Everyone knows what the female birth control pill did to our society, and while everyone also knows that reliable male contraception would be a boon, the general effectiveness of condoms and the difficulty in regulating male fertility at the hormonal level without also impairing male sexual function has made "The Male Pill" an elusive goal. Pharma companies are interested, of course - considering their profits on female birth control, opening up a huge market for exploitation on a monthly basis is just too good to pass up.
But the best proposed method for reliable male birth control isn't a hormone-based therapy. It's a minor surgical intervention that renders the patient effectively sterile for a ten-year period of time. RISUG, or Vasagel, has proven effective and safe in initial clinical trials in India.
Because it's a surgical intervention and not a drug, there isn't much corporate support for the procedure,
but its promise has attracted individuals to contribute to the incredible expense of funding FDA testing. And the promise is fantastic. Essentially, a microscopic device is injected into the vas deferens
, where its crystalline structure effectively shreds the sperm before ejaculation. After ten years the structure breaks down and the patient returns to normal fertility. Or the device can be flushed away surgically with another minor procedure.
But for ten solid years you don't have to worry about getting anyone pregnant accidentally. The power to conceive is under your control, as a man. You are no longer a potential victim of reproductive coercion.
That's not a term you hear often enough, although the effect is widely known. When a woman gets pregnant (or pretends to, or convinces herself she is) in order to extract a commitment from a man without his knowledge or permission, that's reproductive coercion. It's the other side of "using sex as a weapon". Unfortunately, things rarely work out well for either the man who has been coerced or his off-spring.
In the discussion about sexual violence the issue of reproductive coercion
rarely comes up. The talk begins and usually ends centered on rape and violent sexual assault, acquaintance rape and sexual entitlement. But the issue of sexual violence is not complete without putting reproductive coercion on the table for discussion.
If rape is morally wrong - and it is - then extorting an unwanted commitment from a man is equally
It's a Red Pill fact that a goodly portion of marriages are the result of a little blue line on a plastic stick and a True Love rationalization, not the careful vetting and examination they should be. The status quo tends to run like this: Jack and Jill go off to college, hook up with a bunch of people before getting thrown together for a weekend at the beach, knocking boots out of boredom and opportunity, and six weeks later, after both have moved on, Jill shows up at Jack's dorm with a wet stick and a blue line. June wedding and married student housing, or perhaps a semester off, if they elect to make a go of it.
Of course it really could be True Love - or boiling hormones - that provides the chemistry that turns that little line blue. Or it could be a calculated ploy on the part of an ambitious or desperate girl, pure reproductive coercion. Or it could be a simple mistake that neither of the principals feels ready to contend with, but because of moral obligation or their own youthful optimism they dive in anyway.
Whether inspired by a belief in True Love, a genuine mistake, or a cynical and calculated ploy to secure a given man, the result is the same: a child has been conceived without the father's knowledge or permission. His conscious right to choose his reproductive future has been usurped. While it takes two to tango, he is not the one leading the reproductive dance. A woman is ultimately responsible for what happens to her body, one way or another, and a man is at her mercy at even telling him about the child. He is not in control of his own reproductive freedom.
So . . . what would happen if he was?
Imagine, for a moment, a world in which a sixteen year old boy went in for his summer camp physical, and while he was getting his vaccinations caught up they took twenty minutes to put his reproductive life on pause. With no chance of getting anyone pregnant until he was 26, what different kind of future does he face?
Imagine a world where a young man has a leisurely amount of time to cultivate a career, pursue a degree, develop a skill or master a profession, without the looming, lingering danger of unwanted pregnancy. Imagine the shift in power as the ability for a woman to have a child comes under male review and approval.
The procedure is not expensive - around $1000 - and it appears to be perfectly safe. If one assumes that any teenage boy with a brain in his head and a future ahead of him would take advantage of such a procedure, then only the very low-status, low-quality males would be casually fertile. Competition for high-quality males would be extremely high
among women, forcing even more competition for the Big C-Commitment of an engagement ring. When a woman's ability to conceive is reduced to her ability to attract a man who finds her worthy enough to flip the switch and have a baby with her, the rules of the SMP change dramatically.
The "I can always get knocked up by a handsome stranger"
fall-back position offers great consolation to women unable to master the intricacies of a heterosexual relationship long enough to have a baby. Most sexually-active women go out of their way to avoid pregnancy with an essential random, for fear of his real status and the social consequences of reproducing without a reliable mate. But if the majority of decent dudes are voluntarily sterile, then even that
possibility vanishes. But that would not be the boon to women you might imagine.
As the Wall inevitably approaches, the reproductive instinct, combined with generous contributions from the Rationalization Hamster, allow a given woman to rationalize lowering her standards to take advantage of the large pool of dudes who want a regular piece of ass and possibly a relationship, muddle through with Beta Bucks and start looking around for some Alpha on the side while soon-to-be ex-hubby raises the kids. That's the status quo
for all too many poor Beta dudes who think they've found True Love
when what their wives are thinking Starter Husband
. As long as she's got a few good eggs and a willingness to go wild for an unsuspecting Alpha, she has a potential escape hatch and the rationalizations and legal remedies to use it.
