All the lonely feminist spinsters

I’ve lost count of the number of commenters who referenced the new Atlantic piece by aging feminist Kate Bolick titled All the single ladies.  Once I clicked on it and started to read it it was instantly clear why so many readers suggested that I look at it.  Bolick opens the piece telling us how she broke up with a great man ten years ago when she was 28, because she was suffering from a problem with no name:

My friends, many of whom were married or in marriage-track relationships, were bewildered. I was bewildered. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down.

She tells us that she immediately had second thoughts about breaking up with the man she calls “Allan”:

The period that followed was awful. I barely ate for sobbing all the time.

…I feared I would be alone forever. Had I made the biggest mistake of my life?

Ten years later, I occasionally ask myself the same question. Today I am 39

At 28 what she didn’t know was her dating/marriage market power was already on the decline.  She had taken it for granted that there would always be another quality man eager to be in a relationship with her, since it had always been this way.  Her life was structured as one giant ultimatum to men, who of course she knew with certainty would comply:

We took for granted that we’d spend our 20s finding ourselves, whatever that meant, and save marriage for after we’d finished graduate school and launched our careers, which of course would happen at the magical age of 30. That we would marry, and that there would always be men we wanted to marry, we took on faith. How could we not?

This fantasy world view is now of course being actively sold to young women by women the author’s age.  She tells us how her feminist mother used to dress her in shirts with feminist slogans, of the fish/bycicle variety starting in the third grade.

But the core of the story is about the brutal intrusion of reality in the ten years following her decision to kick Allan out of her life with no real reason, shortly after he had moved with her from Boston to New York so she could attend grad school.  As I am sure will come as no surprise to my readers Allan of course did just fine without that particular aging feminist in his life.  He met and married another woman while Kate bounced from unsuitable man to less suitable man.  Like a scene out of a chick flick, Kate found herself tasked with taking the man of her dreams to pick out the suit he would wear to marry another woman.  Kate is convinced that this is proof of how strong her post breakup friendship is with Allan as well as his new wife’s open mindedness.  I suspect if we could learn more about Allan’s wife that it would be obvious that it was in fact a cruel joke his younger hotter bride was playing on her vanquished bitter older rival.

when he got engaged, his fiancée suggested that I help him buy his wedding suit. As he and I toured through Manhattan’s men’s-wear ateliers, we enjoyed explaining to the confused tailors and salesclerks that no, no, we weren’t getting married. Isn’t life funny that way?

Funny indeed.  She describes the choices available to herself and other women in her situation:

We’ve arrived at the top of the staircase, finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already, some having never shown up—and those who remain are leering by the cheese table, or are, you know, the ones you don’t want to go out with.

Who would ever have thought that picking last when your dating market power is much lower would be a bad thing?  Clearly not our intrepid aging feminist Kate.

But this much painful truth with insufficient rationalization is truly dangerous to an aging spinster.  Fortunately her hamster rationalizing endorphins kick in before the pain becomes unbearable, and she spins a detailed yarn about how her personal misfortune was caused by tectonic social changes which she was powerless against.  I have no question that it would crush her if she had to confront the fact that she failed at something with a 90% success rate for her peers:

A quick look at the chart above makes it clear that while all of the current gnashing of teeth from 40ish spinsters is in response to a minuscule bump in the percent of never married women of that age, the real tectonic shift has yet to be felt.  Like she did at the same age, the women currently postponing marriage are certain that a worthy husband and father for their children will instantly appear once they are ready to make him an accessory to their fabulous lives.  They assume that marriage is theirs merely for the taking.  This nonchalance by women regarding marriage is widely misunderstood however.  The great lie of our day is that women don’t really value marriage, and that tens of thousands of years of programming to fear spinsterhood has magically been erased.  But the already hysterical cries over a small sliver of 40ish white women in the US who haven’t married expose the lie.  Kate gets tantalizingly close to this truth when considering history, although she mistakes primal programming as being purely economically motivated (emphasis mine):

…in 1860, there were 104 marriageable white men for every 100 white women; in 1870, that number dropped to 87.5. A generation of Southern women found themselves facing a “marriage squeeze.” They could no longer assume that they would become wives and mothers—a terrifying prospect in an era when women relied on marriage for social acceptability and financial resources.

Speaking through this long lost generation of women is easier than admitting her own fears, so she projects her voice onto them:

they were forced to ask themselves: Will I marry a man who has poor prospects (“marrying down,” in sociological parlance)? Will I marry a man much older, or much younger? Will I remain alone, a spinster? Diaries and letters from the period reveal a populace fraught with insecurity.

The paralells between the two postwar periods are uncanny, one a Civil War between men of the North and the South, and another a civil war between men and women (or more accurately waged by women against bewildered men).  Like the current post civil war period, in the past there was mass hysteria by women even when roughly 90% of white women were still able to marry:

Their fears were not unfounded—the mean age at first marriage did rise—but in time, approximately 92 percent of these Southern-born white women found someone to partner with. The anxious climate, however, as well as the extremely high levels of widowhood—nearly one-third of Southern white women over the age of 40 were widows in 1880—persisted.

The crucial difference being that in this postwar period instead of a glut of widows unable to remarry, today we have a glut of divorced women unable to remarry.  However in both cases the glut was a direct result of the nature of the war.  Men were killed in large numbers in the Civil War, while most men who are casualties of the war of women against men find themselves divorced and expelled from their families.  One striking difference is the women without men today are almost exclusively so due to their own selfish choices.  Instead of their would be husbands having died in a far off battlefield, most of these women killed their own marriages in divorce court, in a futile effort to celebrate the mythical Sex and the City lifestyle.  By the time they realized the folly of their ways, it was too late.  Now as the AARP survey tells us, most of them are slated for a life of unimaginable loneliness (emphasis mine):

Almost 9 in 10 men (87%) dated after their divorce, compared to 8 in 10 women (79%)…  Among those who dated after the divorce, more than half of men (54%) but fewer women remarried (39%). (Page 39)

Many women, especially those who have not remarried
(69%), do not touch or hug at all sexually.
An even larger majority of women who have not remarried do not engage in sexual intercourse (77% saying not at all), in comparison with about half of men (49%) who have not remarried.  (Page 6)

She continues on, comparing the current situation with other historic catastrophes.  She compares the great spinsterhood today with the post WWII shattered Soviet Union.  In doing so she stumbles on another accidentally relevant parallel.  As the Soviet state jealously crushed the rights of men as husbands and fathers, the men found themselves no longer obligated to act in those roles:

…men moved at will from house to house, where they were expected to do nothing and were treated like kings; a generation of children were raised without reliable fathers, and women became the “responsible” gender.

But even imagining herself as the heroine of some sweeping historical drama and not the victim of her own bad choices is not enough to dull the pain.  Her hamster kicks in after she details how all the men she really wants feel no need to commit since they are now the scarce commodity.  She promises herself that there are hordes of worthy men eager to win the prize of her commitment to them:

another of my anecdotal-research discoveries is of what an ex calls “marriage o’clock”—when a man hits 35 and suddenly, desperately, wants a wife. I’ll never forget the post-first-date e-mail message reading: “I wanted to marry you last night, just listening to you.” Nor the 40-ish journalist who, on our second date, driving down a long country road, gripped the steering wheel and asked, “Are you The One? Are you The One?” (Can you imagine a woman getting away with this kind of behavior?) Like zealous lepidopterists, they swoop down with their butterfly nets, fingers aimed for the thorax, certain that just because they are ready for marriage and children, I must be, too.

If any of you happen to speak to Ms. Bolick, please reassure her that she can now rest easy;  any men anxious to marry and have children are aware of her rapidly declining fertility and can do the math.  She is finally safe from their butterfly nets.

As many have noted Ms. Bolick references fellow manosphere blogger Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart.  Unfortunately Ms. Bolick managed to terribly misunderstand Susan’s very clear description of what is going on on college campuses*.  Instead of acknowledging the mechanics of hypergamy where 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women, she contorts it to:

…only 20 percent of the men (those considered to have the highest status) are having 80 percent of the sex, with only 20 percent of the women (those with the greatest sexual willingness); the remaining 80 percent, male and female, sit out the hookup dance altogether.

While she has a mental block when it comes to hypergamy, she does recognize the loss of courtship.  Susan has written her own take on the article, which includes a very active discussion in the comments.

*Edit:  Susan has clarified that she has changed her view on the statistics.  See her comment below for details.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ageing Feminists, Choice Addiction, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Post Marital Spinsterhood. Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to All the lonely feminist spinsters

  1. The Continental Op says:

    I think it’s just that feminists have an affinity for growing old miserable and lonely. Kind of the way possums like tires.

  2. dragnet says:

    This whole debate is getting tiresome—just the same rationalizatons repeated ad nauseum and the same intellectual cowadice of not addressing the strongest and most obvious counterarguments. I said it over and Susan’s and I’ll say it here again: the vast cultural and social architecture we’ve erected in a desperate effort to keep women from being confronted by the consequences of their poor judgement is nothing less than astounding. One would almost think the entire literary, television, and movie industry is solely dedicated to keeping those hamsters running hard, long and strong.

    And I must say it’s pretty awesome that you’ve written enough blog posts tackling these issues so thorougly that you can now include links to them in just about every sentence.

    Well done, sir.

    [D: Thanks!]

  3. anonymous x says:

    The parallel between the post-Civil War period and today… while not exactly alike, it’s still eerie.

    I have been taking some group ballroom dance lessons lately. A good wholesome way to get out of the house and get used to talking to women especially if you’re as unsociable as I am. As a man of a certain age, I’ve had some of the women who are definitely older than me come on to me in subtle ways. That looking me in the eyes, that looking downward in submissive pose, that hand hold on my right shoulder, the eye contact when saying thanks when it’s time to change partners, etc. Now thanks to the study quoted in this post, I’m sure many of them don’t get any physical touching in their private lives so they come to these group lessons hoping someone will fall for them. But they’re older than me or their looks have gone to crap. Or both. Cruel, I know. I think it’s dawning on some of them how low their SMV is and it’s those I’m feeling sorry for. But only those and I’m not so sorry I’ll do anything for them. I do my best to remember they’re all people so I’m friendly and that’s it, but it’s enough to get them to do the subtle come-on thing. Sigh… why am I too ethical to be a dog with them…

  4. TFH says:

    Everyone,

    Since Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit linked to the original Kate Bolick article (mainly to mock it), he may also link to Dalrock’s counter article here. That comes to several thousand visits.

    Please send a POLITE email to Glenn Reynolds at :

    pundit@instapundit.com

  5. Ollie says:

    “She talked about how the Dutch don’t regard being single as peculiar in any way—people are as they are.”
    Sailer’s first law of female journalism.

    Nuff said.

  6. TFH says:

    dragnet,

    I said it over and Susan’s and I’ll say it here again: the vast cultural and social architecture we’ve erected in a desperate effort to keep women from being confronted by the consequences of their poor judgement is nothing less than astounding.

    Remember that 70-80% of ALL government spending is a transfer from men to women.

    This does not even count the soft power of the state, where a wife can continuously threaten a husband with VAWA or divorce, without actually doing it.

    I have come to the conclusion that a democracy always devolves into a feminist police state after several decades of women having the right to vote, since women only vote with one goal in mind.

    Also, dragnet, while no political party is ‘good’, surely by now you have figured out that any expansion of the size of government will be inherently anti-male, and the biggest blow to feminism would be a reduction in the size of government.

  7. JG says:

    Let’s not be too harsh on this mindset (not necessarily directing my comment at the spinster-to-be who wrote that article). Perhaps women delaying marriage want to get as much cock carousel riding out of the way as they possibly can. Tragic that attractive young women must, when contemplating marriage, ponder whether the possibility of bedding down a new swinging *ick every week is worth giving for the numbing predictability of one man.

    How horrible that women of that mindset must make such sacrifices. Sad that much of society still expects them to make such ‘sacrifices’.

    /sarcasm off

  8. The Truth says:

    Meh. Really don’t care about what these useless women have to say. Enjoy your cats, ladies.

  9. Opus says:

    Not that I believe a word of it (or maybe it really is different in Manhattan) but (I cannot resist this) what a load of bollocks.

    Nature is a hanging Judge from which there has yet to be a successful appeal.

  10. tspoon says:

    That was also the first thing I noticed when I checked that article also, her disingenuous ‘misquote’ (read: straight out lie) about the 80/20 stat. All up the article was the longest and most eloquent piece of self pity since, well, since the last one.

  11. zenpriest says:

    Tragic that attractive young women must, when contemplating marriage, ponder whether the possibility of bedding down a new swinging *ick every week is worth giving up for the numbing predictability of one man.

    While you may see your comment as sarcasm, I have to wonder how true that is to people who obviously do not share a lot of your values.

    Interestingly, I just saw a new “funny saying” this morning –

    “For all those men who say ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?’ – here is an update for you:
    Nowadays, 80% of women are against marriage. Why?
    Because women realize that it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage…”

    Put this together with something from a blog that was linked to from HUS –

    True Wife Confessions 42 – the ultimate answer
    Confession #421

    I love you. I love our life. You are a fantastic father and provider. But
    oh Lord help me you suck in bed. I haven’t had an orgasm with you in the
    room in about 16 yrs. I think about having an affair ONLY to have good sex.
    One day I probably will do it. Consider this an apology in advance.

    Perhaps it is better for women to seek a little “sausage” on their own, than to “hold out for the ultimate price” in exchange for their sex, then lie in bed like they were dead, and blame you for how awful their sex life is, and use it as an excuse to cheat on you.

    Maybe there are some human failings and bad attitudes that having tight game doesn’t make up for.

  12. Quartermain says:

    For what modern women in the anglosphere put us through, the lament of twilight feminists only arouse this response from me:

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    That’s one reply. Here is another, a classic from the 70’s. Just ignore the last line of the song.

  14. TFH says:

    And I must say it’s pretty awesome that you’ve written enough blog posts tackling these issues so thorougly that you can now include links to them in just about every sentence.

    Seconded. Dalrock has achieved a Roissy/Bardamu level of critical mass. Each article is a node of a robust, decentralized network or articles, and it keeps the archives vibrant with traffic.

    I myself still get about 800 pageviews a day despite writing just 1 article in the past 10 months, mostly for the same reason.

    WF Price does not do enough to link back to the 500+ articles he has written at The Spearhead, so his archives are not getting as much oxygen as they should.

  15. Omnipitron says:

    “Nowadays, 80% of women are against marriage. Why?
    Because women realize that it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage…”

    That’s an absolute riot, sadly this article proves just how ridiculous and pathetic a woman saying it really is.

  16. Yaboymatt says:

    80 percent against marriage, maybe in college, ask a 15 year old or a 35 year old whether they want to marry. Looks like selections bias at work among the white 20-25 carousel rider daddies little princess demographic. Why get married when some guy is already paying for the Jimmy Choos and you don’t need to try to look presentable for good old beta daddy!

  17. TFH says:

    “Nowadays, 80% of women are against marriage. Why?
    Because women realize that it’s not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage…”

    She actually said this?

    There is hamster rationalization, and then there is a hamster that has grown to the size of a Songhua River Mammoth.

  18. TFH says:

    I have to second Omnipitron. It is sentences like this that lead me to predict that future historians will laugh at the folly of the societies that allowed women the right to vote.

    What is politically incorrect today can seem laughably obvious in the future….

  19. TFH says:

    Can someone log into the Atlantic to comment there, and post links to Dalrock’s rebuttal not once, but multiple times in the comments?

    I think that we are missing out if the authors to these pieces are not seeing the skewering being delivered to them (whether Kate Bolick, Penny Nance Young, etc.)

  20. greyghost says:

    Nice article Dalrock. This is kind of what happens with involutary childless spinsterhood. The key is the involuntary part. These dumb ass did this to themselves. Imagine when a slew of PUA and players on a male pill string them carousellers out to live as an old childless spinster while she was really trying to sex her way into marriage and family. Those will be some awesome articles. Thank you Dalrock this article was like a damage assestment photo after a bombing raid.

  21. zed says:

    “She actually said this?”

    Posted a jpg which said it, actually. I went to HS with her older sister. (about 10 centuries ago ;) ) IIRC, she is in her early 50s.

  22. Instead of acknowledging the mechanics of hypergamy where 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women, she contorts it to:

    …only 20 percent of the men (those considered to have the highest status) are having 80 percent of the sex, with only 20 percent of the women (those with the greatest sexual willingness); the remaining 80 percent, male and female, sit out the hookup dance altogether.

    In fairness to Bolick, she isn’t one that contorted it to that. Susan Walsh did:

    This is why I distinguish between 20% of men getting 80% of the sex, vs. 20% of men getting 80% of the girls. My own view is that 20% of the men get a ton of sex from 20% of the women, and the other 80% of each group is having a lot less sex.

  23. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    It’s funny that she can’t think of a reason she broke up with “Allen” when she was 28. It’s an easy answer: he “followed” her to New York because of her job. That marked him (perhaps correctly) as Beta. Can you imagine any man of the 1950s or 1960s “following” a woman around the country because of her job?

    The lesson is that if you want the respect of any woman, you need to be in the lead. Beyond that, this article was an overlong, unimpressive piece of navel gazing crap. Nice to see Susan Walsh get some props, though. Great blogger, that Susan.

  24. greyghost says:

    Days of Broken Arrows
    It’s funny that she can’t think of a reason she broke up with “Allen” when she was 28. It’s an easy answer: he “followed” her to New York because of her job. That marked him (perhaps correctly) as Beta. Can you imagine any man of the 1950s or 1960s “following” a woman around the country because of her job?
    You nailed it. That was what killed it and to this day she has no idea. That is the essence of “game”. If she had spent a day with Heartiste she could have answered her question. .

  25. TFH says:

    It’s an easy answer: he “followed” her to New York because of her job. That marked him (perhaps correctly) as Beta.

    Of course. Women don’t understand how women think, which is why what is obvious to us is a mystery to them.

    All traditional societies had customs that effectively protected women from themselves, by restricting them. It is clear why these customs existed, and the huge damage feminists have done to women by unlearning centuries of accumulated wisdom.

  26. zed says:

    Can someone log into the Atlantic to comment there, and post links to Dalrock’s rebuttal

    As Chels indicated in another thread – a woman speaking on the issue of whether or not “women” want to get married is going to have more credibility than a “happily married man” – particularly one who has an aura of social conservatism hanging around his blog.

    If Kate wants to give the impression that she is perfectly happy with her single life – as one of the youtube clips of her was titled – having some “patriarchal” dude like Dalrock sing the praises of marriage is probably not going to be half as convincing as having someone like grerp say it.

  27. TFH says:

    As Chels indicated in another thread – a woman speaking on the issue of whether or not “women” want to get married is going to have more credibility than a “happily married man”

    Chels does not yet realize that she does not understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean she knows how women think – quite the opposite in fact (as PUAs have proven spectacularly).

