Do women want to get married?

Several of the commenters in the discussion on my post All the lonely feminist spinsters challenged my assertion that women want to get married.  Krakonos accused me of being old fashioned:

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).

Zed was a little more circumspect:

Frankly, I don’t think you understand the point of view of women delaying marriage well enough to talk about it.

As I said in the original post:

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.

The proof of this is overwhelming.  Kate Bolick was a fish/bicycle feminist starting in the third grade, yet she tells us in the article that she always planned to marry at 30.  The whole article is about how much she regrets not having married, although she doesn’t come out and say it.  Why else would she devote so much time to the man who got away, the man she took shopping for the outfit he would wear while marrying another woman?  Does anyone who read that doubt that this crushed her?

But it isn’t just Kate.  As Zed can attest, the women who are 40ish now grew up steeped in feminism from day one.  Yet 90% of white women of the same age in the US have married.  This isn’t 90% of white women who said they wanted to marry, excluding the morbidly obese, lesbians, homely women, and hairy legged feminists.  This is 90% of all white women by age 40.  Think about this.  How deep did some of those women have to dig to make sure they didn’t lose out on their ceremonial trip down the aisle?

And as Interested pointed out, all of the young women Kate spoke with at Susan’s house were horrified at the idea of not being able to eventually marry.  From the original Atlantic article:

…when I asked if they wanted to get married when they grew up, and if so, at what age, to a one they answered “yes” and “27 or 28.”…

“Take a look at me,” I said. “I’ve never been married, and I have no idea if I ever will be. There’s a good chance that this will be your reality, too. Does that freak you out?”

Again they nodded.

“I don’t think I can bear doing this for that long!” whispered one, with undisguised alarm.

I REMEMBER EXPERIENCING THAT same panicked exhaustion around the time I turned 36, at which point I’d been in the dating game for longer than that alarmed 22-year-old had, and I wanted out.

Again, the author is a fish/bicycle feminist from early childhood;  she has her advanced degree and her high status job as a writer in the big city.  What she doesn’t have is a husband and a baby, and this is killing her.  It isn’t that she didn’t want marriage, it is that she thought it would always be there for the taking.  The idea that it might not be is what freaked the young women out at Susan’s house.

On the subject of babies, Krakonos asserted that the women will just become single mothers.  From a practical (male) perspective this might make sense, but from a status (female) perspective it misses the mark by a mile.  Having a child out of wedlock is low class.  The aversion by non low class women in the US to have children out of wedlock shows up in the data I shared previously:

Women in general want:

  1. Sex from the most attractive, powerful, highest status man they can get.
  2. Maximum investment and commitment from a man (love, courtship, romance, his lifetime commitment to her).
  3. Children.

What often throws men off when considering this is that if women can’t get all of the above from the same man (plan A), they will often resort to getting these things from different men (plan B).  But this doesn’t change the fact that plan A is the preferred plan.  Slutting around with alphas who won’t commit and then marrying a beta provider at the last minute isn’t plan A.  The sluts would far prefer to have the investment and commitment come from the alphas, as Roissy points out in The Duke Rejection List (crass site warning):

this chick was rejected by each and every one of these high status men she banged.

“But how can that be?”, some of the duller among you will ask. “None of the men turned her down for sex.”

Don’t you know it’s different for women? Failing to get laid is not how women are rejected; they are rejected when they don’t receive romance, love, and long term commitment from the men who f*** them.

The reason women don’t want to commit while seeking commitment from the man is not because they want to hop from man to man.  It is because they are afraid they will want another man more down the road.  Paige described this mindset perfectly in her comment on my post The ethics of pump-n-dump:

Relating Pump-n-Dumping to Serial Monogamy assumes more self-awareness in the woman than she actually has. At the beginning the woman is convinced she will be in-love forever…if the romantic feelings decline she believes the relationship is no longer worthwhile for either partner. But she doesn’t just assume at the beginning that this will happen.

Susan described this in the comments section of the last post:

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.

What is unspoken is that these women are holding out for a bigger better deal.  The longer they delay marriage, in their mind the more courtship they can accrue and the better man they can expect to marry.  Just because the idea is absurd, it doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking this way. The only thing which keeps women from extending their search forever is the fear of losing the option to choose.  This fear is the foundation of endless chick flick and chick lit plots, and the reason the label of spinster hasn’t lost it’s massive punch to women in this “enlightened” age.  Note that both Kate Bolick and the girls at Susan’s house expressed feeling this terror.  The only thing which holds this terror at bay is the expectation that the woman can get off the carousel at any time she wants.  So long as she believes that all she has to do to get married is click her heels together three times and say there’s no place like home and poof she is married, she can keep the terror at bay and feels safe remaining on the carousel.  Take this comfort away, and you are left with sheer panic.

This panic has always been there and will always be there;  all that is different today is when this panic tends to set in.  In previous generations young women feared being left behind in the great husband hunt as early as high school.  As they witnessed other young women paring off with the best men in serious relationships with the potential to lead to marriage, they were motivated to do the same.  Over time this was pushed out to just after high school, then college graduation, and eventually met the fairly immovable boundary of their declining fertility in their 30s.  This fear is what keeps women from aimlessly searching forever for the mythical better man they know has been secretly pining away for her, but for some reason hasn’t yet appeared in her life.

The extended delay of the timing of this alarm for women is why ordinary high school and college men today find it so difficult to find a woman who wants to be in a relationship.  So long as they aren’t faced with an immediate need to secure commitment and investment from a real life man, many women are content to live in a fantasy world where a long list of poor to mediocre choices magically leads to the best option imaginable.  Ordinary men are mentally compared to the fantasy man, and of course can’t hope to compete.  Only the fear of losing the option to choose brings these women down into the real world, where their own attractiveness determines the quality of man they can attract.

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

286 Responses to Do women want to get married?

  1. Natasha says:

    As you say, nearly all girls do want to get married, *eventually.* But when they’re 18-25, exclusive LTRs are the last thing on their mind. Susan Walsh misses this (and you get it, in your last paragraph).

    The sweet girls I’ve known in that age group who genuinely want a boyfriend are never long without one. Often, these girls will marry right when they graduate from college or within a year after.

    The girls who complain about there being “no good men left” are inevitably picky and promiscuous, and often replete with unpleasant qualities like an inability to cook, slovenly in dress, generalized disrespect for men, etc.

  2. Jim says:

    I once knew a woman who was looking for Mr Right. Yet during the span of the 9 months we were acquainted, she bonked 16 guys.

    Women don’t know what they want. Even worse, they don’t know what they need.

  3. Badger says:

    Thus begins the cultural exegesis of the Bolick article. Young women want “relationships,” but they want low-grade, low-commitment ones which are of uncertain futures. I think what they really want is the status of saying “I have a boyfriend,” which is a lower-grade version of the “I’ve been chosen!” thrill women get from getting married.

  4. Doomed Harlot says:

    I don’t really have a beef with the notion that the vast majority of women want to marry, or at least pair-bond, as do the vast majority of men. (After all, these women are all marrying SOMEone, right?)

    What doesn’t follow is the notion that women want to marry no matter what, or that women (or anyone) is better off being married than not. Being single ain’t so bad. Being married to the wrong person is one of the worst things in the world.
    ***********************************************
    Krakonos is wrong in blithely asserting that women would just as soon be single mothers. Parenting is an extremely labor-intensive activity. I find it hard to believe that most women would want to tackle it without help unless the other options are worse.

  5. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Their help is named Big Daddy Government.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Doomed Harlot

    What doesn’t follow is the notion that women want to marry no matter what, or that women (or anyone) is better off being married than not. Being single ain’t so bad. Being married to the wrong person is one of the worst things in the world.

    Thats why women invented marriage 2.0. Even women who can’t attract the man they really want can still walk down the aisle and prove that a man was invested in them enough to publicly proclaim commitment for life. Then after a suitable waiting period, they can hit the eject button and walk away with cash and prizes (and perhaps children).

    Of course even then they are back on the hunt for the man they really want to marry. The wonderful prince charming who for some inexplicable reason has yet to appear, but is aching to profess his undying love for her. Divorce porn doesn’t end with women living a carefree single life for a reason.

  7. gdgm+ says:

    Could it simply be that the concept of “marriage” that today’s women want… is nowhere near the concept of “marriage” for most men? Even further apart than Marriage 1.0 compared to Marriage 2.0?

  8. Odds says:

    I think this has been covered a dozen times over, here and elsewhere. Everyone wants all the good things in life with none of the bad things and without paying a price for it, women included. The only difference is that somehow we as a civilization have decided we are no longer going to teach women that this is impossible, so the only ones who don’t act like they can have everything for free are the ones who figured it out for themselves early on.

    Most women get genuinely freaked out at the idea that they may actually not get all the benefits of perfect alpha boyfriends and husbands without any of the associated costs.

  9. zed says:

    Zed was a little more circumspect:

    “Frankly, I don’t think you understand the point of view of women delaying marriage well enough to talk about it.”

    Unfortunately, the series of strokes I had at the beginning of the summer left me with some lingering effects on my language abilities which cause me to sometimes leave something out of an explanation. It wasn’t entirely being “circumspect”, but intended to be more challenging in a less harsh manner.

    Are you a woman (of any age) delaying marriage? I have gotten the impression that you are not – that you are “a happily married father in a post feminist world.” Without being in the actual situation, I have grave doubts that you actually see the same point of view. Thus, it did come across to me as someone projecting their own point of view onto how they view the situation those women are in.

    I think that characterization applies even more to this statement –

    Kate Bolick was a fish/bycicle feminist starting in the third grade, yet she tells us in the article that she always planned to marry at 30. The whole article is about how much she regrets not having married, although she doesn’t come out and say it.

    Wow, in addition to your many and varied talents, you are also a mind reader!! I’m very impressed, Dalrock.

    Perhaps if I had read it more closely, and from your perspective, I might have seen the same thing you did. Given the fact that it just the same old feminist boilerplate that I have seen thousands of times, I skimmed over it and only found one new piece of information in it. As I closed it, my impression was “Just Another Bimbo Spouting Feminist Drivel.”

    Perhaps she should change her name from Kate Bolick to Kate Rorschach. I suspect that what people see in what she has written has a lot more to do with them than it does with her.

    Now, to give people a perspective on what I project onto the article, it goes back to a quote I read growing up. I have no idea where it came from, but the quote stayed with me and became a part of the bedrock of how I view the world. It was about some guy who spent every night in a pool hall, talking about how he wanted to be rich. The book pointed out that all he was doing was talking to impress other people. If he really wanted to be rich, he would not be wasting his time hanging out in pool halls – he would be out working at a profession or business and building wealth.

    To address the title of this article, of course women want to GET married, they just don’t want to BE married. In the past year we have seen a couple of instances of women marrying themselves. They want the big party, “her special day”, the ring to show off to other women, and a man sufficiently acceptable to wave in other women’s faces and go “nyaa, nyaaa, nyaaa.”

    The problem with “getting married” – as illustrated by the graphic at Deansdales’s blog http://deansdale.wordpress.com/ – is that once the party is over they have to stop pretending to be the princess and settle down with someone who has his own sets of perceptions, desires, and way of dealing with the world. When that reality hits – the fantasy goes sour – as it does in Confession #430 here – http://www.truewifeconfession.com/2011/09/true-wife-confessions-42-ultimate.html

    Not only do think I don’t love you anymore, but I suspect I am starting to hate you. We have only been married for 5 months.

    If women wanted to BE married the vast majority of them would be – because, as you pointed out, 90% of white women get their special day to be the center of attention while they walk down the aisle.

    The reason women don’t want to commit while seeking commitment from the man is not because they want to hop from man to man. It is because they are afraid they will want another man more down the road.

    ..who they will then hop to – even if they don’t want to? I suggest you consider rewording this statement.

    Form the perspective of a man who has been doing the “Peter Pan” thing for more than 40 years, it appears to me that young women at the height of their SMV get the impression that “there is a better offer going to come from where this one came from”, and who put every sincere expression of interest by a man as a lifetime “call-option” for his attention and commitment when she starts running out of better offers and decides to cash it.

    Frankly, I cannot reconcile the idea that women in general want to be married, with the figure that grerp cites in her current post that 40% of the women in my age cohort are single. If I take your figures – that only 10% of them never have been married – that other 30% tried marriage one or more times and found the men who would marry them not up to their standards.

    I think the real question to be resolved is what appropriately-named Mrs. Robinson said over at HUS in the discussion of Kate Rorschach’s aricle –

    …the old woman will have plenty of chances later. Chances are never an issue with women. The issue is do we want the guys we have chances with?

    So, combat dating goes on – women will always have plenty of chances to get married, it is just that they don’t want the guys they get the chances with.

  10. Doomed Harlot says:

    Dalrock,

    Maybe if our culture didn’t insist that marriage is the ultimate validation of women’s lives, then there wouldn’t be women using their weddings to “prove that a man has invested in them enough to publicly proclaim commitment for life.” The period of my own engagement and wedding really brought this home to me. Everyone, and I mean everyone, acted as if this were MY special day, the crowning glory of my life. That’s because people saw the wedding as a celebration of me being found worthy enough to be chosen by a man. This is a heavy theme in our culture, and certainly one promoted mercilessly by the wedding-industrial complex. It is hardly surprising that some women buy into the hard-sell.

    Ironically, you also promote the belief that women’s worth is tied to having a man choose her. You constantly shame “spinsters” as pathetic losers, too far past their expiration date to be attractive to a man looking to “invest” in a woman.

    Feminism frees women to marry for love. As a feminist, you don’t need a man for validation or for “investment” or for cash and prizes. Now, that may mean some of us never marry because we never find love. But there is little point in marrying for anything less than love, when a feminist can have validation and financial success without marrying. And I would imagine that a man would prefer to be married because his wife loves him — rather than, because she wants his wallet or because she wants to prove that she can snag a man.

    I suppose the one thing that might induce a woman to marry an “okay” guy she doesn’t really love would be if she really, really wants to have children no matter what. But overall, feminism gives you more options — including the option to remain childless without social stigma or internalized shame.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Zed

    Unfortunately, the series of strokes I had at the beginning of the summer left me with some lingering effects on my language abilities which cause me to sometimes leave something out of an explanation. It wasn’t entirely being “circumspect”, but intended to be more challenging in a less harsh manner.

    No worries. I expect no less from you; I was just having some fun with it. Sorry to hear about the strokes. Scary business. I truly wish you the best.

    Are you a woman (of any age) delaying marriage? I have gotten the impression that you are not – that you are “a happily married father in a post feminist world.” Without being in the actual situation, I have grave doubts that you actually see the same point of view.

    I had to read this several times to be sure of what you were saying. You are suggesting that the only people who can explain what women want are women. Do you not want to reconsider this?

  12. Dalrock says:

    @Doomed Harlot

    Maybe if our culture didn’t insist that marriage is the ultimate validation of women’s lives, then there wouldn’t be women using their weddings to “prove that a man has invested in them enough to publicly proclaim commitment for life.”

    Yes, the difference between men and women is all due to culture. Why didn’t I think of that? More importantly, whether the difference is cultural or biological, no one has ever found a way to stop it. Feminism has done all it can ever hope to do, yet women still feel this way. That has to really suck. What else can feminists do? In the meantime, I and millions more (and growing) men and women will quit going along with your feminist fantasy, and you are powerless to stop it.

  13. dragnet says:

    @ Dalrock

    “Yes, the difference between men and women is all due to culture. Why didn’t I think of that? More importantly, whether the difference is cultural or biological, no one has ever found a way to stop it. Feminism has done all it can ever hope to do, yet women still feel this way. That has to really suck. What else can feminists do?”

    Exactly. Anyone saying that it’s all socialization needs to have their head examined. The notion that the vast majority of women don’t have a biological imperative to find a mate and reproduce is just ludicrous. Culture tends to just reinforce and amplify biological norms—why is this so hard to admit?

    I also think it’s worth addressing this notion that women (and men) should be free to be childless without incurring the judgement of others. Statements like this imply that societies have no interest in encouraging its constituents to reproduce themselves. But this is plainly not the case. The long-term economic consequences of all this empowered, childless, single women are pretty stark. How will we establish and sustain expensive infrastructure, generous social welfare systems like univeral healthcare and social security, improve education and fund our military if the tax-base is shrinking because women aren’t having children? The vast majority of these single women aren’t going to be able to pay for their own healthcare or take care of themselves as they live increasingly longer lives—but they didn’t produce children to strengthen to the tax base they will inevitably become a net drain on. The Japanese are beginning to have this problem right now and it’s expected to get much, much worse.

    I’m not advocating that single women (and men) should be thrown in prison for not pairing up. Only that societies absolutely have an interest in making sure they come together and reproduce—and shame is one of the ways of making that happen.

  14. cybro says:

    It’s not that women don’t want to get married, they do but only as a means to an end. What they really want is to be divorced. They want to be divorced running around asking what happened to all the good men and if they can be a divorced, single mother who can’t find a good man that’s double plus good. This way they get to spend the rest of their lives telling us how bad men are in general and how evil her ex husband was in particular. For a woman life doesn’t get any better than that. She may even throw in a false rape accusation or a sob story about how she was molested by a male relative when she was younger to boost her victim status a little higher.

  15. dragnet says:

    @ Doomed Harlot

    “Feminism frees women to marry for love. As a feminist, you don’t need a man for validation or for “investment” or for cash and prizes. Now, that may mean some of us never marry because we never find love. But there is little point in marrying for anything less than love, when a feminist can have validation and financial success without marrying.”

    Except this isn’t generally true. Sure, feminist reforms legally extended greater freedom of action to all women, but in practice it’s really only women of generally high socioeconomic status (middle class on up) who have been able to exploit these advantages in any meaningful way. Which is historically redundant as high status women have always had greater freedom of action— even when compared to most men. In some highly patriarchal societies, high status women inherited property, chose their husbands and were allowed to divorce.

    It’s socioeconomic status that determines whether or not you need a man’s “validation” or “investment” not whether or not one is a feminist—it has ever been this way and feminism has been woefully ineffective at altering this paradigm for lower status women…who make up the vast majority of the female population. For a poor woman, there most certainly is a point to marrying a man “for anything less than love”.

    The current cultural paradigm attempts to use taxdollars to liberate lower status women from men. It has only been marginally effective, but even the modest (and costly) independence they have achieved will see sharp reversals as the state creaks under the weight of its fiscal problems.

    Look, life wasn’t a picnic in patriarchal systems. There was repression and suffering by both men and women. But the social and cultural problems under the patriarchy were at least consistent with what we know to be true about our biological imperatives and human nature itself, whereas the problems we face now are corrosive to very foundations of civilization itself. Under the old paradigm you could argue the good mostly outweighed the bad for most people.

    I’m not sure you can make that claim now.

  16. Susan says:

    Hmmmm…I guess I can see why so many end up single for so long. I did marry at 28, but thinking back over my life:

    *I was told over and over by my parents not to marry too young. I was told that it’s ideal to be mid-twenties at least, probably older. They thought this because they married young and had a terrible marriage which eventually ended.
    *During my single-but-looking years, I was almost always in evangelical Christian environments. This is not great at all in terms of gender ratios. Also, I don’t remember hearing various Christian leaders encourage marriage very much.
    *The Christian guys I dated didn’t have the best character, ie. cheating, pushing to cross lines, etc. Do I accept some of the blame? Yes, obviously, I was not choosing well. But no one at any point in my life had ever warned me that women are often attracted to men who are not great news. No one except my grandmother ever told me I might want to take a closer look at some of the guys who didn’t come across as being as attractive or exciting. I thought she was old-fashioned and paid no attention to her. Also, I didn’t really get asked out very often by men of higher character so it’s not like I was doing a lot of rejecting.
    *Really, I was surrounded by so many others my age who were staying single throughout most of their 20s, so it seemed normal, as difficult as it was at times. No one ever talked about things like SMV declining with age or anything like that. Also, it seemed like a lot of the quality men really did wait until older to marry, perhaps because they wanted to be more economically set.

  17. pb says:

    “I also think it’s worth addressing this notion that women (and men) should be free to be childless without incurring the judgement of others.”

    They can become religious or do feminine service. Don’t f- around with men’s work or men’s networks.

  18. Jason says:

    Hi Dalrock,

    A thought provoking argument as usual, thanks :)

    You noted that women try to hold out for a better deal The longer they delay. Although I agree there is truth to this, how is it that women have been so effectively brain washed to ignore the reality of how foolish this behavior is. And the indoctrination has been really really effective, although the spell does seem to be starting to break, as these women have been trained to behave in ways 180 degrees at odds with their actual interests.

    After all every time they have sex with a different man or involve themselves in a LTR they are devaluing their market value for marriage as well as damaging their ability to form the very pair bond they seem to desire.

    After all the data does seem to bear out what should be obvious (if the old ideas about marriage etc are true, especially the biblical ideas on the topic) that the more sexual partners you have the greater the likelihood of divorce.

    Although I agree Marriage 2.0 is an insane setup, perhaps it isnt the real problem as much as it is an inevitable symptom of a culture that has embraced a deeply suicidal conception of male and female sexuality that lacks any supposedly lacks any constraints other than the will of the participants. Which is what I think we see in this conception of women able to behave as sluts until they will to act differently and settle down and get married. Without any idea that the patterns you setup are the ones that become habits. Able to be broken and overcome but only if you are aware of them.

    Anyway just some thoughts on this strange and utterly insane behavior from many women.

    Jason

  19. Odds says:

    “Without being in the actual situation, I have grave doubts that you actually see the same point of view.”

    Please tell me you don’t really think this way. This is the same reasoning that feminists use to complain that women’s interests aren’t represented in government because most Senators are male, or in business because most CEO’s are male. By the same logic, every female legislator would be physically incapable of representing my point of view. Or hell, take it further and say most normal people can’t possibly understand how I feel as a Star Trek fan.

    The ability to put ourselves in other people’s shoes is part of being a normal human being with empathy. Valuing outsider’s views of your own choices is part of being wise.

  20. Sandy says:

    2 Doomed Harlot

    Feminism frees women to marry for love.

    In traditional societes some women didn’t marry. Some didn’t find husbands good enough for them, some became nuns because they wanted to dedicate life to religion and so on. Feminism changed exactly nothing

    As a feminist, you don’t need a man for validation or for “investment” or for cash and prizes.

    If you want to have family with children, then you need a man, if not for yourself then for the children. Single motherhood is extremely crappy family structure which is harmful for children. I think some time in enlightened future single motherhood will be officially declared child abuse. So feminism changed exactly nothing here

    Now, that may mean some of us never marry because we never find love. But there is little point in marrying for anything less than love, when a feminist can have validation and financial success without marrying. And I would imagine that a man would prefer to be married because his wife loves him — rather than, because she wants his wallet or because she wants to prove that she can snag a man.

    Women’s love (romantic) is not some kind of a spark of heaven send by gods, but a biomechanical reaction to men heaviliy influenced by the social environment. Feminist social environment is abusive and toxic to men and women and it destroys love. Fish/bycicle indoctrination, social pressure to marry late, misandry, betaization of men, Disney’s princess stories, “never settle” and so on are destroying the ability of women to feel love for real men (as opposed to fictional ones).

  21. CorkyAgain says:

    I agree with Zed.

    Women never seem happier than when they’re getting married — except, possibly, when they’re pregnant. In both cases, they’re the center of attention. Everyone smiles at the bride or the mother-to-be, and grants her special favors.

    *Being* married? Not so glamorous. Being a mother is also a drag — which might explain why young mothers used to put those “Baby on Board” signs on their cars. (Do they still do that? I need to get out more.) It’s a last-ditch attempt to recover some of the attention and status that was showered upon her in the past.

    But I often wonder if they resent the fact that it’s the *baby* people are cooing over…

  22. Anonymous Reader says:

    Doomed Harlot Poseur
    Maybe if our culture didn’t insist that marriage is the ultimate validation of women’s lives, then there wouldn’t be women using their weddings to “prove that a man has invested in them enough to publicly proclaim commitment for life.”

    Drat that nasty old evolution, anyway. How dare millions of years of biology make an inborn difference between men and women. Let’s all stamp our feet, and make it go away…

    [D: Brilliant!]

  23. TFH says:

    Doomed Harlot,

    Feminism frees women to marry for love.

    Actually, let me fix that for you.

    Feminism frees women to attempt to marry for love, but since most cannot, the majority end up as bitter spinsters or unwed mothers.

    Feminism frees women to attempt to play the lottery, and delude themselves of the odds.

  24. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    Yes, the difference between men and women is all due to culture. Why didn’t I think of that? More importantly, whether the difference is cultural or biological, no one has ever found a way to stop it. Feminism has done all it can ever hope to do, yet women still feel this way. That has to really suck. What else can feminists do?

    Most women will believe anything that makes them feel good about themselves.

    I will go so far as to say there are only two ways a woman can avoid being completely useless to society after age 35-40 :

    1) Bear children and be a good mother to them. Part of being a good mother is making sure that she does not separate the father from her children.
    2) A rare few women have careers that are of high importance to society. But this is a small percentage – much smaller than a lot of career women think.

    Unless a woman has met one of these two criteria by age 35-40, she is completely useless to society.

  25. TFH says:

    I think Sandy’s comment is superb.

    Doomed Harlot thinks that feminism was some great liberation. In reality, it generated X benefits to women by inflicting 4X the cost to men and children..

    And even that X is in question, given how many depressed childless women are out there.

  26. TFH says:

    I will also go so far as to say that there was never a time when the average woman had it distinctly worse than the average man.

    The operating word is AVERAGE.

    See the Misandry Bubble for a full explanation, on the myth of female oppression.

  27. TFH says:

    *Being* married? Not so glamorous. Being a mother is also a drag — which might explain why young mothers used to put those “Baby on Board” signs on their cars. (Do they still do that? I need to get out more.) It’s a last-ditch attempt to recover some of the attention and status that was showered upon her in the past.

    I have noticed a distinct trend of breastfeeding exhibitionism in women nowadays, particularly older women having their child at a late age (feminists).

    The breastfeed in public, which is something we did not see in America a couple of decades ago. In fact, this is normal in the poorest of the third-world countries where women literally do not have a sheltered private place, and thus breastfeed on the construction site itself.

