Manoeuvring and logistics
Kreutzian ideology is about an agenda of optimal sex, terminated by a comfortable death.
While optimal sex means optimal sexual function, it also includes the pursuit of sexual relationships with women of a high sexual market value: young, attractive, and healthy. I have never been interested in women of a low sexual market value, e.g., prostitutes, or women who have, or have had, numerous sexual relationships. There is often an inverse correlation between the number of sexual partners and certain health risks.
I have lived in Southeast Asia for many years, but I have never frequented brothels, bars, nightclubs, massage salons, or barbershops. And if ever a prostitute has been among my girlfriends, then I definitely was not aware of her trade when we met, and definitely, the affair was not one of her normal business transactions.
I do not mind if a woman works in a factory, and I can accept it if she works in a restaurant kitchen and smells of food. But I have no personal tolerance for women who work in sexual services.
Yes, my agenda may be in conflict with the agenda of some of my girlfriends who would prefer to have me all to themselves.
My agenda is male. It is a result of a male evolutionary history in which the set of genes that takes procreative chances with the largest number of healthy women is the most successful. As a result of male evolution, my typically male sexual desire is directed towards attractive and young-looking women because their procreative capacities are at a peak. (Fortunately, we are on the brink of a “mode of production” which in principle makes it possible for women to look as if they are in their thirties, even when they are chronologically much older.)
No, I do not have procreative intentions when I pursue a new woman. But my typically male sexual desire is directed towards women in their procreative prime because of the evolutionary mechanism by which the genes of men who spread their sperm among the largest number of healthy women in their procreative prime are the most likely to become dominant, and this includes the genetic trait of a preference for women in their procreative prime.
I consider it likely that not only the male preference for many women, and for young women, has a genetic basis, but also the preference for certain standards of beauty, as beauty is a general indicator of health, and men who spread their sperm among beautiful women were more likely to be successful in siring an optimal number of children than men who were drawn towards women without teeth, or those who are blind in one eye, or lame on both feet, or covered with skin lesions, or suffering from visible signs of infection or disease.
While my preference for young, beautiful, and healthy women is certainly genetic, the emphasis I put on women who are not promiscuous is probably only partially genetic, and partially cultural. Genetically, I must be opposed to the promiscuity of my girlfriends because insemination by other men would threaten my reproductive success.
On the other hand, during pre-AIDS times, when many sexually transmitted diseases were more easily treated or less immediately life-threatening than HIV/AIDS, the promiscuity of a man’s sexual partners was probably more acceptable than it is today.
My sexual agenda is in conflict with the sexual agendas of my girlfriends, because, in general, the procreative and sexual strategies of women are in conflict with the procreative and sexual strategies of men. Women do not produce trillions of gametes. Over the course of a woman’s life, she ovulates only about 400 to 500 mature egg cells. And as opposed to the male minimum investment of a few minutes of copulation, producing offspring for a woman means a burden of at least 9 months.
For women, procreative chances are a rather precious resource, and they try to avoid wastage of a precious resource. As a result, women are far more selective in their sexual strategies, and for good reason, it is in their best interests not to take risks with men.
For good reasons, the sexual agenda of women is directed towards men who are good providers, and who are around for the period of pregnancy, and beyond. For men with an average or no accumulation of resources (of which the capability to do qualified work and earn a living is just one), the provider-oriented expectations of women mean that they should be willing to dedicate all their resources, and all their attention, just to her and the offspring fathered with her. For men who are either very rich, or very powerful, or outstanding for other reasons, women may be willing (and often have been willing throughout history) to compromise, though they may prefer not to have to.
That seeking material benefits is deeply ingrained in typically female mating strategies has been mentioned by David Buss in his book The Evolution of Desire, as well as in the work of other academic evolutionary psychologists. The idea that a mating strategy of seeking material benefits and security in a lifetime relationship with a dedicated spouse is essentially based on the same paradigm (seeking material benefits) as the transactional relationships of a sex worker is nevertheless strongly challenged by respectable housewives.
My sexual agenda obviously also is in conflict with the agendas of other men. It is in conflict with the agenda of other alpha males, because we potentially compete for the same resources. It is even more so in conflict with the agendas of lower-status men, because the whole system is unfair to them. There is always the potential risk that lower-status men band together and resort to revolutionary methods. Fraternity, of course, is only transitory, as kings are replaced by emperors, and the nobility by politicians, bureaucrats, and capitalists who then appropriate the unfair share.
My sexual agenda is not condoned by the societies where I pursue it, and it would not be in any other society. My agenda generates envy, and envy generates social friction, and that is not good for law and order, which is the responsibility of the politicians who govern societies. Politicians in power are against trouble. Even men who themselves pursue an agenda comparable to mine will typically not endorse it, certainly not in public, and most likely not in private either. After all, sharing information on the typical alpha lifestyle only attracts suspicion in one’s immediate environment, and unwanted attention on the part of the authorities. A decrease in opportunities would be a likely consequence of both suspicion and attention. You do not want to be known for your pursuits and your corresponding opinions, neither among your current or potential girlfriends, nor in the wider public. Known playboys are on a downward track, simply because they are known.