  28. Chels says:

    As Chels indicated in another thread – a woman speaking on the issue of whether or not “women” want to get married is going to have more credibility than a “happily married man” – particularly one who has an aura of social conservatism hanging around his blog.

    You’re right Zed, I send this link to a few girlfriends of mine, and they were all offended by it and stopped reading it. But not before they told me that I’ve been brainwashed, that I need a “patriarchy detox diet” and in return, they send me a link to feministing lol

    If this blog was written by a woman, I think my friends would have been more receptive, so I stick by what I said–women listen to women more than they listen to men, especially on a topic such as this.

    And really, I was shocked that they were so against this blog, I expected some resistance but not to that degree, but whatever, it’s their choice.

  29. TFH says:

    But not before they told me that I’ve been brainwashed, that I need a “patriarchy detox diet”

    It will be interesting to see how many of them end up as old cat ladies themselves. You may eventually have to find new friends.

    If this blog was written by a woman, I think my friends would have been more receptive,

    There is enough content there. Articles from Hestia, Grerp, Dr Helen, etc. I doubt it will change their minds though.

    women listen to women more than they listen to men, especially on a topic such as this

    This is why mothers and grandmothers were important, particularly their roles with the ‘patriarchy’. These women don’t really grasp what the opposite of a ‘patriarchy’ actually is.

    This seems to be similar to the phenomenon where a black child starts to actually do well in school, other blacks tell him that he is ‘acting white’. Except that these women in question are presumably adults.

  30. Jane Wilder says:

    all “spinster” means (despite all the spin) is an unmarried woman beyond the conventional age of marriage. Well the conventional age has gotten older. I got married at 28 which was well beyond the previous age of marriage. I have been married over 30+ years. I don’t feel it messed me up . I also don’t see any of my unmarried friends who are now mostly in their 60s very interested in remarriage, they are not lonely, they are enjoying grand children way more than they did raising their own kids, because they can go home when bored or exhausted.

    Maybe it is different for women who were never married who wanted to be, but I see quite a number of young people, males and females now of my kid’s ages , who are not interested even in HAVING kids. They say maybe they will adopt an older child later on.

    Why does everyone think that spinster is a bad word? I know so many married women who put up with loads of crap from their husbands who really also regret their decision to marry. I am not saying that they don’t LOVE their husbands and families, but they also feel deep regret over what they gave up to have a husband and family and on many deep levels there is massive regret. It is a trade off isn’t it? I don’t think at all that marriage is for everyone. Some people should not marry and have kids. Some love it , some hate it.

    [D: As I recall you are the commenter who is a proud former slut and doesn't allow her husband to ejaculate during sex, right?]

  31. Chels says:

    It will be interesting to see how many of them end up as old cat ladies themselves. You may eventually have to find new friends.

    It’s funny that you should say that, those women are about how old Bolick was when she dumped her boyfriend for no reason, they’re all 28 and single, and not looking to commit because they want to be indepedent. When I ask them if they really want to be independent from a man, they all say that they’re just not ready to settle down yet. Kate’s story is exactly like my friends think now, but if they do end as old cat ladies, it was all of their making.

    And I have dumped/cooled relations with a few because they were attacking my boyfriend, and our relationship–that’s really off limits territory, but they didn’t seem to understand that until I stopped returning their calls/messages.

    There is enough content there. Articles from Hestia, Grerp, Dr Helen, etc. I doubt it will change their minds though.

    The problem with Hestia and partly Dr Helen is that they place all of the fault on women, which in women’s eyes, means that Hestia/Helen are also brainwashed by the patriarchy and old fashioned, so they’re not worth listening to.

    There needs to be a modern, hip woman saying all of these things in order to get women under 30 to listen. As well, balance is incredibly important–I love Dalrock’s blog because he’s moderate and like he says, he values “intellectual freedom”, which automatically leads to balance, which sorely misses from other blogs. (I’m still shocked that they rejected this blog, it’s one of my favourites)

    This is why mothers and grandmothers were important, particularly their roles with the ‘patriarchy’. These women don’t really grasp what the opposite of a ‘patriarchy’ actually is.

    Yeah, mothers and grandmothers are important, but too often they think just like the feminists (case in point, my mother or Jane Wilder who’s in her 60s–*rolls eyes*).

  32. Eileen says:

    Yeah, spinsterhood is just one more wonderful lifestlye choice among many for today’s liberated woman. Good luck with that. Because, whatever you may wish to tell yourself about it, it actually means, “unmarried woman beyond the conventional marrying age, which speaks volumes about her attractiveness or otherwise suitability for marriage, poor thing.” (The “poor thing” part is optional.) The term “idiot” used to refer to a specific range of IQ scores some number of standard deviations below normal — purely a clinical term, nothing insulting about it. But I can’t imagine anyone claiming that it’s not an insult to be called one.

  33. sestamibi says:

    TFH–

    The day will come (in about 20-30 years I estimate) when the notion will seriously be advanced that men be prohibited from voting and participating in political life in western nations–or whatever is left of them by then.

  34. Susan Walsh says:

    Dalrock, thanks so much for the link. I always appreciate the referrals! PMAFT is correct, I am the source of that 80/20 stat, not Kate. In fact, we discussed this at some length and I was very clear on this point. My own analyses of the data show that nowhere near close to 80% of women are actively targeting the top males.

    Originally, I heard the idea from Hollenhund, who repeatedly challenged me to do some real analysis and get to the bottom of this claim. He felt strongly about the apex fallacy, but suspected that 20% of the men were getting a lot of sex, not necessarily from a large number of women:

    I think an accurate definition of the 80/20 rule is in order. As far as I know it means that 20% of all men ‘get’ 80% of all (i.e. pre-marital and marital) heterosexual intercourse. For example: if a man has sex with his young hot wife 3 times everyday, he belongs to that 20%.

    Judging by all the stats it seems to me that a small minority of men (the alphas) are essentially ‘passing around’ between themselves a somewhat equally small % of all women (the sluts). The big difference is that alphas are willing to have casual sex with women below their own sexual market value but pretty girls aren’t having sex with men below their own sexual market value. That is, in my opinion, the main cause of the imbalance.

    Sex and the Pareto Principle was the result. http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/

    Later Gucci Little Piggy unearthed some interesting data and I wrote a post about that as well.

    Who’s Really Having Sex in College?

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/04/28/hookinguprealities/whos-really-having-sex-in-college/

    It showed the distribution of intercourse as follows:

    Female % Male %
    0 37.2 42.8
    1-5 54.1 49.4
    6-10 5.7 5.6
    11-25 2.0 0.9
    26+ 1.1 1.3

    The bottom line is that 90% of college students have 0-5 partners over four years. About 8-9% of both females and males have >6 sexual partners. IOW, the numbers of sexually promiscuous are about evenly distributed, and well under 20%, according to this study.

    Finally, I covered a recent study in 89% of Students Hate Hookup Culture, highlighting the following findings:

    The average number of hookups for a graduating senior is 7.
    25% of college students will never hook up.
    30% will hook up three times or less in four years.
    30% will hook up 4-9 times.
    15% will hook up 10 times or more during college.
    91% of college students report that their campus is characterized by a hookup culture.
    In other words, 85% students hook up rarely if at all. Only 10% or so have four hookups per year.

    Undoubtedly, some of those hook up every weekend, but they are a very small number.

    Obviously, there is no final arbiter on this statistic. I combed through the data to arrive at a conclusion, and these posts reflect my understanding of the SMP, which is that 20% of both women and men are quite promiscuous, and that 80% of women and men are very dissatisfied in this SMP.

  35. RL says:

    @Jane: Hamster says women after 55 don’t men. But do women like government or hubby handouts in old age for living cost, health insurance, or would a lack thereof equalize living expectations this too much ?

  36. Jane Wilder says:

    the same could be said about men in that position. My husband was injured when he was in the USAF. He is 5 years younger than I am and I have been the main supporter of our family for 25 years now since his disability kicked into high gear. He had an experimental surgery last year and is a bit better now, but I was left to pull the freight. so what ? we are a couple, two made one by marriage, so I think expectations go both ways depending on the circumstance. For the wife who stayed home and did not have “her own income” and did the housework and childcare, she deserves to be compensated for her work. Maybe she cared for aging parents and inlaws in the bargain. Women who stay home is what you all say you want, then you think that anything they get later on is a handout? Ha ha ha. You stay home with sick kids and in laws and do drudge work for 30-40 years and then tell me it isn’t real “work”. What a joke. Bitter , boy are you all bitter. What they heck happened? Marriage is give and take, not some kind of business deal or slave and master thing. It is an equal partnership. If you don’t know that I feel sorry for you. I have been married for decades as have a large portion of my friends. We also have single friends and the older women are doing way better than the older men, sorry to burst your bubble.

  37. Guy says:

    Jane Wilder, above:

    1.) “deserves to be compensated for her work” is situational – what if she had an affair, ruined the marriage, filed for divorce, etc…?

    2.) I say she was compensated by sharing equally in the lifestyle – SATM is not feasible unless supported by someone else (gov’t or husband) or really rich. It is desirable to many women, as are kids and a family life in general. She got to live in the home, family, and life for free (not working a job) and whether she takes half the accumulated assets is dependent on the circumstances of separation and not the work previously done.

  38. Ya Boy Matt says:

    You need to address Dalrock’s question about ejaculation.

    Incidentally how old were you when you had your disabled child?

  39. PA says:

    This poem by Great Books for Men (GBFM) is apropos:

    i luvs you allls o ye of little faith

    to all the spinsters with cats
    who teh fed tricked into spinsterhood/serving debt lxolllozlzl
    to all the fanboys in ther single mom’s basements
    whose dads they never knew because the fed tookawy fatehrhood lzozlzl
    to all the broken familes
    who were split up by the need to make two salaries to feed the kids
    to all aging necon womenz celeberating secretive tapings of butthex without teh girlths conthent lzozllzlzozlzl they tircked you too
    to all the spinster chix again i am sorry they sdesouled you
    in asscokcing sessins drugged you up on prozac
    told you to abort your kids no wonder your’re d[pressed and all fucjked up no lozlzlzlzling here
    my heart goes out to you while tucker max & goldman sax laugh zlzolzlzl
    too all the aborted fetushes we ask for forgiveness we deserve not and to all those tricked into aborting the gift of life lzozllzllzl we forgive u too and pray for teh fethuses, but not in school as prayer is illegal in school lozlzllzlz
    to all those inthe rising genertaion who will have to pay off their parents cultural and monetary debts lzozlz war isn’t fun but it’s part of teh fed’s fiat bubble cycle lzozlzllz so like after th e country goes bust the war starts in the ultimate pump and udmp scheme you thought enron/worldcom/fannae mae was bad lolzozlzlz just you wait lzozlzlll i hope not and ai pray for peace lozlzlz maybe we can all learn to live and get along but i think we would have to start with truth and nobility and honor and ocurage and virtue and not with fiat debt and butthex lozlzlzl that’s just nmy gues from reading heroduts and the great boooks and classis in greek and latin zlzolzllzlzl

    and the bible too about sodom and gomorroah did yuknow taht sodomycame form sodom and gonnoreah came from gommroah? lzozllz kidding about that second one i doubt it did but maybe who knows i have never had eitehr sodomy nor gonorreah and i ahve never been to sodom nor gomoorrah

    sodom must;ve been a funny place lzolzlozolllzzll and a crazy party or two and the editor in chiefstress priscilla painton at simon and schuster would have fit right in publishing tucker max’s books yah i betin gmorrah they had a tower of babel with the ofices of simon and schuster at the top across the hall form the fed lzozlzlzllzlzlzlzllzlzlz

    sometimes i wonder if poets and prophets can still change the world?

    or have they trainde too, too many women to hate, and dumbed down and drugged up too many menz? have they destoryed too many fathers and killed to many families? have the y deocnstructed tyoo many books and spilled too much blood and aborted too many fetuthes as one is one too many. have they prescribed ritalin to too many cretaive sols in chool in prozac to too many who need to be depressed and face it when they abort fetuses as god gave us feelings and makes us not pay attention to boring stae corproate teachers as all creativity comes from not paying attention to the state lzozlzzll and now it is diagnoses as a diseas lzozlzlz.

    lozlzlzzlzl

    well juust wanted to say i luv u all and nice 2 know ya and welcomes abords lzozlzl

    and 2 asnwer my own above questions
    let me jsut say
    teh great books
    wouldn’t be great
    if they weren’t immortal
    and they offer us redemption
    the moment we start living by tehir ideasl
    and epic higher stories
    so put down your hate and your secretive butthex tape
    and pick up a cross
    and come follow me
    and let me shoulderyour burden
    for my yoke is light
    dante wrote la vita nuova–the new life
    and it is time 4 u to find your new life
    for to loseth one’s old way is to fuind the new path
    so do not fear
    lozlzlzlzlzlz omg wtf am i saying lzozlzlz
    i almost blew my cover here as teh messiah lzozlzllll i hide it beind all my lzozlzllzlzlzlzlzlzlles but a couple of you ahve caught on lzozlzlzlzllzlzl

  40. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Unfortunately Ms. Bolick managed to terribly misunderstand Susan’s very clear description of what is going on on college campuses. Instead of acknowledging the mechanics of hypergamy where 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women, she contorts it to:

    “…only 20 percent of the men (those considered to have the highest status) are having 80 percent of the sex, with only 20 percent of the women (those with the greatest sexual willingness); the remaining 80 percent, male and female, sit out the hookup dance altogether.”

    I thought this too, and said so on Susan’s blog. But it turns out that Susan agrees with her desription of the eighty/twenty situation and has confirmed this in the comments.

    I think they are both very much mistaken. To say that eighty per cent of young women are not involved in hooking up with alpha guys puts way, way too much faith in such women’s self reporting about number of partners. Women almost always understate the number of partners they have had. Many of them specifically say that certain events don’t “count,” for one reason or another….”oh, that was when I was on vacation/spring break, at freshman orientation/summer camp, drunk at a frat party….” There is still a certain amount of residual “slut shaming,” and many women don’t admit to their closest friends, never mind to a goverment researcher, the true number of sex partners that they have had.

    Look at the NY Times article about hookups in college….http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all

    All of the women quoted say that women in general in college are throwing themselves at the subset of college men (who are already a minority on campus) who they find to be worthy of “consideraton.” A half dozen girls are “fluttering” around one guy at the bar…one guy has hooked up with at least five girls at one soriority…the girls have to tolerate cheating from these guys, otherwise they get no play at all….the guys don’t even bother dressing nice or combing their hair…and so on and so forth. Of course, most of the college women interviewed are quick to add that they, themselves, are not PERSONALLY involved in any of this. Of course not! Never they!

    Much the same is going on in these CDC and other studies. Everyone knows that there is a huge hookup culture. Everyone knows that most guys are left out of it, but that most women can, and do, get their shot at hooking up with the few, desired men.. But, somehow, it is never the woman in question who is actually participating in it!

    I think some folks, particularly older folks, really have no idea of what young women and girls are up to these days. It is nothing at all for a women to have had a dozen, or more, sex partners by the time she is twenty five or so. And these are not “Bad Girls” that we are talking about. They aren’t overt “sluts.” They don’t wear their pants half open or down to their cracks and so on. These are college girls, girls in professional and grad schools and the like. Basically, they have had sex with a half dozen “official” boyfriends (one or two in HS, two or three in college, one or two since they graduated) and half a dozen, or more, hookups.

    All the while bemoaning, as in the NY Times article, their fate. The fact that there are eighty per cent of the guys out there, many, many of whom would love to have a monogamous relationship with one of these women, never seems to cross their minds. These men are invisible to them, they are, as the girl in the article says, not even within their “consideration.”

    And that brings us back to our author here. She has had numerous opportunities to have LTRs, leading to marriage, with guys she herself admits were decent and good. But she rejected every single one of them. “Something was missing,” she says. Yeah, alpha male induced ginnie tingles! Now, despite the claims to the contrary, her looks are fading, and she’s almost completely out of fertility, and has no BF, never mind a husband or a child. So, call out the hamsters! There must be someone or something to blame! Great historical trends, men in general, the particular men she was exposed to…something, anything! It can’t be that she simply stayed too long at the casino, never cashed in her chips, and is now in danger of crapping out altogether and facing “Gambler’s ruin.” Nope.

  41. Badger says:

    I find it completely fatuous for Gayle King or anyone to claim Bolick is “single and loving it.” Come to grips with it? Sure. But you don’t write a long-form article and fly to Boston to interview a bunch of college girls for a story explaining why you don’t have a husband if you don’t care about not having one.

    ruddy on the 80-20 rule:

    “I thought this too, and said so on Susan’s blog. But it turns out that Susan agrees with her desription of the eighty/twenty situation and has confirmed this in the comments.

    I think they are both very much mistaken.”

    Susan has contended that 20% of men and 20% are promiscuous and are banging mostly each other and if they bang anybody else it’s an accident of the sexual marketplace. I am not so sure. She’s neglecting or simply overlooking the large number of women who are also pursuing the top 20% of guys, and she should know this because a lot of the readers that inspired her blog are non-slut women who are/were chasing the alpha pack and trying to get him to “commit.” 80-20 might be an exaggeration, but I don’t think 50-20 is. The top men enjoy disproportionate attention from women, both in number and intensity.

    “I think some folks, particularly older folks, really have no idea of what young women and girls are up to these days.”

    Ruddy, I have, over a long reluctant period, come to agree with you (which is to say I have come in contact with reality and accepted it for what it is.)

    Young women today _as a whole_ (there’s a significant block of exceptions) are astoundingly promiscuous even more so when you consider the manifold measures of sexuality they can and do engage in (anal sex, FWB, ONS, anything ending in -job). So far as I can tell the college-educated sect is especially prone to this carousel riding, being that they live in a world where reality is delayed until college or grad school is completed, and some work before graduate/law/medical school which pushes out the age of “true adulthood” even more. So there’s an attitude in there of “I don’t need to worry about my long-term future for a long time,” which is itself coupled with “I’m working so hard for my future, why can’t I unwind a bit.”

    It is amazing to read reports from Roosh and other PUAs who have gone abroad and embedded themselves in other cultures, and hear that foreigners even in places like Italy regard American women as incredibly slutty, and as sexual without being sensual (a sort of unclassy promiscuity that’s unbecoming of the Mediterranean ethos, although the ancient Greeks had their fair share of drunken orgies).

    “All the while bemoaning, as in the NY Times article, their fate. The fact that there are eighty per cent of the guys out there, many, many of whom would love to have a monogamous relationship with one of these women, never seems to cross their minds. These men are invisible to them, they are, as the girl in the article says, not even within their “consideration.”