    But these ‘feminist’ women have devolved full circle, it would seem. They even brag about putting these videos on YouTube. Talk about narcissistic exhibitionism.

  28. hurpadurp says:

    I also think it’s worth addressing this notion that women (and men) should be free to be childless without incurring the judgement of others.

    Well, hold on a second there, brother. To be fair, there are plenty of *men* out there who don’t want to be fathers either–plenty of MGTOWers don’t want to be forced into fatherhood any more than they want to be chained to a woman. There are quite a few of them who wouldn’t want to be fathers *even if* we could go back to marriage 1.0 and all that–they simply value their own personal freedom over anyone that says they have an obligation to society, in whatever form. Bringing back ‘shaming’ for childlessness might not sit well with a lot of these guys. :/

  29. Jason Rennie says:

    @DoomedHarlot

    Hi DH, you commened

    “Feminism frees women to marry for love”

    I’ve got to be honest, but this has to be, especially given the modern western conception of “love”, the most idiotic idea imaginable. Anybody selling this idea to women (or men for that matter) should be tarred and feathered and then horse whipped out of town (to use a suitably old fashioned punishment).

    This “love” that people look for today is the sort of bubbly ephemera of relationships that isn’t ever going to last and if that is all that holds a marriage together then you are setting yourself and other men and women up for disaster.

    “Love” of the sort that you seem to suggest (I admit I am guessing here as to what you mean, but i’ll be surprised if I am off the mark) is something that comes and goes over the course of a relationship and can never function as the sort of bed rock that is required to make a marriage work. Two human beings living together will always have their ups and downs. If falling out of some bubbly emotional state is a grounds for ending a marriage (as many women and some men seem to believe when they talk about idiotic nonsense like “falling out of love”) or even as a prerequisite for a RealMarriage(TM) then Marriage truly is a dead institution.

    In reality, and the reason the traditional marriage vows (Hollywood not withstanding) use the phrase “I will” rather than “I do”, the sort of love that is required to make a marriage work is the more traditional conception of it embodied in the greek word Agape, that sees this type of love (yes there are multiple kinds, English is dimished as a language for abandoning this distinction I think) as a commitment to seek after the good of the other person and put them first.

    Unfortunately you offer some substitute modern silliness and call it “love” and as a result we get a mess.

    Weirdly you call this insanity that is actually incredibly harmful to women, “Progress” rather than what it really is, “Some what brain damaged suicidal behavior”.

    Jason

  30. TFH says:

    I hear a lot of accusations from the left that the right is anti-science. In some ways, that is true (although I do not consider socons to be part of the right)…

    But no group is more anti-science than feminists. I mean, really, they are in denial of things so basic that it is absurd.

  31. TFH says:

    I’ve got to be honest, but this has to be, especially given the modern western conception of “love”, the most idiotic idea imaginable. Anybody selling this idea to women (or men for that matter) should be tarred and feathered and then horse whipped out of town (to use a suitably old fashioned punishment).

    I agree.

    Societies where people are kept as virgins, married off at age 22 or so, and cannot get divorced easily have the greatest amount of spousal love. And I define love as caring for your spouse after he/she becomes ill or handicapped.

    What Doomed Harlot calls ‘love’ is the same as what Julia Roberts calls ‘love’ in ‘Eat, Pray, Love’. Sex tourism and cock-hopping is what DH thinks is ‘love’.

  32. TFH says:

    In fact, even Sex and the City, of all places, defined love correctly in the final episode, where the Miranda character bathes her demented mother-in-law, who can no longer do it for herself, out of obligation to her husband. Her Eastern European housekeeper praises her and says : “That……is love.”.

    Too bad that women who use SATC as a template conveniently omit the few actual lessons about realism that it *did* hold. Fertility is another area where they were quite realistic about the Charlotte character running out of time at age 37 or so. So howcome so many women are in denial.

  33. Jason Rennie says:

    @TFH,

    you said,
    “I hear a lot of accusations from the left that the right is anti-science … But no group is more anti-science than feminists. I mean, really, they are in denial of things so basic that it is absurd.”

    Must resist urge to make obvious joke :S

    Although in my experience, as a general rule, the left especially (but also some on the right) don’t care at all about “science” except when they can employ it as rhetorical club to silence those they disagree with. It is ironic that they have caught onto the idea that people accord respect to things that are regarded as scientific, but have failed to grasp that by using it the way they do they will inevitably erode the respect the moniker scientific has (if they haven’t pretty much destroyed it already).

    You are right to note that feminists in particular care nothing at all for science, but I think they are just a more extreme example of certain ideologies general drives to bend reality to their ideological will.

    Jason

  34. Jason Rennie says:

    @TFH,

    Thanks TFH. Couldn’t agree more about DH’s horribly screwed up conception of love. Ironically it is her and other women that will likely be most hurt by thise as well. Why can’t these women see the bleeding obvious?

    Also, a note on SATC, I thought it was a really interesting show overall as it provided a really good argument for why the lifestyle emphasised in the show was a stupid one. All of the characters tended to be profoundly unhappy with the lives they made for themselves.

    Sadly this (probably unintentional) message is missed by those seeking to emulate the SATC “lifestyle”.

    Jason

  35. dragnet says:

    @ hurpadurp

    Agree 100 percent. My point is that while it’s certainly in the interests of certain individuals—MGTOWers, feminists—that childlessness not be subject to shaming, it’s in clearly in the interest of society as a whole that this shaming does take place.

  36. Chels says:

    I do think that women want to get married because of the *wedding*, and not because of the *marriage*. Most women want the big princessy wedding, when she feels like the queen of the world for a day, which seems to fuel competition between women, just look at the average cost of a wedding (absolutely insane). Therefore, I’d say that women want the status associated with being married, but not the responsibilities that come with it.

    As well, a lot of people think like Doomed Harlot, which could be one of the driving forces behind the divorce rate. Love is definitely important and necessary in a marriage, but it’s not individualistic love, the one shown in all the chick flicks and the one women automatically think of and panic when it isn’t there or it isn’t encouraged by other people (love thee before everything and everyone else, at any cost or self-actualization).

    Perhaps people should live together before getting married so that they have a good idea of what marriage actually is, instead of the fairy tale seen on TV.

  37. whiskey says:

    I certainly hope Zed is feeling better. My prayers go out to you! That stuff is hard road.

    I would submit however that the test of Dalrock’s assertion would be Britain and the Scandi Nations. There, marriage collapsed almost overnight. Britain went from the land of Mrs. Miniver to that of Clockwork Orange, and then straight to Harry Brown, in about three generations. Over 50% of White births in Britain are illegitimate, if anything Hindu/Muslim births are propping up the national legitimacy rate. In the Scandinavian nations the situation wrt legitimacy is even worse.

    I’d say that women want a variety of things. When given a choice: marriage and nuclear family, vs. sexy Alpha guys and kids with them even as single mothers, they choose the latter at least over half. At least. After all, what is better, a loser beta male who is a good father and provider but unsexy and with no harem, or the excitement and domination and sexual thrills of an Alpha and bearing his kid? Particularly when there is no need for a provider, the government plus a woman’s own earnings can substitute for that.

    Like it or not, legitimacy and the nuclear family are ending. The nuclear family is dead, dead, dead in places like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and even the Netherlands. Certainly in Britain. Dying rapidly here.

    Women have priorities, their first is SEXY MEN! Most women I think will be quite happy to have kids out of wedlock with a sexy Alpha, than bear the nauseating prospect of marriage to some boring provider beta male.

  38. pb says:

    If they are blind to their own failings and so narcissistic that they seek to put the blame on others rather than the self, living together won’t reveal anything to them. They’ll just think they should have picked someone better (someone who better catered to their desires) rather than finding fault with themselves.

  39. Jason Rennie says:

    @Chels,

    Just a note, you said

    “Perhaps people should live together before getting married so that they have a good idea of what marriage actually is, instead of the fairy tale seen on TV.”

    I know you meant it in a well intentioned fashion but this is actually the worst possible advice you can give someone. Statistically, living together before getting married roughly doubles your chance of divorce. There have been a number of suggested explanations for this observation, but for my money, i’d suggest at least in part the whole notion of “living together” promotes a sense that the relationship can be abandoned if it “isn’t working” and that this wont actually go away when you “tie the knot”. Make of that what you will, but the statistics do bear out the idea, that whatever the reason, couples who live together before getting married will end up in divorce more often that couples who do not.

    Jason

  40. zed says:

    “Feminism frees women to marry for love”

    I’ve got to be honest, but this has to be, especially given the modern western conception of “love”, the most idiotic idea imaginable. Anybody selling this idea to women (or men for that matter) should be tarred and feathered and then horse whipped out of town (to use a suitably old fashioned punishment).

    This “love” that people look for today is the sort of bubbly ephemera of relationships that isn’t ever going to last and if that is all that holds a marriage together then you are setting yourself and other men and women up for disaster.

    And, disaster seems to be exactly what it is turning out to be.

    What is being called by the name of “love” here is what Roissy calls ” ‘gina tingles.”

    The love that holds families together is when “love” is considered a verb, not a noun.

  41. CorkyAgain says:

    As a traditionalist, I’ve always understood the marriage vow to be a promise, made before God and the community, to accept the spouse into the family. Indeed, as the very heart and foundation of the family.

    How often have you heard it said that a parent loves his or her child, no matter what that child does or what flaws might be revealed in his or her character? Parents forgive almost everything. That kind of forgiveness is the essence of family. Who doesn’t have a cousin or an aunt who says or does things that make us cringe — perhaps they’re even gossiping or otherwise maneuvering against us — yet we would never think of expelling them from the family because of it?

    Spouses, on the other hand, seem to be held to a stricter standard of justice. Especially the male spouse. His failings are never forgotten and always held against him. There is no forgiveness, only exasperated toleration for the time being.

    When justice rather than love rules the marriage, it is already over. Justice is about the relationship between individuals, but in true marriage the spouses are one. (I think it was Charles Williams who described divorce as a *metaphysical* error.)

  42. CorkyAgain says:

    Let me rephrase my last comment.

    The marriage vow isn’t a promise, in the sense of a contract between two individuals which can be voided later if one or the other parties fails to live up to the terms of the agreement.

    The marriage is itself the *act* that creates that essence or foundation of family that I was trying to describe. This what Charles Williams was driving at when he said divorce is a metaphysical error. The bride isn’t merely accepted as family as a result of the vow, she *becomes* family.

    Our modern, hyper-individualistic mindset has misled us, and as a result we’ve forgotten this truth.

    Modern woman doesn’t want marriage. She wants something much more conditional, something she can opt out of later if she decides it isn’t meeting her expectations and demands.

  43. CorkyAgain says:

    Danged typos! The marriage *vow* is itself the act…

  44. greyghost says:

    I think the whole marriage and love thing for women is pure hamster speak. Feminism in general is the idiolgy of hypergamy. Women do want to get married and to be able to enjoy hypergamy. That is what marriage 2.0 is all about. All of the laws of misandry from title IX to false rape,DV, abortion, all of the encouragement for women to do any and everything. All to give choices for the enjoyment of hypergamy. The total social and legal disreguard of males as even humans worthy of the rights wrtten in the constitution are all in place to make it easy for women to break away from one man and go to the next. Or just make any decision a woman wants to allow her to be happy. (pure Hypergamy) The only check are a few criminal laws having to go through the motions of family law to delude men that they actually have rights and social status to other women. Feminist are working on criminal law giving women the go ahead to just kill a husband that they want to be rid of,they are also trying to remove slut from the dicussion. Dalrock is dead on 90% of woman marry because they do want to marry. Why? I don’t care and trying to come up with a reason is stupid. One thing is for damn sure women do not want a commitment on their part. (that kind of thing interferes with hypergamy) Women are highly influenced by the gina tingles. That is where the game your wife crap comes from. Social status is another big one a woman will be atrcted to a fashion a man and “love” what ever it is if others see her as higher in stature.
    One more thing. Women don’t love and don’t have the capacity to love they do gina tinkle. A women will use “commitment” when other options of choice run out. Selfishness that doesn’t hinder hypergamy rules the day.

  45. Eric says:

    In our culture, women see marriage as a necessary evil; a situation to get out of with a ‘golden parachute’ of alimony and child support as soon as possible. The only values they see in men are as ‘sperm donors’ or ‘bill-payers'; and once they have achieved those things, the husbands become expendable and the bitches go back to chasing thugs again.

    The idea that women love—or feel anything positve at all towards men— is absurd. Women don’t even care about their own offspring if they interfere with their ‘independence’ and Will to Power. The female obsession with proving themselves superior to men dominates all their relationships with us. The best thing men can do is get out of their way and avoid them like the plague!

  46. CorkyAgain says:

    “The idea that women love—or feel anything positve at all towards men— is absurd.”

    Since all we have to go on is their observable behavior, it’s very difficult to argue with that conclusion.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Whisky
    Like it or not, legitimacy and the nuclear family are ending. The nuclear family is dead, dead, dead in places like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and even the Netherlands. Certainly in Britain. Dying rapidly here.

    Women have priorities, their first is SEXY MEN! Most women I think will be quite happy to have kids out of wedlock with a sexy Alpha, than bear the nauseating prospect of marriage to some boring provider beta male.

    This is working only because men are taxed to provide the monies to government to hand back out to unmarried women with children. The state is their “beta husband”. However, governments around the world are under stress from the ongoing debt crisis. Spending, even on welfare states, is going to be cut back.

    In the Peter Pan thread, grerp suggested to Chels that the time for the Germans to say “Whoops! Didn’t mean that!” to the Russians was not in April, 1945 but in June, 1941 (history note: National Socialist Germany tore up a peace pact and invaded International Socialist Russia in June, 1941. By April of 1945, Soviet tanks were closing in on Berlin).

    I’m taking that analogy and running with it. Women appear to be “winning” on all fronts. They are coming to dominate higher education. They run many Human Resources departments. Education has been reshaped to fit them, and them only, from K – 12 and we see it extending into college. Government contracts are reserved for them, Affirmative Action guarantees some number of jobs and promotions, I am informed some medical schools enforce a 50% female entry quota rigidly with some window dressing, a majority of “stimulus” money went to women in various ways.

    But.

    I followed a link Zed posted to the “Hooking A Man Smartly” web site, and found a torrent of agony over the suggestion that men should dump any woman who won’t have sex by the third date. The agony is over the fact that men are now, here and there, demanding sex up front, with commitment later on – if at all. Teh wommenz wish to enforce the older, 1.0 rule of commitment first, sex later – not marriage, no, but just “exclusive girlfriend” status. There is something they want – commitment -and it is not within their grasp. Furthermore, young men are coming to understand that. Men can hold out their commitment longer than women can hold out on sex; there is no biological clock ticking in men as there is in women. True, there’s no marriage strike – yet – but the thread at “Hooking A May-un” and its successor reeks of fear. Fear that men might, even if only at the margin, decide as Captain Capitalism says You won. Go away. Leave us alone.

    To return to grerps analogy, feminists and women have what they claimed to want, and yet there is something they can’t get. There is a symbolic goal that has become harder to get, the more they reach for it. They are redoubling efforts to get it, dragging their tradcon allies like Bill Bennet along with them. Some holdout men, wise in the war, are deeply dug in to positions that they will not retreat from, and only a direct, frontal attack on them will get to them; area bombing no longer even bothers them, random shelling can’t touch them. And they won’t come out, period. Other men are going their own way, climbing up high where they have a better and better view of the situation, and they are digging in too. PUA’s are down in the sewers, picking off women one by one with more and more confidence, deliberately using up the time of 30-35 year old women with non-commitment sex games. Communications are spotty, many men only know the conflict they see right in front of them. Supplies are questionable. Day after day, men are suffering, some are dying. The fighting goes on block by block, office by office, house by house, and within houses it goes on room by room.

    This is not April, 1945. This is sometime after August of 1942. This is Stalingrad. Men are metaphorically digging into the banks of the Volga, forting up in sewers, barricading themselves in houses, stubbornly going their own way up the Mamayev Kurgan. The massed, armored forces of judges and Federal agencies and anti-family court are of no use in this fight. This is one-on-one, low level, conflict. And from the panic I see, men are starting to stand their ground on commitment – it’s not pretty for the women. Furthermore, the supply lines for women are getting thinner day by day, as the financial winter approaches & money slowly starts drying up for 8A set aside contracts, foundation grants for feminist outreach, “stimulus” that props up entire government departments, etc.

    Feminism has won much. But it can’t win the thing women want most: commitment from a man. The damage that has been wrought by the feminist campaign is vast and extensive. But just as the Panzer divisions could not take Stalingrad, feminism and all the vast forces it commands cannot make any particular 27 year old man commit to a 24 year old woman.

    As this plays out, it may get uglier and uglier. Recall I said that the “men’s movement” is leaderless? There’s no one for women to surrender to in general. That’s going to happen one by one. If it happens at all.

  48. Jason Rennie says:

    @zed

    Thanks Zed. And thank you for including the apostrophe. I have seen the phrase gina tingles around but didn’t get what it meant. The apostrope at the start turning it into ‘gina tingles made it clear :) Is there a glossary of terms somewhere?

    Jason

  49. ruddyturnstone says:

    Single motherhood is actually no bargain. I think the manosphere is a little glib about this. Single mothers are not merely “low class” or “low status,” they are POOR. So, why so many of them? As Dalrock says, because women want three things, and if they can’t them all from one man, or can’t even get them all from more than one man, they will take what they can get. From many woman’s point of view, being a single mom is better than being a childless, single woman. OK, she never got the husband. Maybe she got the alpha male (at least as a bedmate), maybe not. But she did get the kid.

    Disagree with Dalrock and DH about the bridezilla thing. Weddings are so damned important to women these days not because it is a show of a man’s commitment. Shoot, the groom hardly even matters in the wedding drama that so many women write for, direct and star in themselves. He is a cypher. A stooge. A stock figure out of Central Casting. Look at all the fuss over her dress, while he wears a tux (which, let’s face it, are all pretty much the same). His role at the wedding is either to shut up and what’s he told, or to act, and be treated, as if he were the luckiest man in the world. The notion that the bride is lucky is anathema. That’s why it is good form to “congratulate” the groom, but not the bride (she is to be told “Best Wishes”), The wedding vibe is way, way more….”Come celebrate the wonder of Miss So and So” than it is “Look at me, Mr. Such and Such has committed to me.” A wedding is merely one of the many things that a woman, from her point of view, is entitled to. In a real patriarchy, the families run the wedding, usually the bride’s family. They are the ones making a show of the fact that Mr. Such and Such has made a commitment to their daughter. With the bride now in charge, that aspect is totally suboridinated. DH’s side notion about the wedding “industry” completely conflates cause with effect. The industry exists because of the demand coming from the brides. Not the other way around. DH may be an excpetion, but then, as we all know, NAWALT…..

    Finally, I am a reader who “doubts” that Ms.Boliks was “crushed” by the suit buying incident. Yes, of course, the real point of the article is that she wants to marry. But her hamster is still quite strong. Mr. Perfect is still out there, still waiting to take her to the land of Happily Ever After. The other guy? Well, remember, she dumped him. He was Mr. Supportive, Mr. Beta, Mr. No GAME, Mr I will move o your city to help your career. And, therefore, being with him meant “something was missing.” From the point of vew of our hip, New York editor, whom other women are still assuring that she is “gorgeous,” who has dined with kings and slept with NY Times best selling authors, the act of helping Mr. Dumped Dorky Beta Guy buy his suit was probably more an act of nobless oblige than it was something that “crushed” her. If it crushed her, why bring it up? It is not essential to her article. Why pick at a scab, if it hurts that much? No, I think she considers it more like lending a helping hand to one of the many guys who just didn’t measure up, and far from feeling jealous of the bride to be, it is way of asserting her superiority over a woman who, after all, is apparently quite happy to mate up with one of her leavings.

  50. grerp says:

    Unfortunately, the series of strokes I had at the beginning of the summer

    I did not realize you’d had health problems, zed. My mother has had a number of mini-strokes and is on blood thinners. She was walking with my father the other day, slipped, hit her head on the cement and almost bled out. Very scary. Please take care of yourself.

  51. grerp says:

    Interesting Stalingrad metaphor, A.R. I suppose this is what happens when governments and larger forces expect you to play your part but are utterly ignorant, unresponsive, and unconcerned about the situation on the ground.

  52. zed says:

    Thanks, grerp. I’ve not mentioned it much, but sometimes my phrasing of things seems a bit off to me. I’m not always sure that I actually said what I started out to say.

  53. zed says:

    “I’m taking that analogy and running with it.”

    Well done, AR. I’m going to use some of what you say as a springboard for a follow up to the Free Range Men essay at the Spearhead.

  54. Jax says:

    I think it’s odd that a “happily married man” would write a blog that comes across with such hatred and contempt for women.
    I asked for a divorced not because it was “fun” , my girlfriends “convinced me, got “bored” or because i was “cheating” but because all my best efforts my now ex-husband couldn’t keep his member in his pants long enough to work on our marriage. Because my ex felt that since he entered his 40s he was “entitled” to chase after much younger women and because my ex felt that every man should have the right to have a wife AND a mistress if he felt like it. He was not like this when i married him.
    I am not a “feminist” nor was i ever a “slut” “whore” “entitled woman” (my husband was physically “average” made 30K, and definitely not a “bad boy” when i married him) or whatever other derogatory acronym you seem to reserve for women who initiated a divorce proceeding.

    I was simply a mom and wife that worked hard to make a good life for her kids and husband.
    I was a good wife. I was a traditional wife. Never controlling or bitchy. I was a wife that any man should have been proud to have. Instead, i became a wife that could easily be traded for a “younger model” on a whim from a man entering middle age years.
    I am not alone. There are countless women like me who married average, responsible, loving men, who a few years or even 15+ years into the marriage did a complete turn around and have decided that it was their “biological imperative” to screw every 20 something woman he could find.
    Do yourself a favor and save yourself a world of pain. Spend less time obsessing and blogging about divorced women and more time devoted to your wife and kids.

    [D: "Welcome" "to" "the" "blog"]

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    grerp, I could say it’s all your fault, but really it’s my own exhaustive reading of some history plus your comment. I hope my analogy is wrong, frankly, because there’s a lot of social implications if men begin to become indifferent to women on a large scale. All of them bad in the long run.

    I can’t second guess your mother’s doctor and don’t want to do so, it could be that warfarin or whatever she’s on is the best bet for her at this point, but there are other options on clot prevention. See the protocols at http://www.lef.org for a start.

    zed, I read some of your comments in the last few weeks and thought someone was trying to imitate you, because the textual pattern wasn’t the same. Free Range Men cleared all that up. I don’t have to tell you to count your lucky stars, or your karma, or whatever you believe in. Watch the blood pressure, etc.

    zed & others: everything I write in comments is basically “open source”, if it gives someone an idea that might help an individual’s life, a couple’s life, or maybe larger work to help turn this trainwreck around even a tiny bit then don’t hold back, attribution or not. Solutions for people are what matters, not who puts their name or handle on them.

  56. Jason Rennie says:

    @Jax,

    Hi Jax,

    Sorry to hear about what your scumbag ex-husband did. I don’t think Dalrock comes across as woman hating at all. He does come across as fed up with and annoyed by much of what passes for feminism, but that isn’t the same thing at all.

    I don’t think either sex is free from behaving badly but I think the purpose of highlighting many of the things that Dalrock does highlight is that it seems that women have in many instances had the deck stacked in their favour in divorce proceedings and abuse the power given to them as a result of things like no-fault divorce. You however are one of the female victims of no fault divorce that are the other side of the equation.

    Jason

  57. Jason Rennie says:

    An interesting thought occurs to me based on Jax’s response.

    Jax has rightly been hurt by her scuzz ball ex-husband and to be honest I think much could be made of bringing back the branding punishment for Adulterers (The Scarlet A, and all that).

    But what I think is interesting and worth remembering here, is that part of the reason Jax has been put in the situation she was in (apart from the direct and inexcusable actions of her husband, who I am not trying to release from any of the blame from his behavior, just to be clear) because of “feminists” who sought to help her out.

    After all, Jax’s husband isn’t punished in the divorce for his philandering and surely he should be punished in the divorce just as much as a woman who cuckolds her husband, yet no-fault divorce laws mean he is let off the hook in this instance. Secondly his philandering was in some part faciliated by the removal of the social taboo against extra martial sex that the feminists and their cohorts in the “sexual liberation” succeeded in foisting upon society. The young girls would sleep with him because they have been raised to think that sleeping around is “empowering” for them.

    Now like the many good husbands who are dragged over the coals by ex-wives who cash in and leave them, she has been greatly harmed by a system to doesn’t think marriage is a contract that needs to be honoured and that sexual restraint is a good thing.

    Anyway, Sorry to hear what happened to you Jax, wouldn’t wish an unfaithful spouse on anybody.

    Jason

  58. Looking Glass says:

    @ TFH:

    The Left is only “pro-Science” when it fits their Religion. (This isn’t a joke, Leftism more qualifies as a Religion than what most people practice)

    @ Jax:

    Welcome aboard!

    See Athol Kay’s work: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/

    Then realize you “ground” your relationship to dust. And while most won’t like to hear it, you played the major part in why that happened. If he wasn’t like that before you married him, then your role in that development is key and undeniable. So you have a major, major part in his actions.

    Sucks, but it’s the truth of the matter.

    Though you’re an obviously trolling, so I doubt you’ll respond.

  59. greenlander says:

    Jason, you’re speculating. Perhaps Jax became a raging bitch, or only doled out sex in tiny portions when she deemed her husband worthy, or gained a hundred pounds and was therefore no longer passed the boner test, or buried herself in relationships with their children and forgot that her relationship with her husband was the foundation of their marriage. You’re only hearing one side of this story.

    I’d certainly like to hear Jax’s ex-husband’s side of the story before passing judgment.

