Rationalizing sluttery as a path to marriage.

Meet Kristina from Rolling Stone’s Tales From the Millennials’ Sexual Revolution:

…she doesn’t want to date; she wants to have sex, which thanks to the fact that she is cute and vivacious, she seems to do quite frequently. “My friends and I are like sexual vultures. We just go out and hunt for the guy that we’re going to get with. Like, my pheromones are insane right now.” Her current tally of men she’s slept with is 29…

Like many of her peers, Kristina sees her sluttyness through a lens of courtship.  She is confident that all of this time on her back will one day lead to the husband of her dreams:

…Kristina hopes to graduate and spend a few more years playing the field before getting married. In the process, she says, she hopes she never has to go on an actual date. “I’m obsessed with wedding crap, like I Pin wedding stuff all the time, and I love [celebrity-wedding planner] David Tutera and Say Yes to the Dress. Like, I’m obsessed with the idea of getting married, but I want to skip the dating part and just know who I’m going to marry.” She believes hookup culture might actually make this possible for her generation. “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Cracks in the narrative, Death of courtship, Feral Females, Finding a Spouse, Foolishness, Rationalization Hamster, Slut. Bookmark the permalink.

739 Responses to Rationalizing sluttery as a path to marriage.

  1. earl says:

    “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”

    Just invest in a mirror…because that’s all your going to get.

  2. donalgraeme says:

    “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”

    The Hamster is strong in this one…

    Of course, the truth is that the person she does want is almost certainly going to not want to settle down with her. So she will have to lower her sights instead, and “settle” for the good, nice guy who she wouldn’t talk to a few years before. The rest is history.

  3. sunshinemary says:

    While I doubt if she represents all millennial women, it’s getting easier and easier to find these kinds of stories. I wrote about one several months ago who said nearly the same thing as Kristina:

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/possibly-the-worst-advice-for-young-women-in-the-whole-history-of-the-internet/

    The girl speaks about the joys of making out with strangers and then notes in passing:

    Some day, I want to get married too. I want a floor length dress with a ton of cleavage. I want it to be in Asia, with Ethiopian food, and a filthy scotch selection to calm my nerves when I inevitably start to panic and hyperventilate.

    It’s all about the wedding to her. In fact, a good test for a young man to administer might be to ask a young woman he’s interested in for her views on marriage. If it’s all about her and her wedding and nothing about the man and the marriage, she’s probably a candidate for next-ing.

  4. Zoyd Wheeler says:

    Sounds lkke she doesn’t consider it a path to marriage.

    She considers it a path to a wedding.

  5. Turtles Cant Run says:

    I deal with these types of women all the time. They have not only drank the kool aid they shower in it every morning before work.

    They are not only out of touch with reality in their delusion about what they bring to the table and the negative value their “sexual experience” that they almost have a seizure or stroke when you tell them “No, thanks let’s just keep it casual”.

    No man with great credit, tight game, good health and genes, successful business or careers will even consider nevertheless paying top dollar for used tires.

  6. Looking Glass says:

    This is why God invented Imgur. Because they need somewhere to post their cat photos. Nothing else is in their futures.

  7. The schadenfreude is misplaced. She will indeed find a husband. You are stating what you wish was reality. We are not supposed to be prone to that around here.

  8. >In fact, a good test for a young man to administer might be to ask a young woman he’s interested in for her views on marriage. If it’s all about her and her wedding and nothing about the man and the marriage, she’s probably a candidate for next-ing.

    While obviously deplorable, it occurred to me that she can hardly be blamed for thinking like this.

    If someone were to ask you about the basic tenets of Christianity, somewhere in there you’d probably mention the Ten Commandments. Now, with the Holy Spirit to enlighten you, and if you understood the purpose of Christ’s coming, that we are bought with a price, that God is love, etc—in other words, all the context around the words written in Exodus 20—then you could probably get along quite well without ever having read the words.

    But. Your children couldn’t.

    This is where we are, I think, relative to the duties of marriage. Had you asked a woman about “the duties of marriage” at the height of second-wave feminism, you’d probably get “there are none, marriage is legal patriarchal slavery,” as a response. But—give her a few years, let her cool off, and get married, and she’s doing the ironing. And perhaps she remembers some aphorism her grandmother had about what a good wife does, and she mixes that in. My point is: she may have rebelled against the words, but at least she knows what they are.

    Does anyone know what they are now? Were I a young woman and I idly wondered how to be a good wife, would the answers be readily at hand? Would my grandmother have talked about them? (Same goes for men, but this is well-trodden road)

    In 2014, I don’t think so. Any young woman doing that would have to do a great portion of the intellectual work of the sphere, with the added pressure of the herd pulling her back. The furthest she’ll get is a trial-and-error-backed “Guys like it when you…” But this will be tuned for the singles scene, not marriage.

  9. paddy says:

    I think it is a great tempation for young women to essentially treat men as Ken dolls – a placeholder if you will – while Barbie gets all the cool toys, the color-coordinated Corvette, the beautiful house – Ken is just another accessory. The wedding is all planned in their minds, before they ever meet the man who will marry them – mentally, he is a cardboard cutout to them – “groom goes here” as they build the movie set of their ideal wedding.

  10. Tom C says:

    “Sluttery.” I like it! Let’s use the word not just to describe individual acts like one-night-stands. Rather it can be an all-encompassing term to describe the fun and empowering lifestyle available to today’s modern enlightened young women: The Sluttery Lifestyle!

  11. imnobody00 says:

    @empathologist

    You nailed it. She will find a husband. They always will.

    For every red pill guy, there are one million betas eager to marry a slut, no matter what.

    An acquaintance of mine who is a single mom has gotten the commitment of a greater beta, a very attractive man, who is much wealthier than her.

    These days Facebook is full of pictures of the happy “family”. The three-year old baby; the pre-cuckolded guy hugging the baby with love; the mother, the cuckold and the baby hugging each other with harmony; the mother telling how great is the cuckold, how much he helps her and her son.

    Why do women have to change if they can have it all?: An alpha to fuck with and have good genes, and a beta to marry and have a family with.

  12. jg says:

    The great danger for them is not missing out on marriage, but how they are re-training men and men’s expectation. As well their own expectations for that matter.

  13. deti says:

    And yet, in a sense, who can blame them for thinking this way? Who can blame them for believing that this will all turn out “well”? Why shouldn’t they believe they can screw their way through their 20s, then find the Perfect Man in their 30s or whenever they decide they are done on the carousel?

    After all, Mom did it. Her friends’ mothers did it. The girls 3, 4, 5, 6 years older did it and are doing it now. They’re all able to get married pretty much when they want to. All she has to do is find a thirsty guy down market from the men she used to have lots of sex with and party with; get a few expensive dinners out of him, make sure he’s down for commitment, throw a few expertly timed BJs his way, and she’s good to go. Proposal sure to follow.

  14. jf12 says:

    “My friends and I are like … insane right now.”
    “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”
    When you’ve eliminated the possible, what remains, no matter how much you wish otherwise, is impossible.

  15. deti says:

    Ha. I missed Empath’s and imnobody’s comments.

    Yes. Every one of these girls will find a husband when she wants to.

  16. greyghost says:

    Can you imagine the herd conditioning it would take for a young woman to shamelessly say that. More than just shameless it was said with an air of superiority. That young woman is just a straight up piece of ass and doesn’t even know it. She must think that the men SHE WANTS TO FUCK are clueless about her nature. The only men she can be attracted to are men with game the very men with the ability to see who she is. Two to five more years of that empowered lifestyle and she will have a blown out vagina and soul. I would love to see the guy 5 years from now in this world we live in that is still delusional enough to marry a slut like that. Think of the torment in her head marrying a guy that is actually willing to marry her. Any fool 5 years from now that marries a slut (or anybody really) deserves all of the pain and suffering the feminine imperative can bring to bare.

  17. RS says:

    The schadenfreude is misplaced. She will indeed find a husband. You are stating what you wish was reality. We are not supposed to be prone to that around here.

    I have no doubt she’ll find someone to marry but it won’t last. She’ll get her wedding but not a husband.

  18. Hey Dalorckzkzaz!

    I have da solutionz for da future of Chritsianaistztyz!

    It’s simple, really.

    Menz need to learn game! After all, Jesus came to abolish da law of Moses 2 make da way for gamez rulesz! lzlzzo

  19. Andrew Richards says:

    Society wonders how we could reach a place where the destruction of the family unit could be so commonplce and so rampant, yet this is precisely where it starts. Feminists claim this is a good thing, wanting women to be held to the same sexual standards as men – yet what they fail to recognise is that the sexual standards we hold men to are utterly toxic, self decrecating and full of disrespect of the self and the sexual identity of the self.

    Sex has ceased to become the highest form of intimacy with another person, the giving of ourselves to another person, to be shared only with someone worthy of it and has instead become nothing more than a methphorical syringe to pump the body full of its latest fix of Endorphins and Adrenaline.

    Relationships are equally cheapened – the idea is that the wedding is all that matters- that you have a string of hookups, then the wedding, then what; you divorce after a few mionths like you’re returning something you bought when you wish to return?

    And we wonder why society is going to hell in a handbasket, with broken families and wounded and rudderless kids.

    It’s clear that so many people out there should probably never get married or get a personality transplant before they do – preferably one which removes the spoiled brat from them. There’s a reason why traditional marriage vows have people making those vows in sickness and in health, in wealth and in poverty and when things are good and when things are lousy; marriage is life and live is no fairy tale – it is never perfect.

    People are going to get sick which will put a strain on a marriage. People are going to have things happen like losing their jobs and losing their homes. People are going to go through tough times in life. Even the modern invention of romantic love views marriage as something you experience together – both the good and the bad – to grow together from the experiences in ways you could never do solo.

    Yet the views in the article forego this for the notion of the “quickie divorce” and the narcissistic, non-existent fairytale.

    Relationships are seldom easy and when taken seriously, our marriages are the longest relationships we’ll ever have. Dating isn’t just about what discovering what our tastes in other people are, but learning how to be in a relationship- and in the process about our own journey of personal growth into becoming the person we need to be, when we meet the person that we’ll want to marry and spend the rest of our lives with.

    Yet this notion goes out the window when narcissists get so caught up in the notion of the spectacle of the wedding that they forget that it is meant to be a ceremony of commencement of what should be a journey which lasts the rest of our lives.

    That perfect cake, that perfect venue and that perfect dress, wont magically take the pain of a husband or wife getting a terminal illness, stop the anguish of one partner developing an addiction nor magically make money woes go away.

    So many people complain that the idea of lifelong marriage is unworkable, yet all too quickly forget the fact trhat garbage in=garbage out and that if you’re putting selfishness into a marriage, then you will get selfishness back and it will breed nothing but resentment alienation and disenfranchisement.

    Our passive consumerist society ultimately instills one value into people- amoral, self-gratification-based narcissism; it teaches people that there’s such a thing as a fairytale happy ending (in fact it often tries to pass off some product as the ket to it), thatthe free lunch is there and they should look for it. The reality is though that there is no free lunch and there is no fairy tale – the only happy endings are the ones we make for ourselves and for each other. The values of love, caring, loyalty, fidelity, commitment and selflessness are the antithesis of passive consumerist culture, yet they are the key to a happy marriage.

    The fact is that it’s high past time that we recognised that marriage isn’t the problem; the average person’s narcissistic attitudes are and that the only way we will ever get the family unit back and get society as a whole back, is if we stop approaching life as one giant exercise in self-gratification realse that a happy relationship is something you work and and earn (and the results make the effort more than worth it) and grow up.

  20. I’m not sure why anyone hasn’t noticed,
    That the West was conquered,
    via the bernankfiatcionz of our owmenz

    lzozozozozoz

  21. Ras Al Ghul says:

    They may still find a husband.

    Given there are thirsty men out there. Five minutes of pussy is worth a lifetime of child support, but the marriage rate is dropping, and continues to drop, the remarriage rate for the divorced men is dropping like a stone.

    And you don’t get articles like this in the mainstream if the drop isn’t picking up steam and actually uses the phrase “men going their own way”:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2330458/Get-Britain-Fertile-Peter-Lloyd-says-men-blame-women-childless-Melissa-Kite-says-society-is.html.

    The problem is the errosion is hard to spot when looking at things at the moment. I spoke with a guy that is a MGTOW even though he doesn’t even know what the phrase means and we talked about when he was a kid at a family reunion and EVERYONE over 25 was married when he was a kid.

    Now no one under 25 is married, and most aren’t married at 30.

    And the second thing is, even if those women get married, less than one in 5 will be able to make it ten years, when your divorce rate is 80% and not 50%, its dead.

  22. Laszlo says:

    She will get married. If she is indeed hot and doesn’t ride for too long, she will also probably marry a man with resources, become a SAHM, take up yoga, pound $7 lattes, have two nannies, and shop at whole foods. She is winning. She is the new american dream, the success story.

    Our culture is set up to produce these women and it is working. These are not feral creatures. Their rutting may look like it, but these creatures are just highly conditioned humans operating according to how they were programmed.

    The ones in like her who aren’t hot enough to secure the resources will continue to be protected, coddled, and excused for behavior that would have had her run out of any decent town long ago.

    This is a mainstream publication. It is “cool”. This is our culture. Until people have the balls, the will, the blood-in-the-streets to change the culture, we will continue to point to these creatures as the paramount of the human existence, the future. That’s right. Generations of souls plowed under in the name of progress so the Kristinas can become well-fed bitches in perpetual heat. Awesome.

  23. Myshkin says:

    “We’re going to need a bigger [barf bag].”

  24. Laszlo says:

    But yeah. Its the fault of all those thirsty betas.

  25. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Andrew:

    “Relationships are equally cheapened – the idea is that the wedding is all that matters- that you have a string of hookups, then the wedding, then what; you divorce after a few mionths like you’re returning something you bought when you wish to return?”

    Considering that the average marriage lasts 8 years. When you think off the number of retired couples that have actually made it 50+ years, that’s a lot of short term marriages occuring. One fifty year marriage keeps the average of six one year marriages, or seven two year marriages.

    And this is what’s happening, the length of the first marriages are getting shorter.

  26. Desiderius says:

    “wanting women to be held to the same sexual standards as men”

    No, if the standard is “fuck around during the height of your SMV, settle down otherwise” you’d have an arrangement where men would be released from their wedding vows between the ages of 32 and 42 and women would be expected to suck it for those ten years then pick back up where they left off. And support any kids he sired while fucking around.

    Don’t kid yourself that the standard advocated in this article is in any sense fair or gender-neutral.

  27. “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”

    Yes, good things “just happen.” They don’t require effort, or planning, or postponing enjoyment. No, not at all.

  28. Desiderius says:

    “But yeah. Its the fault of all those thirsty betas.’

    It was thirsty betas (in league with alpha females) who banded together to enforce the old monogamous civilization. They’re the only ones who can rebuild it. Enough red-pill truth gets out, they will.

  29. Joe Blow says:

    @Desiderius – no, they aren’t going to rebuild it. Beta men may be down for that but the women are far too deep gone in a lie. What in your experience makes you think women, as a group, are suddenly going to start making rational, fact-based decisions. What they do now, what they have likely always done, is to justify what they’ve done after the fact. That’s what the hamster does. The hamster never took formal logic in college, nor will it study game. It only lives to rationalize, and rationalization is only good for getting away from the truth, not getting down to it.

  30. Desiderius says:

    “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”

    The first part of this is a decent approximation of how the pre-sexual revolution MMP actually functioned, and it functioned well. The difference was you didn’t fuck everyone (or usually anyone) you courted, and you did the courting practice part in your late teens. Both of my grandmothers (in the 40’s) were seeing multiple men, no fucking involved, at the time they got the ring. It was expected that there would be nothing exclusive without the ring, a no fucking without the exclusive.

    Once free love came along and sex was expected, serial monogamy arose as the “respectable” setting for sex, but that very monogamy prevented the learning process of courting (discovering what you don’t want, and as importantly what you don’t do – you become a better partner too, learn how to handle rejection, etc).

    Hook-up culture/hanging out was an attempt to recover that*. But it cured the symptom, not the disease.

    * – when people talk about hating “dating” they mean serial monogamy, not traditional courting, of which they have no concept.

  31. Desiderius says:

    JoeBlow,

    Don’t disagree. But the alpha females are getting a raw deal. Those hamsters are nuclear-powered. They were down to make a deal once, they will be again.

  32. Dalrock,

    Any millenial woman who can bed 29 different men while still so young…. she’s going to get married if she wants to be. She will find someone, of that I am sure. He may not be “all that” but he will exist.

  33. Desiderius says:

    “What in your experience makes you think women, as a group, are suddenly going to start making rational, fact-based decisions.”

    You think traditional. monogamous sexual morality and the civilization it engendered was enforced with reason and facts alone? Principally?

    I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you…

  34. Ras Al Ghul says:

    The telling stat in that article:

    1960 59% of those age 18-29 were married

    2014 20% of those aged 18-29 are married.

    Now presuming thats equally divided among men and women (which is probably an error, men marry older) That would seem to indicate that the average age of marriage is considerably higher now, than it was in Dalrock’s early analysis based on older census data. It ain’t 27 anymore, unless everyone one of those 20% are 18 when they got married, and the remaining 80% all get married at thirty and then the average age of marriage is 27.6.

    If we assume an equal distribution (just as many get married at 18, and so on all the way up,), and we assume that the remaining all get married at 30, then the average age of marriage is 28.8. Since we know there were at least 20% of women not married by 35+ we know this number has to be higher.

    If I was a guessing man based on observation the average age of marriage is around 30 presently based on women I know cashing out at that point as fast as they can.

    While I’ve seen plenty of women hit thirty and find a beta schlub to marry quickly, the tide is turning. They might get married. MIGHT. You’re assuming the thirsty betas aren’t starting to wake up.

    And its easier for a beta to bite on a 25 year old slut, then a 30 year old slut.

    And I would note that this is trailing behind japan where most people are not married (not married) by 35 now.

    So while their is some sort of resignation that women can slut it up and get married, this is coming to an end.

  35. DeNihilist says:

    Hmm, “thirsty beta’s”

    To me a far better definition of all those greek letters getting thrown aboot around here;

    http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2012/06/keynesian-sexual-marketplace.html

  36. imnobody00 says:

    “And this is what’s happening, the length of the first marriages are getting shorter.”

    Yes,this is a feature not a bug. When Ms. has had the wedding and the kids, what marriage is good for? They would rather be divorced, chasing alpha cock and receiving money from the ex husband.

  37. Cane Caldo says:

    Like, I’m obsessed with the idea of getting married, but I want to skip the dating part and just know who I’m going to marry.”

    There could be so much upside to this comment…except she literally wants to screw around until it happens.

    And that’s the bulk of the initial wisdom found among the PUA sites, right there. She does want to screw, but she’d be happy to simply be married to a person who is a good fit if she knew how to find one…which she doesn’t.

  38. Jason says:

    Well that makes perfect sense. What could possibly go wrong with her strategy. To think we have had it so wrong all these years.

    O.o

  39. Ras Al Ghul says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:

    “Any millenial woman who can bed 29 different men while still so young…. she’s going to get married if she wants to be. She will find someone, of that I am sure. He may not be “all that” but he will exist.”

    Not necessarily. I know a millenial girl that has frequent hook ups. She’s educated, thin, an ok job, churchian (meets weekly for a bible group at a bar) but a face and personality that are poor. Her rationalization hamster makes all these hook ups into deep meaningful connections, but they’re not. Her notch count is probably around 29 or more, and she cannot find a man that wants more.

    And she’d probably sound like the girl in the rolling stone magazine.

    Most women are fives when they hit their sexual market peak, they’re average. They’re not fives at 30, they’re 3s by that point.

    A female that is still 6-10 can get married easily at 30. The rest, not so much, and the curve for female beauty starts to shift downward at 26.

  40. Desiderius says:

    “Well that makes perfect sense. What could possibly go wrong with her strategy. To think we have had it so wrong all these years.”

    I’d say we’ve had it wrong for about 50 by now.

    She’s grasping around for something that predates that.

  41. Andrew Richards says:

    Desiderius, I have no illusions here whatsoever, however you on the other hand, going by your response have clearly failed to distinguish between what is symptomatic and what is causal- what is actually driving this at a deeper level. Oh and fyi, the fact that I left the same comment on the article and it was rmoved should make their gender bias pretty obvious.

    The fact is that what’s driving this is the feminist notion of “men can sleep around with whoever they want, whenever they want and they’re celebrated; women do it and they’re called sluts. why can’t women be held to the same standard as men?”. Feminsts push for women and men to be held to the same sexual standard as men, further entrenching it (in the case of women, it merely merges with traditional female hypergamy, hence the attitude you point out). Meanwhile you have paelomasculinists pushing for maintaining the status quo and again further entrenching the same saexual attitudes towards men.

    The fact is that this is yet another area where paelomasculinists are just as much the enemy of men’s rights as feminists are.

    It’s highly telling that people in the manosphere are so quick to deride women for exhibiting these behaviours and operating from these beliefs, yet are so utterly blinded to the fact that men have been held to the equally destructive sexual standards as women now aspire to for centuries, if not millenia.

    Promoinent gender academics such as Tosh (one of the good guys in the field) have rightly noted that as men, we have only ever been valued in terms of our ability to provide, ability to protect and our sexual prowess.

    Most men have been trained to see this as a good thing, but the reality is that it dehumanises us into nothing more than prize bulls and utterly destroys our sexual identity, while attrophying our self-actualisation and self-image and tarnishing our souls.

    Look at society’s attitudes to men and sex crimes. Society scoffs and rolls on the floor with laughter when it comes to men being raped, while the law doesn’t even recognise female-on-male rape or any form of rape where the victim is forced to penetrate their assailant. Heck society doesn’t even recognise the notion of a man being able to deny or withdraw consent being behaviour that is grounded in a someone truly knowing themselves and maintaining healthy boundaries for them.

    Yet the problem is that when these attitudes are witnessed all too readily in women, society laments the state of women, rather than rightly recognising that women become a mirror held up to the way we as men are programmed to be by society in terms of our sexual identity. If society were truly able to pierce through the double ignorance caused how it has been collectively conditioned, it would recognise that the problem is not that women are operating from tht paradigm, but that paradigm is even considered desirable for anyone to begin with. Yet neither feminists nor paleomasculinists will hear a word of that- including paleomasculinists living under the delusion that they’re MRAs.

    The fact is that even if you went back 10,000 years, the current state of play would be predictable. We are currently living in an age where the uterocentric pragmatic survivalist gender conditioning we have been exposed to from the earliest age and going back millenia, has become obsolete, while remaining in play through conventional logic- “because it’s always been this way”.

    What we are seeing now is uterocentrism without the external driving factors which have necessitated it – the dogmatic desire to provide for and protect women, while the vast bulk of dangrs and issues which origiannly were deemed to necessitate it have fallen by the wayside within the last 100 years.

    There’s no such thing as a time machine and we can never go back in time. What is need at this point in time is a new social paradigm- one which recognises the anachronistic and obsolete nature of the former paradigm, and instead is steeped in the notion of individual self-actualisation. That can only happen when we stop mistaking the symptoms, such as those mentioned in this article, for the disease.

  42. feeriker says:

    She will indeed find a husband. You are stating what you wish was reality. We are not supposed to be prone to that around here.

    It is worthy of a life’s mission to ensure that your first sentence never comes to pass.

  43. Ras Al Ghul says:

    DeNihilist says:

    “Hmm, “thirsty beta’s”

    Except DeNihilist, its becoming more of an 80/20 rule, with most men, your average millenial man especially become part of the 80% have not.

    As your link notes, the characteristics of bad men have been encouraged in terms of getting sexual access (your omegas) while on the other side lots of men are getting pushed into your zeta camp. Your average guys aren’t cleaning up, which is why your average guys just don’t push to succeed as much.

  44. DeNihilist says:

    From the article – “Which means that Millennials are pioneers in their own right, navigating a wide-open sexual terrain that no previous generation has encountered – one with more opportunity, but also more ambiguity; less sex, but potentially better sex, or at least sex that has the potential to exist as much for its own sake as it does for any other. Ideas of whom one can sleep with and how, and what that means in terms of one’s sexual identity, have never been more fluid. The possibilities have never been so undefined.”

    Umm, I think the reporter needs to do a bit more fact checking, this was happening in the 70’s in India, under the tutelage of the Indian Guru Osho. What he foresaw was what this article is about.

  45. Desiderius says:

    “The fact is that this is yet another area where paelomasculinists are just as much the enemy of men’s rights as feminists are.”

    Yep, that’s the black hats. Alpha males (Roissy definition) and beta females (feminists). Traditionally it was the rest of the males in league with the alpha females who kept them on a short leash. Too many of those males are acting as blue-pill useful idiots and playing for the wrong team – hence the thirty betas whose fault it partially is. Ignorance of reality is no excuse.

    The Alpha female wants the top male (Alpha by DeNehilist’s definition*) for herself. She’s not currently getting that. Get that hamster working for you and you’re getting somewhere.

    * – if things weren’t so out-of-whack, you wouldn’t need two definitions

  46. jack says:

    The muslim invasion cannot occur soon enough.

  47. DeNihilist says:

    Ras, like the author of the piece, I too had a best friend who was good at bedding the woman. The so called alpha. Now we are in our mid fifties, and he is the one seeing the life coach, having the midlife crisis, living alone and lonely.

    I find it annoying that in the sphere, the belief is that the guy getting all the poosy is the alpha, when in reality, as the article shows, they are not.

    Alpha is an attitude. You can be washing the dishes and still be alpha as fuck.

  48. feeriker says:

    There’s a reason why traditional marriage vows have people making those vows in sickness and in health, in wealth and in poverty and when things are good and when things are lousy; marriage is life and live is no fairy tale – it is never perfect.

    People are going to get sick which will put a strain on a marriage. People are going to have things happen like losing their jobs and losing their homes. People are going to go through tough times in life. Even the modern invention of romantic love views marriage as something you experience together – both the good and the bad – to grow together from the experiences in ways you could never do solo.

    As I’ve said before, I’m frankly relieved that traditional wedding vows have largely fallen out of favor: the utterance of them in most weddings today is meaningless at best, and a conscious lie at worst (of the egregious type that Amerikan presidents utter when they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution). I’d rather see the typical “bride” and “groom” today just shout “let’s f***!” at each other in front of a room full of witnesses, or verbally declare that they’ll stay together until they’re sick of each other and not a minute longer. Both alternatives are a damned sight more honest than the offensive charade of a traditional vows regurgitation, a cheap show that fools no one and that profanes a sacred oath that still truly means something sacred and binding to some people, however few in number they are.

  49. DeNihilist says:

    Des, way out of whack and promulgated by so called leaders of the sphere, IMO.

  50. Andrew Richards says:

    On the contray feeriker, the traditional marriage vows aren’t the problem; it’s people’s unrealistic expectations of marriage. How many people out there make those vows expecting there to be sickness, to be bad times, to be poverty? Almost none I’d wager.

    I’m getting married in August (the woman I’m marrying has something rarely found in most women these days and has it in spades- loyalty and character) and we will be saying those vows. The difference for us is that our courtship hasn’t been easy as the world has thrown gauntlet after gauntlet down at us and we’ve faced it all head on and come out closer and better for it. To me those vows aren’t some lofty fairy tale- they’re a testomony to what my fiance and I have overcome together and grown stronger together through. But then that view of marriage is the difference betwen a marriage that lasts a lifetime and a quicky marriage that ends in a quickie divorce.

  51. Andrew Richards says:

    Indeed Desiderius- there’s a dangerous misconeption out there that the biggest threat to men and boys are feminists right now. That’s simply false.

    Feminism has always had a glaring achilles heel- namely that it can only survive in an environment where men are still contidioned to be valued and to value themselves in terms of their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess. The moment you deny the feminist imperative unquestioning protection, unquestioning provision and sexual access to men, then it collapses like a house of cards. They may be the overt driving force for the legislation and attitudes which are so destructive to men and boys, but they are far from the biggest threat to men and boys.

    That dubious honour is reserved for the paleomasculinists of this world who are ultimately the cause of the “success” of feminism. The fact is that it is because of the paleomasculinists of this world that most men and boys, women and girls, live in a perpetual state of double ignorance bout masculinity. It is they who normalise and glorify a comprehensive and totalistic dehumanisation of men and boys. Worse still it is that very dehumanisation which provides an impenetrable shield to the achilles heel of feminism by institutionalising and conditioning people to be the very oxygen which feminism needs to survive.

    It is only when society wakes up to this fact and strikes primarily not at the feminist movement, but the paleomasculinist movement, that we can ever hope to expose the aqchilles heel of feminism and then bring it crashing down like a house of cards very shortly thereafter.

  52. feeriker says:

    Congrats on your impending nuptials, Andrew. Your wedding is indeed an appropriate one for the traditional vows, as you two are under no fairytale illusions of what marriage is about. Unfortunately, you and your bride-to-be are the too-rare exception, not the rule. When you exchange the sacred vows, you will both no doubt feel the power of their words and exactly what they mean – a committment before God.

    That’s not even remotely true of most couples today. “Committment” plays no part in the marriage for most millennials. God plays even less of one.

  53. “We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want, when we find the person who we do want, it’s just going to happen.”

    I enjoy the female fantasy of things ‘just happening’. She could certainly find the guy who could fuck her right, or the poor herb to support her, but she knows nothing of how to really take care of a partner. Decline of society at its finest.

  54. Andrew Richards says:

    Which again goes back to what I’m talking about feeriker, the issue isn’t the vows themselves- it’s that people have been conditioned these days into being passive consumers where everything is about self-interested self-gratification and sexual politics is just one area of it.

    Children these days aren’t taught to aspire to aspire to something truly great, but rather for hollowness of fame and riches. Everything is about the here and now, about fun, about “feeling good”. The idea of working at a relationship- let alone anything of a higher calling for that matter has been made alien to people.

    We live in an age where our technology has advanced further than our spirituality, are far more connected with technology than with each other, where empathy has been killed off an replaced with the glorification of self, where we amass ever increasing knowledge but our wisdom decreases wih each passing day. Yet this is supposedly an age of progress and advancement. What irony.

  55. greyghost says:

    Ras, like the author of the piece, I too had a best friend who was good at bedding the woman. The so called alpha. Now we are in our mid fifties, and he is the one seeing the life coach, having the midlife crisis, living alone and lonely.

    I find it annoying that in the sphere, the belief is that the guy getting all the poosy is the alpha, when in reality, as the article shows, they are not.

    Alpha is an attitude. You can be washing the dishes and still be alpha as fuck.
    DeNihilist
    Here in the manosphere alpha is a man that women desire to and do fuck that is it. All other measures such as physical appearance, money, penis size, athletic ability, celebrity etc. maybe present in an alpha but they are not what makes him so. Those same characteristics in a beta will make people think he is alpha at least for a while but will not make him alpha ever.

  56. Opus says:

    I see that Kristina is twenty years of age, but if twenty-nine sexual encounters is all she has managed then I have to say that she is not trying very hard and she is doing more rejecting than accepting: what I mean is that I do not buy her rhetoric; she is implying great promiscuity (and thus desirability) but not really demonstrating it. I predict that she will soon find Mr Right and do everything to hide her N.

    In my view, sex is not (as between the sexes, as opposed to male homosexuality) exchangeable for sex – biology makes it so; a woman always wants and needs something else, whether that be payment (short time love) or marriage (long time love): when that is not present there is either unhappiness (Donna Elvira) or false accusations (Donna Anna). Of course there are always good time girls (Zerlina) but they are merely playthings for top-guys; thus American citizen Lorenzo da Ponte gets it absolutely right.

  57. Vince says:

    How naive. A guy can sniff out a slut a mile away and guys, real guys, don’t marry sluts.

  58. Slumlord says:

    There are lot of guys who are happy to go sloppy 30th’s. She’ll get married.

    How long it lasts is a totally different thing.

  59. tsotha says:

    I have no doubt she’ll find someone to marry but it won’t last. She’ll get her wedding but not a husband.

    I think this is the case. There’s nothing left to attach her to a man – as soon as the music dies she’ll move on.

  60. Opus says:

    I suppose one thing one can say in favour of Kristina, is that she is not indulging in Mini-Marriages, (the bane of my generation and with concomitant mini-divorces) otherwise known as going-steady; the trouble is that she is always in danger of ending up like Marguerite Gautier (Violetta Valery, La Dame aux Camellias, but hopefully without the consumption) and thus being Traviata – a fallen woman – not a suitable girl as well as being too old; not that virginity is the answer to everything: look at that Post Marital slut the once virginal-bride Diana Princess of Whales. Note by the way one cannot be a fallen man.

    Beware of women wanting large weddings in Tuscany or at the local castle. Offer her the Register Office (or its American equivalent) to test her true motivation for matrimony.

  61. jf12 says:

    The two most amusing ideas in the article were
    1. That Kristina believes her opinions about, like, facts and whatev, actually have value. For example, about pheromones.
    2. That Leah and Ryna in their mid to late 30s ae somehow *young*.

  62. jf12 says:

    The single saddest idea is
    1. “So far, John hasn’t received any Down pairings.”

  63. Lancaster says:

    Sexual experience != relationship experience

    I never cease to be amazed how girls like this expect a man to bet not only his life and well being but that of his (future) children against all rhyme and reason the above statement is incorrect.
    That someone who never had a relationship know how to act in one, to show mutual consideration and respect, resolve conflicts constructively instead of just switch partner, find joy and satisfaction in the more stable feelings of love and affection rather that the storming sexual attraction of getting someone “new”, to live together under the same roof, share your finances for shared expenses and so on.

    Or aren’t men allowed to want what’s best for their children if it conflicts with a woman’s interest in what’s best for herself?

  64. Desiderius says:

    “Or aren’t men allowed to want what’s best for their children if it conflicts with a woman’s interest in what’s best for herself?”

    Allowed? To what authority are you appealing?

  65. Andrew Richards says:

    Lancaster, even your response is flawed in ther direction of that very same error. Forget about the children there, what about the fact that such an approach to relationships is in no way shape or form healthy for a man to be in – period. Why do children have to enter the equation before the klaxons start ringing and the red flags get raised?

  66. Yes. Every one of these girls will find a husband when she wants to. — deti

    The damage happens at the margins where they can’t see it. Yes, the ones who manage to stay “cute and vivacious,” at least as compared to their peers, will have no trouble marrying whenever they want. But they won’t get the same quality of husband they could have when they were at their cutest and most vivacious — but they don’t know that. And some who don’t stay so cute, who pack on a hundred pounds, might not manage to marry at all, or might have to marry some schlub who doesn’t really interest them.

    But you can’t prove any of that to them, because they can’t go back and retry, so understanding it requires abstract and logical thinking and the ability to extrapolate from others’ experience.

    There could be so much upside to this comment…except she literally wants to screw around until it happens. — Cane Caldo

    Yes, she almost gets it, but then misses it and hurtles down the wrong path even further. In a way, this is heartening, because it shows she does have the right instincts — she wants to be married, wants to give herself to a man sexually, and doesn’t really enjoy dating. Despite all the feminist blather for the past 50 years telling her that marriage is slavery, marriage is rape, fish not needing bicycles, she still wants it just like all her ancestresses did. But she also has society yelling in her ear every day about how she needs a career, how men love independent women with experience, how women just get sexier with age, how she can have it all if she puts off marriage and has her fun first. (Feminists were really pretty smart in shifting from the “don’t marry” to the “put off marriage” message, really.)

    So she follows the herd (and probably the guidance of her parents and other elders) in putting off marriage, but she still has the urge to give herself to a man, so here we are.

    The good news is the right instincts are still there, so if the conventional wisdom swings against delaying marriage, girls will hop right on board and start marrying earlier again. The bad news is I don’t see that happening without a major economic crisis that makes parents realize their daughters need a husband’s provision again.

  67. Roosh is a Greater Christian than Dalrock. But Dalrockasz Has all DA SOLUTIONZ!! BE A CLOWNZ FOR DA MODERNZ WOMENZ AND PLEASE HER EVERY TINZGLZZOOZOZ!

    Roosh is a Greater Christian than Dalrock. But Dalrockasz Has all DA SOLUTIONZ!! BE A CLOWNZ FOR DA MODERNZ WOMENZ AND PLEASE HER EVERY TINZGLZZOOZOZ!

    While Dalrockasz da Churchian teaches and preaches that men must learn game so as to become clowns for womenz serving every butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozo, Roosh (who would be kicked out of da dalorkcian chruchz) is catching on.

    http://www.rooshv.com/men-are-nothing-more-than-clowns-to-the-modern-woman

    “Men Are Nothing More Than Clowns To The Modern Woman

    When I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t see a man who has improved himself over the years to be the best that his genes allow—I see a glittery skirt that a girl encounters in the mall. Is the skirt too expensive or is it on sale? Is there only one left of her size or is the rack full of them? Does she already have something similar or is it totally novel? Does her friends think it’s cute or just alright? After trying it on, does it flatter her body or make her look fat? Either she makes the impulsive decision to buy the skirt or not, because odds are she won’t come back for it. There are so many stores with so many skirts that she will soon forget it, forever. We are like glittery pieces of fashion to women—items that she truly doesn’t need. Not only has she already collected so many of them, but she can easily obtain more within walking distance from where she lives. She can even browse online from home while in her pajamas through a nearly unlimited selection.

    We are not men in the traditional sense—we are clowns. With our tight game we have to be entertainers who create drama and excitement in a girl’s life, just long enough so that she spreads her legs and makes sexy noises, and even though she did commit such an intimate act with us, she will soon lose interest or simply get bored, and then move on to the next shiny cock that catches her eye. ”

    http://www.rooshv.com/men-are-nothing-more-than-clowns-to-the-modern-woman

    What DALROCKAZ WILL NEVER, EVER< EVER TEACH IS DAT MENZ

    need to reclaim da home, schools, churches, court systemz, culture, hollywoodz, and soul of the nation, and exalt the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ an dMOSEZ and JESUSZ.

    for dalrock KNOWSZ full well that were he ever to suggest this, he woul dnever, ever, ever receieveie another instalancha againz from a man whose wife refused to take his last mname, and den wrote a book for menz (as part of the controlled oppositionz) which never mentioned Moses, nor JEsus, nor Homer, nor Socrates, nor Aristotelzozozozzlzozozol nor any of da GBFMs. zlzozozo

    And so Dalrockaz continues his long, loyal march through da insisttiuitionz of Christianity, exalting Game, Butt, and Gina tinzgzlzlzozozo over JEsus and Moses, as all his faithfless faux fanboy flcok flock of frankfaratioatazn clap their hands and quote MArcuse and teahc, like Boxer, thet Freud is the true ftaher of JEsuz lzozozlzlzolz

    Roosh is a Greater Christian than Dalrock. But Dalrockasz Has all DA SOLUTIONZ!! BE A CLOWNZ FOR DA MODERNZ WOMENZ AND PLEASE HER EVERY TINZGLZZOOZOZ!

  68. The other thing Kristina doesn’t understand, and that you could never prove to her, is that every additional notch she puts on her carousel makes it that much more likely that, even if she does marry and appears to marry well, she won’t be happy. She’ll find a guy who seems like a good catch on paper, but find herself dissatisfied for no particular reason. He just won’t “do it” for her, even though she wants him to and tries to feel the right things for him, at least at first. She’ll probably end up divorced or (if she’s more aware than most about her prospects) feeling trapped in a loveless marriage, pining for the excitement of the carousel.

    Only if she’s a very rare bird will she think things through and make the right connections and realize she should have just married the first guy.

  69. Desiderius says:

    “Why do children have to enter the equation before the klaxons start ringing and the red flags get raised?”

    Form follows function. Healthy children are the ultimate purpose of the whole endeavor.

  70. Bob Wallace says:

    Carnac the Magnificent sees cats, psychiatric medication and hostility to men in her future.

  71. Desiderius says:

    “The bad news is I don’t see that happening without a major economic crisis that makes parents realize their daughters need a husband’s provision again.”

    They already understand that their grandchildren need a good father. The savvy ones, and their daughters, are already catching on to how the carousel impedes making that happen. But so does serial monogamy or just “marrying the first one” (that’s where the 30’s frivorce comes from), the preferred Churchian alternatives. Kristina, et al are rebelling against the Churchian bullshit, not “traditional values”, of which they have no concept.

    Courting without sex, at an age young enough that that is realistic, is the only way to establish a solid marriage at an age young enough that the partners can grow together. And, not coincidentally, fuck each others brains out and have enough energy left to raise the fruits of their labor.

  72. With Serial Monogamy firmly in place, marriage is just a first-class seat on the Carousel.

    A lot of the Really Really Hot Girls, especially the ones who stay hot, [Padma Lakshmi- or Nancy Davis-level] can euchre one-night-stands, serial boyfriendery, and multiple marriages into a very successful mating strategy with billionaires, Nobel prize winning novelists, or Presidents.

    Never, ever, evar underestimate hawtness, especially in women. It overrides the cerebral cortex, and goes straight to the hypothalamus, just like effective advertising.

  73. Ras Al Ghul says:

    DeNile

    “Ras, like the author of the piece, I too had a best friend who was good at bedding the woman. The so called alpha. Now we are in our mid fifties, and he is the one seeing the life coach, having the midlife crisis, living alone and lonely.”

    I look around and I see lots of married men that are lonely. Marriage or an LTR is not necessarily the solution to that.

    “I find it annoying that in the sphere, the belief is that the guy getting all the poosy is the alpha, when in reality, as the article shows, they are not. ”

    It is the simplest metric. Kind of like the old adatage “Money isn’t everything, but its the easiest way to keep score.”

    “Alpha is an attitude. You can be washing the dishes and still be alpha as fuck.”

    No actually you can’t if you’re married. Those that do dishes and other chores have less happy marriages and less sex. Traditional divisions of marriage matter. The little details matter because the big things, relationships, are made up of all the little things and women, by their nature, use the little weak points to pry away at the alpha until they can errode it completely.

  74. Elspeth says:

    Husbands can do dishes sometimes without losing their man-card. Mine does them about once a year. It’s rare enough to be an event though:

    http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/daddies-dont-do-dishes/

    As to the OP, these young women are very sad lot, but they don’t know it because the people who raised them to be this way don’t know that this is a miserable and dangerous way to live.

    But I agree that marriage is definitely still in the cards for them.

  75. Courting without sex, at an age young enough that that is realistic, is the only way to establish a solid marriage at an age young enough that the partners can grow together. And, not coincidentally, fuck each others brains out and have enough energy left to raise the fruits of their labor. — Desiderius

    That’s what I meant by “marry the first one,” though I didn’t say it well. In other words, she had the instinct at a young age to find a man and give herself to him, and she already knew she wanted marriage. If she’d been encouraged to put those together in the right way, she would have looked for a marriage-minded man, signaled her interest, been courted, and made her “first one” the one she married.

    I know a 17-year-old girl who’s currently being courted in the traditional fashion. (No, not by me; relax, IBB!) Her mom is one of the rare ones who learned from her mistakes and is encouraging her in the right direction. She’s not overly bright (which may have helped her avoid the trap of teachers and counselors trying to convince her that she’s owed a fabulous career) but she has a good heart and some common sense. She knows she wants to marry and have kids, so what’s the point of waiting? She and her suitor have had an eye on each other for a while, so if the courtship doesn’t turn up any incompatibilities, why wait? Because she might miss out on Spring Break hookups and the possibility that she might meet a better guy before her beauty fades?

  76. Novaseeker says:

    guys, real guys, don’t marry sluts.

    That may be, but plenty of “non-real guys” do marry sluts at the appointed time because they are on offer.

    As to “how long the marriage will last”, this increasingly depends on social class. The upper middle class highly educated professional set tends to marry around 30ish, tends to have sexual histories with other parties before then (some more prolific than others, due to attractiveness and interest in that lifestyle), and tends to divorce much less than average. That’s due to a variety of factors, as has been discussed ad nauseam here and at other blogs. But in this subset, the carousel riding has very little negative impact: the women marry, more or less the kinds of guys they ever could have married, generally stay married, and have a kid or two (normally two, these days). This tends to be the class that writes in magazines and newspapers – an important fact, because this is their own experience, and so it’s the perspective they bring to the table when they are discussing these things.

    Just below that social class, it begins to get less stable. Think people who have jobs but not window offices – career cubicle types or their equivalent outside of offices. This group sees much less success in following this life plan, in terms of the eventual outcome. There are, again, many factors for this – most notably differences in future time orientation, differences in what people bring to the table overall, differences in the “cost of divorce” (in terms of lifestyle hit in absolute terms to each), differences in peer pressure and peer behaviors and so on. But the free-sex-then-stable-marriage deal that the UMC pulls off more or less is much less sustainable even in this group, which is the one right below it.