    And that brings us back to our author here.”

    Bolick rightly drew a lot of ire for a line where she said hookup culture “forced women into promiscuity.” Nobody’s been forced; women have chosen to pass over adequate men and to roll in the hay either in hedonism or in a poorly-planned strategy to swap sex for “commitment.” Whether their comercially-programmed forebrains or hindbrains have done the choosing, they didn’t want to buy what was on the market.

    And then they have the audacity to claim that men are “falling apart” and have failed in life, because they’ve failed these women’s expectations.

  42. greyghost says:

    [D: As I recall you are the commenter who is a proud former slut and doesn't allow her husband to ejaculate during sex, right?]

    Man Dalrock that is just evil.. She is just lucky to be married. She is also talking trash because if she so loathes the man she is with to be that flippant about his sexuality she just made the point she is talking such trash to us. She would rather have a disabled man to abuse than be alone in her own life. And then comes here and talks trash about “spinsterhood as being no big deal and women don’t need men etc. She can’t pass up a chance to spit in a man’s face. This woman is no different than the woman in the article in the way they are so feral with feminism can’t gina tingle a man that will be loyal to them. This one just happens to be an abusive cunt.

  43. greenlander says:

    Susan has contended that 20% of men and 20% are promiscuous and are banging mostly each other and if they bang anybody else it’s an accident of the sexual marketplace. I am not so sure. She’s neglecting or simply overlooking the large number of women who are also pursuing the top 20% of guys, and she should know this because a lot of the readers that inspired her blog are non-slut women who are/were chasing the alpha pack and trying to get him to “commit.” 80-20 might be an exaggeration, but I don’t think 50-20 is. The top men enjoy disproportionate attention from women, both in number and intensity.

    I have to concur with you Badger, and with the other men on this thread who said similar things. Susan’s assertion that “the top 20% of men hook up with the top 20% of women” is wholly incorrect.

    Susan herself hasn’t been on a date with a guy since Dwight Eisenhower was president. She’s hearing the stories of the hos that read her blog and taking their stories at face value, but she doesn’t realize that the data she’s receiving is filtered through the lens of hamstervision. Badger, I agree that 80-20 may by an exaggeration, but 20/20 is wholly inaccurate. Her personal experience with what’s going on with twentysomething women is exactly zero.

    In fairness to Susan, she’s pandering to her audience which is young women. Young women in our culture simply won’t bite at the idea that their best strategy is settling while they are in their early twenties, so she’s selling a message of teling women to do some “carousel-lite” riding and then settle down in their late twenties. (In further fairness to Susan, she doesn’t call having a series of ten or so monogamous relationships before marriage “carousel riding” whereas I do, so we have a difference in nomenclature.) If I recall Susan’s story correctly, she took in about eight or so cocks before setting down and still got her upper beta and lived a happy life with kids. I’m happy for her that she pulled it off, but it’s a risky strategy in this SMV as all these soon-to-be spinsters are finding out.

    The part of the red pill that Susan hasn’t taken is that the male counterpart of those women who do either “full carousel” or “carousel-lite” isn’t getting anything. No woman wants anything to do with him, and all he has is porn and WoW. So while Susan makes the argument “women have a sex drive from fourteen from twenty-eight until they get married, so they should at least be able to get some cock to satisfy their urges, she’s completely ignoring the plight of the betas who don’t even have the option to get any nookie at all.

    Awhile back I found it entertaining to read Susan’s blog just because there are so many hamsters running loose. It’s great for studying female psychology, but I think some of her conclusions are just incongruent and wrong. And Susan herself will throw out an old-fashioned ad-hominem shaming language attack on guys on her blog who point this out. Now I’ve lost interest it in: it’s like reading 200 posts from Chels in a row. There are so many non-sequitur arguments being thrown around that I wouldn’t even know how to start rebutting them even if I had the time: the comments on her blog are like a big knotted ball of string that can’t be undone.

  44. Susan Walsh says:

    My last date as a single woman was during the golden era of Ronald Reagan.

    I find it interesting how very attached men in the Gamesphere are to the belief that “20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women.” I challenge any of you to produce one shred of data that supports that conclusion. I have waded into virtually all the existing data, of which there is a great deal, and have found this to be wholly untrue to the point of ridiculous exaggeration. For starters, let me just say that the number of female virgins on college campuses is 37%. The posts I linked above lay out much more data. To my knowledge, I am the only blogger to have applied rigorous analysis to the question. The rest of you are taking this on faith or basing it on your personal experience in the SMP.

    Now, there are other statements which would be more accurate, IMO. For example, 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men. Or, as Badger claims, 80% of women give “disproportionate attention” to 20% of the men. I don’t doubt that if you asked every woman on campus who she’d most like to get with, 20% would get the most votes. That is not the same thing as what percentage of women are having sex with those 20%. This question of semantics is critical.

    As for the New York Times article about UNC, the writer focused solely on interviewing sorority women. From my own post on the article:

    A significant percentage of the male student body is deemed “unacceptable” by their female peers.
    “Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool.”

    “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent.”

    Jayne Dallas is a promiscuous chick hooking up with frat stars. I doubt she would actually consider half the men on campus – probably more like the men in the top three frats. When she says “all the girls” she is of course referring to other sorority girls. The rest of the girls on campus are also invisible to her.

    As for the tendency of women to underreport, I agree that it exists, but not nearly to the degree aswhen Kinsey experienced it. Certainly, sociologists and psychologists feel that they are getting good data. Hookup culture is so pervasive that few women do feel shame about their sexual experiences, and the many women who just aren’t having much sex in college are interested in putting that across – they are dissatisfied with the dearth of relationships.

    FWIW, I am not getting any data from the women I know personally or hear from on the blog. I realize that’s a wholly inadequate source, just as men drawing conclusions from their own personal experience is.

    I think of the SMP as one in which 80% of both sexes are not getting what they want. For the males, that’s sex, they don’t care as much about having a girlfriend. For the women, it’s having a boyfriend – they are less focused on sex. The alpha males are happy as the primary beneficiaries of hookup culture. The 20% of women who are having at least some sex with alpha males (2 hookups per year?) don’t have anything to show for it, so they’re generally dissatisfied. A few women truly enjoy the slutty lifestyle.

    Finally, I have never said that women “should be able to get at least some cock to satisfy their urges.” I have simply observed that in an era where women typically go 10-15 years between menses and marriage, the number of virgins is likely to be small. And that is true.

  45. man_in_ri says:

    Nice to meet you Dalrock and other posters/readers on here.

    Long time reader and first time commenter on this blog. I discovered the mano-sphere blogs a 2-3 months ago and became hooked ever since. From my personal experience and observation 80-20 rule is categorically true. The 80-20 might be too simplistic but in reality I would say its probably more like 70-30 in practice where 30 percent of the top guys are getting 70 percent of the girls.

    Before discovering the mano-sphere blogs I was a beta in the 5-7 range in looks(I would say I’m a 5) trying to learn “game” and all the PUA stuff. I was asking girls who are in my league(4-7) but everyone one of them weren’t interested and I thought there was something wrong with me until I realized its the 80-20 rule coming into play in the current dating world. These girls who ‘should’ be in my league did not welcome my attention they were holding out for the dream of landing a guy in the 8-10 range aka alpha guys. Thank you feminism and social engineering,

    I swallowed the red pill, i’m cool with it now. I can go back to being myself, doing stuff I enjoy, and not having to think of how I can impress and woo a girl to be interested in me.

    From a sample of my friends 2 of them married in their early 20s and the last remaining 4(me included) remain single and the 3 single guys are “incel”(me included). Unless I go to an escort I get NO sex.

    [D: Welcome to the blog.]

  46. mjay says:

    I applaud the current SMP – two girlfriends, one married, one single.
    You need to let go of some absolute standard that women “need” to adhere to: you might as well try to teach a potato Latin declensions.

    Let go of the old ways. Men are finally free to enjoy life, without the yoke of family law and feminism dragging them down. More pussy, more steak!

  47. zed says:

    We also have single friends and the older women are doing way better than the older men, sorry to burst your bubble.

    There’s the endgame, folks. Even at the end of life women need men like a fish needs a bicycle.

    Of course “doing way better” remains undefined.

    However, if that is truly the case, they don’t need anything at all from us, now do they? Certainly not our sympathy.

  48. Wayfinder says:

    To address the ‘sausage’ comment apparently being promulgated by a 55 year old woman: 95% of young women have been surveyed to want marriage. Someone is projecting sour grapes.

  49. Sandy says:

    2 Susan Walsh

    For starters, let me just say that the number of female virgins on college campuses is 37%

    Are those virgins self-reported or virgins according to OB/GYN?

  50. zed says:

    95% of young women have been surveyed to want marriage.

    Didn’t they get the memo?

    The Feminists best-known action may have been in September 1969, when members picketed the New York City Marriage License Bureau, distributing pamphlets protesting the marriage contract:

    “The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York
    …All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.“[3]

    The Feminists held that women were oppressed by their internalization of patriarchal sex roles, and hence suffered from a kind of false consciousness. To liberate themselves from such oppressive roles, The Feminists held that the feminist movement must be entirely autonomous from men and eventually came to hold that women should be free of men in their personal lives as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminists

    I guess the question boils down to which group of women speaking for women that men should pay attention to – the young women, who most men realize may be somewhat flighty, or the old feminists who claim that whatever young women want is due to them suffering from false consciousness.

  51. zed says:

    @ Sandy –

    Plus, 67% is in a totally different ballpark than 80% ::roll::

  52. zed says:

    I meant 63% – giving a totally and completely different picture of situation than 80%.

  53. jack says:

    Dalrock and Susan:

    I have described that phenomenon as “carousel watching”. The number of riders is a minority, but there is a large contingent of women who are “holding out” for an alpha even though they are not cock-hopping. These are the women who go out on girls’ nights, drinking cosmos and ignoring every man in the place, waiting for Mr. Big.

    The fact that these women are not in an alpha’s bed does not actually make them available for a beta. They are like overpriced houses: They get an occasional showing, and an occasional realistic offer, but for the most part they are not really for sale, due to overpricing.

    Once in a while an alpha will have one of them as a sort of sexual midnight snack, but that is only between dating hotter women.

  54. Dalrock says:

    @Susan Walsh

    Dalrock, thanks so much for the link. I always appreciate the referrals! PMAFT is correct, I am the source of that 80/20 stat, not Kate. In fact, we discussed this at some length and I was very clear on this point. My own analyses of the data show that nowhere near close to 80% of women are actively targeting the top males.

    I’m always happy to send traffic your way Susan! I owe you an email reply BTW. I started responding to your mail the other day and was called away (sorry).

    Thanks for the clarification on why she quoted the statistics that way. I haven’t read the links you have provided, but just from considering this I don’t see how it could truly be unless the 80% of women not actively targeting the top males are somehow passively targeting the top males. Otherwise the dysfunction dam bursts.

    Or are you asserting that the 80% of men who aren’t getting any are holding out for the 20% of women who are the sluttiest and ignoring the other 80% of women?

  55. Marduk Conspiracy says:

    The tectonic shift hasn’t been felt yet.

    I think the explanation is simple enough though; in any market prices are indeed set at the margins. If you need an example, consider house prices. It doesn’t matter than 90% of people are still in their homes, paying down their mortgages. Its the other 10% who can’t cope, have to sell or foreclose who determine the prices everyone else has to live with. This has serious knock-on effects for everyone (e.g., perhaps making them stay put themselves) but its active participants in the market who decide how things work for the remaining 90%.

    [D: Good analogy, and yes the change is already happening on the margins. But the real shift hasn't happened yet. There are signals that the bubble will burst, but it hasn't yet. This is very important. All of the gnashing of teeth is for a small group on the margins. If 30% or more of the women now counting on delaying marriage until around 30 end up in this same spot the impact will be massive. The squealing we are hearing now will be nothing compared to the reaction once/if the change actually occurs.]

  56. Dalrock says:

    @Chels

    The problem with Hestia and partly Dr Helen is that they place all of the fault on women, which in women’s eyes, means that Hestia/Helen are also brainwashed by the patriarchy and old fashioned, so they’re not worth listening to.

    They will look for any excuse to reject out of hand something which goes against their own life’s choices, especially since they are deeply invested in them. It isn’t the source. No one is good enough to deliver this message to someone not receptive to it. This is purely human nature. The same goes for white knight so con men. Man, woman, married, divorced, never married, it doesn’t matter. They will find a reason to reject what they aren’t willing to hear.

    However, like anything else people tend to be distributed along a curve. Some men and women on the margins will be willing to hear this and change their minds. But even then I don’t think one blogger can do this. What we as bloggers can do is influence the conversation, and in doing so have an impact.

    BTW, if you think you know how to reach women in the group you are talking about (on the margin), you might consider starting your own blog. I started out reading Roissy’s blog, and one day clicked on the link at the bottom to start a wordpress blog. That is all it takes. I won’t promise a blogroll slot, but I’ll be happy to do a post helping you get the word out once you have a few posts up.

    It’s funny that you should say that, those women are about how old Bolick was when she dumped her boyfriend for no reason, they’re all 28 and single, and not looking to commit because they want to be indepedent. When I ask them if they really want to be independent from a man, they all say that they’re just not ready to settle down yet. Kate’s story is exactly like my friends think now, but if they do end as old cat ladies, it was all of their making.

    The thing about risk is the bad outcome seldom happens for everyone who takes the risk on. I would guess for some of your friends you describe above that they will have no problem whatsoever, and will tell every young woman they meet that the warnings they are being given are just a bunch of hot air. But if you follow enough women in that situation a significant number will have the bad outcome show up*. Ironically the more women who take on the risk today, the higher the percentage of them are likely to experience the bad outcome. The more women who don’t marry in their 20s, the more young men who don’t get the signal that they should be beefing up on their ability to act as a provider. When the women are finally ready to hail a husband as a wave they will find that they can’t bring all of those men out of retirement. How do you make up for a decade spent hanging out with the guys, doing bong hits and playing WOW while working as few hours as he needs to pay the rent? As the women in their late 20s and early 30s start to panic, the younger 20 somethings will tend to panic too. All of a sudden you could have a glut of women all looking for husbands at once. I think it may well be brutal.

    *People (especially women but men too) tend to think of risk as all or nothing. But that isn’t how it works. Smart people who take risks and have it work out fine will still warn others, because they understand what could have happened to them.

  57. Jane Wilder says:

    I didn’t say that I practiced what is written about in “Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow” although I find it fascinating, the neurobiology and neurochemistry of sexuality. In any case you are ridiculous to say that I don’t allow my husband to do this or that or make him do anything. Relationships that last as long as our marriage, that are still happy most of the time, that still have good relationships with their grown children are not based on either partner “making the other person” do anything. It is ongoing “conversation” that you all seem to have overlooked. Everyone you talk about is either talked about in unhuman terms or is the victim of some female giant vagina trap. It is pretty creepy the way you talk about other humans, very childish and fraternity boy prankster style. Grow up please . We are going to need actual adults to run the country.

    I never spit in anybody’s face. I have had a husband who struggled mightily with a terrible disability caused by his military service. I took care of him for many years because he is my husband, father of our children, a wonderful person and because we all love him very much. For your information, newsflash, some people still love their spouse and feel like taking care of them no matter what they look like, how sick or depressed they are, some people really honor their spouse. Does this mean they never fight? Of course not, it means they are human beings

    I am lucky to be married to him and he is lucky to be married to me, so what. This doesn’t mean that some people are not lucky to be single and happy. Many older women are content to live lives where they can do all the things they had to put on hold when they were younger. Men too. Men seem to need women more than the opposite when they are older. if the men worked as a provider at a 9-5 (or whatever shifts) they now have time for the leisure activities they enjoy in retirement. If the woman was the homemaker, she gets a chance to do stuff for herself too, instead of having her first priority be kids and husband. So if their husband divorces them for younger women or if he passes away, sure there is sadness and loss, but life goes on

    I don’t enjoy the company of individuals who call other people “cunts” and the like of either gender. That is just rude and immature. Maybe that is the cause of many of the problems that they are having with relationships with the opposite gender. It is really kind of funny coming from people who love calling women sluts because they enjoy sex as young people (I think most young people like sex) that they later complain when they have wives who get old, or have babies and get stretch marks and lose interest in sex because they are stuck with all the childrearing duties even though both wanted kids, and talking to a non-verbal person can get old after a few years when one had kid after kid. Laugh all you want about the material in “Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow”. It isn’t conjecture. It is scientifically studied, the sexuality of mammals (yes we are mammals). I wish I had had this book when I was younger. And it isn’t women pushing some agenda on men, it is about relationship, where both people participate. It builds feelings of love and bonding. But I can see talking to someone who calls someone they don’t even know a cunt is not worth it.

    @ ” I think some folks, particularly older folks, really have no idea of what young women and girls are up to these days. “

  58. Eileen says:

    @jack — acutally, you might be surprised at how many women really don’t know *how* to attract a man, and if you told them, they’d think you were spouting the kind of backward nonsense that feminism was “supposed” to correct. They usually know they’re not supposed to throw themselves at a guy, but, ok, then what? Plus, everyone who is neither a full-out alpha nor a slut is probably a little shy, and very much afraid of rejection. Unfortunately, shyness in a girl is interpreted as aloofness, and tentativeness and uncertainty in a guy is interpreted as weakness, and, well, there you are. Layer on that the uncertainty about the “rules” for sexual relationships, especially if you’d rather hold out for marriage, or, say you’re not especially clear on that point but you’re aware of how high the stakes are. It’s tough out there. I don’t miss it.

  59. Basil Ransom says:

    Days of Broken Arrows, nice catch. Every time I’ve heard of a man following a woman, it has not ended well. It is such a spectacularly beta move, in the woman’s mind, that I wonder if that alone is enough to kill it.

    Regarding whether Walsh is wrong on the 80/20 deal – Studies have found that about 70% of both men and women report 0-1 partners per year. BUT: The male and female means differ wildly – if they both were telling the truth, then the average should be similar.

    Here is some info from a study that asked students about the number of partners within the past 12 months with whom they had anal and oral as well as plain old vaginal intercourse.

    It has the raw number and percent of men and women answering 0-8, and then 9+. Using Excel, I found the average number of partners for the 9+ group, to make the overall sample mean what it is, 1.72 mean sexual partners per year among the men. Given that, the average for the 9+ group must be about 19.

    Then I multiply each group’s number of partners by its frequency (absolute, not percentage) in the population, and sum them all together, to find the total number of hookups that occurred in the sample. (Eg, 3839*1 + 995*2 …) Using the 19 figure from earlier, there were 17,338 hookups reported by the men.