  60. Looking Glass says:

    @Jason:

    A few high, high profile men abusing their wives via divorce court would allow for solid changes in the divorce laws. As odd as it sounds, the Feminists having one pulled over on them to “help women” would be the most effective way to make divorce laws better for both sexes. (Making the “interests” of a marriage partner to eject is the main problem of no-fault divorce)

  61. ruddyturnstone says:

    “You however are one of the female victims of no fault divorce that are the other side of the equation”

    Please. What leads you to believe that? Her fairy tale of woe? What universe does she live in where an adulterous middle aged man, with kids, can “easily” and “on a whim” simply “trade in” his SAHM wife for “a younger model?” Where she lives, there is no alimony? No Child Support? No property settlments? No attornery fees? No local branch of the “Deadbeat Dad” enforcement agency? No custody hearings? No mandatory divorce “classes?” No GALs? No court-appointed psychologists? No mandatory mediation or preliminary hearings? No exhausitve discovery demands to comply with? Nothing. It’s all so easy and pain free that I wonder why more men don’t avail themselves of this wonderful procedure!

    Right, he just came home one day, snapped his fingers and tapped his toes three times, said “I divorce thee,” and that was it. Next thing you know, there she was, out on the street, with barely the clothes on her back, while he relaxed in the hot tub with a blonde, a brunette, a bottle of champaign, and an ounce of coke. I guess he must have gotten the house and kids too, right? Maybe she’s paying child support! Yep, he got the house, the kids, the better car, all the money in the bank, everything in the house, part of her retirement package, child support, alimony, his attorneys fee paid for, and so on, while she has to pay all that, plus keep up the mortgage payments for the house and health insurance for him and the kids, and life insurance for herself, with him as the beneficiary. Because, as we all know, that’s how it works in divorce court. A painfree, easy ride for men, to indulge in whenever the “whim” strikes them. One day dealing with a sadly aging, but otherwise perfect in every respect wife and mother, the next day off to Vegas to lead a life of bimbs, booze and barbituates, all at her expense.

  62. Jason Rennie says:

    @greenlander

    You might be right. I don’t know. I don’t think any of those things excuses her husband’s behavior anymore than doing the things wives typically frivolusly divorce over excuses that behavior on their parts. I wont hold men or women to a higher standard in marriage than the other one and cheating is never an acceptable course of action.

    I’m sure it is more complex than the picture Jax paints, most things in lives are, but still, assuming she is telling the truth (and I am willing to give her the benifit of the doubt as i’ve seen both men and women subject to exactly this sort of treatment, even if her picture of it paints her in a rosier light than might otherwise be fully warranted), what he husband did was wrong.

    Jason

  63. Jason Rennie says:

    @ruddyturnstone

    As I said to greenlander, you might be right, we don’t know enough. But I have seen cases exactly like that where the aging wife is traded in by the husband. I am sure that Jax’s story paints her in a better light than a more objective look at the situation might warrant, but that is true for the stories nearly everybody tells about themselves unless it is of the, “Look what a mess I made, let this be a warning to not make my mistake” type of story.

    Assume she is telling the truth, he was behaving in an adulterous fashion before the divorce, and no-fault divorce does mean that the state cannot punish him for that behavior. Surely if it wrong for a women to suffer no consequences for engaging in adultery it is equally wrong for a man to not suffer consequences for it either.

    We don’t know Jax’s background, so give her the benifit of the doubt till we know more. If it turns out she is just a troll then we can ignore her as such and leave it at that no harm done. If it turns out her experience is verisimilitudinous with what actually happened, then she is _exactly_ the sort of woman who makes an excellent case for what is wrong with no-fault divorce law in general, and a person that will at least not be immediatly decried as a “mysoginist” by the feminazi’s.

    Jason

  64. Johnycomelately says:

    Anonymous Reader
    Nothing beats a WWII analogy, brilliant!!

  65. Retrenched says:

    @ Looking Glass

    “A few high, high profile men abusing their wives via divorce court would allow for solid changes in the divorce laws.“

    Maybe, but I doubt it. While there are some women who get left by their high status husbands, they are far outnumbered by the number of women who choose to leave their husbands. No way will most women ever support an end to no fault divorce when they are the ones choosing it the vast majority of the time. And it’s no wonder that women are much more likely to file for divorce, when you look at how the divorce courts are set up.

    At least women who are abandoned by their husbands get child support (and maybe alimony) and they get to keep their kids. Men who are abandoned by their wives get TO PAY child support (and maybe alimony), and they lose their kids (unless mom is a meth junkie or something). Big difference.
    He leaves, she wins… she leaves, she STILL wins. (Or at least she loses a lot less than he does, in any case.)

    Which is why there’s a huge multimillion dollar industry selling divorce to women, while no one is trying to sell divorce to men.

  66. ruddyturnstone says:

    “I have seen cases exactly like that where the aging wife is traded in by the husband….”

    Sure, there are some cases in which a husband divorces his wife to take up with a younger woman. I’m not disputing that. What I am disputing is that this can be done “easily” and “on a whim.” Unless the man is some kind of super wealthy (and I’m talking about at least tens of millions of dollars) dude, such a “trade in” is going to cost him, and cost him dearly. The way she tells it, she was a “traditional wife;”I take that to mean that she was a SAHM. And, she says, her husband was an adulterer looking to trade her in for a younger woman. What jurisdiction in the Western World is not going to award the wife in that situation the whole damn full boatload of possible family court remedies? Even an iron clad pre nup won’t help him, cuz they will ram most of it in through the kids (CS, health insurance, the children must remain in the house they grew up in, he can easily afford to pay through college, and perhaps graduate school, etc, etc). Without a prenup, she’s going to get everything under the sun. Sure, over time a businessman or professional in this situation might have a salary that will get him on his feet again and, eventually, he just might be able to afford Little Miss Cupcake, but the notion that he would start this process “on a whim,” or that it is “easy” in any way, is preposterous. A man of more modest means, like a blue collar guy, would basically be behind the eight ball forever if he tried such a stunt. And that is not even considering the mental, emotional and pschyological pain of having to deal with divorce court, its endless, lengthy, prying, humiliating, and frustrating procedures, and all the paracites and leaches who make their livings off of it.

    “We assume she is telling the truth, he was behaving in an adulterous fashion before the divorce, no-fault divorce does mean that the state cannot punish him for that behavior. Surely if it wrong for a women to suffer no consequences for engaging in adultery it is equally wrong for a man to not suffer consequences for it either.”

    I don’t think it works that way. The way it works, the woman almost always clean up, especially if there are kids involved and especially if she was a SAHM. If she commits adultery, you’re right, that is neither here nor there, no fault principles apply, and she cleans up. If neither party commits adultery, or if both parties commit adultery, that is neither here nor there, no fault principles apply, and she cleans up. The only possible exception to this rule is in the case where only the husband commits adultery. In theory, it should go the same: ie neither here nor there, no fault priniciples apply, and she cleans up. In reality, they back door morality when the guy is at fault, and what happens is that the wife not only cleans up, but she gets everything. So the State actually does punish male adulterers, but not female ones. (There is always an excuse when a woman commits adultery…there has to be.. cuz women are virtuous..at least that’s what the feminist and trad con white knight manginas who run family court think…adulterous men, of course, are simply “pigs.”).

    It’s like that joke…if you commit adultery, your wife will divorce you and get everything, but if your wife commits adultery….she will still divorce you and get everything.

    “If it turns out her experience is verisimilitudinous with what actually happened….”

    Sorry, but it is simply impossible that a man in the situation she described was able to “trade her in” “easily” and “on a whim.” See above. To do so would cost any married man a great deal of money, time and frustation.

  67. krakonos says:

    I have not had time to read all comments but I have to assist Whiskey and others.
    Single motherhood is not a big deal for women. Yes, it makes them poor, have on average less children than couples and have poor prospects for the future. But, still, they prefer it to commitment of a beta man. The only thing which matters is that their children do not starve to death.
    I do not deny that for some substes of population, marriage will remain priority – upper class, but for anyone else it is done (soon). Look at da hoods. Illegitimacy is almost 90%. How many people predicted it 50 years ago (you could count them by your fingers – I hope it is the correct phrase)?
    Note: In our country illegitimacy jumped from 8% to 45% (latest numbers) in 20 years. 50% of first born are illegitimate. More than half of them are children of single mothers.
    It is impossible to predict the future when external forces are present. Without them, my prediction would be something like Mosuo in ~ 10 generations (of course, including patriarchal nobility – still marrying). But their defenselessness would bring invaders in any case. With external forces I expect Dar al-Islam within a century but I might be wrong.

  68. krakonos says:

    An I have forgotten, marriage rate is at 200 years minimum – including remmariages. 200 years ago our population was 1/2 of current. Just to note.

  69. CorkyAgain says:

    It’s almost a universal rule: whenever you hear someone talking about their divorce — especially if it’s a woman — what you’re going to hear is excuses. They seem consumed with guilt and anxious to avoid having to own up to it. They’re pleading for absolution from anyone who will listen.

    And so many of the excuses they use are hackneyed. It’s like they’re all following the same manual, the same magazines, the same movies, television programs and popular songs. Surely, if she can show you how the story of her marriage paralleled one of those socially-approved dramas, you will have to agree that her decision was as justified as the heroine’s?

    When that doesn’t work, some of them become downright bristly finger-poking-in-the-chest aggressive about it. How DARE you suggest that she’s done something wrong!

  70. Will says:

    In the UK mariage is at the lowest since records began in the 1800s. In a previous thread I posted a bbc news link (can’t find it now) that said by 2014 in the UK it is estimated that there will be more unmarried cohabitees than married in the under 40 age bracket.

    This is why de facto marriage laws will be introduced in the UK soon (they’ve been under review by the law society and government for a number of years).

  71. Lavazza says:

    Whisky: You’d better look at the percentage of children living with both their parents rather than OOW births. In Sweden 90 % of 1 YO live with both their parents. For 17 YO it is 60 %.

    http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx

    [D: Thanks for the info/context. It sounds to me like cohabitation has largely taken the place of marriage there. Do you know if this is being driven by men, women, or the state?]

  72. This blog is too much fun… I wish you much success Dalrock…

    @Jax

    Contact your ex-husband and send him this link

    Jax’s Divorce Story

    I wish he would drop a jewel of wisdom in the comment section…

    As a 23 year old Male, who will never marry until te govt. gets out of the divorce business, I could use the education from a bitter divorce… Please & Thank You

    SSTTE

  73. Lavazza says:

    Jax: If you want to help men here, please contact your ex, so that he can tell us how he was able to do what few men can. I mean, there is no secret recipy for how a woman can hurt a man in divorce, but your ex seems to have a secret that would benefit many men.

  74. Just1X says:

    Oh noes!

    You MCPs are calling a woman on her B.S. or preferred narrative, if you will.

    Thanks guys, you saved me the bother. I was going to comment ’til I saw you’d got there first.

    NEVER trust a woman to take blame for a divorce, it isn’t going to happen. It would require introspection, morality and a willingness to take public shame.

    There’s a good reason it is called ‘MANning up’. The good bit of manning-up, nothing to do with being taken as a tool for teh wimminz.

  75. P Ray says:

    One of the reasons why women cannot marry a man and be happy,
    is because she goes through many relationships,
    takes all the good points of every guy in those relationships
    and then tries to find “Franken-boyfriend” for the person she marries.

    Who wants to be married to a woman who always says he doesn’t match up to her fantasies?

    THAT is why virgin women in a relationship are probably able to stay married longer. They have less baggage.
    And also why virgin men should avoid, at all costs, to be with a slut – they’ll make him miserable.

    [D: It is counterintuitive but true that the longer a woman is unsuccessful in her bid to find a husband, the more picky she often becomes.]

  76. Anonymous says:

    I am a little put-off by the proclamations that all young girls “are sluts” or just “wnat to have fun”. This isn’t true, and in fact many studies find a correlation between promiscuity and mental problems. This is also based on my anecdotal experience, in that after a pump-in-dump, most girls I see are in fact quite depressed.

    As Roissy, Dalrock, and contributors at the Spearhead have explained ad nauseum, most women aren’t promicuous by nature – they’re *hypergamous*. This means they must compulsively have sex with men they perceive as being higher status than they are – or, if they’re in a relationship, than their boyfriend/husband is.

    That being said, women do want to get married, and most under-25s also want to have a longterm relationship. Feminist indoctrination hasn’t changed the evolutionary fact that women still judge themselves, and other women, through their romantic relationships.

    The problem, rather, is that female evolutionary proclivities doesn’t jibe with modern technology and society. They are like fish that have been taken out of water, still desperately following their evolutionary imperatives in an environment where its totally inappropriate to do so.

  77. Just1X says:

    “many studies find a correlation between promiscuity and mental problems”

    Yes, it is called feminism.

    Perhaps teh wimminz should sort the problem out?

    In the meantime, spread the word men, it’s time to grab beer, popcorn and x-box. We need to go our own way, until society offers a deal worth having. And looks like it might stand by the deal. And you want to.

    This is not our problem to solve, live with, or lessen the consequences for the feminists (and their along-for-ride “I just believe in equality…but I’ll take what I can get” ho tag-alongs).

  78. P Ray says:

    The idea that women “compulsively” have sex with men of more status is laughable.
    It’s very conscious indeed.
    If it was so compulsive, a rich man would not be able to walk the streets without being assaulted by a throng of poor naked cuties.

    “The problem, rather, is that female evolutionary proclivities doesn’t jibe with modern technology and society. ”
    Not true. They are _very_ good at relational aggression to make sure that guys they don’t like, have their reputations smeared across t3h interwebz. Teeheehee!

  79. Desiderius says:

    Dalrock,

    “What often throws men off when considering this is that if women can’t get all of the above from the same man (plan A), they will often resort to getting these things from different men (plan B). But this doesn’t change the fact that plan A is the preferred plan. Slutting around with alphas who won’t commit and then marrying a beta provider at the last minute isn’t plan A.”

    Do you have data to back this up? The alternative is women (especially higher value women) “following their hearts” (i.e. their deepest female hardwiring) and seeking a cuckold situation where they actively discourage commitment from high value men while maintaining (sometimes a stable of) lower value orbiters/herb boyfriends/stepford (ex)husbands/validation buddies.

    [D: I'm not sure what you are asking for. I've shared data on cuckoldry, women marrying men they don't love, and women initiating divorce. What more would you like? Do you have any data you can share which refutes this?]

  80. Dalrock says:

    @Jason Rennie

    I have seen cases exactly like that where the aging wife is traded in by the husband. I am sure that Jax’s story paints her in a better light than a more objective look at the situation might warrant, but that is true for the stories nearly everybody tells about themselves unless it is of the, “Look what a mess I made, let this be a warning to not make my mistake” type of story.

    I have seen cases where the husband traded his aging wife in as well, but these are a distinct minority. The data proves that this isn’t what is driving divorce rates. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Divorce rates drop dramatically as the wife ages. If men dumping older wives was the real cause of our divorce epidemic, it would be the other way around. But this won’t stop women from fixating on the small fraction of divorces where the man was at fault.

    The other thing I would point out is that Jax is denying the very premise of the words feminist, slut, whore, etc when she uses them in quotes. She is in effect saying that she doesn’t recognize distinctions of that sort, there are only women. What she is effectively saying is women can’t be judged, and men are bad. She is free of course to comment again clarifying that she does in fact judge whores, sluts, “I’m not haaaaapy!” divorcées, and feminists. I’ll stand by while holding my breath.

    For example, she advises me:

    Spend less time obsessing and blogging about divorced women and more time devoted to your wife and kids.

    She isn’t suggesting that I distinguish between women who divorced frivolously vs for cause (which I do). She wants to provide cover for all women who divorce, and wants me to stop worrying about the kids getting a free trip through the meat grinder.

    I also especially enjoyed:

    I was a good wife. I was a traditional wife. Never controlling or bitchy.

    Does anyone here buy that having read her comment? We’ve had a number of women comment here who were truly wronged by their husbands. They weren’t here to offer cover for the EPL crowd, and their tone is entirely different than hers.

  81. Joe Blow says:

    >>>Maybe if our culture didn’t insist that marriage is the ultimate validation of women’s lives, then there wouldn’t be women using their weddings to “prove that a man has invested in them enough to publicly proclaim commitment for life

    Um, nobody says marriage is the ultimate validation of women’s lives, except maybe some confused women. *Reproduction* is the ultimate validation of *everyone’s* lives, and marriage is just the best way, or anyhow the least worst way, to achieve it. Anything which works to undermine marriage without providing a superior alternative scores lower biologically. Spinsterhood by circumstances is a sad failure, the wildebeast getting eaten by the lion before spawning – a reluctant F. Spinsterhood by choice is an intentional failure, the yak running off the cliff to show all those other yaks that they’re stupid. It’s a 0 on the test.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Whiskey

    I would submit however that the test of Dalrock’s assertion would be Britain and the Scandi Nations. There, marriage collapsed almost overnight. Britain went from the land of Mrs. Miniver to that of Clockwork Orange, and then straight to Harry Brown, in about three generations. Over 50% of White births in Britain are illegitimate, if anything Hindu/Muslim births are propping up the national legitimacy rate. In the Scandinavian nations the situation wrt legitimacy is even worse.

    Lavazza has already shared stats for Sweden. For the UK if what you are saying is true it has happened in just the last 10 years (and I can’t find any data which says this happened). I did a search on this at the ONS site and only found one report from 2003. Table 5 breaks down parental relationship status at time of birth by race. For whites in the UK, just under 60% (58.9%) of babies were born to married parents. If you add in cohabiting parents it is just over 85%. My guess is these groups track class very closely like they do in the US as well. Do you have a link to stats showing that the majority of white babies in the UK are now illegitimate?

    Edit: I just did another search and the claim that UK marriage rates refute my point is untrue. I can’t find an apples to apples stat for the UK (% of white women age 40 who have ever married), but I can find the stat for all races in the UK. See this report, appendix table A1 (last page). 84.2% of all women in the UK had ever married by the age of 40 in the last time period they have data for (2004-2007). The report itself is dated 2011.

  83. nugganu says:

    This is so very true, and I’m witnessing it with many of the girls I grew up with, who are now, in their late 30s, on the cusp of spinsterhood. One standout is a girl I’ve known for about 22 years now, she screwed everything in site, she was a massive slut. at 36 she became obstinate that any man who wanted to be with her would have to wait, that he would have to be successful (doctor or lawyer) and would have to marry and provide for her. Bear in mind, you can tell this woman has had 100+ cocks in all her holes.

    Now at 41 she’s still waiting…..

  84. ruddyturnstone says:

    “I have seen cases where the husband traded his aging wife in as well, but these are a distinct minority.”

    Yes, the paradign of the ,middle aged, “male menopaus” husband dumping his longstanding, loyal wife and replacing her with a hot, young “trophy wife” is totally out of date, if it was ever viable.

    [D: The UK data goes back to 1957 and disproves the myth all the way back. It must have been even older than that, or (much more likely) has always been Apex Fallacy inspired BS.]

  85. Interested says:

    I couldn’t help but wonder if some of these women (Kate included) are creating their own self fulfilling prophecy regarding a lack of suitable men (in their eyes) and therefore no marriage.

    Dalrock, one of the first posts I read of yours commented on how women will never know about the perfect man (for them) who chose not to interact with them. They do whatever they want never knowing that some guy saw them in action and decided to take a pass on even talking to them. All they see are the guys they talk to. They never recognize the lost opportunity. I believe that the original discussion was around sluts, but this applies to any sort of behavior.

    So Kate wrings her hands, writes her article, and gets her high fives from all her fellow shouters. Then they all hold hands and bravely move on in life. But Kate doesn’t see that men can read too and make their own judgements.

    Now she has unknowingly driven away plenty of men with options in the over forty crowd who look at the effort it would take to be in a relationship with her and take a pass. Only she won’t know it because they won’t ever engage her in any way. Her self selected pool of men who measure up has now shrunk to even smaller numbers all by her own doing. But she’ll never admit it. I doubt this even entered her mind. If it did I think we all know how quickly the shaming would start.

    I also cannot help but wonder if she just grew the pool of men she doesn’t want any attention from. First all the apologists who will tell her she is perfect. She’ll despise them. Then the players who may look to pump and dump her just so they can laugh about it with their friends later on.

    I know, I know. This has been beaten to death in many different posts, but as a member of the over forty dating scene it made me laugh this morning just thinking about it. It’s like Kate and her cohorts are all competing to be crowned the official caricature of a never married woman complete with all the rationalizations. Only they all end up looking like the same doll that spouts the same message when you pull the string in the back.

  86. zed says:

    “Now at 41 she’s still waiting… ”

    and, I am sure, still thinking about how she wants a man to treat her.

  87. Just1X says:

    Dalrock & Whiskey,

    I thought I read somewhere (here?) that cohabitation was more common in the UK than the USA?

    Unmarried does not necessarily mean single mum in either country, and there may be differences between the coutries anyway.

    Great article anyway (as usual)

  88. zed says:

    “zed, I read some of your comments in the last few weeks and thought someone was trying to imitate you, because the textual pattern wasn’t the same. ”

    Yeah, it was me trying to imitate me. The verbs, adjectives, and even adverbs came back relatively quickly. But those cotton picken’ nouns gave me fits. ;)

  89. Will says:

    Dalrock,
    It is quite curious that there are contradictory reports about the marriage rate and cohabitation rate, although one would assume this report by the ONS should be definitive.

    Interesting that the percentage of men married by age 40 is 75.9%, which means that 24% of men are unmarried. Be intersting to see whether these men marry later or wether this is an early indication of a marriage strike by men. But clearly from the figures the rate of marriage is declining although not as sharply as has been thought.

    It does appear to contradicts the bbc news report that estimated that unmarried cohabitees will outnumber marriages for the under 40 by 2014.

    [D: Just to clarify, the stats I referenced in the original post and the recent comment for the UK are the percent who ever married by age 40. As we know, many who marry don't stay married. From the same tables it is clear that marriage at younger ages is dropping drastically in the UK as well. Between those two facts, this could well explain the discrepancy you asked about. There are some great charts in the body of that report which I'm hoping to share in an upcoming post which shed some more light on the trends. I have an email into the publisher asking for permission.]

  90. zed says:

    So Kate wrings her hands, writes her article, and gets her high fives from all her fellow shouters. Then they all hold hands and bravely move on in life. But Kate doesn’t see that men can read too and make their own judgements.

    Now she has unknowingly driven away plenty of men with options in the over forty crowd who look at the effort it would take to be in a relationship with her and take a pass. Only she won’t know it because they won’t ever engage her in any way. Her self selected pool of men who measure up has now shrunk to even smaller numbers all by her own doing. But she’ll never admit it. I doubt this even entered her mind. If it did I think we all know how quickly the shaming would start.

    Good comment, interested.

    As I said, I didn’t read the article very closely because it was standard feminist boilerplate I have heard hundreds of times, glibly stitched together. But, I think that a whole lot of the questions being discussed in the last few threads here would be more or less definitively settled if Kate has been or would be asked one question –
    If, you could go back in time 11 years, go back to your 28 year old self, would you marry Allan?

    My guess is that ruddyturnstone is correct – even after her experiences of the past 11 years, Allan is still that Mr. Dumped Dorky Beta Guy and something – those ‘gina tingles – would still be missing and she would make the same choice today.

    After all, she has had more than another decade to think about how she wants a man to treat her.

  91. Chels says:

    The idea that women love—or feel anything positve at all towards men— is absurd.
    .

    It is absurd to imply that a woman doesn’t love her husband, she does, and I’m sure plenty of women and men can attest to that. It is not appropriate to infer that women don’t love men based on what happens in family court as divorce happens after she falls out of love and after that, anything is fair game; so you’re correct in that sense . However, I will add that some women do put themselves in the first place while they’re married, so it’s important to distinguish between selfish/selfless love.

    While I was driving to work this morning, there was an interesting conversation on the radio about cheating. One caller said that she cheated on her husband for a year and a half before they officially signed the papers because the marriage was over anyway, they were sleeping in separate bedrooms, so she was trying to justify it as not being cheating. (Un)surprisingly, the morning show hosts (man and a woman, they’re not married, cohabiting with a daughter) agreed with her, especially the female show host. She was trying to make the caller feel better about her actions, telling her that she deserves to be happy and she even told her that as Dr Phil says, children prefer to be from broken homes, than to live in broken homes; so there are a lot of myths about what works.

    However, the hosts did a poll on Facebook, and their results showed that 100% of people would not date a cheater (something to ponder about).

  92. Chels says:

    Interesting that the percentage of men married by age 40 is 75.9%, which means that 24% of men are unmarried.

    How can that be, if 90% of women are married by that age? Either that figure is wrong or women are importing husbands from other countries :s

  93. nugganu says:

    @Zed

    “and, I am sure, still thinking about how she wants a man to treat her.”

    Of course, I left out the part about her picking up two men and getting simultaneously pile-drived by them both one New years eve a few years back, not long after she spouted her conditions of what she expected in a man.

    Then there is my own ex, who is so spun on pop culture that she agreed to marry a man posing online as an ultra-rich, east Indian 007 type who did secret work for the US military, sight unseen. When I tried to caution her, of course, she called me every name in the book. 1 1/2 years later said man never showed up. At 35, 7 years after we split up, she flew off the handle when I had a child with another woman. The script she wrote in her head about me never wanting children etc. effectively gone, she no longer had her justification for getting rid of me. It drove her somewhat loonie, and led to her desperate attempt to marry this fictional “Indian 007/D. Trump” who never showed up.

    Then there’s the 37 years old whom I dated when she was young and hot back in my early 20s, who subsequently rode the cock carousel, turned radical lesbo fembot, who now, at 240lbs and disgusting lookin, is having a crack at landing a man, even though her looks went from a solid 8 to a 0.01 out of 10.

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. So many white women that I grew up with in the 80’s are now on the cusp of childless spinsterhood, and thanks to wonderful technologies like facebook, I get to revel in their stupidity.

  94. Will says:

    “How can that be, if 90% of women are married by that age? Either that figure is wrong or women are importing husbands from other countries :s”

    Its 84% of women married by age 40. It could be that the husbands are older that age 40 so not showing in the stats. Or maybe some of the women are marrying divorced (previously married) men. Didn’t Dalrock show some stats that men are more likely to remarry than women? It could also be foreign husbands as you suggest although I would think that would be a smaller subset?

    [D: This is the likely explanation. I made a chart a year ago which showed this for white men and women in the US. Men start off behind women, but eventually catch up. Note that the two time periods have different groupings for later age brackets, so you have to be careful when comparing the two periods. Also, the stats get iffy for the later brackets because of the higher mortality rate for never married men.]