    When you do down from there, the worse it gets, all the way down, with the impact of the free sex culture among youth destroying family formation and stability to an ever greater degree the further down you go. Some people say this is just the impact of relative wealth – i.e., on average, richer people have better life outcomes overall. But that begs the question of what makes people so. There are people in the UMC category who grew up with people who ended up in the cubicle category and vice versa – it’s a set of personal habits, views, and peer pressures that contributes to this separation. But the key fact is that it works reasonable well for the kinds of people who write magazine and newspaper articles, but much less well for the much larger group in the true middle and on down. This is the source for the disconnect.

    As for the bunk upthread about “self-actualisation” and so on – eh, no. Doubling down on selfishness will not lead to better outcomes for anyone. The only sane social order sees the sexes as complementary in biologically-based ways for purposes of establishing stable family formation and maintenance. Scuttling that in favor of some “equalist” utopia where each sex freely self-actualizes and freely self-associates on an individually-determined basis will only make the current problems worse, not better.

  77. Novaseeker says:

    Note that while these women do generally marry, I do agree with Cail that (i) the absolute quality of the men drops if their own attractiveness drops a lot and (ii) the time on the carousel drops marital satisfaction later, even if only marginally. Typically not enough for UMCs to get divorced, but it takes a hit to some degree eventually, perhaps not until the 40s in some cases.

    For a woman, the key is to maintain hotness, of course. That can be easier said than done if one is truly hitting the carousel *hard*, because that takes its toll physically. But for a woman who only moderately carousels, having, say around 10 or so partners by the time she marries at 30ish, spread out through LTRs of various durations, the physical hit is not that great. If she invests the time in the gym and in nutrition that she should to maintain her hotness, she can emerge at 30 still quite hot, and will have no issues attracting a very high quality man for marriage with her N of 10, even if she discloses it (and most don’t even discuss this as couples today, I think). A lot of it comes down to appearance with women, in terms of who they end up with, just as attractiveness in all of its various ways also determines who a man ends up with. So, yes, a hot woman at 30 is less hot, in most cases, than she was at 23 (unless she was a late bloomer), but a very pro-active woman in terms of gym and nutrition can stay quite hot at 30 and well beyond. One of the things that the sphere doesn’t like to admit – the presence of quite hot women in their 30s.

  78. deti says:

    @ Cail Corishev:

    I agree with just about everything you’ve said in this thread. I do take issue with this, though:

    “In a way, this is heartening, because it shows she does have the right instincts — she wants to be married, wants to give herself to a man sexually, and doesn’t really enjoy dating. Despite all the feminist blather for the past 50 years telling her that marriage is slavery, marriage is rape, fish not needing bicycles, she still wants it just like all her ancestresses did.”

    This is what she says. But what she does is quite different. She doesn’t want to be married – NOT YET. For her, marriage is “someday”, after she’s sampled all the cock she wants to sample or after she just cannot do it anymore for one reason or another.

    I used to think these women were really looking for love and marriage, and that they were hapless victims of alpha men taking advantage of them. They aren’t, and they’re not. These women aren’t looking for marriage at all – at least not yet. They know full well that marriage will be there for the asking when they are ready. As long as she is reasonably attractive- and plenty of them are well into their early 30s –there will be plenty of beta chumps for her to choose from who will offer her marriage on her timetable.

    So no, I don’t agree she “wants to be married” and “doesn’t enjoy dating”. She enjoys the thrill seeking, the status mongering, the “I f*cked a hotter guy than you did” competition whoring. Marriage will come later. For now, there is all manner of alpha dick to be sampled and fun to be had.

  79. livingtree2013 says:

    Thing is though, as most guys who’ve whored around in their youth know, its really hard to give that freedom up. Even if you met someone who doesn’t judge you, who wants to get married, who has faith in you, by that time will you be in a state of mind that you even CAN conduct yourself in a manner conducive to marriage (and not cheat)? Its not as easy as it sounds, but interestingly, (some) men are in fact capable of doing just that! Also interesting, so are (some) women.

  80. DeNihilist says:

    Ras, I get what you’re saying about the dishes. In most marriages it is the little things that matter. Take care of the pennies and the dollars will look after themselves.

    Guess I am just to old to consider that getting laid makes you more valuable then the guy who can still change his own oil. Zippy Catholic puts it better then I. These omegas are considered alpha by women, because so many men in this time period consider getting laid their ultimate goal. So the omegas get the respect of the true betas which then signal the ladies, that yes, actually this cad is of high calibre. If men as a group, were to stop celebrating these omegas and trying to be like them, started celebrating the guys who can change their own oil, teach a kid to throw a curve ball, you know, the things that really matter in life, then I think that women would respond.

    As is put out so much in the sphere, woman want to be led. They respond to what the men are saying. We are saying right now that getting pussy makes you a man, FULL STOP! Pathetic really.

    But it could be my age, and seeing the consequences of the life of these omegas when they finally hit the wall, having to travel to Thailand to keep feeding their need of ego gratification, living with cats, yes CATS!, being perpetually drunk. Almost all of the omegas I grew up with are alcoholics or still heavy into drugs. But all of them are bitter and lonely. This is what men want to celebrate?

  81. Desiderius says:

    The UMC will say they’re having lots of sex before marriage because they believe everyone else is and they want to keep up with the Joneses/not be mistaken for a prude (the cardinal sin), but the reality is that most aren’t having much and what they are having is bad. This reality is tremendously damaging for young men (the 80%), even UMC young men.

  82. Desiderius says:

    Novaseeker,

    Also, the UMC delaying of assortive mating throws the whole thing off on down the socioeconomic line due to hypergamy.

  83. DeNihilist says:

    Greyghost – and so men of the sphere are shooting themselves in their own foot, by celebrating these omegas. By wanting to be just like roosh or krauser.

    a Jew from 2000 years ago has advice for the beta men of today “the truth shall set you free”

    Accept that you are beta, celebrate that you can change your own oil. Shame these omegas who are trying to bang your wife, stand up for yourself, and the women will eventually follow.

  84. Lion says:

    29?!

  85. Desiderius says:

    “If men as a group, were to stop celebrating these omegas and trying to be like them, started celebrating the guys who can change their own oil, teach a kid to throw a curve ball, you know, the things that really matter in life, then I think that women would respond.”

    Those men are generally rule followers, and the rules they’ve been following have emasculated them. Women (under-40) want masculinity first. They test for it ruthlessly, and if you don’t pass it doesn’t matter what other (emasculated) men think of you.

    The choices women are making in men show what they ultimately think of those rules…

  86. Dalrock says:

    @Ras Al Ghul

    Now presuming thats equally divided among men and women (which is probably an error, men marry older) That would seem to indicate that the average age of marriage is considerably higher now, than it was in Dalrock’s early analysis based on older census data. It ain’t 27 anymore, unless everyone one of those 20% are 18 when they got married, and the remaining 80% all get married at thirty and then the average age of marriage is 27.6.

    If we assume an equal distribution (just as many get married at 18, and so on all the way up,), and we assume that the remaining all get married at 30, then the average age of marriage is 28.8. Since we know there were at least 20% of women not married by 35+ we know this number has to be higher.

    Median age of marriage is calculated by finding the median (not average) age of all marriages occurring in that year. Not everyone gets married and the men and women who are still unmarried don’t impact the calculation. Those unmarried over 35 aren’t part of the metric, so they can’t pull the median higher.

  87. boxer says:

    The UMC crowd’s marriages are largely arranged, at least in my experience. I grew up in a rather upscale subdivision and hung with the offspring of business executives and such.

    Most of their marriages are set in motion by their mothers, and the mothers of the other partner. It’s almost incestuous, from some angles, because in many cases you have three generations of families with a bunch of social ties stretching back to grandparents between them. This concentrates capital and keeps the marriages artificially stable. Nobody wants to disappoint all their relatives, etc. I think this is a large part of the (relatively) low divorce rate. It doesn’t make these marriages healthier (lots of drugs and spouse abuse in these families, in my experience). Though in some cases, these partnerships work out fairly well, these are the minority.

    There really is something to be said for people who put their hope in something greater than themselves. The people I know who are truly *happy* to be married are usually devout Christians or Muslims, or they are atheists who do a lot of charity work together, and etc. Either Cane or SSM had an article on the history of the Catholic church about forbidding the marrying of cousins, that touched on this. Anyway, I’m far enough off-topic.

  88. Desiderius says:

    “Accept that you are beta, celebrate that you can change your own oil. Shame these omegas who are trying to bang your wife, stand up for yourself, and the women will eventually follow.”

    Shame doesn’t work on the shameless. Something more forceful is in order there. But yeah, stand up for yourself is job one. And I’m no beta – when this thing was working well, the alphas were on board too.

  89. Novaseeker says:

    Des –

    The UMC will say they’re having lots of sex before marriage because they believe everyone else is and they want to keep up with the Joneses/not be mistaken for a prude (the cardinal sin), but the reality is that most aren’t having much and what they are having is bad.

    Generally, I agree, which is why I used the example of a partner count for a woman (which will on average be higher than for men in most categories outside the pareto 20) of around 10 by 30. High by Christian standards, not terribly high by 30 by secular standards (assuming sexual activity starts around 16), so not really “slutty” by secular standards, but not chaste, either. I think there are very few sluts in the UMC, but also not very many chaste ones, so I used 10 as a round number for women who have been sexually active for 12-14 years prior to marrying.

    I agree that for the men it isn’t the same deal unless they are in the 20%.

    Also, the UMC delaying of assortive mating throws the whole thing off on down the socioeconomic line due to hypergamy.

    True, it does, but it works for *them*, and that’s why they don’t see it as an issue. This is generally a fairly solipsistic social class – male and female alike – and one which sees the problems of the other social classes as a failure of the latter to be more like the UMC. Personal failure. The idea that the behavior of the UMC could have a negative impact down the ladder is … sacrilege to a mindset of meritocracy, which is generally the UMC mindset.

  90. deti says:

    DeNihilist:

    First, since when has anyone ever seen a woman give any credence to anything a low value beta says or does?

    Second, essentially what you’re advocating is shaming men who sleep with lots of women. Not going to work. Not now, not ever. Do a little homework. Read this:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

    and then get back to us.

  91. jf12 says:

    @livingtree2013 “as most guys who’ve whored around in their youth know” apex fallacy. I feel it’s my duty to inform you. “So far, John hasn’t received any Down pairings.”

  92. Novaseeker says:

    Boxer –

    That’s true for an even higher segment, but I’m not talking that high. The people I’m talking about don’t have arranged marriages, for the most part, but marry assortatively and self-selected, but around 30. Think people who grew up comfortable but probably not wealthy, but who went to good colleges and live in places like Manhattan, LA, DC in their 20s and end up marrying someone they meet there in the same general group of highly-educated strivers who are economically UMC *now*, even if they didn’t grow up as such.

    I do agree that not all of these marriages are “happy”. My point isn’t to laud the behaviors of the UMC class, but to point out why we see the people in that class writing the way they do about these things. It isn’t just ideology, it’s also based on their own experiences.

  93. jf12 says:

    @deti re: Denihil, thanks for saying it.

  94. Bob Wallace says:

    “An alpha to fuck with and have good genes, and a beta to marry and have a family with.”

    I have found people who make such comments never know anything about genetics.

    Every slut I’ve known has not gotten married or if they have they’ve gotten divorced. Cats, hostility to men, psychiatric medication, blaming all their problems on men. That’s what I’ve seen.

    I’ve known way too many people who memorize the worst concepts of the Manosphere and think they’re the Truth.

  95. Dalrock writes, “Median age of marriage is calculated by finding the median (not average) age of all marriages occurring in that year. Not everyone gets married and the men and women who are still unmarried don’t impact the calculation. Those unmarried over 35 aren’t part of the metric, so they can’t pull the median higher.”

    Imagine if Jesus would have known how to calculate the median age of marriage, and focused on that, instead of simply fulfilling the Law of Moses, “Thous shalt not commit adultery.”

    I’m still amazed at how many here teach that Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses, and then wonder why women are slutting it up, as they expertly calculate the median age of marriage.

    lzozozozozoloz

  96. Desiderius says:

    “True, it does, but it works for *them*, and that’s why they don’t see it as an issue. This is generally a fairly solipsistic social class – male and female alike – and one which sees the problems of the other social classes as a failure of the latter to be more like the UMC. Personal failure. The idea that the behavior of the UMC could have a negative impact down the ladder is … sacrilege to a mindset of meritocracy, which is generally the UMC mindset.”

    And we get to the root of the matter. This phenomenon is not unique to the SMP/MMP. They’d rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. Forsaking God, they’ve made themselves God and are busy trying to create the lower classes in their own image. Failing that, at least they’ve kneecapped any potential competition…

  97. Desiderius says:

    “I do agree that not all of these marriages are “happy”. My point isn’t to laud the behaviors of the UMC class, but to point out why we see the people in that class writing the way they do about these things. It isn’t just ideology, it’s also based on their own experiences.”

    I’m in that class – reports of experiences dne experiences. And there is a major difference between those who got on the gravy train before the crash and those who graduated (and graduated, and graduated…) after. A lot more nepotism, blatantly unjust affirmative action – and a lot less meritocracy – experienced by that latter group.

  98. jf12 says:

    @Desiderius, what about slumming? Not just white boys going to clubz in da hood to score some beatz and some rockz, but UMC girls looking to get all sweaty of an evening.

  99. Lion says:

    If this is where we’re heading as a society, then what’s the next step? Where will we be in 20 years? It seems to me that legalized prostitution would be pushed for and associated with equal rights and feminism. I guess I’ll just sit back and enjoy the ride(s).

  100. earl says:

    For those that say she will find a husband and get married.

    Keep in mind the type of guy that marries that type of woman. They have the same value as miss slut.

  101. Just Saying says:

    “Her current tally of men she’s slept with is 29″

    If she is admitting to 29, you can safely triple it to get a more realistic number since women tend not to count “that time when pushed against the wall, and I never saw his face”, or “that time in the elevator”, or “that time I was too drunk to remember much of anything”. Actually, she may be over 100 – since women never like to admit that number… Like it makes a difference…

    Of course, women like her are my targets of choice – young and always willing to “strike a blow against the patriarchy” one BJ and bang at a time.

    Ah, these Feminist warriors that are willing to go “toe to toe” with the one-eyed spitting serpent of the patriarchy on his terms… Ready to slake his thirst in every way she can, with every orifice she has available. Gotta love these sweet little sluts…. And as long as you use them for what they are good for – you’ll come out ahead in so many ways. It’s only the idiots that marry these sluts that need to have their heads examined. Don’t get me wrong – I use “Slut” as the term Feminists want it to be used – as a term of endearment for this mighty Female warrior that is always willing to do battle with the “one-eyed spitting serpent of the patriarchy”, anywhere, anytime – at almost any age….Gotta thank the Feminists… I certainly couldn’t have done it without all of their hard work on my behalf to brainwash these young girls.

  102. livingtree2013 says:

    jf12, I have no idea what your sentence means.

    DeNihilist- I think I’m developing a bit of a crush on you :)

  103. jf12 says:

    @Lion, as we all predicted fifty years ago, after abortion it was gay marriage, then it will be polygamy, then anything and everything will be socially acceptable, from hebephilia through bestiality.

  104. Spacetraveller says:

    Congratulations to Andrew Richards on his upcoming nuptials. Have a wonderful marriage, filled with God’s love and joy. I think I understand what you mean by your and your fiancée’s utter commitment to each other. August will forever be our favourite month, I think!
    I absolutely adored reading your comments. Made me think (um, not obsessively, but in a good way :-)).

    Bob Wallace,
    I think you have a valid point regarding the complications of sluthood…I agree with you that it is never a winning move, even if it SEEMS like it is. She may have got the ‘alpha genes’ and the ‘beta finances’, (whether that ‘beta’ is the government or a man), but the point is, she is never going to be content with that, so where is the gain? It is a losing strategy ultimately, but the problem is, it is not apparent it is a losing strategy until it has been done. It is a joyless existence, and should be avoided at all cost.

  105. Elspeth says:

    Keep in mind the type of guy that marries that type of woman. They have the same value as miss slut.

    A lot of men and women have no idea what kind of person they are marrying because they don’t bother to ask, and don’t do the required leg work to find out. The only people more committed to the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy than the military and the black church are people in love.

  106. jf12 says:

    @livingtree, most guys still can’t get laid. At all.

    http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#frequency

    So “most guys who’ve whored around in their youth” limits your viewpoint to only those men who CAN have a large number of women. The percentage of such men is exceptionally small, justifying the term apex fallacy.

    “John”‘s inability to get laid was discussed in the Rolling Stone article which is the reason for Dalrock to make this post.

  107. Novaseeker says:

    what about slumming? Not just white boys going to clubz in da hood to score some beatz and some rockz, but UMC girls looking to get all sweaty of an evening.

    That factors into my “10 by 30” example. It’s easy to get there.

    Let’s say she loses her virginity at 17 to another HS boy. That’s 1. If she has another HS boyfriend, that’s 2, so let’s call it 1 (2) by the time she enters college.

    In college there is the college party “mistake” – either a frat party when she’s a freshman, or another college party experience where she is drinking, and she ends up having sex with some guy who doesn’t become a BF. That’s 2 (3). Then let’s say 2 college BFs, so the number by college graduation is 4 (5).

    After college, she has from 23 to, say, 28 (when she gets more motivated to select different guys and more obviously interested in marriage). In that time, she has three BFs, one fling between, and another drunken mistake, this time at a birthday party for one of her friends, or a girls night out with the girls from the office – she regrets it, and doesn’t repeat it, but it happens. So by the time she is 28, the partner count is 9 (10).

    And none of that is “slutty” behavior by secular standards. It’s pretty normal behavior. A couple of mistakes she regrets, in both cases involving alcohol. She doesn’t get into that lifestyle, and otherwise just as boyfriends from time to time, and one fling, perhaps on vacation one year. This isn’t abnormal behavior. Of course, it’s a very far cry from the 29 of the OP (and that at a much younger age!), which is in the “slutty” category by any standards, including secular standards. But the 10 by 30 isn’t, and these girls are not considered sluts, and can end up marrying just fine. Standards have moved.

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Keep in mind the type of guy that marries that type of woman. They have the same value as miss slut.

    Maybe. But beer goggles, wife goggles, etc. can be powerful. Or maybe she lies about her N and he assumes she had “a few boyfriends”, and if he is a typical Beta man he takes that at face value. Later on, when the Damoclean sword is over his head, he finds out some of the truth. Then perhaps he finds the androsphere…hopefully before she discovers she’s not haaaapy.

    The more men learn the truth about women, the fewer sluts will marry. That’s one way this ends. Another way it ends is if STD’s really do become immune to antibiotics, and the price for carousel riding goes way, way up. Even then it likely will take a decade of ugly incurable illness in a cohort of women and men before slutty behavior really becomes a liability in the social sense.

  109. one of the most hilarious things is that
    the churchians teach
    that jesus came to abolish the law of moses
    they teach men
    that thye must kneel before and serve butt and gina tinzgzzlzlozoz
    instead of jesus and moes
    and then they
    are
    shocked
    SHOCKED!
    that women are slutting it up like eve in the garden
    sucking on da lostsas cockas seperent ballllzozlzoz

    and they never call men to adventure
    to exalt the great books and classics
    to reclaim their courts,
    univerigtsies collegesz univerietseies
    to reclaim their homes
    like odysseus in the odyssey
    but instead they h8
    h8 odyssues
    and teahc that jesus came to abolish the law of moses
    so that they
    can remain free
    to buttehxt
    and for tehir taksz of decosntruction marxist frnkfartian desturctionz
    dey are reewardedz
    with instalanchesz
    lzozozozoz

  110. DeNihilist says:

    Deti, let’s quit pushing the feminist line then. The sphere says that a major reason for low value betas is from feminist indoctrination. So let’s get in there and start doing the opposite. Let’s tell the LVB that he does have value, as he can change his own oil. Let’s get the main male class of society to wake up and start taking pride in themselves again, let’s clue them into the dirty little secret, that getting poosy is just a small part of being a man. Let’s tell them that they are worthy of their share of the pie, not through using techniques that are foreign to them, but through approval of what they can do better then others.

    But mostly, let’s stop celebrating omegas and making them the standard by which these young men have to measure themselves.

    And actually Deti, I think shaming of immoral men is a waste of time. As I said on Rollo’s last post, it would be good if we could go back to the rules of 150 years ago and have the right to shoot any omega who came sniffing around our wives. The celebration of their lifestyle would disappear in about 10 seconds.

  111. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    A lot of men and women have no idea what kind of person they are marrying because they don’t bother to ask, and don’t do the required leg work to find out.

    True, and what’s more some don’t want to be told. I’ve seen this movie and it is not a good one, but when a beta man who has little experience with women meets Miss Cute Party and she wants off of the carousel, nobody can tell him the truth. He won’t hear it. He doesn’t want to hear it.

    When a man covers his eyes up to what’s in front of him, he just ain’t gonna see what’s there.

  112. This is what she says. But what she does is quite different. She doesn’t want to be married – NOT YET. For her, marriage is “someday”, after she’s sampled all the cock she wants to sample or after she just cannot do it anymore for one reason or another. — deti

    Right, that’s what she’s doing, and by all appearances she’s doing what she wants. I’m trying to tease out how much of that is herd behavior and how much is really her. I think a nubile woman’s nature is to find an attractive man and give herself to him, and that’s about as far as her instincts go. How and when she does it is highly determined by the herd (society). If the herd says you have to be married to do that, she pursues marriage right out of the gate, as her great-grandmothers probably did. If the herd says it’s best to do that with a series of “maybe he’ll be the one but probably not” boyfriends, then she’ll do that.

    The thing is, it’s just just that the herd has stopped encouraging girls to marry; it’s actually started encouraging them to avoid marriage and slut around. It’s not just okay to go through a series of boyfriends; that’s the empowering and effective way to do it. And where it used to be okay to have a few, now they’re being told it’s okay to have 30. So they’re not just following their base instincts, but being urged to follow them in the worst possible way.

  113. Andrew Richards says:

    @Des “Form follows function. Healthy children are the ultimate purpose of the whole endeavor.”

    So that justifies condoning male disposability does it? After all that’s exactly what your response amounts to here – a justification of male disposability within the marriage. The fact is that regardless of whether children are involved in a marriage or not, that men in marriages deserve to be viewed as human beings rather than walking ATMs, human shields and sperm donors. Heck even when children come on the scene that still applies.

  114. Anonymous Reader says:

    DeNihilist
    As I said on Rollo’s last post, it would be good if we could go back to the rules of 150 years ago and have the right to shoot any omega who came sniffing around our wives

    Oh, yeah, great idea. What could possibly go wrong with that?

  115. deti says:

    @ earl:

    “For those that say she will find a husband and get married.
    “Keep in mind the type of guy that marries that type of woman. They have the same value as miss slut.”

    True. For him, marriage means easy sex; sex he won’t have to build the Great Pyramids for, sex he won’t have to work so damn hard for (if he only knew).

    For her, marriage means she has earned the marriage merit badge, and she gets to check off the “find husband” and “get married” boxes off her life “to do” list. She then moves on to the next task/achievement du jour.

  116. Elspeth says:

    You all should be aware that our girls acquainted with a disproportionally high number of married women aged 20-24. One of my daughter’s high school friends is planning a wedding for next summer. She just turned 20.

    All of these girls are Christian (except for 1) and none of them are UMC, although they are either recently graduated from college or will be by next summer.

    The notion that there are no Christian *good girls* is not exactly true. I keep wondering if we are just a part of an unusual social circle.

  117. That was a mish-mash; let me try it this way: I don’t think a 20-year-old girl today has any more of a burning desire for marriage specifically than a 20-year-old girl a couple centuries ago. I think they both had the same desires: safety, a man to hold her, sex, babies, etc. But the girl of the past was taught from a young age that there was only one acceptable way to get those things. Today’s girl is told that she can have those things in a different way, without sacrificing the freedom to pursue other nice things (travel, partying, education, career, money). I think both girls pursued their innate desires within the framework society set for them, and today’s girl would accept yesterday’s framework if it were still in place.

  118. jf12,

    @livingtree, most guys still can’t get laid. At all.

    I think what we find with the hook-up culture is that most women (those who are not sinfully ugly) can get laid. The majority of men, don’t. Instead what we have is more of a harem mentality (the true alphas have several different f-ck buddy girls they keep around, each of them in “luuuvvv” with him and as a result willing to put up with only seeing him once in a while and only for sex, but not aware of one another.) Since there is less and less dating (to almost non-existance) there is no financial dis-incentive on the part of the true 1% alpha to have as many different vaginas to have his penis enter. A true harem for only im (with no cost to him.) Those women in the harem think they have it all as they are 5s, 6s, or 7s and they are hopping up and down on the cock of a 10.

    The poor guys who can’t get laid, they turn to free porn. It always available and the cost is right. What else do they have for sexual gratification?

  119. deti says:

    “But mostly, let’s stop celebrating omegas and making them the standard by which these young men have to measure themselves.”

    Denihilist, where you and Zippy miss the boat is that the ordinary guys, the betas, are not the ones who celebrate “omegas” (who are the guys cleaning up with all the women). The reason those men are “celebrated” is because of WOMEN, not men. . What you call “omegas” get “celebrated” because of WOMEN, not men. No one listens to or values the opinions of betas. Not alphas; and certainly not women.

  120. deti says:

    “The notion that there are no Christian *good girls* is not exactly true. I keep wondering if we are just a part of an unusual social circle.”

    There are a few “Christian good girls”. There just aren’t very many, at all. And you are a part of an unusual social circle if you are acquainted with a large number of women who are ages 20-24 and married.

  121. deti says:

    Denihilist:

    Those “omegas” you talk about are getting all the “celebration” they can handle or could ever want.

    From WOMEN. Not from men. Not from betas. Not from ordinary guys.

  122. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, in my church circle (Pentecostal, about 50% white nonLatino, about 50% Latino, about 10% black), some of the girls tend to follow the youthful marriage trajectory you describe. We have a nominal retention rate of 50%, basically meaning that about half of children raised Pentecostal never claim to be anything else later. But only half of those remain practicing, e.g. in attendance and standards, after high school.

  123. Desiderius says:

    “@Desiderius, what about slumming? Not just white boys going to clubz in da hood to score some beatz and some rockz, but UMC girls looking to get all sweaty of an evening.”

    The dreary reality is she’s more likely to be slumming with some emasculated herb who’s giving her the constant validation her doting father and you-go-grrl teachers and pastors have been feeding her since birth. That’s the script for “good” (i.e. rule-following) girls – must always have boyfriend, at an age where her grandmothers would have been courting* and gaining the experience necessary to find a good candidate for a strong marriage. When she meets one of those, in her insecurity, she blurts out “I have a boyfriend” to show what a good girl she is, and he moves on. She ends up in a loveless marriage or single and mid-30s wondering where all the good men are. It’s not just carousel riders in that fix.

    The whole sex-pos/Miley Cyrus thing Katrina is embracing is a rebellion against the bullshit Churchian serial monogamy script, not traditional values. They are unaware of that option.

    * – for them, it was no exclusivity without a ring, and no sex without exclusivity. Churchian good girls have kept the latter, but lost the former. Big loss. The ring represented trading the peak of her SMV for the peak of his, and let them proceed to do what is natural – enjoy them both together.

  124. The notion that there are no Christian *good girls* is not exactly true. I keep wondering if we are just a part of an unusual social circle.

    You are. The exception that proves the rule. Such an exception that, as you’ve talked about, these girls have a hard time even getting good men to realize that they’re interested in marriage, since such men are so used to being shot down by Christian girls who don’t want to be tied down before 30. Marriage-minded girls under 25 are so rare that we’re not sure what they look like or how to act around them.

  125. Desiderius says:

    “So that justifies condoning male disposability does it?”

    It’s the reality, whatever I condone. Female too. Dust to dust.

  126. Desiderius says:

    Cail,

    “Marriage-minded girls under 25 are so rare that we’re not sure what they look like or how to act around them.”

    The subject of this thread couldn’t be more marriage minded. What is missing is a viable path. They ain’t going back to the Churchian script, nor should they.

  127. “That someone who never had a relationship know how to act in one”

    That is such a great point. She should be encouraged to practice the relationship she claims to want, rather than practicing for the opposite. And if she happened to get it right the first time, great! The process ends and she enjoys marriage.

    But feminists want to destroy the traditional family structure, so that won’t do.

  128. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    The notion that there are no Christian *good girls* is not exactly true. I keep wondering if we are just a part of an unusual social circle.

    Your subculture of a subculture is counter-cultural now. I’m not joking or engaging in sarcasm. A few months back I was on a campus and happened to wind up chatting with a pastor who was full-time “campus minister”. In the course of the conversation I jokingly remarked, “So, you’re the counter-cultural leader then?” and he agreed, in all seriousness, that was the case. He wasn’t joking, and he regarded part of his mission to subvert the dominant campus culture (insert Petri – dish joke here).

    To live as most people did 50 years ago in the US is in direct opposition to the culture as displayed on TV screens, in magazines at the supermarket checkout, on movie screens, and in a whole lotta churches. It is in fact counter-cultural.

  129. Lumpy says:

    To anyone who doubts the ability of sluts to cash out, check out Return of Kings latest article on the porn star Aurora Snow. She decided to get married and have a kid at 28.

    http://www.returnofkings.com/32559/mothers-have-become-the-main-source-of-harm-to-children

    How Aurora describes her husband:

    My priorities shifted. I was no longer the girl willing to do anything, instead I became a woman with a goal. I wanted a family, but first I had to find someone to create that family with. Not an easy task either. A dear friend of mine introduced me to a nice Midwestern farm boy who also happened to be in the entertainment field, creating TV shows. He was warm, charming, and very family-oriented.

    The article’s analysis:

    Here is a porn star who freely admits she did everything and anything for money; being gang banged by every ethnic on the planet besides pygmy, receiving hard anal, having two penises in the vagina at the same time, literally guzzling semen… if you had the cash, Aurora would shamelessly do it. And what’s her punishment for a life of selfish whoredom? She gets to settle with a genuinely nice man, one who’s completely okay with the fact that his wife has had sex with at least 500 different men (though I would not rule out a number closer to four digits), and pops out a son.

  130. Elspeth says:

    Couple of things Deti.

    First is that our girls associate with a wide group of kids. Across the racial and soci0-economic spectrum. And all the girls who are marrying except one is Latina. The one marrying next summer is marrying a really nice Christian guy (I’ve met him) a little older than her but who as a younger man had an OOW kid. I told her from the start not to write him off, and she didn’t. I think he’ll do right by her.

    All of the white girls that have passed through here? None of them would even consider marrying before finishing graduate school, not even the Christian ones.

  131. Andrew Richards says:

    ““So that justifies condoning male disposability does it?”

    It’s the reality, whatever I condone. Female too. Dust to dust.”

    No what it is is pro-hypergamous, hypocrisy. On one hand you claim to despise the outcome of this sort of situation then on the other hand you go on record as condoning and supporting the very attitudes towards male disposability which fuel that very behaviour – where men are nothing more that sexually objecitifed tools of disposability who only have value in terms of how others might use and discard them. Dig deep enough into any feminist agenda and injustice and you’ll that very kind of “useful idiot”, beta male thinking at its core- enabling, shielding, trivialising and excusing it.

    Ultimately all you’ve done here is proven that your entire position on this issue is one giant, feminist enabling double standard. If you cannot recognise that, then I suggest you stop confusing the blue pill with the red pill.

  132. DeNihilist says:

    Deti, you and I will never see this issue in the same way. Your experiences are so different form mine, that I sometimes think we speak different languages!

    Suffice to say, the Indian Guru I mentioned up thread, I was involved in that. Trust me when I say this, banging lots of women does not make you an alpha!

  133. Lumpy,

    To anyone who doubts the ability of sluts to cash out, check out Return of Kings latest article on the porn star Aurora Snow. She decided to get married and have a kid at 28.

    That’s right. A former porn star might have a variety of things going for her that most ordinary women dont…

    #1) I have never seen Aurora Snow, but (assuming she is disease free) she is probably very physically attractive and is willing to work out to stay that way
    #2) From all the porn movies she’s done, she probably has money and assets brought into the marriage
    #3) She is going to be good in bed

    So the average midwestern farm boy (Christian or not) who didn’t value virginity/purity… she has far more to offer than the average woman

    Basically Lumpy it boils down to this: if as a man what you value in a wife prior to marriage is purity/virginity (you only want to marry what no man has ever had), then a porn star is ruined. If that doesn’t matter, then her career is not a negative. Increasingly, that doesn’t matter.

  134. DeNihilist says:

    LT2013 – “Thing is though, as most guys who’ve whored around in their youth know, its really hard to give that freedom up. Even if you met someone who doesn’t judge you, who wants to get married, who has faith in you, by that time will you be in a state of mind that you even CAN conduct yourself in a manner conducive to marriage (and not cheat)? Its not as easy as it sounds, but interestingly, (some) men are in fact capable of doing just that! Also interesting, so are (some) women.”

    Tree, when the wind blows from the west, the tree bends to the east. When it blows from the east, it bends to the west. Life is made up of contradictions.

  135. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    All of the white girls that have passed through here? None of them would even consider marrying before finishing graduate school, not even the Christian ones.

    Dalrock labeled this as the “feminist merit badge” track a couple of years ago. As both Cail Corishev and Novaseeker have observed, it is the standard life path for UMC women. It is the societal norm. It’s socially approved. It also just happens to make carousel-riding very likely.

    It “works” (for some definition of “works”) only if the woman has sufficient future-time orientation to keep her N to low double digits and completes a real-deal degree that will enable her to be her own beta. Given the underemployment rate for college grads (something like 50% are unemployed or working at a non-college degree job like barista 2 years after graduation) and the typical debt load ($25,000 or more is now average), the feminist merit badge approach is not working as it did 15 – 20 – 30 years ago*. So at some point it will break.

    * There are women who still counsel 20-somethings to do this. It’s worth noting that the women urging the feminist merit badge all got their degrees, and their husbands, in the 1980’s or 90’s at the latest. Their experience is out of date.

  136. Desiderius says:

    “Ultimately all you’ve done here is proven that your entire position on this issue is one giant, feminist enabling double standard. If you cannot recognise that, then I suggest you stop confusing the blue pill with the red pill.”

    Heh. Nice hammer you’ve got there. Sry, not a nail.

    The foundations funding all this bullshit are families – Ford, Rockefeller, Annenburg, et al. They’re doing it for their own children, at the expense of yours and mine. If you’re too solipsistic to see beyond your own generation, then I’m afraid you’re the one with feminist tendencies, not I.

  137. DeNihilist says:

    Deti – ” Not from men. Not from betas. Not from ordinary guys.”

    Questions, then why do you promote the teachings of these omegas as a way for the betas to better themselves? If your promotion of their ways is not an implicit respect for their lifestyle, what is it then?

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    DeNihilst
    Suffice to say, the Indian Guru I mentioned up thread, I was involved in that. Trust me when I say this, banging lots of women does not make you an alpha!

    Alpha is situational. For that situation, he was the alpha. For Athol Kay’s situation, he’s the alpha. A man does not have to be some kind of emperor to be “the alpha” in his own house.

  139. Desiderius says:

    “To anyone who doubts the ability of sluts to cash out”

    Women (under-40) are attracted first and foremost to masculinity. If “good” (i.e. rule-following) men are emasculated, they take the bad boys.

    Likewise, men require femininity. If the good girls aren’t feminine*, they’ll take the bad.

    Time to reconsider the rules.

    * – neither the professional, career-first go-getter or the slumming with the pedestalizing herb serial monogamist is likely to have much experience with or taste for submission in any form

  140. DeNihilist says:

    AR – nice to see that you can grok this. Yes real alpha is situational and attitudinal.

  141. Andrew Richards says:

    “Heh. Nice hammer you’ve got there. Sry, not a nail.

    The foundations funding all this bullshit are families – Ford, Rockefeller, Annenburg, et al. They’re doing it for their own children, at the expense of yours and mine. If you’re too solipsistic to see beyond your own generation, then I’m afraid you’re the one with feminist tendencies, not I.”

    Your entire position is pure hypocrisy and by the way, nice shovel you’re using to dig yourself a giant hole there. All you are doing here is continuing to paint your entire stance as hypocritical. Yes you can take the “follow the money” approach her, but when you do so to justify the very male disposability which for at least the past couple of hundred years (Caroline Chisolm’s notion of “God’s police” is classic evidence of this), has been used to reduce men as nothing more that cogs in a wheel- cannon and manual labour fodder at a macroscopic level and a disposable tool of utility at a microscopic level, then far from being against the system; you are the system – no matter what little white lies you might softly whisper to yourself to delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

    You accuse me of solopsism – what irony coming from someone who cannot see past their own social conditioning and whose entire understanding of gender issues is the very sort of thinking which feminism owes it’s current existence and success to.

  142. The subject of this thread couldn’t be more marriage minded. — Desiderius

    I think it would be more accurate to say they are relationship-minded. They want the things from a man that traditionally were only available within marriage — sex, safety, status, etc. — and there’s still enough of a residual culture of marriage for them to recognize that marriage is probably part of that equation. But beyond that they’re pretty willing to go with the flow as far as how to get those things.

    I think the differences in class that Novaseeker talks about back that up, as well as the difference in eras. The current UMC script is to (discreetly) have about 10 sexual relationships through your 20s, from “mistakes” to long-term relationships, then marry at about 30, and generally stick it out because the loss of status and wealth from divorce in the UMC is still significant. So that’s what UMC girls do. The lower-class script allows for serial marriage and divorce mixed with shack-up relationships, so that’s what LC girls do. I don’t see much evidence that girls want marriage (though they do want weddings), if they’re told they can (or even should) get the benefits of marriage without taking the vows.

  143. Desiderius says:

    Andrew,

    Sadly, we’ll need to part ways so you can chase whatever phantoms are haunting you in peace. I wish you well.

    We’re all disposable, until He comes again.

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth

    All of the white girls that have passed through here? None of them would even consider marrying before finishing graduate school, not even the Christian ones.

    Bonus round – I just recalled something the campus pastor said: one or more of the women who were in his campus group had transferred to the state uni in question from a Christian uni, at least in part because the women outnumbered the men by 2:1 at the church school. Even factoring in exaggeration by one or more college women, that suggests the MRS degree track ain’t what it was 15 or more years back.

    So the feminist merit badge:

    A. Comes with no guarantee of a real job after college
    B. Comes with enough debt to buy a midrange new car or a good house down payment
    C. May not come with any husband associated. Instead women get a hunting license after graduation…which may mutate into a fistful of carousel ride tickets.

    Whatta deal, eh?

  145. Novaseeker says:

    Re: Marrying ex porn “stars”.

    Not common. Yes, some guys will go there (this guy is in the entertainment industry already, so not exactly mainstream in any way despite the effort to “mainstream him up” by emphasizing his background, rather than his current situation in the very un-mainstream entertainment industry). But not most, knowingly – at least not most guys who have any kind of option.

    A former porn girl can get married because she is hot. But most won’t marry as “well” as Aurora Snow apparently did. Guys will give you 10. They will give more than that if the woman is hot, without question (in society at large, hot trumps everything for both sexes). But 500+? Not many with options will go there for *marriage*.

  146. Andrew,

    Your entire position is pure hypocrisy and by the way, nice shovel you’re using to dig yourself a giant hole there. All you are doing here is continuing to paint your entire stance as hypocritical.

    Des already thinks he knows everything. So even if you show him how wrong he is (and in the case of him defining the roots of feminism, he is most certainly wrong), it will do no good. He will not argue with you. He’ll just shun you. That is pretty much all he can do because some of his positions (not all, but some) are completely indefensible from a logic standpoint and he knows it.

  147. Andrew Richards says:

    Desiderius, there are no phantoms here- merely a zeta (myself) calling a beta (you) out on their hypocritical stance of on one hand abhorring the end results of beta facilitation of female infantalisation, such as what this article is an example of, and on the other hand defending the very model of masculinity which breeds blind facilitation of female infantalisation.

    Remember I never said that the needs of childrn weren’t important- merely took issue with the notion that those needs should justify completely dehumanising a man in a marriage and reducing him to a disposable object of utility. You were the one who argued in response in favour of male disposability- to the point where you engaged in the blanket shaming tactic which effectively argued that anyone who took issue with that stance must condone neglect-based child abuse.

    But then as your entire stance here demonstrates that you clearly are a beta male, your position is utterly predictable. After all feminism owes much of its initial success to beta males unquestioningly giving their wives and girlfrinds what they wanted.

  148. Desiderius says:

    “I think it would be more accurate to say they are relationship-minded.”

    Well, that’s the Churchian script, including the post-Christian Progressives who may as well be a church of their own and who the Churchians are always trying to desperately keep up with. “Conservatives” tend toward more-or-less sexless monogamy as (poor, in reality) preparation for marriage, Progs toward seeing marriage itself as just another relationship and/or lesbian relationships (also famously sexless).

    As Anonynous Reader notes, however, that script is increasingly out-of-date. Katrina seems to be pretty clear that she’s emphatically not seeking just a relationship. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the distaste young women (and men!) are expressing for “relationships” and “dating” is about getting rid of the Churchian script and not some epic collapse of civilization.

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bob Wallace
    Every slut I’ve known has not gotten married or if they have they’ve gotten divorced.

    Maybe you should get to know a higher class of sluts, then. I know of one who partied hard, then married a beta and had a child with him, then divorced him and remarried a higher status man. She’s still married to him – so likely she learned something in the process. The irony here is that she went a “Beta Fux, Greater Beta Bux” route in my opinion based on my knowledge of her ex husband. She basically got a mid-range lottery winning. Other sluts did not, as you note.

    It doesn’t have to be cats, by the way. Some aging sluts keep pet bottles around. It’s not a good look.

  150. Desiderius says:

    Ah, I’ve drawn the fire of IBB – I must be doing something right!

  151. Andrew Richards says:

    @innocentbystanderboston Indeed, I wonder how long it will take him before he realises he’s used the very “think of the children”, pro-male-disposability based argument, which lies at the heart of the institutionalised sexism of the family court system and which drives it.

  152. livingtree2013 says:

    @jf12 great link, and thank you for the explanation, I’m going to have to delve into that report a little more! It doesn’t refute my point though.

    Looking at the disparities in the chart, I can’t help wonder if there isn’t something in the minds of men that makes them believe that they don’t get laid as much as they actually do. I have more than a few guy friends who complain routinely about not being able to meet women, yet every time I see them they’re with a new girl. I’ve heard this in divorce situations too, the man thinks that he’s not getting any sex from his partner, when in reality he gets it considerably more than most single guys do, just “not enough”.

    I just did a bit of math on the numbers in this data set, I divided the two charts into two categories, the first included “not in past year” and “a few times per year” (which I suspect you’d consider indicative of an inability to get laid), and the second was “a few times per month to weekly” and better. The results fluctuated by age range, but men and women are almost always getting laid pretty consistently within about 5% of each other, EXCEPT 1) in the “single” groups between 30 and 59 – men get laid A LOT MORE than women in that category – and 2) in the “married” category, in which men consistently have more sex than women.

    This chart actually proves that the traditional manospherian claim that most guys can’t get laid and that 20% of guys are sleeping with 80% of the women, is patently false. Even in my simplified two-category analysis, men not getting laid “enough” only ever gets even close to 80% in single men after 50 and married men after 70. In fact, the only data sets that indicate where “most” guys in the group aren’t getting laid at all is the 18-24 single group, the 50-70+ single group, and the over 70 married group. I get it, you probably figure if you’re single at any age, you should be able to get laid more than once every leap year.

    I’m not saying that means anything important, just that I find it interesting that in men’s cases it is chalked up to an “inability” to get laid, which I gather is predicated on the belief that all men are trying to get laid all the time, and therefore SHOULD be getting laid all the time, so the fact that it isn’t at least “a few times monthly” all across the board for all men indicates an “inability” or failure on their part when in reality you’re most of you are doing fairly well, mostly. Especially the married guys!

    I think at the core of this, if you asked men what their ideal sexual frequency would be, it would be like 200% higher than if you asked women the same question.

    Anyway, I hate to tell you this, but single guys in almost every age group are likely single for a reason: Just like in your great-great-grandparents generation, you actually have to bring something to the table besides the ability to fuck. Sex is not an entitlement just because you have a penis. DeNihilist has it right – if men started prioritizing their inner life more, instead of focusing all their energy on getting laid (or why they’re not), they’d probably have the pick of the litter. Same goes for women, really. I can’t deny that.