    The results: The top 2.6% of men are responsible for 29% of the hookups. The top 5.4% are responsible for 40% of the hookups. The top 28% of the men are responsible for 78% of the hookups. These statistics are for Fall 2010.

    If we look at statistics for the Spring of 2000, we see a slight increase in hypergamy over 2000-2010. In 2000, the top captured noticeably fewer of the hookups. Here, the top 2.68% captured the top 25% of hookups vs 29% in 2010, and the top 5.4% captured the top 36%. The top 28.5% captured 75% of the hookups in 2000, vs 78% in 2010.

    In 2000, 28.5% of men reported no sexual partners. In 2010, 34.3% did, an increase of 20%, or 5.8 percentage points. For men who reported 1 partner, it went from 42.9% to 38.1%, a decrease of 4.9 percentage points, or 11%.

    One problem with comparing over time though is a change in demographics. Asians were 12% of the male sample in 2000, and 17% in 2010. Asians are less promiscuous and could significantly effect the number of men reporting 0 or 1 partners. On the other hand, the number of blacks and Hispanics increased, and they tend to have higher counts. An even bigger concern is how these students were selected to fill out the survey. The study claims random sampling, but does that mean they coerced students into filling it out?

    I can’t really argue one way or the other about Walsh’s point. I didn’t bother to analyze the female responses because they’re clearly warped (i.e. male mean =/= female mean, 1.72 vs 1.23). In my personal experience, the studs did not bang only sluts. Plus, the girls who hung out with studs were, of course, way more attractive than the girls (if any) who hung around the virgins.

    Source: http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_DataReport_Fall2010.pdf p26

    http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA_Reference_Group_Report_Spring2000.pdf

  60. Jane Wilder says:

    the above sent before I could reference the quote: ”
    I think some folks, particularly older folks, really have no idea of what young women and girls are up to these days.”
    I am probably considered older folks, I have been called quite a few names out of a derogatory place one being “grandma”. I am 61. I have a good idea as to what young women and girls are doing , and it is pretty much the same thing they have been doing since the advent of birth control pills, and really, before that as well. They are having sex. I think one of the main differences is that now they don’t have to pretend that they are not or get married if they think they might be pregnant asap.

    Sexuality is not a bad thing if the people involved are enjoying it and they take care to make sure that they are not spreading or contracting a disease or an unwanted pregnancy. I mean really, what is wrong with enjoying sex in a manner where both people are being safe and enjoying it? I am sorry but I do not see the whole “slut thing” as anything but sour grapes from some bitter people with personal gripes.

    As for staying married. Almost everyone in our circle of friends who got married has stayed married. All of the women had multiple premarital partners that they did not hide from their husbands. It isn’t a factor in anythiing. Maybe if it proves any point it is better to have a few partners before you marry. Our friends who are not married who are women are NOT looking for a man. They just are not. They have good friends and are grandmas to their friend’s kids to the point of being included in all family events and holidays and even living with them if they have surgery or the like. I don’t know what kind of people you all know, but the people we know help each other out. The men we know who are single are not happy. They want a woman (not all of them but most of them) Many are very bitter if they were married and were left for another man or were left to raise kids alone. Not so with the women. Men get much more help and sympathy (who knows why?) if they are single fathers after a death, is that considered being a victim for life? When women are left to raise kids alone people expect them to get it together and really bad mouth them. Many of our friends who were left by such men (Many PTSD Viet Nam vets who died young) pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and raised not just average but stellar kids on a shoe string. So, I think we who have been involved parents and now grandparents know what people are doing, and see it as pretty much the same stuff we did. Even when we lived in Kansas and were Mennonites, some of those farm girls who were very respected in the community got pregnant. Some got married, some didn’t. So even the Mennonites understand that young people like sex and are having sex before marriage.

  61. krakonos says:

    @Dalrock
    “As the women in their late 20s and early 30s start to panic, the younger 20 somethings will tend to panic too. All of a sudden you could have a glut of women all looking for husbands at once. I think it may well be brutal.”
    You seem to be trapped in old fashioned thinking. First of all you suppose the women will want to get married. No, they will just become single mothers. With enough single mothers in society the government has no option but provide for them whatever it costs, literally (even things like destruction of society). Second thing you suppose is monogamy. This is false even these days. If you look at male part of the marriage charts, you will see significantly more never married men then women (in 30s and 40s). It proves existence of serial monogamy – factual polygyny. It is not too far away polygyny is institutionalised in the west.
    Women cannot lose, only society can (compared to other societies).

  62. deti says:

    From experience in the past I think that 50/20 probably is about right, with a wide margin of error, + or – 10%. I doubt there will ever be a good, reliable, scientifically valid study nailing that percentage down. So with due respect to Susan, no one will ever be able to produce any scientific data to support 80/20 or any other range. I seriously doubt it can be produced with any reliable degree of scientific accuracy.

    I suspect women own up to their true partner counts for scientific studies in which anonymity and lack of judgment are guaranteed. Women definitely underreport and lie about their partner counts when a serious BF or prospective beta employer asks about it. Women instinctively know it’s important to men. I’ve argued many times before: women want to be sluts, they just don’t want to appear to be sluts when it counts. As a former blue piller/sans eyeglasses myself, I didn’t get this. I sure do now.

  63. Ya Boy Matt says:

    [D: As I recall you are the commenter who is a proud former slut and doesn't allow her husband to ejaculate during sex, right?]

    Oh boy got a link anyone?

    [D: She seems to be all over the map, probably a troll since her story seems to change. As for a link, you can start here. Chels calls her out on the proud slut part (with another link) a bit further down. Then she starts in on how great "Cupid's Poisoned Arrow" is, which is a book about how men ejaculating during sex (and orgasms in general) is a social construct created by our goal oriented society. See the author's blog here and here. See the book reviews on amazon too.]

  64. deti says:

    You know, after having read Basil’s post above, I wonder it he’s onto something there, if you interpret the means data to be significant. It assumes accurate counts. If the women are STILL underreporting even to researchers, it means the 80/20 hypothesis has some scientific support.

  65. Basil Ransom says:

    Mrs. Walsh,
    You said:

    For the males, that’s sex, they don’t care as much about having a girlfriend. For the women, it’s having a boyfriend – they are less focused on sex.

    False. Attractive women under 25 do not want a boyfriend.Flubbing this bit can’t help but make the rest of your views, warped, and spectacularly wrong.

    A poster by the name of Athlone McGinnis on the RooshV forum described it well, so I don’t have to:

    1. I have personally witnessed this trend. It is real-young women (25 and under, to be general) tend to be commitment-phobes. They just want fun, and when any male tries to push something more serious on them, they tend to get scared away very quickly. This is another big reason why “nice guys” (the more commitment oriented types) finish last-women do get scared by their seriousness and attempted chivalry.

    MiXX describes this phenomenon pretty well here. To keep it simple, young American girls today (especially the attractive ones) have a great setup in our modern age. They’re shielded from reality not just by their parents, but also by male relatives and a host of unrelated men willing to hand them the world in a rather transparent bid to get their attention and possible sexual access (and fueled by a feminized, emasculating culture). They have no need or real incentive to be practical in such a favorable environment (all of their immediate needs are more than taken care of and they want for relatively little), so partying is priority number one.

    2. Men here often comment on American women by noting their attitude and almost paranoid fear of seeming vulnerable and/or doing anything nice for a man or adopting a more “traditional role” at any one time in a relationship. This phenomenon is real, and it is stoked by the flames of the women’s liberation movement and feminism. This is the train of thought that has pervaded most corners of American society.

    Young women here do (sometimes even unconsciously) fear the possibility of old, patriarchal elements returning to their society and stifling their freedom and fun, locking them down in a more traditional role. Those elements are represented by men who want to lock them up in a traditionally monogamous relationship early. American feminism has helped to make this fear very widespread, causing many young women to view any man pushing commitment as something of an enemy or a threat to her liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    The only guys who can get away with being so commitment oriented in youth on a regular basis are those of extremely high value (the top 1-5% or so). Young women will want them in order to impress their friends with their cool, “hot” guy-more practical concerns are irrelevant.

    3. This certainly varies by age, as this fantastic post makes clear. Once women pass their prime (the decline generally begins at around 26), the dynamic changes direction once again.

    Younger guys may be more relationship oriented today than they are given credit for, and I would posit that part of this is due to desperation. Younger men have far lower sexual market values than their female peers. They get less in the way of direct interest from the opposite sex in most cases, and are thus more likely to have a scarcity mentality-any decent looking girl that comes along can get him to committ easily, because female company, due to its rarity in his young life, is more valuable to him. Consequently, the very high value young women enjoy contributes significantly to their commitment-phobia. They have many options, and are constantly being told never to settle, thus lowering the chance of any one guy locking her down.

    Once you hit the late-20’s, however, men gain higher market value and women begin to lose it. This is when men become much harder to lock down, and women start really gunning for their own “Mr. Big” to marry, usually getting a little more desperate(read: settling) with each year. Their priorities change as well-“cool” and “hot” guys are less enticing to them than they were in their youth, while wealthier, stable men hold more appeal.

    See http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/dating/story/2011/02/Men-women-flip-the-script-in-gender-expectation/43219110/1

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2046035,00.html

  66. Ya Boy Matt says:

    What is another interesting thing to consider from Basil’s post is the decline in the number of men in college in that decade 2000-2010. It lends a lot of evidence that as the number of men decreases, rather than being more accommodating, or better in any way, hypergamy INCREASES.

  67. zed says:

    The more women who don’t marry in their 20s, the more young men who don’t get the signal that they should be beefing up on their ability to act as a provider.

    Why “should” they, Dalrock?

    It is just as difficult to get someone to hear a perspective which does not fit into their paradigm as it is one which goes against his or her life choices.

    Unfortunately, nature does not care the least for “shoulds.” Going back to one of your reader’s comments about Dennis Prager’s comment that it was good for a man to be slaughtered by an ex-wife – it may have been good for “society” for the fatted calf to be butchered, but it was not all that good for the calf itself.

    So, why “should” a young man be “beefing up his ability to act as a provider” – from the young man’s perspective, that is? Is it going to increase his chances at landing a loyal wife – particularly at the stage of his life when his physical need for that is the greatest? Is it going to guarantee that the children he provides for are his own? Does it guarantee, or even slightly increase the probability that he will be able to be in their lives and have him in his for his entire life?

    In fact, it does none of those things – as you have documented here over and over again.

    In fact, what happens to a man who puts in all the work required to “fatten” himself, beefing up his ability to be a provider, is that when the banquet planners look out at the herd choosing which one to butcher first, they will choose the one who has done the best job of fattening himself.

    This is the law of negative and perverse incentives – if you punish what you would like to see more of, and reward what you would like to see less of, now matter how much effort you put into it the direction of cultural drift will be the opposite of what you claim you want.

    When the women are finally ready to hail a husband as a wave they will find that they can’t bring all of those men out of retirement. How do you make up for a decade spent hanging out with the guys, doing bong hits and playing WOW while working as few hours as he needs to pay the rent?

    And, if the reports of the younger men are anywhere close to being halfway true – getting more sex than all those guys who who spend that decade fattening themselves up to be slaughtered?

    What I find well and truly annoying about the dialogue is that it remains focused entirely on women and their needs. I would speculate that you may have some road left ahead of you on your path to become a recovered so-con, Dalrock.

    Why in the world is everyone obsessing about the life story of just another bimbo spouting feminist bullshit. I am actually cheering for one of the minor characters in this contemporary melodrama – Allan.

    To me, he came out the big winner in all this – married to a woman who seemingly appreciates him for what he is. NOT married to some narcissistic bitch who lost her tingles for him when he decided to support what she wanted – as men were constantly exhorted to do in those days. I do agree that having Kate take him shopping for his wedding suit was Allan’s wife-to-be’s cruel way of rubbing Kate’s nose in what she had been asleep and let get away from her. And, Kate was so stupid that she got a kick out of explaining that this man she was shopping for a suit with was actually not marrying her, but some other woman.

    Perhaps that takes “being a good sport” to a whole ‘nother level.

    So, true, the contemporary choices of young women aren’t sending the signal to young men that they need to beef up their ability to act as a provider – NOW – and increasing their probability of dying of a heart attack brought on by stress in their 50s.

    So, my question to you, Dalrock, why do you consider this such a bad thing? Do you hate young men that much that you would happily see most of them being fattened up for the slaughter for the benefits of a self-absorbed woman like Kate?

    Perhaps, 40-50 years down the line, they may the ones to switch the situation mentioned by Jane Wilder – and it may be the older men at that time who are doing better than the older women.

    Endgame – life is a marathon, not a sprint. It doesn’t matter who leads the pack in the first few hundred yards – it matters who finishes the race and what condition they are in when they finish it.

    So, let’s forget about what young men “should” do – what man-bot programming we would want to implant in one of their positronic brains.

    And, let us pose the question “Why would they”, and, if it is something we wish them to do, what incentives and rewards are we willing to offer them for doing it?

    [D: I think you misunderstood my point. I was talking about it from the point of view of the women delaying marriage. They aren't considering how their actions en masse are very likely influencing their male peers. I'm not shaming men who decide not to knock themselves out to be providers. I've been pretty clear on that, including several posts. I would provide links but I'm pretty sure you have read them. If not, let me know and I will.]

  68. zed says:

    It lends a lot of evidence that as the number of men decreases, rather than being more accommodating, or better in any way, hypergamy INCREASES.

    Which is exactly the way human nature works – scarcity increases hoarding.

    If women perceive that “there are plenty of men to go around”, they feel no sense of urgency about nailing one down and less sense of anxiety about getting the best deal in exchange for access to their magic vagina that they can get.

    As women’s perception of supply goes down, her anxiety about getting stuck with a sub-normal specimen goes up. In a student body with 50 men for every 50 women, women can believe that only the bottom 10% of women will have to settle for the bottom 10% of men. However, when there are 60 women for every 40 men, 1 out of 3 women will get no man at all, 15% of women will have to settle for the bottom 10% of men, and the bidding war for the top men goes crazy – producing a sort of “alpha bubble” in college environments.

  69. Basil Ransom says:

    Hypergamy does, numerically, increase when women are more abundant. But it’s still easier for men as a whole to get attention from women. The effect is stronger for the stud than for the average man. For the below average man, the effect might be close to zero, but I can’t see it being negative.

    As for the 80/20 rule, that’s not strictly accurate.

    Given the data I quoted, it is accurate to say that 20% of the men accrue ~70% of the hookups, and 30% accrue 80%. It has to be phrased in terms of hookups, and not girls, because the data isn’t available. Not only do women lie, but it seems like it’d require complicated survey technique to identify who had sex with whom.

    Some caveats: men may be underreporting their number of partners (see link below), and the in the statistics analyzed, 5% of men are gay or bisexual. IME, if campus gays were much more promiscuous, it wasn’t apparent. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were less promiscuous.

    We know women lie: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html

  70. zed says:

    I would provide links but I’m pretty sure you have read them.

    I’m also pretty sure I have read them, Dalrock. I’m continuing to play my role of professional irritant here – something I have enough practice at doing that I think I do it pretty well.

    I came of age during a time when men who had spent a lot of time “beefing up their ability to be a provider” were dropping dead left and right. In a small town in farming country, there was seldom a period of 3 months go by without some man being killed in a work related accident, and heart attacks for men in their 50s were an utter cliche.

    Imagine how I laughed when I heard what eventually came to be called the “Apex Fallacy” and that these men were so privileged.

    The point I am making about perverse incentives is that there is no way in hell that young men are going to return to the “privileged” position of working themselves to an early death just to provide better pickings for his ex-wife and her lawyers.

    If you take one of the most perverse of the perverse incentives, it is the tendency of the courts to award an even greater share of the marital assets to a woman who was supported in her desire to be a Stay At Home Mother because she “sacrificed her career.”

    If you look at Japan, and the rise of the men being termed “Grass Eaters” or “Herbivores”, they represent a very ominous trend for young women these days. Not only are young women in Japan finding that they cannot raise the price they able to charge for sex, some of them are having trouble even giving it away.

    If you look at the changes in law that allow it to be even easier to falsely accuse young college age men of rape, and destroy their college careers and income prospects for life, chronicled at blogs like the False Rape Society (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/) and A Voice for Men (http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/the-american-university-of-vigilante-justice/) it may be an indication that men’s disappearance from the college dating scene and the success track might have a significant component of men diving for the refuge of the “glass cellar.”

    Strangely enough, men who have tight Game are seemingly able to bed a lot more women than their STEM-majoring counterparts – even though they have the women bring the beer for their booty-call.

    As you have seen from the comments of female commenters here, you can warn young women of the negative outcomes of their choices and women of all ages will argue you to the death over it – refuting and denying everything you say.

    I think it will take a large percentage of women experiencing the dire results you forecast, and talking about it honestly, to make any impression on young women.

    In the meantime, if the caterwauling of the socons is any indication, more and more young men are making the choice to be Free-Range-Men and more and more women are choosing to end up like Kate – who according to the label on her interview with Gayle King is “single and loving it.”

  71. Retrenched says:

    Re: 80/20:

    Personally I think the 80/20 estimate is a slight exaggeration for the most part, but it’s not too far from the truth. That number may be an accurate estimate for the bigger cities, and on college campuses it might even be as high as 90/10. In small flyover towns like mine, though, it’s probably more like 70/30 or so.

    Also, while saying that 80% of girls are riding the carousel is too high, I think Susan’s estimate of 20% is too conservative. I’d put the number of carousel riders at about 30-40%, with another 30% watching and holding out for an alpha guy (the carousel watchers, as Jack calls them). Which leaves the remaining 30-40% of women to be split by the other 70-80% of men (some of whom are still able to find girlfriends and wives from this remainder).

    So essentially there are two sexual markets running side by side. In one we have 60-70% of women ruthlessly competing for the top 20-30% of men, and in the other we have the remaining 70-80% of men ruthlessly competing for the 30-40% of women who would consider dating non-alphas.

  72. If the women are STILL underreporting even to researchers, it means the 80/20 hypothesis has some scientific support.

    On all of these surveys there’s always an admission that women are known to underreport, AND men are known to overreport. Putting aside the question of whether government statistics are always accurate, the people doing the surveys know that self reported partner counts are inaccurate for most of the people surveyed, and they know how its inaccurate. (One must ask the question why Susan Walsh never brings up how women underreport and men overreport, despite all the researchers in this area copping to this fact.) This means that the 80/20 rule (or something close to it) has serious scientific support.

    I have described that phenomenon as “carousel watching”. The number of riders is a minority, but there is a large contingent of women who are “holding out” for an alpha even though they are not cock-hopping. These are the women who go out on girls’ nights, drinking cosmos and ignoring every man in the place, waiting for Mr. Big.