But what happens when that option is, for all practical purposes, off the table? When any hypergamy-inspiring hot Alpha who walks into her life is in control over his own reproductive destiny, the biological escape hatch is closed. And when she has to ask her husband's permission to have a baby, she has lost the innate power of her feminine reproductive biology.
It goes beyond that, of course. When the Betas-and-below can effectively control their reproductive freedom, the ability for a woman to secure a reliable provider with her reproductive biology without his consent . . . vanishes. She must rely on her sexuality and her (shudder) personality to convince a given man that she is worthy enough to bear his children.
The burden of proving herself falls to her, as mother, not to him, as father and provider.
The result: teenage pregnancy drops, and accidental pregnancies of all types plummet. Male fertility - a commodity so plentiful it's currently essentially free on the SMP - suddenly has value.
Men of quality get the procedure as a matter of course. Most of the middle class, naturally. Any smart boy on his way to college would certainly do it. Same thing for the military forces - who wouldn't? No need to worry about pregnancy if you don't have to, right?
And then the power in the SMP shifts. When women have to compete, really
compete for a man's commitment, not just for provision and protection but for access to his genes
, then the social pressures change and the idea of commitment becoms a lot
more clear-cut. Marriage becomes re-entwined with reproduction as it becomes clear that a solid marriage is the best guarantee of quality children raised in a reliably stable family.
Men who are able to demonstrate that kind of ability by their late 20s suddenly gain huge capital in the SMP, and they will be quick to re-write the rules of commitment. Without the potential of "Guess what, honey? You're gonna be a daddy!" looming over them they are free to insist on a far stronger commitment than the drive-by matrimony that persists today.
Of course the Puerarchy explodes with horny young dudes who can't get a girl pregnant, thus obscuring the future good family men from being easily identified in the competition altogether. When "extended adolescence" means being sterile until you're 26-28, life for a young man becomes one long pussy-party. Even having a steady girlfriend doesn't mean as much. The moment she brings up the idea of a serious commitment without the biological bond of a child, the youth in question is forced to look just at her, not at their offspring, when making that decision. And let's face it, ladies, many of you just won't measure up under that kind of scrutiny.
The process of conception requires his positive approval
, not just his passive cooperation. Without that bullet to dodge, the Puerarch is able to really enjoy his youth in ways that make feminists everywhere shudder.
RISUG gives men the chance to really
plan and execute their life's ambitions without concern for premature distractions. With the smug knowledge that our sexual capital only improves with our age, instead of depreciating like a woman's, such control over our genetic destiny gives men the room to make far more intelligent, informed choices about where and when they want to father children, and with whom. It puts a premium on the Dad skills and abilities, and makes the stakes in Combat Dating much, much
higher for women. It puts the balance of reproductive power in masculine
hands, and increases the competitive drive among women.
Suddenly fatherhood becomes a hot commodity, not a wellspring for sitcom jokes. A man who has elected to be a dad would first secure his rights and ensure he has made a choice in the mother of his children that he can live with before he has the reversal done. Without the biologic pressure of unexpected pregnancy, he has the time to vet - and, if necessary, discard - unsuitable mates before they lure him into marriage and divorce. He also has the time to develop a career and financial standing to support children when he's ready to
, not when that cute girl he met in the quad presents him with a freshly-peed-upon stick. By the time your AFC Beta boy is ready to become a Dad, he'll be in his late 20s, moderately successful, and ready to make some serious decisions about his life - and his choice of wife.
Of course that also frees up his dating life, too. Without the danger of unexpected pregnancy, he just has the minefield of STDs and batshit crazy to navigate, and that's not nearly as fate-changing, usually, as bringing a kid into the world. With a modicum of Game knowledge, the Dad-to-be can sow his oats like an Alpha for a decade. That's likely to make him generally less commitment-happy, and genuinely instruct him on the nature of women. And that's going to be very
frustrating to the Beta-girl who suddenly fines herself desperately
competing for male attention when she wants to be out protesting wage inequality.
And most importantly, it makes responsible fatherhood a valuable commodity
. The worse the Puerarchs behave in their cock-sure shenanigans, the more the stability of a well-seasoned male will be valued by women who want to be mothers. Watch the age of first marriage climb for men, and over-all marriage rates fall yet lower.
The blowback against feminism would be severe. When femininity is valued, feminism loses force. Arguing for a lean-in career path which almost certainly dooms your chances of reproduction loses credibility in the face of observable truths.
Revalorizing marriage and family by re-valuing fatherhood and paternalism - and, yes, Patriarchy - leaves women with stark choices when it comes to their futures. They would either have to commit to a childless future as a corporate drone, dying lonely and covered in cats, or they will play the game that gets them pregnant, by the rules made by those who control the tap. Feminism will be a hollow ideology. When men hold their future children hostage to their will, women will reflect more deeply on the whole issue of equality.
And we'll see a lot less emphasis within the Matrix on conquering the corporate world, and more emphasis on escaping
it . . . by becoming a wife and mother to a worthy man.
Also, capitulating to popular demand as a test I'm letting folks take a look at a Red Pill Primer for Boys, set up as a Google Presentation. Here's the intro.
Let me know what you think.