  95. zed says:

    “Interesting that the percentage of men married by age 40 is 75.9%, which means that 24% of men are unmarried.

    How can that be, if 90% of women are married by that age? “

    Serial monogamy. All it would take is 15% of the men marrying a never married woman when he remarries to give that percentage.

    At the extreme position, 90% of all men could never marry, while the remaining 10% each married 9 times, but only women who have never been married, and 10% of the men could continue the rate of 90% of women having EVER married.

    That is the big difference between having ever been married and being currently married. Dalrock’s own figure show that 90% of while women have been married at least once, but only about 52% of them are married now.

    Grerp’s latest post contains the statistic that 40% of boomer women are not currently married.

  96. zed says:

    It is not appropriate to infer that women don’t love men based on what happens in family court as divorce happens after she falls out of love and after that, anything is fair game; so you’re correct in that sense .

    ROFLMAO –

    Alright, who snuck in the bong? ;)

  97. Will says:

    “ROFLMAO –

    Alright, who snuck in the bong?”

    Was it Chels who also made the comment about Women sticking up for Men in their heads?

  98. Chels says:

    ROFLMAO –

    Alright, who snuck in the bong?

    I’ve read that statement (women don’t love men) over and over again in the manosphere, and it really bothers me as it’s simply not true, and the reason cited for it is because of what happens during the family court. Well, divorce is not exactly about love, it’s about revenge for plenty of women, so yes, some women will bankrupt men if she can.

    It’s like comparing apples to oranges—women don’t love men in marriage because of what she does to him after marriage, during divorce. Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous that statement is?

  99. Chels says:

    Was it Chels who also made the comment about Women sticking up for Men in their heads?

    I didn’t say it like that–I said that even though a woman disagrees, she doesn’t voice that because of the feared backlash.

  100. Eileen says:

    I think most women really do want to get married, and those who find themselves entering their mid-30s “alone” are genuinely surprised that their lives have worked out that way. I think the reasons are complicated, but I’ll throw this out there: It’s much easier for a young woman to plan for her career — making saavy decisions regarding where to go to school, what classes to take, figuring out with whom to network, being willing to go where the jobs are — than it is for her to plan for her future as a wife and mother.

    Women are taught and encouraged to develop their career paths, and are rewarded by both men and women alike for any success they achieve along those lines. On top of that, women are indoctrinated with the idea that choosing to delay pursuing a career, or to downplay its value (or simply to choose not to pursue one at all) in order to have a family is a self-actualization failure of the highest order — which then logically precludes them from ever being able to “have it all” as feminism originally seemed to promise.

    Meanwhile, women are being encouraged to consider children a burden, relationships a hassle, and to compete within the SMP by the same rules that they perceive men follow (resulting in, I think in most cases unintended, promiscuity). Which is confusing at best if you hope to marry and have a family. Women are specifically discouraged from seeing marriage and family as a worthy “goal,” and tend rather to think of it as one of those things that just “happens” in the normal course of life. Unless it doesn’t. Few women ever seriously examine their own assumptions in this area, and end up tabling the whole marriage and family vs. career conundrum until, well, they can’t anymore.

    I think women in their 20s are mostly just following the path of least resistance. No one — man or woman — is being particularly encouraged to develop their character as mature adults, and to make their decisions fully appraised of the facts with their long-term future in mind. But the smart and talented ones can get pretty good jobs, at least. Until recently, anyway; but that’s starting to fall apart, too, isn’t it?

    [D: Excellent analysis.]

  101. dragnet says:

    @ Eileen

    “I think women in their 20s are mostly just following the path of least resistance.”

    This is exactly it, in my view. I think a fair bit of the manosphere assumes evil or malice on the part of women—but I doubt it’s the case. The real story is that the cultural architecture we’ve erected makes Kate B’s situation the default pathway for a lot of women who were never taught any better because their own mothers were every bit as foolish.

    Which is why the target of ire shouldn’t be your average woman, but institutional feminist power and the white knights + manginas that abet them. To this end, I think Paul Elam’s blog is doing a great job.

  102. greenlander says:

    @nugganu

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. So many white women that I grew up with in the 80′s are now on the cusp of childless spinsterhood, and thanks to wonderful technologies like facebook, I get to revel in their stupidity.

    Isn’t that the truth? I had a lot of fun one particular evening looking up all the hotties I knew from high school on Facebook. Most of them had become fat and disgusting, but hadn’t grown any less vapid. It’s funny how things in life turn around sometimes…

  103. zed says:

    I think a fair bit of the manosphere assumes evil or malice on the part of women—but I doubt it’s the case.

    So, which kills you more dead – being gored by an angry rhino, or crushed by a lumbering inattentive elephant?

    This is one of my biggest pet peeves – a stupid person is actually more dangerous to you than a malicious person. A malicious person has to act with intent, and it is possible to discern that intent. A stupid person is a danger to you simply by being around you. Hanging out with a stupid person is like standing on a mountaintop in a thunderstorm – the question is not whether you will get struck by stupid-lightning, but when.

    The issue is not the motivation of the perp, but what effect they have on you regardless of intent.

    The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions.

  104. grerp says:

    grerp, I could say it’s all your fault, but really it’s my own exhaustive reading of some history plus your comment. I hope my analogy is wrong, frankly, because there’s a lot of social implications if men begin to become indifferent to women on a large scale. All of them bad in the long run.

    Continuing this metaphor, I would say that the vast, vast majority of German soldiers would have preferred not to go to war in the first place, and particularly not to the Eastern Front. However, given human nature, I would also speculate that more than a tiny majority enjoyed to some degree the offensive. The ability to take what one wants without having to work or pay for it, the immediate catapulting of status from worker to conqueror, and the opportunity to let one’s monster out to play without repercussions must have been pretty enjoyable for some. I don’t know how enjoyable they found starving millions of Leningraders or shooting thousands of Jews and other civilians in the neck before a pit, but that was later. By the Battle of Stalingrad, however, almost no one wanted to still be engaged in this nightmare. The heady days of invasion and easy victory were over, the Battle of Moscow had been lost, and it was all just hunger, and dirt, and injury, and death. Ultimately, it was nature who stepped in and decided, because even with technology and fancy theorized propaganda of biological superiority, you can’t survive winter in Russia unless you spend the rest of the year preparing for it; you can only shake down a depleted (and hostile) civilian population so long before it becomes clear: all resources are gone, and you are so far away from where you came, that you can’t even correctly remember it.

  105. zed says:

    Chels,

    I would be bad form to continue to poke fun and laugh at you without at least attempting to explain why. Your last attempt to refute what men here are saying does, in fact, confirm completely what they are saying.

    It is not appropriate to infer that women don’t love men based on what happens in family court as divorce happens after she falls out of love and after that, anything is fair game; so you’re correct in that sense .

    Let me translate this into how men hear it within the ideas discussed around the manosphere.

    The reason men say that women don’t “love” men is because women have such a tendency to fall into and out of love, and use that as an excuse for anything. Men do not have the same tendency.

    The Roissy-ized version of your statement above is –
    “It is not appropriate to infer that women don’t love men based on what happens in family court. As long as she has the ‘gina tingles for him, she loves him a great deal. However, since divorce happens after she loses her tingles for him, after that anything is fair game;

    If nothing else, this indicates that learning Game is a mandate for any man in any sort of LTR – if a woman loses her tingles for you – “falls out of love” with you – she can take great satisfaction out of watching you roasted on a slow turning spit.

  106. Canuck says:

    I’ve been a long time reader of your blog and I think that this post sums up everything wrong with our culture now. Though it was difficult to admit at first, I know I often think like this. I’m 21 years old and I’m dating a great guy who wants to marry me, yet I often wonder if it’s the right choice or if something better could be around the corner. I grew up with my mother (who was divorced and is now happily married) telling me that I’m the most beautiful girl in the world and I can have whatever I want. Couple this with chick flicks and the current sexual marketplace and it’s a very difficult thought to get out of your head. I get a lot of attention from guys, I will be applying to law school shortly with perfect grades and I am a good girl. I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but when as a girl you know that you can have any guy you want, it it hard to stop thinking this way when you do actually get a great guy. I write this because I think talking about it helps me, as does reading yours and Susan’s blog.
    I want to urge anyone reading this to if you have children, don’t tell them they can have their cake and eat it too. I think if parents started speaking as they did 50 years ago, we would have a lot less of a problem. The fact remains that pretty girls are a dime a dozen, and what men really want is a woman with a nurturing personality who would make a good wife and mother. I wish parents would say this.
    Guys, try to understand that women think like this just as men will always be attracted to all other girls. It’s not what either of us want but it’s the way it is. The good thing is that educating yourself and understanding these desires makes it a lot easier to be happy in the long run.
    Lastly, Dalrock, thanks for writing your blog. I genuinely believe it has made me a better person and I can attribute a lot of how good my relationship is now to yours and Susan’s blog. I do plan to get married soon, and hopefully won’t have to work as a feminist career woman. Know that as I write my comment there may be hundreds of other girls also reading who will never comment or let you know that what you’ve said has changed the way they think. Keep it up, we’re listening.

    [D: Wow, thanks! And welcome to the blog!]

  107. Chels says:

    Zed, I understand what you’re saying, but it could be said that she just loves herself the most and thinks that he’s getting what he deserves, it’s her pay for putting up with him for so long. As well, once she starts the divorce process, it’s obvious that she “lost her tingles for him” permanently or she’d be giving the marriage another chance and trying to make it work.

  108. slwerner says:

    Chels – ”It’s like comparing apples to oranges—women don’t love men in marriage because of what she does to him after marriage, during divorce. Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous that statement is?”

    While the idea that (no) women (ever) actually love the men they marry is obvious hyperbole, it does have “roots” in some real-world observations about the way woman have been treating marriage for some time.

    From a woman’s perspective, marriage has long had a utilitarian angle to it (think about Doomed Harlots wishful declaration that feminism freed women to marry for love) as she would have, by necessity, been looking for a “provider” (much more so than a lover – one could argue that the more chaste women of yesteryear didn’t know what they were looking for in the way of lovers).

    So, many men have come to recognize that woman have long viewed marriage from the perspective of ”What’s in it for me”. Extending that into an era when many other benefits of marriage (lovers, companionship, motherhood) are increasingly available without marriage, it’s easy to see why many men would become increasingly suspicious of a woman’s motivations for marrying, and increasingly understanding that what a woman tends to gain via marriage (uniquely) is financially based.

    Next, consider that woman have been openly discussing the concept of “starter marriages” and “starter husbands” since at least the late ‘90s (it probably started much earlier, but I only became aware of it in the late 90’s).

    Add to that the huge attraction that women have developed for the romance novel genre (“chick porn”), including the essential element of women being swept off their feet (out of their clothes, and straight into bed), and what women hold as the “ideal” in a man becomes even clearer.

    And, also do consider the typical portrayal of husbands in pop-culture (movies, TV, and even commercials). Husbands almost always shown in a very negative way, with their wives scorning, scolding, embarrassing, and even humiliating them. Men notice that most women seem to identify quite easily with such examples in that “you go grrl” sort of way.

    I’m sure than many woman do love their husbands, some even during the marriage. But, if one considers the larger picture, I think the evidence tends to better support the notion that women typical marry while infatuated, but never really develop true love for their husbands.

    Obviously, it not universally true, but if you were to try to cite examples from married couples you’ve known, I think you might also find that there are far fewer examples whereof you could be certain that the wife truly and deeply loved the husband as opposed to examples that left quite about of doubt about it. I know that I’ve known far more wives who’ve been openly disrespectful of the husbands (everything from public criticism to cheating on them) than I have known wives who (consistently*) openly expressed admiration, and seemed deeply bounded with their husbands (and, I’m thinking back over decades of my involvement in Churchianity).

    While plenty of men may not love their wives the way they should, they do tend to be less open and obvious about it than do the women.

    * as opposed to their reactions upon the husband doing something particularly nice for them, or getting a big promotion, etc.

  109. Retrenched says:

    @ zed
    “The reason men say that women don’t “love” men is because women have such a tendency to fall into and out of love, and use that as an excuse for anything.”
    Roissy Maxim #12: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.

    Yep.

    But hey, let’s give the EPL crowd some credit for the first six years of their relationships, at least, okay? Or six months… or six weeks… or six minutes, or however long their tingles lasted. Yeah boy, there was some real love there… and that has to count for something, right?

  110. deti says:

    @ Eileen:

    Meanwhile, women are being encouraged to consider children a burden, relationships a hassle, and to compete within the SMP by the same rules that they perceive men follow (resulting in, I think in most cases unintended, promiscuity).

    Yes, Eileen, but you omitted something. Young women have enormous power in the SMP. They have 90% of all the power. A young woman with an SMV of 4 or above can get sex any night of the week if that’s what she wants. It might not always be with the partner she wants, but if it’s sex she wants, she can get it anytime, anywhere. (A comparable young man of equal age and SMV can’t even get a woman to look at him, much less have sex with him.)

    Young women are not being taught the nature of that incredible SMP power. Or worse, they are being taught that they should use that power for their own self-aggrandizement. They don’t realize that as they age that power will slowly dissipate until they hit the Wall, when their power is sharply reduced.

    This is why so many men say that a young woman’s character is so important. How a young woman uses that power bespeaks how she will treat a husband.

  111. deti says:

    @ Canuck:

    “I’m 21 years old and I’m dating a great guy who wants to marry me, yet I often wonder if it’s the right choice or if something better could be around the corner.

    “I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but when as a girl you know that you can have any guy you want, it it hard to stop thinking this way when you do actually get a great guy.”

    Wow. Just… .wow. Straight from the horse’s mouth. How refreshing.

  112. Chels says:

    I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but when as a girl you know that you can have any guy you want, it it hard to stop thinking this way when you do actually get a great guy.

    A fellow Canuck! :)

    Not to be mean or anything, but can you get any guy you want to bed you or to commit to you? Huge difference and one that’s worth mentioning.

  113. Dalrock says:

    @Susan

    Hmmmm…I guess I can see why so many end up single for so long. I did marry at 28…

    One thing I should clarify is that this analysis isn’t a shot at individual women who marry later. If you found the right man and are going to stick it through then that is what matters. This doesn’t change the fact that some strategies are more risky than others, but these are two entirely different things. I also understand why young men are frustrated with the current arrangement.

    *I was told over and over by my parents not to marry too young. I was told that it’s ideal to be mid-twenties at least, probably older.

    Likewise, especially by my father. My mother in law was pushing my wife to take her husband hunt seriously early for the reasons cited in the manosphere. My father in law was pushing her to marry for religious reasons. I wasn’t considering marriage when I met my wife but she changed my thinking on that. Her no nonsense attitude about marriage had a good amount to do with that, plus the fact that she was (and still is) smokin’ hot!

    No one except my grandmother ever told me I might want to take a closer look at some of the guys who didn’t come across as being as attractive or exciting. I thought she was old-fashioned and paid no attention to her…

    No one ever talked about things like SMV declining with age or anything like that.

    Fellow blogger Haley writes a good deal on the poor advice offered to Christian women on courtship, etc. It is outright cruel to give such bad counsel to young people. That this happens from the larger culture is deeply troubling but somewhat understandable. That this happens from the church is inexcusable, especially since the church generally has to go against biblical wisdom to give such awful advice.

    *Really, I was surrounded by so many others my age who were staying single throughout most of their 20s, so it seemed normal, as difficult as it was at times.

    This is my basic take on the issue. We all take cues from our peers and the cohort immediately in front of us. There is a (sometimes false) sense of safety in staying with the crowd. This is of course where the current trend by 20 something women to delay marriage even further could blow up spectacularly for them. The signals won’t be there for many men that becoming a provider will pay off with respect to LTRs and marriage, and some number of them are bound to re-prioritize their lives. This is of course the men’s right just as it is the right of women to delay marriage. But this could create a shortage of eligible men when the women in their late 20s today suddenly decide to start hailing husbands when in their early 30s.

    Also, it seemed like a lot of the quality men really did wait until older to marry, perhaps because they wanted to be more economically set.

    Since this worked for you I can’t argue with it. To me I would say that as a strategy it resembles waiting until the lottery ticket is scratched to buy the ticket. If you can buy it already scratched (and therefore select a known winner) without paying too much of a premium then it is very rational to do so. If the men don’t understand that their market value just went up, this could happen. But I do think the strategy comes with some risk, especially if the woman overwaits and/or overplays her own hand.

  114. Susan says:

    Actually, my husband is younger than me, and I put him through graduate school with no idea if he’d even get a job at the end. But what I observed is that many other men get married around age 30 or a bit older. They tend to marry women at least a couple years younger, but those women are still then in their mid to late 20s.

    Yes, I agree, people need better advice. I am glad I now know as much as I do, so I can give my children better advice (if it’s not totally outdated by then!) I’ve learned a lot on blogs like this one! It’s even rather healing for me, as it provides enlightenment and better understanding on things that happened to me relationally when I was younger.

  115. TFH says:

    dragnet,

    Which is why the target of ire shouldn’t be your average woman, but institutional feminist power and the white knights + manginas that abet them.

    Always remember the hierarchy of misandric zeal :

    Hardcore feminists > mangina/whiteknights > average women.

    Average women just want to side with whoever is winning. There is insufficient anger towards manginas, and too much towards follow-the-herd average women.

  116. Desiderius says:

    Dalrock,

    “D: I’m not sure what you are asking for. I’ve shared data on cuckoldry, women marrying men they don’t love, and women initiating divorce. What more would you like? Do you have any data you can share which refutes this?”

    I think you may have plan A and plan B reversed. I.e. the more alpha the female, the more likely to try to have her cake and eat it too (different men, to the point of rejecting the alpha who would otherwise have paired with her, especially if he shows up too soon, and this throwing off the assortive mating).

    So the question is whether your data backs up the ordering, or is this an assumption? Actual question, not rhetorical.

  117. Eric says:

    Corky:
    Direct observation and statistics prove that women lie on these surveys, polls, questionnaires, &c. How many have you read saying that all they want is a really decent man? LOL.

  118. Chels says:

    While the idea that (no) women (ever) actually love the men they marry is obvious hyperbole, it does have “roots” in some real-world observations about the way woman have been treating marriage for some time.

    Some women are treating marriage as they currently are because they can, because the legal environment permits them to and because it’s reinforced everywhere. As well, just because a few women are treating men badly cannot be taken and generalized to the whole female population. If one engages in such crude stereotyping, then one shouldn’t have a problem with feminist stereotyping about men, which feminists would also say it’s based on male behavior.

    From a woman’s perspective, marriage has long had a utilitarian angle to it (think about Doomed Harlots wishful declaration that feminism freed women to marry for love) as she would have, by necessity, been looking for a “provider” (much more so than a lover – one could argue that the more chaste women of yesteryear didn’t know what they were looking for in the way of lovers).
    So, many men have come to recognize that woman have long viewed marriage from the perspective of ”What’s in it for me”. Extending that into an era when many other benefits of marriage (lovers, companionship, motherhood) are increasingly available without marriage, it’s easy to see why many men would become increasingly suspicious of a woman’s motivations for marrying, and increasingly understanding that what a woman tends to gain via marriage (uniquely) is financially based.

    Marriage has always had a utilitarian angle—in the past, women who didn’t get married would either starve or be poor, and marriage was and still is a ticket out of poverty for many. The only difference is that women accepted that they also had responsibilities, divorce was discouraged, and marriage was considered to be for life.

    As well, I’m not sure what reasons are good enough to get married—if getting married for love isn’t, and if getting married for utilitarian reasons isn’t, then what is?

    And why do men get married? I’d assume for sex and companionship, but I might be just be wrong.

    Next, consider that woman have been openly discussing the concept of “starter marriages” and “starter husbands” since at least the late ‘90s (it probably started much earlier, but I only became aware of it in the late 90’s).

    I think this has its basis in some women recognizing that they just don’t have what it takes to be a good wife, they’re ill prepared for it, because no one has taught them what it means and thinking that learning leads to better results. However, it is completely wrong, as there are a multitude of sources out there for marital success, so there are no excuses.

    I guess these “starter marriages” would lead to “divorce parties” (divorce cake, divorce ring, etc..) *rolls eyes*
    If anything, it’s just proof of the declining morality in society.

    I’m sure than many woman do love their husbands, some even during the marriage. But, if one considers the larger picture, I think the evidence tends to better support the notion that women typical marry while infatuated, but never really develop true love for their husbands.

    Yes, many women do love their husbands, as I’m sure your wife does, Dalrock’s wife and plenty of other wives. I am personally offended/hurt that women are painted with such broad strokes, because it makes a mockery of the love that I personally feel for my man, and it is rude to dismiss it because of what a few women do.

    Before you jump at me, I am also personally offended by the women who act in such a manner as to make men doubt women’s love for them.

    Obviously, it not universally true, but if you were to try to cite examples from married couples you’ve known, I think you might also find that there are far fewer examples whereof you could be certain that the wife truly and deeply loved the husband as opposed to examples that left quite about of doubt about it. I know that I’ve known far more wives who’ve been openly disrespectful of the husbands (everything from public criticism to cheating on them) than I have known wives who (consistently*) openly expressed admiration, and seemed deeply bounded with their husbands (and, I’m thinking back over decades of my involvement in Churchianity).

    I know a lot of marriages in which the woman deeply loves her husband; I’d actually say they’re the majority.

    As well, being openly disrespectful of her husband does not mean that she loves him any less, she’s probably just venting, as I’m sure plenty of men also do, but I don’t see their love being questioned because of it.

    While plenty of men may not love their wives the way they should, they do tend to be less open and obvious about it than do the women.

    So hiding the same feelings makes it somehow better? You just admitted that men also think some of the same things about their wives, but they just keep it to themselves or to their buddies.

  119. TFH says:

    nugganu,

    Then there is my own ex, who is so spun on pop culture that she agreed to marry a man posing online as an ultra-rich, east Indian 007 type who did secret work for the US military, sight unseen

    Interesting. How did this man manage to persuade her of all this?

  120. Eric says:

    Jax:
    We’re not a bunch of adolescent ‘white knights’ here anymore. How often I’ve heard this crap from women that ‘they didn’t know he was like that!’ or ‘He changed!’ Bullshit. I’ve seen enough women run after these scumbags, and back to them again whenever they can, to know that women are not a lot of innocent Cinderellas being taken advantage of like that. If women were more concerned with building relationships than they are with dominating and feeling superior to men, they wouldn’t chase these bums.

  121. Eric says:

    Chels,
    ‘It’s absurd to claim that women don’t love their husbands, and I’m certain a lot of married women and men can testify to that.’

    I’ll bet there are a lot more men who can attest to just the opposite.

    ‘It’s important to distinguish between selfish and selfless love.’

    They are distinguished by gender. Most women are narcissistic and men are the gender who commits and gives in a relationship, typically. You can obviously see how it can’t work out, no matter how much the man gives; because the woman is always operating from a self-serving position.

  122. Desiderius says:

    To be clear, NAWALT. I missed some pretty prime opportunities with at least two in my early twenties, then went on to wreak my share of havoc lower down the SMV scale. It did give me a front row seat to witness some pretty, um, suboptimal behavior on the part of many alpha females, some of which I was interested in, some not. As I’ve aged, I’ve moved more to the second row (23-year-old sister, I’m a high school teacher, was taking a lot of classes on a college campus 3-5 years ago to get my certification, people talk to me and I listen), and I get the sense that alpha females who want to wait to get married don’t want to stumble onto Mr. Right too soon, so they’re missing practice relating to him, and the Mr. Rights to her. Instead they stumble toward where their base instincts lead.

  123. Theotheryoshi says:

    Jax’s sob story didn’t really resonate with me either. Sounds too fishy that a man would be able to skate off that easily as ruddy have very elequently put. It’s like every day you see the sun in the sky, and that is how it is, but one day an eclipse happen, and people make claims that this is the new way it’s going to be. Of course, in real life, the sun does come back, and the general state of the world is that the sun will be there. Jax’s “cheating husband” is the rare eclipse, blanketing out the light of reason in the manosphere, but the lone exception does not disprove the general trend. Enough men are being grinded up in the divorce industry that her one story of oh poor me my husband traded me for a cute young thing makes me feel nothing. I also love the half hearted attempt at shamming by calling this blog mysogonistic. I bid you good day madame, but you won’t find any sympathy from this man.

  124. Jason says:

    Hi everybody,

    I guess i stand corrected about Jax. I didn’t mean to suggest that hs was a majority of cases, just that I was giving her the benefit of the doub instead of piling on. Although some good points have been made and you are right her story doesn’t really ring all that true.

    I do have no doubt, assuming the basics are true, that she paints a much rosier picture of herself than is true in reality, but as I said previously that is inevitably true.

    I guess ultimately I just have a very low tolerance for infidelity either direction. I think the ancient Israelites had the right idea abut infidelity, where it was a capital crime. I don’t suggest it should be a capital crime today due to things like paternity testing, but I think they had the right idea.

    Anyway, I will be sure to be more skeptical in future. I guess I should be less willing to give the benefit of the doubt to random blog post commenters.

    Jason

  125. zed says:

    Yes, many women do love their husbands, as I’m sure your wife does, Dalrock’s wife and plenty of other wives. I am personally offended/hurt that women are painted with such broad strokes, because it makes a mockery of the love that I personally feel for my man, and it is rude to dismiss it because of what a few women do.

    Before you jump at me, I am also personally offended by the women who act in such a manner as to make men doubt women’s love for them.

    Outstanding post, Chels – all of it, but I think this quote pretty well sums it up.

    I’m still working on some ideas of what to say about grerp’s analogy of Germany and Russia in 1941-1947 and how appropriate that is to the situation in which men and women find themselves today. But, I think a whole lot of it boils down to the question – after war has been declared, how does either or both sides get to back out of it without pushing forward to defeat the other.

    The Good Mangina Project – which I pretty much hate – has an interesting article on it now:
    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/blind-rage-not-every-man-is-evil/
    “Blind Rage: Not Every Man Is Evil”

    Not every woman is evil, either, but the bloody corpse being trampled under Kali’s feet is in no position to “court” or “woo” a member of the very same group who destroyed him.