  153. Somethings you do right Des. You’ll note, I have not yet shunned you. :)

    Andrew,

    I wonder how long it will take him before he realises he’s used the very “think of the children”, pro-male-disposability based argument, which lies at the heart of the institutionalised sexism of the family court system and which drives it.

    He will not realize that.

  154. Andrew Richards says:

    @Desiderius “Ah, I’ve drawn the fire of IBB – I must be doing something right!”

    Only if you consider being a good little beta male and engaging in pro feminist arguments “a good thing”. After all, considering the line of argument you’ve used and it’s real world ideological conclusions- you have effectively gone on record as defending the institutionalised sexism of the family court system.

  155. Katrina seems to be pretty clear that she’s emphatically not seeking just a relationship. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the distaste young women (and men!) are expressing for “relationships” and “dating” is about getting rid of the Churchian script and not some epic collapse of civilization.

    Could be, and that would be good news. I remain skeptical for now, though I do think when these things change, they can change very quickly from one generation to the next.

    I agree with you that their main problem is they’re not being giving a pro-marriage script to follow (and handed an anti-marriage one instead) so they don’t know how to get there even if they recognize it’s what they want. If they’d been taught as long as they can remember that the only way to get the things they want from a man is to marry him, that they’ll have the best men to choose from when they’re young and pretty, and that getting those things outside marriage would mean being outcast from polite society, we’d have lots of 18-year-old girls pursuing marriage with gusto again.

  156. livingtree2013 says:

    Cail, I agree with you on that last point, there’s not so much of a pro-marriage “script” being passed on to women, and particularly feminist women (though you’ll never catch me disparaging feminism in general, just their mistakes) like there is among men. I’m not sure why that is, nor am I sure that I think thats a bad thing for us as a society. Unraveling the tradition comes first, before we can fix what isn’t working in it. After that, to be marriage-worthy (or LTR-worthy), what’s needed is the inner life focus, the ethics and personal development that isn’t really paid attention to and hasn’t been for the past several decades.

  157. deti says:

    @ Denihilist:

    “then why do you promote the teachings of these omegas as a way for the betas to better themselves? If your promotion of their ways is not an implicit respect for their lifestyle, what is it then?”

    At the risk of getting drawn into a pointless debate about “good” Game and “bad” Game, it’s essentially this:

    It is not “promoting the teachings” of PUAs (which you’re calling “omegas”) for the purpose of getting laid. It is the understanding of male and female nature which PUAs have collated and codified which has proven to be useful in generating and sustaining intergender relationships. Whether we like this or not, it isn’t just sluts and immoral women who respond to masculinity. All women like confident and dominant men. Like it or not, all women like to have sex with attractive, fit, confident, dominant, masculine men. All women of every moral suasion, from porn stars to Amish women, are attracted to masculinity. And whether we want to admit this or not, almost no one is teaching any men about masculinity anymore. According to some, if you don’t have a daddy who’s teaching you masculinity, well, you’re just SOL.

    And that will be the end of my response. This is provided by way of explanation and not an attempt to persuade. You and I obviously aren’t going to change each other’s minds on the matter, so further discussion on it is frankly pointless. I won’t get dragged into yet another obtuse debate about how men need to “just get it” and “Just figure it out for themselves”.

  158. Cicero says:

    @ Andrew Richards
    “The fact is that what’s driving this is the feminist notion of “men can sleep around with whoever they want, whenever they want and they’re celebrated; women do it and they’re called sluts. why can’t women be held to the same standard as men?”.”

    Well the feminist notion is contradicting itself when they equate this type of behaviour with that of being a standard for men that they should also be measure against. Because this mindset that the quantity of their conquests is the measure of a “man” is based on the view that it equates to strive for what some men perceive to be masculine behaviour. Thus the feminist argument is fundamentally flawed because the inverse would imply that the more males they conquer will thus be the measure of a “women” and thus more feminine behaviour. So how can this then in your view be driving feminist notion due to the fact that feminism is against both masculinity and against femininity?

  159. Andrew Richards says:

    @Cicero, were it not 5.30am here I’d give you the comprehensive answer to it, which I will do when I’m more awake, as the answer is a complex one.

  160. Marissa says:

    Promoinent gender academics such as Tosh (one of the good guys in the field) have rightly noted that as men, we have only ever been valued in terms of our ability to provide, ability to protect and our sexual prowess.

    And women have been valued almost solely in their ability to bear children and raise them, as well as help in the household. This is how civilization is built. Your special snowflake-ism is almost only acknowledged by a handful of people in your life–friends, spouse, parents. What is expected by the rest of your tribe, town, village, etc. is that you do the work of building a civilization. At least, that was how it once was for a good long while in Europe and America.

  161. DeNihilist says:

    Tree, that 80/20breakdown from 2 points of view.

    Susan Walsh – http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/

    Our humble host – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/thoughts-on-the-8020-college-hookup-question/

    Found this rather telling though – “In surveys that quantify the average number of sexual partners, men report an average of seven partners while women own up to an average of four.

    But the thing is: That’s statistically impossible.

    “Surveys and studies to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion that men have substantially more sex partners than women is not and cannot be true for purely logical reasons,” said David Gale, an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, when he was asked about the phenomenon in a New York Times article.

    Well, obviously.

    In 2003, a study published in the Journal of Sex Research revealed that when hooked up to a polygraph, women report higher numbers of sexual partners and men report lower numbers than they do on a non-polygraph survey. Earlier this year, the study was repeated — and the results were identical.”

    From here – http://www.thedp.com/article/2013/12/whats-your-number

  162. jf12 says:

    @livingtree2013 re:”This chart actually proves that the traditional manospherian claim that most guys can’t get laid and that 20% of guys are sleeping with 80% of the women” Yes, it does prove al lot of manospherian claims in one blow.
    1. For example, note that the younger single women have more sex than the younger single men, but in contrast there’s like a Wall at age 30 for women and only women.
    2. Most (67%) of the single guys can’t get laid at all (zero times per year) or at most “sexless” (i.e. would be less than once a month if married), yet essentially all of the single guys would prefer getting laid all the time, as you’ve said. Hence the single women who are choosing to have sex are choosing to have a significant quantity of sex are choosing at most about 34% of the men. Since most are paired anyway, the 20% of men who get multiples is pretty accurate.
    3. Note the sluts: the single young women having sex a lot. There aren’t any corresponding young men. Hence the young sluts are having sex with multiple men, and, especially, older players.

  163. theasdgamer says:

    @deti

    “All she has to do is find a thirsty guy”

    From ADBG’s post at J4G, it looks like betas aren’t all that thirsty.

  164. jf12 says:

    @Marissa, “It’s not just the sex. It’s also the food preparation.”

  165. jf12 says:

    @theasdgamer, there is a lag in perception, apparently. Things had already changed by e.g. the 1990s, but had not yet changed as much as they now are.

  166. theasdgamer says:

    @Ras

    “the marriage rate is dropping”

    Could it be because boomer men are dying off? There might be vast statistical differences in marriage depending on age. Marcus? Any links?

  167. lt2013,

    Cail, I agree with you on that last point, there’s not so much of a pro-marriage “script” being passed on to women, and particularly feminist women (though you’ll never catch me disparaging feminism in general, just their mistakes) like there is among men. I’m not sure why that is

    If I had to guess, its because society hasn’t yet figured out how to convince men to marry feminized women without any incentives for men. So, society will continue to create more DIS-incentives for men to remain single (force them to the altar against their will.) One way to do this is by shaming men by telling them to man-up. Another might be with legislation that financially penalizes young bachelor men (Obamacare.)

    nor am I sure that I think thats a bad thing for us as a society.

    Perhaps.

  168. DeNihilist says:

    Deti, didn’t ask about game. Asked if you accept the teachings of these omegas (what you call pua’s), then are you not implicitly supporting them over the betas? Thus perpetuating the manly respect for omega ways, which is exactly what ZC and I are arguing.

    The thing is, even 50 years ago, these omega men would have been the dregs of society. Invisible to women and kicked like dogs by alphas and betas alike. Now, with the celebration of sexual conquest as the only marker of alpha by men themselves, they are put on a pedestal, and the normal order of men has been reversed.

    One last thing, how much sex is enough? If married once a week? if single, 30 or more knotches?

  169. theasdgamer says:

    Not only would I not want to marry one of these sluts, I wouldn’t want them for casual sex or as girlfriends. If you want any of these skanks, you’re welcome to them. I’m strongly uninterested. Can’t say that the reverse is true, so I’m affecting the SMP to some small degree. Get enough guys like me and we might have an impact.

    On the Mrs. Gamer front, things lately have been sweeter to some degree. At least she leans heavily towards me in the car and has been greeting me at the door again. At least she’s becoming more aware of her rebellious nature and has been working on restraining it.

  170. Marissa says:

    @Marissa, “It’s not just the sex. It’s also the food preparation.”

    LOL, sounds like a wedding ring inscription. Sure, cooking and cleaning aren’t always fun. But you are literally nourishing the health of your loved ones and further ensuring their health by removing pathogens from the home environment. These are some of the most loving things you can do.

  171. deti says:

    “if you accept the teachings of these omegas (what you call pua’s), then are you not implicitly supporting them over the betas?”

    The premise and conclusion are both faulty and wrong, as I explained above.

    “these omega men would have been the dregs of society. Invisible to women and kicked like dogs by alphas and betas alike. Now, with the celebration of sexual conquest as the only marker of alpha by men themselves, they are put on a pedestal, and the normal order of men has been reversed.”

    If this is so, it is because women wanted it this way. No one asked the 80% of men who are Billy Beta if they wanted it this way. Billy Beta has nothing to say about this.

    “One last thing, how much sex is enough? If married once a week? if single, 30 or more knotches?”

    “Enough sex” for married couples is whatever they agree is enough. The lower libido partner should defer to the higher libido partner.

  172. earl says:

    GBFM is correct. Follow Jesus and Moses.

    Jesus and Moses knew where true authority comes from.

  173. earl says:

    “Not only would I not want to marry one of these sluts, I wouldn’t want them for casual sex or as girlfriends. If you want any of these skanks, you’re welcome to them. I’m strongly uninterested.”

    That’s a good road to take. Your life improves so much by not being subject to everything they bring to the table.

  174. One last thing, how much sex is enough? If married once a week?

    In my completely unscientific poll which asked men this question, 96% of men have said “3-4 times a week” or more often. 40% want it daily or more often than that.

  175. Random Angeleno says:

    @De Nihilist,
    Your vision of man rarely gets any respect from women for his masculine skills. Change the oil, install a kitchen appliance, paint the house, plant a tree, etc. These are provider skills which while good to have are insufficient to provoke genuine attraction in most women. And have always been. In the olden days, they married that guy because they had no other choice. But in exchange for marrying the guy they had to marry, they sure made most of those men’s lives miserable. Why do you think brothels were so popular then? And are still easy to find in major cities?

    Something you’re really missing badly here.

  176. MarcusD says:

    http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/16/unmasking-mustachioed-menace-microaggression/

    Seeing as the post title is called a “microaggression” by feminists.

  177. Desiderius says:

    DeNihilist,

    “Deti, didn’t ask about game. Asked if you accept the teachings of these omegas (what you call pua’s), then are you not implicitly supporting them over the betas?”

    Good thing we didn’t go into space after those nasty Soviets launched Sputnik. Wouldn’t want to catch space cooties.

    The Pope is (supposedly) infallible speaking ex cathedra, the cathedra isn’t infallible when speaking on manhood. In fact, for going on fifty years, its been more like the opposite. If the Church (Catholic, Churchian, or Progressive flavor) is afraid to teach the truth, or worse determined to propagate feminist lies, then damn straight I’m supporting those with the stones to speak the truth.

    At least your moniker is appropriate. I’m on the Ex Nihilo team, so we’re unlikely to see eye to eye.

  178. Desiderius says:

    “Jesus and Moses knew where true authority comes from.”

    Yes, I’ve noticed that Andrew failed to answer my original question to him.

  179. Desiderius says:

    “At least she’s becoming more aware of her rebellious nature and has been working on restraining it.”

    There are no shortage of avenues at the moment for channeling that rebelliousness in productive directions. Good chance to work as a team…

  180. Dalrock,

    Back on topic: I’m not exactly sure that there was EVER a legitimate “path to marriage” for any women pre or post feminism. Virgin or slut, there was never any credentialling, never a licence to earn, never any test taken that a woman must pass, never anything that linear and absolute.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is, is that women DO very much want to be married. And they have wanted this since there was marriage. They want this because of the resources that marriage provides (while being married OR by eing divorced and collecting cash and prizes.) These are both financial advantages to women. I’m claiming here and now that women will do whatever they think they need to, to secure those resources. This one thinks she can get there by being a slut. Perhaps, perhaps not. But she is trying set a narrative and then (if successful) other women will follow in her path.

  181. Myshkin says:

    earl:
    [i]For those that say she will find a husband and get married.
    Keep in mind the type of guy that marries that type of woman. They have the same value as miss slut.[/i]
    She’ll punch above her weight in the MMP. In 5 years, she’ll move to another location, close her legs more for a bit, and land a husband.

  182. Anonymous Reader says:

    DeNihilist, you are pushing for “provider status” it appears, as the ideal for men to aspire to.
    If true, it would appear you have not read much at this blog, or any other androsphere site.

    Thanks to abundant resources, women now can be their own provider. They don’t need betas, they are their own betas.

  183. gdgm+ says:

    theasdgamer @April 1, 2014 at 1:59 pm
    Related to your question, the number of divorces is continuing to increase, per a recent study. See this chart:

    From a Washington _Post_ article I mentioned in the previous Dalrock thread, “Divorce is actually on the rise, and it’s the baby boomers’ fault”.

  184. jf12 says:

    @Cail, yes about every day or every other day would be optimal for me, and I’m 64. In the previous thread I reference “Married Love”

    https://archive.org/details/married_love

    A full century ago, Marie Stopes recognized that men tended to prefer every day (or so). But her advice was for *married* men to strictly limit themselves to only those rare times when their wives actively sought sex, namely the men should try to be completely abstinent for twelve to fourteen days at a stretch, twice a month if they’re luck, and never pressure their wives for more.

  185. Desiderius says:

    LivingTree,

    “After that, to be marriage-worthy (or LTR-worthy), what’s needed is the inner life focus, the ethics and personal development that isn’t really paid attention to and hasn’t been for the past several decades.”

    And the Prog re-inventing the wheel from scratch nails it. There may be more hope from that direction than from Churchian tradcons trying (for the nth time) to make serial monogamy work while ignoring sin. Of course, a solid marriage itself is the best setting for that personal development (Murray compares it to a start-up), and only the Gospel provides the courage for that inner-focus to see truly.

    “Love doesn’t make marriage last, marriage makes love last.”

    – Bonhoeffer

  186. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Several people have posted about women still getting married any time they want. Oh, really?

    Marriage rates are down by half, and not coming back. For those with strong STEM background, examine the marriage rates in recent years. STEM guys can tell what the future holds very well.

    Per 1,000 Unmarried Women Age 15 and
    Older, by Year, United States:

    1922 99 (found on Web)
    1960 73.5
    1961 72.2
    1962 71.2
    1963 73.4
    1964 74.6
    1965 75.0
    1966 75.6
    1967 76.4
    1968 79.1
    1969 80.0
    1970 76.5
    1972 77.9
    1975 66.9
    1977 63.6
    1980 61.4
    1983 59.9
    1985 56.2
    1987 55.7
    1990 54.5
    1991 54.2
    1992 53.3
    1993 52.3
    1995 50.8
    2000 46.5
    2004 39.9
    2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
    2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
    2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
    2010 32.9 State of our unions data
    2011 31.1 (http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file131529.pdf)

    UK is under 18. NZ is 28 last time I checked.

    I admire Dalrock very much. He is by far the best blogger on the manosphere. But, he says there is no marriage strike. Others have tried to explain it to him. He once told me that he knows calculus, but calculus can’t be applied to human beings.

    However, anything you can graph, you can apply calculus to, and he does graphs on human beings better than anyone.

    Calculus is what you use to predict future values of formulas. Such as the graphs he posts. His current interpretations are based on what happened 15 years ago. Not what is happening now.

    @Joe Blow
    >>What in your experience makes you think women, as a group, are suddenly going to start making rational, fact-based decisions.

    Studying the Roman Empire, Babylon, and others which failing civilizations which put women over their Gods. When the system shuts down and there is no money and no food, women change instantly.

  187. greyghost says:

    DeNihilis
    Your definitions of terms are off and are confusing. Omegas are turds nobody wants to fuck. Like that weird guy that shot up that theater in Colorado. betas are the men that are the back bone of life in general. Alphas are guys chicks naturally have a sexual attraction to.
    Please give your definition of terms and give the definition as if 16 year old boys are here for the first time.

  188. Thinkn'Man says:

    1) Repeal.the.19th.Amendment
    2) Enforce marriage as a true contract
    3) Throw Jenny Erikson in minimum security prison.

    Did I miss anything?

  189. theasdgamer says:

    @Anon71

    As I mentioned before, the Boomers need to be factored in. gdgm+ pointed out that boomers are divorcing heavily. Boomer wives who institute sex strikes are winding up as spinsters. My own wife said that spinsterhood is underrated; yeah, that’s why spinsters need cats–for the drama. Dogs don’t create enough drama. I know several 50+ y.o. spinster cat ladies.

    Anyway, back to boomers. As boomer men die, we’ll see a tick up in boomer widows and a drop in marriage rates among boomers. As boomer women die, we’ll see a corresponding tick down in boomer widows and a tick up in marriage rates.

    I appreciated your point about women deciding whether divorce happens no matter how much Game their husband is running. Back when my wife filed for divorce after seven years of marriage, she went to counseling solo and the non-professional Christian counselors told her that divorce wasn’t an option for her and she listened and dropped the case.

    However, Game can have an impact on a sex strike. Mrs. Gamer dropped her strike once I told her I’d be looking for a gf if she didn’t drop it and I’d cut her off. All of a sudden I was hawt again (shock?!).

  190. jf12 says:

    Re: “As boomer men die, we’ll see a tick up in boomer widows and a drop in marriage rates among boomers.” Already in evidence, in the latest curve in gdgm’s link

  191. Anon 71, unless you mislabeled that table, those numbers indicate that the number of unmarried women has been dropping for a century, not rising. That indicates that they’re having no trouble getting married, at least as of three years ago, though of course it says nothing about how much they delay it or the quality of those marriages.

  192. livingtree2013 says:

    Hah, great poll Cail, good idea! A poll of the men in the manosphere might contain a considerable sampling bias though. You guys are hornier than average, I suspect. Perhaps that’s come on the heels of many years of “deprivation” though, a few years of really good shagging and your need might level out. ;)

    Deti – “If this is so, it is because women wanted it this way.” Um, no. No. Women have never “wanted” that, ever. Well, maybe when we wore loincloths and hunted woolly mammoths, I don’t recall that period though. Modern men have acculturated themselves to believe women desire men with sexual prowess, to justify the hegemony of masculinity that this engenders.

    No, this is your version of avoiding responsibility for your actions, as in, “if women didn’t do X, then men wouldn’t do Y.” I thought you guys were supposed to be all about personal responsibility here. Are you trying to say that the only reason men do things is because they think its what women want? I think you’d probably find a lot of men (maybe not here, but still) that would disagree strenuously with that premise. As do I. And if it is, maybe you’d be best to think about changing that thought process?

    Women do respond to the cultural display of sexual prowess though, the same way the brain responds to junk food, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction, which is kind of what casual sex is like, but it has little to do with “want”. Its the result of brain re-wiring from dopamine addiction. When junk sex was not part of our diet, we didn’t have the craving for it because we didn’t even know such a thing existed. Now, junk sex is, just that. Junk. Its everywhere. Like McDonalds.

    On an aside (sort of), I thought you might enjoy reading this fascinating little wiki article for an introduction into libertarian philosophy and feminism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

  193. Cail,

    Anon 71, unless you mislabeled that table, those numbers indicate that the number of unmarried women has been dropping for a century, not rising. That indicates that they’re having no trouble getting married, at least as of three years ago, though of course it says nothing about how much they delay it or the quality of those marriages.

    Unless I am misunderstanding the data (which is possible)…

    In 1922, for every 1000 unmarried women aged 15 and older, 99 of them got married that year (one out of ten)

    In 1965, for every 1000 unmarried women aged 15 and older, 75 of them got married that year (one out of twelve or thirteen or so)

    In 2010, for every 1000 unmarried women aged 15 and older, 33 of them got married that year (one out of thirty)

    So unless I am misreading the data from 1922 to 2010, the marriage rate for unmarried women (over age 15) has decreased by 67% (down from one in ten to one in thirty.)

  194. theasdgamer says:

    @Cail

    So marriage rates were only 1% in 1922? The table measures marriage rates per 1000 women 15 and older, I believe.

  195. Desiderius says:

    Cail (along with Nova – outstanding insight on this thread),

    “Could be, and that would be good news. I remain skeptical for now, though I do think when these things change, they can change very quickly from one generation to the next.”

    I think they’ve already changed, but the Boomers are trying to suppress it.

    My take is based on my experience with the (much more masculine/feminine – and seeking the complement) rising generation as a part-time teacher and on Strauss and Howe’s work that has shown remarkable predictive value. They’ve identified a four generation cycle of sex-role differentiation, with, unsurprisingly, the Boomers at maximum androgyny and thus this rising generation at the opposite pole.

    The problem is that the Boomers, the most solipsistic generation in history (hey, they didn’t call themselves the Me Generation for nothing), have great difficulty imagining anyone would have preferences different than their own and are horrified that subsequent generations might turn back the clock on their gains (sic – they mistook a cyclical phenomenon for “progress”) and so have gone to unprecedented ends to emasculate young boys and defeminize girls, with the predictable results to the SMP/MMP, among much else.

    The problem is that the tendency to respect one’s elders is highly correlated with the inclination to care for one’s progeny, so that the best mates are also the ones most influenced by the Boomers’ poor leadership. And so we’re left in the strange situation that it falls to the poor mates – PUAs and Katrinas – to, if not to show a way out, at least to call attention to the fact that something is seriously wrong.

    And so one sees folks like IBB and AquinasDad poking around for answers. It remains to be seen whether the Boomers can find enough belated humility to take advantage of what they learn. My guess is no, but that the rising generation is figuring that out and turning to Xers for the guidance the Boomers should have provided or re-inventing traditional morality themselves from scratch. It will go well with their beards.

  196. Desiderius says:

    Uh, women live a lot longer now. The data is largely meaningless as is.

  197. theasdgamer says:

    Sorry, those aren’t percentages. My mistake.

  198. livingtree2013 says:

    Anon 71, you’re quite right. Marriage is, to the upcoming generation, very uninteresting and more than a little bit irrelevant. Why there are so many people trying to revive it is, quite frankly, beyond me – its gasping for its breath on life support, and hardly anyone (except you guys) really wants it to be revived. Sometimes you just have to let things go. You want to get married, fine, I don’t really I’m sure by the time this “churchian” tradition is really dead, the people who still want to pay tribute to the relic of it will be a segregated group anyway, away from all the horrid “free love” heathens.

  199. feeriker says:

    And what’s her punishment for a life of selfish whoredom? She gets to settle with a genuinely nice man, one who’s completely okay with the fact that his wife has had sex with at least 500 different men (though I would not rule out a number closer to four digits), and pops out a son.

    It’s too bad that this hayseed schlub didn’t have friends of the kind my brother had: the kind who would have kidnapped him, held him hostage for a couple of days, and rubbed his nose hard into the reality of what a genuinely horrendous idea and potentially lethal implosion of judgment it would be to put a ring on something like “Aurora Snow,” to say nothing of even thinking of procreating a child with it. In other words, friends proving the true mettle of their friendship by dispensing “tough love” where it counted.

    Heaven help the little male offspring of this pair!

  200. Marissa says:

    One can only hope the remnant of X and Millenials who are going back to traditionalism are successful, Desiderius.

  201. Sorry, those aren’t percentages. My mistake.

    No sweat.

    But think about that just a minute. If I am reading the data right, a woman (any unmarried woman) over the age of 15 in 1922, had roughly one-chance-in-ten in getting married in any given year. Now I’m sure that number went up and down based on how old or young she was or her education or what-not, but one-in-ten.

    Contrast that with the rate of one-in-thirty today, and you can see that marriage really has been destroyed….

    …unless you believe that the average lifespan for women has tripled since 1922? I doubt that.

  202. Marissa says:

    Anon 71, you’re quite right. Marriage is, to the upcoming generation, very uninteresting and more than a little bit irrelevant. Why there are so many people trying to revive it is, quite frankly, beyond me – its gasping for its breath on life support, and hardly anyone (except you guys) really wants it to be revived.

    Monogamous marriage is high civilization; it is integral to Christendom. Free love heathen parasites can’t create it; they’re living off its corpse as of now. People are trying to revive it because many of us see that Christendom is a good thing, that the goal of living life according to God’s commandments can make this fallen world a little more bearable and help ourselves, our loved ones, and our acquaintances live in such a way as to glorify God. And after building that social capital, sometimes the economic capital follows, which we can use to help others and spread the Word. Even if what was once a great hearth is now only a few burning embers, we’re not going to give up on the fire simply because the vast majority doesn’t care for our cause.

  203. theasdgamer says:

    @DeNihilist

    Who needs to count notches?

    “If we’re not going to own up to our number in a consistent or accurate fashion, maybe it’s time to ditch the quantification altogether.” http://www.thedp.com/article/2013/12/whats-your-number

    How convenient for the sluts.

    —————————————–

    Who needs a steenkeeng polygraph?

    Note the importance of a polygraph, which yours truly has been advocating that men routinely require before committing. “Trust, but verify.” “In 2003, a study published in the Journal of Sex Research revealed that when hooked up to a polygraph, women report higher numbers of sexual partners and men report lower numbers than they do on a non-polygraph survey. ”

    Gamer

  204. Thanks, guys. I thought it was saying the number of women over 15 remaining unmarried out of 1000. Your reading of it makes more sense, and I clearly need a nap.

    I don’t think Dalrock’s ever claimed marriage isn’t dropping. The raw numbers make that clear. His point (and the part that requires calculus) has been in trying to compare the change in rates between men and women and between different eras, to try to determine whether one change is driving the other. A marriage strike would mean that (more) men are refusing to marry, and women are stuck. What the numbers seem to indicate, however, is that it’s women who are delaying marriage. That reduces the annual percentage of women getting married, but it also means that a certain number of them will get left out in the cold. Men probably aren’t so much going on strike as discovering that the women available to them and interested in marriage just aren’t worth the trouble. A man might be perfectly willing to marry a tight, childless 25-year-old who can make a mean omelet, but he only seems to meet pudgy single moms in their 30s. He’s not really on strike; he just doesn’t see anything good on the menu.

    Most likely there’s a feedback loop. I think it started with women delaying marriage, because feminism told them to do exactly that (if not reject it completely). Once there were fewer women, especially young ones, interested in marriage, men didn’t have as much incentive to become eligible bachelors, and started extending their own childhoods and taking advantage of the free sex that was the natural result of women staying single longer. That means fewer marriage-ready men, so now even the few women who might want to marry young have fewer good men to choose from. And so on, until something breaks the cycle.

  205. deti says:

    @ Tree:

    “If this is so, it is because women wanted it this way.” Um, no. No. Women have never “wanted” that, ever.”

    Yes, they do. They successfully agitated for a complete legal and cultural structure that lets them have sex with sexy men, commitment be damned. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and increasingly are the gatekeepers of commitment also. Women decide who they will have sex with, and who they will continue having sex with.

    “No, this is your version of avoiding responsibility for your actions, as in, “if women didn’t do X, then men wouldn’t do Y.””

    No, this is my acknowledgment of reality as it is.

  206. Elspeth says:

    Yes, they do. They successfully agitated for a complete legal and cultural structure that lets them have sex with sexy men, commitment be damned

    That was a very specific subset of women Deti, and you know it. The rest of the women (the minority, the poor, the less educated) just got stuck with the fruits of it.

  207. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    But think about that just a minute. If I am reading the data right, a woman (any unmarried woman) over the age of 15 in 1922, had roughly one-chance-in-ten in getting married in any given year. Now I’m sure that number went up and down based on how old or young she was or her education or what-not, but one-in-ten.

    Contrast that with the rate of one-in-thirty today, and you can see that marriage really has been destroyed….

    The problem with that metric is it is very sensitive to delayed marriage and divorce. Much of what the change in that metric is measuring is in fact delayed marriage, early divorce, and lower remarriage rates. From this perspective marriage is in fact being destroyed; people spend a far smaller percentage of their adult lives married than was true in the past.

    However, what it doesn’t tell us is how likely the average woman is to get married. Marrying a slut like Kristina in the OP once she is 30, and having her divorce you when the kids are out of diapers 5-7 years later isn’t under any rational definition of the term marriage strike. Yet this kind of change is exactly what the free falling metric is picking up. I explained this in detail several years ago, and even showed the table where the Marriage Project folks pull the bulk of the time series data from. In that table, the number of weddings per year actually increased slightly while the number of weddings per 1,000 unmarried women dropped dramatically.

  208. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, LyingTree2013 is an aging Canadian feminist who does not have any children, by her own choice. Her purpose on androsphere blogs appears to be twofold: first, to troll the men in order to get them to pay attention to her by interaction (flames count for this) and second to attempt to prop up the rotten, misandry-ridden ideology of 2nd stage feminism (with a little 3rd stage on the side).

    There’s no reasoning with her, because she won’t examine her false premises.

  209. You guys are hornier than average, I suspect. Perhaps that’s come on the heels of many years of “deprivation” though, a few years of really good shagging and your need might level out.

    Nope, it has nothing to do with deprivation. When I was married to a willing woman, I wanted it more than ever because I could have it. When a man can’t have it, he has to do his best to keep his mind off it out of mental self-preservation. You (like nearly all women) vastly underestimate the male sex drive.

    There’s no reason to think men in the manosphere are any hornier than average. But even if we are, we’d have to be several times hornier to get my poll’s results if the average non-manosphere man were actually happy with “once a week if she’s in the mood,” which is where actual marriages average. The simple, sad fact is that the vast majority of married men — I’d guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% — would like far more sex from their wives than they’re getting but have been refused or discouraged from saying so.

  210. deti says:

    @ Elspeth:

    “That was a very specific subset of women Deti, and you know it. The rest of the women (the minority, the poor, the less educated) just got stuck with the fruits of it.”

    The sexual free for all was only part of it. The rest of it was legion, and which benefits women too:

    Abolition of in loco parentis at college campuses.

    Treatment of women at age 18 as legal adults. Complete female emancipation from parental direction.

    The cultural and religious abandonment of courtship, familial influence and approval on selection of spouses, and arranged marriage.

    Preferences for women from top to bottom in employment, including college admissions, hiring, advancement, placement, compensation, and promotion.

    Once those restraints were removed, sexual restraints couldn’t be far behind.

  211. deti says:

    What’s more, Elspeth, many women might not actually have lots of sexy sex with lots of sexy men.

    But nearly ALL women like having the CHOICE to do that, if she wants to, and know she will suffer no immediate legal or cultural consequences for doing so.

    Just like abortion. The standard line on this among most people, even Christians, even some Catholics, is this:

    “Abortion’s bad, mmmmkay? Don’t like it. Wish we didn’t have to have it. Hope it never ever happens. But we want the choice to be there just in case somebody believes they need it.”

  212. Marissa says:

    Men probably aren’t so much going on strike as discovering that the women available to them and interested in marriage just aren’t worth the trouble. A man might be perfectly willing to marry a tight, childless 25-year-old who can make a mean omelet, but he only seems to meet pudgy single moms in their 30s. He’s not really on strike; he just doesn’t see anything good on the menu.

    Yes, it seems more passive than active. But men are good pattern-finders, under all the indoctrination, and maybe the strike will become more active sooner rather than later.

  213. Dalrock,

    The problem with that metric is it is very sensitive to delayed marriage and divorce. Much of what the change in that metric is measuring is in fact delayed marriage, early divorce, and lower remarriage rates. From this perspective marriage is in fact being destroyed; people spend a far smaller percentage of their adult lives married than was true in the past.

    However, what it doesn’t tell us is how likely the average woman is to get married. Marrying a slut like Kristina in the OP once she is 30, and having her divorce you when the kids are out of diapers 5-7 years later isn’t under any rational definition of the term marriage strike.

    Correct.

    From this perspective, 71’s marital rate data is not providing enough data. We don’t know (for sure) how many of those 1000 unmarried women (where only 30 marriages occur annually, as of 2013) were once married, now divorced, and returned themselves back to the unmarried pool. I get it.

    Really what we need to do is to crunch that data further. What we really need to look at is not the rate of annual marriages for each 1000 unmarried women. We are more concerned with the rate of annual marriages for each 1000 never-previously-married women. I am sure that data exists. I don’t think we have it though.

  214. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    Really what we need to do is to crunch that data further. What we really need to look at is not the rate of annual marriages for each 1000 unmarried women. We are more concerned with the rate of annual marriages for each 1000 never-previously-married women. I am sure that data exists. I don’t think we have it though.

    I’ve tried to tackle this question by parsing out the never married data by age bracket over time. Looking at it that way there is definitely something going on at the margins, although in the 2013 data the trend we were seeing leveled off some. Some would call it a marriage strike; I would argue that it is something more ominous.

  215. I remember that post Dalrock. I liked it.

    Yes, I think some men are slacking off. Yes, I think this Aaron-Clarey-esque-“Enjoy the Decline”-Captain Capitalism thinking is a growing thought among younger men. Yes, that is more ominous than a “marriage strike.” Yes, that most certainly has affected the marriage rate.

    Many of the incentives to marriage have been melted away (for men.) And (on the margins) younger men are going Galt not just with respect toward marriage, but with respect towards civilization.

    Much more ominous than a strike….

    I guess there will be more and more Kristina’s (who do want to get married) trying to find a way to “game the system” (for lack of a better term) in such a way as to get married (at all costs) against something more ominous than a strike. Her way is to slut herself there. You and I can blame feminism for this but you know what…. I guess it doesn’t matter now.

  216. livingtree2013 says:

    Oh no, Cail I don’t disagree that men probably would prefer to have more sex than they’re getting, and I know full well that they are more than capable of restraint. I’m sure that’s true of all men, married or otherwise. Most of them are at least partially content with getting more than they did when they were single, as long as that is still the case through the marriage, but I have no doubt they’d be even more content with more. But women, more often than not, have a lower sex drive than men. Its sad, but true.

    I didn’t mean my comment to justify otherwise. Its just that you guys talk about sex non-stop pretty much, hence my comment. It was something of a joke, since I don’t really know any of you personally, but a joke with some pseudo-science behind it: Most of you guys talk about it non-stop, you moralize about it, and you are actively participating in self-growth in order to get more, better, and higher quality sex. The rest of the men in the non-manosphere world are tragically settling with a pitiful few times a month from their wives/girlfriends/FWB’s, and learning to live with compromise (shameful betas that they are). Which it does appear you are trying to change. I’m sure that this movement (?) for lack of better word isn’t directly intending to be about getting men laid more by better women, it just kind of looks like that on the surface.

  217. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    I guess there will be more and more Kristina’s (who do want to get married) trying to find a way to “game the system” (for lack of a better term) in such a way as to get married (at all costs) against something more ominous than a strike. Her way is to slut herself there. You and I can blame feminism for this but you know what…. I guess it doesn’t matter now.

    I agree with those above who assert that Kristina will almost certainly marry, and will probably marry well (on paper) even though her past will make it extremely hard for her to be happy. Where things get really grim is for single mothers in their mid 30s or later. This group runs headlong into the demographic of unmarried men with a surprisingly high percentage not earning any income. When a quarter or more of the men in the woman’s dating pool have zero earnings, the kind of settling being done is difficult to overstate. So Kristina will probably marry fairly well (on paper, not accounting for game/tingle) but if she follows the rest of the having-it-all script she will find herself making the kinds of tradeoffs you can see women in the same boat making on Yahoo answers. It is darkly humorous to see these women trying to justify staying with (or even contemplating marriage to) men who haven’t held a job for 5 years and/or men who have bowel problems, a fecal fetish, or similarly disqualifying traits.

  218. feeriker says:

    But nearly ALL women like having the CHOICE to do that, if she wants to, and know she will suffer no immediate legal or cultural consequences for doing so. .

    BINGO.

    It can never be reiterated often enough that the reason women “outside the narrow subset” have never risen up in collective revolt against feminism is because ALL women, whether or not they claim the feminist mantle, derive “spillover benefits” from what the feministas have wrought. These are benefits (such as what Deti listed above) that are just too addictive and empowering for them to ever give up without a fight (however much they might claim to despise those who conferred the benefits upon them).

  219. earl says:

    “You guys are hornier than average, I suspect. Perhaps that’s come on the heels of many years of “deprivation” though, a few years of really good shagging and your need might level out.”

    Inject 17 times the testosterone you have into your body and get back to me on how the male sex drive works.

    Besides if it wasn’t for the male sex drive…women would have no value, no power, and no real use.

  220. DeNihilist says:

    Greyghost, linked to an article at No Ma’am upthread, where the author argues for this rating. I whole heartedly agree with him. Knew some men whom nowadays would be termed alphas. Now that they are hitting their mid fifties, the reality of their ways are hitting hard. It is not just spinsters that live with cats…..

    Just as an aside, from my perspective, looking at my boys and some of their friends, I think that the pendulum has started to swing.

  221. tickletik says:

    I think we are all missing the point. Under the current law, it is basically impossible for a woman to belong to a husband. The idea of a husband is that of a master of the woman. Those of us with some sense now realize that this is what she craves in her heart. That’s why it is still possible for the occasional uber-male to fake a husband-woman relationship. But he does not have any real power at all quite the contrary.

    I am not interested in whining but I wish to point out the simple reality. Currently, money is taken from all of us against our will to be given to those who do not have it, the word for this is “welfare”, the actual term for this is “theft by the masses”. So right away we men who work are chumps and suckers.

    Next, as has been famously pointed out, thanks to VAWA a woman can beat her man with impunity (if he is law abiding), and if he is not? Well he is a criminal and an enemy of society. Neither one is a good position.

    If she chooses to leave for whatever reason, he can be made to pay for a high priced lawyer to argue against him in court. That is, his labor and effort and life are taken from him to give to another to attack him.

    If she wins, and she wins by default, she gets alimony, a concept created for a time when women were not allowed by law to work, but whose basis has no function in today save to break men.

    She gets the children of course and child support. So in effect she gets every possible benefit of her marriage without having to actually reciprocate what she bought to the table, this is well known.

    Now the reality is this: take away alimony, child support, welfare, and VAWA, and chances are most of this nonsense ends very quickly. Where a man can marry without concern of having a black robed sociopath send blue suited clowns to beat him and put him in a cage after stealing all he has, then men will not fear walking away from women. And if they don’t fear walking away, they don’t fear walking towards. They become genuine, open, relaxed and cognizant of what is good for them.

    Sure she can still take the kids, but without child support how likely is that? Sure she can have as many hookups as she likes, but if he can walk alway without giving her the house, the car, and alimony (unless she specified this in a prenup contract), then she had best be on her good behavior or it is gooooodbye.

    But it’s not like this. Many selfish fools chose this current path. They are lazy and careless, and don’t have any sense of brotherhood. So they enjoy seeing a man beaten when he strikes back at a woman who was slapping him. They will jump in a pool to destroy one man in a fight with a woman, but only when they have a hundred other fools at their side. They will sleep with their friends wives, and they pay it no mind at all. They sit on the he bench with black robes, they wear blue clown suits and carry guns, they have ties and briefcases, or any number of things.

    Our problem isn’t Katrina. She has chosen her path that is in her best financial and long term interests. No. Our problem is our lazy, shiftless, gutless, mindless brothers who hamstring and castrate the rest of us every chance they can in their miserable jealous existence.

    Deal with them, and the Katrina’s will very very quickly come around.

  222. DeNihilist says:

    LT2013, more science saying that woman have as much desire as men, but less horse power. A man can hit sixty in 2.4 seconds, whilst a woman takes more like 15 minutes. Not only that, but a man, unless very highly sexed, usually does his duty to the queen once in a night, where as a woman can have multiple partners in one session.

  223. Micha Elyi says:

    @Ras
    “the marriage rate is dropping”

    Could it be because boomer men are dying off?
    –theasdgamer

    No.

    By the way, former president bill “didn’t inhale” clinton was born early in the boom, in 1946, and makes a handy benchmark to judge how old the oldest Boomers are.

  224. Dalrock,

    Where things get really grim is for single mothers in their mid 30s or later. This group runs headlong into the demographic of unmarried men with a surprisingly high percentage not earning any income. When a quarter or more of the men in the woman’s dating pool have zero earnings, the kind of settling being done is difficult to overstate.

    I think things are really grim for single mothers at pretty much any age. And when I say single mothers I mean “never married mothers” not ones who frivroced the daddy. Those frivorcers still have cash and prizes.

    The data I would like to see is the kinds of demographics of men that single/divorced women (who are in their mid to late 30s) attract, where the woman is highly educated, making bigger bucks, and doesn’t have any children. I find that demographic of women far more interesting because they still seem to have many options. I wonder what kinds of options (in men) they have to choose from should they be bothered looking? Obviously, if they have frivorced #1, then marriage #2 is not as urgent because they may negate their alimony resources. But those who were never married (probably due to a lack of physical attractiveness on their part) they are probably desperate the get married.

  225. imnobody00 says:

    @livingtree

    But women, more often than not, have a lower sex drive than men. Its sad, but true.

    Not in my experience. I consider myself a man with a high sex drive but almost all the women in my life have been much hornier and much eager to have sex than me. Women, when interested in a man, can’t get enough of him.

    The average American woman is not attracted to the average American men. That’s it. After trying lotsa alpha cockas, the average beta is unattractive.

  226. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    I think things are really grim for single mothers at pretty much any age. And when I say single mothers I mean “never married mothers” not ones who frivroced the daddy. Those frivorcers still have cash and prizes.

    Cash and prizes doesn’t help them attract a better man than the other baby mommas, and the whole point of the empowerment divorce is to trade up to a better man. Failing to remarry a man at least as good as the one she tossed out makes her look like a loser. The only thing that masks this is 1) Denial, and 2) The fact that the divorcée initially gets the benefit of the doubt under the EPL narrative.

  227. Johnycomelately says:

    I find it odd that most people on this board seem to operate under the conclusion that men will continue to provide the same motivational outcomes (marriage) despite changed incentives and circumstances.

    The issue isn’t Kristina, the issue is how will the 29 partners and other men in general respond, to expect that men’s behaviour will not change is short sighted.

    There is a certain amount of social inertia but there will come a tipping point, most of the writers here were brought up watching Leave it to Beaver, the current generation has been brought up with Grand Theft Auto and porn.

  228. theasdgamer says:

    @DeNihilist

    “LT2013, more science saying that woman have as much desire as men, but less horse power. A man can hit sixty in 2.4 seconds, whilst a woman takes more like 15 minutes. Not only that, but a man, unless very highly sexed, usually does his duty to the queen once in a night, where as a woman can have multiple partners in one session.”

    An average 18 y.o. man can outperform your average woman of any age. She’ll chafe long before he fails to erect. And if they are both over 60, he’ll way outperform her, if he has average T-levels.

    A man of any age will likely do well if his partner is attractive enough.
    —————————————————-
    “whilst a woman takes more like 15 minutes”

    Throw in some battery-powered technology and a bodice ripper and the time decreases markedly. There are other techniques as well….I could tell ya, but….

  229. Dalrock,

    Cash and prizes doesn’t help them attract a better man than the other baby mommas, and the whole point of the empowerment divorce is to trade up to a better man.

    Okay, but what is a better man? Depends on her circumstances. I’ll explain.

    If she was never married, the better man is usually the one who earns the most money. This is the man who provides the most resources for her children. Prior to legal marriage, that is the goal. She has status.

    If she has a legally guaranteed stream in income/resources from the father of her children (because he married her), a better man may in fact be a man who is better looking than her husband, with a bigger dick than her husband, regardless of his earning power. Infact, he may not have ANY income, not one dime. But he will still be a better man (to her) because her circumstances have changed. Just frivorce father of the children, collect sustained cash and prizes (that are guaranteed by the legal system under penalty of prison for father who fails to provide), move the lower-earning/unemployed good looking man with the bigger dick into the home that the father of the children has provided (but never marry him), and now she is happier. Her sex life is better, she is actually attracted to what she f-cks, and her girlfriends are envious that she has it all (cash, prizes, big dick from a handsome man.) Jackpot. She has achieved the new goal. She has status.

    You keep making the mistake that divorced women want to remarry. Not always. Here are two ways the same woman can attain status at two different stages in her life. It depends on what her circumstances are.

