Does the existence and pervasiveness of pornography essentially commit all women to the inescapable fact of virtual polygamy? Usage statistics are so enormous among men, and the social norms forbidding it are so absolutely in tatters, that it’s virtually an inescapable condition of sexual relationships from now on.

You’re not going to find anyone who isn’t in an existing relationship with pornography, and it’s not likely that they will give up that relationship, as it carries no widespread social cost and has no competitive alternative. So women are essentially committed to sharing their husband’s sexuality with their pornographic partners.

Perhaps to many people it doesn’t seem plausible that real flesh and blood women are actually in competition with pornography, or that pornography actually constitutes any form of real sexual relationship or dalliance. Maybe it even seems a bit silly to compare the effects of pornography on society to the effects of widespread polygamy, much less to imply that having your partner watch pornography is in any way similar to being in a polyamorous relationship.

If that’s what you think, then you don’t know men or the power of the internet. It’s essential to the power of digital media that it is not only able to simulate lived human realities that trigger innate psychological and neurological responses, but that it be tailored in such a way as to be even more compelling than those realities.

Digital media deliberately takes advantage of psychological and neurological mechanisms to develop an intense connection to its users. Video games don’t just manipulate your neurological and neurochemical responses, they do so more easily and more directly as a result of deliberate design than real life does or can. Social media does the same. Websites and media platforms like YouTube are carefully tailored and gamed to elicit positive responses and reinforcement and promote engagement.

Moreover, they do so without restraint, as there isn’t a maximum amount of time on their platforms or a maximum limit to your engagement or devotion to them that they’re trying to achieve. In an ideal world, you would always be connected, always be engaged, always be getting reinforced, always be being tracked. Why? Because engagement=revenue.

So in a very simple way, their goal is simply to be as desireable and pleasing and useful as is humanly possible. And they’re all in competition with each other, as well as with the demands of real life. And real life often loses that contest. Young men work far less and play video games far more. Young girls get together far less and spend far more time on social media. Both sexes date and interact with the opposite sex far less, period.

If you wish to have more detail on the degree to which technology acts as a significant alternative and competitor to real life activities, including pornography, I recommend reading “iGen” or “Cheap Sex.” Both books contain an enormous amount of data, more than you probably want to know, about how much our real lives are being restructured by and even replaced by our digital lives.

Pornography is the ultimate form of cheap sex. But don’t mistake it, it is a kind of sex, by modern definitions. And it’s a real relationship alternative and avenue for sexual activity, of which there is a finite supply. Your husband has a finite amount of sexual attention, a finite number of orgasms he can have and hormonal and neurological responses he can develop and pursue, and you as his wife have to share that finite supply with a harem of digital women. And they’re far more competitive than you might expect. And there is an essentially infinite quantity of them, or at least exponentially more of them than there is of him to give.

Our digital lives are in direct competition with our embodied lives, as I earlier explained. The data shows that. Therefore our digital sexual partners are in direct competition with our actual partners. And the digital partners have a lot going for them. And I think we should explore what exactly that is. In many ways, digital sexual partners enjoy the same advantages as all digital alternatives. Convenience, accessibility, low cost, extensive reach, variety, targeting, commitment, simplicity, repeatability, and adaptability. And they wear those advantages on their sleeves.

I’m reminded of the story of how the “street of breasts” got its name in Venice. At the time, there was a proliferation of male prostitutes who were willing to provide their services to men at far cheaper rates than the fairly expensive female courtesans of Venice. The women viewed this as an unfair competitive practice undermining their industry and their livelihood, a breaking of the pact that governed their guild. So, like any trade union, they engaged in protectionist actions against the scabs who were stealing their work.

Unfortunately, the ladies of Venice weren’t able to get rid of the male prostitutes. So instead they found a way to raise their competitive status through a form of aggressive advertising that more easily displayed their competitive advantages. They got permission to advertise topless, clearly displaying and offering their wares in a more compelling and more competitive fashion. And so the “street of breasts” was born. Not because of demands by men, not because of competition between women, but because of competition between women and cheaper, easier alternatives. The women essentially had to either devalue what they were offering or start hawking it more aggressively under less favorable competitive conditions. In the end they had to do both.

You can see similar social phenomena occuring in countries where the viable population of male mates has been reduced for one reason or another, such as war or imprisonment. Feminine restraint may help maintain their value within the cartel, but it’s useless when there are aggressive competitors around or when there’s an oversupply of women and an undersupply of viable men. You end up just like the women of Venice. Devaluing what you have to offer, and marketing it more aggressively under less favorable conditions.

Now, unfortunately, this balance of supply and demand can be affected by more than just obvious tragedies like war or imprisonment or disease. Depression, suicide, addiction, and even failure to mature can greatly reduce the pool of available mates. And let’s not forget that women are most interested in picking from the top. They’re most interested in that top 5%. But men are very prepared to settle and be far less picky, and even to accept cheaper alternatives. Which is fine for them, in a way. But it’s not really clear that it’s always good for people to get what they want easily and cheaply, when the goods in question are rarified, deep, or demanding.

The cost of pornography, from a social and psychological standpoint, is virtually nothing. In fact the only real up-front cost to it is that you’re not investing what you put into it into any long-term relationship or even into a short-term relationship. You don’t have to invest anything but a few minutes and some semen. And virtually all human relationships demand far, far more than that.

So what happens in this sort of situation, where men don’t invest or even engage, and women are by nature only interested in the top echelon of males? You break the market. The men at the top get everything, they have unlimited access to mates, which means they don’t have to commit to any of them or invest seriously in any of them, because the demand for them is so high. Meanwhile, the vast swathe of men below them get virtually nothing and wander off to pursue easier to achieve alternatives, low-cost and low-commitment relationships.

Basically, none of the men really have a good reason to commit or invest in difficult, costly mating endeavors. And women have to operate in a flooded market that devalues their worth and demands intense competition and advertising. That’s the world of polygamy and gender imbalance. A tiny number of winners, lots of losers.

Because the women outcompeting other women are digital women, porn actresses and Onlyfans girls, it’s an even worse situation than in the past. In the past, polygamy meant that most men lost, while a minority of men got everything, but most women could get still get mates, and high value (if shared and somewhat depreciated) mates at that. But digital polygamy is a new Frontier that differs from both traditional monogamy and traditional polygamy.

The new digital polygamy comes packaged a with digital gender imbalance, mimicking the conditions of there being far more available women than men (because digital women can spread themselves around and monopolize many male partners in a way that real women can’t). So now both most men and most women are outcompeted for mating opportunities. Now both sexes get the worst of both situations.

With the fading of monogamy, only a fraction of men will be able to find a mate. With the proliferation of an oversupply of competitive, lower cost digital women, only a fraction of women will be able to get a mate. Welcome to the brave new world of modern dating.