    The fact that these women are not in an alpha’s bed does not actually make them available for a beta. They are like overpriced houses: They get an occasional showing, and an occasional realistic offer, but for the most part they are not really for sale, due to overpricing.

    Once in a while an alpha will have one of them as a sort of sexual midnight snack, but that is only between dating hotter women.

    The “carousel watchers” are mentally “carousel riders” so they are carousel riders all the same. Among the 80% of women carousel watching and carousel riding is probably on a continuum. Hotter chicks of the 80% spend more time carousel riding, less attractive chicks of the 80% spend more time carousel watching. However, there are no pure carousel riders or carousel watchers. Occasionally an alpha will bang chicks on the lower end of the 80%, and the mismatch between the numbers of alphas and the numbers of just the hotter chicks of the 80% mean that logistically even the hottest chick can’t spend all of her time carousel riding.

  73. grerp says:

    I agree with zed that Allan had a near miss and probably feels relieved to have gotten off with just a broken heart and some humiliation/career rearranging in the short term. Bolick seems like the type to have a EPL episode right around the seven-year mark. I could be wrong, but the pattern with women who suffer from the problem that has no name is that it’s a life-long condition that may or may not go into periods of temporary remission.

    As per the discussion above about hearing this message from the right sender, I did blog about this, but I agree with Dalrock that people generally only listen to what they want to hear, esp. if the message runs contrary to the way they want to conduct their lives in the short term.

  74. zed says:

    [D: I think you misunderstood my point. I was talking about it from the point of view of the women delaying marriage. They aren't considering how their actions en masse are very likely influencing their male peers. ]

    Of course, they aren’t, Dalrock. As TFH repeatedly points out, women in general do not consider men to be human beings – simply as resources to be exploited.

    This means that you, as a man, will be considered by young women as saying what you are saying as a means of perpetuating “male privilege.” When Chels send this link to her girlfriends in the age range we are discussion, they accuse her of needing “patriarchy detox.”

    Frankly, I don’t think you understand the point of view of women delaying marriage well enough to talk about it. Certainly, I see very little evidence that women in that age range (and few women in any age range) are receptive to what you are saying.

    And, I will keep making the point that if you want to change the behavior of young men that you will need to consider things from their point of view and examine and try to have some effect on the perverse incentives that dictate the lives they lead.

  75. deti says:

    It’s a real tell about our culture that only one side gets all the publicity. More and more women in their late 20s, 30s and 40s with their tales of woe. It’s always the same: had fun in college, slept with beautiful alphas, rejected a few good men, now I’m [insert advanced age here], can’t find a man. Why oh why the shortage of good attractive men and why can’t I find one who wants to marry my awesomely awesome self?”

    And once again, here is the flip side. Average man has a serious GF and maybe a fling or two. Gets out of HS and goes to junior college, then to university. He has a cubicle job earning some decent money. He’s fit, well dressed, and educated, but he’s average looking and doesn’t have a lot of money. He can’t get any woman — even at his church — to pay even one bit of attention to him. Women routinely turn up their noses at him, declining dates, LJBFing him and making excuses why they won’t pay any attention to him.

    But he isn’t a well paid journalist who owns three homes and writes articles for Atlantic. So no one hears about him. There won’t be any articles written about him. There won’t be any Today show segments about him. Few blogs outside the Manosphere will write about him. The MSM assumes due to the apex fallacy that he can get women to sleep with him merely because he is young and single.

  76. Meek says:

    A simplistic analysis of the age of marriage chart, with projected “baked-in” never-married rate for 2020 below.

    The idea is as follows: in 2000, 35-39 age group had 11.0% never-married women. In 2010, 45-49 age group had 8.8% never-married. Does this mean only 20% of never-married women that were in the 35-39 cohort managed to marry in the past 10 years?
    In 2010, 35-39 age group had 13.3% never-married. If the 20% marriage ratio holds, in 2020, there are 10.6% never-married women in 45-49 age group.

    20-24 in 2000: 72.1%
    30-34 in 2010: 21.9% (70% marriage rate)
    projected 30-34 in 2020: 23.7%

    25-29 in 2000: 34.0%
    35-39 in 2010: 13.3% (59% marriage rate)
    projected 35-39 in 2020: 18.0%

    30-34 in 2000: 17.8%
    40-44 in 2010: 9.8% (45% marriage rate)
    projected 40-44 in 2020: 11.8%

    35-39 in 2000: 11.0%
    45-49 in 2000: 8.8% (20% marriage rate)
    projected 45-49 in 2020: 10.6%

    40-44 in 2000: 8.7%
    50-54 in 2010: 7.5% (14% marriage rate in 10 years)
    projected 50-54 in 2020: 8.4%

    An idle exercise, of course. If there is any accuracy it is probably going to be more accurate for the older age groups, at least if the premise that they can’t really affect the situation too much anymore is true. Well, we can check back in 10 years time.

  77. 1lettuce says:

    @deti

    I think the media not listening to the frustrations of young men goes beyond them not being wealthy. I think most media would describe AFCs as nerds, mamas boys, and basement-dwellers. Almost, as if to say ‘ha ha, nerd, you can’t get laid! What a total dweeb!’

    I mean, look at modern tv. Are there ANY decent male characters out there? We’re either oafs, slobs, or socially retarded techies.

    It’s the usual ‘anti-intelligence’ agenda going on, in America specifically – here we dont value intelligence anymore in regular media (I.e. The stereotypical high school viewpoint of intelligence is the opposite of athletic, and being athletic is priority number 1′.)

    Just my 0.02.

  78. Susan Walsh says:

    I do not dispute that 80% of women find 20% of men the most attractive. I was specifically addressing the question of how much sex is being had. Although 37% of college women are virgins, 91% of college women have had 0-5 partners over four years. Even at the high end of that – 5 partners, we’re not talking about slutty women or women who are hooking up with acquaintances. Others here may consider 5 a high number, YMMV. However, the numbers for men look about the same. 43% are virgins (this is where Kate got the claim that male virgins outnumber female virgins). 92% of males have 0-5 sexual partners. The number of men having 11 or more hookups in college is 2%.

    Obviously, there’s not that much intercourse happening on any given weekend. However, when you ask males, they estimate that 75-85% of their male classmates got laid the previous weekend. At this point several researchers have successfully replicated this data in various studies. Basically, the hookup culture dominates, even as most students are not particularly active participants. This leads to intense peer pressure, as well as feelings of inadequacy.

    At the bottom line, there are lots of dissatisfied young people who are not connecting with one another. Why not? Why aren’t the men and women who have each had one sexual partner in all of college finding a way to get to know one another, and begin relationships? In addition to the cultural effect cited above, I believe that the divide between men and women is greater than ever before. There are many reasons for this, but I do squarely lay it at the feet of feminism, with its accompanying misandry. Males are less dominant, women are more aggressive, and few have developed relationship skills. It’s not conducive to friendship, much less romance.

    However, I think Jack made an excellent point about carousel watching. There are many women who would love nothing more than to get with an alpha, even if their own SMV is lower, and they will do “whatever it takes.” Many of those just don’t get the chance. I’ve heard many stories about the least attractive women in a friend group issuing the most nuclear rejections of guys in bars. I don’t have a good sense of what percentage comprises that group.

    I think 50/20 is a good estimate re attraction, expectations, etc. But those having frequent intercourse (>3 partners per year) is only around 2%. Another 6% or so are in the 6-10 range.

    In short, we are in agreement on the concept re social proof and hypergamy. For a return to assortative mating, female sexuality will need to be restrained, so that carousel watching is not a viable option.

    The stat that I fed Kate Bolick was intended to point out the effect of female hypergamy since the Sexual Revolution, and illustrate that 80% of men are on the sidelines. It’s not just men, though. Many women who are not carousel riders or watchers are also not getting what they want. If there is any real potential for improvement, I think it must come from finding a way to connect that group of men and women who are sitting it out.

  79. Susan Walsh says:

    @Basil Ransom

    Given the data I quoted, it is accurate to say that 20% of the men accrue ~70% of the hookups, and 30% accrue 80%. It has to be phrased in terms of hookups, and not girls, because the data isn’t available.

    This is the conclusion I reached, and the one that Kate Bolick refers to in her article.

  80. Susan Walsh says:

    (One must ask the question why Susan Walsh never brings up how women underreport and men overreport, despite all the researchers in this area copping to this fact.)

    This has been addressed by many researchers, who go to great lengths to assure anonymity. The most common approach is to ask students to fill out a survey online after generating a random ID number that is not connected to their name, but to their IP address. While this may not eradicate all error – some students may be in denial, or lie for other reasons, it is believed that stats today are much more reliable than even 10 years ago. For example, 43% of males reporting that they are virgins could probably only happen with online anonymity. And such small numbers of males reporting >11 partners suggests they aren’t inflating their numbers much either. Most college students believe that other people have many sexual partners while in college.

    The stats I’m citing here are from a Justice Department study on sexual assault. Similar numbers have come out of academic research, the CDC, etc.

  81. samuel2112 says:

    Great Post. What I found amazing about the aforementioned NY Times article, was that as a man I would think with such a high percentage of women it would be easy to have a girlfriend on campus. However this is what one male college student named Patrick Hooper stated (quoted from the article)
    Indeed, there are a fair number of Mr. Lonelyhearts on campus. “Even though there’s this huge imbalance between the sexes, it still doesn’t change the fact of guys sitting around, bemoaning their single status,” said Patrick Hooper, a Georgia senior. “It’s the same as high school, but the women are even more enchanting and beautiful.”

    So there you go, it makes absolutely no difference if the ratio is in favor of men. Even in a campus which is almost 60% women there are lonely men. This is why Zeta males or Men Going Their Own Way men have opted out of the dating scene and want nothing to do with women at all.
    They have been hurt and burnt by women who rejected them as “nice guys” to date abusive or unemotional Alpha males.

    These men as they get graduate college and get will reject 35+ “cougar women” with the mindset saying to older 35+ women “You rejected me in my 20’s, and in high school, so I say to you I reject you now” Karma is painful. Also these men as they hit their mid 30’s will reject women their same age for the same reason. What goes around comes around. It is an outrage that so many Zeta MGTOW males are opting out from women and calling for some type of gender separatism.Young and older men are hurt and angry at women. The feminist backlash is real.I do not know what the solution is? Can anyone tell me?

  82. TFH says:

    Marduk,

    I think the explanation is simple enough though; in any market prices are indeed set at the margins.

    Yes! Absolutely!

    i) It only takes 20% of men to avoid marriage for ALL single women to be in big trouble. 5 women competing for 4 grooms is a pretty stressful dynamic.

    ii) It only takes a few men to decide to work fewer hours and stay out of the higher tax brackets, for the entire edifice of government supporting feminism to be in big trouble.

    iii) It takes only ONE man practicing Game to deprive 10 manginas of what little scraps they were getting.

    iv) VR Sex in 2020 only has to be good enough to get 20% of men to decide they would rather do this than incur the search costs of a real woman (who might be in the 6-7 range looks-wise). That is a problem for ALL women, and benefits ALL men, even those who don’t use VR Sex.

    That is what I keep saying, the margins matter. Nothing has be done by all people to affect all people.

  83. TFH says:

    As TFH repeatedly points out, women in general do not consider men to be human beings – simply as resources to be exploited.

    Beta males, yes. Women see them as an unlimited natural resource.

    An Alpha male, however, will be excused of just about anything, including murder (if he is alpha enough), by women. That is why Game matters, even for men who do not want to get laid. Game results in a man being treated better by society as a whole (as women ultimately determine who is treated well and who isn’t).

  84. ruddyturnstone says:

    “The average number of hookups for a graduating senior is 7.
    25% of college students will never hook up.
    30% will hook up three times or less in four years.
    30% will hook up 4-9 times.
    15% will hook up 10 times or more during college.
    91% of college students report that their campus is characterized by a hookup culture.
    In other words, 85% students hook up rarely if at all. Only 10% or so have four hookups per year.”

    I wonder how hooking up from four to nine times is considered to be “rarely if at all.” Nine hookups mean more than two per college year. And, of course, that doesn’t count sex with “official” BFs. Or, I suppose, sex during summer, spring or winter breaks. And so on.

    Back in the day (in the eighties), a guy who “hooked” up with nine different girls, in addition to having sex with whatever “official” GFs he had, and not counting what went on when school was not in sesssion, would have been considered quite the “Casanova.” A girl with a similar record would have been considered a “slut,” or, at best, “easy.” Now, such folks are presented as being the paragons of abstemiousnous!

    I also wonder why 91 per cent of the students say that their campus is characterized by a hookup culture if 85 per cent hookup rarely, if at all.The simple truth is that most of the men are not hooking up, because the women don’t want them. Most of the women are hooking up, and admit that most women are hooking up, but, when push comes to shove, they always or almost always underestimate or outright lie about their own participation in the hooking up. It’s always the other girl(s) who are doing it, never the one being interviewed.

    Despite what some claim, women do still feel some residual “shame” or embarassment or reluctance to admit or whatever you want to call it, when it comes to their own promiscuity.

  85. Interested says:

    The point that seems to get missed here is the difference between number of partners and the number of times someone has sex.

    For example, you could have a guy in college that had three total partners and each of them were a drunken one night stand with a gal who blew him off the next day never to be seen again. Sex count over three years? Three. Big deal.

    Or you could have a girl with three partners, none of which ended up being a monogamous relationship. But boy does she hope. So she fucks the alpha repeatedly over the course of a semester hoping that he will eventually realize what a catch she is and dump the parade of girls he is banging. Of course, he doesn’t and she finally gives up. In the meantime she fucked him twenty times that semester. Repeat with two other men. Sex count over three years? Sixty. In between her episodes of “hoping and fucking” she sneers at a great majority of men who make a play for her and tolerates the rest. So technically she isn’t riding the carousel, but she surely isn’t much of a catch. She’s just another self appraised overpriced house as described in an earlier post.

    But I also seem to remember a great post by Solomon II where he talks about “emotionally single” girls.

    “This phenomenon may also explain how most women can lie with a straight face about how many men they’ve been with. They count the number of boyfriends they’ve had while discounting the number of men who for whom they were nothing more than a jizz receptacle. The concept of being emotionally single actually helps me understand a lot about my past girlfriends and flings who would say “I’ve only had 5 boyfriends my whole life”, yet they were bare ass up on the roof of my building getting fucked against a rather impressive downtown skyline on the first or second date.”

    These women are the train wrecks for statistics. They say they only had 3 partners in college. Three guys that stuck around emotionally for a while so they counted. But forget all the drunken hook ups and blow jobs. Those don’t count. I don’t really care how anonymous the surveys are. I have met women like this and they believe that they are being completely truthful. There is no doubt. They rationalized it and now it is the complete truth and it comes right out of their mouth without any hesitation. Why let a good story get bogged down with facts?

  86. Brendan says:

    Then she starts in on how great “Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow” is, which is a book about how men ejaculating during sex (and orgasms in general) is a social construct created by our goal oriented society. See the author’s blog here and here. See the book reviews on amazon too.

    This is pretty much a direct attack on male sexuality in particular. It has eerie similarities to some of the so-called “femdom” perversion where men are deliberately denied orgasm so that they will be more attentive and obedient to their female tops/wives. Effective? Perhaps, but at the expense of male sexuality. More misandry, really.

  87. deti says:

    I’m beginning to think that maybe the message is sinking in. I suspect that women do know about the problem. They do know that these men won’t marry them. They do know that most men are single and don’t get any. They do know that men are prone to pump & dump.

    But women just don’t care.

    They would rather be single than accept a man perceived as less than the absolute best they could possibly get. Years after college they still pine away for the alphas who they slept with a couple of times but who would never commit to them. Still reaching for that brass ring, they sleep with alphas while they can and then give interviews to journalists after they can’t. Women certainly don’t care about the plight of the men they dump.

  88. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Deti you are absolutely correct, men have started to catch on and are doing the same. Men would rather be with a woman of character from the past, but now we have begun to see that men are starting to prefer no woman, than a subpar, inferior carousel riding specimen.

  89. deti says:

    Well, Ya Boy, I agree, but my point was that women don’t care. My point was that women would rather be single than give a less than alpha guy a chance.

  90. ruddyturnstone says:

    , “91% of college women have had 0-5 partners over four years”

    Says who? The college women themselves? How can you possibly continue to take that at face value?

    “Obviously, there’s not that much intercourse happening on any given weekend.”

    Or, obviously, there is a quite a bit of intercourse going on, but the women are lying about their participation in it. Why would everyone agree that the hookup culture is the “dominant” one on campus, if so few peope were actually engaging in it?

    And it isn’t just on campus, I can assure you. A few years ago, I happened to be working a job in which almost all of my co workers were much younger than me. College age, or slightly older, for the most part. Of the guys, one or two were considered to be “hot” by all or almost all of the girls. The other guys? They were invisible to the girls. The two “alpha” guys could, and did, have sex with most of the girls, some as one night stands or hookups, some as brief flings, and some (the hottest)as official GFs. But just about all of the women were having some sex. Of the guys who were not considered “hot,” a couple did have GFs, but most did not, and were not able to “hook up” either.

    “the CDC”

    The CDC went door to door and asked people in their homes to fill out forms and undergo interviews. The notion that young women would be honest in such circumstances, with their roommates, siblings, or parents possibly in the next room, is ludicrous.

    “At the bottom line, there are lots of dissatisfied young people who are not connecting with one another. Why not? Why aren’t the men and women who have each had one sexual partner in all of college finding a way to get to know one another, and begin relationships? In addition to the cultural effect cited above, I believe that the divide between men and women is greater than ever before. There are many reasons for this, but I do squarely lay it at the feet of feminism, with its accompanying misandry. Males are less dominant, women are more aggressive, and few have developed relationship skills. It’s not conducive to friendship, much less romance.”

    Blah, blah, blah. NO! Women and men are actually more likely to be “friends” now than in the past. The problem is simply hypergamy. Almost no guy is ever good enough for today’s gal. She LJBFs all those lonely beta guys, many, if not most, of whom, would be happy to be BF and GF with her. The women are either riding the carousel of hookup culture with alphas themselves, or watching it and wishing to participate in it, or not having sex or a relationship at all.

    “For the males, that’s sex, they don’t care as much about having a girlfriend. For the women, it’s having a boyfriend – they are less focused on sex.”

    Wrong. Study after study has shown that young men are more desirous of an LTR than young women are. Particularly after a guy has lost his “virginity,” what he really wants is a GF. It’s the women who are insisting on sex, sex with alphas that is. That is what they, the women, value more than a relationship with a beta. Sure, part of what a guy want from his GF is sex, but that really is only part of it. Men, particularly young men, crave female company and approval, tenderness and caring and so on. There are millions and millions of young beta males out there who would over the moon to be BF and GF with college and other young women. BUT THE WOMEN DON’T WANT THEM OR THAT. They want the alphas. Even if only to be sex servants to them. That’s the reality.