    Failing to remarry a man at least as good as the one she tossed out makes her look like a loser.

    Well to you and I she is going to look like a loser no matter what happens. But she is not interested in getting the approval from either you or I. She already has it from society and (most importantly) government.

  230. deti says:

    “A man can hit sixty in 2.4 seconds, whilst a woman takes more like 15 minutes.”

    Not if she’s hot for him. If she’s hot for him, she’ll get there a hell of a lot faster than 15 minutes.

    I think the issue is that most women are having most of their sex with men who just don’t trip their triggers and push their buttons.

  231. theasdgamer says:

    @Micha

    I was considering the percent of women who are married, which is a different question and is also important. Boomer men affects that, but not the marriage rate (which you pointed out).

  232. theasdgamer says:

    @deti

    “I think the issue is that most women are having most of their sex with men who just don’t trip their triggers and push their buttons.”

    Well, considering women faking orgasms, it’s kinda hard to know for sure. I agree that desire plays a big role. Technique as well.

  233. theasdgamer says:

    @earl

    “Inject 17 times the testosterone you have into your body and get back to me on how the male sex drive works.”

    17? YMMV

  234. theasdgamer says:

    @dalrock

    “men who have bowel problems”

    Eye heff vauwill praublims.

  235. livingtree2013 says:

    Earl:
    “Besides if it wasn’t for the male sex drive…women would have no value, no power, and no real use.”
    Wow. You just justified the entire fucked up conundrum of the human existence with testosterone. I will now revert back to ignoring everything you say.

    DeNihilist:
    “Not only that, but a man, unless very highly sexed, usually does his duty to the queen once in a night, where as a woman can have multiple partners in one session.”
    That sounded like some hot manospherian erotica, you should write porn fiction. ;)

    Imnobody00:
    “The average American woman is not attracted to the average American men.” That may well be true. I don’t think it has much to do with lotsa cock though. It’s just that, well, the average man isn’t really very good these days –it is improving though, thankfully. You say the same about women, but it’s all of a piece. Our ethical basis comes mostly from external incentives, and, well, if there isn’t any…

    Dalrock:
    Your notion that the harlot women will have no marriageable (meaning: traditional) males to marry them is so old-school!
    These women will be (and are) financially self-reliant thanks to their college education, connections and ambition (and in some cases, their harlot divorce settlements, though that’s hopefully on the way out if I have anything to say about it). They can be (and are) in good shape at 40. And they can find themselves a hot, early-30’s starving artist-type who will be more than happy to share the bed of an older, financially self-reliant woman who will feed them in exchange for regular sex (so who’s really losing out here?). You think she wants to marry him? Get real. By this point, she doesn’t even care, that life is over. She’s better off without all that strife.
    This happens more often than you know.

    This is what bothers you about “modern” women, isn’t it – men are reduced to sex objects (the irony!). I guess for the fellas who don’t make the cut, it sucks. Maybe it all sucks, I don’t know. But right now it seems like just one more step towards a fairer society. Harsh, yes, but fair, a society in which the weak perish.

  236. Anonymous says:

    Spin that Rationalization Hamster, ‘hos… don’t forget to stock up on Friskies and Tidy Cat!

  237. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    If she has a legally guaranteed stream in income/resources from the father of her children (because he married her), a better man may in fact be a man who is better looking than her husband, with a bigger dick than her husband, regardless of his earning power.

    This vicarious size queen thing of yours is very strange.

    Either way, why would a man with options choose an aging divorcée single mother? The assumption must be the men with the largest members prefer the least desirable women. It makes no sense, unless one is deeply invested in the EPL fantasy.

  238. Stryker says:

    Daaaaaaaammmmn! She’s stupid.

  239. theasdgamer says:

    @livingtree

    “They can be (and are) in good shape at 40.”

    rotflmao. Why should any guy want them when he can pull 20-somethings?

    “These women will be (and are) financially self-reliant thanks to their college education, connections and ambition”

    “Connections and ambition” means “work lying on their backs” a lot of the time. Sex-positive feminism strikes another blow (job) for wimminz liberation!

    “they can find themselves a hot, early-30’s starving artist-type ”

    Starving artist types? lol, not many of them who are alphas and not all that many college-edumacated wimminz neitha. If she chooses an alpha, she’ll just be one of his harem and she’ll tire of him or vice-versa and she’ll simply ride the carousel of older alphas until no one wants her and she adopts cats for their drama-creating ability. I’ve seen plenty of college-edumacated financially-independent spinster cat-ladies. Went hiking with several recently.

    You’re living in fantasy land. Better feed your hamster better.

  240. theasdgamer says:

    @livingtree

    “Harsh, yes, but fair, a society in which the weak perish.”

    No native society will be left in several decades if current birth rates continue. The U.S. will be totally restocked by immigrants. It’s the same in all western nations. Looks like feminism is genociding the white race. Actually it’s selecting against all college-educated groups, including native Asian-Americans.

  241. Andrew Richards says:

    @Des You clearly have yourself confused. Nowhere in this thread from what I can see have you asked me a question.

  242. Andrew Richards says:

    @Marissa You’ve completely failed to see the forest for the trees here.

    “And women have been valued almost solely in their ability to bear children and raise them, as well as help in the household. This is how civilization is built.”

    Firstly you’re half right. Women have been valued in terms of their reproductive abilities, which in turn reduced men to disposable labor to facilitate and protect their wombs. What you refer to about the housdehold, is in turn a biproduct of giving women jobs in the domain that is considered “safe”.

    However the difference is that where it’s commonly socially accepted that women have been valued in terms of their reproductive abilities, most people are doubly ignorant of male disposability- including in fields which attempt to address gender issues.

    “Your special snowflake-ism is almost only acknowledged by a handful of people in your life–friends, spouse, parents.”

    A woman calling a man a “special snowflake” is the height of irony. Forgetting about the fact that it’s a classic shaming tactic designed to disconnect a man from his self-identity and reduce him to a disposable object of utility, the fact is that it is women who have had the “special snowflake” position as their default (female privilege) since the dawn of civilisation due to female privilege.

    “What is expected by the rest of your tribe, town, village, etc. is that you do the work of building a civilization. At least, that was how it once was for a good long while in Europe and America.”

    By that logic we should all still ride around on horse and cart because that was what worked back then. Your entire argument fails to take into account the pragmatic survivalist factors which led to that state of play to begin with and which aslso happen to have become largely obsolete.

    Congratulations, all you’ve done here is demonstrate that “conventional wisdom” is an oxymoron.

  243. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    That last reply to IBB was funny. A bad mutha fucka isn’t going to run some fat bitch with kids when 20 year old Kristina running around fucking every body. I live in the Dallas fort worth area no need for oneitus here. All races and classes of women are here for the screwing. I’li take the 42 year old with the 3 kids

  244. theasdgamer says:

    @livingtree

    “Even if you met someone who doesn’t judge you, who wants to get married, who has faith in you”

    “someone who doesn’t judge you” means “doesn’t care that I’m a slut”

    “who wants to get married” implies “doesn’t care that I’m a slut”

    “who has faith in you” means “doesn’t care that I’m a slut”

    Wanna parrrrrty?

  245. theasdgamer says:

    @livingtree

    “You just justified the entire fucked up conundrum of the human existence with testosterone.”

    I agree, earl screwed up. Women should be valued for their entire plumbing, not just the vagina. For the brain and mouth, not so much. heh XD

  246. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Johnycomelately says:

    “I find it odd that most people on this board seem to operate under the conclusion that men will continue to provide the same motivational outcomes (marriage) despite changed incentives and circumstances.”

    While I agree with you, the incentives for the thirsty 80% in some ways are STRONGER now then they were before and I think that’s where the cyncism about “women getting their cake and eatting it comes from.” Let me explain. For the thirsty 80% their only chance for pussy is often marrying a slut. They’ve been raised with female supremacy. They’ve been shamed for not having a woman, and finally they have one. They believe her when she says she’s ready to settle down, and he looks away from the red flags. he wants children, he’s been told he’ll be a good father. THIS. IS. IT. HIS ONE CHANCE AT HAPPINESS.

    It is only when he has this “prize” that it turns to ashes, and then he’s trapped, being miserable for the sake of the kids (and unlike women, men will endure all levels of pain and torment for his children and a lot of men do).

    “The issue isn’t Kristina, the issue is how will the 29 partners and other men in general respond, to expect that men’s behaviour will not change is short sighted.”

    Men will drink the sand because they’re so thirsty and don’t know better.

    “There is a certain amount of social inertia but there will come a tipping point, most of the writers here were brought up watching Leave it to Beaver, the current generation has been brought up with Grand Theft Auto and porn.”

    And that’s why I agree with you, because men are starting “to know better” the lies are getting to much not to be seen. The under 30 men are waking up. There is no illusion that “women are the moral sex” because they don’t have wonderful moms and grandmothers, they have monsters and their friends have monsters.

    They don’t believe the lies anymore.

  247. Andrew Richards says:

    @Cicero “Well the feminist notion is contradicting itself when they equate this type of behaviour with that of being a standard for men that they should also be measure against. Because this mindset that the quantity of their conquests is the measure of a “man” is based on the view that it equates to strive for what some men perceive to be masculine behaviour. Thus the feminist argument is fundamentally flawed because the inverse would imply that the more males they conquer will thus be the measure of a “women” and thus more feminine behaviour. So how can this then in your view be driving feminist notion due to the fact that feminism is against both masculinity and against femininity?”

    I completely agree that the state of play for feminism is utterly hypocritical, but it’s also completely predictable.

    The problem lies in the fact that feminist superficial observations tend to be correct, but they fail to dig any deeper (much less even begin to break free from the uterocentric paradigm) and fallaciously take only what they have observed and take those observations to their ideological conclusions.

    The concept of “Patriarchy” for example is nothing more than the most superficial observation of famel paternalisation taken to its most ridiculous conclusions – the complete picture of exactly what comprised the whole of that paternalisation or how it was enforced becomes irrelevant.

    Instead of them recognising that women were paternalised on the grounds of their uteruses and that men were made expendable to that end (and by extension, all socialised behaviour, including the 0.1%er males are a function of that expendability), they ludicrously reduce the whole situation to one where men are overlords and women are subjugated. Thus feminists view only men as having privilege and women as having no privilege. The actual truth is that “privilege” is nothing more than the socially constructed reward for an individual epitomising uterocentrism. To be fair though, alot of that has to to with the traditionalist glorification of male disposability.

    Thus where the reality is that where society needed women to be perpetually barefoot and pregnant at one stage because of low life expectancies, high child mortality rates and high maternal mortality rates, just so there could be a viable next generation, feminists view it as men as a zeitgeist actively seeking to reduce women to sexual objects due to a warped perception of intrinsic manhood.

    Likewise when it comes to work. The fact is that with the odd exception, like secreterial work, most jobs at one point have had a strong element of danger to them, where death or serious injury were fairly common. The reason men were dominating those fields was because the uterus was deemed to valuable to risk harm to in them and by contrast, men’s reproductive natures deemed them to be expendable. Yet what feminists see is women being insidiously oppressed and controlled by being denied access to those fields by men as a zeitgeist.

    Sex itself is no different. On one hand, feminists recognise the small sliver of the whole picture that a woman’s uterus was controlled purely for the sake of childbirth and that women were sexually controlled by society to that end -so they argue for women being held to the same sexual standards as men. However they fail to grasp the other 90+% of the issue. Including both the insidious nature of gender pribvilege and the fact that both genders have privilege.

    To begin with they fail to recognise that that convention is primarily and ironically a tool to limit reproductive access by men to eugenically control human breeding. Even a look at the classic dating cycle demonstrates this – where traditionally it has always been men pursuing and courting women, rather than the reverse. Worse still they fail to recognise just how destructive and toxic the sexual standards men are held to by society.

    To begin with the entire approach to male sexuality and masculinity in general is best comnpared to producing prize bulls; our society has for centuries, thrown all men and boys into a life of brutal contests, designed to produce and glorify the biggest and baddest protectors and see the rest tossed aside, subsequently seeing to it that they are allowed to breed. Thus society come to recognise men has having value in the disposable traits it wanted from them, and the meausre of the reward for having those traits (which both reinforced those desirable traits and glorified them). Even more insidious was that it turned male sexuality into a glorified slave collar by which we could be controlled, with women being the slave overseers (eg “God’s Police”).

    The fact is that society has used male sexuality as a tool to disconnect men from their own sexuality, condone rape and pedophilia against men and boys along with other forms of abuse and to socially control every aspect of a man’s life- where that fails, denying him access to human reproduction.

    That is the barbaric state of play both genders are subjected to, yet bcause feminists view privilege as only being male, and view everything through the lens of men trying to keep women oppressed, they domatically jump to the false conclusion that attitudes towards male sexuality must only be a good thing and that it’s yet another area where men have all the power and all the fun- so they want the whole thing for themselves. In short, it’s more than just mere hypocrisy, it’s insanity.

    I could go on to examine how uterocentrism has trianed women to want to have their every whim provided for and to typically be conditioned into perpetual victimhood in one regard or another and how that has played into the rise of feminism and what we’re seeing now, but I figure I should at leasdt try and avoid this getting too long. I hope that’s answered your question.

  248. Desiderius says:

    Andrew,

    My apologies, the question was to Lancaster. I’m glad we’ve also finally unearthed what it was that originally set you off. As Marissa and I have made clear, women are just as disposable as men. It’s the human condition. The topic of the thread is marriage. To understand a thing, one begins by examining its purpose. Form follows function. The purpose of marriage is effective procreation.

    If you have anything to say on these points, I’m game. If all you have to say is that some bullshit feminist says the same thing I’m saying, then:

    (A) Who cares what they say, they’re full of bullshit. Look at what they do.
    (B) This is the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle. Bullshit feminists also breathe air – will you be jumping my shit for doing likewise?

  249. Desiderius says:

    “And that’s why I agree with you, because men are starting “to know better” the lies are getting to much not to be seen. The under 30 men are waking up. There is no illusion that “women are the moral sex” because they don’t have wonderful moms and grandmothers, they have monsters and their friends have monsters.

    They don’t believe the lies anymore.”

    I’m seeing the same thing. There’s also another generation in the middle who weren’t raised on Leave it to Beaver or GTA; we were raised on Free to be You and Me. That shit is stinking all the way to high heaven these days.

  250. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/04/02 | Free Northerner

  251. embracing reality says:

    With an N-29 Kristina will now spend the next few years playing the field before marrying some schlub? Sadly, I expect this is probably the case if she remains basically attractive as she was described. An underlying factor here which is often overlooked (or politely ignored) is the complete imbalance of power in the female dating pool as a result of the obesity epidemic, primarily in north America and the UK. The US has by percentage the fattest women in the entire world, it’s completely abnormal yet continuously justified. A fit petite woman in the US has power here that would be nothing in the vast majority of the worlds population. An overweight schlub with a great career on the other hand will suit slutty Kristy just fine, she’s only going to have sex with him a few times before the wedding and after that rarely if ever.

    Kristina’s is an over-achiever in the slutty olympics but we all know that average sluts are pretty much standard now, even in church. NAWALT aside how can there be any other solution to this problem than MGTOW for the vast majority of young men? How? Face it fella’s, America is a nation of slutty single women who if married become obese, sexless, manipulative monsters (in the majority).

    Beyond MGTOW the odds are abysmal! Tell me how they’re not.

  252. embracing reality says:

    Incidentally, I’ve had no difficulty in dating basically attractive “Christian” women for 20 years, rarely have I dated a Christian woman who claimed virginity (yes I asked). This was true even when I was dating Christian women who were 17.

  253. livingtree,

    Dalrock:
    Your notion that the harlot women will have no marriageable (meaning: traditional) males to marry them is so old-school!
    These women will be (and are) financially self-reliant thanks to their college education, connections and ambition (and in some cases, their harlot divorce settlements, though that’s hopefully on the way out if I have anything to say about it). They can be (and are) in good shape at 40. And they can find themselves a hot, early-30’s starving artist-type who will be more than happy to share the bed of an older, financially self-reliant woman who will feed them in exchange for regular sex (so who’s really losing out here?). You think she wants to marry him? Get real. By this point, she doesn’t even care, that life is over. She’s better off without all that strife.
    This happens more often than you know.

    I do not agree with you politically livingtree, but your point about the 40-something divorced woman moving the 30 something starving artist stud into the house is (well) sadly accurate.

    I don’t like it. But I’ve seen it. Time and again. I only wish Dalrock would also acknowledge this. I fear he will not.

    Dalrock,

    Either way, why would a man with options choose an aging divorcée single mother? The assumption must be the men with the largest members prefer the least desirable women. It makes no sense, unless one is deeply invested in the EPL fantasy.

    Because he doesn’t have options. He doesn’t have a job. He has physical attractiveness to an older divorced woman but no income and no assets and no place to live. He is alphamale in looks only. Get it?

    This has nothing to do with Eat-Pray-Love. It has to do with him being a good looking oaf who is good in bed but can’t hold a job or pay a bill. No options Dalrock. So he uses his body to secure resources from a divorced mom.

    greyghost,

    That last reply to IBB was funny. A bad mutha fucka isn’t going to run some fat bitch with kids when 20 year old Kristina running around fucking every body.

    Of course he will if (and only if) the fat bitch with kids’ ex-husband is supporting him by giving him a place for his unemployable ass to live. Get it?

    He might still be slamming Kristina on the side (no doubt) but he lives with the fat bitch because she gives him food and money. Kristina doesn’t.

  254. Andrew Richards says:

    @Des You are in no position to talk about bullshit when your argument here is ideologically identical to those of a mangina at a foundational level. In fact, in an utterly predictable manner, you have added yet another example of how trad cons and feminists are merely the flip side of the same coin; you both pereptuate the same paradigm although you would fight to the death to deny it.

    You claim women are disposable. Really, that’s why men are the primary victims of war and casualties of large scale infrastructure projects in numbers which utterly eclipse those of women is it? That’s why violence against women is “a tragedy” but violence against men is “business as usual” is it? That’s why a man raping an underage girl is regarded as abhorrent but a woman raping an underage boy is regarded as a rite of passage is it? Don’t make me laugh. Women are certainly objectified as men are, but they are every bit as paternalised and protected by society as men are deemed disposable and worthless – just as it always has been. However what you’re failing to grasp is that it is far more social engineering than it is a naturally occurring phnenomenon.

    In fact the only part of your argument that is even remotely accurate is that we are talking about marriage. If you were even remotely capable ofr putting down the glass of white knight koolaid for even 30 seconds and recognising your own dogmatic double ignorance, you would actually recognise that marriage traditrionally involves a man and a woman – meaning that so is the gender politics which goes with it.

    Far more than arguing that children should copme first and both parents should come an equal second, you have adopted a position here that children should come first and men should come dead last. That is classic male disposability, female infantalisation and female hypergamous hypocrisy – the very underlying paradigm of both tradcons and feminists alike.

  255. MarcusD says:

    Relevant images:

  256. Kirk Parker says:

    Opus (@ 4:20am): surely she means 29 partners, not 29 encounters?

    jf12, re your #2: I guffawed out loud when reading about these “young” 32 and 38 year olds. My wife and I got married right out of college (actually halfway through her senior year) and “young” marriages were those that happened right out of high school.

  257. MarcusD says:

    Also, see the last GIF for worldwide trends in age at first marriage for women over time: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/03/trends-in-global-fertility-rates.html

  258. Kirk Parker says:

    LivingTree2013 (@12:48pm),

    I think you’re right about the disparity, but when you come to giving an actual numerical estimate you’re off by a factor of 5 or 10.

  259. Pingback: Rationalizing sluttery as a path to marriage. |...

  260. Hawk&Rock says:

    “This is what bothers you about “modern” women, isn’t it – men are reduced to sex objects (the irony!). I guess for the fellas who don’t make the cut, it sucks. Maybe it all sucks, I don’t know. But right now it seems like just one more step towards a fairer society. Harsh, yes, but fair, a society in which the weak perish.”

    This entire post was a string of unsupportable, confused lies but I like the irony of this last part the best. The hard truth — the one feminists won’t ever dare acknowledge — is that their current “equal” status depends on a highly advanced, technological and legal apparatus that is almost 100% maintained by men. Maintaining the fraud is exorbitantly expensive and the ONLY way it can work is through MASSIVE transfer of resources (by force and threat of force) from men to women.

    This state of things cannot and will not last forever. A big enough war, the crack up financial bust, probably both and ….poof — these ‘fabulous’ 40 something’s with their glamorous ‘careers’ in marketing or HR etc. will be trading blow jobs for cans of beans IF THEY ARE LUCKY.

    “A society in which the weak perish” is a society in which lots and lots women and children perish. Behold the end game of the feminist hypergamous utopia.

  261. Pingback: the Revision Division

  262. theasdgamer says:

    @Marcus

    Wonderful charts! Could you also break the charts for “status over time and age” into charts by race? I know that white women are far more likely to marry eventually than black women.

  263. greyghost says:

    I’m not too worried about the low birth rate and High age of women at first marriage. There are plenty of people to enjoy life as a member of civilization. Look at the world population in the 50 and 60’s and see the technological gains. My only problem is the laws of misandry. I think it is silly and fool hardy to try and come up with a reason or way to be married and have a traditional family with the laws we have in place. It is stupid and irresponsible. It also puts family stability completely in the hands of women. Look what that has got us. Take a look at Detroit that is where this leads to. A whole nation looking and living like Detroit with no hope other than to become a member of the elite so has to live better.
    Far more effort needs to be spent breaking the spirit of the feminine imperative.

  264. Badpainter says:

    IBB-

    “40-something divorced woman moving the 30 something starving artist stud into the house is (well) sadly accurate.”

    As an artsy type guy I have tell you artists and their fans aren’t like normal people. The cougar and sculptor are odd perhaps, but it was no less odd in 1920’s, 1890’s,1830’s, generally at any time in the past. Although an uncommon occurrence, it’s not historically unusual. I’d even suggest it’s a common fantasy amongst young male artists, sort of a hybrid professional/sexual daydream. Think Peggy Guggenheim, and Jackson Pollack.

  265. Opus says:

    @Dalrock (and anyone else)

    It seems to me that Kristina faces some problems which may not aid her in her quest for marital happiness:

    1. She is a woman used to having sex with men on demand; given her high partner count many of those men will be guys that were merely in the right place at the right time. She has demonstrated a lack of self-control as well as a lack of taste; and thus she will have difficulty turning off that need for supply merely because she acquires a wedding band.

    2. Men will notice that Kristina oozes slut (and even so her reputation may well proceed her). Guys with options will not sign up for marriage with that, and thus she will end up with a Beta – the sort of guy who previously (other than when drunk) she would not have cared for. Marrying a Carousel Rider or ex-porn star is signing up for a priori cuckolding. She is probably confusing her SMV with her MMV.

    3. Most women (despite modern encouragement) actually like being part of a couple, such that that overrides the doubtful yet intense pleasures and validation of occasional casual sex. Kristina does not seem to be of that type – she fails to bond with those with whom she participates in sexual intercourse – and thus she seems to be defective in normal human bonding. I have yet to come across a woman with a high partner count who was using sex for anything other than for the purpose of validating her desirability and worth.

    4. It is noticeable that Kristina does not intend to be courted, but apparently Mr Right will just materialise and instantly wife her up. Perhaps, but this sounds to me like a woman who is used to her desires being instantly granted. That is not good training for the give and take of a relationship, and she may well quickly tire of Mr Right.

  266. Elspeth says:

    Could you also break the charts for “status over time and age” into charts by race? I know that white women are far more likely to marry eventually than black women.

    It’s true, but every time I say it I’m told that it’s not true or irrelevant. Many black women do marry. They just usually marry much later and the divorce rate is dismal; at least when they’re married to black men. I defied both those statistical realities but my ends do not justify the means, so I’d rather they just wait.

    I do believe my girls will marry, but they will most likely marry later <25 than is commonly deemed feasible around these parts. That's just the way the trajectory goes for those black women fortunate enough to marry at all. So long as they live a godly life in the interim, we're fine with that.

  267. earl says:

    Stings when you reduce a woman to her sexuality doesn’t it.

    So stop doing it to men.

  268. Desiderius says:

    “You claim women are disposable. Really, that’s why men are the primary victims of war and casualties of large scale infrastructure projects in numbers which utterly eclipse those of women is it?”

    Because we’re all mortal, male and female. Let me know when you’re done riding the hobby horse and are ready to sit at the grown-up table.

  269. Flip says:

    She will definitely be able to marry as long as she is reasonably thin and still fertile. It is much tougher although possible if she already has children. Once a woman is no longer fertile, there is really no point in marrying her unless she’s rich and you are poor.

  270. Desiderius says:

    “With an N-29 Kristina will now spend the next few years playing the field before marrying some schlub? Sadly, I expect this is probably the case if she remains basically attractive as she was described. An underlying factor here which is often overlooked (or politely ignored) is the complete imbalance of power in the female dating pool as a result of the obesity epidemic, primarily in north America and the UK.”

    She may well do better than a schlub. As you note, the competition is hamstrung by obesity. If she knows how to, and is willing to, be feminine, that gives her another big leg up. I’ve seen relatively high-N feminine women do quite well while their more chaste sisters who’ve spent their whole lives stuck in long relationships being pedestalized by herbs go begging. The latter trains a women for dominance and solipsism, not femininity.

    Neither one are very conducive to becoming a good wife and mother.

  271. Desiderius says:

    Women like this do well, whatever the N. The best ones recognize that keeping the N down or better finding a good marriage partner early is a key factor in becoming like that.

  272. earl says:

    “Neither one are very conducive to becoming a good wife and mother.”

    I’d take the chaste one over the slut though. The difference between a bad attitude and diseased body over a bad attitude with a healthy body is a big one.

  273. HawkandRock says:

    Generations of western men have now been deeply indoctrinated/shamed into internalizing the idea that to discriminate based on chastity (or to even inquire about it) makes them weak, insecure and less manly. Accordingly, all high N women who are relatively fit and attractive will still be able to get married to an acceptable man pretty much whenever they want to.

    Maintaining that marriage, though? That’s a completely different story. It’s hard to keep ‘em down on the farm when they’ve spent years seeing the world and sampling its goods. Throw in the fact that the law pretty much guarantees her the same lifestyle whether she keeps her husband or ditches him for a better man and you have divorce rates that approach….well……today’s divorce rates.

  274. jf12 says:

    To me, the perception of her chastity makes a woman literally physically more attractive, adding a full point or two, or three, to some 10-point scale. I’m sure it could be conveyed with overt advertising: demure looks, virgin white, nothing exposed, etc. But simply me being told, or having other reasons to believe, that a woman is chaste already increases her physical attractiveness to me. I’m emphasizing physical here because I know women are going to try to misunderstand. I’m not talking about cloudy dreamland whatif thoughtful attractiveness scales, simply the Rockwell scale.

    In contrast the perception of her sluttiness, in addition to the visceral (again, physical) repulsion that earl mentions, separately my perception of her attractiveness decreases, no matter what she’s wearing or not. About the only “positive” that sluttiness conveys is that she will not make things harder than they need to be. Sluttiness is easiness, and vice versa. Consider, women, just how bad most men have it: they are so hungry that they will hold their noses and eat rotten meat just because the better meat keeps being difficult and out of reach. And in time they will have been trained to not even try for anything but rotten meat because that is what “works”.

  275. Bones says:

    This girl may marry, or she may not, but the trend is downward. Every one of my ten or so unmarried friends under the age of thirty knows how the system works now. They saw it all in high school. They all know someone in a hell-marriage, or are the product of one. They discuss all this frankly and treat it as just-the-way-it -is. One of them (23 years old, I think) told me without rancor that “My Mom’s a slut, but she’s having trouble now because she’s too old.”

    I don’t think a single one of these ordinary but decent guys will be tricked into marriage. In the population at large, of course, it will still happen, but less and less. The word is getting around and much faster and more completely than some might think.

  276. feeriker says:

    ER: Incidentally, I’ve had no difficulty in dating basically attractive “Christian” women for 20 years, rarely have I dated a Christian woman who claimed virginity (yes I asked). This was true even when I was dating Christian women who were 17.

    Careful: you’re confusing “Christian” here with “churchian.” The girls you dated were of the latter category (infinitely more numerous than the former).

  277. Andrew Richards says:

    @Des “Because we’re all mortal, male and female. Let me know when you’re done riding the hobby horse and are ready to sit at the grown-up table.”

    Your argument is pure hyp[ocrisy. For starters, using hollow piety to justify the institutionalised dehumanisation of another human being (which is exactly what you’ve just done) is the textbook behaviour of a pharisee. Secondly, you’re in no position to talk about maturity when the entire premise of your argument is based on the a fairytale’s understanding of gender.

  278. Marissa says:

    Firstly you’re half right. Women have been valued in terms of their reproductive abilities, which in turn reduced men to disposable labor to facilitate and protect their wombs. What you refer to about the housdehold, is in turn a biproduct of giving women jobs in the domain that is considered “safe”.

    However the difference is that where it’s commonly socially accepted that women have been valued in terms of their reproductive abilities, most people are doubly ignorant of male disposability- including in fields which attempt to address gender issues.

    Certainly since the advent of feminism it is true that the almost entirely male role of building civilization has been discounted. But to say men are never honored for their sacrifices throughout the history of civilization is false. Especially when it comes to their smallest circles.

    A woman calling a man a “special snowflake” is the height of irony. Forgetting about the fact that it’s a classic shaming tactic designed to disconnect a man from his self-identity and reduce him to a disposable object of utility, the fact is that it is women who have had the “special snowflake” position as their default (female privilege) since the dawn of civilisation due to female privilege.

    No man or woman is a special snowflake to the vast majority of every other human being. I’m not shaming you, just telling you the truth. It hurts, but most everyone in the world does not care about you and never has. This modern idea that everyone is important and should be respected and loved is infantile.

    By that logic we should all still ride around on horse and cart because that was what worked back then. Your entire argument fails to take into account the pragmatic survivalist factors which led to that state of play to begin with and which aslso happen to have become largely obsolete.

    Monogamous marriage is the backbone of civilization. That’s what people here are trying and hoping to save. It doesn’t have only to do with pragmatic factors; it also has to do with God’s commands to us as men and women. Men are the head of the family; they lead and they have the responsibility of protecting and providing. Women are to submit to their husbands, respect his commands even at his worse, and provide him children and comfort (yes, sexual too). Back to pragmatic factors, children raised in the homes of their biological parents do far better than any other pairing. Societies that encourage chaste marriage and forbid divorce are more stable than those like, say, the U.S. which encourages sluttiness and disloyalty. These are all actual real effects of monogamous marriage that have nothing to do with your absurd cart and horse analogy. These are timeless things.

  279. feeriker says:

    Generations of western men have now been deeply indoctrinated/shamed into internalizing the idea that to discriminate based on chastity (or to even inquire about it) makes them weak, insecure and less manly. 

    Tragically and inexcusably, the “church” has been behind a lot of that shaming.

    As for the idea that a carousel-riding slut of the Kristina type can snag a quality husband once she tires of random cock by adopting a chaste and demure demeanor, fuggeddaboutit. She ain’t gonna fool nobody. A whore is a whore is a whore. It becomes part of her spiritual and psychological DNA to the point that she can no more “hide” it than can Siamese twins hide the fact that they’re conjoined. Short of spiritual rebirth in Jesus (the “genuine article” being as rare as sightings of the Northern Lights in Miami, and therefore irrelevant for purposes of this discussion), the Slut will remain a permanent and prominent feature that oozes from every pore of her being. NO man with even a shred of dignity or self-respect, however firmly in the gripe of dire sexual famine, will EVER put a ring on THAT.

    But yes, these unrepentant sluts, most of them, will find a human male to wife them up IF they want to be wifed up. However, the pitiful creatures that do wife them up, far from being self-deluded white knights, are spineless, self-haters who KNOW that they’re getting the soiled dregs of yesterday’s SMP – and believe that they neither deserve nor can get anything better. The sluts they are foolish enough to marry will agree with them – and will treat them accordingly.

  280. BradA says:

    @Elspeth,

    “I do believe my girls will marry, but they will most likely marry later <25 than is commonly deemed feasible around these parts."

    I would credit the fact my wife was over 25 as being a big factor in the fact we never gave birth to any children (one pregnancy) in spite of her mom having 5 in total. Some other factors may have played a role, but her age had to have been a factor. She also picked up more feminism than she realized, though she would be labeled as very conservative by most.

    Waiting could be a really bad idea in many ways. You may not be able to do much about it, but my bet is that it won't be a good thing.

    ========

    The lady in the OP may get married, but she won't have much of a marriage and my bet is she won't be married 5 years later. It will suck to be her children, if she has any.

  281. earl says:

    ” The word is getting around and much faster and more completely than some might think.”

    The only people in the dark would be those that wish to stay there…or those without internet.

    Blind ignorance after 50 years is over.

  282. Elspeth says:

    @ Brad:

    By “wait”, I didn’t mean deliberately putting off marriage when they could be married to a good man sooner. I would love for any (or all) of my girls to be married sooner rather than later. I meant “wait” as in it’s better to do things God’s way rather than the way their mama did them even if it means they have to wait longer to be married.

    It’s just a reality that most black women marry later. I am not for sure why that is, but it just is. maybe we’re late bloomers, LOL.

    That said, it is rare the woman who is healthy and fertile, that can’t bear children at age 25, or even 30. I was having babies well into my mid-to-late 30’s.

  283. JDG says:

    Andrew are you a Christian?

  284. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, IBB’s size queen aspect is more likely only half vicarious…

  285. earl says:

    ” Consider, women, just how bad most men have it: they are so hungry that they will hold their noses and eat rotten meat just because the better meat keeps being difficult and out of reach. And in time they will have been trained to not even try for anything but rotten meat because that is what “works”.”

    Well you have two choices…eat the rotten meat and become sick, or learn to live in the desert and turn your hunger into a strength.

  286. Andrew Richards says:

    @Marissa “Certainly since the advent of feminism it is true that the almost entirely male role of building civilization has been discounted. But to say men are never honored for their sacrifices throughout the history of civilization is false. Especially when it comes to their smallest circles.”

    Once again you’re missing the forest for the trees here. The problem is that even at its best, society has only ever valued men in terls of what it can get out of them.

    To quote Dr Warren Farrell:

    “The single biggest barrier to getting men to look within is that what any other group would call powerlessness, men have been taught to call power. We don’t call “male-killing” sexism; we call it “glory.” We don’t call the one million men who were killed or maimed in one battle in World War I (the Battle of the Somme) a holocaust, we call it “serving the country.” We don’t call those who selected only men to die “murderers.” We call them “voters.” Our slogan for women is “A Woman’s Body, A Woman’s Choice”; our slogan for men is “A Man’s Gotta Do What a Man’s Gotta Do.”

    How is that even remotely close to the Christian ideal of humanity, where the Father values each of us so much that he invites us to call Him Abba and have a personal relationship with him and who sent his Son to die for our sins? Yet that paradigm is exactly what you espouse.

    “No man or woman is a special snowflake to the vast majority of every other human being. I’m not shaming you, just telling you the truth. It hurts, but most everyone in the world does not care about you and never has. This modern idea that everyone is important and should be respected and loved is infantile.”

    So by your argument, you believe thtat the core tennants of Christianity are infantile then. Then fact is that it is a sign of utter barbarism to view people as only having value in terms of their utility; it is the sign of being civilised to view all human life as having intrinsic value, regardless of their utility and the desireability of that utility- even the core tennant of Christianity take that approach.

    “Monogamous marriage is the backbone of civilization. That’s what people here are trying and hoping to save.”

    Sheer fallacy on your part – recognising that the factors which necessitated the traditional gender roles within marriage have become obsolete, in no way, shape or form equates to a stance which opposes monogamous marriage.

    “It doesn’t have only to do with pragmatic factors; it also has to do with God’s commands to us as men and women. Men are the head of the family; they lead and they have the responsibility of protecting and providing. Women are to submit to their husbands, respect his commands even at his worse, and provide him children and comfort (yes, sexual too).”

    You’re also talking about social factors which existed 2,000 yearts ago and existed in that climate. The fact is that the socio-environmental factors which have traditionally defined the male and female spheres of influence have become non-existent within the last century and so advocating for them is doing so purely for the sake of conventon. It has absoutely nothing to do with a healthy marriage. The fact is that if you advocating for a position which needlessly sacrifices another human being out of secular needs rather than love, then your position is devoid of love and is thus that of a pharisee rather than that of a Christian. In fact, on religious grounds, your argument is akin to claiming that the 600+ laws prescribed by the pharisees are more important than the 2 commandments Christ gave us.

    “Back to pragmatic factors, children raised in the homes of their biological parents do far better than any other pairing. Societies that encourage chaste marriage and forbid divorce are more stable than those like, say, the U.S. which encourages sluttiness and disloyalty. These are all actual real effects of monogamous marriage that have nothing to do with your absurd cart and horse analogy. These are timeless things.”

    None of those things justify the perpetuation of female infantalisation and male disposability either, yet that is esxactly what you are doign here- claiming that they cannot be separated because that’s how things were traditionally done. It is exactly like claiming that because roads were only ever used with a horse and cart, that people should only ever ride around in a horse and buggy.

    The fact is that we live in a society where both men and women are capavble of things like learning martial arts, both men and women are capble of being the breadwinner, nd in some cases a family may involve stay at home dad and a working mother. That in no way shape or form negates a healthy, monogamous marriage – where both people are commited to working on their marriage, where the children have a healthy and loving upbringing and where botrh people remain completely faithful to each other.

    Claiming anything to the contrary does far more to hammer nails in the coffin of monogamous marriage than it does to save it.

  287. aaronthejust says:

    @Andrew Richards

    Why should any man agree to a monogamous marriage?

    It’s just some old fashioned artefact from 2,000 yeas ago.

    And a family with a stay at home dad and a working mother is laughably absurd. Does the dad gestate the infants in his belly and nurse them at his chest?

  288. “I guess for the fellas who don’t make the cut, it sucks. Maybe it all sucks, I don’t know. But right now it seems like just one more step towards a fairer society. Harsh, yes, but fair, a society in which the weak perish.”

    That’s awful. How is that “fair”?

  289. Ras Al Ghul says:

    earl says:

    ” The word is getting around and much faster and more completely than some might think.”

    The only people in the dark would be those that wish to stay there…or those without internet.

    Blind ignorance after 50 years is over.

    I have heard young men working at grocery actually say “Never get married and never let them move in.” while discussing women out of earshot of other women. These aren’t alphas, they’re not manospherians.

    There is a strike going on, it isn’t women just being choosy. And frankly, I’m ok with it.

    Marriage was for two purposes, none of which have to do with happiness(which is just a big lie to get people to do it)

    1) Raising children
    2) Extracting labor from men

    Now they extract the labor either indirectly through taxes and wealth transfers, or by direct confiscation via child support and men are increasingly out of the raising of children arena. Legal marriage is dead, let it die. A couple living together is closer to biblical marriage anyway at this point, the threat point is different.

    Now I expect the government to start ramping up the attempts to make cohabitating into marriage in the next ten years before they try to make small changes in the marriage laws that won’t matter.

    But this isn’t fixable until western civilization collapses.

    They’re not going to fix any of this without a complete collapse of civilivation.

    And before the happily marrieds start piling on, I want to say right here, that yes there are happily married people, about 1% of all marriages are happy, just as about 1% of women are 10s at some point in their lives.

    Not a decent gamble ever.

  290. Andrew Richards says:

    @aaronthejust Your entire position is flawed and utterly sexist- clearly grounded in doubl e ignorance. To begin with, monogamous marriage under its most universal definition is simply a man and a woman who love each other deciding they want to raise a family together and spend their lives together- entering into marriage with their eyes wide open. Whether a man decides that is right for him and finds a woman worthy of that commitment will depend on the life and choices of each man. However it is the right of any man who does happen to find that combination, to make that decision.

    Furthermore at it’s most traditional you may have a point, but at it’s most universal, that point is flawed. In fact, monogamous marriage at its most universl level is that flexible in its framework that there is no reason that with the right woman that it cannot be mutually beneficial.

    AS for your laughable and ignorant chauvinism with regards to gender, I would suggest you actually try viewing men and women as diverse and univque human beings, rather than pieces of meat defined entirely by their genitalia.

  291. HawkandRock says:

    “I guess for the fellas who don’t make the cut, it sucks. Maybe it all sucks, I don’t know. But right now it seems like just one more step towards a fairer society. Harsh, yes, but fair, a society in which the weak perish.”

    That entire post was one big confused pile of lies but I liked the irony of this part the best. An uncomfortable truth for feminism is the fact that the modern woman’s fabulousness depends almost entirely on MASSIVE transfers of wealth from men to women enforced at the point of the gun of the state.

    This state of affairs will not continue because it can not continue. When the gravy train stops because of a major war or a crack-up bust or both at the same time, the facade will collapse quickly. The truth about her “fair society in which the weak perish” will be that A LOT of women and children will perish (even the ones who have fabulous ‘careers’ in marketing and HR etc.). Many more than will men.

    Behold the hypergamous feminist utopia and watch the devil chuckle.

  292. Marissa says:

    The problem is that even at its best, society has only ever valued men in terls of what it can get out of them.

    And what is it that you think society has historically desired from women? Self-actualization? Happiness? No. Childbearing, food preparation, education of the new generation. Some societies have been better than others. Those based sincerely on Christian ideals, which only exist these days in the Amish-like model, clearly valued people for their souls as well as their worldly skills. Remember, it was Paul who wrote, “if any would not work, neither should he eat”.

    I consider most wars to be gravely evil. It is typically engineering by apex males desiring both more resources and to “cull the male herd” of desirable and undesirable genetic material, lessening both competition for mates and “undesirables”. However, it is certainly glorious that men, when placed in this most awful of positions, still fight for the lives of their fellow men. Those looking from the outside in call it “serving their country” or “honor” when in reality, the glory of the infantry unit is the love each soldier has for his closest compatriot. I mostly agree with Farrell and I don’t think most people should even be allowed to vote, nor should there be a draft.

    So by your argument, you believe thtat the core tennants of Christianity are infantile then. Then fact is that it is a sign of utter barbarism to view people as only having value in terms of their utility; it is the sign of being civilised to view all human life as having intrinsic value, regardless of their utility and the desireability of that utility- even the core tennant of Christianity take that approach.

    You’re confusing my “is” for my “ought”. Expecting total strangers to care for you like Christ does is infantile. It’s the same reason I don’t hand over my wallet to a total stranger and expect him to give me its contents back unmolested. Expecting someone to love you though you’ve demonstrated nothing of value to them is infantile. This is not the same as thinking people are worthless unless they’ve demonstrated their usefulness; it’s simply common sense. An expectation of others is not the same as how you treat them. I’ve never said there’s anything wrong with treating others with respect and intrinsic value; only expecting it from anyone else without showing them you’re worthy of it is a fool’s errand.

    Sheer fallacy on your part – recognising that the factors which necessitated the traditional gender roles within marriage have become obsolete, in no way, shape or form equates to a stance which opposes monogamous marriage.

    You’re also talking about social factors which existed 2,000 yearts ago and existed in that climate. The fact is that the socio-environmental factors which have traditionally defined the male and female spheres of influence have become non-existent within the last century and so advocating for them is doing so purely for the sake of conventon. It has absoutely nothing to do with a healthy marriage. The fact is that if you advocating for a position which needlessly sacrifices another human being out of secular needs rather than love, then your position is devoid of love and is thus that of a pharisee rather than that of a Christian. In fact, on religious grounds, your argument is akin to claiming that the 600+ laws prescribed by the pharisees are more important than the 2 commandments Christ gave us.

    Nope, I’m talking about the Word of God. These “traditional gender roles” are from the Bible. Are you invalidating everything Paul said because you think his writings don’t apply to 1900-onward? I’m certain that Paul didn’t say, “Wives submit to your husbands…until the 19th amendment is passed.” These traditional sex roles have everything to do with happy marriages. The Bible literally lays out how each sex is to behave, even how each sex when they are older is to behave. These roles are not to be discarded because they offend your modern sensibilities. These roles exist because men and women are different. They have different strengths and weaknesses.

    None of those things justify the perpetuation of female infantalisation and male disposability either, yet that is esxactly what you are doign here- claiming that they cannot be separated because that’s how things were traditionally done. It is exactly like claiming that because roads were only ever used with a horse and cart, that people should only ever ride around in a horse and buggy.

    No, I’m claiming that the Bible tells us that men and women in marriage are to act a certain way, and that when people follow these dictums then they can build a society that makes this fallen world a little easier to bear.