    As many people have said, “women” started this battle with feminism, and unless women lay down their arms and break off their attack on men, what choice do men have other than to defend themselves? How in the world are men to find their loving feelings toward women, when women are attacking them 7x24x365, stealing their children, accusing them of rape, putting them in prison, and cackling in victory about it being “The End of Men.”

    Blind Rage: Not every man (or woman) is evil
    Blind Chivarly: NO woman is evil,and yes, every man IS evil

    The answer for all of us lies somewhere between.

    If women want to make a good faith offering to show their willingness to sue for peace, I would say that 1,000 feminists hanging from lampposts tomorrow morning would be a good start.

  126. Theotheryoshi says:

    Jason, you don’t have to be a skeptic if that in your heart isn’t what you want to do. I’m a physicist so I’m skeptical of everything. Part of being a scientist. It’s like when they released that story bout the neutrino breaking the speed of light. The methods and the error in the data was so poorly explained to the public that I had one of my students asked me if they have to study relativity anymore cause it was going to be “outdated”. Turned out that there are other factors that might have motivated the crew to release a report prematurely. My main point is that it’s good to be skeptical when the person is motivated to lie or misrepresent the data, but a knee jerk skeptical response is just as bad. Beside, the onus is on them to prove that they are not like that, not on us to prove their conclusion for them. It’s like me asking you to prove that unicorns don’t exists, you would have to scour the entire universe for them to disprove it. Anyways, I should go back to grading papers, this is a great distraction though.

  127. van Rooinek says:

    @susan

    No one except my grandmother ever told me I might want to take a closer look at some of the guys who didn’t come across as being as attractive or exciting. I thought she was old-fashioned and paid no attention to her.

    In doing so, you rejected thousands of years of accumulated wisdom.

    Also, I didn’t really get asked out very often by men of higher character so it’s not like I was doing a lot of rejecting.

    Two possible reasons for this, both based on my own experience. First, bad men will ask out any woman they find sexually attractive. while good men will only ask out someone they feel might have relationship potential (and who is ALSO sexually attractive). In other words, good men have a tigher filter. The bad boy doesn’t care if your personalities are compatible.

    Secondly… good men often have such awful experiences of repeated and sometimes over-the-top cruel rejection (despite their polite and honorable approach), that after years of being blasted, they stop initiating. I finally realized in my mid 30s, that… “If she’s not interested enough to make the first move, she’s not interested at all”. If a guy has reached that point, YOU will have to communicate interest… and not with subtle “signals” either, men can’t read those — you just about have to ask him out. Or at least brazenly start the conversation and not wait for him to try. Or, if on a dating site, email him first (worked for my wife!).

    Also, it seemed like a lot of the quality men really did wait until older to marry, perhaps because they wanted to be more economically set.

    Causal arrow reversed. Gone are the days when young lovers married poor and built a life together.
    Today’s women generally won’t talk to a man, until he’s economically set first. In other words, he’s not “quality” until he crosses a certain economic threshhold, and he’s usually older by that point.

  128. greyghost says:

    “Causal arrow reversed. Gone are the days when young lovers married poor and built a life together.”
    This is the number one reason why women don’t marry young. A big influence on hypergamy for a young woman.

  129. van Rooinek says:

    @ myself
    Causal arrow reversed. Gone are the days when young lovers married poor and built a life together.

    @greyghost
    This is the number one reason why women don’t marry young. A big influence on hypergamy for a young woman.

    This is also probably the number one reason why MEN, or at least religious men, don’t marry young. No guy whose faith commands him to save sex til marriage, wants to wait til well past 30 to marry! Yet that is the fate that modern hypergamous moneyhungry Christian women force upon us. And they have the nerve to cast stones at us if we break down and look at porn in a moment of weakness…

  130. Kathy says:

    “I think the evidence tends to better support the notion that women typical marry while infatuated, but never really develop true love for their husbands. ”

    Slwerner, you have nailed it. (I always read your sage comments because you really have a handle on how things are)

    Now if you just add prior multiple sex partners to the equation it’s a recipe for disaster.

    Firstly a woman should be deeply in love with the man she marries. If she has been on the carousel prior to the marriage then I hold out little hope for the marriage long term. She just will not be able to bond with her husband. That’s the plain truth. She will always be looking for greener pastures.
    In a marriage where husband and wife have cemented a deep physical and spiritual bond the wife is happy and content, and will not be interested in other men. Frequent sex ensures this.

    As much as I have been scoffed at when I say .. For the past 15 years of my marriage I have never once thought of sleeping with another man. Not once.. Such is the deep bond between myself and my husband. It’s true. :D

  131. Looking Glass says:

    @ Canuck:

    Welcome! Awesome post and *extremely* honest. You’re more honest, even online and anonymous, than most women will ever be with their impulses. This bodes really well for yours and your future husband’s chances at a great marriage.

    Dalrock should probably make a full post on the comment alone, hehe.

  132. Jason Rennie says:

    @Theotheryoshi

    Thanks for the advice. I should probably be more skeptical though, as I do tend to be in many areas of my life and am generally regarded as a careful thinker by at least some people I know :)

    I guess, after having a wife who asked for a divorce although since appears to have seen the light and changed her mind (It doens’t help that she is actually mentally ill and some other things, but “for better or worse” does mean “for better or worse”), and having watched others go through divorce or seen the wreckage from it (My little sister married a great guy, but he has 4 kids from his first marriage to a psycho who cheated on him and left him and has been trying to cash in ever since), my heart does tend to go out to people who have been divorced.

    Divorce is the severing of a relationship that was never intended to be unmade and humans are biologically wired such that unmaking such things runs counter to our nature (unless you are very very broken already). So, it is hard not to feel compassion for those who have been divorced :(

    Jason

  133. Theotheryoshi says:

    I will concede the point that divorce is a horrible thing because yeah… there’s just no point in arguing that because it’s true that pain is still pain. Perhaps I am a bit too jaded by actions of others to feel empathy for Jax, but that is my own failing. Remind me to not respond when I’m grading papers, seeing some of my students response makes me cry a little bit on the inside. I am sincerely sorry for your situation and your brother’s though and wish you both the best Jason.

  134. Jason Rennie says:

    @Theotheryoshi

    Thanks, much appreciated. I can see why you would be Jaded hanging around here though :P

    Everything is such a mess today and everybody is left suffering, ironically often those who all of this insanity was embarded upon to “help”.

    But never expect an ideologue to say they are sorry or to fess up to unintended consequences.

    Jason

  135. Susan says:

    I never really cared much about money when considering guys. Yes, I looked for intelligence and responsibility and the kinds of traits that often do help men do well career-wise. But I felt no more attraction to someone who said he wanted to be a doctor than someone who wanted to be a teacher, everything else being equal. I was far more concerned with whether his calling would be compatible with me. I had my own career for one, and also, have no aspirations to live a materialistic life. I also was drawn to the idea of helping a man reach his goals, which is exactly what I did. Maybe I’m unusual, but I wonder if men may be thinking they are ineligible in the eyes of women when that’s not the case.

  136. Canuck says:

    @ Chels,

    Big difference indeed. No, I mean commitment. When I said I’m a good girl I meant it, I don’t “do” one night stands or hookups.

    @ Looking Glass

    Thanks for the welcome! Very honest is right… I just wanted to get it out there that younger girls are probably reading this, and the more information available to them the better choices they can make.

    On a side note, I think girls who see this in themselves should try to have some understanding for their boyfriend’s or husband’s desires as well. Guys will always be attracted to other girls and denying that solves nothing, so if a guy feels like he can talk about it, it will probably take quite a weight off his shoulders. We are animals and we can’t help who we are attracted to, but we can definitely control our actions, so there’s no point in getting upset about something he hasn’t actually done. Men aren’t as terrible as women sometimes make them feel, and in my experience are often more committed than the women they’ve been with. Both genders need to cut the other some slack and start an honest conversation about what’s bothering them before blaming.

    Reading my post it sounds a bit over-confident, but I didn’t really know a better way to say it… I think you guys understand though ;)

  137. Looking Glass says:

    @Canuck:

    TFH would normally argue that most women can’t see the “big picture” for trying. You’ve shown more insight, introspection and willingness to confront reality than any troll we’ll ever see here and far more than is ever expected. It’s a rare gift. Use it wisely to realize help make your life better and gain the ability to have sustainable, long-term relationships. Most of your cohort will be incapable of that. Which is sad, but a reality for the time being.

  138. GT66 says:

    Canuck says:
    “I’ve been a long time reader of your blog and I think that this post sums up everything wrong with our culture now. Though it was difficult to admit at first, I know I often think like this. I’m 21 years old and I’m dating a great guy who wants to marry me, yet I often wonder if it’s the right choice or if something better could be around the corner. I grew up with my mother (who was divorced and is now happily married) telling me that I’m the most beautiful girl in the world and I can have whatever I want. Couple this with chick flicks and the current sexual marketplace and it’s a very difficult thought to get out of your head. I get a lot of attention from guys, I will be applying to law school shortly with perfect grades and I am a good girl. I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but when as a girl you know that you can have any guy you want, it it hard to stop thinking this way when you do actually get a great guy.”

    And this is what I don’t understand. So your mother told you you’re “the most beautiful girl in the world” and of course she would know so you believed her? No one before you has ever gone to law school? Gotten perfect grades? Been attractive? Gotten attention? I know what you’re doing and you not only do mean to sound arrogant, you enjoy being arrogant. An honest person realizes that really, no matter who they are, they’re not all that special. Unless of course, they *want* to pretend they are. And, while you can get any man you want, what is it that you think causes a man to commit to you? You don’t think he’s thinking, “I wonder if I can do better?” You don’t think he’s thinking “By 40 this chick will be her mother.” You really think your awesomeness pulls with that much gravity? Despite your words, you, and women like you such as Bolick, have very little idea of what they want and have even less ability to identify it when they have it. Bolick had what she wanted in her hands. Probably, several times. And yet, she never saw it and here she is: alone.

  139. Rgoltn says:

    I have to agree with the fact that women today are being sold a “bill of spinsterhood goods.” I am a mid-40’s MWM to a very attractive mid-40’s MWF. We have been married for 17 years; together for 20. My wife has well over a dozen girlfriends who have either never married or married and are now divorced.

    All of them love to go out all of the time and act as if they are fulfilled and happy to be career women who can do what they want. Now, my wife works and there is nothing wrong with her having a career. However, she also has a husband, daughter and we take priority over partying with her friends.

    Her friends, in private, always break down and confess they wish they had someone to share their lives with; anyone. Funny thing though, many of her firends have given up. They do not try at all. Their are older guys in their 50’s who would love to go out with them, but they think that is too old. The guys my age go out with girls from their 40’s – 20’s. They have choices. My wife’s friends do not. Their SMV drops by daily they continue to delude themselves. They put up good “game faces,” but have told my wife how lucky she is to have me.

    Being married has tremendous benefits and I do not subscribe to a lot of “Game” bloggers’ POV that having a LTR is bad. I am lucky. My SMV is high and so is my wife’s. We work at our marriage and “The Married Man Sex Life” has been a priceless read. Keep up the good work.

    rgoltn

  140. Eric says:

    Theotheryashi:

    One thing that stood out in Jax’ story to me was three things:
    1. In spite of the fact that her husband was a scumbag; it didn’t stop him from marrying a woman and having kids with her;
    2. In spite of the fact that he was a scumbag; according to Jax, it didn’t stop a lot of other women from lining up to be his mistresses; even though they must have known he was marriied, with children, AND a scumbag;
    3. In spite of the fact that he was a scumbag; that evidently hasn’t stopped him from moving on to new female ‘conquests.’

    Come to think of it, that describes pretty closely the lot of most scumbag-type males I know. They either have wives and girlfriends; ex-wives and girlfriends; or they stay single and have harems of girlfriends. But they’re never without willing women, and usually lots of offspring as well.

    Does anyone SERIOUSLY want to argue that women really WANT decent men?

  141. Pingback: Women Don’t Want Decent Men | Omega Virgin Revolt

  142. Jason Rennie says:

    @Eric,

    I would be willing to argue that women really do want decent men. Some women anyway, not all clearly, as they are clearly willing to accept the situation you outline. But this isn’t all women.

    It might be the women and guys you associate with.

    Jason

  143. corey ashcraft says:

    Maybe its just me, but I think Chels is gardually taking a small dose of red pill. Her Gradual baby-step evolution in thought is a wonder to behold. She is actually making logical arguments and evolving as a debater in the manosphere. Do I give credit to Dalrock, Whiskey, TFH, or Althone Kay?

    Congradulations Chels, I hope you continue to come here even though I think your wrong 90% of the time I’ve learned alot by reading your comments about what the modern woman thinks. Twisted and wrong but thats just the way it is. I hope you continue to evolve as a debater and contribute as you well as you do? Who knows maybe I’ll agree with you on something someday you were so close several times in this thread!

    Corey

  144. Badger says:

    Rgoltn sums up the issue for me.

    “All of them love to go out all of the time and act as if they are fulfilled and happy to be career women who can do what they want…Her friends, in private, always break down and confess they wish they had someone to share their lives with; anyone.”

    This almost always seems to be the case; a false bravado covering up heartbreak that they go home alone. The status of being married is huge as women age, absolutely huge.

    A friend of mine wanted to get married. He went on dates with probably 40 women in two years looking for her. He found her, a “goody two shoes” as he describes her. He’s an intellectual alpha, she’s a fun but good woman who appreciates his traits and responds to his natural charisma. A good match. I’m very happy for them.

    He told me her sister is a party girl, always picks the guys who will P&D her. She may have been cooler than her sister in young life, but there’s no doubt at all who got the better deal now, and they’re not even out of their 20’s.

  145. Badger says:

    “Maybe its just me, but I think Chels is gardually taking a small dose of red pill. Her Gradual baby-step evolution in thought is a wonder to behold. ”

    Well look what happened to Butterfly Flower, she’s gone 100% red pill by now!

  146. jack says:

    “It is not appropriate to infer that women don’t love men based on what happens in family court as divorce happens after she falls out of love and after that, anything is fair game; so you’re correct in that sense .”

    A look into the wicked heart of woman.

    If you can justify destroying someone because you “fell out of love”, then you never truly loved that person.

    Love is not selfish.

    I have really begun to think that most American women are so thoroughly poisoned and morally corrupted that they are beyond correction or repair.

    Women who destroy their men in divorce court are just children throwing a tantrum, and using the legal system to do it. Thank God I never married one of those beasts.

  147. Jason says:

    @Jack

    I think you hit the nail on the head when you describe women who seek to destroy their husbands during the divorce as a child throwing a tantrum. They are seriously immature women who behave like spooky brats. Of course that dies seem to be much of the essence of modern feminism.

    Jason

  148. Lavazza says:

    Re: The discussion if a woman is capable of loving a man.

    My Indian yoga teacher tells us to put non-violence above love (love is not part of yogic virtues/guiding principles). Love makes people make promises that they cannot keep. And not keeping a promise is a violent act.

    You cannot trust somebody’s feeling of love, but if somebody is visibly guided by non-violence (including speech and thoughts) you can quite safely trust that person not to hurt you.

  149. dannyfrom504 says:

    Darlock-

    and this is my hell. i’m stuck in a dating pool of single mom’s and girls right out of high school. i’m soooo screwed. *sigh*

  150. greyghost says:

    Lavazza what you are showing is character. I have been trying to describe and explain that to my wife for years, she like 99 percent of women think gina tingles is what true love is. Also what you discribe is how powerful an arranged marriage or any marriage can be when it is guided by principles rather than happiness.

  151. Lavazza says:

    greyghost: Well, love (independant of exact definition) is a highly probable side effect of a non violent relation.

  152. Chels says:

    @ Jack

    A look into the wicked heart of woman.

    If you can justify destroying someone because you “fell out of love”, then you never truly loved that person.

    Love is not selfish.

    I have really begun to think that most American women are so thoroughly poisoned and morally corrupted that they are beyond correction or repair.

    Women who destroy their men in divorce court are just children throwing a tantrum, and using the legal system to do it. Thank God I never married one of those beasts.

    Wow selective reading there huh? I never once tried to justify destroying a man’s life, as I believe that no one can ever deserve that, there is never a good enough reason to punish someone for the rest of his life. All I said was not to generalize some women’s behavior to all women.

    It seems like you (and others) are nitpicking at my words and manipulating what I said so that it fits your own beliefs.

    However, I will agree that women who do behave like that are beasts.

  153. slwerner says:

    Kathy ”Slwerner, you have nailed it. (I always read your sage comments because you really have a handle on how things are)”

    While I appreciate your high(er than probably deserved) opinion of me, I’m not sure that I did a very good job of conveying (to Chels) what I was thinking. I was trying to make the point not that there aren’t women who do truly love their husbands, but rather that looking at the larger picture, on aggregate the question of whether woman typically ever have any real love for their husbands remains a valid question [which stands as separate question from whether or not “men do it too”].

    I had hope to get across the idea that if you have a convergence of factors – women openly talking of “starter marriages”, a general contempt shown for married men & fathers in pop-culture, and the noticeable prevalence of women who make a habit of publicly disparaging their husbands (not just occasionally venting about a “real” issue) – it tends to point towards a general lack of genuine love (from whence would also come loyalty to and honor for) being felt for the men they (likely as not feel that they) “settled” for (even before she is willing to throw the man she supposedly pledged herself to for life under-the-bus during an ugly divorce).

    To me, the concept of “starter marriages” is especially troubling in that regard. While the woman who’ve written books and essays about the topic do try to paint it as a “don’t be afraid to try and to fail” ideal, it also seems to necessarily embody a certain amount of holding back on love so as to not become too attached to the husband she is “trying out”. It seems more like planning for marital failure, with an eye towards how to come out “ahead” in the end (usually meaning that the man must come out behind”).

    When I first started hearing woman talk of the utility of “starter marriages” it struck me that they were, essentially, establishing a “base camp” from which they could begin to explore their options for improving their lot with yet another man.

    Another thing that I had hoped that Chels would have recognized and identified with is that women (much, much, much) more than men not only tend to publicly “dish” on their spouses, but are likely to join in themselves when other women start to do so.

    I cannot speak for all, nor even most men, but my personal experience has been that men tend to dissuade other men from negative talk about their spouses and their marriages [perhaps we just don’t like to discuss such matters because we are emotionally “cut-off”;)]. If some guy starts to get too personal about his wife/marriage, it’s as if other men will, spontaneously and in unison, seek to change the subject and shut down that topic. I’m fairly certain that other men here have experienced this as well, and could back me up.

    I has trying to make the point (to Chels) that it’s not that some men don’t love their wives, but rather than even those who don’t (and are well known to have a bad relationship) don’t generally seek to make a public mockery of their wives. Thus, from the male perspective, that so many women do just exactly that will almost certainly lead to the consideration that women who behave in that way do not love their husbands, and may well never have had any true love for them.

  154. Canuck says:

    @ GT66

    I understand the way you are reading it, but that is not at all what I’m trying to get across. Yes, my mother has told me I’m beautiful since I was young, just like everyone else has. Yes, I believed them. My point here is that I am not so special. I am happy my boyfriend finds me so special, but I am not about to believe that I am better than anyone else, that’s why I’m asking parents to stop being unrealistic with their children, it doesn’t help and it makes it a lot harder later. I do think I am much more aware than most American girls, but I have lived abroad in three countries and I know that there are plenty of other amazing girls out there. I guess where I am now is thankful that I realize how things are in America and that I am actively trying not to become that. I am excited to get married not to get married but to be married and start a family. I know a lot of guys here tell stories of women (as on Roissy) that I cannot see in myself at all. Despite my mother treating me like a Disney princess she was an excellent mother, one who my boyfriend likes and respects as well, and I think that is why he is with me, he believes I will be a good mother.

    It is hard to explain how women feel now, really how we are made to feel by so many people around us, in so few words. I said what I did so readers could get a better idea of how I feel, because honestly, there’s no easier way than just saying it. You aren’t really judging me here though, you are just judging the women you see in what I wrote.

  155. Interested says:

    “To me, the concept of “starter marriages” is especially troubling in that regard. While the woman who’ve written books and essays about the topic do try to paint it as a “don’t be afraid to try and to fail” ideal, it also seems to necessarily embody a certain amount of holding back on love so as to not become too attached to the husband she is “trying out”. It seems more like planning for marital failure, with an eye towards how to come out “ahead” in the end (usually meaning that the man must come out behind”).

    When I first started hearing woman talk of the utility of “starter marriages” it struck me that they were, essentially, establishing a “base camp” from which they could begin to explore their options for improving their lot with yet another man.”

    @slwerner

    First off, excellent post. I’ll add that some women who go into their first marriage in “love” and hoping it lasts a lifetime still end up viewing the current marriage as a launching point to another bigger, better relationship. One day they wake up unhappy and look externally for the reasons. Who better than their husband? So they engage in affairs and bail. If no affair, then a brutal assessment of how much they need of the current marital assets to launch the new life without hubby number one. When there is enough, they bail. Did they ever “love” their spouse? I guess it depends on your perspective.

    I do know from my perspective that I wondered that very thing about my former wife. Her actions during the second half of our marriage were brutal. Then, when the divorce was final and she was finally out I had to drop something off at her new place. She was feeling nostalgic and wanted to reminisce. Why? God only knows. But she tried to tell me how she will always “love” me. I told her that her actions made me believe that she never loved me. She was speechless.

    Needless to say I didn’t stick around to discuss it. And thankfully she has not felt the need to reminisce anymore. At least not with me.

    But I also laughed out loud reading your post, especially that part above about holding back in a marriage. On our honeymoon we went golfing on a course with lots of lakes. We got paired up with another couple. We get to the first hole where you have to hit over water and she pulls out a range ball to tee off with. The other guy stops her and says, “Hey, you need to play confidently. You should be hitting a brand new Titleist, not a range ball. Go all in and good things will follow!”

    She didn’t listen and hit the range ball.

    RIght into the lake.

    I know, a range ball didn’t cause my divorce, but it made me laugh to make the connection.

  156. Will says:

    Re Canucks comment:

    One can definately see that young relatively attractive women have an over inflated sense of [their] self worth. Its visible in their body language and the way they carry themselves. Their demenour is one of [regarding themselves as] having a Higher Status then their male counterparts. Of course NAWALT applies but this is my observation, hence PUA/Game practioners recommending the use of “Negs”.

  157. slwerner says:

    Canuck – ”…I think that is why he is with me, he believes I will be a good mother.”

    I certainly hope that you meant that it is one additional element of his desire to marry you. While a woman’s relative risk in entering marriage is unaltered by the question of whether or not she actually love the man, the same does not hold true for the man.

    A man is risking quite a bit in both marrying and becoming a father. Unlike the situation for women, if it doesn’t “work out” the way he wanted it to, there are substantial costs to him to get out of his end of the contract.

    The Manosphere has long been full of the tales of woe of men who were married to women who were wonderful mothers to their children, but who turned out to be poor spouses. Whether it was simply a matter of her bonding so strongly with the children that she all but forgot about the husband, or her going to extremes to get him out of the lives of the children (save for paying for them) via false accusations of abuse and/or parental alienation, the fact is that it wasn’t enough that the woman was a good mother.

    In an era where young women are openly encouraged to consider “starter marriages”, and public disrespect and open contempt for husbands and fathers has become widely accepted (and even embraced), it’s increasingly unimportant from the women’s perspective that she actually love the man she vows to marry (Lord knows the reality of women walking down the isle while already believing that they were marrying the wrong man has already been addressed on this forum). However, since there a dearth of benefits available exclusively for men from marriage, if a man is to marry, it damned sure better be for love. If a man marries even though he is not certain that she is “the one” and that he loves her, he is a damned fool! Forget what kind of mother she might make, forget how much money she might make, and forget about how great a lover she may be. From the male perspective, none of these will ensure a good marriage, nor are they dependent upon a marriage. The only things that should convince a man to take the substantial risk of marriage are his careful consideration of her as worthy wife material (non-slut, non-entitlement princess, mentally stable, physically healthy, fit and fertile – if he wishes to have children, and that she be of good and loving character) and his feeling of total and true love for her.

    Most women can enjoy marital benefits independent of any feelings of love for their husbands. This simply is not true for most men.

  158. Chels says:

    @ slwerner

    Well, first time it happens, but you’ve left me speechless and completely agreeing with you; so you definitely succeeded in making the points you were trying to.

  159. slwerner says:

    Chels – ”Well, first time it happens, but you’ve left me speechless and completely agreeing with you”

    I’m tempted to retort that ”You’re just not trying hard enough” – because there are weaknesses in my arguments. Still, I’m glad to see that my over-arching points have “taken”.

    I will add two caveats that effect the way men (in general) have come to question if women (in general) do in fact ever really feel love for their husbands. First, there is some projection going on. We (men) will often point out that women tend to be the ones who project their feelings and motives onto men, but men are certainly not immune from doing the same from time to time.

    While it’s common for men to unload about ex’s, they are more likely to reveal much less about women that they still have some sort of affection for, even if it’s a more tenuous relationship. Men tend to limit their public spite for those women they truly dislike (even hate). Thus, when men see women openly displaying contempt and disrespect for men, it’s only natural for those men to think that the women doing so must hold the man in very low regard.

    Now, I’ve heard men being openly disparaging of their wives/mothers of their children; but I (and from what I know, other men) have seen this as an indication of serious deep issues in the relationship. When a woman seems to have nothing good to say about her husband, it’s quite rational for us to assume that there must be some serious issues going on for her to be that way towards him.

    Secondly, the women who are critical of their husbands (and of men in general) tend to catch our attentions much more than wives who are respectful and honoring of their husbands. It is, of course, unfair to those in the latter category, but it is yet another manifestation of the human condition. It might be argued that it is a sort of “Apex Fallacy” that we fall for. However, unlike some other examples, we’ve tended to notice it more primarily because it seems that so many women have started to act in such ways. If it were only the worst 10-or-15% of them doing it, we’d be more inclined to see it as just a few “bad apples”. When it seems that most (even if it’s not really most) women have become that way, it’s harder not to start tot think that’s it now the way women typically are.