  91. ruddyturnstone says:

    “This phenomenon may also explain how most women can lie with a straight face about how many men they’ve been with. They count the number of boyfriends they’ve had while discounting the number of men who for whom they were nothing more than a jizz receptacle. The concept of being emotionally single actually helps me understand a lot about my past girlfriends and flings who would say “I’ve only had 5 boyfriends my whole life”, yet they were bare ass up on the roof of my building getting fucked against a rather impressive downtown skyline on the first or second date.”

    “These women are the train wrecks for statistics. They say they only had 3 partners in college. Three guys that stuck around emotionally for a while so they counted. But forget all the drunken hook ups and blow jobs. Those don’t count. I don’t really care how anonymous the surveys are. I have met women like this and they believe that they are being completely truthful. There is no doubt. They rationalized it and now it is the complete truth and it comes right out of their mouth without any hesitation. Why let a good story get bogged down with facts?”

    Exactly right, as far as it goes. But it goes much further. If even a “jizz receptacle” feels some sort of embarassment about the true number of her sex partners, some need to rationalize, how much more so does a woman who still wears an air of respectability? Again, I’m not talking about the girls who are fucking on the roof ten seconds after meeting a guy, or who give out various kinds of “jobs” like candy. I’m talking about girls who dress “nice,” who come from real families, who go home for Christmas and go to church with their grandmas and so on and so forth. It is young women like these who have had a half dozen or more “offiicial BFs.” Maybe, maybe, she reports all of these on a survey. But the guy she met at freshman orientation, when it seemed like all the other kids were hooking up so she did so too? That guy doesn’t “count.” The guy in Florida on spring break? He doesn’t “count” either. Her HS BFs maybe “count,” but that guy she gave a blowjob to her last year in summer camp, or the guy she slept with a couple of times when she was a CIT? No way.

    There was a movie a little while ago (I can’t remember the name) about a couple in their mid twenties. They are having a breakup, basically because the woman honestly (as she would never IRL) tells her partner that he is like the fourteenth or fifteenth guy she has slept with. He can’t believe it, at first. He, as a more or less movie version of a beta male, certainly hasn’t slept with anywhere near as many women. But, for a girl, even a “nice” girl, it was not at all unusual. And why would it be? Young men are horny. Even alpha guys, if given a chance, will fuck almost anything if nothing better is immediately on tap. A moderately attractive girl or young women basically has unlimited opportunities to have sex, particularly if she doesn’t attach any strings to it, and even if she limits herself to alphas.

    Women have incredible powers of rationalization. Of finding ways of excusing themselves. I knew a woman who swore that she had never “broken up” with a BF, they had always broken up with her. Knowing her fairly well, and her tempestuous personality, I asked her if, while not breaking up, she had made the relationship basically unbearable for the guy (cursing him out, being a bitch, being cold and nasty, etc), so that he really had no choice but to be the one to call it off, if she wouldn’t. And she agreed that that was true. Nevertheless, she still felt it was a point of virtue on her part that she had never broken up with a BF! She was still the perpetual victim.

    Women in these surveys are like that. It is always the other women who are promiscuous by nature, never her. When she fooled around, there was always some reason or excuse; it never represented what she “really” wanted. She was either emotionally upset, or drunk, or whatever. So those times don’t “count.” It wouldn’t be “fair” to her to include those times in her overall partner tally, because they don’t actually represent her or her personality or character (that’s how she looks at it, anyway).

  92. deti says:

    As can be seen from this thread, men are enormously frustrated. It’s clear that most women just don’t want most men for anything other than to change the oil in their cars, take out their trash, prepare their food, and pay their bills.

    That’s why we get frustrated with yet another sob story from a writer like Kate Bolick who blithely writes screeds about dumping perfectly good men and then wondering aloud why she can’t find one. Just about every man reading this thread has had this happen to him.

    But I don’t think women care. I truly am beginning to believe that women just don’t care.

  93. greyghost says:

    deti you are right abiout a woman would rather be single than with a less desirable man. I seem to keep bringing this up but all of the talk in the world to women about the idea of spinsterhood means nothing to a woman. A purposeful culture by men of involutary and childless spinsterhood may cause a change in the game. A woman can get the tingles for anything. it is just a matter of being told this is where the tingles are. Any change in the outcome of the behavior woman will come from a change in direction that the natural selfish hypergamy guided hamster takes woman. in other words if you believe in so-conservatism you need to work on setting up a situation where selfish hypergamy in action looks like a christian woman making good sound biblical choices. As a man all the while I know it was just a slut bitch getting the best deal available but that is how this works. We start by getting as many woman in ole Kate Bolick’s shoes as posible. She did it to herself the next one will have it done to her.

  94. Doug1 says:

    TFH–

    Remember that 70-80% of ALL government spending is a transfer from men to women.

    What support do you have for that statement?

  95. Basil Ransom says:

    This is the conclusion I reached, and the one that Kate Bolick refers to in her article.

    Except you’ve contorted it into something else entirely. Absence of evidence doesn’t constitute support for your “whore core” theory. When these girls have sex with men outside relationships, precisely who are they sleeping with? These girls have dated a few guys, and then they’ve had the “mistakes.” I have been this “mistake” to several women.

    Besides, I just realized that saying 20% of the guys getting 80% of the girls just doesn’t make sense in the first place. Getting girls suggests some sort of continuing possession, but even the top 20% rarely have a true rotation going. Most of them are only getting one girl at a time. So it only makes sense to talk about the numerical share of hookups that the top X% have.

    Your explanation doesn’t take stock of how women lie despite promises of anonymity, nor of women’s lack of desire for a relationship. It’s only once they’ve been banging a cool guy for a while, that they want to monopolize him via an exclusive relationship.

    I do agree however that everyone in college has a lot less sex than everyone thinks. I’ve brought this up to the manosphere/PUAs, and they all ignore it, it just doesn’t fit into their narrative. Similarly, girls who go to college are less promiscuous than those that don’t, but good luck getting the manosphere to believe that. I think there are some disconnects between the narrative the manosphere puts out, and reality. Eg, ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ status, isn’t so cut and dried. A man’s circumstances have a huge effect on the quality and quantity of pussy he pulls.

    The bottom line is, if a woman accepts the prospect of sex without prior commitment, hypergamy is inevitable. Once a woman will not accept sex without significant commitment first, she must make herself an attractive enough mate to be worth the investment. If she actively wants both sex and commitment, she must submit to the realities of the sexual marketplace, just like every man now does. She must take stock of what she can get, and proceed accordingly. If she aims too high, she’ll either neither sex nor commitment if she remains principled, or sex without commitment if she doesn’t. If she still can’t snare the man she wants, and fucks him anyway, she is a slut.

  96. TFH says:

    What support do you have for that statement?

    Dude, not only do I cover it in The Misandry Bubble, but it is obvious :

    1a) Women live 7 years longer than men. That means their post-65 lifespan is about 14 years vs. 7 years for a man, or TWICE as long. They thus withdraw MUCH more from SS and Medicare than men do, even though men mostly pay into it. Medicare in particular – where women use MORE per year than men, that too for a much greater number of years than men.

    1b) Even a wife who never worked can get SS benefits due to her husband’s work, even after the husband dies, or if she divorces the husband. A stay-at-home husband could technically get the same, but what is the proportion of those, vs. wives?

    2) Due to the high progressivity of the tax brackets, most income taxes are paid by the labor of men, as are most property taxes.

    3) 62% of all government workers are female. Public sector incomes are higher than private sector ones, even before counting the public pensions, etc.

    4) The two sectors of the private economy with heavily bloated salaries and inefficiencies, healthcare and education, are so because of government propping up female employment (well beyond the productivity they generate) via these two sectors. Male-dominated sectors (technology), have the least government interference.

    5) The entire FC Court system exists to transfer wealth from men to women. Such an industry should not even exist in a healthy society.

    6) The $800B stimulus package was specifically pressured by feminists to create female jobs instead of male jobs, even if the latter was more needed economically (infrastructure, oil and gas drilling, etc.).

    You are the first person in two years of me saying this to question that most government spending is a transfer from men to women. I don’t know the exact number, but 70-80% sounds about right.

    Ask yourself this : How much have you paid in taxes over your whole life, and what percentage of women do you think have paid nearly as much? Conversely, do you expect to use as much Medicare as a female would?

    That is why spending is not being cut now, because as soon as it is, ‘women will suffer’ stories will start shrieking across the airwaves.

    The only gender-neutral forms of government spending are infrastructure and defense.

  97. samuel2112 says:

    Deti wrote
    As can be seen from this thread, men are enormously frustrated. It’s clear that most women just don’t want most men for anything other than to change the oil in their cars, take out their trash, prepare their food, and pay their bills.

    That’s why we get frustrated with yet another sob story from a writer like Kate Bolick who blithely writes screeds about dumping perfectly good men and then wondering aloud why she can’t find one. Just about every man reading this thread has had this happen to him.

    But I don’t think women care. I truly am beginning to believe that women just don’t care.

    Deti. I agree. I lived with a woman who abused me because she said I was a slop and could not clean the plates correctly and made a mess. She made a comment to me that “all men are pigs”.
    However at the same time she used me to take out the garbage, lift stuff for her, open jars, carry out the trash and open the door if she heard a noise. Needless to say, I got out of the relationship.
    The solution may be as it seems that more and more men young and older are choosing to “go their own way” and try to live a happy life apart from women. It is already happening in Japan with men known as “herbivores” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdrF_dAaZO4

    As more and more men choose to opt out of the marriage game, dating game, and even women in general, perhaps then feminists will get the message. But probably not. Wishful thinking on my part, they will be like many 35+ women still thinking no man is good enough for them. Keep your chin up Deti as tough as that can be.

  98. Susan Walsh says:

    @Basil Ransom

    False. Attractive women under 25 do not want a boyfriend. Flubbing this bit can’t help but make the rest of your views, warped, and spectacularly wrong.

    Mark Regnerus, a highly respected researcher in the field:

    I used to think that only young men — and a minority at that — lamented marriage as the death of youth, freedom and their ability to do as they pleased. Now this idea is attracting women, too.

    In my research on young adults’ romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they’re at least in their late 20s. If you’re seeking a mate in college, you’re considered a pariah, someone after her “MRS degree.” Actively considering marriage when you’re 20 or 21 seems so sappy, so unsexy, so anachronistic. Those who do fear to admit it — it’s that scandalous.

    How did we get here? The fault lies less with indecisive young people than it does with us, their parents. Our own ideas about marriage changed as we climbed toward career success. Many of us got our MBAs, JDs, MDs and PhDs. Now we advise our children to complete their education before even contemplating marriage, to launch their careers and become financially independent.

    In fact, young women do want boyfriends, they’re just not seeking to march down the aisle right away. The average woman will spend 8 years between high school and marriage. Dalrock has written before about LTRs not being a form of real commitment, and I agree. Still, many college women do want LTRs – they want serial monogamy. I am speaking in the abstract here, not describing who they want. That is another question.

    Re Athlone:

    1. I have personally witnessed this trend. It is real-young women (25 and under, to be general) tend to be commitment-phobes. They just want fun, and when any male tries to push something more serious on them, they tend to get scared away very quickly. This is another big reason why “nice guys” (the more commitment oriented types) finish last-women do get scared by their seriousness and attempted chivalry.

    I haven’t seen Athlone in a while, but he used to be a regular at HUS. There he shared that he is a black, shy virgin male at the smallest Ivy. He plays varsity football, and his buddies are the most dominant males on campus. He has spoken of these guys boasting of their sexual exploits in the locker room with the sluttiest women on campus. Women who literally run trains with these athletes, and in one case, as I recall, gave out “rimjobs.”

    Athlone came on strong to one woman in a drunken state at a frat party and she was responsive. He convinced her to go to the basement and make out. Soon after, according to his own story, he developed severe oneitis and hounded her for traditional dinner dates and the like. She balked, and in fact I think I recall that she accused him of stalking. He was very concerned about the possible false allegation of rape for a while.

    I share this, all of which was openly shared on my blog, to illustrate that Athlone has had a very distinct and unusual experience, which may be affecting his objectivity in discussing the larger SMP.

    Except you’ve contorted it into something else entirely. Absence of evidence doesn’t constitute support for your “whore core” theory. When these girls have sex with men outside relationships, precisely who are they sleeping with?

    I do not claim to have the final answer. I am happy to be proved wrong by another analysis. I believe that I analyzed the data without bias. It is not my intention to persuade you or anyone else, I went through the exercise for my own edification. You clearly have extremely entrenched views, which is fine.

    I love that term – whore core theory. I’m going to have to swipe that. I don’t understand your question about women cheating – are you referring to a data source? I haven’t seen that quantified, and would be happy to see a link.

  99. nyccine says:

    I find it interesting how very attached men in the Gamesphere are to the belief that “20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women.” I challenge any of you to produce one shred of data that supports that conclusion. I have waded into virtually all the existing data, of which there is a great deal, and have found this to be wholly untrue to the point of ridiculous exaggeration.

    No, you haven’t. What you’ve done is make some significant errors:

    1) You’ve misunderstood the concept behind the claim that “20% of guys are ‘getting’ 80% of the women;” you seem to treat this as some exclusionary principle that relegates 80% of men to “permavirgin” status, and crow in victory when you find data showing only 43% are. What is actually being said by guys like Roissy is that the minority of alpha men dominate the sexual arena, getting their pick of the carousel riders, for some periods exclusively, and that the betas are left with the crumbs – they get the carousel riders after they’re washed up, or get stuck raising another man’s kids (or actively getting cuckolded into this – note that this type would be treated by your statistics as evidence that the PUA’s are wrong, yet clearly nothing could be further from the truth), or get the infrequent pity lay; some do still suceed, as they must, since the 80/20 rule means that 20% of women are available for the betas free and clear.

    Your focus on the averages and means miss this crucial point by a mile – what you should be doing is comparing the the numbers of sexual encounters the top 20% of men are getting to the numbers the bottom 80% are getting. Which is what Basil did (though for a more limited set of individuals than what the PUA crowd is discussing), as you’ve noted. In other words, the PUA’s are saying more or less exactly what you sometimes say in regards to hookups, but then other times you claim that the majority of women aren’t on the carousel, and that’s simply incompatible with the acknowledgement that the alphas *are* getting the lion’s share of the hookups.

    2) You are spinning the statistics in a manner which might be true – are certainly plausible – but not necessarily so, but treating them as such, while dismissing differing interpretations of the data out of hand. Sure, it’s possible that the 20% of the sluttiest men and 20% of the sluttiest women are circulating between themselves, and the other 80% of both sexes circulating amongst themselves, but it’s not necessarily so, and furthermore it stretches believability to claim that the sexes are hooking up more or less equally (which is what this interpretation must mean) and warped perceptions are the explanation for why so many women end up complaining about a lack of good men, and so many nice guys complain about finishing last.

    3) You are also moving some goalposts, when you refer to the women not getting committed relationships as not getting what they want. For one, that isn’t what the 80-20 rule is talking about at all, and for another, it’s a bit disingenuine; basic economics tells us it doesn’t matter what you *say* you want, it’s what you end up buying. This is especially true when it is ridiculously easy to get what you want – and nothing good be easier for the vast majority of women then getting non-alpha males to commit; that they refuse to do so, and in fact frequently paint lesser betas as creeps (the whole “nice guys are just pretending to be that way to get in my pants” phenomena) tells us all we need to know about what women “want”.

  100. ruddyturnstone says:

    “In fact, young women do want boyfriends, they’re just not seeking to march down the aisle right away. The average woman will spend 8 years between high school and marriage. Dalrock has written before about LTRs not being a form of real commitment, and I agree. Still, many college women do want LTRs – they want serial monogamy. I am speaking in the abstract here, not describing who they want. That is another question.”

    Yeah, it’s another question all right. It’s the salient question. “In the abstract” young women want to be in LTR, monogamous relationships, but the “who” part is with alpha guys. They can’t, for the most part, because the alphas won’t agree to it. So they settle for being part of an alpha guy’s harem. And they “settle” for that over “settling” with being in a LTR with a beta guy. So, while the women may “want” a LTR they want an alpha more, LTR or not. And that’s the point. Young women would rather hook up with alphas than be GF and BF with a beta. Their desire for a LTR is secondary to their desire to be with alphas. And that leaves all the betas out in the cold. And, in the long run, it also leads many of the women into the predicament that our author here is in.

    But rather than deal with directly.Rather than go right to the heart of the problem (which is hypergamy unrestrained), we go round and round in circles. Quibbling about statistics. Making specious claims about women not being able to find boyfriends (when guys who want to be their BFs are literally all around them). Talking about phoney “historical” trends. Making false claims about men and women hanging around with each other less than in the past. And so on and on and on. The failiings of men in general or in particular.

    Young women need to be told that, if, in the long run, they want to be married and have kids, that they have to give up their dreams of alpha and find a nice beta guy. Funny, guys have no problem understanding this kind of thing. No one has to tell most guys that, guess what, Scarlet Johannson is probably not all that interested in you. That, if you want a GF, and hope to someday marry that GF, you probably need to set your sites a llittle lower, at least in terms of things like looks. Young women just don’t seem to get it. They waste their best years chasing alpha, then wake up one day, and, like the author, find themselves in a big room with no men. Then they go looking for someone or something to blame. Anyone, anything, but their own stupid shortsightedness.

    Really, I agree with what one of the other posters said…enough already, thirty to forty something single ladies. We have all heard your story before and it’s always the same. Just shut up already. The train left and you missed it. The rest of your life will be lived in the station. And there’s no use hanging around in the waiting room, cuz no train is coming for you.

  101. nyccine says:

    This has been addressed by many researchers, who go to great lengths to assure anonymity…

    You should really read Basil’s link to the New Scientist; if anonymity was enough, there wouldn’t have been such a dramatic increase in the reported number of partners by women once the “electrodes” were hooked up.

    On the subject of reporting errors in data, my own guess is not that the men and women over- and under-report (and while I suspect a significant majority do, it’s probably by no means virtually all)in discreet amounts, but by just enough to get to where they figure society says they “should” be.

  102. Interested says:

    I just slogged through Kate’s article. In doing so I could not help but think of a parallel between the girls at Susan’s table (described in Kate’s article) and the Duke powerpoint girl who documented her sexual escapades with alpha athletes at Duke.

    At Susan’s:
    The girls are privileged women. Upper middle class. All described at “attractive and vivacious”. Yet only two of the girls at Susan’s table had an actual relationship in college. The rest just had sex. To a person they said that none of the sex was “particularly sensual or exciting”. They even freaked a bit after seeing good old Kate, a unmarried gal at 39. One could not see doing “this” that long. Not slagging on them here. Just trying to establish some facts.