    The fact is that we live in a society where both men and women are capavble of things like learning martial arts, both men and women are capble of being the breadwinner, nd in some cases a family may involve stay at home dad and a working mother.

    I live in a society where I’m capable of becoming a firefighter, but that doesn’t mean that simply because I’m capable of it that it’s a good thing to do. Nor is it a good thing for any woman to do. Not only do the vast majority of women lack the strength and mechanical aptitude for the job, the exceedingly small percentage who are physically capable disrupt the male-only bonding that occurs in these types of positions.

    Men and women are different. These differences didn’t magically go away because some fools decided to grant women voting rights. God gave men headship because they are more capable at leading, and thus with that ability comes the responsibility a leader must bear. You might call it “infantilization” but women are simply not as capable as men. Why do you think, as Mr. Farrell has stated with utter truth, that civilization-building is an almost purely male endeavor? It is their nature and aptitude, not found in women.

  293. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth
    April 1, 2014 at 11:12 am

    “The notion that there are no Christian *good girls* is not exactly true. I keep wondering if we are just a part of an unusual social circle.”

    Most of these guys are probably not acquainted with conservative Protestant denominations or colleges which still practice in loco parentis.

    April 2, 2014 at 6:31 am

    gamer: “I know that white women are far more likely to marry eventually than black women.”

    It’s true, but every time I say it I’m told that it’s not true or irrelevant. Many black women do marry.

    The black women who do marry–do they tend to be UMC or LMC? Are they college grads? Is there some way to project who is more likely to marry other than looks? If they are college grads and marry at <27 y.o., do they have a statistically lower chance of divorce?

    Does it depend at all on where they go to church? I heard of a scandal a few years back that 70% of black preachers were promiscuous. Is that a problem?

  294. Cicero says:

    @ Andrew Richards

    First of thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my question.
    I do however think that you did not understand my question as I intended. This is probably due to an error on my part so I will rephrase. As per my first post the type of behaviour used as a driving notion that you used as an example can be broken down into the following
    1. This type of behaviour by some men is perceived by them as being masculine in nature.
    2. Having feminist try and emulate this type of behaviour in women would logically be inverse as being construed as achieving femininity. Even though it is the diametrically opposite of masculinity and in itself would rather strive for quality over quantity as opposed to being the main goal of the above mentioned “masculine” behaviour.
    3. That feminist despises both masculinity and femininity and yet still making a claim to this type of “masculine” behaviour. Even though it is the antithesis of the feminists ideology.

    So by no stretch of imagination you can predict and see all the logical contradictions and fallacies of this feminist notion as to excuse female promiscuity.

    My question however is this.
    How in your view then does this form of argument (that you claim as being a driving notion for feminist to be promiscuous) have any credence due to the fact that it is in every way shape and form against the feminist doctrine of masculinity and femininity?

  295. deltahedge says:

    >“I guess for the fellas who don’t make the cut, it sucks. Maybe it all sucks, I don’t know. But right now it seems like just one more step towards a fairer society. Harsh, yes, but fair, a society in which the weak perish.”

    the weak have always perished. this is nothing new.

    what is new is that the productive and intelligent people do not procreate anymore.

    productive beta men are either cuckolded or do not want a 30 y/o woman who rode the cock carousel, and intelligent women do not procreate at all due to high opportunity costs associated with them having a career.

    the combination of these two trends is a dysgenic effect on a massive scale that we have not experienced so far. since there is a lag about 20-30 years until each reproduction contributes or drains society, it very hard to measure this effect quantitatively. but i would assume it had a signficant momentum already around 2000, and has only increased since then.

    i am very excited to observe this effect in the period 2020 to 2035.

  296. Elspeth says:

    The black women who do marry–do they tend to be UMC or LMC?

    Both. Getting married isn’t the problem. Well it actually is for many black women, but it’s doable. It’s staying married, which black couples seem to have a hard time with.

    Novaseeker often makes the point that having more to lose is a major factor in how well one behaves. This works the same way in the minority/lower classes, but in reverse. There’s nothing to lose if you leave an unhappy union, so you leave.

    I was educated (first in my family to go to college and get a degree), but very working class.My daddy worked hard and we never went without anything we needed, so i didn’t know we weren’t “middle class” until I got old enough to be exposed to something different. I married young and have stayed married for the past 20 years, happily I might add.

    Like every group of people. it mostly comes down to what you believe and how you live what you believe. Belief has to trump status though, or you almost always revert to what you know best.

    And black women as a class know single motherhood and working two jobs as the way things are. There are exceptions, and teen pregnancy in the black community has decreased dramatically over the past decade. A startling drop actually. It’s marriage that hasn’t risen accordingly. The bottom fell out of marriage 40 years ago among black Americans. Everyone else in just playing catch up.

  297. livingtree2013 says:

    @Dalrock, I absolutely LOVED that “Ominous” article you linked back to, very thought-provoking in so many different ways!! The topic of reward-based “economic” reasoning is one of my principle fascinations, and I will be referencing back to this post of yours many times in future, I think. If you had made it less about touting the benefits of getting married as a reward for good behavior, I would think it one of the best modern-day philosophical treatises I’ve read in a long while.

    Unlike you, I think that an external, incentive-based reasoning is the disaster that is our human society which has inevitably led us to this point in our development. Primal behavior motivates us, while we congratulate ourselves on how civilized we are. Classical ethicists and philosophers just can’t figure out how to motivate the average someone/anyone/everyone to choose a different course, a more evolved, internally-directed course, of reasoning that would translate into considerably better decision making, even though we have many different means, and an endless number of reasons, to do so.

    This present condition was completely inevitable, and as you mentioned in the article, has exhibited itself many times throughout history (the soviet case being but one). The resulting consequence of a reward-based motivation system is that quick-fix easy solutions become our focus, learning the fastest way to get maximum reward – aka Pavlov’s dog – and this mindset, employed on a collective societal level, makes us very vulnerable to exploitation (by government intervention, for example – the whole taxation system is predicated on it). The reward keeps getting smaller and smaller, and the cost required to get the reward gets greater and greater, until the “economic” breaking point – the point when the cost of taking the reward makes it seem more like a punishment.

    Is the solution fixing the reward system, or do you think humans can be motivated by means other than reward/punishment? Without the reward system in place, could we be collectively motivated to do anything besides screw and loaf on the couch playing video games or painting our toenails?

  298. Micha Elyi says:

    The problem is that the Boomers, the most solipsistic generation in history (hey, they didn’t call themselves the Me Generation for nothing)…
    Desiderius

    Boomers didn’t call themselves the Me Generation at all. Tom Wolfe (b. 1931) invented the label.

    By the way, when Tom Wolfe wrote The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test he was chronicling the behavior of people close to his own age. Not Boomers.

  299. Elspeth says:

    Joe Biden and the President hosted some of the women who worked in factories during WWII at the white house recently. One of the things Biden noted was that this particular period in time greased the wheels for the feminist revolution that finally kicked open the door for women to do and be all that are capable of doing and being. After all, they had proved during the war that they could do “men’s work”.

    I liked Warren Farrell’s book (I’ve read The Myth of male Power) even though I disagree that women and men’s roles in the family can be interchangeable. I disagree because I believe the Bible trumps his book.

    That said, there can be no question that the war machine which treats men as disposable by putting them on the battle field with no apparent greater good resulting from their deaths, also served to treat men as disposable on the home front.

    This goes much deeper than women voting and killing their unborn offspring. Those things are just the natural outcome of our abandonment of transcendent principles in favor of wealth, power, and decadence.

    It’s Satanic in origin and treating it as something we can legislate or shame away is to underestimate the gravity of the situation.

  300. jf12 says:

    @feeriker, you may be aware of the several studies showing that in our loose SMP the more attractive men perceive a woman to be, the lower her actual N. This is, of course, in complete contrast to the tight correlation between a man’s N and attractiveness. For the man, we can say pretty definitely (as definite as any soft science gets) that his attractiveness causes his actual N, I’m pretty sure that makes a lot of sense looking at it from every angle. But there is also the social proof positive feedbackt: the more promiscuous a man is perceived to be (even if it’s a whispered falsehood), the more likely he is to “score”.

  301. JDG says:

    Andrew are you a Christian??

  302. deltahedge,

    the weak have always perished. this is nothing new.

    what is new is that the productive and intelligent people do not procreate anymore.

    Perfectly summarized.

    productive beta men are either cuckolded or do not want a 30 y/o woman who rode the cock carousel, and intelligent women do not procreate at all due to high opportunity costs associated with them having a career.

    I would say this is 75% correct. The first part of the beta men not procreating is 100% true. The part about intelligent and educated women not procreating is (probably) 50% true. Intelligent and educated career-focused-women are getting married. But iIn their lifetime, those most intelligent and educatedcareer-focused- women make time to have “one.” That is because they are usually so much older when they have them (mid to late 30s, advancted maternal age.) And when that happens, there are sometimes problems and women get spooked into not having more (make sense.)

    Having one is not really pro-creation. Having two is break-even-creation. Having one is more de-creation.

    the combination of these two trends is a dysgenic effect on a massive scale that we have not experienced so far. since there is a lag about 20-30 years until each reproduction contributes or drains society, it very hard to measure this effect quantitatively. but i would assume it had a signficant momentum already around 2000, and has only increased since then.

    its already here. it makes no sense to pay social security benefits before age 75. but because the political will is not there among the voters (particularly those over age 55) they wont change the entitlement eligibility age.

    i am very excited to observe this effect in the period 2020 to 2035.

    i am not. i am horrified for the future. everything about our economy is “growth focused” and not “death focused.” you can not grow an economy with an upside down pyramid.

  303. BradA says:

    @RAG,

    “And before the happily marrieds start piling on, I want to say right here, that yes there are happily married people, about 1% of all marriages are happy, just as about 1% of women are 10s at some point in their lives.”

    It depends how you define “happy”. Your number is way low if you are truly considering “it’s OK” responses. Your cynicism has clouded your vision. Things are horrid in many ways, but some still manage in spite of that.

    @Elspeth,

    I wonder how many of the men around them your daughters have disqualified already. I think I asked it in another thread, but are they in places where single men looking to be married go? How many single men are in the church I assume they attend with you? Have they discounted them? Are none there?

    I could be wrong, but I will bet the factor of “God is supposed to put him in my mailbox” could be a factor in their lack of a connection. I know that is far too common thinking in Christian circles.

  304. Herb says:

    @RS:I have no doubt she’ll find someone to marry but it won’t last. She’ll get her wedding but not a husband.

    So, she’ll get exactly what she wants: a big fancy wedding and a chump to pay the bills.

  305. livingtree2013 says:

    IBB, well said – except I don’t think that the youth of today really believe the lie we’ve been fed that perpetual growth is a sustainable position. The more educated are having less children because they are increasingly aware that if THEY have enough children to meet the “procreation” expectation of 2.1 or whatever it is now, there are more than enough under-educated folks producing at 2-3x that rate, so the educated inevitably get snowed by the under-privileged. That isn’t stopping it though, some of the most impressively intelligent folks I know have started families and are on their second and third child. However, when the Quiverfull-types and the sub-cultures that still consider procreation to be a sign of virtue and generosity and charity and masculine virility are having 20+ (the most incensing lie of irresponsibility imaginable)… rather than out-producing them so that “we win”, many of them would rather not bring any into a world which will, invariably, be completely overrun by anti-intellectualism and everything that intelligent people despise. SO, while perhaps the world will soon be overrun by all manners of greed, selfishness and stupidity, and that does disappoint me, I’m grateful that I had the foresight to see the disaster coming and opt out.

    Death based economics? I kind of like the sound of it.

    I do see a movement happening though in which people are gradually moving out of the urban wasteland into more pastoral, self-reliant lives – both the extreme liberal and extreme conservative are doing this more and more – and I think if anything is going to preserve us it will be that.

  306. livingtree2013 says:

    That is to say, a growth-based economic system is the single-largest example of “reward/punishment” reasoning and how it breaks down.

    Produce offspring > work harder, work harder > more rewards, more rewards > more growth, more growth > more offspring, more offspring > less rewards, less rewards > less growth, less growth > less offspring… then what?

  307. feeriker says:

    I could be wrong, but I will bet the factor of “God is supposed to put him in my mailbox” could be a factor in their lack of a connection. I know that is far too common thinking in Christian circles.

    I’ve noticed that this is closely related to the “prosperity gospel” popular in so many churchian franchises today (“if you just love and worship Jesus with all you’ve got, He’ll shower you with more riches and blessings than you’ll know what to do with. No action required on your part!”)

    Not meaning to imply that this is the attitude of Elspeth’s daughters, BTW. I’m just pointing out that this reflects a lot of Christians’ and churchians’ (of both sexes) attitudes when it comes to finding a mate.

  308. Elspeth says:

    @Brad:

    I don’t they’re waiting for God to put a man in the mailbox, LOL. I have cautioned them sternly against that because I can see how little they are asked out compared to how often I was asked out at their age. My daddy wouldn’t let me accept any invitations, but they came often enough. I never had a fear that it wouldn’t happen for me. I think things are just different now.

  309. hurting says:

    deti says:
    April 1, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    The sum total of the current state of legal and cultural affairs in the Western world operates on the level of, at minimum, a put option for essentially all women, at least in the near to mid-term horizon. Given that women can rationalize away even the obvious detriment that certain elements of the zeitgeist have on their own children, it is a certainty that they will overlook or minimize the very diffuse costs of the arrangement currently in play.

    If any sizable number of women did not ascribe to the underpinnings of the feminist imperative (e.g., abortion on demand, affirmative action, no-fault divorce, VAWA excesses, presumptive maternal custody, the welfare state, a bunch of stuff I’m not thinking of), we would not have those things. But they do and so we do.

  310. livingtree,

    The more educated are having less children because they are increasingly aware that if THEY have enough children to meet the “procreation” expectation of 2.1 or whatever it is now, there are more than enough under-educated folks producing at 2-3x that rate, so the educated inevitably get snowed by the under-privileged.

    I think you might be reading a little too much into it. It is not that complicated. It is a bit simpler.

    IMHO, the more educated are having less (less = “one” really) children because they run out of time. I really think it is that simple. Consider the following example (that does not in anyway, shape, or form, incorporate the cock-carrosel):

    * Woman graduates college at age 21,22,23, maybe 25. Whatever, early twenties. (I was 23.)
    * Woman notices that she has $80,000 of student loans she can not welch on. She can marry out of it. She needs to work. Bankruptcy is not an option.
    * Woman gets office job making $41,000/year.
    * Woman’s take home pay is $29,000/year. In the first year, she pays off $3K or whatever of student loans (hardly even a drop in bucket)
    * Woman gets married at age 28. He has student debt. She has student debt. Still on the pill, still no kids.
    * Woman turns 33. She is making $60,000/year (roughly what he makes.) They want to start a family but they can’t because they are depending on two paychecks and (after 10 full years of career on her part) they still have $70K in student loans between them
    * Woman turns 35. They say “f-ck it” and have a kid. Takes a year to get pregnant
    * Woman turns 37 and delievers in pre-clampsia. She now has higher blood pressure, but they have a child. OB told them that the next one has one chance in forty of having Down’s Syndrome if they deliver after age 40
    * Woman says to husband “I can’t do this again. I’m scared honey, I’m sorry.” Husband loves wife, gets vacsectomy for her. She goes off pill. Family done.

    Time. They just run out of time. The biological clock is unforgiving.

    The only way educated people can start having larger families is to take the dollar signs/career/money out of the equation which doesn’t happen. She has too much debt, too much anti-dowry accumulated ate age 23. She has to work to be square with the house. Or, something totally creepy…

    he, at age 30 or whatever, can start chasing only 18 year olds before they go to college. That is realy creepy/disturbing for me (and is a non-starter really as it is sounds kind of perverted) but it gets past the anti-dowry problem (on her part) because she hasn’t had any time yet to spend all that money she never made. Plus she has more fertile years to start making babies. Now we can have a larger family.

    Our society frowns on these types of arrangements for a vareity of reasons, not the least of which is that men die before women (and a 35 year old man marrying a 19 year old girl makes her a 66 year old widow and lonely for 20+ years which is just awful.) If I had to give advice to the father’s of daughters who want to go to college (which is basically all of them) it is a series of don’ts…

    * Don’t let her go to an expensive private school where she is taking massive loans
    * Don’t let her major in something worthless which is far too many of the degree programs out there now
    * Don’t let her attend a school that far from home (commute from home to school, save thousands of dollars in living expenses)

    If you are not willing to put your foot down here, then you (as the parent) better expect to pay for every cent of her schooling. Because if you saddle her with all that debt, it will (most likely) have a damning affect on the rest of her adult life (including her early married life.) She loses time, years of time. And not enough parents have these conversations because they are too uncomfortable to talk about it or they are in denial.

  311. feeriker says:

    jf12 says:April 2, 2014 at 11:40 am

    I haven’t seen or read any of the studies, but based on observed anecdata, I don’t for a second doubt the accuracy of their conclusions.

  312. Elspeth says:

    My comment to Brad was short but I want to complete my thought:

    Despite being smarter, prettier, and just all around better people than I was at their age, they don’t get asked out as much.

    Things are different for my girls than they were for me. I was in a more ethnically homogenous environment than they are. There were more young men in church back then than there seems to be now. There were more young single men in the small church of my youth than there seem to be in the larger church we attend now.

    Young men seem more standoffish in general. The young men who have asked them out seem more experienced. And none of the men who have asked them out are believers either.

    So the whole “waiting for God to put him in the mailbox” is a catchy meme, but it’s not that simple. Where, please tell me, are the kinds of places they should go to where marriageable men might be? This si a common suggestion but i have no idea how one is supposed to do that.

  313. Ted says:

    I need some insight please:

    I grew up in the church, but after I went to college I lost my way and I spent my 20s living a mostly-secular life. I hooked up with quite a few chicks, and had one long-term serious relationship, that I knew would never materialize into marriage.

    In the back of my mind I always wondered if I could meet a virginal princess to have a family with. I think I made some huge mistakes by not getting back into church in my mid-20s and trying to find a virginal girl, but by the time I was 27-28 I thought I was too old and it wouldn’t happen because there wouldn’t be any more virgins. At that same age I decided I wanted to shut the door on the corrupt values of our society and get back to my religious roots.

    In this past year I’ve become involved with a woman fresh out of college, 9 years my junior. At first she seemed like she might be exactly what I was looking for- good-looking, feminine, she and reserved but intelligent as hell, and most importantly religious (goes to church every single Sunday, including for four years at university across the country with no one making her). She’s the antithesis of literally every chick I’ve ever dated. Unlike the brainwashed masses of women, she is very out-of-touch with pop culture, and she didn’t even have cable television until she was 17 or so. After years of literally never encountering a woman who I could picture being with, here was one I was considering marrying and I barely knew her.

    I should clarify that my first impression wasn’t 100% positive, however. In fact, I thought she was extremely weird. She might have a mild form of asperger’s or something to that effect. She is highly socially awkward. She doesn’t get social cues and her communication skills are on the poor side. She is extremely introverted; she excels in science and is one of the most logical, unemotional women I’ve ever met. She doesn’t lie. She doesn’t just show up at church, she understands it all on a deep level. She has a personal relationship with God, you might say. Despite my initial opinion, knowing her positive attributes I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Also, it helped that I saw her around her family and when she was at ease, I observed that she could actually be rather charming. It’s just that around new people or strangers she is brutally awkward. She’s aware of her “uniqueness” and is appropriately self-effacing about it. This is a girl who never really dated. She says her longest relationship before me would have been two weeks or so. She did say she got hit on a lot whenever she was out, which I don’t doubt because she is certainly physically attractive. However, I’m sure the average college-age guy would lose interest quickly when she revealed her awkward and timid personality.

    We got to know each other and we spent lots of time together. She was extremely reticent sexually. I’ve never waited so long to have sex with a woman… not even close. And I was pressuring her because I knew she wasn’t a virgin but she kept shutting it down for an extremely long time. Fast forward almost a year and I’ve proposed. And here’s the problem that’s been wracking my heart ever since. Before me she slept with two guys, one time each. She slept with the first one at the age of 20. She was at a nightclub with friends while home for the holidays. She met a guy, “talked a lot”, hung out with him a couple of days later, and had sex with him while completely sober. That was her virginity.

    To me, this sets off MASSIVE alarm bells. The circumstances are horrifying to me. She said she thought it might go somewhere, despite the fact she was returning to college shortly after. She said “I thought long distance can work”. She said she didn’t love the guy, but she felt she could love him. This is a first-date one night stand we’re talking about. She’s so crushingly naive and out of touch, that she felt it might have really meant something when it was just a bar pickup. In any case, she said that after it was over she felt so repulsed by the experience that she didn’t want to see the guy again, despite him continuing to ask her to hang out. She also claims she didn’t tell him it was she was a virgin and knowing her quietness and awkwardness that’s actually possible.

    She’s a great chick in so many ways. Without going into details, she’s sacrificed a tremendous amount for the chance to make a future with me. She wants to follow my vision for a moral, religious family with many kids. I just feel this history puts me in such a lose-lose-lose situation. I find it hard to reconcile that behavior with what I know about her. I also have to spend the rest of my life getting burned up any time I hear or read about club pickups, and thinking that my future wife lost her virginity to a smooth-talking dumbass she met at a bar?

    To play devil’s advocate, she is almost as pure as possible for a 22-year old without having outright sexual hangups. She’s literally only had two sexual experiences in her life; she never gave a BJ or anything. She was completely honest with me when she could have lied.

    Can anyone tell me if I’m wrong, right, if I should run for the hills, or if I’m discounting what could possibly be an extremely good thing?

  314. Marissa says:

    . Or, something totally creepy…

    …he, at age 30 or whatever, can start chasing only 18 year olds before they go to college. That is realy creepy/disturbing for me (and is a non-starter really as it is sounds kind of perverted)

    30 is perfectly acceptable for 18, stop getting your panties in a bunch.

  315. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, apparently things have changed. Although there are still plenty of examples, like my son, of beta guys who asked out women to no avail, apparently there was a millennial sea-change towards just hookups, like ADBG documented. Instead of the hookup for ONS *option* that many FWBs engaged in, as late as the 1990s I’m sure, apparently hooking up is de rigueur now. In other words, it’s either hooking up or nothing. So, since they know they can’t hookup, apparently a lot of young men are choosing nothing.

  316. jf12 says:

    re: “30 is perfectly acceptable for 18″ One of the plus sides, may be the biggest plus side, is that a young enough woman may always regard the considerably-older man as somewhat of a Stranger. He will never be even just a Brother to her (while fertile), much less a big Baby to her. So her post-honeymoon letdown of him becoming too familiar to her, literally too much like one of her family, may be less likely to happen.

  317. Elspeth says:

    Actually Marissa (and I have no dog in this hunt, really), it’s up to the girl’s father if 30 is acceptable for his 18-year-old daughter. and for my husband, it would be a non-starter.

    When our oldest was 18, he was 39. The very idea would repulse him.

  318. Marissa says:

    Where, please tell me, are the kinds of places they should go to where marriageable men might be?

    Military bases/military towns, technical/engineering college campuses, Houston, Arlington, Rio Grande valley, Midland, maybe North Dakota, Las Vegas (stay in the suburbs). Most cities in the West have a higher male-to-female ratio (places like SF, Portland and Seattle might not). Anywhere there’s an oil or gas boom has a large number of younger men trying to make money. You could hold your nose and go to a political party meeting (hit or miss at the more local or state level–seems federal is full of women or married men). Any kind of “meetup.com” in your area which caters to male interests: sports (martial arts, Crossfit, weightlifting and paleo seem male-dominant), science fiction, religious apologism, Toastmasters, Kiwanis/Rotary (skews older though, but they might have younger relatives). LAN/arcade type places.

    I think a good idea would be to get a job at a heavily male place as a secretary. Could be an engineering/geological firm, oil and gas, computer/software engineering, or something more blue-collar, like warehouses, machining, dockworking, mechanic shops (not just limited to cars), etc.

  319. Marissa says:

    Actually Marissa (and I have no dog in this hunt, really), it’s up to the girl’s father if 30 is acceptable for his 18-year-old daughter. and for my husband, it would be a non-starter.

    When our oldest was 18, he was 39. The very idea would repulse him.

    I completely agree, but IBB was not restricting that judgment to his own daughters’ suitors, as is well known.

  320. Lurker no. 9 says:

    You people keep slamming your hand in a door, and holding forth on tips how to make it a win for you or at least keep from crushing your hand.

    This blog is pure, unintentional comedy. My god.

  321. Marissa,

    Actually Marissa (and I have no dog in this hunt, really), it’s up to the girl’s father if 30 is acceptable for his 18-year-old daughter. and for my husband, it would be a non-starter.

    When our oldest was 18, he was 39. The very idea would repulse him.

    I completely agree, but IBB was not restricting that judgment to his own daughters’ suitors, as is well known.

    You think people like myself and Elspeth’s husband operate in some kind of vacuum? You must.

    It is a total-non-starter for for most dads with adult daughters.

  322. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “IMHO, the more educated are having less (less = “one” really) children because they run out of time. ”

    No. It is even simplier than that. There is no reason to have children, they are, like getting married, a huge burden with very little reward. If you are lower class there are financial incentives to have children.

    If you are middle class or above, It costs a ton in time and money to have children.

    You will reap no financial benefit from having children, ever. People used to have a larger number of children so that at least one of them would be able to support and take care of you in your old age (and someone actually did the analysis and the average number of children pre 1900 was the optimal number to insure there was one child to care for you.

    So forgo vacations to exotic locals, forgo paying off your debt faster, forgo meals out, the nice car, the nicer house for what?

    And then look around at the singles you know that go on a cruise every year, to central america every couple of years, hawaii every three years, driving the sports car.

    And for what? If you’re doing it so that you have a legacy, when you’re gone, who cares, and besides in six generations you’ll be long forgotton. If you wanted a legacy better to put your time into actually doing something of importance that lasts. A kid will suck all that time out of you.

    You think the kid will love you? You’re doing it to have something to love? Get a dog.

    Want to see the wall hit your wife faster? Have kids.

    Want to end your sex life? Have kids.

    This is ultimately what undoes the welfare state. You combine the wanton stupidity of women unleashed, with not enough children to keep paying in to support the welfare state, and the wealth transfer to women, and boom.

  323. Marissa says:

    You think people like myself and Elspeth’s husband operate in some kind of vacuum? You must.

    It is a total-non-starter for for most dads with adult daughters.

    Most dads with adult daughters today are perfectly fine with paying for their little Princess to whore around at college for five years. That doesn’t change the fact that 30 is a fine age for an 18-year-old, more so today than 50 years ago, as it takes much longer to attain confidence, work prestige and capital due to indoctrination and economic sluggishness. Of course, you are also here griping about how your daughters can’t find a man to marry so you can spoil your grandchildren while recoiling in disgust at the vast majority of her possible suitors.

  324. Most dads with adult daughters today are perfectly fine with paying for their little Princess to whore around at college for five years. That doesn’t change the fact that 30 is a fine age for an 18-year-old, more so today than 50 years ago

    Marissa, you can’t say that. You are errecting strawmen. You are trying introduce concepts that are completely unrelated, not the least of which assuming all girls in college f-ck anything that moves for 5 years. All schools are not Arizona State/Florida State/UCLA University.

    You see this is why I loathe to have a serious, indepth analysis of certain subject matters because certain individuals get THEIR panties in a bunch OR they assume something that isn’t even true in the world of reality. In the world of reality, a father is going to be creeped out by any 30 year old man wanting to date his high school senior daughter. Creepy. Twisted. Wrong. Perverted. Its almost pedophile Marissa. Seriously, what are these two (as husband and wife) supposed to talk about? They will have nothing in common.

    There are very good reasons why fathers make these ultimate distinctions with respect to their daughters, because they were once 30 and they know. They’ve been there. They aren’t fools. And they don’t believe for one second that the marriage (if there ever would be one, and there probably wont be) won’t last. He’ll turn 40 and at 28, she’ll be too old. Time for the almost pedophile to trade her in for another 18 year old.

    Or worse. He’ll turn 40 and at 28, she’ll say “…what the f-ck am I doing married to this old wrinkly guy, how gross.” She’ll see all the fun her girlfriends (that are her age) are having with young men their own age, and she’ll want out. And with no-fault-divorce, she gets out. Society has enabled her to do so.

    May-December romances are just that, romances. They are not (typically) marriages. Now in certain cases they become marriage, but those are extremely rare and they don’t typically last that long.

  325. Ras Al Ghul says:

    BradA:

    “It depends how you define “happy”. Your number is way low if you are truly considering “it’s OK” responses. Your cynicism has clouded your vision. Things are horrid in many ways, but some still manage in spite of that.”

    “It’s OK” is not happy.

    If I ask about a restuarant and a person says the food was “OK” that means they don’t like it. I can count on one hand how many happy marriages I’ve known.

    Cynicism is just a truth the naive don’t want to accept.

  326. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “In the world of reality, a father is going to be creeped out by any 30 year old man wanting to date his high school senior daughter. Creepy. Twisted. Wrong. Perverted. Its almost pedophile Marissa. Seriously, what are these two (as husband and wife) supposed to talk about? They will have nothing in common.”

    You do realize that in the “world of reality” 150 years ago this happened all the time?

    You should also be aware that this attitude that its “perverted” is feminist conditioning that you have been taught this because it is in the interest of older women not to pursue younger ones?

    And finally? What do any adults talk about? especially between men and women, their interests even at the same age are vastly different. Woman are women at any age.

  327. Elspeth says:

    Actually Ras Al Gul, I’ve done the research and the age between husband and wife historically has always been between 3-7 years. Among aristocrats and nobility, you would find greater age disparities, but among common folk, ages were closer.

    Add to that the fact that today’s 18-year-old girls are hardly as mature as 18-year-olds of even 40 years ago, and any 30-year-old man who’d marry one is in for a heck of a ride after the newness wears off.

    I really have no dog in this hunt. My stepmother is 21 years younger than my father and they have been happily married for 32 years now. I know that it can work. But she wasn’t 18 either.

    Our daughter will be 20 this summer. A man 6-8 years older would be acceptable. We’re not unreasonable.

  328. feeriker says:

    @Ras

    The Number One reason not to have children is a moral one: it is the apex of cynical contempt to bring a child, especially a male child, into a world in a state of moral and civilizational collapse, a world that will start gunning for him the moment he emerges from the womb and emits the first cry of life from his tiny little lungs. It’s difficult to imagine a hatred so visceral that someone would visit it upon an innocent infant, but it happens thousands of times each day, for the most shallow and selfish of reasons (the whole “wanting to leave a genetic legacy” thing being one of the most sickening, especially among UMC SWPL types having their obligatory 1.112 kids that they clearly don’t give a damn about at age 40).

  329. feeriker says:

    Cynicism is just a truth the naive don’t want to accept.

    As George Bernard Shaw put it, rather more eloquently:

    “The power of accurate observation is commonly called ‘cynicism’ by those who have not got it.”

  330. Marissa says:

    You’re insane, IBB. 18 is not a child. Not even 14 is a child. And many fathers for the majority of human life on earth were giving away their daughters at ages younger than 18 to men much older than them. Are you going to parrot the feminist line that it all those marriages were just rape? I said what I said because most dads with adult daughters these days are fools are are willing to send their daughters to college, an almost surefire way to encourage fornication. In no way am I surprised that these same fools think a 30-year-old man is a pedophile.

    In the world of reality, a father is going to be creeped out by any 30 year old man wanting to date his high school senior daughter.

    A high school senior is a 50-year-old concept that has nothing to do with reality.

    There are very good reasons why fathers make these ultimate distinctions with respect to their daughters, because they were once 30 and they know. They’ve been there. They aren’t fools. And they don’t believe for one second that the marriage (if there ever would be one, and there probably wont be) won’t last. He’ll turn 40 and at 28, she’ll be too old. Time for the almost pedophile to trade her in for another 18 year old.

    Ah yes, those 30-year olds, so immature and disrespectful to women, not like their younger brethren in the least bit, who are so upright and honorable in comparison! You truly sound like a feminist woman, IBB. Men who marry a much younger woman are more likely to stay with her as she ages, since he had her during her good years and got the best he could. You sound truly absurd, just desperately grasping for whatever anti-man talking points you can find to justify your disgust at older, successful men who are attractive to younger women.

  331. Marissa, how much older than you, is your husband?

  332. Elspeth says:

    And they don’t believe for one second that the marriage (if there ever would be one, and there probably wont be) won’t last. He’ll turn 40 and at 28, she’ll be too old. Time for the almost pedophile to trade her in for another 18 year old.

    That’s crazy, IBB. We don’t believe that at all. We were young parents when our oldest children were born. We don’t want sons-in-law so close to our own ages, for one thing.

    The other is that over the long haul, as the couple ages, it could be an undue hardship. My dad has been unusually healthy for an unusually long time. He’s had a few health challenges the past year, but for the most part it hasn’t been an issue in his marriage. He is much more hearty than other 82-year-old men. He still has senior citizen women flirting with him using the same old (but true) line: “You don’t look a day over 65!”

    But most men are not so fortunate and their wives are not so fortunate either.

  333. Marissa,

    You’re insane, IBB. 18 is not a child. Not even 14 is a child.

    Not even 14 is a child.

    Just one more inane comment like this, and I’ll drop you into the bozo-shun-filter with AR and ’71. That will be the last time I ever respond to anything you have to say. Everyone gets a warning. The two of them got theirs. This is yours.

  334. Marissa says:

    Add to that the fact that today’s 18-year-old girls are hardly as mature as 18-year-olds of even 40 years ago, and any 30-year-old man who’d marry one is in for a heck of a ride after the newness wears off.

    It’s also a matter of what’s available. Most men don’t want the 23-year-old who’s hip-deep in the “Millenial Sexual Revolution”. At least the 18-year-old today is less likely to be a complete slut and much more pliable and amenable to submission than her elders. The 30-year-old man today is much more likely to be in a position for marriage than the typical 20-something man.

    I must be the only weirdo with a 50-year-old relative marrying his 17-year-old second wife after his first one passed. Scandalously the baby was born less than seven months after the wedding, so there was mutual sexual attraction. What I find funny is that the younger that women were bearing children, the more acceptable a wider age gap was. Now that Miz Career has delayed her childbearing until late 20s, older men are just the worst thing that can happen to an 18-year-old. Makes no damn sense, but I suppose the careerism angle is where it comes from. God forbid a woman doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree before she goes into labor.

  335. jf12 says:

    re: “Where, please tell me, are the kinds of places they should go to where marriageable men might be?” Marissa had a good list, geographic and everything.

    By “marriageable men” I assume you mean not merely good enough for your daughters in godliness and/or cleanliness, but single men exceeding some thresholds of healthiness, wealthiness, and/or wisdom. Among the demographics are age, ability to provide and willingness to provide, and the makings of fatherhood to your daughter’s children. I submit for your consideration that that last aspect is the most important, and the aspect that women are least qualified to judge.

  336. Marissa says:

    I’m not married. 14 is not a child. 14 IS NOT A CHILD. Breathe deeply, IBB. I’m not saying a 14-year-old is ready for sexual relations. But it is most assuredly not a “child’s” age. 13 has typically always been the age for rite of passage amongst most cultures. But our oh-so-advanced modern age has done away with such horrible things and now we’re all so much better for it. Meanwhile those backwards Amish with their low divorce rates have no idea what they’re doing when they start treating their youth like adults at age 14. Grow up, IBB, and move past your upper-middle-class 1990s view of history. I don’t want to have to fetch the smelling salts every time you get the vapors.

  337. Read Marissa, very carefully. This is how adults argue.

    Elspeth,

    And they don’t believe for one second that the marriage (if there ever would be one, and there probably wont be) won’t last. He’ll turn 40 and at 28, she’ll be too old. Time for the almost pedophile to trade her in for another 18 year old.

    That’s crazy, IBB. We don’t believe that at all. We were young parents when our oldest children were born. We don’t want sons-in-law so close to our own ages, for one thing.

    The other is that over the long haul, as the couple ages, it could be an undue hardship. My dad has been unusually healthy for an unusually long time. He’s had a few health challenges the past year, but for the most part it hasn’t been an issue in his marriage. He is much more hearty than other 82-year-old men. He still has senior citizen women flirting with him using the same old (but true) line: “You don’t look a day over 65!”

    But most men are not so fortunate and their wives are not so fortunate either.

    All of what you said is true and accurate. Yes of course you don’t want a son in law that is close to your age. That is normal and healthy. I agree, for the same reason. And I think what happened for your folks is great, wonderful that it worked out….

    …that said, I don’t think it works out that much anymore. And maybe for your dad, he was the exception, not the rule? As you have said, most are not as fortunate. You can’t always expect fortune to happen.

    I like playing the percentages. Marriage for a lifetime is tough enough, no sense making it even tougher by expecting the 21 year age difference would be so easily overcome. I wouldn’t recommend that for anyone. And I think you are in my camp on that.

  338. Marissa, you’re wasting your time. IBB can’t discuss this topic rationally (as you’re seeing), and she’ll just end up calling you names. Save your breath.

  339. Marissa,

    I’m not married. 14 is not a child. 14 IS NOT A CHILD.

    Okay you were warned. You and I are done. Do as you will.

    Breathe deeply, IBB.

    Think deeply.

  340. Marissa says:

    I like playing the percentages. Marriage for a lifetime is tough enough, no sense making it even tougher by expecting the 21 year age difference would be so easily overcome. I wouldn’t recommend that for anyone. And I think you are in my camp on that.

    No shit, Sherlock. We’re arguing a 12-year age difference, that between an 18-year-old and a 30-year-old.

    As for adult argumentation, you seem to confine yourself to “old man gross! big penises!” so I can’t take you as some kind of expert on that subject.

  341. Marissa says:

    Marissa, you’re wasting your time. IBB can’t discuss this topic rationally (as you’re seeing), and she’ll just end up calling you names. Save your breath.

    I don’t think it’s a woman. Just a very effeminate man. Or maybe he gets his wife to post when he doesn’t mind his handle spouting off inanities about large members.

  342. Elspeth says:

    Marissa,

    I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t there has ever been a time when a 50-year-old marrying a 17-year-old was anything near approaching a norm besides in families of royal blood.

    As one who met her husband at 21, married him at 22, and had 3 children before I turned 23, I can attest that you don’t have to marry at 17 or 18 to be a submissive, fruitful wife. I finished my (useless) degree when I was 31.

    All of our girls live at home, and attend college while living under our roof and contributing to the running of the household. One has a part time job as an office assistant. Not every man is sending his girl off onto the carousel when she turns 18. The fact of the matter is that there are very few fathers today who are going to go along with such a drastic age disparity.

    And as I said up thread, that was NOT the historical norm, and never has been.

  343. Cail,

    Marissa, you’re wasting your time. IBB can’t discuss this topic rationally (as you’re seeing),

    Please. There is absolutely nothing rational about a human being that says a 14 year old isn’t a child. They most certainly are. I’m not going to waste my time trying to reason with emotionally inept.

    The concept of “childhood” may have only been in existance for the last 100-150 years or so, but it does exist. To disregard it because it wasn’t always this way is foolhearty in the extreme. We don’t live on the prarie anymore. Ours is the 1st world, not the 3rd.

  344. feeriker says:

    Is IBB flatulent AGAIN? Someone please open a window.

  345. I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t there has ever been a time when a 50-year-old marrying a 17-year-old was anything near approaching a norm besides in families of royal blood.

    As one who met her husband at 21, married him at 22, and had 3 children before I turned 23, I can attest that you don’t have to marry at 17 or 18 to be a submissive, fruitful wife. I finished my (useless) degree when I was 31.

    All of our girls live at home, and attend college while living under our roof and contributing to the running of the household. One has a part time job as an office assistant. Not every man is sending his girl off onto the carousel when she turns 18.

    This man won’t/didn’t/wouldn’t.

    The fact of the matter is that there are very few fathers today who are going to go along with such a drastic age disparity.

    I am one of them.

    And as I said up thread, that was NOT the historical norm, and never has been.

    That was very well said Elspeth, thank you for all of those thoughful words.

  346. Marissa says:

    Little House on the Prairie is more first world than any third world country. Our course, your “first world” is a mess that’s all a shambles, for one because infantilizing teens between the ages of 13-19, when they have always been prepared for adulthood before the advent of widespread, federally directed Prussian public schooling, does not engender first world character traits.

    Please. There is absolutely nothing rational about a human being that says a 14 year old isn’t a child. They most certainly are. I’m not going to waste my time trying to reason with emotionally inept.

    A 14-year-old is not a child. You can mentally retard a 14-year-old, that doesn’t change the fact that he or she is in the process of becoming an adult. No amount of modernist infantilization is going to change historical precedent and biological reality.

  347. Elspeth says:

    @ jf12:

    I assume you mean not merely good enough for your daughters in godliness and/or cleanliness, but single men exceeding some thresholds of healthiness, wealthiness, and/or wisdom. Among the demographics are age, ability to provide and willingness to provide, and the makings of fatherhood to your daughter’s children.

    But of course. That’s my definition of a ‘marriageable man’. No, he doesn’t have to be wealthy in the sense that most people regard the term. My husband wasn’t, but he had and still has a strong work ethic.

    Cue the calls of “Your standards are too high!!”

  348. Elspeth says:

    Oh, I should note that I was pregnant when we married, and one of our two early pregnancies was a multiple birth. I am not math challenged.

  349. I don’t think it’s a woman. Just a very effeminate man.

    I say overly earnest 15-year-old white knight, but I go back and forth on it. Just be glad you’re not a man, or he would have called you a pedophile by now. Apparently any man over 30 who is still attracted to girls in their prime is one. At least (I think) you don’t have daughters, so he can’t tell you what a great idea it would be for them to sample a lot of cocks from age 20-25 to get that out of their system before marriage.

    Just back away slowly.

  350. Marissa says:

    I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t there has ever been a time when a 50-year-old marrying a 17-year-old was anything near approaching a norm besides in families of royal blood.

    I never said it was the norm, I’m saying that it happened and people like IBB getting the vapors would have been looked on like a fool. That part of my family is in no way connected to royal blood and was pretty poor, especially compared to today’s standards (that was back in the early 1900s).

    As one who met her husband at 21, married him at 22, and had 3 children before I turned 23, I can attest that you don’t have to marry at 17 or 18 to be a submissive, fruitful wife. I finished my (useless) degree when I was 31.

    Yes, I’m aware of your history–you are keen to bring up how you are different, which is the point, isn’t it? Most women aren’t like you in the first place, Elspeth and they will not get better with age either, as you have. Your husband is also very different from most men too.

    Not every man is sending his girl off onto the carousel when she turns 18. The fact of the matter is that there are very few fathers today who are going to go along with such a drastic age disparity.

    Again, you’re a major anomaly. Most people are sending their female children off to college. College is the major entrance to the carousel. When I was sent off to college, I was not being “sent off onto the carousel” by intention, but by deed.

    And as I said up thread, that was NOT the historical norm, and never has been.

    True, but it has never been discouraged and showered with disgust as it is in this modern age.

    I’m not aware of any kind of past cultural horror at the ideas of 1) older, successful men consensually marrying younger women, 2) 14-year-olds on the path to adulthood (i.e., not children).

  351. Marissa says:

    Sorry Cail, I’m like a dog going back to his vomit today. I don’t have any daughters, but I’m aware of that particular diatribe. Since I’m not a man, I guess I’m just a “pedophile enabler” or “pedophile apologist”. Shrug.

  352. greyghost says:

    Ted
    Don’t be a pussy about things. You sound like some weak churchian looking for the perfect bitch. There is no wife by law. Get the unicorn fantasy shit out of your head. Look at her and check out if just her physical appearance can make your dick hard. If yes good first step. Next is she guidable. If you don’t go asking her what she likes or trying to be pleasing to her like a stupid ass chump does she do as she is directed by you. If yes she is a keeper just marry the chick you could do a lot worse. Get some game that was a big time pussy bitch question for a man to ask. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/ Always stay hard and ready to pull ass at the drop of a hat. Never let her think she are all you can get or have. Always remember there is nothing in this world that will keep her faithful culture, the law, her friends, financial, sake of the children and damn sure not the church. The only thing is tingle and social status nothing based on logic or appreciation of what you have done or are giving. No matter how smart and educated you think she is a fucking dumb ass brick. Good luck

  353. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, I don’t think your standards are too high, but has your husband found it difficult to send a marriageable guy your daughters’ way?

  354. Elspeth says:

    True, but it has never been discouraged and showered with disgust as it is in this modern age.

    I’ve said that I don’t have the level of disdain for the idea that IBB has. If a 30-year-old marries an 18-year-old and her parents are okay with it, I’m okay with it. If a 20-year-old can be marriage ready, an 18-year-old can be marriage ready.

