that single moms now had high sexual market value relative to single women.
So, single moms, of course, have high sexual market value because they've proven that they're easy, right?
I mean, that they'll have sex in a non-discriminating way, that they don't require a quality guy, they don't require that level of commitment and so on, right?
And all of that is kind of a marker for guys who are looking for easy sex.
Well, there you have it, right?
It's pretty well confirmed.
So that's one aspect of it.
The second is just in terms of finances, in that because of the state, single moms gain resources...
Proportional to the number of children that they have, rather than being a cost, they are now an asset in a relationship.
So, in a free society, a woman who has kids with a man who abandons her is kind of running around looking for some man who'll support another man's kids.
In other words, she's looking for an insecure, broken mangina who's willing to hose his precious, scarce resources at another man's Gene pool.
I mean, that's pretty wretched.
And you've got to take some pretty low-quality men, and you end up on this descending staircase of lower-quality men, usually.
Because, go pay for the kids, right?
Go pay for another man's kids.
That's not exactly evolutionarily selected, right?
Now, a woman who's in a welfare state, the woman now comes with thousands of dollars.
A month in resources.
And so a woman on the welfare state with children can support a man rather than in a free society, a woman with children and no provider needs a man to provide for her.
So the welfare state is a way of propping up the sexual market value of single mothers.
of turning them from liabilities into assets so that they can get men.
Now, of course, men, lower quality men, tend to like the welfare state, of course, because The welfare state makes women much more sexually available because the cost of getting pregnant with the wrong guy's kid is no longer present.
In fact, it's become a job, right?
That which consumes resources through the ugly power of the state has been transmogrified into something which provides resources.
Children have been turned into a liability rather than the short-term asset that they are for society as a whole.
And, of course, in a dysgenic kind of way, the lower the intelligence of people, the more the welfare state disproportionately benefits them.
Like I did a video on the welfare cliff, or the truth about the welfare state, which talked about how there was a real trough when you lose benefits before you start gaining them again.
But there's an IQ trough, right, in that lower IQ people gain far more from the welfare state proportionate to high IQ people, right?
I mean, if I was on the welfare state, I would have missed my whole career in business and doing this.
But if someone with an IQ of 90 is on the welfare state, we're not hugely missing anything.
At least for the next 5 or 10 years.
So sexual market value is really important.
The sexual market of value of both trashy men and trashy women goes up when there's a welfare state.
Because trashy men find that their sexual market value has gone up because women will say yes to sex with them because children are an asset in a welfare state, no longer a liability, which is what they are in reality.
So the sexual market value of irresponsible men goes way up in the welfare state, and the sexual market value of single moms goes up enormously because now they can support a man by having children, which is so far the opposite of economic reality that it's almost hard to process exactly how insane that really is.
And when you're looking at who people vote for, yeah, keep your eyes peeled.
Keep your eyes peeled for what it does to sexual market value.
I promise you it will be enormously helpful, a very, very helpful way of looking at society as a whole.
What What people vote for and how it affects their sexual market value is key to understanding what is called democracy these days.
You know, women vote for certain divorce laws because if a woman gets divorced and she has child support and alimony, then her sexual market value goes up enormously, of course, right?
Because Now, she's not a woman with kids and so on, right?
And a liability.
She comes with assets.
And this is why, of course, the divorced women, they end up not wanting to get remarried because they'll lose their alimony.
But it's a source of income, right?
Then there are bad decisions when it comes to reproduction.
Source of income.
So this is why women in America vote for these crazy divorce laws, which put men through the wringer, because they really, really want to protect their sexual market value.
So let me know what you think.
I hope this is an interesting topic to you.
It certainly is to me.
And...
▲
Export Selection