    The Duke Gal:
    You could arguably say the same across the board for the Duke gal. Her girlfriends would probably call her “attractive and vivacious”. She is privileged and on and on.

    But think back to the article Roissy wrote about the Duke gal and her sexual ratings of the athletes. He astutely pointed out that the sexual ratings she handed out were directly related to how well the guy treated her after banging her. The guy who hung out cuddling in bed the next morning was the highest rated. A real keeper! The guy who banged her, booted her, and then stuck her earring on the front porch so he wouldn’t have to interact with her the next day was rated the worst. A total scumbag! Unfortunately, not even the hero of her story bothered to call her again. He pumped her and dumped her. But for a brief moment or two her hopes soared.

    So how many of these girls at Susan’s table were down on the quality of the sex for the exact same reasons? The guys they banged may have been sort of nice, but certainly offered no commitment. Or they may have just left the earrings on the front porch the next morning. And now at least one of these attractive and vivacious women is worried that she might have to live like “this” for the foreseeable future. They are ALL worried to see good old superhero Kate alone at 39.

    I’m not slagging on Susan or these girls. They should be thankful that they have access to Susan as she tries to point out all this to them. Apparently they are still learning like most 22 year olds. Or maybe that second tier graduate school Wharton didn’t prepare Susan well enough to deliver that marketing message of hers! (Yes, that was a good natured dig)

    Just trying to point out that most college graduate girls don’t have a Susan. They have a Kate to mentor them. Right into spinsterhood or a marriage where “something is missing” after a few years.

  103. TFH says:

    My opinion on the hypergamy thing :

    About 20% of men hardly, if ever, have any sex with any woman who is acceptable-looking. Omegas.

    The middle 60% have sporadic success with average-looking women. They end up being the Beta providers that marry a 34-year-old slut. Some have ‘girlfriends’ who are mediocre-looking, and thus have one long LTR over their lives, in which they are not treated very well (she cares more about the wedding ceremony and ring size than about him). Such a man ultimately trades most of his life’s output for very little high-quality sex. But they don’t go for years and years without sex, like the Omega group does.

    The top 20% are always either in an LTR with an attractive woman, or can get attractive women as often as they want. But I doubt too many are juggling 3 or more women at once for long periods of time. That is very hard, logistically. Two concurrent LTRs is the max that most non-famous alphas can manage.

    A few apex alphas may sleep with large numbers of hot women. Rock stars, movie stars, etc. live a life that is logistically capable of this, but a political figure often does not.

    Remember that in pre-civilized times, the natural state was that the leader had many concubines/a harem, while a lot of low-level men got nothing, and usually died on the battlefield.

  104. Chels says:

    This is pretty much a direct attack on male sexuality in particular. It has eerie similarities to some of the so-called “femdom” perversion where men are deliberately denied orgasm so that they will be more attentive and obedient to their female tops/wives. Effective? Perhaps, but at the expense of male sexuality. More misandry, really.

    I was flabbergasted when Dalrock described that book, as I never heard of it before. Not only is it an attack on male sexuality, but I imagine it’s also pretty painful (“blue balls?”). It’s just messed up, and hey Jane Wilder, care to expand on why you think that book is so awesome and why you even brought it up?

    [D: Jane has left the building.]

  105. greenlander says:

    So, why “should” a young man be “beefing up his ability to act as a provider” – from the young man’s perspective, that is? Is it going to increase his chances at landing a loyal wife – particularly at the stage of his life when his physical need for that is the greatest? Is it going to guarantee that the children he provides for are his own? Does it guarantee, or even slightly increase the probability that he will be able to be in their lives and have him in his for his entire life?

    In fact, it does none of those things – as you have documented here over and over again.

    In fact, what happens to a man who puts in all the work required to “fatten” himself, beefing up his ability to be a provider, is that when the banquet planners look out at the herd choosing which one to butcher first, they will choose the one who has done the best job of fattening himself.

    This is the law of negative and perverse incentives – if you punish what you would like to see more of, and reward what you would like to see less of, now matter how much effort you put into it the direction of cultural drift will be the opposite of what you claim you want.

    Zed, you hit the nail on the head: the “upper beta” path is way overrated. “Going Galt” is a better option these days, which is why men are choosing it.

    Beta doesn’t materially cause attraction for any women of marriageable age (perhaps ages 21-27). Those girls have had so much feminist BS blown up their backsides that they really believe in holding out for the alpha. There is in fact a growing backlash against feminism, but many of these women wouldn’t self-identify as feminist. Nonetheless, they’ve been so thoroughly bathed in feminist nonsense since birth that they have adopted feminist principles in their core belief systems even while claiming not to be feminist.

    It isn’t until they start to hit their late twenties and early thirties that they’ll even consider their upper-beta peer in the SMP, and by that point their partner count has destroyed their ability to pair-bond with a beta.

    By any conventional of success, I’ve been successful as an “upper beta”: my average income over the past ten years puts me just above the 98th percentile. However, it wasn’t always like that: to get to that point I busted my ass. I put myself through school taking a full load while working thirty hours a week, then spent week after week working long hours under stressful conditions at Silicon Valley startups. Two of the startups I worked with had public offerings, which is where most of my income came from.

    I can tell you with great precision how much pussy this path got me: almost zero. As I reached the age of thirty, I started to dress better and speak with much more confidence. However, when I discovered game I was ripe for the experience. I went through a period where I was spectacularly successful banging chicks from a certain demographic: ones past their “sell-by” date (27-32) and were looking for their beta to settle with after their time on the carousel (whether it be the “wishing carousel”, the “serial relationship carousel” or the full-on “Karen Owens carousel.”) It’s true that my beta qualities made me attractive to these girls, but it was really the cocky aloofness of Game that changed my position.

    I slept with a whole bunch of these girls (having taken the Red Pill of the manosphere) but I didn’t consider any of them marriageable. As I got better, I calculated that it was about twenty hours of work to get a new girl to sleep with a few times. Running game on so many girls is tiring, and the psychological games they make you play are dumb. It is nearly impossible to hold an intelligent conversation on any meaningful intellectual topic with a woman: they just aren’t that bright. (One of the girls I dated was a Harvard-educated physician… and her favorite thing to read was Cosmo.) The things that women like to talk about are simply uninteresting. My confidence has gone up knowing that I can get a girl if I put in the twenty hours of effort: it’s not like the painful years I lived through in my teens and twenties desperately grasping at any whiff of pussy. With that confidence, I can just spend ten minutes beating it and then spend nineteen hours and fifty minutes in my own hobbies and hanging out with my cool guy friends talking about cool guy stuff.

    What really shocked me after I figured it all out was this: women are terrible at selecting men of any substantial value. Beta doesn’t attract anything. What got me girls was my understanding all this PUA stuff: push-pull, DHV, DLV, Mystery’s phases of seduction, etc. I’ve run Roissy’s Love Test routine on dozens of girls and it’s like chick crack. It (used to be) shocking how much they love this stupid crap.

    So, here’s the situation I’m faced with now: I’m dating a 27-year-old for quite some time. She loves me, I bat away her shit tests with ease by always choosing one of (ignore, agree & amplify, change the frame). I have hand in the relationship. She’s attractive: perhaps a high 7 or a low 8. I consider her marriageable. Should I marry her?

    In my more beta days I would have given my left testicle to be with a girl like this. Now, I look at the risk I’m taking: if for any reason she decides she’s not “happy” she can pull the plug. With clever use of trusts I can probably protect my existing assets from divorce theft, but there’s no ability to protect against the child-support-as-alimony scam: at my income level the court could easily award child support of $6,000 or $7,000 a month. The court will enforce that relentlessly: if I don’t pay the interest rate charged is usurious, I won’t be able to renew my passport, my driver’s license will be suspended, and I’m likely to be jailed. However, I’ll have no say in how my child support is spent and won’t receive any accounting, and my visitation will be every other weekend and won’t be enforced at all.

    If I decide I want to join another startup (which involves taking a salary close to zero and after five years getting a payout of anywhere from zero to several million), the court isn’t likely to base child support off my new low salary: it’s likely that the court will “impute” my income by averaging past years of income and base my child support off that.

    The position I’m in now is that I can quit the game: at the job I have now my most valuable stock is done vesting this spring and I can just pull up my roots and go. I’m thinking about leaving the Western world behind and going somewhere where I can still sign up for Marriage 1.0. My portfolio income will be plenty to live off comfortably unless I go somewhere expensive like Zurich. I can spend my time consulting, starting a small company or just working on a free software project. Getting a residency visa anywhere in the world isn’t that hard if you can prove you have assets and don’t want a job. I’m in a position now that few men have. Should I take it? Right now, I’m leaning on pulling the plug and going…

    In the western world, regardless of who caused the divorce, the man has a bigger problem in front of him. There is an incentive for a woman to divorce.

    In the rest of the world, regardless of who caused the divorced, the woman has a bigger problem in front of her. The incentive for a woman to divorce is removed. There’s no Big Government to backstop poor choices.

    OK, .

  106. Chels says:

    @ Dalrock

    you might consider starting your own blog. I started out reading Roissy’s blog, and one day clicked on the link at the bottom to start a wordpress blog. That is all it takes. I won’t promise a blogroll slot, but I’ll be happy to do a post helping you get the word out once you have a few posts up.

    Thanks, I considered it but I have no idea what I’d say, and I really don’t have the time anyway.:(

  107. dragnet says:

    @ Susan

    As a side note, I think Athlone is one of the more courageous commenters in the manosphere. I’m not sure I’ve read someone so honest about their personal predicament when it comes to the opposite sex. It takes balls to just lay it out there like he does.

    @ TFH

    I responded to your argument about free-market capitalists in the “Rejoice in the wife of thy youth” thread. Sorry it took so long, I didn’t know you’d responded.

  108. Susan Walsh says:

    @dragnet
    Agree 100%. He’s so smart, so brave and so interested in developing himself. Athlone is such a good young man. I miss him :-) but I am happy he has found a home for his thoughts on the SMP.

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    Susan Walsh, I suggest that you read Greenlanders posting very closely, multiple times. Based on what he says, Greenlander is the kind of man that your finishing school girls should be panting after. But he wouldn’t give them the time of day. You might want to ask why that is.

    And he says he’s thinking of expating rather than marry a woman in the US. You might want to consider why that is, too.

    I suggest you do a copy/paste of Greenlanders posting, and print it out for your finishing school girls to read. This is one of the “fish” they won’t be about to “hook smartly”, and 2nd wave feminism is the reason.

  110. Basil Ransom says:

    I was insinuating that when it comes to sex outside relationships, women are sleeping with players. I’m confident about my views, but they are only as entrenched as the data on which they rely. My views are consonant with the data and my personal experiences. The manosphere narrative is far more accurate than the alternatives, but it too has imperfections as I noted before. You, Susan, have considered some evidence, and ignored others, in forming your views.

    Nyccine stated well my point, that you are offering an explanation that’s narrowly plausible. But it doesn’t really measure up to the rest of the data. He also raised another good point, basically that your fans are liars. Call it revealed preference, or actions over words… if they really wanted an exclusive LTR, they could have one. But they value noncomittal time and sex with a man of sufficiently high value more. They aren’t willing to lower their standards or wait until they find a high value man willing to commit. Once she’s having casual sex with one man, her desire to have a relationship with other men will be nil.

    The alternative was whore corps, or corps of whores.

    I quoted Athlone because it matched my experience. When girls are attracted to me, they are often quick to peg me as a cheeky asshole, or whatever. And if I do anything to intimate I’m interested in anything more than sex, their disappointment is visceral, if subtle.

    Women are extremely turned off by men who want any sort of relationship before they do. It’s the surest sign of being a loser in their eyes. Even for “good girls.” They strongly believe that quality men need to be pinned down and snared into a relationship. I don’t think young attractive women want exclusive LTRs with studs, at least initially.

    Also, girls are so used to socializing in mixed groups that dates freak them out. The slightest prospect of a relationship and thus a loss of independence scares them. I’ve had many girls tell me they feel weird talking on the phone to a man. They live in perpetual fear of ‘awkwardness,’ and will do their best to avoid situations that might give rise to it. Intimacy prior to sex is impossible for them.

    Maybe, after several bouts of sex, she will desire slightly more. She will ask that you stop banging other girls.

    I would ask girls out on dates in college – not because I wanted to make them my girlfriend, but because I wanted to bang them. Because it made getting sex easier than if I had done the usual “let’s meet up together with our friends drunk Friday night” which is a logistical nightmare. And these dates would often consist of just a glass of wine in my room – not that I promised it’d be anything more. You couldn’t have a clearer way of saying “I just want to bang you,” but I could feel girls seeing me as less of a man for not trying to do what every other cool guy does, which is to haphazardly try to bang her drunk one night.

    See this: http://flyfreshandyoung.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/dating-is-dead/

  111. jack says:

    The carousel watchers may actually be as bad or worse than a carousel rider for two reasons:

    1) They have had little alpha contact, but deeply crave it. This unfulfilled hunger is the reason for the 5 or 6 who gives nuclear rejections (such rejections are borne out of irritation and frustration).

    and

    2) The girls who actually have had some alpha contact and found it lacking may actually be capable of redirecting their wants into a good relationship.

    Now, you can argue whether either is wife material – I am leaving that discussion aside.

    But a woman who made it to the big leagues and was disappointed may be more willing to leave it behind than a 5 or 6 girl with a big butt or funny nose who never got a chance to “taste” (heh) alpha.

    Case study:

    When I was young, I was not allowed to own a motorcycle. When I turned 18, I bought one – I was DETERMINED to own one. I rode it for a year or two and sold it. Been there, done that.

    Similar effect? You be the judge.

  112. Pirran says:

    Utter Bolicks…..

  113. Art says:

    Susan Walsh “For starters, let me just say that the number of female virgins on college campuses is 37%. ”

    That’s a fictitious statistic.
    _____________________

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/09/health/webmd/main6379660.shtml

    Most Young Adults: Oral Sex Is Not Sex

    “Like President Clinton, adolescents and young adults often interpret these words with a degree of latitude, depending on whether they want to maintain an image of being sexually experienced or inexperienced,” Jason D. Hans and colleagues at the University of Kentucky, Lexington write in their report, “Sex Redefined: The Reclassification of Oral-Genital Contact.

    The survey involved 477 undergraduate students, mostly white heterosexual females, enrolled in a human sexuality class. The majority (98%) of participants was age 24 or younger; the average age was 20.7 years.

    The participants answered the following question:

    “Would you say you ‘had sex’ with someone if the most intimate behavior you engaged in was …”

    • Penile-vaginal intercourse?
    • Penile-anal intercourse?
    • Oral contact with partner’s genitals?
    • Partner’s oral contact with your genitals?
    • Partner touches your genitals?
    • You touch partner’s genitals?
    • Oral contact with partner’s breasts/nipples?
    • You touch partner’s breasts/nipples?
    • Deep kissing?
    • Partner’s oral contact with your breasts/nipples?
    • Partner touches your breasts/nipples?

    Among the survey’s notable findings:

    • Only 20% of those surveyed said oral contact with their partner’s genitals would constitute sex.
    • Less than 80% of participants considered penile-anal intercourse as sex
    ____________________________

    I had my first sexual contact at 18 with a young woman, 1 year my senior, whom I’ve gotten in contact with again recently. We were discussing partner counts and she said she has only had sex with 6 men. At 18 I was told by her that she had performed oral sex on 7 guys before me. That’s some fuzzy math by my friend.

    At 21, I was still a technical “virgin” ( a non-virgin in my own eyes). I started talking an 18 year old girl who laughed at me and said I was still a virgin after I told her all had ever experienced sexually was giving and receiving oral sex.

    I believe the actual virginity totals for young women that graduate college is more around 20-25%. The rest of these young women are enjoying anal and oral sex and are still virgins in their own eyes.

  114. This has been addressed by many researchers, who go to great lengths to assure anonymity. The most common approach is to ask students to fill out a survey online after generating a random ID number that is not connected to their name, but to their IP address. While this may not eradicate all error – some students may be in denial, or lie for other reasons, it is believed that stats today are much more reliable than even 10 years ago. For example, 43% of males reporting that they are virgins could probably only happen with online anonymity. And such small numbers of males reporting >11 partners suggests they aren’t inflating their numbers much either. Most college students believe that other people have many sexual partners while in college.

    The stats I’m citing here are from a Justice Department study on sexual assault. Similar numbers have come out of academic research, the CDC, etc.

    This is godzilla facepalm worthy.

    First, you can be identified by your IP address (unless you use TOR or some other anonymizer which wouldn’t apply here). This is common knowledge. Second, people lie on government surveys. Even if they are assured they are anonymous, they still worry that what they report will be connected back to them (especially if their IP addresses are logged). Third, if you’re going to lie, believable lies are more effective so they aren’t going to say they had sex with hundreds of women.

    If 43% of college men are willing to admit they’re virgins, the real percentage of college male virgins is much higher.

  115. krakonos says:

    @greenlander
    Good comment. Being you, I would leave the West. If you want to have a family and future for your children (especially male) there is no place for you in the West.
    But forget about Europe as whole. Even the East is either infected or doomed demographically (usually both).

  116. samuel2112 says:

    Karakonos stated to Greenlander
    Good comment. Being you, I would leave the West. If you want to have a family and future for your children (especially male) there is no place for you in the West.
    But forget about Europe as whole. Even the East is either infected or doomed demographically (usually both).

    Yes I agree that is why based on your statement there ae a plethora of websites such as “Boycott American Women”, “Marriage Strike”. and “Don’t Marry” which have sprung up in recent years.

  117. AmStrat says:

    Another reason for women to lie on the surveys is that to admit anything, even if it “didn’t count”, would be to admit it to themselves, which would utterly shatter their fragile egos and thus before a woman lies to anyone, you can be sure in most cases she has already used her hamster to lie to herself first.

  118. Pingback: Dating Back in the Day | Hooking Up Smart

  119. jack says:

    AmStrat is correct:

    It is not a “lie” if you believe it yourself..

  120. Doug1 says:

    TFH–

    You are the first person in two years of me saying this to question that most government spending is a transfer from men to women. I don’t know the exact number, but 70-80% sounds about right.

    I would never have questioned that – that government spending tends to transfer wealth from men to women. I questioned your 70-80% figures. I wanted to see what you had on it. I was goading you into doing some work for us – putting you knowledge on the subject out there. We’re on the same side dude.

  121. Pingback: Do women want to get married? | Dalrock

  122. 1111dr kill says:

    Women can jump and shout and even write about this sort of shit with ‘I’m a victim’ in their voices. Men don’t really care. And in the next twenty years when the fembot becomes commercially available women will become totally irrelevant. Congrats, womyn, this bots for you!

