Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts

Thursday, September 10, 2026

Is Love a Weakness? (By William Bond)

By William Bond 

(Originally posted on the Rasa Von Werder blog)

Popular culture tells us that it’s alpha people who rule the world. But these alpha types are generally the most, aggressive and deceitful people on the planet. So many are the worse types of people we have, that are ruling our world. It’s why we live in a unfair world of conflict, war, genocide and oppression. So we would be better off is loving people rule our world instead. But there is a common belief that; “love is a weakness.” and there is good reason why people believe this. Loving people will put the needs of others before their own and are not assertive or aggressive with other people. Because of this, some unscrupulous people will take full advantage of loving people and exploit them. Its for this reason, many people assume that loving people are weak, but is this true?

We generally find loving behaviour more in women than in men and there is a evolutionary reason for this. It is known that women have a maternal instinct, where women not only want to give birth to children but also want to care and look after them until they are capable of looking after themselves. We see this behaviour not only in human females but in mammals and birds. The reason for this is that if mothers of many animal species didn’t care for their young, the species they belong to, would go instinct. So even though we assume that love in a weakness, if mothers didn’t have a this powerful instinct to care and look after their children, the human race would die out. But we find that women not only have an instinct to care and nurture their own children but also the children of other mothers. As well as caring for the sick, elderly, animals and men. So in theory we would all be better of if we had maternal minded women rule the world. But unfortunately it’s not as easy as that, as we seem to live in a system where loving people are excluded from power, whether they are male or female. 

So we live in a world where loving people are thought of as weak while selfish and assertive people  are seen as strong. But unfortunately we pay a heavy price for these beliefs because we end up with selfish and ruthless people ruling our world. When we look at history we see its a story of conflict, wars, genocide as well as a huge disparity of wealth between rich and poor. This is because we generally have selfish and uncaring people in positions of power. A ruler who desires to start a war to conquer another country obviously doesn't care about the harm a war will do to the people he is invading. Or even the harm it might do to the people of his own country, if the war goes badly wrong. Likewise, a government who follows policies that greatly benefit only a small ruling elite at the expense of the majority of the population, also clearly doesn’t care about the people they rule. 

This has been the story throughout history and its still true today. Where in the 21st century we still have wars and genocide, as well as a huge gap between rich and poor. So what can we do to change this? And the obvious answer in democratic countries is to vote into power loving politicians who care about the people they rule. But off course there are big problems in trying to do this. It is claimed that the USA has; “the best democracy that money can buy.” Unfortunately this is not only true of the USA but in all Western democratic countries, where corruption in politics is commonplace. So even if the voters, voted for a politician who genuinely cares about people. He or she will be side-lined from any position of power by the majority of corrupt politicians. Who don’t want anyone upsetting their gravy train.

A politician that did work out that people do want caring and loving people in positions of power was Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand. She campaigned on the basis that she was a genuinely caring person and through this became Prime Minster. But once she was in power, she proved to be a normal, lying, scheming, two-faced politician. Who never intended to keep her election promises and did the opposite to what she said she would do. This made her so unpopular with the people, that her own party had to get rid of her before the next election. But this does prove that people do want to be ruled by loving and caring people, but what prevents this from happening, is corruption. 

The point is that if we were able to get rid of corruption, and had a political party who did campaign on the basis they are genuine loving people who would care about the people they rule. And then when they got into power, kept all their election promises. So they ruled for the benefit of the majority of people and not for the benefit of the billionaire class. Then in every election the people would always vote for a party like this. So if politicians did do this, then love becomes a strength and not a weakness. 

But of course getting rid of corruption is not easy, but it has been recognized world-wide that corruption is what destroys all countries. For instance we have seen over the last 50 years the decline in power of all Western counties. The main reason for this that at the beginning of 1980s Western countries started the policy of, “deregulation”. Where it was claimed that too many regulations stifled business. But what they didn’t point out was that these regulations were there to prevent corruption. So by getting rid of these laws has allowed corruption to thrive, until it took over the whole political system of the Western world. Bringing about the decline, in the power of Western democracies. Why corruption is destroying Western countries is that wealthy entrepreneurs no longer invest their money into manufacturing. Because they can make far more money in, insider trading, share buybacks and other dodgy money-making schemes. So the manufacturing base of Western countries has declined through neglect and has gone East. 

Meanwhile the government of China recognized that it was corruption that was hampering the grown of their economy. So they started a campaign to stamp out corruption, to the degree where anyone found guilty of corruption can get life imprisonment or are executed. Not even billionaires are immune from this. China has executed 14 yuan billionaires between 2003 and 2011 on corruption charges and other crimes. This would never happen in Western countries where billionaires are above the law and can literately get away with murder. It is the anti-corruption drive that is one of the main reasons for China’s growth and prosperity. Because in China for anyone to bribe a government official is seen as a capital offence resulting in life imprisonment or the death penalty. While in Western countries it’s seen as normal business. 

Which means that if Western governments fail to address the corruption problem, then the decline of all Western countries will continue. So if we look at it in the long term, countries that stamp out corruption will always be more successful than countries that allow it to continue and flourish. China is able to stamp out corruption because it’s a dictatorship and its government saw the billionaire class as a threat to their power. The trouble is with this, is that this doesn’t guarantee that a future Chinese government will think the same way. A future Chinese leader might not understand the dangers of corruption and allow it to thrive bringing ruin to his country. Then unfortunately the people won’t be able to do anything about it because China is a dictatorship. Although it has to be said this can happen in a democracy, like we saw at the beginning of the 1980s. Where the disastrous policies like; deregulation and “trickle-down economics” were adopted. Which greatly benefited the wealthy at the expense of the common people and caused the decline in Western manufacturing.