    Just as my situation is an anomaly, so is the case of your 50-year-old relative and the 17-year-old bride.

    As a general rule, 14-year-olds are not ready to be married. Even among the homeschooled crowd where we spend a fair amount of time, 14-year-olds are not marriage ready. I agree that they are not children in the way that a 10-year-old is a child, but not quite physically ready for bearing children, which means they shouldn’t marry for a few more years yet.

  355. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB, the comedy gold that keeps on giving:

    Think deeply.

    Irony, pure irony.

  356. Little House on the Prairie is more first world than any third world country.

    And Laura was 18 and Almanzo 28 when they married; she was 15 when he started courting her. (The TV show moved it up to her 16th birthday, perhaps to avoid giving viewers like IBB the vapors.) She thought she was a tough, full-grown woman who married a good man and stood by him (and he her) through the death of a newborn (when she was still at the tender age of 22 and should have been out “experiencing” life), serious diseases, multiple fires that destroyed their home and barn, and constant debt and financial struggle for many years.

    But now we know the truth: she was just a child being taken advantage of by a pervert.

  357. Desiderius says:

    “There are very good reasons why fathers make these ultimate distinctions with respect to their daughters, because they were once 30 and they know.”

    Yeah, the Boomer solipsism, its just to strong.

    A 30-year-old single man then was likely low-status/damaged goods(comparatively), because the good ones married young and had the benefit of a good woman behind them for going on 10 years by then.

    Thanks to the IBB’s raising their daughters to go for the “guarantee” of her own career, which, in her own words is only guaranteed to leave her 80k in debt, with no marriage to support her, no time for kids, and also lacking that 10 years of a good marriage to support her, the good men now also don’t have the benefit of good women looking to marry young.

    In fact, good young women actively avoid them lest they be seduced into giving up their “guarantee.” So we arrive at the situation today, where the 30-year-old single man who’s managed against the odds to make his way in the world is the furthest thing from damaged goods – he’s the cream of the crop.

    The only pedophilia I see if those fathers for their little princesses they never want to see grow up and leave his loving embrace.

  358. Marissa says:

    I completely agree with you, Elspeth and I know you are not saying the same things IBB is. I don’t think 14-year-olds are ready for marriage either (I said they’re not ready for sexual relations above).

    Cail, I had no idea. For giggles, (not implying that you giggle) here’s a good reason why a girl might be disposed to marry Mr. Wilder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlmanzoLrg.jpg

  359. Anonymous Reader says:

    Marissa regarding IBB

    I don’t think it’s a woman. Just a very effeminate man. Or maybe he gets his wife to post when he doesn’t mind his handle spouting off inanities about large members.

    This explanation fits prior posting patterns, and offers some prediction as well. For example, the IBB account is generally not quite so emotional in the evening vs. the daytime.

  360. Elspeth says:

    A 30-year-old single man then was likely low-status/damaged goods(comparatively), because the good ones married young and had the benefit of a good woman behind them for going on 10 years by then.

    This. What we have here is unprecedented. It wasn’t just girls who married young. Men married young too. Older men who married very young women were most likely widowers (like my father was).

  361. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB, the comedy gold that keeps on giving:

    I’m not going to waste my time trying to reason with emotionally inept.

    Here’s a great “tell” regarding the IBB account. Who is more likely to make the above statement, a man or a woman? Which is more interesting in reasoning, and which lives in a world of emotion?

    Perhaps in time IBB will wind up with most of the intelligent participants in these comment streams in her/their “bozo box”. Then there will no longer be any reason for IBB to troll the comments…

  362. Marissa says:

    I have a few other job ideas to help the young woman looking for love: a gym, golf course (as a banquets or refreshments gal), gun store or hunt/fish store like Gander Mountain or Cabela’s, brewery, on the iffy side, one of the “pretty ladies” at car shows. If willing to learn a foreign language, choose one where the culture is more traditional (Ukraine?) and go to the “meetup.com” group. A huge leap would be to join Greek Orthodox or Syrian Marionite, or any church where you must be a “member” which encompasses certain responsibilities.

  363. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    Actually Ras Al Gul, I’ve done the research and the age between husband and wife historically has always been between 3-7 years.

    Source? I’d like to view the data myself. A range like this is interesting, but the median and variance (assuming some sort of Gaussian distribution) would tell me more.

    I also would like to know over what period of time. A lot of people look at data from just one century, such as the 20th or the 19th, and make universal assumptions that don’t hold up.

  364. Desiderius says:

    Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the fathers think, the young women are going to do what they want to do – it’s not like that don’t have Daddy wrapped around their finger already. I get more looks from them every year, and I’m pushing 45.

    The post-crash ones know the “guarantee” is bullshit.

  365. Desiderius says:

    As far as meeting men, its about attitude more than venue – get that straight and the men will find them. Love you, mean it, Elspeth, but you may want to be careful about overpuffing the egos…

    You should hear my Dad go on about my dateless sister, and her about the lack of good men…

  366. Desiderius

    the Boomer solipsism, its just to strong

    Maybe.

    But it gets old reading your assertions along these lines. The easy road for me would be to say that each generation may look askance at the one(s) before and that that is natural. Your constant boomer bashing is not. Its tedious.

    We boomers were catalysts where the generation prior may have been more simply promoters. Catalysts do more than promoters, and those of us aware of whats happening outside the matrix are sickened by it.

    Solipsism however doesn’t manifest only in things of family. Solipsism has INCREASED with each generation, yours included, and that you cannot see that in general is actually proof that it is so.

    I agree with your take on what motivated you to make that statement. But not only is it not helpful, it isn’t even a very creative complaint or observation.

    If you want to do some sorting, check voting demographics, child rearing techniques, religious views, etc. I cannot make it empirical, but those things, if I had metrics, demonstrate that there was not a peak in solipsism that ended with those who have births in the early 60’s.

  367. jf12 says:

    @Marissa, when I read the account of their courting as a young teen I thought the most romantic part was when Manly and Laura were discussing whether she should promise to obey or not. Manly had already declared his disbelief that any women ever actually does obey, when Laura reasoned out that she did not want to make a promise she could not keep. Now I think that is the least romantic part. Well, that and Ma’s ejaculation that Laura only wanted him for his horses.

  368. Des,

    You should hear my Dad go on about my dateless sister, and her about the lack of good men…

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/she-needs-more-men/

    This is the best blog.

  369. greyghost says:

    IBB no matter how hard you try there is no do over.

  370. I don’t want a do-over.

  371. greyghost says:

    How in the world did you let this comment thread get like this IBB? You have to work it from where you are. Far better to teach them how to live.

  372. Anonymous Reader says:

    Can’t make stuff like this up…

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/justice/montana-newlywed-sentenced/index.html?hpt=us_t5

    Money quote:
    When the judge first asked what happened the day her husband was killed, Graham responded, “I wasn’t thinking of where we were.”

    Then she spoke of a deadly argument at the park and how she had misgivings about the marriage.

    “I wasn’t really happy,” she said.

    Wonder what her N was prior to marriage?

  373. livingtree2013 says:

    Egads, Marissa, where did you come from?! In the US, and in fact in any nation that has contract law, a 14 year old is LEGALLY INCAPABLE of forming a contract. The age of consent is 16 for a reason, and that is because 16 is the minimum, MINIMUM that The Rule of Law considers a person to be intellectually capable of making an informed decision.

    If anyone asked me, I think America would be much better off if the age of consent was raised to at least 17 because 16-year olds are nowhere near mature or informed enough to make decisions about sex. Maybe that was different at the turn of the 20th century, but MARISSA, we don’t live there now!! Maybe if we actually operated our education system in a manner that taught kids critical thinking and conflict resolution skills, it might be a different matter, but alas, we do not.

    Nevertheless, is the legal capability to make an informed decision what makes a person an “adult”? No. Is the ability to function independently without a babysitter present what makes an “adult” (which is, more or less, what you’re implying). HELL NO!!! Good lord woman, its ideas like these that make me seriously question the future of the world.

  374. Desiderius says:

    “The easy road for me would be to say that each generation may look askance at the one(s) before and that that is natural. Your constant boomer bashing is not. Its tedious.”

    Everybody does it. Riiiiight.

    You’re in no position to make the determination of what is tedious and what isn’t. You sold the succeeding generations, including your own progeny (!), into slavery so that you’d never have to grow up and make a tough decision or two. You utterly trashed the culture, finances, and governing norms (not to mention the faith) of your Fathers and left us to clean up the mess.

    The only question is what to do with you when you get too old to hold onto power. Not the best time to get all uppity.

  375. There is a study last updated in 2003, which shows divorce stats trends vs age differences, It appears to me that the divorce rate is highest where the ages are closest. Maybe Dalrock could take some time and make some sense of it.
    IBB’s responses to men being older ……”he is wrinkled Eeeeeewww” are cliches

  376. gg,

    How in the world did you let this comment thread get like this IBB?

    Well I made a comment that bothers some of the people here because of their own personal experiences. I don’t really care. There is right and there is wrong. A 14 year old is a child. A 17 year old is a child. Because they are children, they are handled differently by society and we have different expectations of them. They are offered more protections and have less expectations. We have laws in this country that define these things. You don’t have to like the law or even agree with it. But I’ll tell you what, if a 50 year old man gets my 17 year old daughter pregnant (regardless if he or she are “in love”) he’s going to prison and not just for a little while. The man is a criminal. You people should not be excusing criminal behavior just because that may have been the way it was for a tiny subset of society (for some period of time in our short human history on this planet.)

    And don’t start quoting Bible passages about what is right or wrong. Lot got drunk and incested his two daughters and (as a result) got them pregnant. That is right there in the Bible. It is Scripture. So my question for you is (and I want you to really think about this before your head explodes) should that Biblical behavior be tolerated greyghost? Is that moral? It may be accurate because the Bible is perfect and I agree with everything that it says happened in it, but I would send Lot to jail for 50 years. His two daughters have been destroyed and his children (that are also his grandchildren) are also destroyed.

    You have to work it from where you are. Far better to teach them how to live.

    An indepth analysis of where we have gone wrong (from a path to marriage standpoint) is a debatable subject. This is Dalrock’s forum. This is a private party by invitation only (Dalrock’s invitation.) People are free to voice their opinions and we are free to accept them or reject them. I have offered an opinion (to livingtree) as to why most career women tend to have fewer children. I say it relates to time (not having much of it because she is too busy squarign all her debts.) If a 43 year old man wants to marry a 19 year old girl to mitigate this problem, legally he can do this. I can’t stop him. But this creates (in my mind) a whole different set of problems.

    I wish I could find a youtube from the Montel Williams episode where all those men with their legally married wives (the men all in their 40s, wives all in their teens) with these girls all sitting there in the studio, submissively, not speaking a word, crying the whole time. The tears were just flowing and the husbands had no defense for their wives, none. There is very good reason why society frowns upon these shenanigans. It doesn’t work greyghost.

  377. livingtree,

    Nevertheless, is the legal capability to make an informed decision what makes a person an “adult”? No. Is the ability to function independently without a babysitter present what makes an “adult” (which is, more or less, what you’re implying). HELL NO!!! Good lord woman, its ideas like these that make me seriously question the future of the world.

    I’m done with Marissa. I actually gave her the opportunity to recant her stupidity but…. she just dug her heels in deeper. I don’t think it’s all her fault. I think some of the others kind of coaxed her into it just for their own amusement.

  378. theasdgamer says:

    @IBB

    What law against incest would you use to convict Lot (ignoring the fact that his daughters got him drunk to get him to have sex with them)?

  379. livingtree2013 says:

    That said, IBB you might not recall that I don’t live in the US, though I make it a point to stay informed about its history, politics and sociology, because everything that America is, was, and will ever be affects Canada. I know the social “rules” are more than a little bit different in the US than they are here.

    For example: In the US, virtually every high school student goes on to uni, the more prestigious and expensive, the better. Its the thing to do – whether it benefits them or not. College isn’t a lifestyle choice here. As a result, we generally wind up with considerably less student loan debt (especially compared against our earning potential). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/forty-per-cent-of-graduating-students-have-no-debt-surprised/article11755919/

    The reasons that intellectuals don’t have kids here (and I suspect most developed nations other than the US) is different than it is for you. You have constraints that others do not have. They opt out of having children, or have less, because of awareness of consequences. It is sacrificial. Honestly.

  380. @ Dalrock:

    Emp wrote:
    “It appears to me that the divorce rate is highest where the ages are closest. Maybe Dalrock could take some time and make some sense of it.”

    I’m also curious about this. Hopefully you’ll be able to do a post about this.

    and another big Thank You for all the time you put into this blog!

  381. livingtree2013 says:

    IBB, nah I don’t think so (re: Marissa). There’s a distinctly old-world belief in her, its pretty consistent.

  382. Pomposity has clearly increased post boomer generation.

    Check your stats, yes “we” set the ball in motion, More recent generations (excluding it seems the most recent of age group) took the easy head-in. Second though, don’t. No interest in a syllable of the debate that would ensue. But to what end is your unchecked urge for recrimination?

    There is no one in a better position than ME to say that I find your boomer bashing tedious , wrapped in ribbons of some sort of faux intellectualism that thankfully only a minority of my cohorts adopted. They stand out. That means they are outliers, weird even. Seems increasingly normative in later generations especially in the subset that opines online.

    “Uppity” is what I’m getting at. I’m indignant, not uppity. I’m indignant because of your childishness broad brush whining about how things have been left for you poor dears while it was your group fawning, feinting even, over the savior in the White House. Raised as a generation spoiled with the resources we borrowed (borrowing that you rightly complain about), you sit now and curse the ones who created you. Nice.

    Your comments are usually well considered, then you toss in some bizarre boomer bashing, like some kind of strange and certainly unproductive obsession. It cannot bear fruit. Change the present. Learn from the mistakes. The remarks are emotional outbursts. Did your dad piss you off?

    I’m done. I don’t care that much.

  383. Anonymous Reader says:

    LyingTree2013

    For example: In the US, virtually every high school student goes on to uni, the more prestigious and expensive, the better.

    Do tell. Please support this statement or withdraw it. For example, cite US Dept. of Ed statistics. I’ll wait…

    Careful readers will once again see that the Canadian feminist is just making stuff up and expecting others to believe it because she says so.

  384. @ Elspeth:

    You wrote, “Actually Ras Al Gul, I’ve done the research and the age between husband and wife historically has always been between 3-7 years. Among aristocrats and nobility, you would find greater age disparities, but among common folk, ages were closer.”

    I’d like to know the source of this research. My understanding is that throughout history the male was mostly older then the female; usually by at least 5 years and commonly over 10 years.

    As indicated above, I “suppose” this incorrect bit of info (if it is incorrect) is feminist propaganda.

    But I also question the wisdom of an older man marrying, or dating a much younger gal. I’ve had the opportunity and declined due to the application of my Christian faith.

  385. livingtree2013 says:

    I mean, Amish? Honestly? You’re using the Amish as a comparison? Amish teens don’t have keggers or football teams or or Teen Beat or cocaine or Justin Beiber to contend with.

  386. greyghost says:

    IBB
    I’m pretty sure no one here would advocate a father knocking up his teen age daughters. (Talk about shitting where you eat) Even if it is in the bible. And speaking of that isn’t that story a story of something bad and how even in those circumstances god is present. With out reading it myself I bet that is where that comes from rather than an act god directs Christians to follow. Now as far as the forty year olds with the teen wives. Well that kinda reminds you of this guy doesn’t

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/alpha-male-of-the-month/

    Most here think of as commented the little house on the prairie thing. Not the teen slut porn fantasy fetish you are projecting. Since girls are taught to be pieces of shit no days it is easy to assume and think the only reason a man is even talking to a woman is to check her out for sex. In my case I know that is correct. I get the message woman want to give the world.
    Teach your daughters how to be wives and not how to be sluts. If she has more to offer than a pussy she will expect more and get it. Submission just as Chivalry is not if it is not a choice. If you are worried about your daughter being taken in by the alpha you have some work to do. I know I have some. I have a 13 year old and a wife that helpless ignorance is the best way to safely raise a daughter. It is a common trait for modern mothers and blue pill fathers.
    Kick your daughters ass and shoot the old guy for messing with a minor, yours.

  387. livingtree2013 says:

    AR, this will be the only time I ever answer you because I think you are one of the most unpleasant people I’ve ever had the displeasure to cross paths with. You might actually be #1, but I don’t want to invest that much thought into you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States (wikipedia, because its common knowledge)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/education/a-sharp-rise-in-americans-with-college-degrees.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2011/04/07/play-hard-work-little-life-on-americas-college-campuses/

    http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-cost-of-college-tuition/

    I’m also pairing it with a link to an article on a wonderful site which, if you think you can stand it, might give you some insight on how to actually be a better (hu)man.

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/24/is-college-for-everyone-part-ii-the-pros-and-cons-of-attending-a-4-year-college/

  388. Aaaaand, now we witness the completely natural and predictable alliance of the feminist and the tradcon.

  389. Desiderius says:

    “I don’t care that much.”

    Never much did, that’s why we’ve pretty much given up on you and yours. Don’t say you weren’t warned when they show up at your door with the torches or your 401K gets confiscated and you end up in a group home. I’m just letting you know what time it is, nothing pompous or intellectual about it.

    I know, I know, its the other Boomers fault. Just think of that time your coach made you run laps because some other guy missed his assignment. Somebody’s got to be the asshole all you lazy clowns can finally unite against, might as well be me. Only thing I can think of to get you to pull your heads out of your asses and work together on something for a change.

  390. Desiderius says:

    “borrowing that you rightly complain about”

    Who exactly is it that you imagine holds those chits?

  391. Luke says:

    Andrew Richards says:

    April 2, 2014 at 10:03 am

    “The fact is that we live in a society where both men and women are capavble of things like learning martial arts, both men and women are capble of being the breadwinner, nd in some cases a family may involve stay at home dad and a working mother. That in no way shape or form negates a healthy, monogamous marriage – where both people are commited to working on their marriage, where the children have a healthy and loving upbringing and where botrh people remain completely faithful to each other.””

    Actually, except as a short-term crisis management response, stay-at-home father/careerist wife is a bad, bad idea. The woman is very likely to have her hypergamy get the better of her, looking down on her husband, and finding the higher-status/higher-income men she sees at work much more attractive. Refusal to have sex with her husband anymore, infidelilty, cuckolding, and groundless divorce (that she files for, or causes) are very likely. Oh, and did I mention that she will almost certainly get custody of the children, while he’ll get onerous child support payments imputed
    on a level perhaps (barely) payable if he still had the career he abandoned (with his wife’s agreement) to take care of the children.

    Good summary of this from Roger Devlin’s excellent article “Home Economics”:

    http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_06.htm

    “Even when “nontraditional” families turn up, they often do not stick around long enough to be studied. One group of researchers “found on follow-up, just two years later, that only one-quarter of [the families] were maintaining their nontraditional ways.”
    The reality seems to be that families sometimes resort to androgyny or outright role reversal under conditions of stress (e.g., loss of the father’s job or the prolonged illness of the mother), or occasionally as a direct result of ideological commitment, but that they show a strong tendency to return to natural norms over time.

    Accepting that natural and permanent sex roles exist, be it noted, need not imply that a father must never feed the baby even if the mother is in a coma. Sex roles have never been quite as carved in stone as feminists sometimes like to make out, and part of the advantage of family life over celibacy is the flexibility it permits in meeting unforeseen challenges.

    Feminist observer Janet Steil found, however, that “couples will go to great lengths to conceal a high-earning wife’s income to protect the husband’s status as primary provider.” [17] There is a sound reason for that: overt, prolonged role reversal is fatal to marriage. Researcher Liz Gallese thought she had finally found an example of a happy role-reversal marriage: the wife’s career was more successful than the husband’s, so he began looking after their child to let her focus on work (the economically rational thing to do). The woman seemed proud of her accomplishments and happy with the arrangement; and Gallese must have thought she had a bestseller on her hands. The reality came to light only when she began speaking to the husband. It turns out that the couple had entirely ceased having sexual relations. Armed with that new information, Gallese began probing more deeply into the wife’s sentiments. The woman eventually admitted she wanted another child, but — not by her husband.

    “I absolutely refuse to sleep with that man,” she declared; “I’ll never have sex with him again.” Instead, she was now flirting with other successful businessmen. She did not divorce her husband, however; he was still too useful as a nanny for the child. [18] Such would appear to be the thanks men can expect for accommodating their wife’s career and “sharing the housework.””

  392. MarcusD says:

    @theasdgamer

    @Marcus
    Wonderful charts! Could you also break the charts for “status over time and age” into charts by race? I know that white women are far more likely to marry eventually than black women.

    Here you go: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.com/2014/04/gss-us-census-marital-status-by-race.html

  393. greyghost says:

    Luke
    That is the truth. No woman will respect a man that helps with her Career. And damn sure won’t fuck him.

  394. Random Angeleno says:

    IBB is pure comedy. Oh the contortions to tell us modern day conventions are the only possible way this can be. That even a 12 year age difference is grounds for his accusations of criminal pathologies I shall not name. 30 and 18? How about 40 and 28? 50 and 38? 60 and 48? Think IBB does not want his 30 year old princess to marry a 42 year old man.

    50 and 17 is definitely unusual. But can remember back in the 80’s hearing about someone in a cousin’s sorority house who married a 50 year old man on her graduation from college at 21. While some clucked at the age difference, no one accused the man of being a pervert.

  395. greyghost says:

    I’m 11 years older than my wife. So I’m good to go you perves

  396. MarcusD says:

    Re: age of consent: numerous feminists have wanted to raise the age (I guess some are really anti-women after all, if gauging by the words of the remaining feminists). 19th century purity campaigns might sound familiar (ignoring the 100-year gap): http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.com/2013/10/19th-century-purity-campaigns.html

    The WAW Effect seems well-ingrained in society.

    Again, the marriage and age data: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/04/gss-marital-status-over-time-and-age-at.html

    Also, an interesting paper: Mansour, Hani, and Terra McKinnish. Who marries differently-aged spouses? Earnings, ability and appearance. No. 6678. Discussion Paper series, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, 2012.

    http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/62427/1/719125197.pdf

  397. Desiderius says:

    “That is the truth. No woman will respect a man that helps with her Career. And damn sure won’t fuck him.”

    Heh. She just did. Might as well get some use out of affirmative action.

  398. Marissa says:

    Montel Williams, lol. IBB you sure you’re not an old housewife? You do realize reality is not reflected in daytime soap trash?

    Living tree, I’m not sure why you’re here except for the attention you get for regurgitating feminist talking points. You literally make no points that have anything to do with preservation of culture and marriage, and like a clueless feminist bimbo you twirl your hair and inanely wonder out loud, “like, I don’t even GET why all of you think marriage is such, like, a big deal.”

  399. boxer says:

    I’d like to know the source of this research. My understanding is that throughout history the male was mostly older then the female; usually by at least 5 years and commonly over 10 years.

    In the historical Mormon community the average seems to skew the way Elspeth indicates. Girls married at 16 or 17, and boys married at 19… Occasionally earlier, if they came out of their missionary service early, or didn’t perform it. When I see a dude at 16 or 17 in my own genealogy getting married, I assume his parents caught him banging some woman, and a shotgun marriage was performed. This is generally the only reason my people let kids out of missionary service, lol.

    For more serious discussion, you can start at this article, available from Utah State University press:

    Prescott, Cynthia Culver, “‘Why she didn’t marry him’: Love, Power, and Marital Choice on the Far Western Frontier,” Western Historical Quarterly 38 (Spring 2007): 25–45.

    In any event, large age disparities were only common with a tiny minority (ruling class men who at 50something would take a teenage wife and catapult her into high status in return for her good looks, etc.) This was not nearly as common as people today assume.

  400. eon says:

    I wonder if “fathers” like IBB are projecting something when their first reactions, to men who are masculine and mature enough to be successful husbands and to lead young women into becoming good wives and mothers, from a natural position of dominance and authority, is to shriek about “perversions”.

    They reject men who could be ideal for their daughters, but have no problem with sticking their heads in the sand and telling their daughters to engage with the immature, who only have the capacity to turn them into sluts.

    And don’t forget that IBB is a fetishist. In one of his earliest comments, he bragged about how much he enjoyed being the boy toy of an older female lawyer. He then tried to use the fact that the other men at her firm treated him as her bitch to claim that, therefore, all men should stay away from younger women. The fact that he thinks that having a submissive woman “belong” to a dominant man is a bad thing should preclude him from giving advice. In a later comment, he argued than husbands should follow rules that wives establish for their children.

    It takes a while for new readers to realize that, when IBB seems to be making sense, he is repeating the words of wiser men, seemingly without understanding. Why else would he also try to mislead newbies with advice such as: when your wife is ignoring you, to be an alpha you should stand next to the bed and plead “I need, I really NEED, a blowjob”?
    .
    .
    Regarding marriage age, women hit two walls, the first in their late teens, and the well-known one in their late twenties.

    The first wall is the end of “the bloom of youth”, which is the period that starts at the beginning of puberty and lasts until a couple (occasionally, a few) years after the completion of puberty.

    That it makes even plain girls pretty was well known (and obvious), until relatively recently. This is not as apparent now, because young women are being encouraged to start using makeup as early as possible, by their mothers, older sisters and others who see them as competition, because the bloom of youth cannot shine through spackle.

    The fact that the bloom of youth makes even plain girls pretty, for a while, is one reason why the common marriage age in the 1800s, and earlier, was rarely past the mid teens or so, irrespective of what some digital documents claim. I know this because, when I was at university, I had access to physical books that were printed in the 1800s and earlier.

    But visiting the closed stacks of a research library is not necessary, since a simple thought experiment will do. Do any of you think that it is plausible that the following was a common scenario, especially when slut shaming was considered good and proper?

    “Oh look, honey, our girl just had her first period, and has now become a young woman able to bear children*. But wait! I just had a brilliant idea: let’s let our horny and pretty daughter run around the town/village for 8-10 years, perhaps even ‘making memories’ on the cock carousel, before she tries to get married to someone like that promising man who has established himself, and is now looking to start a large family, while also maintaining the reputation and respect that he has earned.”

    * Once a girl completes puberty, she has acquired the mental capacity and become mature enough to care for the children that she can now bear, and this is also the age at which adults begin entrusting young women to babysit and care for infants, alone.

  401. DeNihilist says:

    Marissa, Tree is here cuz she has a crush on me!

  402. Tom C says:

    Article 113 of the Bro Code states:

    A Bro abides by the accepted age-difference formula when pursuing a younger chick.

    Acceptable age-difference formula:

    x>=(y/2)+7

    x=chick’s age
    y=Bro’s age

    This formula limits crafty old-timers from scooping up all the younger hotties to provide an even playing field for younger Bros, while also preventing Bros from seeing a crusty old man with a hot chick and being forced to imagine them getting it on in his adjustable bed.

  403. boxer says:

    A Bro abides by the accepted age-difference formula when pursuing a younger chick… This formula limits crafty old-timers from scooping up all the younger hotties to provide an even playing field for younger Bros, while also preventing Bros from seeing a crusty old man with a hot chick and being forced to imagine them getting it on in his adjustable bed.

    At the gym I used to work out at, there were several older guys (some of whom were *really* old, like 60s and beyond.) who had women younger than me on their arms (early 20s). They looked good, their ladies looked good with them, and that was that. I didn’t care then, and don’t care now. I don’t begrudge anyone anything.

    Of course, I’m a guy who plans to stay single, but I don’t think I’d feel differently if I were in the marriage market. There are, like, close to 4 billion women in the world, running around loose. Plenty enough to go around.

  404. aaronthejust says:

    @livingtree2013

    “Amish teens don’t have keggers or football teams or or Teen Beat or cocaine or Justin Beiber to contend with.”

    Ever heard of rumspringa? A friend of a friend just showed me a picture of an Amish farm party. Sex, drugs, alcohol, smoking are all involved. Plus other worldly pursuits like movies and TV.

    Only someone who knows no Amish people think their adolescents grow up sheltered.

  405. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “I’d like to know the source of this research. My understanding is that throughout history the male was mostly older then the female; usually by at least 5 years and commonly over 10 years. ”

    I too would like to know, because their seems to be plenty of examples of younger women with older men through out history.

    I was reading one such story at Fort Vancover a while back, a young woman married a man at least twenty years her senior, a widower, and she immediately went to raising his current children and having a large number of children herself. Not that one ancedote means anything, other than I doubt anyone raised an eye at it.

  406. aaronthejust says:

    IBB,

    Do you have a particular plan for raising daughters? You said again women need to get lots of experience with many men or they’ll be curious and dissatisfied with married. I can’t find any evidence this is actually the case.

    None of the 30 year old women in my life are marriageable.

    Meanwhile, I just spent a weekend around a friend’s daughter who managed to be nice, sweet, yet not slutty towards me. Since she’s young she seems very attractive, even though she’ll be average at best within 10 years.

    IBB would have her off riding random guys instead of locking down a marriageable guy like me.

    I don’t get his/her agenda.

    (And no I’m not pursuing that girl, before IBB tries to call me a pedophile. Also, IBB, where I live I could knock up your 16 year old and there isn’t a thing you could do about it.

  407. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Bro code? WTF?

    And, your bros are allowed to tell you what age you should marry? WTF?

    ###
    IBB, our resident old-man hater (though not the only one), I worked years ago with a woman who at 29 married a man around 45. He died when she was in her late 40’s.

    Yet, she described it differently than you do. She said those 25 or so years were great years, and she recommended that all women marry older men. She said pretty much what the neighbor girl here in Mexico said, when the much older man asked why she wanted his baby. She said they treat the younger women so much better. She did not regret marrying an older man who died when she was relatively young.

    But, then, of course, you know better than she does, right?

    However, having married for love once, she did it again, marrying a younger man who didn’t want kids. How did she do that?

    Well, the same personality that married her to a really good older man also made her desirable to a younger man who didn’t want kids. Except for being feminist (which did bother me, but did not bother her younger husband), she was somewhat intelligent and a good conversationalist as long as you didn’t pull her feminist string. I can see the personality which made a marriage successful to an older man also made her desirable in her 50’s to a younger man. (I had known him for years.)

    Let me add a note here. Note that she took into her second marriage considerable property, which she and first husband worked together to get. House, car, furniture, etcetera.

    Ya’ know, it is hard to understand just why you think it’s your business what age people marry.

    Older, desirable women do re-marry as widows. Perhaps instead of telling your daughters who they can and cannot marry, and calling people perverts simply because they do something morally and legally allowed that you don’t like, maybe you should be teaching them how to be desirable. It can be done. Not sure you can teach them, but I can. Heh, heh.

    I do know women who will never live alone, simply based on their desirable personalities. Instead of being so dictatorial, perhaps you should help them develop their personallities and people skills.

  408. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Elspeth:

    “Actually Ras Al Gul, I’ve done the research and the age between husband and wife historically has always been between 3-7 years. Among aristocrats and nobility, you would find greater age disparities, but among common folk, ages were closer.”

    I think I have a problem with the use of the word “always” because I know that’s not accurate, perhaps typically the age is between 3-7 or the average or median is that, but it isn’t “always” and I didn’t say it was typical, only that it happened all the time.

    In this day and age the average marriage lasts 8 years, all these worries about health and everything else are beside the point. If some thirty year old marries an 18 year old, and they actually make it to when he starts getting poor health 25+ years down the road, then more power to them. They have in fact succeeded. They’ve been together long enough to raise several children to adulthood if that was their thing and btw the idea that a 28 year old woman is going to have a problem with a man that hits 40 is ludicrous if you look at Rollo’s SMV charts. A man in his early forties can find tons of women 26+ that are starting to think about settling down and that’s leaving aside the huge number of women with daddy issues (ie all the one’s raised by single moms plus some).

    I’ve got a bit of a bias, being several hundred years old, but still . . .

  409. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Ted, marriage is a horrid risk. Unless you are going to never marry, don’t dump this woman just because she did something stupid. You seem to admit your N count is not small.

    Yet, there is so much positive there.

    Still a risk, nothing you can do will change the risk factor but how long have you looked for her?

    And, if you marry her, forget it. If you can’t forget it, don’t marry her. I am sure any day now you will get the perfect woman, hee, hee. There are so many of them.

  410. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>Where, please tell me, are the kinds of places they should go to where marriageable men might be?

    Boo! Hiss! to the places listed. Coldfoot Alaska is a woman’s paradise. When we visited on a luxury trip, I saw a fat girl in her 30’s, and guys were lined up outside her cabin waiting for her to come out.

    And, a woman into gray, the same. The man to woman ratio is very high.

  411. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>It is a total-non-starter for for most dads with adult daughters.

    Like it’s their business.

  412. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>You should also be aware that this attitude that its “perverted” is feminist conditioning that you have been taught this because it is in the interest of older women not to pursue younger ones?

    Ding! Ding! A winner!

    As I have said, here in a different culture, probably 5% of young women actively seek older, mature, established men, because that is what they want.

  413. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>Our daughter will be 20 this summer. A man 6-8 years older would be acceptable. We’re not unreasonable.

    Actually, you are. With so many important issues in a marriage, age shouldn’t even be on the list if everything else is right. Purely feminist culture. RAG is one smart man.

  414. Ras Al Ghul says:

    I think, 71, that my biggest problem with IBB’s age thing is that it is, and I know for a person labelled as a cynic this is ironic, inherently unromantic.

    If two adults are in love, let them be in love, for however long that lasts in this corrosive toxic society.

    By IBB’s logic, because there are hurdles to their love, they should avoid it at all costs. This logic could be applied to all marriages, especially in this day and age. And while I agree marriage should be avoided, I doubt he would.

  415. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>Just one more inane comment like this, and I’ll drop you into the bozo-shun-filter with AR and ’71. That will be the last time I ever respond to anything you have to say. Everyone gets a warning. The two of them got theirs. This is yours.

    Bozo? What a loser. All because someone does not accept your viewpoints instantly and unconditionally. Thank you ever so much for ignoring me. Your kindness overwhelms me.

  416. Anonymous age 71 says:

    However, I think I can see why IBB’s daughter might have man problems.

  417. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Elspeth is correct about 50 year olds not historically normal marrying 18 year olds. It was 28 year olds marrying 17 year olds. My dad was 28 in 1935 and my mother was 17.

  418. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “As I have said, here in a different culture, probably 5% of young women actively seek older, mature, established men, because that is what they want.”

    In the U.S. about 30% of the women admit perferring older men (I have no idea what age range that really entails) and another 30% state that age doesn’t matter to them and wouldn’t be against being with older men. I suspect this is going to shift upward in the next ten-twenty years actually and this isn’t wishful thinking because I will be older(because this is actually a bad sign), but more that the girls from broken homes are going to be desperately seeking what they didn’t have in their homes, an older male figure that loves them.

    I have watched this play out often enough, I knew a woman that sought out older male “mentors” all the time.

    And the other thing I will note is that most women that aren’t “off the market” by 25 have serious baggage going.

  419. Ras Al Ghul says:

    71,

    I think the original discussion was a 12 year difference in age range and then an example of a 50 marrying a 17 year old got tossed out. I don’t think anyone was saying that was typical, but that a man ten years older was not uncommon

  420. Cicero says:

    @ innocentbystanderboston

    “Please. There is absolutely nothing rational about a human being that says a 14 year old isn’t a child.”

    Well the Roman boys generally married at 16 and the girls at 14. And Maria Antuanete was 14 when she got married. I do understand your argument. However you also have to consider that not all cultures and time periods place the same requirements on achieving maturity. Some require children to grow up faster whilst others allow them to never grow up at all.

  421. Tom C says:

    The Bro Code is a joke from a TV show. It is advocated by a philandering character played by Neil “Doogie Howser” Patrick Harris. They published a Bro Code book ostensibly written by the character. Sorry, I should have clarified.

  422. boxer says:

    The Bro Code is a joke from a TV show.

    My bad. :) No offense meant.

  423. boxer says:

    living tree 2013 kooks out with:

    If anyone asked me, I think America would be much better off if the age of consent was raised to at least 17 because 16-year olds are nowhere near mature or informed enough to make decisions about sex.

    Uh, I had sex regularly at 16. So did a great many of my friends, both male and female. This is not a new phenomenon. 16-year olds have been consenting to sex for tens of thousands of years, and I assume they will continue to do so, with or without your approval.

    Regards, Boxer

  424. MarcusD says:

    The Evil of CAF:

    Odds of a good marriage and risks of getting married (An annoying thread on many, many levels.)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=871831

    NB: BlueEyedLady is a Jezebel feminist, and the rest are under the spell of the WAW Effect.

  425. Opus says:

    It is my view that the varying ages of consent are incoherent and frankly a mess – but sadly I do not find that my day-job is that of Absolute Monarch (God’s preferred system of government if I have understood the OT correctly). Although it is entirely legal I find the idea of a man marrying someone twenty years older than himself to be morally disgraceful; I do not have the same revulsion towards its opposite, and I would think it wise (in the present climate of hysteria) not to say exactly how old I was the last time a fifteen-year-old threw herself at me.

  426. Tilikum says:

    all these rules and morality…….very self limiting.

    contributing to your own slavery

  427. In the historical Mormon community the average seems to skew the way Elspeth indicates. Girls married at 16 or 17, and boys married at 19

    That’s a good point: if men and women both marry young, you won’t have a large age gap. You can only get a 10+ year age gap if for some reason men are delaying marriage and women aren’t. That’s not natural, but I can think of a couple ways it could happen temporarily:

    If a lot of men spend their young adulthood off on some sort of religious or military service, so they don’t marry until they come home older. I think this was the case in the Roman Empire.

    If there’s strong societal pressure for a man to get “established” before he marries so he can provide his wife with a safe, comfortable life from day one. This is a bad idea; it’s better for him to have a wife beside him through the tough years and for them to go through hardships together, but it seems to be a popular notion today. So if women go back to wanting early marriage, we’ll probably see a larger age gap for a while.

  428. I’ve done the research and the age between husband and wife historically has always been between 3-7 years.

    One thing about that: if the average gap in a particular era is 7 years, then depending on the distribution, there could be a lot of 10-year-or-more gaps to balance all the ones in the 0-3 range, not to mention the occasional negative number (girl older than guy). You could easily have 25% of marriages in the 10+ range, and that would seem like a lot.

  429. Elspeth says:

    Couple of thoughts:

    The first is that I have no idea how my view got lumped in with IBB’s. I am not all concerned about an age difference of 10 years. It hasn’t been a problem for my parents. My mother was a decade younger than my father. My stepmother is two decades younger.

    I have repeatedly said I have no dog in this hunt. I don’t. I am simply more aware of how much growing an 18-year-old (these days) has to do.

    Because we believe it actually creates a solid foundation for a couple to build a life from the ground up (the way we did), a younger man of strong character and work ethic is just as acceptable as an older one who has had more time to build wealth. My experience is that it is not a good idea to write off younger men simply because they don’t have as much money money- yet.

    As to whether it’s a father’s business who his daughter marries ( I’ll answer jf12’s question while I’m at it). My husband hasn’t made it his business to bring marriageable men around his girls. It is their job to find a husband. Part of that does means picking someone he will approve of, but we’re not husband hunting for them.

    One thing I have noticed is that he was instantly turned off by a young man who came from a home where the mother wore the pants and pushed the father around. That kid never stood a chance even if would have let our daughters date in high school, which we didn’t.

    For the person concerned about my feeding my daughters’ egos, that is not a problem. I’m sure they (like most young women) would say their mother is far too critical. My complimentary comments about them here are not standard conversation in this house.

  430. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Susan Patton has a new book out called ‘MARRY SMART’ and has been making the news show circuit with it.

    She is an advocate of women being serious about marriage & family, and finding a husband in their early 20s while their MMV & SMV is high. I.E. she is speaking out about the unrelenting message that ‘marriage can wait’ by this incredibly feminist-thug loving country.

    I just watched the March 27th ‘Daily Show with Jon Stewart’………and of course he & Kristen Schaal did a ‘take down’ of her book & views. ‘Rebuilding the Mound’ in your words.

    I used to enjoy his show for some of his exposes on corporate & financial malfeasance and fraud, but now his show has been taken by the feminist narrative as well.

    Thought you might want to look at her book, and do a piece on it.

  431. theasdgamer says:

    @Cail

    “If there’s strong societal pressure for a man to get “established” before he marries so he can provide his wife with a safe, comfortable life from day one. This is a bad idea; it’s better for him to have a wife beside him through the tough years and for them to go through hardships together, but it seems to be a popular notion today.

    I strongly agree that it’s necessary for young people to go through hardships during early marriage. However, for me that means owning a small house. The Amish help newlyweds build their first house and I think that showing community support for a newlywed couple is a great idea. Still, there’s a problem with people marrying young (<25). Their brains haven't completed development until they reach twenty-five, so they lack judgment skills. Therefore, they need to rely on older folks until they mature, even while married. So, I think that it's good for people to marry young, but they need financial/material support and the benefit of the wisdom of mature people. All this support used to be provided in society at large and still is by the Amish. It has always taken a village. We shouldn't plan to cut our kids loose all of a sudden like we were, especially if they marry young like we hope they do.

  432. theasdgamer says:

    @Tilikum

    “all these rules and morality…….very self limiting.

    contributing to your own slavery”

    Physics teaches us about power. A lever needs a fulcrum, which must be enslaved (anchored). Self-control requires rules and morality, which provides a fulcrum for life. Once we have self-control, we are able to empower ourselves in many ways, producing freedom that we wouldn’t experience without rules and morality.

  433. Theasdgamer, you’re right. I hope no one thinks we’re suggesting that we marry off 16-year-olds and then throw them to the wolves. Newly married couples need the wisdom and support of their elders, and that’s always been the case. I think younger marriage actually facilitates that. When my niece married at 17 (oops pregnancy), everyone in both families recognized that they would need help, and they got tons of it. It helped that their parents are still young enough to have some energy to help them, and since my niece’s mother had just had her own last child, it was no big deal to babysit another. Now they’re just an ordinary “old married couple” with two kids and another on the way and starting to build a house, except that they’re only like 22 years old and have loads of energy and lots of time ahead of them to enjoy it.

    It’s different when the marriage is between two 28-year-olds with college degrees, careers (or “careers”), and their own financial portfolios, who have been making their own decisions and mistakes for years. They still need help — at least advice — but they’re less likely to get it because the people around them assume they’re ready — that’s why they waited, right? And they’re less likely to ask for it because they’ve spent years establishing their independence and getting set in their own ways. So they get a wedding gift and then head back to their apartment — where they probably already lived together, so that’s another reason people assume they don’t need help — and sink or swim on their own.

  434. jf12 says:

    Traditionally, the boys approached EVERY non-slut through her father first. That’s probably the biggest single part of how the boys knew the girl was not a slut.

  435. Anonymous Reader says:

    LyingTree2013, as I am on travel I won’t have time to offer a lengthy reply. A few points

    First, this is your claim:

    For example: In the US, virtually every high school student goes on to uni, the more prestigious and expensive, the better.

    So far as I can tell, the links you tossed up do not prove your claim. Many people who are ill-suited to higher education go to college for a year or two and then flunk out or drop out, this is born out by the Wiki article you linked to in the table section “some college”. Subsidizing college in a cargo-cult manner has not worked out the way it was expected to. The fact that college costs have increased at a rate approximately 2X the CPI does not support your claim, either.

    As a feminist it is clear that you are not used to actually having to support your position with facts and reasoning, rather you expect groupthink to substitute. You still do not understand that the premises of your ideology are false, they are being proven false again and again on a regular basis by science, and therefore feminism is a non-reality-based ideology.

    As a feminist, you naturally align yourself with the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Susan Brownmiller and others. It is risible to read you bleating that I am “unpleasant” given your ideological sisters and their well-known bile that has been spewed onto men for over 30 years. “Unpleasant” obviously means “not willing to put feminists on a pedestal”, among other things.

    So far as I can tell, you are here on this comment stream for the attention you can get, and to attempt to defend the rotting, tottering edifice of misandric 2nd stage feminism. Both are a waste of other people’s time, but that never even slowed you down at rationalmale (Rollo’s).

  436. The first is that I have no idea how my view got lumped in with IBB’s. — Elspeth

    I don’t think you have to worry about that; IBB is a freak show all unto itself.

    My impression is that your husband probably has a bit of a “only the best for my special princesses” thing going, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that as long as he doesn’t overdo it. It sounds like he has good reason to think they’re special and deserve great husbands. The ideal husband for a 20-year-old girl probably IS a 25-year-old man who’s getting started on a career or at least has his head on straight. If she can find one of those, that’s awesome, but they’re rare. If she starts nearing spinster age (you know, like 23) without finding one, he might have to be more flexible, but there’s time to shoot for the moon for a while.