  123. Buck says:

    Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech,

    “If 43% of college men are willing to admit they’re virgins, the real percentage of college male virgins is much higher.”

    There is a Radio shock-jock named Mancow (AM 1530 in Chicagoland)…he’s a fun listen…anyway, he has a theory about the sexes and their partner count, it goes like this; whatever number a woman reports multiply by 3, whatever number a man reports divide in half. I have found this to be surprisingly true and a good rule of thumb.

  124. TikkTok says:

    It amazes me the time people spend studying/thinking about this stuff.

    The cause of “this” is women’s suffrage? Really? :lol: Honestly, there are a good many people out there voting who really don’t have a clue.

    Maybe we should institute a test- you have to have not only pass the test and show you have the aptitude to understand the issue (therefore having a voice that can contribute intelligently), but also, you have to be a tax payer. This way, college kids leeching of mommy and daddy and those leeching off of anyone else (like the government) can’t sway the vote for more support when they aren’t actively contributing.

    It’s also amazing to me the number of people in the world (and the internet) who don’t have manners. :roll: In some cases, it’s obvious why people are single.

    Instead of blaming feminism, why don’t we blame the hippies? After all, they really are the ones in control of the country now, and besides, there were a good many of them all pro-feminism. Don’t forget the large amounts of men who were/are behind that movement as well! And shoot, we all know about those LSD flashbacks….

    Bottom line: families are broken. Kids/adolescents/young adults don’t have huge amounts of good role models. Schools are focused on testing and cranking out sheeple, never mind giving kids real usable skills and communication skills. College (and school in general, unless it’s a trade school) is about as far from the real world as you can get. What is a liberal arts (or philosophy, etc) major going to do after graduation?

    People by in large are so id oriented that they forget there are other people on the planet. People/kids have no real sense working for anything or being patient. Everyone wants what they want right now, and absentee parents are all too happy to hand it over, so they don’t have to deal with the whining.

    The age of caring for one’s elderly family members is gone; multi-generational family homes are few and far between. It used to be, even if a kid had absent parents (who were out working, for example), they still had grandparents around- they still had some kind of role model.

    You can’t emulate what you haven’t been exposed to.

    Tests/surveys/polls/”studies” are too often too nebulous to be able to give actual concrete data. If you don’t bother to define your definition of terms so everyone is actually clear about what you are talking about, you aren’t going to get accurate results.

  125. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Thanks for the stream of consciousness blather. How is the weather up there in the clouds? Do you flake in the sun?

  126. Desiderius says:

    Susan,

    “In short, we are in agreement on the concept re social proof and hypergamy. For a return to assortative mating, female sexuality will need to be restrained, so that carousel watching is not a viable option.”

    This may be a useful second step, but the first has to focus on the top, which indeed might take care of the second. If the alphas pair off, it makes it easier for the greater betas to appreciate their counterparts and then on down the line.

    Basil’s last comment reflects exactly my experience with today’s alpha females, including some up to their late 30’s. This extreme aversion to commitment to alpha males is actually half of the optimal female primordial mating strategy (i.e. cuckoldry) where the beta provider gets the “commitment” (minus sex, affection, respect) and the alpha gets those three but not the commitment, as an alpha willing to commit would produce suboptimally sexy sons (he’d get stuck on one woman instead of spreading his seed). As for the beta providers, I run into a lot of alpha females with “herb” (much lower value, utterly emasculated – see Moneyball for an example) boyfriends/orbiters that they use as validation buddies. Some will turn them into Stepford husbands.

    The effect this has on alpha males is two-fold. Some alphas (the Roissy/Basils) read the signal to revert to their own optimal primordial strategy – spreading that seed, including down market where the (low-investment) opportunity presents itself, further mucking up assortive mating. Others (Badger, Athlone? Yours truly) attempt to play by the rules of our civilization (said civilization being the best to come down the pike, so deserving of some understanding/loyalty) and are repeatedly denied commitment by these alpha females* and so come to underrate our own value, leading us as well to muck things up downmarket in various ways.

    Bottom line – many more tops are unpaired than in the past. We’ve already identified some of the drivers, and I hope I’ve added a couple more. Sure, we can help male and female betas find each other through the carnage, but the ultimate solution will start at the top.

    * – There is hope. NAWALT; which shouldn’t be an excuse to deny the problem, but should be an encouragement to join forces with those doing it right. Susan’s willingness to reach out to the manosphere has helped me leave behind my personal “good-man-done-wrong” narrative – recognizing that I haven’t always been so good myself in the past (Marcotte has a point there), but also remembering some positive experiences with women that didn’t fit that narrative is helping me bring a more positive attitude to my approaches. I’m seeing a less defensive response from the kind of women I’m now interested in as a result. Small sample size, but things feel different.

    Made a similar adjustment in my professional life last year with good results. Doesn’t mean I’m denying the general problem.

  127. There is a Radio shock-jock named Mancow (AM 1530 in Chicagoland)…he’s a fun listen…anyway, he has a theory about the sexes and their partner count, it goes like this; whatever number a woman reports multiply by 3, whatever number a man reports divide in half.

    I thought it was divide by 3 for men, but I have heard that too.

  128. Kari Hurtta says:

    [ I assume that HTML is acceped ]

    Instead of acknowledging the mechanics of hypergamy where 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women

    I guessed that Susan Walsh actually said that. She confirmed.

  129. Kari Hurtta says:

    tspoon wrote:

    That was also the first thing I noticed when I checked that article also, her disingenuous ‘misquote’ (read: straight out lie) about the 80/20 stat.

    I do not think that it was misquote.

  130. I thought this part of the article was telling:

    ” If I find someone I really like being with, and if he and I decide we want a child together, and it’s too late for me to conceive naturally, I’ll consider whatever technological aid is currently available, or adopt (and if he’s not open to adoption, he’s not the kind of man I want to be with).”

    Her attitude towards children seems similar to her attitude towards men: that they’re possessions just there for the taking whenever she wants.

    She’s in for a potentially rude awakening when she learns that many birth mothers have the audacity to pass over 40ish women in favor of young, healthy couples.

  131. uncleFred says:

    Back when dinosaurs roamed the campuses and I studied statistics my statistics professors went out of their way to beat into us the need to be skeptical. That when you get a data sample that flies in the face of common sense or generally observable data you need to take a second look or even a third.

    If 20% of college men and 20% of college women are having the vast majority of sex with each other, and the remaining 80% are going without, either college students are having far less sex than forty odd years ago, or something is screwed up in the sample. This also fails to jibe well with anecdotal samples observed in that age group who are not in college. It also fails to jibe with anecdotal samples from slightly older groups about their experiences when in that age group or in the present. Anecdotal samples are easily compromised when your sample set is skewed, after all you lack controls on your methods and sample. Should those with high SMV make up a much larger percentage than 20% in my sample, that would explain such a variance but I can assure you that is not the case. If anything the opposite would be true. Perhaps I am unable to correctly recognize high SMV in those age groups, but that also seems unlikely, at least as a general filter.

    I’m not saying that anecdotal data proves the samples or methods that produce the 20/20 statistic are wrong. Anecdotal data should not be used that way for a variety of reasons. However it does suggest that we should take a second and third look at both.

    Please understand that I am not saying the 20/20 statistic is necessarily wrong, just that it is very hard to believe and a little healthy skepticism is in order.

  132. nyccine says:

    also, wasn’t just two or three weeks ago Susan did a video talking about how skewed the dating market is, that basically confirmed the 80/20 rule? What gives?

  133. P Ray says:

    Women are forgetting that the more men they leave to the wilderness …
    the less such men are willing to forgive them when they wisen up.
    And during all that period they were without female company,
    those men were building themselves up. Maybe with property as an investment.
    And they are finding it gets them sex.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/hamptons_house_ho_3beAqXOzYnmL6TJWehUCYN

    It may be a cheap way to fish,
    but when feminism, which promotes
    1. unlimited sexual license for females,
    which then gives them the authority to tell males
    2. “she is too young for you” (even when she is legal) – since the women of step 1 want a sex-starved cohort of men to marry and divorce (since he is a disappointment to her, as he is not the alpha she fantasises about – she married him for his money, which is why divorce was so easy)
    many men are going to say … I’ll use my saved resources to be ahead of the game.
    Every man that doesn’t allow himself to be used …
    is one more woman paying for her lifestyle, and staying in debt. (Bankruptcy does not discharge your student loans, and when you marry a girl, you marry her debt too)
    There are ALWAYS consequences.

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    Speaking of fishing, here is another article from the NY Post. Interesting how some of the advice parallels Roissy’s work.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/how_to_get_what_you_want_from_men_kVQj4w1rOV5mNBVzIA2B9M/0

  135. deti says:

    @ Anon Reader:
    I read the NY Post article. Yeah, ladies: here’s the problem with this. You don’t live in a major metropolitan area. You’re probably of average looks. You’ve never been a stripper and you don’t want to be. You don’t have scads of money and you don’t own your own company. You probably have a low paying job in HR or you teach in some middle school somewhere in flyover country, slaving away for not much money.

    Quite simply, your SMV isn’t nearly that of this author. This is advice to become a Rules Girl.

    If you act as this author recommends, you’re too much hassle and you’ll come off as a raging bitch. Most good men will not pay you any more attention. I’d write you off in a heartbeat.

  136. Pingback: Links | Dawn of a New Day

  137. Buck says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    I read DP’s article in the NY Post…hahahaha…from the picture, she is rapidly hitting the wall…only 35…OMG, sweetheart, being rode hard and put away wet in not working for you.
    The whole princess/privileged attitude would repel me immediately. I can’t imagine anyone but a 65yo drool-er would pay up for this painted tramp.

  138. Pingback: Hampster in overdrive « Foseti

  139. P Ray says:

    It may be cheaper (moneywise) for women to fish than men…
    but the women have to worry about raising the SMV of the man they’re with. The only way for them to do that is by being clingy and beating off other women… which raises his SMV anyway. Which is why these women will recommend expensive candlelit dinners, to maximise the utility, and ensure that there is as little competition as possible that is unattached.
    Of course, if the man takes her to a nightclub (which she is really going to be against), she’s going to have competition.
    This may also be a reason why jewellery stores prefer to hire middle-aged women (to keep the female half of a relationship tranquil, and so that the guy they’re with can’t raise his SMV).
    As the Whole Foods article demonstrates, there’s a reason why packaging, presentation and performance(spraying the water on the produce) exists.

  140. Rumpy says:

    I’m not into feminist-bashing because I think feminism benefits “players” like myself, but this is an excellent psychological analysis of the author of that marriage article. Possibly the best post on this blog.

    [D: Thanks!]

  141. Pingback: Thoughts on the 80/20 college hookup question. | Dalrock

  142. Doc says:

    I find the tone of this all too familiar with the sob stories that I’ve heard from the various women who are “friends” with the women I’m dating. In some cases it’s rather sad since I’ll be hearing how “all of the good men are dating younger women” and I’m several years older than the female doing the lamenting, and substantially older than the woman who is sharing my bed, so I just keep my mouth shut, since I remember being the age when the lamentors held the cards and felt that they “need to find themselves”.

    Now don’t get me wrong – I actually do plan on having a family, and it’s an unfortunate fact that precludes a woman older than early-30’s. But that is life. Women forgot a simple matter of biology which cannot be ignored for very long – I can wait to have children till I’m in my 50’s – a woman can’t. I’m not to blame for knowing my value in the present market – but I will take advantage of it. The women I see seriously, know that they are fighting a war and to the winner goes the spoils – and it is sometimes a hot war…

    I figure that I will marry within the next five years, since I would like to have children while I’m still young enough to be a father to them, but if I don’t find the right woman, I’ll just enjoy what’s available. Now, I actually do have several children that other men are raising – but they don’t count since in many instances they are the results of affairs so I never saw them as my off-spring, and I would like a child or two of my own – although I do plan on verifying their genealogy via DNA tests. (Trust, but verify.)

  143. Pingback: Susan Walsh | The Black Pill

  144. Pingback: “29/31″: A Time-Travel Video About The Wall | The Badger Hut

  145. Pingback: Choice addiction poster child | Dalrock

  146. Pingback: A New Spin On “Man Up” Marketing | The Badger Hut

  147. kat says:

    It seems to me, after reading numerous blogs regarding men and women and pu artists and hooking up, etc. etc., that men’s modus operandi seems to be to make women feel afraid, or less than, or that women’s “value” is constantly plummeting after age 25 while pretending that men’s value stays constant. The simple fact is that marriage does not offer women much value in the way that it did once upon a time. I am a 54 year old divorced woman. I am currently dating 2 wonderful gentlemen, in the off chance someone suggests that I am a cat lady. I do not even like cats. I totally support myself and took nothing from my ex. I am unable to have children,so fertility is not now nor has ever been an issue for me, so maybe I am more clear eyed on this because of that. If I had stayed with my ex, my life would have been miserable. I worked full time all the way through our relationship, and he also demanded that I keep the house perfect at all times, cook, grocery shop, etc. I in essence had 2 jobs while he had one. He tinkered with his boat, go cart, etc., in his off time while I hit the housework. He also had a severe drinking problem, and I recently heard that he is sick now because of it, so if I had stayed with him instead of “spinstering” I would have added nursemaid to my responsibilities. Now. I mostly like my job, and when i come home it is to a peaceful, quiet, environment, and I do housework if I feel like it, if not, it waits until the next day. Marriage is just not the good deal that it was many years ago for women. Most of the men I know in my age group are unemployed and live with their mother, so I date younger men for the most part. Most women I know in my age group are done with marriage, and some with men totally. What is the gain for most women? I have a friend my age, also unable to have kids, who finally was forced to leave her same age husband after he refused to work, do housework, or contribute in almost any way for over 10 years. Spinsterhood would have been a better choice for her, as she makes good money and could have kept much more of it. I do not dislike men, and do not agree with a lot of feminism, but shaming women for doing the same things that work for men, making them feel less valued for doing something as basic as getting older, that we ALL do, or like they need a man to take care of them, when most married women my age are doing the caretaking of their husbands, just seems so counterproductive. There seem to be a lot of angry men out there.

  148. Casey says:

    @ Doc

    You are a fool.
    Furthermore, you are part of the problem.

    I can applaud you for knowing your market value.
    BUT I deplore your willingness to have affairs (presumably with married women?)
    AND
    You are being as irresponsible in your curt dismissal of your own offspring.

    By the way, you are playing into the feminists hands by giving women children without submission. Goodbye paycheck.

    Assuming you are having affairs with married women, you are betraying your own brotherhood.
    We men are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

  149. Pingback: How The Gender Script Was Flipped

  150. Luke says:

    Kat, you and your female friends have your (would-have-been) husbands’ jobs.
    This is much of why “Most of the men I know in my age group are unemployed and live with their mother,”

  151. Luke says:

    Uncle Fred, I figure that it’s more like an 80/20 rule on campuses. That is, 20% of the males are having sex with 80% of the females. Thus, 80% of the males and 20% of the females are thus effectively shut out of the sexual marketplace there.

  152. Pingback: Letter To A Young Churchian Woman | The Society of Phineas

  153. Pingback: Naivete; It Would Be funny If Not So Sad. | The Phantom Tollbooth

  154. Pingback: Want Women? First Get Power — Alex Ding

  155. Sarah Wellan says:

    What the f uckis going on with this misogynistic comment thread?? You men sound like patriarchal, smug f ucking ass holes who are just yukking it up and are doing little somersaults and are literally posting WOODY WOODPECKER cartoons with that fucking little cartoon bird going “huh-huh-huh-HUH-HUH!!!” because you’re all just oh-so-happy to think that feminist women MIGHT feel lonely because they refused to settle for ASS HOLE husbands who treat them like sh it. Yeah, all of you idiot pieces of SH IT who need to get OUT of the gene pool, like, immediately. Who was that dumb ass fu cking idiot who said, “The lesson is that if you want the respect of any woman, you need to be in the lead.” Um, no. Just, NO. What is it about EQUALITY that has all you little boys so SCARED?? You dumb ass idiots would obviously make TERRIBLE husbands, with your stone-age, 1950’s patriarchal attitudes and your obvious HATRED of women. Oh whoops, I mean, your obvious hatred of FEMINIST women who demand and expect RESPECT, CONSIDERATION, and EQUALITY in a marriage. You all just LOVE submissive, lapdog-type women who will be your house slaves and NOT have an opinion and let you walk all over them — oh, THOSE are the women you want to marry, these Stepford Wives who will “take care of you” and be your surrogate mommies . Well, I wouldn’t touch any of you piece of sh it blokes with OBVIOUS MOMMY ISSUES with a 1,000 foot pole, and ALL women would be wise to do the same.

  156. Sarah Wellan says:

    Dalrock – oh and by the way, your barely-contained RAGE at feminists and your “ha-ha-ha, I told you so” dumbass antics in your idiotic blog posts on this issue of feminists NOT getting married clearly reflect a HUGE INSECURITIES. Tell me, Dalrock, exactly WHY are you so THREATENED by feminists and feminism? Why are you trying so desperately to degrade women and feminists in general by referring to us as “hamsters?” Are you THAT insecure in your manhood that you are completely INCAPABLE of respecting the choices of feminist women, that you constantly seek to degrade them? Why do you (and your horde of angry, pathetically insecure male followers) in the so called “manosphere” feel the need to cling like little scared children to the antiquated ideas of masculinity, and patriarchal beliefs, and why do you refuse to embrace the evolution of masculinity to include the idea of men developing compassion, emotional vulnerability, the ability to TALK ABOUT feelings and listen to women’s feelings, being supportive and considerate? These qualities, often mostly associated with “feminine” qualities, are to me what a REAL MAN is all about — being a loving, supportive, considerate, compassionate human being. THAT is the kind of man that most women want to marry. And finally, Dalrock, WHY is your dick so small?

  157. Pirran says:

    @Sarah Wellan

    Sistah, you need to check your privilege. Don’t react defensively, but as a white middle-class woman, step away from the keyboard, apologize for your actions and figure out a way not to do it again. Don’t dictate to the group, but ask them and listen to their reactions. Better yet, trust them to lead the community and joint the initiatives they have already started.

    As cisgendered micro-phalli, your ableist intersectional oppression has engendered a shame spiral within our node. Please, no more gendered slurs and remember; nothing about us without us.

    Thank you.

  158. Feminist Hater says:

    Sarah, just shut the fuck up and leave the blog. Why the fuck is that so hard for you femcunts to understand?

  159. Michael says:

    Take a look at this followup interview to Dalrock’s article by the author in question:

    Skip ahead to 22:00 for some serious spinning.Kate Bolick can’t understand why she’s being “told what my options are”.
    :)

  160. Pingback: Alone and Dying – The Horrific Fate The Modern Single Woman Faces | The Collapse Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s