So we can see clearly that corruption will lead to the total disintegration of Western countries which will in time force them to change the way they govern themselves. In that time of change, we have to stick to what works and understand what doesn’t work. So the number one item on this list will be to stamp out corruption. Then create a system where honest, loving people get into positions of power. This can only be guaranteed in a democracy. Some people have claim that the best type of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Which in theory, sounds like a good idea, but no one can explain how to ensure we get benevolent people in positions of power. This is why we need democracy because even though it can be subverted by corruption. Its still a method where the common people will have some say in how they are governed. 

So to achieve a better form of government we need three things: A democratic system, then to have a type of constitution where all forms of corruption are stamped out. Then finally a willingness of voters to vote into power honest, decent politicians who care about the people they rule. It’s true that there will be other Jacinda Ardern type politicians, who claim to be loving and caring people but are in truth just lying, two-faced politicians. But in a system that stamps out corruption, then this type of politician cannot thrive and will be soon be found out. 

In mainstream politics, people debate which is the best political system. So some people might advocate capitalism while others will advocate communism. But to me its more; “the singer not the song.” Whatever system we have, if the rulers are corrupt, stupid or even insane, they will destroy the country they are ruling. While intelligent, competent and caring rulers will ensure the country thrives and the people enjoy a high standard of living. We can see this in recent history, in the time of the Soviet Union the Capitalist system of Western countries worked better than the Soviet communist system which finally collapsed in 1990. But in the 21st century we are finding that the Chinese communist system is working better than Capitalist system of Western countries. It’s claimed that the reason for this is that, Chinese rulers are very pragmatic and are more interested in what works and doesn’t work. While Western rulers are blinded by ideology. A less than charitable reason is that it’s also claimed that; “China is ruled by engineers and scientists, while the West is ruled by lawyers and clowns.” 

So clearly the type of rulers we have, is far more important than the political system they use. This is why we need to get rid of the idea that, “love is a weakness” and instead realise that we want loving, caring and competent people ruling our world and do everything we can, to ensure that this happens. 

Sunday, November 26, 2017

"No Nation Is Lecherous, Where Sex Is Abundant"

Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap".  That quote is often misinterpreted rather literally, as a call for very low or no taxes on alcoholic beverages in general.  And such contextomy also ignores the very next clause of the same sentence in which it is uttered: "...and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits [i.e. hard liquor] as the common beverage."  Yes, wine was actually more expensive than whiskey in early 19th century America.  Of course, we know now that alcohol is alcohol is alcohol, period, and that reams upon reams of research evidence have proven time and again that, all else being equal, higher alcohol prices (regardless of beverage type) generally lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths, injuires, diseases, crimes, and problems in general, along with less overall consumption of such beverages.  So much so that the new saying nowadays is, "Alcohol is no ordinary commodity".

But what about the "cost" of sex?  Fraught as that issue clearly is, many armchair pundits have indeed attempted to answer that question.  Indeed, one of my previous articles, "What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio", attempted to answer that very question.  As we know, all else being equal, the relative "cost" of sex (from the perspective of men) is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of Women in a given population, due to the laws of supply and demand.  Such an idea formed the basis of the book "Date-onomics" by Jon Birger.  And many research papers have also been written about the various pros and cons of high and low sex ratios, many of which can be browsed from the links on my previous article from several months ago.

My general thesis is that a low sex ratio (i.e. a high number of Women relative to men) is overall the most mutually beneficial for everyone on balance.  And I also tend to argue against any sort of artificial scarcity of sexuality (with the notable exception of a Lysistrata-style sex strike, which is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy).  We all saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all.  An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and Women in spite of there being a surplus of Women.  The result?  Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty Women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today).  And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of Women, need I say more?

That would seem to be saying, "No nation is lecherous, where sex is cheap" (or rather  "abundant", since "cheap" can have a pejorative connotation especially in reference to sex) idea whose sentiment apparently underlies the recent iconoclastic book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.  And the books detractors will predictably, well, detract.  But there is a major nuance that unfortunately gets glossed over by both sides of the debate.  That is, the fundamental difference between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality is all too often overlooked.

Under patriarchy, male-defined sexuality is the gold standard of sexuality, to the point where most men and even most Women are unaware that there is any alternative.  Most sex, both commercial and non-commercial, follows this paradigm, often unconsciously, to the point where it is downright banal.  Even when completely consensual, the taint of this paradigm is very difficult to remove.  And in an obliquely similar fashion to Jefferson's quote, regardless of the overall "cost" of sex in general, patriarchy has managed to make female-defined sexuality that much more costly (and rare) relative to male-defined sexuality.  And artificial scarcity has a flip side of artificial abundance, a kind that conveniently benefits men at the expense of Women.  From slut-shaming to the virgin-whore dichotomy to sexual violence to victim-blaming to double standards, this evil system has essentially left us all with the worst of all worlds.  A truly negative-sum game.

When Women are truly liberated, both sexually and otherwise, female-defined sexuality will be the norm (and thus abundant), while male-defined sexuality will in turn become scarce (as few Women would want to participate).  And the best thing about it is that the whole toxic and outmoded "commodity model" of sexuality--in which sex is seen as something that men "take" from Women and for which Women must be "gatekeepers" lest their value as human beings be diminished--will be jettisoned under a feminine paradigm of sexuality.  And that is really the only way to resolve the inherent contradictions of Date-onomics.

Thus, one can paraphrase Jefferson yet again as such, and make the case that female-defined sexuality is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of male-defined sexuality.   So what does female-defined sexuality actually look like in practice?  As a man, I obviously cannot define it--but I know it when I see it.  Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  I see that the notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which is basically Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form.   And his specious thesis can be readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black.  Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well.  Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.