    Of course, I would be remiss not to acknowledge that there are many women who are still loving, honoring, and faithful tot eh men in their lives. They truly do deserve recognition and encouragement in times such as these. They stand out from amongst their peers as today’s Proverbs 31 women.

  160. tony says:

    Chels, would you stop using the word “love” and replace it with other words such as the 3 greek loves or “gina tingles” to distinguish how you want to use the word “love”? Its as if “agape” love is not in you dictionary or you have any clue as to what it is. Dont use “love” and get all the benefits of “agape” when you really mean it as “gina tingles” or eros love.

    It seems that the highest form of “love” in your posts doesn’t peek past a low basic, rudimentary “brotherly love”

  161. TFH says:

    Do I give credit to Dalrock, Whiskey, TFH, or Althone Kay?

    It can be more than one person, and usually is. I would replace Whiskey with zed, in your list.

    The conversion of Susan Walsh a couple of years ago was due to the trio of Ferdinand, Obsidian, and myself. Now, she is an generally an ally to the cause – this was not the case in 2009.

    [D: This speaks very well of Susan. Very few are willing to listen to another's view well enough to be potentially swayed by it. From what you are saying, clearly she was willing to do so.]

  162. Anonymous says:

    Reading some of these comments got me thinking. Someone said “pretty girls are a dime a dozen”. In fact, they’re not, and they’re getting rarer and rarer – due to the obesity epidemic as well as “downgrading” in breeding. As we are all aware, the less intelligent and less attractive are more likely to have children in today’s environment.

    Now, take that, and add to the mix that social taboos have been lowered to the point where high status men have no problem whatsoever poaching girls from younger generations. Nor do these girls now feel any shame in dating older men. The boys in generation now being born are gonna be totally screwed, having to compete harshly for those women who do not date older men nor are overweight..

  163. Anonymous says:

    “Maybe I’m unusual, but I wonder if men may be thinking they are ineligible in the eyes of women when that’s not the case.”

    HIghly doubtful. Many studies have shown men tend to strongly overestimate their league. Some, of course, think this is for evolutionary reasons; but even if you reject that, it is a hard-sell to argue that men are too humble when it comes to what kind of woman they feel they merit.

  164. Anonymous says:

    “The idea that women “compulsively” have sex with men of more status is laughable.
    It’s very conscious indeed.

    Perhaps “compulsive” was the wrong word, but the point is that women very much want to have sex with high-status men. Would you say that men are engineered to “compulisvely” have sex with beautiful women? See my point?

    As for the second point, about female sexuality being less adapted to the modern world… well, you are reading this blog, aren’t you? :P

  165. TFH says:

    I think ‘compulsive’ is a wee bit too strong, but only a wee bit.

    Why do serial killers receive thousands of love letters from women who know nothing about them other than that they killed someone?

    Because the attraction triggers from pre-modern times kick in, and this overrides any other common sense that a supposedly adult female might have.

  166. Anonymous says:

    Yes, exactly.

    Promiscuity itself lowers a woman’s quality of life – lowers her reputation in the eyes of her friends nad community, probably also causes psychological damage – yet most continue to engage in it. So I don’t think its too far to say that female sexuality seems poorly adapted to the modern world.

  167. TFH says:

    So I don’t think its too far to say that female sexuality seems poorly adapted to the modern world.

    Totally. There is no modern, 21st century society possible where the serial killer is more valued than the engineer (and yes, what women reward is what men will ultimately adjust to).

    There is no stable society possible where over half of children grow up without both of their biological parents. This is entirely due to feminist laws and incentives created by it.

  168. Susan says:

    “HIghly doubtful. Many studies have shown men tend to strongly overestimate their league. Some, of course, think this is for evolutionary reasons; but even if you reject that, it is a hard-sell to argue that men are too humble when it comes to what kind of woman they feel they merit.”

    I can see that. But I still think men may overestimate to what extent their wealth or lack of it matters to women.

  169. Dalrock says:

    @Desiderius

    I think you may have plan A and plan B reversed. I.e. the more alpha the female, the more likely to try to have her cake and eat it too (different men, to the point of rejecting the alpha who would otherwise have paired with her, especially if he shows up too soon, and this throwing off the assortive mating).

    So the question is whether your data backs up the ordering, or is this an assumption? Actual question, not rhetorical.

    I understand now. Yes, this is an assumption on my part. You are suggesting that women might be rejecting marriage proposals from men of means who they are attracted to, and instead opting to marry a man of equal or lessor means who they aren’t attracted to (and then cheat with more attractive men on the side). I just don’t see that happening, and aside from you I’ve never seen anyone else propose that it is something women or a specific group of women would prefer. Do you have any data suggesting that this is the case?

    The question of the alpha showing up too soon is a different matter. Some women have absolute life schedules which they are highly unwilling to change, even for an attractive man. In that case she might later end up marrying a man she found less attractive and have flings with men she found more attractive, but this would be because she couldn’t get the commitment/resources from the more attractive men when she was ready to marry. She didn’t prefer to marry the less attractive man (all else being equal).

  170. Anonymous says:

    “I can see that. But I still think men may overestimate to what extent their wealth or lack of it matters to women.”

    I think I agree with you here, I once knew a millionaire who had to hire escorts to show up for his pool parties. Women may have high expectations, but men seem to to, and there’s something really seductive to men in thinking that all they have to do is make their fortune to get all the hot babez.

    Of course, the billionaires probably can get their “pick” so to speak, but the bar has been set so high that only few can reach it.

  171. greyghost says:

    Susan it really doesn’t matter. Knowing female psychology to get into thoughs panties is all there is. It is this easy and over powering. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/

  172. Chels says:

    Do I give credit to Dalrock, Whiskey, TFH, or Althone Kay?

    If you really must know, you should probably give credit mainly to Dalrock and Zed as they were the only ones who didn’t try to chase me away but actually took the time to have a conversation with me and it actually worked as they changed my opinion on many things.

  173. Chels says:

    @ Tony

    Chels, would you stop using the word “love” and replace it with other words such as the 3 greek loves or “gina tingles” to distinguish how you want to use the word “love”? Its as if “agape” love is not in you dictionary or you have any clue as to what it is. Dont use “love” and get all the benefits of “agape” when you really mean it as “gina tingles” or eros love.

    It seems that the highest form of “love” in your posts doesn’t peek past a low basic, rudimentary “brotherly love”

    When I was talking about love, I was refering to selfless love, that transcends everything, not to “tingles” or anything similar.

    If you want more “corniness”, I can expand.

  174. Anonymous says:

    As Kipling said in “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”…

    On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
    (Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
    Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

  175. Desiderius says:

    “This speaks very well of Susan. Very few are willing to listen to another’s view well enough to be potentially swayed by it. From what you are saying, clearly she was willing to do so.”

    Exactly. And that credibility has its benefits. She’s swayed me on things that no one else could, because she’s demonstrated that willingness to be swayed herself.

    “I understand now. Yes, this is an assumption on my part. You are suggesting that women might be rejecting marriage proposals from men of means who they are attracted to”

    No, it never gets close to the marriage proposal stage. As Basil Ransom related on another thread, women that are attracted to him tend to think of him as a “cheeky bastard” and he senses a visceral sense of disappointment on their part if he displays any interest in commitment/redeeming qualities. This has often been my experience as well. Skill with push/pull game can get you through it, but one can see where that instinct leads, and invariably led me before learning game.

    If it gets to the marriage stage, its just because she’s become accustomed to all her herb boyfriends/validation buddies and never learned how to truly relate to the alphas she either rejected (IHAB) to be the good girl or fooled around with if he passed her shit tests and she could tell he was bad/noncommittal enough to avoid making things awkward for her with offers of commitment.

    No, sorry, I do not have data, and it would take some thought to even figure out what such data would look like. Just a whole lot of personal experience across the SMP and hearing from the experiences of others. If one considers, however, that cuckoldry was the optimum female strategy through much of history, it follows that wanting an alpha to commit is in fact a compromise (albeit one that made monogamous civilization possible) of that optimum, and compromise has become a dirty word for many females with options.

    “The question of the alpha showing up too soon is a different matter. Some women have absolute life schedules which they are highly unwilling to change, even for an attractive man. In that case she might later end up marrying a man she found less attractive and have flings with men she found more attractive, but this would be because she couldn’t get the commitment/resources from the more attractive men when she was ready to marry. She didn’t prefer to marry the less attractive man (all else being equal).”

    Showing up too soon (1) and the truest alpha (thus the sexy son maker) being categorically uninterested in commitment (a son who commits will be suboptimally sexy, gene-spreading wise) (2) are the two drivers I can see for this phenomenon. Any ideas you have for verifying/disproving it via your famous data collection/interpretation skills would be of course greatly appreciated. Roissy has already noted the hot babe with herb phenomenon, so one could perhaps start there.

  176. Paragon says:

    I feel compelled to redress much of the misinformation being circulated on various topical blogs.

    Firstly, you all need to appreciate that females are the reproductively limiting sex(rate limiting in reproductive success) – which manifests in *all* dimensions of mate choice(in other words, females are more selective in all their mating considerations).

    One obvious implication of this, is that, given sufficient latitude of female choice(ie. relieved of systemic constraint, which would otherwise limit their choices), female sexual choices will always tend towards small male breeding populations.

    In more colloquial terms, what this means is that male/female ‘leagues’ are asymmetrical – with male ‘rank’ being bottom heavy in distribution, while female ‘rank’ being top heavy.

    If we take the (justified) assumption that guys are more inclusive in their mating choices, and consider a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females(duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate).

    Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale(rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).

    This is why it is so easy to observe that even relatively unattractive females are still much more successful than unattractive males at disassortative mating(ie. such as with fat women being able to commonly mate with non-fat men, etc).

    Next, know that females consider only two quantities of selective value in their mate choices: genetic benefits(physical attractiveness – optimized in high-rate short-term mating), and direct benefits(optimized in long term mating).

    Thus, long-term relationships(ie. long term mating), and short term relationships are each just one of two time-variant fitness strategies.

    Women have evolved to value long-term relationships because this implies direct-benefits(long term benefits with implications for paternal investment as the basis of selective value in long-term mating).

    But, they have also evolved to value short term relationships as this implies genetic benefits(genetic quality indicated in sensory biases fixed by evolutionary success, and subjectively assessed as physical attractiveness).

    Since these two forms of benefits are rooted in evolutionary stratetegies with conflicting optima, females have evolved a further strategy to minimize the tradeoff in receiving one benefit at the cost of another – something we know as strategic pluralism: where females are mate specific in receiving independent benefits(they tend to mate with the most physically attractive males for their genetic benefits, and manipulate the less attractive, but more resourceful males(who are frequently duped into supporting the offspring of the former) for their direct benefits.

    It is important to stress that, from the perspective of the ‘nice guy’, any female who neglects to mate with him within a reasonable interval(or at reasonably frequent intervals), can justifiably be deemed a risk for ‘strategic pluralism'(and paternity fraud).

    Females(unlike males), do not enter into long term relationships(inclusive of marriage) for sex.

    And because of the economically prosperous, systemically mediated welfare state dynamic that prevails in developed world populations, economic and ecological pressures no longer mediate their mate choices to the extant they did in the past.

    One consequence of this is that erotic capital(physical attractiveness) has supplanted other forms in the stratification of male status with respect to mate availability.

    So, being a high status male(with respect to mating) now says less about material wealth, than about physical beauty.

    All things being equal, females will still preferentially mate with males who provide the highest measures of direct/genetic benefits available to them.

    But, since things are rarely equal(for reasons I will expand upon below), gender-biased legislation combined with female hyper-selectivity makes it all but certain that those females who marry, will tend to practice a bait and switch style of marriage(with minimal sexual concessions).

    Marriage has thus become a ‘sucker’s bet’ for the very males who are most likely to pursue it, and thus a much inferior mating strategy.

    Many of you have observed a palpable female tendency to preferentially mate with abusive, and promiscuous male delinquents.

    This tendency is real because it has been biased by evolutionary success(and is thus adaptive in the near evolutionary frame)

    Let me explain.

    The strategic optima of genetic benefits(indicated in physical attractiveness) is short-term mating, and thus anything that expedites short-term mating traffic(netting males higher fitness gains, and thus an evolutionary advantage) is likewise advantageous.

    It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic(frequently indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study: “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency”
    (Martin L. Lalumièrea and Vernon L. Quinseyb
    a Forensic Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250
    College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1R8;b Department of Psychology,
    Queen’s University at Kingston, Humphrey Hall, Kingston, Ontario,
    Canada, K7L 3N6.)

    Thus, evolutionary success will tend to correlate male physical attractiveness with abusive, delinquent, and promiscuous tendencies(and will limit deviations accordingly).

    So, when we observe that females privilege such males, it is not that females find these traits attractive per se, but rather that they are selecting for certain desirable traits that have become correlated with negative ones – this is their dilemma.

    In fact, females will be under evolutionary pressure to accomodate such males, as male offspring will tend to share the same inherent advantages as their fathers, resulting in high-fitness male offspring for the mothers(and thus a likewise evolutionary advantage).

    Females who tend to reject such males will be at a relative disadvantage(producing less prolific offspring), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity.

    To summarize, there are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘nice guys'(females who privilege ‘nice guys’ – by the conventional meaning of the term – incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly).

    I would also like to address the whole spurious ‘alpha-male’ meme which no longer describes status interactions within prevailing human societies.

    This is because, in large organized populations(as opposed to small ‘troops’), network reciprocity marginalizes the influence of dominant males through the net ‘inclusive fitness’ contributions of status inferiors.

    In small ‘in-groups'(ie. typical of early hominid ‘troops’), there is a strong quid-pro-quo dynamic that facilitates status concessions in favor of a dominant male(as the success/prosperity of the group is more strongly weighted for individual competencies).

    In large co-operative populations, the contributions of any single male becomes increasingly
    marginal(as do the status concessions in terms of the limiting resource in ecologically prosperous male populations – sex).

    Hence the contemporary fixation on mating status in stratifying male ‘rank'(a sense which
    ignores the broader ethological context which formed the basis of the ‘alpha’ convention).

    The point is that male dominance in small vs. large (co-operative)populations entails subtle, but material differences(ie. density dependence), that no longer describe human status interactions in large, cooperative populations.

    So, the whole ‘Alpha male’ meme is a spurious concept when applied to human mating practices(in contemporary human societies), where mate access is no longer a function of subordinate status concessions.

  177. Eric says:

    Jason;
    ‘It might be the people you associate with’

    Yeah, right. It’s always the man’s fault with you manginas, isn’t it? Why don’t you ask your Pedestal Princesses why they never seem to find decent men, considering they want them so badly?

  178. Paragon says:

    Evolutionary consequences:

    The problem will always follow a shift towards ecological prosperity(which implies a relaxation of precedant ecological pressures).

    When a highly cooperative population is too prosperous, a strategic morph known as a ‘selfish replicator’ can exploit a favorable evolutionary niche to outbreed all others when that prosperity becomes sufficiently distributed throughout the population.

    And because selfish morphs incur the least liability(they take far more than they contribute), they are able to out-produce(outbreed) all others, gaining an evolutionary advantage.

    So, over generations, selfish replicators become dominant in a population(this is what is happening in all developed world populations as we speak).

    As selfish replicators become increasingly dominant, populations become less cooperative/efficient, and the male breeding population shrinks dramatically(relaxed ecological pressures marginalize the paternal investment advantages in offspring success that would otherwise hold female sexual selectivity in check by favoring larger, more inclusive male breeding populations) as female sexual choice focuses on an increasingly small pool of ‘choice’ males.

    A tendency to smaller male breeding populations in turn begins to pose evolutionary problems in the form of large population replacement(incurring fertility losses through the overhead of increased female selectivity, and the time and energy costs that this entails) and inbreeding depression-type effects, which must ultimately reduce population viability(as delterious recessives will tend to combine at greater frequencies in smaller populations).

    Eventually, this dynamic becomes unsustainable, as the population becomes evolutionarily unstable(indicated in tendencies to sub-replacement fertility – another symptom observed of developed world populations).

    Thus, unperturbed female sexual choice can be the most pernicious agency acting upon the stability of density dependent human systems.

    And, since the ‘problem’ I am describing is a systemic one, entangled in the most base and selfish of evolutionary concerns(which mediate all human rationality), there can be no common solution – these problems must resolve systemically, over evolutionary time(where we should expect that the same invariant evolutionary forces that acted upon small populations in the past – tending to constrain female choice – will likewise hold, and reassert themselves in the future).

  179. Eric says:

    Anonymous@2:43

    That’s a very insightful analysis. We were having a discussion about this recently on another MRA blog—how the media projects the illusion that ‘pretty girls are a dime a dozen’ and any man can find one easily. In fact, American women lead the entire world demographically in chronic obesity. They’re also the world leaders in consuming prescription psychiatric drugs—which also has to do with both their dismal appearance AND their abominable attitudes.

    Any man who travels much outside the Amerosphere notices the difference in women immediately. The women elsewhere are generally nicer, smarter, prettier—better quality all around than the bitches we’re used to here.

  180. Jason Rennie says:

    @Eric

    Eric there is no need to accuse me of being a “mangina”. I know why a number of the girls I go to church with don’t have husbands, much of it comes from (or so it seems) a falsely spiritualised nature of “waiting for god to bring them a man” and for others it doens’t seem to be a priorty.

    Not all women sleep around etc. Maybe these girls are overly picky, maybe they just don’t place a high value on marriage.

    I didn’t say it was the man’s fault at all, nor did I say all women really do want a “decent man”. Clearly some demonstrate by their actions that it isn’t something they value at all, regardless of how many words they offer to the contray.

    All I said was that women who do just want a “decent man” (and haven’t been promiscuious and had their perceptions distorted etc) do actually exist and I know some and that perhaps your perception that all women don’t is really more of a reflection on the women and men you associate with. Just like, if you only surrounded yourself with feminazi’s you’d pretty soon conclude all women are man hating lunatics.

    Jason

  181. corey ashcraft says:

    Eric @11:12

    Your point about women’s obesity in United States is quite true. In fact, to find a majority of girls not obese you probably need to go to Utah or some other conservative state to find obesity-thin ratios that would still be valid, and reflective of the country 20 years ago.

    Corey

  182. jack says:

    Chels-

    You said:

    ““It is not appropriate to infer that women don’t love men based on what happens in family court as divorce happens after she falls out of love and after that, anything is fair game; so you’re correct in that sense .””

    You need to read and re-read your statement until you understand exactly what you said here.

    Here’s a question for you – could you ever “fall out of love” with your child enough to use the law to destroy him/her? I didn’t think so.

    No woman would ever dream of ruining the life of their child (even when the child is an adult) in the same vicious way they will destroy their husband.

    Proving that women really only love their offspring, and they love their husbands only to the extent that they further the woman’s child-raising goals.

    Show me a woman who truly loves a man unconditionally, and I will show you a woman and her son.

    Period.

  183. Lavazza says:

    A French philosopher defined the three forms of love in the following fashion: Eros is the love of what you do not have. Philia is the love of what you have but might lose. Agape is the love of what you will always have.

  184. krakonos says:

    @Paragon
    So many words to say simple things.
    – Cads beat dads
    – Shrinking populations
    – Decline of the West
    What your consequencies do not count with are societies surrounding collapsing ones. They will, very probably, replace the former – genetically. The only question is how much the culture can repress nature. If not, humanity will move in circles forever.

  185. Dalrock says:

    @Desiderius

    No, it never gets close to the marriage proposal stage. As Basil Ransom related on another thread, women that are attracted to him tend to think of him as a “cheeky bastard” and he senses a visceral sense of disappointment on their part if he displays any interest in commitment/redeeming qualities. This has often been my experience as well. Skill with push/pull game can get you through it, but one can see where that instinct leads, and invariably led me before learning game.

    This is something else entirely. The fact that the alpha (or greater beta) lowers himself in her eyes by proposing marriage doesn’t change the fact that she wants commitment from him. See the Roissy post I linked in the original article. You are assuming women are hyper-rational (and hyper aware) about their attraction and desires. It doesn’t work that way.

  186. Anonymous says:

    “What your consequencies do not count with are societies surrounding collapsing ones. They will, very probably, replace the former – genetically. The only question is how much the culture can repress nature. If not, humanity will move in circles forever.j”

    Culture can’t repress nature, it has always been a reflection of nature. And humanity has always been cyclical – the caveat being that, with the completion of each cycle, the bar was cpalsed higher than before.

  187. Anonymous says:

    “Anonymous@2:43

    That’s a very insightful analysis. We were having a discussion about this recently on another MRA blog—how the media projects the illusion that ‘pretty girls are a dime a dozen’ and any man can find one easily. In fact, American women lead the entire world demographically in chronic obesity. They’re also the world leaders in consuming prescription psychiatric drugs—which also has to do with both their dismal appearance AND their abominable attitudes.

    Any man who travels much outside the Amerosphere notices the difference in women immediately. The women elsewhere are generally nicer, smarter, prettier—better quality all around than the bitches we’re used to here.”

    Thanks Eric. In truth, I was stealing some of Roissy’s ideas, who pointed out that female obesity was leading to the rise of game(since men must compete for a smaller and smaller pool of potential sexual partners).

  188. Desiderius says:

    “This is something else entirely. The fact that the alpha (or greater beta) lowers himself in her eyes by proposing marriage doesn’t change the fact that she wants commitment from him. See the Roissy post I linked in the original article. You are assuming women are hyper-rational (and hyper aware) about their attraction and desires. It doesn’t work that way.”

    Again, once an alpha/greater beta gets to the proposal stage, this is not the woman I’m talking about (there are rare exceptions, as with Boling and her Allan, but we don’t know how much of a herb he actually is). What I’m talking about is using the 467-bullet-point checklist to disqualify him* way before that. I’m assuming the opposite of hyper-rationality. She’s rejecting these men who her rational brain is telling her she should be attracted to** because of that “something missing.” That something is gina tingles and they get turned off by his willingness to commit (to anything, even a date).

    I’ve seen a lot of women solve this conundrum by getting the commitment from the herb, and the sex (whether fantasy or reality) from the alpha. This less committal the better for the latter.

    * – of course a man skilled with game can work through this, but the context is the base female drivers. I’m suggesting that the checklist may be more than a shit test.
    ** – rational brain loves dominant man who offers commitment to her

    I guess where I’m going with this is that anti-game should turn a woman off, and a man should have to game his (prospective) wife to the extent that he makes sure he’s not bringing anti-game to the relationship. Light triad behavior should not, and a man is right to resist being told to game his (prospective) wife by bringing Dark Triad. Women unaware of their drivers are unable to make that distinction, so the all-in-one-patch of monogamous civilization cannot satisfy them, however much their rational brain tries to convince them otherwise.

    [D: The fact that fried ice is unavailable doesn't mean she doesn't want it. Not all women are looking for that much alpha, but for those who are they still want the alpha to commit. The fact that the woman has to solve a conundrum by mixing and matching fits perfectly with my initial assertion. If she can't get everything she wants via plan A, she may well resort to plan B. But plan B was never her first choice.]

  189. Lavazza says:

    I think what Desiderius is trying to say is that being married to an alpha who will cheat on the woman or turn beta is not as good a deal as being married to a beta and to cheat on him with alphas. And I think what Dalrock is trying to say is that this sounds to rational and that women go for what they desire and then work around that decision (by lying to themselves or others) to get more or other things they desire.

  190. Chels says:

    @ Jack

    Show me a woman who truly loves a man unconditionally, and I will show you a woman and her son.

    You gave me a lot to think about, but I tend to agree with you. Unconditional/true love, as defined below, is rare:

    1. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

    2. Love

    * Sees the other person’s flaws and still loves them
    * Wants to serve the other person; selfless
    * Still spends time with others
    * Takes time to build the relationship
    * Other relationships and friendships grow stronger
    * Trust and understanding results in less severe and less frequent jealousy
    * Encompasses a long-term commitment
    * Survives and sometimes is strengthened because of distance
    * Quarrels are less serious and less often
    * Quarrels can strengthen the relationship

    Looking at the married couples that I know, I’d say the only ones meeting those criteria are my bf’s parents and one set of my grandparents (my own relationship is also like that, but then I’d just be tooting our own horn). However, besides feminism, another contributing factor to its rarity is our individualistic culture, and I don’t think it’s surprising that both my grandparents and his parents were raised in more collectivist environments.

  191. Lavazza says:

    That is not something that covers all 3 types of love. A relation can vacillitate between eros and philia (and maybe between philia and agape), but it cannot be all 3 at the same time.

  192. Lavazza says:

    “In order for a couple to build something together, it must get over the passionate stage. Passion requires no effort, passion is passive. In the words of Denis de Rougemont, “To be in love is a state; to love, an act” (p.259). And, as Comte-Sponville puts it: “Anyone can be in love, but not everyone is capable of loving” (p.258). ”

    http://whileyouweresleeping.tumblr.com/post/1502844008/18b-philia

  193. Chels says:

    The problem with trying to define love is that it will be different for everyone, different people need different things to feel loved. We can philosophize over it for eternity, but the outcome will always still be subjective. However, I do think that at the core of any definition of love must be putting the other above oneself, and doing anything in one’s power to satisfy his/her needs; doing so should lead to a pretty awesome relationship.

  194. Canuck says:

    @ Anonymous 2:43

    I agree with you. I think that even though there are fewer pretty girls now, we shouldn’t say so. I think we have an epidemic of sorts, of female 6’s sleeping with male 9’s and assuming that’s their standard, obviously forgetting men lower their standards considerably for hookups. The point is that women should never be made to feel that their attractiveness is their most important asset (even though it might be), instead they should be developing a personality, because many have none.

    As a woman living in America I can honestly say after seeing the women around me with clear eyes, if I were a man I would not be in a relationship with one. I don’t blame men at all for taking advantage of the culture, or for traveling and bringing back foreign girls. The rumors are true, they are more attractive and more feminine.

  195. Lavazza says:

    Chels: I don’t agree. I think most people can discern when they have felt or acted out of one type of love and not the other. And I also think that most people would agree on how to classify any given act into the 3 types of love. I do have difficulties in finding a common core for these 3 types of love. Eros is not about putting the other over oneself. It can be followed by that, but it is definitively not a central part of eros.

  196. Chels says:

    Even within the scientific community, there’s a great deal of debate as to what love is:

    Sigmund Freud

    For him, love is primarily about sex/procreation and this is obvious from the theory that he proposes, which includes 4 types of love:

    1. Sexuality + Affection
    2. Libidinal energy
    3. Eros (desire to procreate)
    4. Eros + Death instinct

    As you can see, Freud’s theory is simplistic, and it all boils down to reproducing, and it doesn’t say anything about “unconditional love”.

    Carl Jung

    In contrast to Freud, Jung believes that “Eros” is a feminine principle, it’s the desire for wholeness but he also uses it to describe passionate love, although rarely. To him, “Eros” is opposite to “Logos”, which is a masculine principle, meaning “rationality”. “Feminine” (Wholeness/Intimacy) is attracted to “Masculine” (Rationality), which would fit in with more modern theories of love.

    Abraham Maslow

    Maslow is well renowned for his hierarchy of needs, according to whom love can only exist after we’ve satisfied our physiological/safety needs. Similar to Freud, Maslow also places importance on one’s sexual needs being satisfied before one can move on to feel love (including romantic), which leads to esteem (confidence, respect for others, respect by others), and ultimately to self-actualization.

    It’s interesting that according to Maslow, one’s need for love must be satisfied before one respects and is respected by others.

    I’ve heard people saying that men would rather be respected/honored than loved, but this is not possible if we follow Maslow’s theory.

    C.S. Lewis

    Finally, Lewis’ theory of love includes 4 parts:

    1. Storge—Affection
    2. Phileo—Friendship
    3. Eros—Romance
    4. Agape-Unconditional love

    Therefore, “unconditional love” is only 1/4 of what it takes for one to be loved, and it is possible to leave this out and still be loved and have a good relationship. Of course that for a relationship to become “excellent” and “complete”, the 4th part, unconditional love, is also required.

    __
    There are plenty of other theories, but I thought that these 4 represent the gist of what love is and even though they share similarities, they show that love is indeed subjective and it is up to interpretation and people needing different things to feel loved.

  197. Anonymous says:

    “As a woman living in America I can honestly say after seeing the women around me with clear eyes, if I were a man I would not be in a relationship with one. I don’t blame men at all for taking advantage of the culture, or for traveling and bringing back foreign girls. The rumors are true, they are more attractive and more feminine.”

    well, and more desperate :P I think a lot of them are desperate to escape to America.

  198. Pharmaceutical Husbands says:

    Women delay getting married not only because of feminist indoctrination, but because society is a drug dealer dispensing happy pills.

    Pharmaceuticals, self-help scam industry, happy pill TV and movies, alcohol, junk food. At no time in history has a girl on the go have so many ways to temporarily drown her sorrows.

  199. OffTheCuff says:

    I’ve heard people saying that men would rather be respected/honored than loved, but this is not possible if we follow Maslow’s theory.

    Not really, it’s possible if it is from a specific person, not everyone – we can’t have everyone love and respect us. If a man feels loved by someone, then that need is met, and he can be respected by others even if they don’t love him. Makes perfect sense to me.

  200. Chels says:

    Not really, it’s possible if it is from a specific person, not everyone – we can’t have everyone love and respect us. If a man feels loved by someone, then that need is met, and he can be respected by others even if they don’t love him. Makes perfect sense to me.

    I was talking specifically about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and according to him, it is NOT possible:

    Here are the stages of his model:

    1. Physiological needs (food, water, sex, breathing, sleep, homeostatis, excretion)
    2. Safety needs (personal/financial security, health/wellbeing,)
    3. Love and belonging (intimacy, love, friendship)
    4. Esteem (respect by others, respect of others, confidence, achievement, self-esteem, confidence)
    5. Self-actualization (morality, creativity, problem solving, etc…)

    Maslow says that before one can advance to the next level, the level before it must be accomplished. As you can see from above, love comes before respect (level 3 vs level 4), so it is not possible.

    As well, he’s not talking about romantic love, he’s talking more about friendships/admiration/etc so one must attain friendship or belongingness before one is respected or can respect others.

  201. greyghost says:

    “…… and more desperate I think a lot of them are desperate to escape to America”. This comment is an American woman and her mind set. Someone to make a commitment to huh?
    Women are women as men have said here. Women will do what she thinks is in her own selfish interest. A foreign woman will be attractive and feminine in her best interest. Where as you as an ameri chick will do as in laws of misandry that drive men to seek wives to love else where, do as you see is in your best interest. Two NORMAL women acting in their own self interest. I need to choose one to make a long term commitment because I desire to have children and a family. Both seem pretty selfish but one seems like she would be better for me and our children. Help me out somebody I don’t want to end up like ………

  202. Anonymous says:

    “Women are women as men have said here. Women will do what she thinks is in her own selfish interest. A foreign woman will be attractive and feminine in her best interest. Where as you as an ameri chick will do as in laws of misandry that drive men to seek wives to love else where, do as you see is in your best interest. Two NORMAL women acting in their own self interest. I need to choose one to make a long term commitment because I desire to have children and a family. Both seem pretty selfish but one seems like she would be better for me and our children. Help me out somebody I don’t want to end up like ………”

    Well, first of all I’m a guy. Second of all, from what I have heard, Russian women have the same attitudes as American ones. Russia, of course, has an even worse demographic crisis than the rest of the “white West”. Russian women are even less inclined to marry and have children, it seems, and I doubt this would change once they are in America.

  203. greyghost says:

    Others reading get the piont guy.

  204. Eric says:

    Anon@1207:
    Not necessarily. I know a lot of foreign women who hate the culture here—including a lot of immigrants. Why do you think immigrants are always getting accused of not wanting to assimilate? Because nobody wants their daughters to grow up and be Amerobitches.

  205. Eric says:

    Jason:
    OK, I’ll take back the mangina comment. But just as an aside, the accusation of being with the wrong people is a shaming tactic and one that particularly bothers me.

    That being said; technically it is true that there are real women in America; but so few it hardly justifies the effort a man would expend looking for one. The flaw in your argument is the one most NAWALT-type women use: they try to prove the rule by the exception. Admittedly, there are women like Hestia, Laura Grace Robbins, Butterfly Flower, and Mrs. Dalrock around; but that makes a grand total of FOUR whom I actually know of. There might be a half-dozen others. But that doesn’t mean that all women are like these four. In fact, they are extremely rare. If you know women like that—great. Marry one. But don’t assume that because you could, anyone else can. It’s more like winning a lottery than any technique or anything else.

  206. Jason Rennie says:

    @Chels,

    Hi Chels,
    You made the comment,
    “The problem with trying to define love is that it will be different for everyone, different people need different things to feel loved”
    I think you are confusing two different things here. As you noted with C.S Lewis above, there are different ways to describe love, he has taken it straight from the koine greek. I think english as a language is diminished by they way it lumps all of these very different things together under the one word “love”.
    But when you say different people need different things to feel loved, this is a completely seperate issue. Gary Chapman wrote a reasonably well know book called “The 5 Love Langauges” that looks into the way different people communicate love to another person as well as how they receive it from other people. I think the bit where you talk about “what someone needs to feel loved” is actually in this area, looking at how love is communicated and received, rather than dealing with the different sorts of love people can have for one another.

    So reagrdless of how you love another person, there are different ways to communicate that to them, and even if you love them DeeplyAndTruly(TM), if you are communicating it in a way they don’t understand then they will still feel unloved. By comparison if you do communicate it in a way they understand, even if you love them somewhat more ambiguiously, they will still feel loved as a result.

    Jason

  207. Eric says:

    Canuck:
    I’ve heard that observation made, not only from foreign women but elderly women of earlier generations. I was talking to an old woman on the bus recently and she told me that her mother was an immigrant and she encourages her grandsons to go to Europe and find a ‘real woman’. She isn’t the only one I’ve ever heard say that, either.

    Hardly anyone can defend American women on any objective grounds. Frankly put, they suck.

  208. Desiderius says:

    Dal,

    “Not all women are looking for that much alpha, but for those who are they still want the alpha to commit. The fact that the woman has to solve a conundrum by mixing and matching fits perfectly with my initial assertion. If she can’t get everything she wants via plan A, she may well resort to plan B. But plan B was never her first choice.”

    Love you, mean it, but all you’re bringing here is ipse dixit. If I’m the only one seeing this phenomenon, why does it show up in so many movies targeted at males? Moneyball, 2012, War of the Worlds, Lincoln Lawyer, that train movie with Denzel, etc..

    All alphas with a heart of Light Triad rejected by hot wife/girlfriend who is often now with total herb and longing for the alpha back. Kids want mommy and daddy back together.

  209. Desiderius says:

    I guess to put things another way, a hell of lot of women these days are not in fact solving the problem (as you put it) because they have no freaking idea what the problem is. The conventional solution (mixing and matching) has no appeal to her because she recognizes it as a compromise and if she has options, that’s the one thing she’s been taught not to do.

  210. Jason Rennie says:

    @Eric,

    Hi Eric,

    I wasn’t trying to shame you, as I said, if you surround yourself with feminazi’s you will quickly assume all women hate men. I can see why you took it the way you did though, so I apologise, it was not the way it was intended. More of an observation that your point of view might have been distorted.

    FWIW, I am also located in Australia not America, and inspite of ongoing marriage problems with my wife she is the only women I have ever had sex with, so my perspective is likewise going to be influenced by that as well.

    I think I would defend the idea that NAWALT (there really needs to be a glossary, though I did find that one courtesy of urban dictionary) and that part of the problem maybe where you look. Although as I said, I am not an American, and even for Australia, I am essentially part of a sub culture that sees sexual fidelity and chastity as virtues rather than “silly quaint old ideas”.

    I often read stories on these websites and am stunned at the way some women chose to behave, especially as they turn around and then complain about entirely predictable results of their behavior.

    Jason

  211. zed says:

    I think I would defend the idea that NAWALT (there really needs to be a glossary, though I did find that one courtesy of urban dictionary) and that part of the problem maybe where you look. Although as I said, I am not an American, and even for Australia, I am essentially part of a sub culture that sees sexual fidelity and chastity as virtues rather than “silly quaint old ideas”.

    I often read stories on these websites and am stunned at the way some women chose to behave, especially as they turn around and then complain about entirely predictable results of their behavior.

    The problem with stumbling into any meeting of the Hatfields and McCoys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield–McCoy_feud) is the chance of getting shot in the crossfire or bringing up some innocent topic that makes one clan think that you belong to the other.

    The whole “NAWALT” issue has taken on a life of its own, and the topic seriously distorts any attempt at dialogue. For about the past 10 years or so, it is the diversion of choice to change the subject and keep men from talking about the women who ARE “like that.”

    You admit that some women are “like that”, and you probably need to be aware that for years men have been blamed if they encountered one who was – in the context that feminism blames men for everything, including the entirely predictable results of women’s behavior.

    So, the salient questions boil down to –
    1. Is your own wife “like that” or not?
    2. If she is, do you think that you can solve all the problems and issues by yourself?
    3. If you can’t, how many years of being blamed for that would it take to totally use up your patience?

    Having made it through the mating years relatively unscathed – by a factor of 1,000 compared to some of the men I know – I can take a fairly detached view.

    However, it was due to my own ability to trust my own judgment that a woman “TWLT” (Truly Was Like That”) and blow off everyone trying to deny that and get me to deny it, that allowed me to stay out of the quicksand.

  212. Dalrock says:

    @Desiderius

    Love you, mean it, but all you’re bringing here is ipse dixit. If I’m the only one seeing this phenomenon, why does it show up in so many movies targeted at males? Moneyball, 2012, War of the Worlds, Lincoln Lawyer, that train movie with Denzel, etc..

    All alphas with a heart of Light Triad rejected by hot wife/girlfriend who is often now with total herb and longing for the alpha back. Kids want mommy and daddy back together.

    Haha. No worries. I’m not trying to stonewall you here. Perhaps someone else can step in and help us.

    As for the meme in the movies you mention, I’ve definitely seen it too. It is so common as to be cliché, and painful at that. I would add Killshot and the first two Die Hard movies to the list among many others. Hollywood is selling divorce as empowerment to women. They love the drama of having the ability to repeatedly decide if they want their (obviously worthy) husband or not. Women love drama, so this is a very popular theme. I would say it is a subset of the endless courtship fantasy. The ex husband is constantly having to try to re win her attention and re prove himself to her. Another form of the endless courtship fantasy is in the movies 50 first dates and groundhog day.

  213. Lavazza says:

    Chels: Well, I only find the 3 types of love helpful. “There is a kind of love that is like hunger, and another that resonates with laughter. Charity is more like a smile.”

    But then again my perspective comes from yoga where love is not a virtue/guiding principle in relations to others (yamas).

    Ahimsa: non-violence, non-harming, non-injury (2.35)
    Satya: truthfulness, honesty (2.36)
    Asteya: non-stealing, abstention from theft (2.37)
    Brahmacharya: walking in awareness of the highest reality, continence, remembering the divine, practicing the presence of God (2.38)
    Aparigraha: non-possessiveness, non-holding through senses, non-greed, non-grasping, non-indulgence, non-acquisitiveness (2.39)

    1.33 In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of friendliness towards those who are happy, compassion for those who are suffering, goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil.

    Eros is a powerful force. Although it is not pure and unproblematic (most often it goes against the yamas, at least to some degree) it is something that can get us into a position to build something much purer. Most often we will not get into that position without eros preceding it.

  214. RL says:

    Am I the only one who sees a connection between Paragon’s evolutionary and TFH’s democratic life cycle?

  215. Chels says:

    Ahimsa: non-violence, non-harming, non-injury (2.35)
    Satya: truthfulness, honesty (2.36)
    Asteya: non-stealing, abstention from theft (2.37)
    Brahmacharya: walking in awareness of the highest reality, continence, remembering the divine, practicing the presence of God (2.38)
    Aparigraha: non-possessiveness, non-holding through senses, non-greed, non-grasping, non-indulgence, non-acquisitiveness (2.39)

    1.33 In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of friendliness towards those who are happy, compassion for those who are suffering, goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil.

    That’s interesting, that’s the first time I see love being described like that. However, it doesn’t sound like romantic love, it’s more of a platonic friendship; there’s something missing, but maybe I’m just not understanding it right.

  216. Jason Rennie says:

    @RL,

    No I noticed that as well. Do they seem to you as two ends of a spectrum that are osscilated between?

    Jason

  217. Chels says:

    It also seems like educated Chinese women can’t find husbands, for similar reasons mentioned by some Western women:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/for-chinas-educated-single-ladies-finding-love-is-often-a-struggle/246892/

  218. Chels says:

    I think you are confusing two different things here. As you noted with C.S Lewis above, there are different ways to describe love, he has taken it straight from the koine greek. I think english as a language is diminished by they way it lumps all of these very different things together under the one word “love”.
    But when you say different people need different things to feel loved, this is a completely seperate issue. Gary Chapman wrote a reasonably well know book called “The 5 Love Langauges” that looks into the way different people communicate love to another person as well as how they receive it from other people. I think the bit where you talk about “what someone needs to feel loved” is actually in this area, looking at how love is communicated and received, rather than dealing with the different sorts of love people can have for one another.
    So reagrdless of how you love another person, there are different ways to communicate that to them, and even if you love them DeeplyAndTruly(TM), if you are communicating it in a way they don’t understand then they will still feel unloved. By comparison if you do communicate it in a way they understand, even if you love them somewhat more ambiguiously, they will still feel loved as a result.

    Which is why I said that love is subjective, as each person will define it in terms that are important to them. Can you really differentiate between “what is love?” and “how do I feel loved?”. They sound the same to me.

  219. Jason Rennie says:

    @Chels,

    Hi Again,

    You said “Can you really differentiate between “what is love?” and “how do I feel loved?””

    Umm … yes of course you can. That was pretty much my entire point. the problem is that we live in a culture that thinks “love” is a feeling you have, but there is an older tradition that thought of love as actions you take and a disposition of the will. You can see this more traditional conception of “love” expressed in the marriage vows that (Hollywood not withstanding) say finish with the pledge “I will” not “I do”.

    The stupid part of all of this is that in abandoning this older conception of love for the new “gina tingles” substitute we have today, is that women (and men, but feminists generally dont care about such things) are actually much much better off with a society that holds men and women to the older conception of love.

    When it comes to communicating that love to another person, that can take different forms and different people understand it in different ways. So regardless of the disposition of your will, someone may feel unloved even if they really are because of a miscommunication. But that love can be ineffectivly communicated between people is not the same as saying that love is not being communicated. That is a mistake in your thinking I think.

    Jason

  220. Lavazza says:

    “That’s interesting, that’s the first time I see love being described like that. However, it doesn’t sound like romantic love, it’s more of a platonic friendship; there’s something missing, but maybe I’m just not understanding it right.”

    It is not a description of love. It is guidelines how to lead a yogic life, gaining control of the whirlwind of mindstuff. “Yoga is the mastery of the activities of the mind-field.
    Then the seer rests in its true nature.”

    The Indian attitude to (romantic) love is “first comes marriage then comes love”.

  221. Lavazza says:

    I actually have yogi friend who did that. He was in the States on a tourist visa over the summer and then got admitted to UC-something. When he risked getting kicked out for not having a student visa a fellow student volunteered to enter a white marriage. Then they started dating and fell in love.

  222. Jason Rennie says:

    @Lavazza,

    It is interesting isn’t it that things often work out that way. For most of human history love is something that follows on from a marriage not something that is a prerequisite for it.

    I’m not sure why modern western civilization thinks it can ignore the collected wisdom of thousands of years of human history and assume that it knows better than all those who have gone before them.

    Jason

  223. ruddyturnstone says:

    “The fact remains that pretty girls are a dime a dozen”

    I actually agree with this. Almost all women are attractive when they are in their prime years. Sure, there are some who are just plain ugly and some who are too fat. But even a moderately plump woman can be cute, when she is young. Nature took care of that, nature makes young women attractive to men. Even plumpness suggests youth (hence the term, “baby fat”), and is therefore attractive in young woman. Most young women, even if “plain,” even if “nothing special,” seem “pretty” to most men.

    “I do think I am much more aware than most American girls, but I have lived abroad in three countries and I know that there are plenty of other amazing girls out there.”

    Here is where I disagree. There is nothing “amazing” about girls. They are pretty, yes, but that is not amazing (see above). Still less amazing is that some of them are competent enough to go to law school and the like. After fifty years of feminism, if they couldn’t even do what is considered decidedly pedestrian and ordinary in the realms of academics and the professions when men do it, something would have to be even more seriously wrong with women than there is already.

    “The Indian attitude to (romantic) love is ‘first comes marriage then comes love”'”

    Pretty good book called “First Comes Marriage: Modern Relationship Advice from the Wisdom of Arranged Marriages” aimed mostly at young women, by Reva Seth. The author realizes that most western couples are not going to meet through an arranged marriage, but she advocates young women (and men too) to act “as if” they were their parents and other relatives in selecting mates. She tells young women to throw out the bucket list. She tells them to focus on what is important when it comes to compatability (not similar likes when it comes to music, movies, and the like, not having all the same interests and hobbies and so on), but the crucial issues (how and where to live, whether to have children, how many to have, how to raise them, religion). They should be about equally handsome and pretty, relatively close in age, and have similar backgrounds and education.

    She also advocates early marriage. This way, the couple will come to the marriage as virgins or near virgins. They will discover the joy of sex together, when they are both young and horny (in India, where marriage is at a really early age, and where almost all the girls are virgins, and the boys nearly so, at marriage, sparks must really fly when these teenagers are told not only “CAN” they have sex, but it is now their duty to have it!). These experiences are not “wasted” on other partners. Children come early, and bind the couple together. The author doesn’t mention it, but, in the early years, the woman has a higher SMP than the man (pretty young woman/young man just starting out in the world), but in the later years, the man has a higher SMP (aging woman/successful man). Thus, instead of desperately seeking someone just a little bit “better” than oneself, one resigns oneself to the fact that, for part of the time, one will be doing “better” than can be expected and for another part one will be doing worse. The couple grows together, sharing good times and bad times. Neither comes to the marriage already jaded about life, his or her self, or the opposite sex. There is a real, heartfelt union, rather than what most American thirty or even forty something marriages feel like, ie the careful, cautious, conditional merger of two corporations or law firms.

    Not all of this can be replicated in America, or wherever “love marriages” are the rule. But a lot of it can. Arranged marriages lead to fewer divorces. And by following the “rules” of arranged marriages, divorce rates might be lowered. Most of all, she stresses that women should throw out the “Prince Charming” list. That they should stop pretending that there are no “good” men out there, and recognize that what is lacking are perfect men, Prince Charmings, not good men. They shouldn’t “settle” for leeches or losers, but they shouldn’t expect Brad Pitt either. They shouldn’t waste time with guys who are clearly not looking for marriage (perpetual students, unemployed artists and the like) and honestly consider guys who don’t set their hearts (and loins) on fire, but who want what they want (ie to get married, to stay married, to have kids and raise them right, and to live a stable, middle class lifestyle) and have shown that they can, with her help, provide that. That boring guy who is up and coming in his law firm. Or who is gradually taking over his father’s construction company. And so on. Men like that are all around, but women don’t see them because they are seeking alpha and wind up with players. Or they, for some strange reason, take on broken men as “projects.” Parents and grandparents and other relatives would never suggest such men for their daughters in an arranged marriage culture, unless the daughter herself was at the bottom of the barrel. They would select the young, hard working beta who comes from an intact family, has a real job, and really wants to marry and settle down. And that’s who the women should select for themselves.

  224. greyghost says:

    Chels
    It also seems like educated Chinese women can’t find husbands, for similar reasons mentioned by some Western women:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/for-chinas-educated-single-ladies-finding-love-is-often-a-struggle/246892/

    That is what hypergamy looks like. It is a female thing not an american chick thing and is normal.

  225. Paragon says:

    @krakonos
    – “So many words to say simple things.
    – Cads beat dads
    – Shrinking populations
    – Decline of the West”

    That is because statements are trivial, but justifications are not.

    “What your consequencies do not count with are societies surrounding collapsing ones. They will, very probably, replace the former – genetically.”

    While I’m sure it can be argued that gene-flow between certain populations is increasing, there are no indications that a large scale ‘migration’ between these populations will occur(since, obviously, the ‘genes’ of one population cannot feasibly ‘replace’ the genes of another).

    Furthermore, so long as developed-world populations remain suffiently propserous in their distributions(ie. such that selfish replicators thrive), new arrivals will be quickly entangled in the evolutionary unstable quagmire/bottleneck I have alluded to above(this has been the case everywhere that developed world welfare-state dynamics have been introduced – because this
    opens up an opportunistic niche for latent selfish replicators to exploit, in quickly dominating a population).

    “The only question is how much the culture can repress nature.”

    Which would be a misguided question, as ‘culture’ is really nothing more than high level, frequency dependent trait-group networks that tend to dominate a population(and thus, culture is nothing more than an artifice of evolutionary outcomes, rather than an independent phenomenon).

    “If not, humanity will move in circles forever.”

    This is true in the sense that balancing selection is always operating upon trait optimas which can be in equilibrium over evolutionary time.

  226. Paragon says:

    @Canuck 10:44 am

    “I agree with you. I think that even though there are fewer pretty girls now, we shouldn’t say so.”

    Why not?

    “I think we have an epidemic of sorts, of female 6′s sleeping with male 9′s and assuming that’s their standard, obviously forgetting men lower their standards considerably for hookups. The point is that women should never be made to feel that their attractiveness is their most important asset (even though it might be), instead they should be developing a personality, because many have none.”

    To what end?

    To provide more agreeable company for their ‘bad-boy’ hookups(where it would be wasted)?

    “As a woman living in America”

    Don’t forget to include Canada. ;)

    “I can honestly say after seeing the women around me with clear eyes, if I were a man I would not be in a relationship with one. I don’t blame men at all for taking advantage of the culture, or for traveling and bringing back foreign girls. The rumors are true, they are more attractive and more feminine.”

    This is true, but there is an explanation found in intragenomic sexual conflict – in terms of sexual attractiveness, many quantitative traits have sexually antagonistic optima, such that an attractive expression in one sex, will form an unattractive expression in the other(within a limited range of variance).

    Thus, in any mating system that is tending to greater lattitude of female choice, we should start to likewise observe a trend where traits are increasingly being expressed(in both males *and* females) in the direction of male optima.

    This translates into an increasing frequency of fugly women out there, as well as guys who look like acromegaly cases.

    To western men, I can only advise this: go international(in particular: go east).

  227. RL says:

    @Chels: That what these Chinese women are doing is pure projection: They assume because they appreciate these characteristics (intelligence, passion, good salary) in men. Even, if those ‘lower men’ would get accepted by those ‘sheng nu’ women (“leftover women”) I am pretty sure most of those men prefer importing women from countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand etc.

  228. Jason Rennie says:

    “The point is that women should never be made to feel that their attractiveness is their most important asset (even though it might be), ”

    I was reminded of a phrase I heard on the Mark Gungor Show.

    “Sexy has a shelf life, but Character lasts forever”

    Or something like that.

    Jason

  229. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous

    “HIghly doubtful. Many studies have shown men tend to strongly overestimate their league. Some, of course, think this is for evolutionary reasons; but even if you reject that, it is a hard-sell to argue that men are too humble when it comes to what kind of woman they feel they merit.”

    Non sequitur.

    Humility has nothing to do with it – male prospects have become so skewed against all but the most select cohort, that all that is left for the typical male are the fugs(ie. nowhere near their statistical equivalents).

  230. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous

    “Now, take that, and add to the mix that social taboos have been lowered to the point where high status men have no problem whatsoever poaching girls from younger generations. Nor do these girls now feel any shame in dating older men.”

    Yeah older, as in, teen girls wanting men in 20’s.

    Not twentysomething girls wanting guys in their 40’s.

  231. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous

    “Perhaps “compulsive” was the wrong word, but the point is that women very much want to have sex with high-status men.”

    Yes, where status is only spuriously correlated with material wealth(ie. rich men may marry more, but of course, marriage frequencies say nothing about mating frequencies – which is the only quantity of any evolutionary concern).

