STEVE SAILER reflects on this shoe ad. I realize it’s terribly un-cool to reject Darwinism, which makes no sense in the end and is really for nerds or simpletons who are incapable of joy, but I don’t agree with his view that the female psyche can be entirely reduced to a Darwinist competition for men (which is not to say this competition is not a factor in the female psyche) or his suggestion that women are incapable of disinterested moral objectives. Still, he makes some perceptive comments about the competition and sexual aggression feminism has unleashed.

— Comments —

Guilain writes from France:

So, according to Steve Sailer’s worldview, all women spend all their time and energy on one single objective: receiving in their uterus the seeds of the “fittest” men. They agree to have sex with a man only once they have ensured he has the best genes in terms of survival. But then, how to explain that at the very moment a woman finds such a man and offers her body, she uses a contraceptive in most cases? And if ever a baby is conceived, she often chooses to have an abortion to which he is not likely to survive (despite his “winner genes”). Sailer’s premises seem to be incompatible with the facts.

Laura writes:

I don’t know how Sailer would respond to that, but Darwinists in general tend to explain contraception and abortion as consistent with “survival of the fittest” because these things are part of a reproductive strategy that ensures the fitness of the relatively few children, who are not as likely to die because of medical improvements.

 That argument doesn’t make sense though because if human beings are truly motivated by the drive to spread their genes then they would have more children, even with a higher survival rate, not fewer.

Guilain responds:

This view of contraception as part of a conscious and rational plan to spread one’s genes in the “best possible conditions” is problematic. If it is true then why people do not consciously and rationally refrain from having sexual intercourse? If a person’s “reproductive strategy” involves having only two children, then why does he have sex more than twice? Such a limitation would be logical, given that the only goal of sexual behaviors is the spreading of one’s genes (according to Darwinists).

The idea of people consciously and rationally setting up a plan to maximize their chance of spreading their bloodline is untenable. That’s why Darwinists claim that we do not consciously seek to reproduce, but that we are prompted in this direction by the primitive part of our brains, which, according to them, deeply influences our behaviors (even if we don’t realize it). Sexual desire is supposed to be governed by this primal urge. It is presented as a powerful force that draws us toward the members of the opposite sex who carry the “best genes” for survival. The end goal of all this is supposed to be a “genetically fit” offspring. The strange thing that Darwinists have yet to explain is that this irresistible sexual force only brings us halfway: to sexual intercourse. And at this point, people mysteriously don’t want to go farther: everything is done to avoid a pregnancy. Does the primitive force supposed to make us have “fit” kids evaporate at this moment? How to explain the absence of a powerful desire whose role would be to ensure that the sexual encounter with a “high quality” male or female actually leads to genes’ propagation?

I’ve asked a lot of (rhetorical) questions, but now I’m going to say what I think is true. At a time when the vast majority of sexual relationships are rendered sterile by contraception, at a time when unnatural sexual acts (that are intrinsically sterile) have become widespread, and at a time when the babies who pass through the cracks are often aborted, one thing is obvious: the contemporary Westerners’ sexuality has nothing to do with reproduction. Darwinists have it wrong. They don’t see or don’t want to see the evident truth. It is not an “animal” instinct that primarily determines sexual behaviors, but a specifically human desire, which René Girard has called metaphysical desire.

Please follow and like us: