DirkJohanson in what’s left of the New York Times

May 19, 2009

I decided to chime in to a debate in the New York Times today over the explosion in single motherhood: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/a-new-trend-in-motherhood/

There were some great comments by fellow-Guyinists-at-heart – its clear, guys aren’t going to take it anymore – at least as long as we think we can cloak our real identities!

Anyways, my two cents were:
The basic underlying reason for so many unwed mothers is that there are many babydaddies that don’t want to marry their babymommas. The reason for this is that women are now far more likely to sleep with a guy who is indifferent to them and merely wants sex than they used to be, when a guy really had to work for it. Indeed, it is nearly universal among American women to reject guy suitors that evince sincere romantic intentions in favor of guys that exhibit indifference. Moreover, a recent study concluded that only 15% of guys have 85% of all heterosexual sex, and, consistent with that, in recent years, women have become far less interested in the monogamy of their partners. In other words, they are happy to share if the guy is a big shot, and proud to have those guys’ babies.

This phenomenom is what makes Silvia Henriquez’ policy proscriptions noxious, whether she intends for them to be noxious or not. Ms. Henriquez wants to use tax money to subsidize this trend. In effect, much of the tax money will be taken from guys with romantic good intentions to pay for out- of-wedlock babies born to women who rejected them in favor of oversexed players. Guyinism recognizes that for those most of us guys who have spent our lives being rejected by the women we really desire only to see them knocked up and dumped by other guys who were indifferent to those same women in the first place, this policy is unacceptable – as in unacceptable-to-the-point-of-one-of-these-days-we-are-going-to-take-to-the-streets-to-stop-it unacceptable. Its bad enough we can’t attain our romantic goals – taxing us for it only adds insult to injury. I’m sure those many women who desire children but who have elected the readily-available options of birth control and abortion in order to defer motherhood until it is appropriately affordable feel similarly about providing a subsidy to those who can’t seem to balance their desire for immediate sexual and maternal gratification with the realities of home economics”

In sum, Ms. Henriquez, if women want to have children out of wedlock, I suppose that’s their choice. Just don’t send the rest of us a bill – that really pisses us off. For further details on similar gender issues, visit http:/guyinism.com

I couldn’t help but add another comment. I’m not sure if it will stick on the site, so here it is:

In reference to the comments of CT Woman (#75), I agree that we are returning to our natural selves in some respects, although in some ways not – for instance, I cannot reconcile returning to our natural ways with the increased prevalence of homosexual conduct. After all, the parts don’t fit, and there have been relatively minimal observations of homosexuality among other species, especially when heterosexual activity is available.

Anyway, even if we are returning to our natural ways, are you so sure both males and females will ultimately be happier? Our natural selves, as well as the natural selves of innumerable species of animals, are almost undoubtedly the alpha male mating with all the females in the tribe. This was reinforced to me recently on a swamp tour where it was related by the guide that the alpha male gator in that section of the swamp mates with 10-12 females a year and kills 10-12 smaller males a year. Indeed, it is intuitive to me, and apparent from the animal kingdom, that extreme violence by and among males is probably the inevitable result of such an arrangement, and even that great majority of women that prefer bad boys (or at least guys who they think are bad boys) to the exclusion of sincere, hard-working types don’t seem very attracted to serial-killer level violence. Moreover, those areas of our world where polygamy is officially and/or widely and openly practiced (certain Islamic countries and Africa) are also those countries where women are subjected to the most abuse. Personally, I readily admit that if I were one of the guys shut out from sexual activity in such a society, I would not ultimately be happier, as you say. In fact, I would, if at all practical, murder the mating male and rape females with impunity if that’s what it took to get sex versus having none at all, and I’m just a relatively mild-mannered, mid-40s, highly-educated, office worker (at least when I’m not out swinging, hiring hookers, and making porn).

Probably the biggest reason I mention all this is that, if we are to return to our natural selves without widespread mayhem, it is almost certainly necessary to legalize the guys’ right to choose in the form of legalization of prostitution. I hope you and others realize that while you may be enjoying the trend of concentrating your affections on a smaller number of “rock-star” males, as evidenced by the ascendancy of the MFF threesome, single motherhood, and the recent study finding that 15% of guys now have 85% of all heterosexual sex, as well as the trend of acting out faux lesbianism, that the trends are unsustainable, and almost inevitably will result in violent upheaval and/or repression unless a much greater number of guys are let in on the party. That is one of the reasons why the most important precept of Guyinism is legalization of prostitution: the guys’ right to choose.

All-in-all, the issue of whether we are returning to our natural selves, and the ramifications of it, is fascinating, and I plan to post more about it. For more on the precepts of Guyinism, as well as naked pictures of hot chicks I’ve had sex with, go to http://guyinism.com

Click on pen to