Novaseeker discusses the "haves" and "have-nots":
Christos noted, in the quote I made in my earlier post today, that the current system of dating and mating feels like untrammeled capitalism, whereby a large-ish class of “have nots” (sexually deprived men) are justifiably angry at the class of “haves” (women and the men who are in high sexual demand). He further states the following, which I think is quite telling as to the source of this anger:
It is natural to be angry with this, as much as it is natural to be angry when rich people exploit poor people. It is the same. Love and marriage is a big biological and sentimental need for most, like food. Why expect someone to be angry when he is hungry, but not when he is unloved and ignored? When someone tells you, "you are just an angry losser who can't get laid", it is the same like saying to a poor man in Africa who accuses capitalism "you are just an angry poor man who doesn't have to eat".
The cognitive dissonance between the Left's simultaneous embrace of a collectivist economic order on the one hand and an anarchical sexual order on the other has been much remarked on, especially be me. But I wanted to reflect on two different movie treatments of the role female companionship plays in a man's hierarchy of needs.
Consider Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Here is a man stranded on a deserted island, scratching out survival for five years. Hanks risks his life to escape this island, and indeed nearly does.
In contrast, consider Chris Atkins in Blue Lagoon. Again, a young man scratches out survival on a tropical island. Yet in contrast to Hanks, island life for Atkins isn't merely survival, but happiness. So much so that, seeing the possibility of rescue, Atkins turns his back on it.
Which man among you would choose differently? Why would any man even consider turning his back on the life Atkins had to participate in our dreary consumerist society of cutthroat sexual competition?