  437. earl says:

    If women want to take the smooth easy-paved path to marriage…go right ahead, they will not like the results. Women need marriage a lot more than men do…and most women and emasculated men want to kill the golden goose because of their selfishness.

    I can sit back be ok with not getting married while doing my own thing. I don’t have to be married to know what being a father is like. It’s about sacrifice. Should the right one cross my path who has that same mindset then I’ll revisit the marriage idea.

  438. A slut slutting about… nothing new, except the bit about expecting marriage to fall in her lap. Marriage is a dead institution, it follows that it now falls to gays, prostitutes and criminals to keep it going.

  439. DeNihilist says:

    gamer – “Once we have self-control, we are able to empower ourselves in many ways, producing freedom that we wouldn’t experience without rules and morality.”

    PLUS 100!

  440. BRAVEHEART (GBFM is William Wallace): You’re so concerned with squabbling (gaming) for the scraps (Dalrockian pre-buttocked womenz) from Longshank’s (Chuchian/Frankfartian) table that you’ve missed your God given right to something better (the schools, universities, and a loyal, virginal, wife).

    Wallace (GBFM): We have beaten the English (the manosphere gets more traffic than many well-funded frnkfartian blogs), but they’ll come back because you won’t stand together (too many dalrockian frnkfartians attack the Great Books for Men in favor of gamey game).

    MacClannough (DALROCK): What will you do?

    Wallace (GBFM): I will invade england (the chruches/universities/publishing houses) and defeat the English (Frankfartians/Churchians) on their own ground with a literary and spiritual renaissance exalting the Great Books and Classics.

    MacClannough (DALROCK): Invade? That’s impossible.

    Wallace (GBFM): Why? Why is that impossible? You’re so concerned with squabbling for the scraps (gaming the pre-buttocked womenz) from Longshanks’ (Frankfartian schools and churches) table that you’ve missed your god-given right to something better (A literary and spirtual renaissance exalting our birthright–the Great Books for Men, and a truly Holy Wife, loyal to God and Man instead of da bottomz lineszzz debtesz butt gina tinzgzlzozolzozo). There’s a difference between us. You think the people of this country (bloggers of the manosphere) exist to provide you with position (instalanches for teaching men they need Game instead of Moses and Jesus and Homer). I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom (the Truth of teh Great Books for Men that Sets Them Free), and I go to make sure that they have it.

    –From the Movie Braveheart. lzozozo

  441. DeNihilist says:

    RAG – “If two adults are in love, let them be in love, for however long that lasts in this corrosive toxic society.”

    Thanks for this.

  442. BradA says:

    @RAG,

    “It’s OK” is not happy.

    If I ask about a restuarant and a person says the food was “OK” that means they don’t like it. I can count on one hand how many happy marriages I’ve known.

    Cynicism is just a truth the naive don’t want to accept.

    BS. I have been married over 25 years. I would not say it was all “happy” by any means, but it has been reasonable overall. Two people don’t live together more than a short time without having plenty of bumps along the way. You seem to be falling into the error Dalrock notes of making romance (the feelings) the core of marriage.

    Feelings come and feelings go. Some get very intolerable. Others just seem very intolerable for a time. Life happens and we move forward. I doubt any singles could apply the same standards and say they are always “happy” as well. They may have times of “happy,” but they will also have times of not being there. That is life.

    That makes your standard rubbish.

  443. BradA says:

    @Elspeth,

    So the whole “waiting for God to put him in the mailbox” is a catchy meme, but it’s not that simple. Where, please tell me, are the kinds of places they should go to where marriageable men might be? This si a common suggestion but i have no idea how one is supposed to do that.

    I don’t either, but you are still waiting, in essence, for the right man to drop out of the sky. It is highly unlikely to happen, as you have noted.

    I suspect we need more godly matchmaking services. The men won’t magically appear as it is. Your daughters are not getting younger as you know and have stated. How do you expect the men to show up as it is? You say it will happen later, but why is it that a man will come later and not earlier? What makes it likely for that man to show up at 28 and not 22, for example?

  444. BradA says:

    @Ted,

    You seem to be a bit of a hypocrite to me. You want a chaste wife, yet you are the one who pushed for sex. You will almost certainly never get what you claim to want. You have sampled the buffet already and then question whether it is truly good. I think you have some serious issues yourself. I would strongly recommend that you examine your own life to see if Jesus is really Lord over it all. Clearly He is not over your sex life as you have already violated many Biblical commands on sex only being for inside marriage.

    You don’t have to do that of course, but don’t claim to be following His ways in that case then.

  445. BradA says:

    @Elspeth and Cail (his comments),

    My impression is that your husband probably has a bit of a “only the best for my special princesses” thing going, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that as long as he doesn’t overdo it.

    I would tend to agree. I have no problem either, but I would ask if he is taking an active part in this process or just serving as the block. He may not have had to vet many applicants, as none may have showed up, but his expectations can have a way of coloring things in your daughters’ lives if they respect him as you imply.

    He also needs to be a more active participant in this vitally important area. Hopefully he sees it as that important. I doubt he would wait for a perfect job to drop in his lap. Apply the same search principles (modified of course) to their situation.

  446. DeNihilist says:

    About 2 years ago, the Dems were trying to pass a law that would prohibit farmers from using their children to work on the farm until they were 16. For the “child” you know. Failed miserably.

    My BIL teaches at technical school, plumbing. Last year he had a 27 year old male, who failed a test. The next day, this student and his mother were in my BIL’s office, with mommy ripping about how unfair this test was for her son. For the “child” you know.

  447. BradA says:

    On the age discussion, 14 is an adult, not a child. We have infantilized it in our modern society, but a 14 year old is not a child and a huge amount of our problems with not following the Biblical standard of sexuality is that we let 14-20 year olds stay a form of “child” for far too long. The plumbing is working, yet we push against them doing something about it because they are “too young.” What can’t continue won’t.

    I doubt many 14 year olds in today’s culture are ready to be married, but claiming they are children is completely bogus. Children aren’t sexually mature. Many 14 year olds are. Creeping you out doesn’t make it wrong. No one of us is the standard of the universe.

  448. theasdgamer says:

    @Brad A

    “I would not say it was all “happy” by any means, but it has been reasonable overall.”

    I think that we’d agree that a multi-year sex strike would be a definite period of unhappiness. Clearly, whoever launches that strike (normally wives, of course) is in serious sin.

    I think that one of the big problems is that people enter marriage with unrealistic expectations. Expecting there to be no major downs is obviously unrealistic. I see marriage as being bittersweet for most people. The bitter times make the sweet times sweeter and during the sweet times we store the memories away in case the bitter times come again.

  449. livingtree2013 says:

    Y’all are missing the point about the age thing. Today’s 14 year old, is a child – mentally. They may insist otherwise, but they are. Anyone of you who actually HAS a teenager knows this. And not because they CAN’T be adult. They can, they just aren’t. Because they don’t have enough life training to be adult, to make adult decisions. Decisions about, you know, things that will affect the rest of their lives. Decisions that consider consequences.

    Its not much better when they’re 20, but at some point you have to cut them loose and let them make their stupid mistakes and deal with the consequences. What is that age? 14, I guess, if you accept Marissa’s concept of “adult”. But maybe her kids are special. Maybe they’re different than the other 99.9999% of 14 year olds in the western world. Me, I think 17.

    And its really, so frikking easy to give them that life training – but neither parents, nor the educational system, nor the culture, is providing it to them. I’d love to see this change, some kind of adolescent training camp, like the Spartan culture used to do, like basically every tribal community has ever done to prepare their youth for adulthood, but alas, I suspect that these days in the “free world” there would be so much opposition to the idea of anyone “training” their children besides their parents (hah!) that it would never be feasible. There’s no trust in the community anymore. Oh, except for “at risk” youth, there are plenty of programs to reintegrate them, like this: http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/programs_1999/08_ATP.html, but the general assumption is that the “normal” kids aren’t “at risk,” they’re just going to grow up fine all by their little ol’ selves. Which is hilarious. I’m stunned that you don’t get this, given how much you all complain about modern “culture.” (or lack thereof).

    The Amish kegger parties someone mentioned? I don’t see how that illustrates anything but the point I made. I thank you, whoever it was, for making it for me even better – Marissa’s point was that the Amish treat their 14 year olds as if they were adults. So I guess they believe then that its totally adult that their 14YO kids are getting trashed and fucked like they’ve finally gone away to college, woohoo!

    Besides what… you are using a “reality TV” show to illustrate a point about how things are? OMG, I’m losing hope in humanity a little more every time I talk with you guys.

  450. BradA says:

    “I think that we’d agree that a multi-year sex strike would be a definite period of unhappiness. Clearly, whoever launches that strike (normally wives, of course) is in serious sin.”

    That would be a very unhappy situation! I have no idea whether that is the norm, but I have a hard time believing it is 99% of the marriages. I do see how husbands could adapt (poorly in my idea) to a wife’s lack of enthusiasm for sex. It may require the husband to be far more active to keep that going.

    I have never experienced a strike, but I definitely still like sex better than my wife. Some other things bug the crud out of me, but a lot of that is life, not some inherent flaw in her. We live in a fallen world.

    “I see marriage as being bittersweet for most people.”

    I think life is bittersweet for most people. Though marriage is usually sold as the “perfect solution” so the expectations and therefore the disappointment are much higher. The expectations make for the disappointment.

    This kind of ties back to the question of whether Christian men need game. I know in my own situation that things go much better when I practice some of the core principles. I don’t always want to do so, since it is a pain, but it is a responsibility I have. This should clearly be within the context of Christianity, but a husband who just wants things to work well must work at it.

    It is kind of like my yard. It won’t stay in good shape without a lot of work, even though I pay a lawn service to put chemicals and such down on a regular basis. My marriage will not do well either.

    Note that I am not saying it is all the man’s responsibility. That is just all I can directly impact. My wife has to deal with her own motivations. I just need to set the proper structure for things. Fortunately I have a very strong personality and do drive many things through. My wife isn’t always comfortable, but I believe we are much better off than if I was the passive guy some espouse.

  451. BradA says:

    @LT,

    “They can, they just aren’t.”

    So? They will act like an adult by being sexually active (in many cases). We must push for what is right, not just what exists.

  452. MarcusD says:

    @livingtree

    Today’s 14 year old, is a child – mentally.

    Source?

  453. Elspeth says:

    I want to answer carefully all the points issued because I tend to get a wee bit defensive when I perceive criticism against my husband.

    First, I admit that my husband has something of a block here. He chose me. I didn’t choose him. He doesn’t really get the idea of a man not going out and getting what he wants.

    Factor in our firm belief that there is such a thing as getting in God’s way, and the notion of our girls pulling out all the stops in an effort to be married by age 22 (or 23) is something of a faithless way to live. You live your life open and prayerfully, but you don’t run around acting like you’re so desperate to get married that it’s all you have time to do or think about.

    I’m sure that’s not exactly what you meant to convey Brad, but that’s how it sounded. There is a reasonable place somewhere between “waiting for God to put him in the mailbox” and putting everything else on the back burner for the sake of searching for a husband.

    We know that it is important, but our girls are 18 and 19. The clock is ticking, but we’re nowhere near panic stage yet. Despite the common manosphere memes, 23 is NOT a spinster by any stretch.

  454. As dalrock teaches and preaches dat christians need game, da GBFM is da greatest christianz in all of historyzizi!!!

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/youll-know-youre-an-alpha-male-if-your-name-is-da-gbfm-lzozlzlzozozoozoz-da-gbfm-has-so-much-game-dat-dey-call-me-da-microsoft-sexbox-and-sony-puastation-lzlzzozozoozzozlzzoz/

    lzozozoozoz da gbfm has so much game dat dey call me da Microsoft seXbox and Sony PUASTATION lzlzzozozoozzozlzzoz and da Ninentdo Wiienerz lzozozozzlozzo da GBFM make mystery look like da Sega bungmasterz zlozzlzozozlzloz cause while he’s playing losta Atari pong da biddies be sukckingz da losta GBFM dong!
    lzolzozllzlzlozololoz

  455. Elspeth says:

    I think that one of the big problems is that people enter marriage with unrealistic expectations. Expecting there to be no major downs is obviously unrealistic. I see marriage as being bittersweet for most people. The bitter times make the sweet times sweeter and during the sweet times we store the memories away in case the bitter times come again.

    Well that’s a much rosier picture of marriage than we usually get from you. It’s good, though. And true.

  456. feeriker says:

    Some require children to grow up faster whilst others allow them to never grow up at all.

    And of course since we are firmly established as the second type of culture, this is the only kind of culture that the IBBs of our society have ever experienced (IBB has gone on record as stating that he doesn’t “give a damn about any cultures other than America’s,” which serves as conclusive proof that, like most Amerikan tradcons, he has never set foot outside of Amerikan soil and thus is completely ignorant of the wider world) or can relate to. This is why he’s hellbent on ensuring that his own pwecious daughters extend their own adultolescence indefinitely. Heaven forbid that they should marry young and be forced to grow up and face the challenges of the real world like young adults in every society in history other than our own spoiled, decadent one has had to face.

    I really think IBB’s biggest fear is that his daughters, by marrying young, will come to display a level of maturity greater than his own. The thought of such humiliation is unbearable.

  457. Y’all are missing the point about the age thing.

    We’re not missing the point; we’re saying you’re wrong. When people disagree with you, sometimes that doesn’t mean they’ve failed to absorb your wisdom fully and need you to repeat it.

    We all know that “adolescents” today — even as old as their late 20s — are infantilized and encouraged to put off responsible adulthood as long as possible. We’re not saying we’d go into the local high school and pair off the kids and start them on married life. We’re quite aware that “kids these days” aren’t ready for that. We’re saying they could be ready for it if they’d been raised differently, that there’s nothing inherent in human biology that has changed suddenly in the last few decades that makes that impossible.

    I know a couple 13-14-year-old girls who have been homeschooled and kept away from a lot of the nonsense, and trained to expect marriage (or the convent). I wouldn’t say those girls are ready for marriage right now, but they’re ready to start thinking about it, doing serious discernment about their vocation, working on homemaking skills, and paying attention to the boys and men around them and figuring out what they like. There’s no reason they couldn’t be courted in a year or two, with an eye toward marriage a couple years after that.

    As I think we’ve discussed here before, the very concept of “adolescence” as a multi-year time period separate from childhood and adulthood is a modern invention, as is the idea that people need several years of struggling with their hormones after puberty before being capable of putting them to use.

    Funny thing is, it’s usually the liberals who push for lowering (or eliminating) the age of consent. That’s for the homosexuals and casual sex, though; when it’s a man and a woman considering marriage they seem like they’d like to push it up to 28 or so.

  458. Cicero says:

    @livingtree

    “Today’s 14 year old, is a child – mentally.”

    And what would you claim to be the mental age is of an adult today in the “west“?
    Like I said, and this seems to be neglected or purposefully overlooked, some children never grow up as can be seen in today’s time period of “western” culture. So you have children in adult bodies with all the legal support but not the sense of maturity. Whilst in other cultures “children” are more mature than adults in Western societies. So when making such a claim it should be specified to what group it makes reference to.

  459. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Most everything is cultural. 14 year olds in the USA are worthless but fertile babies because that is what our culture teaches them to be. Worthless, like the majority (not all) of American women. They come from good stock and are ruined by feminism and permissive daddies when they are allowed to be there.

    Here in Mexico, in 2000 or so, a baby came running across the street and hugged me as high as she could, and said, “Tio Abuelito.” She is now 16 and views me as her grandpa. So does her whole family, including her real grandpas.

    When she was 8, not 14, not 17, but 8, I went to help her with her English homework. While I was there, she bathed her little brothers; washed their clothes by hand; cooked a meal for her mom who has arthritis, and served it.

    Her mom told me later she was doing that when she was 6; not 14 and not 17. Kids respond to their culture. She was capable of taking care of a family when she was 6, because she had no choice, and in the USA, most young adult women aren’t capable of it.

    And, some might suggest a significant percentage of American women of any age don’t do real well at it.

    We were joking recently and she indicated she was in no rush to marry. I suspect part of it is she has lived in serious poverty because her dad is lazy and has trouble keeping a job. To her a career (doctor if possible, with nurse as back-up) is a means of escaping poverty for herself and her children if she marries.

  460. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I remember also the lovely woman from Nicaragua who survived the wars. When her mom and dad divorced, she was sent to live with her dad. She was so small she had to stand up on a chair to reach the stove to cook. But, she did it.

    Her dad used to tell her, “Life is hard, hija. We have to struggle on.” And, she did. She is now a businesswoman in Florida.

  461. Brad,

    On the age discussion, 14 is an adult, not a child. We have infantilized it in our modern society, but a 14 year old is not a child and a huge amount of our problems with not following the Biblical standard of sexuality is that we let 14-20 year olds stay a form of “child” for far too long. The plumbing is working, yet we push against them doing something about it because they are “too young.” What can’t continue won’t.

    Working plumbing does NOT make a 14 year old an adult. It may have at one time but not today sir.

    A 14 year old can plant a crop in a field. A 14 year old can not write a business requirement document outlining how the filed will be layed out profitably.

    A 14 year old can spray insecticides on a field of crops by hand. A 14 year old can not fly a crop dusting plane.

    A 14 year old can feed a horse hay. A 14 year old can not manage a working horse ranch or drive a modern hay bailer.

    A 14 year old can ride a horse with a plow in a field. A 14 year old can not drive a John Deere 9870 STS Combine Harvester.

    A 14 year old diabetic can (maybe) give himself an insulin shot. A 14 year old diabetic can not describe exactly what insulin chemically is, why he chemically needs it, nor could he synthetically make it.

    A 14 year old can f-ck and make babies. A 14 could never financially support himself (let alone any babies.)

    The concept of “childhood” is a relatively new concept to the human race (within the last 150 years or so.) That is because we are living so much longer and our lives are 1000 times more conveluted than they were 100 years ago. There is a much larger amount of time required for emotional maturity before people can make it on their own. This is not the infantilization of people. It is instead, reality.

    When a 10 year old female daughter of a Eastern European Roma-Gypsy gives birth to her own daughter, it does not make the 10 year old mother an adult. Instead, it only proves that the 10 year-old’s parents should have had their daughter taken away from them. That type of behavior is not tolerated in our country, I don’t care about customs or culture. This is the 1st World people. We have nuclear power plants, home mortgages, information technology, super-highways, social security, and cellphones. We don’t live in mud huts and marry our 2nd cousin. Anyone who thinks a 14 year old is anything other than a child, is a fool.

  462. eon says:

    “Still, there’s a problem with people marrying young (<25). Their brains haven't completed development until they reach twenty-five, so they lack judgment skills."

    Exactly! However, this is true for men, but NOT for women.

    The natural role of women is to raise their children, therefore they mature much earlier, but to a much lesser extent than men. Once they complete puberty, that is as mature as they are ever going to be.

    A smart young woman was as smart when she was a girl. People sometimes confuse intelligence with the accumulation of data, and we have all seen the worthlessness of many college degrees.

    After she completes puberty, if she is not bonding to a man with good "judgement skills", under whose guidance she is developing into a good wife and mother, a young woman rapidly starts accumulating baggage and developing emotional fractures from the stresses that she is not capable of facing alone.

    There is no shortage of single women at 20 who are lost and brittle, and aged well beyond their years.

    "Therefore, they need to rely on older folks until they mature, even while married."

    If marriage is a relationship in which the husband leads the wife, then this is not really possible if the man has not yet matured. They either end up trying to lead each other, or playing house under the leadership of another man, who is then partially fulfilling the husband role for the wife, at least in her subconscious mind.

    Such third party guidance creates bonding problems, and necessitates a later transfer of leadership. This transfer, with respect to the wife, is both external, and additionally mental and emotional, and has to overcome unnecessarily created but significant obstacles.

    This article has additional relevant information: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2012/06/woman-most-responsible-teenager-in.html

  463. theasdgamer says:

    @tree

    “The more educated are having less children because they are increasingly aware that if THEY have enough children to meet the “procreation” expectation of 2.1 or whatever it is now, there are more than enough under-educated folks producing at 2-3x that rate, so the educated inevitably get snowed by the under-privileged.”

    I don’t believe any of this and have looked at cdc statistics. Please provide links to support your claims. Please define “under-educated” and “under-privileged” as well.

  464. Anonymous age 71 says:

    IBB tends to call people perverts, even when what they are doing is neither a crime nor proscribed by any sane religion. He (she?) is a nasty, nasty man. But, I digress.

    Let us examine exactly who is a pervert. Not every man I counseled was in the right. When you counsel men, it is imperative you tell them when they are screwing up, because they do not get a pass for bad conduct as women usually do.

    A man called me. At first I thought it was a false sex abuse charge. But after a while, I realized it was a real charge, and odds are he was guilty.

    He had a little boy and he taught the way for him to be a man was to have a hard-on. Seriously. He would tap the little boy’s erect hard-on and tell him, “Yes, you are a man, because you have a hard-on.” Sick but more stupid than sick, I think.

    He had been told by the social workers if he did not waive any custody or visitation, he would be charged with a felony. After I fully understood the case, I advised him to sign. “Nope!” he said, “I did nothing wrong.”

    I investigated the sex abuse laws. In my state, it was labeled sex abuse if you, well, I forget the exact wording. Something akin to encourage or enable or support the sexual conduct of your kids. And, Sicko definitely was doing so.

    Other cases involves mothers who allowed daughters to bring lovers into the house for sex.

    It may not pass a jury if it is an adult woman. However, that is a fine point. IBB is truly a pervert if he has indeed said he has encouraged his daughters to have sex before marriage.

    What a dirt bag. Encourage his daughters to increase their N-Count for learning purposes. Risk contagious, incurable diseases for learning purposes. Risk infertility. Risk permanent health problems. Risk dangerous encounters with unknown men. Risk being unable to find a good husband.

    And, he calls me Bozo? Hee, hee.

  465. theasdgamer says:

    @GBFM

    Have you ever read and analyzed the Song of Solomon to learn the principles of Game that it demonstrates?

  466. Cicero says:

    @ innocentbystanderboston

    With regards to your April 3, 2014 at 11:52 am post. Perhaps you should get out more because regarding the work list you made most of it is and was done by boys younger than that. Just because today’s legal requirements differ form time and place does not change the fundamentals of maturity [aka Responsibility for your actions and the welfare of others] in young age.

  467. Cicero, a 12 year old could ride a horse. So what? Doesn’t make him an adult. My daughter could ride a horse at age 6, doesn’t make her an adult.

    What is “childhood” to you? What does that concept mean to you (to any of you?) I have described it perfectly. The rest of you (with the exception of Brad who seems to think only working plumbing makes one an “adult”) can only offer rhetoric.

  468. Andrew says:

    Question. Maybe it’s been covered, but I have to ask–let’s say a Christian man wants to get married, etc. But he doesn’t want to be at his wife’s mercy, legally speaking.

    Would there be anything immoral about just having a wedding ceremony with a pastor, exchanging vows and all that, but not legally doing anything? A marriage ceremony, but no state/government involvement, which means as long as your state doesn’t have common law marriage or palimony… little risk in divorce?

  469. Marissa says:

    Marissa’s point was that the Amish treat their 14 year olds as if they were adults.

    They start to treat their 14-year-olds as adults. They acknowledge that they are not children any more and must be prepared for the ways of the adult world.

    Maybe they’re different than the other 99.9999% of 14 year olds in the western world.

    By which you mean the last 50-100 years of the Western world. You and IBB spew some ignorant presentism that is blind to just about every culture’s realistic outlook on those growing into adulthood.

    And IBB, I don’t know why you just spout off in your ignorance. Google “youngest X to do X” and you’ll see plenty of 14-year-olds (even 17-year-old “children”) managing to do the things you listed.

  470. Elspeth says:

    @ Andrew:

    A lot of pastors today require a valid marriage license before they’ll perform the wedding ceremony. Mine did. I’m pretty sure it’s a requirement in the Catholic church as well.

    What’s more than that is that if there are children, child support is used as a defacto alimony payment toward the mother whether there was a valid marriage or not. With a valid marriage, the father at least has some legal legs to stand on (no matter how wobbly) concerning his progeny.

    Without it, he has nothing to say in the upbringing of his children unless he can prove their mother is an axe murderer or worse.

    Now if they have this non legal union and then have no children, maybe that’s an option.

  471. Marissa says:

    Would there be anything immoral about just having a wedding ceremony with a pastor, exchanging vows and all that, but not legally doing anything?

    Not immoral, but some churches require a marriage certificate from the state before they allow you to perform a ceremony.

  472. theasdgamer says:

    @eon

    “The natural role of women is to raise their children, therefore they mature much earlier, but to a much lesser extent than men. Once they complete puberty, that is as mature as they are ever going to be.”

    You are incorrect about female brain development. It roughly parallels that of the male brain (~two years ahead). Male brains mature on average about 25; females about 23. You might want to check out the following sites as well:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/teenage-brain1.htm

    Immature “adults” have serious problems with recognizing judgment errors and take longer to make judgments.

    From Aamodt: “I think it makes sense to have different ages for different functions.”

    So, adulthood should be viewed as a matter of degree, where rights are given depending on achieving a certain degree of adulthood. I’m not convinced that men and women have equivalent judgment skills, on average, either. We need more studies of that question.

  473. Andrew,

    Question. Maybe it’s been covered, but I have to ask–let’s say a Christian man wants to get married, etc. But he doesn’t want to be at his wife’s mercy, legally speaking.

    Would there be anything immoral about just having a wedding ceremony with a pastor, exchanging vows and all that, but not legally doing anything? A marriage ceremony, but no state/government involvement, which means as long as your state doesn’t have common law marriage or palimony… little risk in divorce?

    This question has been covered here before as a way to negate a woman’s legal authority to “threatpoint” over your assets and livelihood (no actually marriage sanctioned by the state.) Its a great question but the woman can still get child support and (possibly) alimony but that is more dependant on the Judge’s interpretation of your cohabitation in a court of law. It’s subjective.

    The risk is always there unfortunately.

  474. Cicero says:

    @ innocentbystanderboston
    “Cicero, a 12 year old could ride a horse. So what? Doesn’t make him an adult. My daughter could ride a horse at age 6, doesn’t make her an adult.

    What is “childhood” to you? What does that concept mean to you (to any of you?) I have described it perfectly. The rest of you (with the exception of Brad who seems to think only working plumbing makes one an “adult”) can only offer rhetoric”

    No you seem to miss the point. This isn’t about adulthood or childhood. This is about maturity.
    Because I can also ask you the question. What is “adulthood” to you? What does the concept mean to you? You have described childhood perfectly. However you rhetoric does not define maturity.

  475. BradA says:

    @Elspeth,

    I do not mean to criticize your husband. I am also someone who firmly believes that God guides our paths, but I would be a bit more proactive if I was doing it now based on what I know now.

    I firmly believe God put my wife and I together. We did not date before we were engaged, though we were active in church activities.

    I would just argue that a godly Christian man has an obligation to be more proactive in the past. Consider the position of these young men, at the very least. How would they find your daughters? I never did start asking out random women when I was single, because I knew I wanted a strongly Christian wife. I also oppose modern dating, so it gets very hard.

    I suspect your husband believes in modern dating, with a Christian focus, largely because that is the way he did it, even though that was prior to his conversion if I followed you past writings correctly. He may need to consider that such an approach is prone to a lot of failure.

    He should not live their lives for them, but actively networking and trying to at least find places for your daughters to be involved that have such eligible young men.

    ====

    Think about it the other way. If you were a young Christian man, knowing all that is posted here, how would you find a godly wife? Where would you look? Are your daughter’s there? Is your husband helping them be there?

    I wouldn’t pull out all the stops, but heading to college and a career is the same as the common feminist merit badge approach, so it may not be ideal for someone wanting to live with Godly standards.

    I would also ask you to consider why your daughters will find a husband at 28-30 and they won’t now. What will be different at that time? Why is it the magic number as you note?

    I am just trying to challenge you to think here. You can and should do whatever you are convinced is right. I am just hoping to get you to consider some things outside what you may have already thought.

    Hope this makes sense. Feel free to get my email from Dalrock if you wanted to talk that way. Though I have no direct horse in this race, other than having been led by God to find my wife. (I have questioned Him on that at times as I have dealt with some issues I didn’t think would be issues, but that is life. He allows it though hasn’t answered yet!)

  476. Andrew says:

    Elspeth,

    Child support in Georgia is determined by a worksheet now. Plug in the numbers, an amount comes out. They can’t just add in alimony, unless your state has legal palimony. And I doubt the father’s rights (hahahaha) would be effected.

  477. greyghost says:

    Careful now Elspeth. Boys today know how females are. I regularly speak with 16 to 20 year old young men. Number 1 marriage is stupid. there is no “the one” number 2 Any girl over the age of 24 is just for sex. One night stands or booty calls. At best she is a regular booty call. She has kids …Another empowered slut will be coming through the door any minute. They are aware of the laws of misandry and smile in agreement when I speak to them. I also advise them to do well financially and never spend a dime on a chick ever. They all saw what happened t their dad and now they are understanding why. By time these guys get to 27-30 they will be well versed in the female imperative and can easily marry a 19 -20 year old with her head on straight walking right past your 25 year old daughter. The war on men has no innocent men that survive.

  478. Elspeth says:

    I know how child support is determined. Same way down here, by worksheet. But the numbers come out bad for the parent who makes significantly more money. It just so happens that the father usually makes more money than the mother.

    The more children they have, the more of a hunk of his earnings is taken.

  479. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    “Well that’s a much rosier picture of marriage than we usually get from you. It’s good, though. And true.”

    Thank you. As I am “trapped” in marriage by my vows, I have tried to make the situation as good as it can be. I considered my marriage dead for years, but the Lord seems to have revived it.

    My wife is still stuck on the counselor thing and it’s important to her. My tack is that any counselor we use has to be a non-professional (to avoid mandatory reporting), Christian, and non-feminist (including embracing submission by wives). I’ll let her look. If there’s a redpill counselor in our area that meets those criteria, I’ll be happy to go to counseling.

    In the meantime, things are sweeter than they have been in a long time.

  480. BradA says:

    BTW Elspeth, feel free to ignore my thoughts, for they really are just that. I do think we need a better way, but we have to have a lot more break before we will find it.

  481. Andrew says:

    I think child support is just logical, if you have kids, it’s going to happen either way. Married or not, etc. So it’s a given, like how gas always costs too much.

    I’m taking Family Law right now, and the attorney teaching it just has way too many horror stories, lmao. One case, the wife had an affair, gave hubby herpes, and still came out ahead after division of assets. The lawyer attended a family law luncheon with several Cobb County judges (I live north-west of Atlanta) and they presented two of the judges with a divorce case. One judge said, the wifey needed to get a job, he would not award alimony. The other judge said lifetime alimony. With legal marriage, it’s a legal gamble, truly.

    And marriage isn’t going to effect parental rights, a father is a father, marriage isn’t going to make him automatically have more legal custody. It’s looked at on basis of how much of a dad he was, how much time he spent with kiddos, etc.

    I know it will hugely benefit the husband, since family court can’t award alimony if there is no legal marriage and the state does not recognize common law marriage or palimony. It would just be a question of who paid for what, since there would be no legal marriage to say “assets acquired during the marriage” blah blah blah.

    I’m just wondering if there would be any issues with that as far as the Bible is concerned.

  482. hurting says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    April 3, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    As I’ve said many times before, here and elsewhere, there would be nothing morally wrong with obtaining a purely religious marriage from a cooperating clergyman, but I don’t think it’s common to have clergy perform such ceremonies (Elspeth is correct that the RCC would generally require a marriage license in the US) for any number of reasons not the least of which is that a great many clergy truly endorse the man-killing provisions of civil marriage.

    Civil marriage confers no benefit upon the sacramental; indeed, it is openly hostile to same. A civil marriage may give a man a slight edge in custody versus being unmarried (at least in theory), but I’m not sure how it would work out in practice.

  483. Ras Al ghul says:

    The forms for child support are just a fancy way of obscuring the truth. Unless the time you have with the kid is 50/50 and you make the same amount of money, figure the amount for one kid is 15% of the father’s income. Add 10% for each kid thereafter and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the amount is going to be.

    “I think that one of the big problems is that people enter marriage with unrealistic expectations. Expecting there to be no major downs is obviously unrealistic. I see marriage as being bittersweet for most people. The bitter times make the sweet times sweeter and during the sweet times we store the memories away in case the bitter times come again.”

    The greatest problem people have with marriage is BOREDOM and TEDIUM. They expect it to be an adventure, and most of it, like most of life for most people is boring. That’s one of the problems husbands have, perhaps moreso even the alphas, they go from sexy mysteries to be conquered (seduced, won over) to “friends” There’s a reason the romances END with marriage, because it is an end.

  484. Ras Al ghul says:

    And one last note on the “pedophilia”

    There is a test evaluators use to find out where a person’s, male or female, sexual interest lies. They will flash up pictures of adults, teenagers, children, little children, of both genders and have the person viewing the pictures rate them.

    The rating of the pictures isn’t the test though.

    It’s how long they spend looking at the pictures and the machine times that. People will automatically spend more time looking at pictures that attract them.

    And here is the kicker. Both men and women with normal sexual interests will spend more time looking at members of the opposite sex that have developed secondary sex characteristics, which occurs around 13 or so.

    So it may very well be in society’s interests to say that people under the age of 16, or 18 or whatever can’t have sex, but biologically it is normal for both men and women to notice the attractive features of teenagers.

  485. jf12 says:

    So, would having a young arranged marriage, say betrothed at age 14, that doesn’t take effect until adulthood (18, or whatever) work to keep youngsters chaste, *knowing* they have someone waiting for them soon? Or would it encourage sowing wild oats in the short time before marriage? I tend to think the former, not the latter.

  486. theasdgamer says:

    @BradA

    “I have never experienced a strike, but I definitely still like sex better than my wife.”

    It varies with us. Our perceived SMV’s are probably pretty evenly matched. I sexualize things a little bit a lot of the time and she likes that. I usually instigate things, but my wife may be very receptive. (She’s a “good girl” girly-girl and doesn’t like to instigate even when she’s very turned on.) The more my wife goes out with me and sees me dancing with other women, the more passionate she is. Also, if I teach her dancing, that ups her passion.

    Giving comfort to my wife helps things all around–better sex, less drama, better cooperation, etc. Really, she grooms me all the time and I’ve found that I need to return more of that.

    Sometimes when men are angry with their wives and don’t feel like being intimate, they need to man up and do their duty to their wives anyway. Women like passion, whether from desire or anger. Duty sex may sometimes help make things smoother. It’s not good to rely on it too much, though.

  487. theasdgamer says:

    @RAG

    “The greatest problem people have with marriage is BOREDOM and TEDIUM. ”

    YMMV We’ve had lots of drama. Even without the drama, I would think that the well of sexual fantasies wouldn’t run dry in a lifetime.

  488. eon says:

    theasdgamer,

    “You are incorrect about female brain development. It roughly parallels that of the male brain (~two years ahead). Male brains mature on average about 25; females about 23. You might want to check out the following site …”

    You are partially correct. Female maturity roughly parallels that of the male during childhood, then it surges far ahead of the male during puberty, and then the rate of change falls off rapidly after puberty.

    I am deliberately using “maturity” instead of “brain development” because there is not a comprehensive direct correspondence, there is no consensus about what that even means (precisely, including anatomy and its correspondence to causality, functions and function boundaries), and the full picture is too extensive and nuanced to be discussed here.

    Empirical, observational data, regarding behavior that can be verified by anyone, is of greater value here.

    At what age do parents start completely trusting young women to care for their children, without additional supervision?

    Has anyone ever seen a woman whose judgement at 26 was better than her judgement at 16? Notice that this is only valid with respect to the SAME person, and that the size of the data set that she uses for extrapolation is not the same as judgement itself.

    Do males at 16 display stability, or a range of undeveloped capabilities that are surging ahead at different rates and in a punctuated manner? When do these processes achieve equilibrium?

    This was “common knowledge” until recently, and these generalizations are actually conclusions from an ongoing “study” that spans millennia and has the biggest possible data set.

    And, if you think that NPR is a source of accurate information without an agenda, then you have not proceeded very far in your studies.

  489. JF12, I’ve said before that if I’d felt as a young man that I had a fairly reliable path ahead of me leading to marriage, it would have been much easier to be chaste and focus on other things. I don’t necessarily mean arranged marriage — though that would do it — but just a sense of, “Here’s how it works: you’ll court a few girls one after the other, one will stick, and you’ll be married and settling into life around 20ish.”

    Instead, I think the sense most guys (except maybe the highly-confident alpha) get is, “It’s a total crap-shoot. You’ll ask out a lot of girls, date some and get rejected by others. You might get lucky and find a good one before you get too old to enjoy her, or you might not. Good luck.”

    I don’t think there’s much doubt that the second viewpoint encourages a man to try to get as far as he can with a girl when he gets the chance. Especially when you put that together with something else boys are taught: “Girls are inherently good (not sluts), ergo if I can get her to have sex with me, she’ll want to make it permanent so she wasn’t just being a slut.”

  490. Opus says:

    I observe that females begin to baby-sit from about the age of thirteen or fourteen.

  491. DeNihilist says:

    IBB, when was the last time you were on a working farm? You know shit bro.

  492. Elspeth says:

    I wasn’t offended by your thoughts Brad, and I wasn’t offended either. I get where you are coming from. The one thing I think we’re getting crossed on is that you think I’m encouraging my daughters to wait for marriage. We are not doing that. We are among the very few parents we know who actually think young marriage is an excellent idea. It’s worked well for us, so we don’t fear that they would miss out on anything by marrying at 20.

    The point I was trying to get across is that no matter how much we (or they) want it, no matter how hard we (or they) work at it, there are no guarantees that desire and effort will produce the desired result. They could do everything right and still end up marrying at 25, or 28, or not at all. That’s the biggest issue I see in the post-modern church. We seem to think (despite all Scriptural admonition to the contrary), that if we follow the right formulas and do everything “right”, then every good and right thing will happen to us. I have to wonder what Bible people are reading?

    As for Grey Ghosts assertions, we’re not interested in the thoughts of men who are not committed to Christian morality. If there are not enough such men that our daughters can marry, then God is sovereign.

    Of course, Deti and his ilk keep insisting to me that the churches are full of godly young men just itching for the chance to marry a young chaste woman.

    If that’s the case, then no worries, right?

  493. Elspeth says:

    I meant to write:

    I appreciated your thoughts Brad, and I wasn’t offended

  494. livingtree2013 says:

    Wow, Cail, that is the most impressive justification for bad behavior that I have ever seen.

    So what do you mean exactly by “one will stick”? As in, if she likes you enough, you’ll have sex and she’ll stay interested, and presto, you’ll decide she’s good enough and get married to her? Or if you like her enough, you won’t dump her for the “next” after she puts out, and presto, you’ll get married to her because she’s good enough?

  495. jf12 says:

    @Cail, yes I agree about “the sense most guys (except maybe the highly-confident alpha) get” from the current SMP. ADBG had a relevant article on J4G

    http://www.justfourguys.com/what-blue-pill-betas-have-in-common-with-red/

    Nowadays, apparently even betas feel they “ought” to “try to get as far as he can with a girl when he gets the chance” even when he doesn’t get many chances, or even *because* he doesn’t get much chances. May as well, since it’s random etc.

  496. jf12 says:

    livingtree2013, Cail was clearly drawing a distinction between the current SMP in which girls are expected to put out, and the more ideal *chaste* situation of being more or less guaranteed *some* girls for courting and marrying young.

  497. Living Tree, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you’re not tall enough for this ride. Maybe both.

    But anyway: I wasn’t talking about ideal behavior; I was talking about what people actually do in real life. Yes, I sinned and fornicated before marriage, and I’m not justifying it. But I think I would have been less likely to do that if the “dates” that I spent with girls had been part of a rational courting process with a goal and limits in mind, instead of a “getting lucky” experience that seemed to just happen after a date went well. When we’re talking about how to guide the next generation, either individually or as a society, there are things we can do to help them avoid sin and get things right.

    On the “one will stick” part, I was simply alluding to the fact that there’s no guarantee that the first courtship will lead to marriage. A man might have to court several girls (or a girl be courted by several men) before one leads to engagement and marriage. No, that doesn’t mean sex or dumping anyone; it means following an established process where both people know what’s going on and can end it respectfully and cleanly if it’s not going to work out.

  498. Thinkn'Man says:

    I look at the wreckage that is scattered across the American “marriage 2.0″ landscape, and I would be lax in my duties as a father of two boys if I didn’t strongly urge and train my sons to put up with some temporary unpleasantness in this life, and NOT marry. Better that than wind up like this man: http://thomasjamesball.com/

  499. feeriker says:

    [S]ome churches require a marriage certificate from the state before they allow you to perform a ceremony.

    Almost all churchian franchises in Amerika require the couple to have the State’s marriage permission slip in hand before they will perform a covanental marriage ceremony. Given that the highest priority of these operations (especially “evangelical” Protestant ones) is to maintain their 501C3 status by staying on Caesar’s good side (some even twisting Romans 13 to demand near worship of Caesar on a level with Jesus Himself), this isn’t surprising.

  500. MarcusD says:

    @IBB

    A 14 could never financially support himself (let alone any babies.)

    I still remember seeing this on TV several years ago: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d11_1234555875 (@00:17)

    That said, there are some 14-year-olds that could accomplish the tasks you describe (i.e. the ones that you say no 14-year-old could do). Then again, it’s worth noting that, grammatically, “can not” is different from “cannot” (with the former allowing for a 14-year-old to indeed accomplish the task).

    @IBB

    The concept of “childhood” is a relatively new concept to the human race (within the last 150 years or so.)

    No, not exactly. It depends on where you are in the world (or were, rather). For the English, yes, they had very little concept of childhood (e.g. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist8.html). Other cultures and periods, not so much (e.g. Prinzing, Günter. Observations on the legal status of children and the stages of childhood in Byzantium. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2009. in Papaconstantinou, Arietta, and Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot, eds. Becoming Byzantine: Children and Childhood in Byzantium. Vol. 1. Harvard University Press, 2009.)

    —-

    Anyone who thinks a 14 year old is anything other than a child, is a fool.

    Ummm… You make a bare assertion (“ipse dixit”), then label anyone who agrees with you a “fool.” That is not a rational way of discussing anything.

  501. Lionel Manboobs says:

    What could possibly go wrong?

  502. DeNihilist says:

    But of course, the MSM, which Rolling Stone joined decades ago, are dying a slow death, so now most articles are patterned on “reality” TV styles. It is shock journalism is all. Most kids in my sons’ spheres are excellent human beings.

    From an Amazon review of the Howe/Strauss book – Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation { http://www.amazon.com/Millennials-Rising-Next-Great-Generation/dp/0375707190 }

    “They will rebel against the culture by cleaning it up, rebel against political cynicism by touting trust, rebel against individualism by stressing teamwork, rebel against adult pessimism by being upbeat, and rebel against social ennui by actually going out and getting a few things done.”

  503. DeNihilist says:

    Oh, and the biggest thing we should be hammering into our young mens heads these days, is drop the porn and stop masturbating so much.

    Keeping the urge unsatisfied is the first step to higher beta/alpha.

  504. Andrew says:

    Denihilist,

    Problem with that is, if you start hammering into young men to not look at porn and not masturbate, while you’re teaching them that sex outside of marriage is wrong, that’s just being an asshole. So it works great for a greater beta/alpha to get women, but not if you’re teaching them church morals…

  505. Anon says:

    Seems right. Good for her.

  506. TH says:

    Err.. sorry to go medical on you but this woman’s philosophy doesn’t just guarantee STD infection (chlamydia, hpv) but some dangerous forms of same (e.g. oncogenic hpv forms 16 and 18, notably). Not good for the ladies. Not good for the dudes. And no condoms no terribly effective.

    And if the young lady in question is relying on womens wellness to save her… good luck. False positive haven willing to cut early and often. Enjoy. You might me infertile before you know it and no one will tell you.

    The truly sad thing here isn’t this young woman’s views…it’s that she thinks them harmless to her and her partners and/or ascribes an efficacy to gloved fingers and swabs up her vagina that doesn’t exist. She is a HIV / HPV victim waiting to happen.

    There’s another reason to meter the sex beyond love, anticipation, devotion, marriage…. Mother Nature apparently didn’t care for the slutting route either.

    Just saying is all

  507. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Most young people do not get married at age 14.

    Most young people are not sexually active at age 14.

    Most young people do not drive a tractor at age 14.

    But, some do some or all of those things.