  232. Paragon says:

    On the issue of attractiveness, I would like to elaborate by appealing to the little known principle of Koinophilia(love of commonality), which ultimately mediates all estimations of male attractiveness.

    So, even in the absense of overt signalling defects(deviations in billateral symmetry, indications of developmental/immuno incompetence, etc.), females will tend to favor a dominant subset within a population – this is the principle of Koinophilia in effect(which is useful to think of as a selection pressure mediated by mutation-selection balance, bounding deviation from normal, where increased deviation implies increased mutational loads tending to deleterious polymorphisms – but with some allowance for directional selection).

    Exacerbating this whole dynamic, is mass-media communication, which skews female perceptions of male ‘normal’.

    How this manifests, is that even if a guy is not otherwise fundamentally unattractive, if females have not been socialized to consider him as ‘mate material’, he will be at a disadvantage compared with members of the dominant subset(ie. ostensibly those who deviate less from male ‘normal’ – with exceptions made for media ‘weighting’ effects).

    In layman terms, if you don’t resemble(in both manner and appearance) the male cohort that monopolizes a particular female’s social consciousness(in particular, the kinds of males paired with her female peers, or the kinds of males she sees promoted in popular media), you will be at a severe disadvantage(because a girl tends to want the kinds of guys she observes other girls wanting – which is why women tend to preferentially mate with a relatively small population of males).

    Consider also the popular media’s role in skewing female perceptions of normal – for example, as males of African ancestry have come to dominate areas of popular media culture, so to has their sexual market value risen in the estimation of (particularly Caucasion) females, even where they are inferior in frequency.

    This is why I recommend experimenting with distant populations predominated by other cline variants(racial groupings), where females are not socialized as in developed world populations(ie. where the forces of balancing selection provide opportunistic niches in the form of outgroup-seeking females, who will make greater allowances for the increased prospect of outbreeding enhancement).

  233. Anonymous says:

    Well Paragon, I’ m not so sure that women only want men they have been socialized to like. I think most of their attraction in instinctual.

    Do you have a blog BTW?

  234. Pingback: The endless courtship fantasy. | Dalrock

  235. Krakonos says:

    @Paragon
    How much is left of North American Indians? They have been genetically replaced by Europeans (mostly). I admit that “genetically” is not the best term but is still valid.

  236. nugganu says:

    @ Greenlander

    “Isn’t that the truth? I had a lot of fun one particular evening looking up all the hotties I knew from high school on Facebook. Most of them had become fat and disgusting, but hadn’t grown any less vapid. It’s funny how things in life turn around sometimes…”

    Yeah man, I keep saying it: My generation are the first to grow up completely immersed in the women’s lib movement that started in the 70s.

    I’m calling it right now, be prepared for a pandemic of spinsters, and it’s starting now. Dalrock’s marriage statistics are about to be turned upside down. I see it happening already amongst my friends and amongst the surging numbers of single 30 something women who throw themselves at me (until they find out I’m a single father, which is usually a deal-breaker for them. Not that I care mind you)

  237. nugganu says:

    @TFH

    “Interesting. How did this man manage to persuade her of all this?”

    Online. I had no idea she could be so gullible. Bear in mind she is addicted to emotional pornography a la Twilight to the point that she and her peers blog and write fan literature about it.

    She’s in her mid 30’s and everything she ever wanted is slipping from her grasp. If I listed out the shit that he told her, which she was only too willing to believe, it was unreal. He sounded like a total liar. He was phoning her here at work all the time and she even quit her job at one point. Then it just ended. No one mentioned it again.

    I can only conclude that her grip on reality is slipping as the bio clock runs down.

  238. nugganu says:

    Oh, and just for clarity, I have three exes. The last of whom I was engaged and had a child with. The one before I spent 7 years with but never married, she is the one who met the Indian 007 online.

  239. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous

    “Well Paragon, I’ m not so sure that women only want men they have been socialized to like. I think most of their attraction in instinctual.”

    This is not what is being said.

    What I am saying, is that female choices(and ultimately, their subjective biases) are under evolutionary pressure to cull/disqualify males who deviate too far from male trait averages(preserving sufficient variance within this range, for hairs to be further split, so to speak), even where these deviations are otherwise without pathological indications – this is what the principle of Koinophilia demonstrates to us.

    The point of mentioning socialization, is to say that it can(through attribution effects via mass communication media) skew female perceptions of male normal, such that it is a weighting effect.

  240. Paragon says:

    @ Krakonos

    “How much is left of North American Indians? They have been genetically replaced by Europeans (mostly). I admit that “genetically” is not the best term but is still valid.”

    Yes, there are cases where indigenous populations of the Americas were effectively decimated, and displaced.

    But, my point is that a new large scale migration/colonization/conquest of NA will only be feasible *after* its density dependent systems have been thoroughly destabilized and perturbed through the evolutionary dynamics I have elucidated.

  241. Rae says:

    Feminism doesn’t free up a woman to marry for love….money does! I have met several attention- craving soul sucking succibi that apparently are the only tupe of xx chromosomed folk these posters have ever encountered. :-) they are a discredit to my gender.
    I never played dolls or dressup because it never occurred to me to ask, so when pubrty kicked on, I was too busy fixing cars, computers, and houses to stare wistfully at prince charming riding away with Cinderella. I enjoyed men primarily as friends and sometimes as companions, but I was building my career and my life, had no time for pant chasing. It never occurred to me to look at anyone else, regardless of gender, to provide a damn thing for me, so I worked two jobs and got my degrees.

    I have completely enjoyed my life, regardless of marital status or lack thereof, and that I believe is the key to sound decision making. Making decisions out of fear, or insecurity, pretty much guarantees that your worst fears will be realized. When you make decisions based upon what you can give versus what you can get, life overflows abundantly.

    And yes, I go married, and had m daughter.

    At 38.

    That’s 37 damn good years with th best yet to come, I have to admit I can’t relate to the perspective that women wilt and wither waiting for mr. Right, or even mr. Right now, to roll up and fix their world. Really? I thought feminism, if anything, was to credit a person based upon their abilities, not their gender, so a woman is defined by what she can do, not for her genetic profile.

    Such as it is, I can’t decide if this s a satirical blog ala the onion or if people still really think girls dream of getting whisked away while they watch the lifetime channel putting their press-on nails on. Thank you for reading this, and please forgive the typos, I hate touchscreen keyboards!

  242. Paragon says:

    “The point of mentioning socialization, is to say that it can(through attribution effects via mass communication media) skew female perceptions of male normal, such that it is a weighting effect.”

    Sorry, I wrote this and I would like to clarify that the principle of Koinophilia acts through socialization pressures, in the sense that social observations and interactions form female perceptions of male normal(which, of course, can be skewed, in particular, by mass media ‘sampling’ effects).

    So, any male who fails to evoke consistency with the dominant subset(which resides within some optimal neighborhood of deviation from male normal), will be disadvantaged(incurring a relative fitness handicap).

  243. Paragon says:

    @ Rae

    “I thought feminism, if anything, was to credit a person based upon their abilities, not their gender, so a woman is defined by what she can do, not for her genetic profile.”

    I think you touched on it at the start of your post – feminism is(and has always been) about according females a greater latitude of sexual choices(by granting them greater economic/political independence from mates).

    It was never about anything so naive as ‘equality'(where the realities of dimorphic sex preclude any notion of true sexual equality, by evolutionary necessity).

    Of course, this ‘liberation’ comes with a price, in the form of near evolutionary instability, which I have spoken to in my contributions above(ie. the stability of developed world populations cannot abide your freedoms for very much longer).

  244. krakonos says:

    @Paragon
    But, my point is that a new large scale migration/colonization/conquest of NA will only be feasible *after* its density dependent systems have been thoroughly destabilized and perturbed through the evolutionary dynamics I have elucidated.
    I was trying to say similar thing. But my English is suboptimal ;) – and I often forget writing some things I see as obvious.

  245. Paragon says:

    In addressing the topic, I should add that I don’t see many local females who seem particularly distressed over their long-term prospects(ie. the growing tendency is towards young single mothers, who are unconcerned for the long term consequences of their short-term mating choices).

    And those older females who seem anxious over shifting from a short term(mating) paradigm to that of a long term one(which is to be expected, given that the longer she rides the ‘carousel’, the more neurologically adapted she becomes to short-term gains), seem to be compelled by the fact that attractive short-term mating prospects(ie. hot guys) are no longer as available to them, as they once were(which would seem to cue the writing on the wall, and hence the strategic – and largely traumatic – paradigm shift to long-term mating).

  246. Paragon says:

    But, I should add that as long as marriage represents an ideal strategy to reap direct benefits, it will always be coveted, in some measure, by opportunistic and mercenary females.

  247. Anonymous Reader says:

    But, my point is that a new large scale migration/colonization/conquest of NA will only be feasible *after* its density dependent systems have been thoroughly destabilized and perturbed through the evolutionary dynamics I have elucidated.

    Disagree. If you were correct, then Los Angeles would not look like it does. The density dependent systems have enabled a lot of free riders to enter the system, and displace natives. Indeed, the natives are paying for the health care, childhood immunization, education (such as it is) and disability protection of the invaders/colonizers. And there’s no letup in sight, either.

    The demographics of the average US primary school from coast to coast tell the story.

  248. Paragon says:

    Sorry, but the US population and culture is a long way from being displaced by Mexican immigrant/aliens, despite your alarmist tone.

    But, the original point was, that it would take a large scale population movement(a transplant, so to speak), to forestall the replacement bottleneck that is forming(which will eventually cause these density dependent systems to collapse from evolutionary instability – after which, much of the incentives and ease of northward expansion will evaporate).

    And that’s simply not going to happen.

  249. imnobody says:

    You nailed it, man.

    It’s been ages since I have commented here, but I only wanted to say that this is one of your finest posts.

  250. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sorry, but the US population and culture is a long way from being displaced by Mexican immigrant/aliens, despite your alarmist tone.

    Red herring. You claim that absent large scale migration, such a thing cannot happen. That hypothesis can be tested in geographical subregions such as Los Angeles. Demonstrate to me that LA is still majority Anglo. Use Census data.

    But, the original point was, that it would take a large scale population movement(a transplant, so to speak), to forestall the replacement bottleneck that is forming(which will eventually cause these density dependent systems to collapse from evolutionary instability – after which, much of the incentives and ease of northward expansion will evaporate).

    And the original point is simply wrong, due to lower birth rates among the native population, higher birth rates among the coloniizers, and ongoing forced wealth transfer from the native population to the colonizers. If and when the density dependent systems collapse, it likely will come when the native population has declined from a majority to a plurality, and the wealth transfer is no longer possible. In the US that point should be reached by 2050 at the latest.

  251. Pingback: Eat, Pray, Cats | Dalrock

  252. Pingback: The weakened signal | Dalrock

  253. stephen says:

    you know, this sounds like a lot of horse shit. Down in the south, a women will marry you at the drop of a hat. Up north, if you have a degree and a stable career, women at a certain age will want children. So this super vagina power trip can go and get a yeast infection.

  254. Nick says:

    Its funny how young women always want to date the “jerk” or the “cool guy”, but then when they get in their 30’s, they finally realize that was the wrong choice, then go for the “nice guy” and assume they are going to marry them. That’s real fucked up for the “nice guy” who doesn’t get the women until he is older. So while young women are whoring around with jerks, the nice guy is left behind waiting for women to wise up, and then when they finally do, those women want nothing but commitment and marriage.

  255. bweepy says:

    I have no interest in getting married – the idea of it has always made me cringe and feel ill. Mothing to do with men really – just the thought of going through all of that to live the same anyhow makes no sense and ties you down. Too much burden and stress for anyone I think. Also not sure about having kids. Live in Brooklyn – maybe it’s easier ot feel that way here. Whew lots of use of the word whore and women haters here. I am not taking a point of view that is feminist or not – just being me (well maybe you consider that feminist. god forbid) and that’s some crazy talk. I think the wising up might have to be on your end kids. yikes. Now let me go back to doing what I want because I can and don’t have to worry about kids, a husband or whoever. ha ha. Life is what you make it and it does not have to include marriage. Men are the only ones who seem to get mad about these ideas. I think it’s because some guys might have to be married to keep them in check or feel they got the raw end of the deal once they did get married. I don’t know.

  256. Pingback: The ubiquitous frame of hypergamy. | Dalrock

  257. Pingback: The boyfriend invention | Dalrock

  258. Pingback: Losing control of the narrative. | Dalrock

  259. NeverWrong says:

    not anymore, that is why many of us good men can’t meet a decent woman anymore.

  260. Wife says:

    heh. Got married at 38, had my daughter at 39. Life is good. I’m such a different person now than I was in my early 20’s (for the better) that I’m very glad I didn’t consider getting married until much later. I would never encourage my daughter to get married out of high school, I want her to be able to stand on her own two feet and be confident in herself prior to engaging in a serious relationship. That’s only fair to herself and to her partner.

  261. Perspective says:

    @WIfe

    Glad you’re happy with your life and that things are going well. I know you said you’re glad that you didn’t marry in your early 20’s, but just out of curiosity, did you plan on waiting until 38, or did it just happen that way? Was your husband the type of man that you would have attracted and dated in your early 20’s? Or did you ever feel like you were settling when you married because maybe you felt it was just time? It seems like there’s so many posts on here about how most women who married in their 30’s ended up doing just that, but I’d be interested in finding out if there’s women in that demographic who don’t feel that way.

  262. Dear Wife,
    Mind sharing the age of hubby ??

  263. Tam the Bam says:

    <i."heh. Got married at 38, had my daughter at 39. Life is good."
    It must be true, because the exact same thing happened to not just one, but two strong independent women on this very thread. That’s not an accident, men .. so pay attention!. And leave those immature silly flighty 20-somethings strictly alone. They don’t know their own minds, see? How dare you. Predators.

  264. Casey says:

    @ Wife

    Oh please, take town the façade and platitudes…….and of course the removal of the lipstick on this pig, and what have you got?

    An aging, feminist, spinster whose biological clock was ticking so loudly that she grabbed the first poor sap willing to be her sperm donor.

    I’m going to call it right now……..you will not be married in 10 years, you will give him his walking papers, steal his child, and foist the cost of your adventure on his shoulders.

    You know, ’cause you are a strong & independent woman.

  265. Luke says:

    Wife, I was horrified by your story, and I’m very pronatalist.

    First, I presume you’re familiar with the massively elevated risk of Down’s and other trisomies that geriatric pregnancies such as your entailed. (You know at what age the odds of a baby having Down’s starts to go up due to increasing maternal age? NINETEEN.) I sincerely hope you knew that such a geriatric pregnancy (correct medical term for it) needed to have amnio and readiness to abort.

    Second, there is an insidious phenomenon known to affect ALL mother-post-age-34 pregnancies with female fetuses. Roughly a 1:1 reduction in child life expectancy and vitality hits all daughters. So, a woman conceiving and bearing a daughter at your age would have reduced her child’s life expectancy and health by something like (39-34) * (100/75) percent, or about 7%. At age 41, that goes to about 10%. And, the children don’t just die at on average age 70 instead of 75, with all else the same til then. Rather, ALL THROUGH LIFE, health and vitality are reduced by that percentage, for babies you’d want to put in little dresses and put bows in their hair.

    For that and other reasons, women using their own ova should conceive all their childen in their twenties (preferably before late twenties).

  266. Casey says:

    @Wife

    Are you kidding me?

    This is just another aging feminist who roped a beta male in the 11th hour (1 second before midnight to be exact) to deliver her belated realization that she wanted a child. Note…wanted a child; not a husband.

    Nowhere in your post do you mention your husband, other than to say you got married. Status quo. I rather suspect he will be shown the door at a time convenient for you.

  267. Luke says:

    Indeed, Casey. Not only does it sound as if she gleefully rode the carousel for 20+ years before deigning to marry and quick pump out a just-before-menopause kid, but SHE ALSO DESIRES HER DAUGHTER(S) DO THE SAME. Talk about a woman both unfit for marriage, and to guide children…

  268. Casey says:

    @ Luke

    ‘Amen’ to that brother.

  269. susanrae013 says:

    Thank you for the kind words, I adamantly did not settle when I married at 38. I married a kind, strong man that I can trust to be a good husband to me, a good father to my daughter, and treat me the way I would want someone to treat my daughter. That’s actually why I didn’t marry until so late, I feel it’s the other way around. I feel young women feel so much pressure to get married and have children in their 20’s that they make poor decisions and end up divorcing later on. I also feel women feel so much pressure to get married, period, that they make poor choices to satisfy their peers, families and society. I chose my husband, as he chose me, because we wanted to be married, not because we felt that we had to be. That’s the only good reason for marriage that I can think of. If I didn’t meet my husband, I would have been happily single. I attracted many men of his caliber when I was younger, I didn’t marry them because I wanted to be independent and know myself better in order to make wise choices. If that meant I “waited too long”, then so be it, I am a strong believer in being alone than in bad company. So in some ways I didn’t marry when I was younger out of respect for my potential partner, I simply wasn’t ready to be married because I didn’t choose to be. I didn’t feel marriage was, or is, a requirement to live a full and happy life, and unless/until I met someone that I couldn’t live without, then single I would remain. So I did, and that is exactly what I will teach my daughter. You don’t marry for any other reason than you don’t want to live your life without that person, and they feel the same about you. Otherwise, you’re wasting time.

  270. susanrae013 says:

    @Carey/@Luke
    I’m laughing that you refer to my husband as beta. Nothing could be further from the truth. I mention him in passing as the focus thus far has always been on the choice of the female, why she did what she did, etc. The focus on the original post was not on the man, either. If you refer to busting my ass for 20 years obtaining several degrees, establishing a career and financial independence so I don’t have to be dependent on anyone else for my rent, food, clothes, or medicine as “riding the carousel”, that’s absolutely hysterical. Perhaps you’re still looking for a woman at the carnival?

  271. Casey says:

    @ susanrae013

    You realize if your daughter follows your advice, and has a child at age 39……that you will be 78?
    I’m betting you wanted to know your grandchildren….too bad, so sad.

    I think I just found that woman at the carnival, and she’s a clown.

  272. Luke says:

    Susanrae013 said: “If you refer to busting my ass for 20 years obtaining several degrees, establishing a career and financial independence so I don’t have to be dependent on anyone else for my rent, food, clothes, or medicine as “riding the carousel”, that’s absolutely hysterical.”

    That’s a polite way of referring to how >95% of women who delay mnarriage the first (and primary) 20 years they’re sexually mature have repeated uncommitted sex with a variety of alpha cads/badboys. The full name of the term is “riding the COCK carousel”. (You HAVE gone past 2nd base, probably way past, with multiple men, have you not?) A woman who does this will have pissed away 3/4 of her looks, 9/10 of her fertility, and close to 100% of her ability to long-term bond with a husband. You do what’s important to you, and marrying obviously wasn’t that. “Live like a man, expect to give birth to as many children as a man does” is the apparent motto there. (This leaves aside how such a woman gives her best to nonhusbands, and thinks it will be perfectly fair to give much less than her best to her husband, the supposed most important man there will ever be in her life.) You didn’t encourage him early on; why would he feel loyal to you now that he’s made it on his own?

    Your “plan” is like a bakery that for the 1st 4 days after they come out of the oven, gives away its cakes and pies to broke homeless types, refusing paying customers, then only on day 5 will do business with the latter, trying to sell them the leftover stale crumbs — and expecting full price.
    Or, think of a dog breeder that ONLY sold 7-YO poorly-trained dogs for pets.

    This essay puts it well:
    http://www.lightlybraisedturnip.com/story-for-enwomen-on-matchcom/2013/3/16/a-parable-for-the-older-single-women-of-matchcom-told-by-pro.html#references

    (Oh, and he good but boring guys you’ve been blowing off for the past 25 years don’t walk out on good wives who’ve given them children, so forget the “but how will I survive without a CAREER?!?” nonsense, just the exciting badboys. The key is to choose to live like a woman, not like a man.)

  273. Luke says:

    A good graph for Susanrae about the inability to bond with a husband that’s routine for longtime carousel riders such as she clearly appears to be:

    http://tinyurl.com/bbwg6v8

  274. susanrae013 says:

    *sigh*…….last call. Because I was busy building a career, and yes, that means independence, to equate that with a promiscuous lifestyle…that’s quite a stretch. I hope you realize for the majority of the population, having a career doesn’t equate to having a revolving door installed in the bedroom.

    Marrying and having children is something most people want to do, but there are some that choose not to do so for a lot of reasons. That shouldn’t make them targets for anger. But I did provide you with entertainment, you’ve done the same for me. Not like I know you in the real world where you would matter.

  275. Opus says:

    Another thread I had not previously seen and what an excellent essay; it had never, I am embarrassed to confess, occurred to me that there is an evolutionary pressure on women to avoid Spinsterhood, so bamboozled must I have been, as a reasonable guy, with the Feminist Bicycle/Fish Mantra: I took them at their own word and assumed they meant it – hence pump and dump was inevitable – and of course in doing so I found myself, and frankly came to the conclusion that women far from improving with age remain the same but with age making more obvious any peculiar characteristic – as it does a line or wrinkle in the skin. What else could I do, as matrimonial intentions would only be seen as harassment and oppression of those strong empowered females I had been told were so desirable.

    Rae, Wife and SusanRae13 appear to be the same person. The Hamster seems strong with talk of her financial independence (from her husband?) – what would we make of a man who boasted that he had acquired copious degrees built his own career so that he would be financially independent (to spend all his money on himself)? Curiously she always refers to her Trophy child as HER Daughter, – never OUR. She is not the first Cougar-aged woman to come to this blog to tell us how her new husband is the perfect man who materialised at just the right (and last) moment and that Dalrock and his commenters have got it spectacularly wrong. She may have been the lucky one – most aren’t. She denies being a carousel rider, but what else are we to conclude unless she assures us she was celibate until marriage.

  276. Luke says:

    Doomed Harlot said:

    “Feminism frees women to marry for love. As a feminist, you don’t need a man for validation or for “investment” or for cash and prizes”

    Except that when women can reach for the sky in terms of careers, their hardwired hypergamy typically makes them STILL only consider legitimate mates to be those who earn even more. So, the woman earning 100K commonly only looks at the guys earning >140K. Meanwhile, due to all the affirmative action employment bias, divorce courts shredding the finances and confidence of former husbands by the millions, etc., the supply of such men if anything is ever declining

    Oh, and the “free to be sluts” part of the Sexual Revolution has made for tens of millions of American women unable to bond with any man that would consider them for marriage, haunted by the one-night-stand they had with a “9” after a few drinks on his part, back when they were 19 or so (20+ years and 50+ pounds fewer).

    This feminism stuff sounds like real poison for happiness for women as well as men. (Don’t even get me started on all the poor innocent abused bastards it’s produced as well…)

  277. Tam the Bam says:

    “I married a kind, strong man that I can trust to be a good husband to me, a good father to my daughter, and treat me the way I would want someone to treat my daughter. That’s actually why I didn’t marry until so late .. “
    Well thank goodness he’s not sexy, after all that. That would be an intolerable burden. How could you trust him?
    Luckily it clearly never enters into your appraisals (so don’t post-hoc it with desperate claims that he makes Clooney seem like a melon-farming goblin. Not credible).

  278. Lydia says:

    I think that it is important to have high standards and not settle for someone who has bad character or you feel something is missing in the relationship. Some people are waiting for a Hollywood love story and that isn’t going to happen. You are more than your relationship status!

  279. deti says:

    “I think that it is important to have high standards and not settle for someone who has bad character or you feel something is missing in the relationship.”

    Yes, Lydia, it’s true you’re not to expect the Hollywood fairy tale. But what you’ve said here is really code for “never settle” and “expect perfection”. Something is always “missing”. No person gets everything they want from a husband or wife. And too many women have standards so high that the only men who can meet those standards are out of the woman’s league.

  280. deti says:

    Do women want to get married?

    Yes, but only on their terms. They want marriage when they want it, how they want it, to the exact man they want.

  281. Casey says:

    @ Deti

    “Do women want to get married?”

    “Yes, but only on their terms. They want marriage when they want it, how they want it, to the exact man they want.”

    Agreed (in spades). Which at least in part explains the declining marriage numbers. Women are holding out so long for “Mr. Perfect” that they end up with no one.

    Men, on the other side get to watch the tragedy from a distance and decide if they REALLY want to take on a middle-age women with LOW fertility prospects.

    The answer from men is an increasingly more frequent ‘NO’.

  282. mustardnine says:

    deti says:

    “Do women want to get married?

    Yes, but only on their terms. They want marriage when they want it, how they want it, to the exact man they want.”

    Agreed. And before that, they want to be “ravished” by Alpha McBadBoy, for the SPECIFIC REASON that they can abandon any sense of responsibility. This is “loss of responsibility” seems to be essential (in their minds) to the anticipation of being multi-orgasmic. Never mind that “multi-orgasmic” rarely happens, in real life, even with McBadBoy. But they’ll keep trying for it.

    Afterwards, permanently unsatisfied, they’ll settle for Bobby StemBeta.

    And with that, all the data points are in: it’s all men’s fault.

    Are all women like that? Who knows? But the ones who read FemPorn novels and Fifty Shades of Gray are ALL like that.

    Which is why, I think, Good Game will always be important to Good Men. True virtue is related to true virility. And vice versa.

    And BTW, I think Dalrock has hit a keynote. If it’s not fun, you’re probably not doing it right.

  283. Casey says:

    @ Lydia

    Deti is correct. No one is ever going to meet 100% of your needs (or husband list).

    Take that list you have in your head and apply it to yourself. Do YOU meet that list of ‘requirements’?

    I’m betting not. As in my experience, women show up to the dating table in their 30’s as more LIABILITY than ASSET.

    How many kids do you have?
    How much debt do you have?
    How much money do you make?
    How old are you?
    How pleasant are you?
    How many assets do you own outright?
    How attractive are you?
    How intelligent are you?

    OR

    Is love supposed to ‘conquer all’ when that list is turned inwards on yourself?

  284. Paul says:

    Well for many of us men looking for a good woman to settle down with is very hard as it is, and many women today are certainly not worth marrying at all since they have changed over the years. And the women of years ago were certainly much better than today.

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