    My wife’s great-grandma married in 1890 at age 14. Why? Even though I wasn’t there, I can tell you why, because I know a bit about Mexican culture. Because she was READY to be married, quick before she got pregnant. In those days, it wasn’t that being an unwed mother was stigmatized. It was more like the whole family became virtually unmarriageable from the disgrace.

    I had a 13 year old English student for a while. She was more than ready. I told her one day if she had lived in 1850, she’d already be married. Boy Crazy is not the term. She was smokin’ hot!

    My brother in 1954 won the 4-H tractor driving contest at the county fair. When they found out he was only 14, they booted him off, as being too young. And, the honors went to a kid much older. If they had used large harvesters in those days, he could have driven them very well.

    As a couple of astute posters have said, we all have a good idea what should be happening. Alas, those things aren’t happening. Girls do get knocked up when they are considered too young to marry. But, there they are with a kid and no husband. Yes, it would be better if they were taught to expect pregnancy means bring out the ole’ shotgun.

    Did I write about my own neighborhood here in rural Mexico? around 36 years ago, a 12 year old girl got pregnant. Upon investigating, the parents discovered the man was 25. After talking to them, they said, yes, they wanted to marry.

    In Mexico it is up to the parents after 12, so they allowed them to get married. They raised 3 kids to be productive citizens. My guess is they lived with his parents, and her MIL taught her to be a housewife. She had to learn quick.

    In the US, he’d go to prison for a long time, and someone else would be paying the kids’ costs. And, the kids would be without a father, and be 7 times more likely to go to prison. And, we think we have a superior way of doing things. We do not!

    We imagine if we prevent unwed mothers from marrying they will all become Rhodes Scholars. Pure bogus theory. Young girls who get knocked up tend to repeat bad behavior, and those babies do not cease to exist.

  508. boxer says:

    People generally take up the role which is expected of them. Today’s 14-16 year olds are “children” only because they have no reasonable expectations to meet. They are told that their lives are meaningless, so they waste their time on sex, alcohol, pot, raves/clubbing, and listening to loud music.

    In years past, a 16-year old young man would be well on the way to learning a trade, probably a year or two in apprenticeship already, or mastering literature and higher algebra (what 22-year olds struggle with today) so that he could be a schoolteacher or business owner. The 16-year olds of the past were often out for days at a time on their own, working on the ranch or for the man they were apprenticed to, with responsibilities to get the job done and report back on time. Guess what? Most of them did not run away to waste their time on whores and whiskey, because they knew people were counting on them.

    What we need now is not more feminist infantilization of adults, but a return to reasonable expectations and a supportive social superstructure where people can know their place within a well-defined role.

  509. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I have become a local expert on community history. High school kids have been sent to seek help on local history. They are correct. I am a minor expert on the local history, but it did freak me out when the first high school student knocked on my door and asked for help. She lived in another village, at that.

    I have also been doing my wife’s genealogy. One of her surnames had 4 men named M. M1 to M4. M1 was born in 1793, and probably died in 1876. The Mormons did not find that year’s death records, but he was shown as living father of a new bride the year before, and the deceased father of a new bride the next year.

    As a young man, he became ranch foreman for a very rich man. The man for whatever reason did not have a suitable heir, so he sold the ranch to M1 on the payment plan. Thus, M1 became incredibly wealthy and his family with him — until the Mexican revolution in 1918 took most of it away.

    He had his first son, M2, in 1822. M1 had his last child in 1866 when he was 73. I haven’t found his first wife’s death, nor his second wife’s birth or marriage. But, she was young. Rich male widows in those days tended to marry for maximum offspring. I am guessing Petronila was in her late teens, and she had a considerable bunch of babies while he lasted. I theorize he was 50 or older when they married. I’d like to find her birth date, but I suspect she was nearly the same age as M2.

    He had kids all over the place, and as far as I can tell, accepted paternity of most or them.

    In those days, for a young woman to marry a rich ranch holder was better than winning a big lottery today. She was about as close to being a queen as a woman can be in a republic. And, her family with her.

    No one called him a pervert. And, no one referred to her as a gold digger. That May-December marriage would have been taken for granted, as not only normal but proper. His sanity would have been questioned if he married a woman in her 40’s.

    The family, not privy to documented history which I get from Family Search in SLC, confused M1 and M2. They thought M1’s older kids were the children of M2. Not so. They were half brothers. The old patriarch on the ranch actually got angry when I told him they were half siblings of M2. He angrily informed me they were his children.

    I almost missed it, too. But, when M2 married again after a wife died, Petronila was shown as mother of the groom, so that proved she was his step-mom, not his wife as the family thinks today. I tell people the Egyptians might have married their mothers, but the Mexicans never did.

    Yes, though IBB accuses people who are doing something totally legal and not proscribed by any common religion, it is strictly culture at work.

  510. Anonymous age 71 says:

    boxer, and others. Look up; the history of Buffalo Bill and Dan’l Boone and the express riders and other greats in history. They were doing great things probably before age 13.

  511. Desiderius says:

    “Here’s how it works: you’ll court a few girls one after the other, one will stick, and you’ll be married and settling into life around 20ish.”

    Uh, Cail, that’s serial monogamy.

    Both my grandmothers (in the mid-40’s) were seeing multiple men at the time the best one won her everlasting devotion with a ring. I wouldn’t put it past one of those grandmothers to have let a couple of those men get in there on her – the other I’m dead certain there was no funny business – but the important thing was that the norm was no exclusivity* without a ring, and no sex without exclusivity, so people knew what to expect. It created a safe space where young women and men could get to know what spending time with different kind of partners is like

    * – sure, there were kids who went steady in high school, but that’s when they we’re still kids. Relationships were understood to be something kids did to practice for the entirely different thing called marriage. That’s why your SO is called your “boy”friend or “girl”friend. Its supposed to be for kids.

    Women understood that her time was too valuable at the peak of her SMV to restrict herself to one man, unless he was wiling to offer his peak SMV time (32-42) exclusively to her in return – that exchange was denoted by the ring.

    Given that tradcons/churchianity has gone all-in on serial monogamy, young women like Katrina who recognize what a poor deal it is for them (and everyone else) choose the only alternative of which they’re aware – the hook-up culture. Which, other than the sex, is closer to traditional courting than serial monogamy is.

    If instead tradcons took the time to learn something about the traditions they claim to be conserving (hat tip GBFM), they would know that. of course the sex undermines a lot of the benefits that traditional courting offers in all sorts of ways, so there are a lot of young people who are opting out altogether.

  512. Desiderius says:

    The reason young men (even betas) are trying so hard for sex is because for 10-15 years there the norm among women was to screen out all guys who didn’t. It was a crude masculinity test in a culture that officially didn’t approve of overt signs of masculinity. Not actually sure if they’re still doing that, but so lag is to be expected between female behavior and male responses to it.

    if you wanted marriage, you had to have a relationship, and if you wanted a relationship, you had to have sex first. See the movie Being Flynn for an example of how this worked.

  513. Ras Al Ghul says:

    theasdgamer says:

    “YMMV We’ve had lots of drama. Even without the drama, I would think that the well of sexual fantasies wouldn’t run dry in a lifetime.”

    About the 24th time of sex with a girl is where it gets stale (plus or minus).

    Most people’s lives are boring. It is often: Get up, breakfast, go to work, work, lunch, work, go home, dinner, television, sleep (sex once a week) (repeat).

    Add children, the only financial and time suck greater than a woman, and its get up tired, get the kids ready, grab breakfast, dash to work, work, lunch, work, dahs home, help kids with homework, school activities, dinner, television, sleep. With the weekend being: shopping, yard work, kids activity, church (maybe) clean house, help kids with homework.

    That is the base pattern of most people’s lives. Unless the woman has a personality disorder at which point its even more hellish.

    That does not mean this is all marriages, only the majority of them.

    With a vacation every year sprinkled in, and the occassional family event of party: birthdays, christmas, halloween, new years, thanksgiving.

    Now contrast that with the images women get of what fabulous lives other people have and, well, thats part of the whispers now, isn’t it.

  514. jorge c. says:

    You guys don’t know many women in their mid/late 30s. There are no decent guys left. They are all married. The girls settle or do the single mom thing. It is bleak out there. Comments from you guys make me laugh. Try talking to some women.

  515. http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/dalrock-pontius-pilate-and-da-churchian-elders-defund-cancel-da-gbfms-bible-study-group-they-needed-the-moneyz-to-fund-dalrocks-repentant-sisterhood-of-the-sore-buttholez-in-sea/

    Dalrock, Pontius Pilate, and da Churchian Elders DEFUND & CANCEL DA GBFM’S BIBLE STUDY GROUP!! they needed the moneyz to fund Dalrock’s “Repentant Sisterhood of the Sore Buttholez in Search of Beta Providers to Support Our Bastard Kidz so BETAS BETTER LEARN GAMEZ TO SERVE OUR TINGZLZZLZOZOZO DAMMITZ!” Bible study club founded by Dalrockz zlozozozozo

    MANy OF you have realized by now dat da GBFM is a prinminet prominent CHRUCH LEADERZ LEDERZ ELDERZ CHRUCH CHRUCH HIGHER UP GRAND PUPAZ zozozzl zlozlzlzo!!!

    but i have bad newsz sad sad so very sad neewsz churchian church news

    my church defuneded my bible studey study greta books for men club cause they needed the moneyz to fund Dalrock’s “Repentant Sisterhood of the Sore Buttholez in Search of Beta Providers to Support Our Bastard Kidz so BETAS BETTER LEARN GAMEZ TO SERVE OUR TINGZLZZLZOZOZO DAMMITZ!” Bible study club founded by Dalrockz zlozozozozo

    Because Dalrock is hooked into da main strem media and gets instalanches for doing his ssacred duty in furthering the MArxiam march long march through our cultarl institutionsz, he commands much power, and he and vox were able to cancel and defund da GBFM’s BIBLE STUDY CLUBZ, and now dey have more moneysz to buy bath oils, purple robes, and gold chainsz to better preen and peackcock from da pulpit zlzoozoz

    this is they’re Dalrockian/Voxian hymnal hymenal hymnal no-hymen hymneell lzozozzoz:

    THE PRAYER OF DALROCKA’S REPENTANT SISTERHOOD OF DA SORE BUTTHOLEZ lzozoz

    ten alphas pumped and dumped me
    so i considred myself a ten
    told all the betas “let’s wait and see,”
    and now i am a single old dried up hen.
    empowered today with my haughty blogs
    calling on men to man up everywhere
    where cocks once penetratd my hole for logs
    jesus now forgives me via my prayer
    please jesus please heal my sore butthole
    i repent so send a beta provider my way
    a good manned-up man with a good soul
    the ones i ignored back in the day
    but now i desrve me a nice nice moneyed guy
    to pay for dates while i make him wait ’til i die.

    to make him pay for what i gave away for free
    back when i was younger hotter tighter
    no longer can he butthext the reformed me
    like they did when i was fifty pounds lighter.

    so please oh please jesus help dalrock teach all da betas game
    so dat dey can better serve our butt and gina tingzzlzlzo
    cause jesus fulfilling the law of moses is so totally lame
    help us dalrock seas the assetsz of all da beta male singzelzlzoo
    so please jesus please help da men man up everywhere
    to marry da jesus-healed butts of ****ty ****ts
    and pay to raise our bastard kidz it’s only fair
    dat betas we don’t lay gotta pay & never touch our holey butts
    jesus holy jesus you had better answer our sisterhood’s prayer
    or da sisterhood of da sore buttholzizoz gonna cut off ur nutts.

    lzozozozozoozozooz

    cluck clcukc cluck cluck clcuck
    clukc clcuclkuc lcuk clukck clcolzozlzozolzzoozzozlz

    hey dalrocklas lostsas cockas and heearteiztztets i think dat glen stanton is gonna put this in his hymnal bookz at all his mega churches/fort godz zlozlzozozoz

    imagine da size of da isntalanach when dis happensz!!! lzzlzolzolz

    lzozozozoz

  516. Uh, Cail, that’s serial monogamy.

    Not at all. I’m talking about traditional courtship. You decide you’re ready to marry, so you pick out a young woman you’re interested in and inquire (possibly through her father) if she’s ready and interested, and if everyone’s amenable you begin officially courting her. This starts by declaring your intentions, which includes a time frame: I’d like to court you for 6 months (for instance) and then we decide whether to take it to the next level. It means spending a lot of time with each other’s families, going to church and community events together, and other ways to get to know each other without getting in the back seat.

    If it goes well, you get along well, and you don’t discover any stumbling blocks, you get engaged (again perhaps through her father) and proceed toward marriage. But there’s no guarantee that you’ll marry the first girl you court, so it could be that you’ll part as friends with the first one and then move on to courting a different girl.

    Not “relationships,” not serial monogamy. Just an orderly way to explore the possibility of marriage that cuts down on the possibility of getting in trouble, and doesn’t leave things open-ended so people end up in 9-year relationships or other unhealthy situations.

  517. jf12 says:

    @Cail, kids these days! I’m actually shocked that somebody thinks that courting isn’t what it always was from time immemorial.

  518. MarcusD says:

    Annulments

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=872251

    Well, now…

    Yes, but we’d expect more annulments to be given out as the divorce rate increases. Greater rates of divorce mean a weaker understanding of the permanence of marriage. Not understanding the permanence of marriage (i.e. marrying someone while thinking divorce is an option) is grounds for annulment. Thus, the two would rise together.

    Further, the more divorced people in a population, the more applications for decrees of nullity will be submitted. The more applications, the more such decrees will be granted. Thus, the two rates would rise together.

  519. xoxoxox says:

    empathologism says: The schadenfreude is misplaced. She will indeed find a husband. You are stating what you wish was reality. We are not supposed to be prone to that around here.

    It is starting to happen….thanks in large part to the poor/deteriorating economy, there are fewer “good” but “frustrated” men to soak up these women. A girl I work with turned 32 recently. I’d never thought she would have problems finding a husband, any husband because she has model good looks – could’ve been a model too, if she had the height for it. Could not find one for two years since she turned 30 – not even average Joes which she eventually (and reluctantly) lowered her standards to. She is currently dating a fat and a very unattractive man, but with a decent job/pay. Now that the attractive ones are not just dating below their league, but way below their league, where does that leave the average slutty woman ?

  520. Aveline says:

    Men don’t have to be slutters, but, like the women, a lot of them are.

    Should we worry about narcissists of either gender going wild? Nah, they deserve each other and the good thing is that those people are now ‘out’ and pretty obvious to spot and so, easily avoided.

    Sluts and slutters will never magically turn into eligible marriage material, and the fact that they are no longer hiding behind a facade of ‘niceness’ is a blessing in disguise, just like the markings on poisenous snakes are.

    What you see is what you get, cavetat emptor.

  521. deti says:

    “Of course, Deti and his ilk keep insisting to me that the churches are full of godly young men just itching for the chance to marry a young chaste woman.”

    Yes, there are. It’s just that those men’s “godliness” makes them deltas, gammas and omegas, and thus unattractive to your daughters. Those men are all around you; but you and your daughters don’t notice them because they are sexually unattractive to your daughters and thus aren’t even considered “men”.

  522. Desiderius says:

    Cail,

    You don’t specify whether your version of courting includes the expectation of exclusivity or not. If it does, there are three problems (if both male and female have options, and since the assortive mating problem starts at the top, I’m assuming that to be the case).

    (1) The female will perceive the male as having oneitis, and lose attraction.

    (2) Its a bad deal for a female at the height of her SMV to agree to exclusivity, without the male offering exclusivity at the height of his. Since he’s not there yet, he doesn’t have that to offer.

    (3) Both male and female are apt to undervalue the partner they’re with, since the competition is the ideal, not actual other suitors/prospects. This is what sets up loveless marriages and frivorces later on.

    What you describe are good things to do during an engagement period, but you’re putting the cart before the horse.

  523. Desiderius says:

    “Yes, there are. It’s just that those men’s “godliness” makes them deltas, gammas and omegas, and thus unattractive to your daughters. Those men are all around you; but you and your daughters don’t notice them because they are sexually unattractive to your daughters and thus aren’t even considered “men”.”

    This was the state of affairs 10-15 years ago. A lot of those men in the rising generation have “manned up”, just not in the way the Churchians wanted them to.

  524. Desiderius says:

    “Should we worry about narcissists of either gender going wild? Nah, they deserve each other and the good thing is that those people are now ‘out’ and pretty obvious to spot and so, easily avoided.”

    Just because they’re easily avoided doesn’t mean they are being avoided. If they’re the only ones showing the requisite masculinity/femininity, they’re the ones who will get married, while the “good” ones are left on the sidelines.

  525. BradA says:

    @theadsgamer,

    “Sometimes when men are angry with their wives and don’t feel like being intimate, they need to man up and do their duty to their wives anyway.”

    I would vouch for that. Her attitude can kill my sexual attraction for her. I have to push through that, even if it is easier to not do so.

    A lot of what I see here seems to put all the “bad” on the women and not really hold men accountable. This may be a backlash against the constant blaming of men in many avenues, including Christian “family” shows. Neither approach is right. Men have a role and responsibility as do women. Neither can do what the other must do.

    Your practice of dancing with other women that are not your spouse does not sit well with me though, but you and she will have to work it out. That seems a bit more of a “sexual” activity, but I have no idea the exact kind of dancing you are thinking of. Your wife may not be all that different from mine and things may only change based on your work, with her slowly coming around as she continues to follow.

    You indicate responsiveness on here part, which is great. I had some other thoughts on things, but your recent posts certainly swayed those. I am glad to hear that some things are shifting and I pray you have the wisdom to know exactly what to do and keep getting His wisdom.

    This is definitely a journey, not a destination. (Marital relations)

  526. Desiderius, yes, it includes exclusivity, but it also specifies a time frame. So it’s not the dating type of exclusivity: “Okay, things have gotten serious enough that we’ve had the exclusivity talk, so now we’re that until one of us brings up marriage, which could happen anywhere in the next 3-30 months.” Instead it’s: “Okay, we’ve both decided we plan to marry and would be ready to marry within a couple years if we find the right person. So let’s agree to spend the next X months courting exclusively, and at the end of that time we’ll talk and either get engaged or wish each other luck and move on.”

    I think the time limit solves some of the problems with “dating” exclusively. You’re not promising to be exclusive with her indefinitely until she gets bored and dumps you (or vice versa). It’s exclusive because you’re taking the process seriously, not because you can’t find anyone else. You’re saying, “I like you and think you might make a good wife, so I want to spend some time finding out if that’s true.” At the same time, the time limit makes it clear that you know there are other prospects out there, so you can’t afford to waste too much time on any one.

    Also, traditional courting is pretty much a full-court press method, so as a practical matter there’s no way you could court two girls at once anyway. The goal is to explore the possibility of marriage with someone thoroughly but quickly, to reduce the chance of slipping into sin or developing overly heavy emotions for someone you might not end up with.

    It’s not perfect, and I’m not saying it’s a guaranteed inoculation against hypergamy and feminism and all else that assails those considering marriage. But it’s a damn sight better than what most people are doing in the dating model.

  527. Desiderius says:

    Agreed its better. Perhaps ideal as a step two though. What’s missing most is step one.

  528. jf12 says:

    @BradA “Her attitude can kill my sexual attraction for her.” That is the REASON for her attitude. And it works.

  529. BradA says:

    @Elspeth,

    “you think I’m encouraging my daughters to wait for marriage.”

    Not in the slightest. I think you are encouraging them to “wait on God’s will.” That is a good thing in principle, but walking that out leads to passivity in the lives of many Christians. Discussing this reminds me of my own single days where I absorbed all I could on how to “do this” in a godly manner, in spite of not liking the idea of worldly dating.

    I do not believe my approach was ideal in retrospect. I am not sure how I would even connect with one of your daughters if I were that young single man. That is the problem I would see. So I am wondering how they would connect with someone now.

    This ultimately seems to push back to the need for some kind of modern matchmaker, at least for those who want to follow an explicitly Christian path. (That would not seem to be the norm from the single guys here.) I am suggesting that your husband may need to play in that role a bit more than he has. I could be wrong, but that is my current operating line of thought.

    “Of course, Deti and his ilk keep insisting to me that the churches are full of godly young men just itching for the chance to marry a young chaste woman.”

    I was in such a church in college, more eligible men than women, but that has not been my experience since then. The church where I met my wife had more women than men, though only a couple of women left about the time my wife and I got married and then soon left the church. (Other reasons for that.)

    I believe the men are there, but I would bet anything that they have no idea how to reach young women like your daughters. Have you thought of that aspect?

  530. BradA says:

    @LivingTree,

    “Wow, Cail, that is the most impressive justification for bad behavior that I have ever seen.”

    That is the reality most women have pushed men into. You may want an idealized world, but it just doesn’t exist. Failing to have sex primarily gated to marriage has caused the problem and you seem very ignorant of that. Don’t blame those responding to the signals women send now, blame the fact that those signals are socially acceptable.

  531. Desiderius says:

    BradA,

    Reminds me of this.

    Its a huge problem in Churchianity on all kinds of levels, but something tells me if anyone is already ahead of us on this, its Elspeth and her husband.

  532. BradA says:

    @IBB, others have already stated it, but 14 year olds can and have done all the things you note. Try again.

    Most of it is a failure of us to expect 14 year olds to act like adults rather than children.

    @Thinkin’Man,

    “I look at the wreckage that is scattered across the American “marriage 2.0″ landscape, and I would be lax in my duties as a father of two boys if I didn’t strongly urge and train my sons to put up with some temporary unpleasantness in this life, and NOT marry. Better that than wind up like this man: http://thomasjamesball.com/

    True, but are you training them to fully devote themselves to the Lord’s work instead or just living for themselves. The problem lies that if all men simply disengage civilization would die out in a generation. That won’t happen, but that is the ultimate implication.

    What can’t continue won’t continue, but the ride past it will be very bumpy.

  533. jf12 says:

    Re: step one. The model, in the sense of ideal not typical unfortunately, church youth group version of courting goes like this.
    0. Boy and girl are part of the same church youth group and have done many things together in groups, both fun times and prayer times, but absolutely no boyfriend/girlfriend stuff, nothing really personal.
    1. Boy becomes specifically interested in girl and realizes girl might not say no to courting from him.
    2. Boy asks permission to court from his church leader (pastor or youth pastor or whatever) and girl’s father. FWIW if he’s grown he doesn’t need his parent’s permission, and he doesn’t need her pastor’s permission (if different from his). Boy asks girl for permission to court.
    3. The courting is PUBLIC personal interaction, nothing physical, but including relationshippy discussions. Stuff like hopes, dreams, revelations, preferences, specifically attempting to see if marriage could be a thing.
    4. Cail is right that prolonged courting is wrong. It should transition into an offer of marriage or ceasing to court.

  534. Desiderius, true. Step one used to be parents raising their kids to respect marriage and beginning to prepare them in various ways for it starting at a young age. Without that foundation in place, no doubt courting would be more difficult.

  535. BradA says:

    @boxer,

    “What we need now is not more feminist infantilization of adults, but a return to reasonable expectations and a supportive social superstructure where people can know their place within a well-defined role.”

    Exactly! I don’t see it happening soon, but that is exactly what we need.

    @Desiderious,

    “Women understood that her time was too valuable at the peak of her SMV to restrict herself to one man, unless he was wiling to offer his peak SMV time (32-42) exclusively to her in return – that exchange was denoted by the ring.”

    Wouldn’t that have been more of an issue of the already breaking connections of the time rather than a historical aspect? Would a young women in 1300 have done the same thing?

    It seems more likely that an expectation that courtship was expected to produce marriage. Having multiple courtships seems a definite way to head toward the mess we have now. Are we completely certain that a man lost value in his future wife’s eyes once he was committed to her?

    The danger of oneitis is likely more a factor of the modern culture than historical reality. It is definitely a factor in attraction now, but removing the “easy outs” and massive exposure to fantasy (via the media) would drastically change the balances in that area.

  536. BradA says:

    @Ras Al Ghul,

    “About the 24th time of sex with a girl is where it gets stale (plus or minus).”

    Do you mean this as an absolute statement or the modern hole many fall into?

    It can be true for the latter, as you note with the media’s influence. It is not necessarily true in a marriage. My wife and I have had sex far more than 24 times. The norm is for it to be enjoyable. It is not the Hollywood level of such, but a realistic godly level.

  537. BradA says:

    @jf12,

    “@BradA “Her attitude can kill my sexual attraction for her.” That is the REASON for her attitude. And it works.”

    Could be. I have often told here that as I tend to see underlying principles more than she wants to admit.

    I have also noticed that things change more as I am actively seeking to push through and not tolerate the crud. I am sure I have a ways to go myself, but I have pushed things far more than most here might believe and we are doing better (I believe) because of it. I have always been strong-willed enough that I was going to do what I was going to do, but consciously thinking about it and acting on proper thoughts is much more productive than anything else.

  538. BradA says:

    Courting should involve talking to the father of the young lady, whatever the age of each of them. That provides a level of protection to the women, though would certainly go against the grain in much of society. (Courting at all would as well for that matter.)

  539. Brad, that’s another reason it’s good to start young. Courting a 30-year-old woman who has her own apartment, perhaps hundreds of miles from her parents, doesn’t offer the same protections for either person.

  540. WOMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE THE VOTE says:

    What amazes me more and more as I read the manosphere is how gullible and easily manipulated women are by Cultural Marxism. My epiphany: the reality principle only ever evolved in men. We needed it to get women. Why didn’t it evolve in women? Because their SMV & status is a product of their looks. A man will go along with whatever a pretty girl says because she is pretty. And an ugly girl? Doesn’t matter either as nobody cares what a fat girl thinks.

  541. Elspeth says:

    Apparently a 21-year-old Duggar daughter is close to marrying an 18-year-old suitor. Young men can be marriageable, rare though it may be.

    http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/04/getting-married-at-18.html

    When we married, I was 22 and my husband was 20.

  542. Elspeth,

    I am also younger than my wife. It just worked out that way.

  543. greyghost says:

    Elspeth
    The good thing about the story is that she finds him sexually, emotionally ,and physically attractive enough to want to marry him and not just hook up. The key to the whole story is the young woman actually desiring that kind of man. My oldest is thirteen It is interesting tying to gauge them.
    PS a lot of young men would make great husbands I saw them as an NCO as a Marine. They were awkward with women and were invisible. My favorite thing as a marine NCO was to get the odd ball types and work with them and make them an awesome crew. I was able to do it three times in my last three commands. A Christian young man that was taught game would make an awesome husband. Nice guy marines trained with confidence and technical ability are awesome and are sought after.

  544. Greyghost,

    I thank you for your service. And I’m real sorry to hear about what happened at Ft Hood this week. :(

  545. MarcusD says:

    Even where people seem to shamelessly embrace shameful behavior, it is usually the case that shame has been diverted rather than removed. Younger generations—young women in particular because of the way they are targeted by feminists—have been trained in some very peculiar kinds of shame.

    One of the most common is shame at being ashamed. As the thrill of hooking-up wears thin and the emotional wounds deepen, many women end up forcing themselves to continue participating in that culture. After all, they have often been told that being a strong, independent, and sexually liberated woman depends on such participation. Anything else is prudish or puritanical—some of the worst kinds of insults that can be leveled today. And so it becomes a kind of responsibility. One of the reasons these hook-ups are so often drunken is not that drunkenness leads to irresponsibility, but that alcohol is needed as an anodyne against naturally occurring feelings of shame—not part of the fun, but a tool to be exploited. And so shame becomes inverted. Like a deadline that forces an industrious worker to drink coffee as she pulls an all-nighter, hook-ups become a responsibility that people are ashamed of not living up to, even if they need liquid encouragement.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/03/the-cultivation-of-shame

  546. feeriker says:

    This ultimately seems to push back to the need for some kind of modern matchmaker, at least for those who want to follow an explicitly Christian path.

    Yes, that would help things exponentially. Unfortunately, all we need to do is consider most older adults’ utter cluelessness about intersexual relationship dynamics (going all the way back to at least “the Greatest [sic] Generation”) to know that such an endeavor would bear results worthy of a sitcom AND result in tragic failure on a massive scale.

    In order to make traditional “matchmaking” of the type you envision work, there are basically only two options: 1) have someone invent a time machine that can go back at least 100 years to fetch a matchmaker practitioner as a consultant to set up practice in the modern era (the art is for all practical purposes extinct today), or 2) follow the better examples from certain traditionalist communities such as the Amish, fundamentalist Mormons, etc. Unfortunately, given the irreversibly ingrained hedonic conception of marriage that permeates the contemporary secular culture (and that has infected the modern “church” just as heavily), I don’t think either option would succeed on a large scale – even if option number 1 were to be made technologically possible.

  547. MarcusD says:

    Re: the Mozilla situation, a reminder of the definition of “bigot”; “One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

    Coincidentally, the includes people calling Eich “a bigot.”

  548. JDG says:

    jorge c. says:
    April 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm
    The girls settle or do the single mom thing.

    You bet they settle when they see the wall on the horizon. Meanwhile for each man they have been intimate with, the less able they are to bond with the one they settle for. Not to mention those that are not virgins (which is almost all) have long since given away that which should have been given to the men they will marry.

  549. I think Deti’s got a valid point. I visited North Metro Church in Kennesaw, their Wednesday night. And, let myself get roped into a small group, men’s. They were certainly going for the holy, to the point they said how they don’t let themselves be alone with women, don’t look at women below the neck, etc.

    Flip side was, they were such neutered, gutless wimpodites that I practically ran out of there at the end. One of the fellows was like, “Hey, just write your email here, we’ll put you on the newsletter.”

    “Ahh, no thanks.”

    Flip side was, now I go back to hunt for women, since I’m practically Wolverine compared to those wimps.

  550. JDG says:

    Doesn’t matter either as nobody cares what a fat girl thinks.

    They don’t care what the average guy thinks either. Even the fat girls don’t care what the average guy thinks.

  551. feeriker says:

    Flip side was, now I go back to hunt for women, since I’m practically Wolverine compared to those wimps.

    Most of them probably already realize that too after just one meeting, which is why I’d be very careful if I were you about going back. Once you reach a point where you show these milquetoasties how thoroughly emasculated they are (actually, the women of the congregation will start showing them by flocking to you like moths to flame), you stand a good chance of the eunuch herd ganging up on you and expelling you for “disturbing the body” (one of the more popular churchian rationalizations for evading harsh truths).

    Masculinity is kryptonite to churchian “men.”

  552. hurting says:

    MarcusD says:
    April 4, 2014 at 12:30 am

    The excerpt you provided is exactly the justification that is used for the explosion of annulments – more divorce must mean that there is less understanding of the permanence of marriage. The Church still officially teaches that the failure of a marriage should not be considered prima facie evidence that the it was invalid in the first place. In practice, however, that is exactly what it has come to mean.

    More annulments make for more divorces, not the other way around.

  553. BradA says:

    “Flip side was, now I go back to hunt for women, since I’m practically Wolverine compared to those wimps.”

    Perhaps, but enjoy your temporary fun. Harsh judgments awaits in the future. Fornication is not a virtue in the Scriptures….

  554. MarcusD says:

    @hurting

    That’s basically it. The irony is, if people think that an annulment is a “Catholic divorce,” they’ll end up getting one (should they want one) by merit of that notion. In the end, that thread (or, many of the people in it) is helping the annulment mill that is the American RCC.

  555. JDG,

    Oh, I’m not going to go back to small group. There’s a short, casual church service where everyone mixes, then small groups. No way would I go to a small group again there, I’d be at risk of uncontrollable vomiting…

    BradA,

    Better question is, what judgement awaits people who get up there and preach BS that’s not even in the Bible? Part of their sermon was a recorded message from Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church, who preached on adultery, and how emotional affairs are adultery, for instance. He gave an example that there were two friends, a man and woman, and they weren’t married to each other, but they each did the grocery shopping. So they’d grocery shop together then have a soda or coffee at the end. He preached that that was adultery. (Along with preaching how you should avoid being anything but cordial to female coworkers, because if you become pals with one to the point you tell them hardships you’re going through, that’s adultery.) I found that disturbing because–marriage is supposed to be divorce only if one person is adulterous. A deep betrayal. Yet these assholes are pandering to the women upset about “emotional affairs” and degrading marriage by expanding what is a “Christian, justified reason” to dissolve it.

    So I, in small group, try to politely point out that Driscoll is preaching that those things are adultery, but that’s nowhere in the Bible, because adultery in the Bible means something like sex, or probably kissing, at least. And the idiots went, “Well, ah, um, he probably meant it was the ‘honor your spouse’ and your spouse wouldn’t want you doing that…”

    The hell with them. So then, I get on facebook–their page is facebook.com/betheecho and I point out that Driscoll didn’t have any Scripture to support what he said. (I think we can all agree that pastors need to strictly stay with what the Bible says, no personal opinion tainting things.)

    And what did those assholes do? They deleted my comment and blocked me from their page. So I used another account and left it as a review.

  556. And BradA,

    No, I’m not some player. But I stand by what I said–I’m Wolverine himself compared to those wimps. Such as–I don’t lead a very exciting life, but I’ve still been in a few slightly hazardous situations. But I’m yet to pee myself from nerves–something I doubt I could expect from the wimps in that group. (I doubt any of them had ever made out with a girl.)

    Such as, one situation me and another fellow were dealing with a slightly rough fellow. We knew his idiot girlfriend, and she had called for help retrieving her stuff from their tiny apartment, because apparently he had been hitting her (she did have bruises) and she had a rough time escaping from the apartment. (he didn’t want her to leave, and had allegedly been raping her.) Granted, she was an utter fool, but me and another fellow went to help retrieve her stuff. (Does that count as Christian charity?) He was an unknown quantity, so we took the cautious route since I had run afoul of him before and he had given me various threats, and now the girl was saying he was beating her.

    So on the way there, I checked that my Sig 2022 was loaded, chambered, and me and the other fellow agreed that I would hang back while he helped, and if the fellow made a violent move, we agreed on what we would tell the police after he was dead.

    And we were fine, things went smoothly, neither of us were nervous. You know why? Because both us were MEN. Not WIMPS.

    Church needs to change in that area.

  557. jf12 says:

    Because projection. What Works for a man in attracting women, INCLUDING attracting a wife, is him being able to pull multiple women. Projection, projection, projection.

  558. jf12 says:

    It seems important enough to me to bear repeating. Game is what works for a man, in “helping” women be better towards him, and his Game is essentially identical with his ability to be unchaste. And this is what works for a man, so women err in thinking it could be what works for a woman.

  559. Bluedog says:

    Ok so as is common I’m kinda late to this party but two remarks:
    1) for 46 words that aren’t quotes in his article, Dalrock gets 560 comments. Whoa! Not bad Dalrock, not bad at all. Touched a nerve somewhere in this, did we?

    2) Spite works. Check it here at the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/science/spite-is-good-spite-works.html

  560. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Actually, bluedog, my theory is regulars here are engaged in conversations which have nothing to do with anything Dalrock says. When he talks (posts) they remain silent only for a very short time, tne then continue where they left off last thread. I already have plans fo next thread, unless this one lasts several more days.

  561. Bluedog says:

    heh, Anoonymous … does seem like a nexus to go to, to chat, with character and flavor all its own – can’t quite find it anywhere else in town. It’s that little cafe you know in a strip mall out on 24th avenue and somewhereornot, … kind of a combination between best kept secret but also serving a really narrow niche market.

  562. MarcusD says:

    My wife will never submit to me…should that matter?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=872655

    That thread will get ugly soon (the first post is good, but a lot of people are not going to like it). If anyone has a non-banned account, perhaps they could post a link to Dalrock.

  563. boxer says:

    Dear Marcus:

    I posted a reply to the thread:

    Amen brother holy face. MMSL is an excellent book and the forums are top notch.

    Another great resource for Christian husbands and marriagable men is at dalrock dot wordpress dot com. Tell Dalrock that Herbie Marcuse sent you!!

    I suppose I should start that magic countdown until I’m banned for “spam” or “hate speech” or some such nonsense.

    Regards, Boxer

  564. MarcusD says:

    I suppose I should start that magic countdown until I’m banned for “spam” or “hate speech” or some such nonsense.

    If you’re under the same IP, they’ll probably ban you. If you’re not under the same IP… well, they’ll probably still ban you.

  565. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    If that guy doesn’t have kids he should just dump that bitch

  566. boxer says:

    If you’re under the same IP, they’ll probably ban you. If you’re not under the same IP… well, they’ll probably still ban you.

    Well, I can somewhat understand the first encounter. IIRC I pointedly compared the “annullment” process to secular divorce. I made a good point, but I was also an outsider who was critical of their faith, by anyone’s standards, on their board.

    They seem to have left my little note alone. I hope that fella finds Athol and this joint. He seems to need it.

    If I get banned it’ll be OK. Heaven forbid some of us may actually disagree with the Jezebel feminists on one issue or another. Having a conversation about relevant social issues is, like, totally out of line…

  567. jf12 says:

    @Bluedog, I commend the spite thesis (I can make anything relevant to the topic), and I’ll run with it. It is a bold but plausible idea: women are so caught up with their apex fallacies that, yes, they hate themselves for wanting apex males so very much that a woman imagines herself to be a sexual bush-hog like an apex male in order to *spite* apex males for not choosing her specially. But more than that, women despise non-apex males so very very much, that women choose to engage in the afbb strategy more to show spite to the beta males than for any other reason. ““We’ll be so experienced in all the people that we don’t want [to spite], when we find the person who we do want [to spite], it’s just going to happen.”

  568. earl says:

    “My wife will never submit to me…should that matter?”

    The question being asked is part of the problem.

    For her sake it matters quite a bit. But much like everyone that willingly takes on submission…you have to go through the test of pain at first before things start to run smoothly.

  569. Pingback: Dalrock & Vox Comman That Thou Shalt Ignore The Great Books for Men, Ignore Moses, Ignore Your Manhood, Ignore Jesus, Ignore Homer, Ignore Your Exalted Manhood, and Learn to Peacock and Game (So Dalrock can get more instalanches) | Great Books For Men

  570. boxer says:

    Dear earl:

    I find a good attitude for most men to adopt is simply to say “I’m doing x, I’d love it if you’d join me.” Then, immediately and with no further adieu, whether or not the wimminz whines or backtalks, just to do x, let the bitch see him do it, and enjoy it, ignoring her outcries or rebellion totally.

    A brother in this sort of marriage should remember what he was doing when he was dating (a/k/a before he cut his own testicles off and put them in a pickle jar full of formaldehyde as a wedding gift). Treat your wife like a potential girlfriend, in other words. Find things that you like to do, and allow her to come along if she behaves herself. If she refuses to come along, then enjoy the peace of doing a favorite activity without a whiny bitch, and let her know how much fun you had when you get back.

    Contrary to what “Blue Eyed Lady” and the other sluts over on Catholic Answers will tell you, this is what a normal woman wants. She wants a husband who will be decisive, and who has his own life to speak of. These damaged women who infest that forum will never admit this, because in admitting it, they are subtextually confessing that they could not attract and keep such a desirable man.

    Regards, Boxer

  571. bluedog says:

    @jf12 – I think what piqued my interest in that article and made a Dalrock connection was thinking of what it was implying in terms of “mgtow” and “men’s strike” and that even gets more interesting when you think about that in terms of the social organism regulating its own health as a whole where individual member cells may spite their own self interest “on principle” for the betterment of the whole and that maybe even segue to Rollo’s ideas of masculine and feminine imperatives. All food for thought. That all said, I get your angle.

  572. RockHard says:

    @jf12 – thank you for highlighting that. The most disturbing part of the story was “John”, because they are so numerous and so prevalent, and because “John” is well on the way to becoming a John, i.e. the customer of a whore. Good job, poor social skills. He knows that he’s lacking a woman in his life but can’t figure out how to get one. His best resource is money, and one way or the other he’ll buy one.

    @innocentbystanderboston – You’re right, the vast majority of 14 year olds are not capable of managing life in its entirety. In the past, however, we made them provisional members of society, through apprenticeship, indentured servitude or simply because they were part of the family business, be it farming, shopkeeping, or simply keeping house.

  573. Treat your wife like a potential girlfriend, in other words. Find things that you like to do, and allow her to come along if she behaves herself.

    That’s even good advice from day 1, long before she’s your wife. Don’t try to setup things she’ll like to do; do things you like and invite her along for company. Some of the best dates I ever had were ones where something went wrong, like the car breaking down or getting caught in the rain, because I had to take charge and fix things.

    If she’s into you, she’ll enjoy being with you regardless of what you’re doing. You can even use that to gauge her interest: if she’s mentioned that she hates the outdoors, invite her to go fishing with you. If she goes, you’ll know it’s on. If she loves opera and she accepts your invitation to the opera, all that tells you is that she doesn’t loathe you too much to let you buy her a ticket.

  574. Micha Elyi says:

    Well, now…
    MarcusD

    Well, now–what was your point?

  575. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    Outstanding, reply to Earl. That is where I’m at I’m finished with getting her schooled and educated and I told I’m done kissing your ass. I don’t think she understood it. But slowly and surely I’m getting alpha grove on. She is being more playful.

  576. jf12 says:

    @Cail, “if she’s mentioned that she hates the outdoors, invite her to go fishing with you. If she goes, you’ll know it’s on.” Exactly what happened with me. When I was first courting my too-good-for-the-outdoors wife, within the first couple of weeks of meeting her I had already gone away fishing twice, first a day trip lake fishing for crappie (she was lightly amused by the near vulgarity), and then a day-and-a-half trip for sea trout. She volunteered that she had enjoyed fishing “once or twice” with her father when she was a little girl (he had three girls, and considered me the son he never had), and upon my invitation gamely decided to come fishing with me next time. I made it easy for her, bank fishing for bream in a farm pond with another couple, and she caught two, too small, with me putting the worms on the hooks.

    Naturally she next blew some bucks on some “cute fishing outfits”, and came three more times, counting the time she went back in the car by herself for a couple of hours because she didn’t want to get in the johnboat with me and my friend. The time after that, just the two of us, right off the bat she slipped and fell face down in the mud leading up to a slightly rotten pier, and was amazingly smiling and unperturbed about the mud but greatly distressed by every creak and splinter of the wood. She had packed a picnic, but we had to carry it back to the car to eat when ready for it because she was too queasy over the water. The final time was good fishing in a bend of a creek, bass and catfish on minnows, hot and humid even though it was breezy, and she stuck it out sweating with me for five or six hours, but greatly complained about all the bug bites on her exposed ankles (her only exposed body, not that I was looking, or anything, much) during the half-mile walk back to civilization. I amused her by swinging on vines Tarzan style. That was just before the wedding. She has never come fishing since, not once, since being married 24 years ago.

  577. Micha Elyi says:

    The excerpt you (MarcusD) provided is exactly the justification that is used for the explosion of annulments – more divorce must mean that there is less understanding of the permanence of marriage.
    hurting

    I disagree. You appear to be equivocating the word “justification” with the word ‘explanation’.

    The Church still officially teaches that the failure of a marriage should not be considered prima facie evidence that it was invalid in the first place.

    True.

    In practice, however, that is exactly what it has come to mean.

    I disagree. You may, of course, try to support your claim with examples from declarations of nullity that the Church’s tribunals have issued for it is their “practice” that matters. The opinion of Ms. Not-Haaaapy’s poorly catechized mommy doesn’t matter.

    More annulments make for more divorces, not the other way around.

    You appear to have disconnected cause from effect. Please explain your reasoning. Include a discussion of the rise in the number of divorces among US Catholics occurred long before any rise in the number of declarations of nullity issued by the Church.

  578. earl says:

    I agree with Boxer. This is how every man should live his life no matter what state he is.

  579. MarcusD says:

    By the way, RPRPsych is a very frustrating person to communicate with. It’s either a language barrier or just his outright obstinance in his views.

  580. MarcusD says:

    Well, now–what was your point?

    You appear to be posting with different e-mail addresses – why is that?

  581. MarcusD says:

    What were you banned for, Boxer?

  582. Tam the Bam says:

    “You appear to be posting with different e-mail addresses – why is that?”
    Dafuck? Is that a Kryme now?
    Guilty, yeronner. Plus domains . Also I haz teh three houses in different counties, and ye olde multiple broadband acct’s to be taken into consideration. Guilty as charged, take me down, black hankie on the napper etc.
    Ohhh.. the shame
    Good news is I only got the one (1) car, and it’s 5h1t (but not French, surprisingly).

  583. boxer says:

    Your account has been locked for the following reason:
    Mormon Troll

    This change will be lifted: Never

    Last time it said “spam”. It appears I’m moving in a certain direction. LOLOLOL!

  584. boxer says:

    My last article on CA. I assume they found it offensive:

    That’s correct. Men need to quit taking advice from women and unsuccessful men, and start taking advice from men who have made things work. MMSL is one of those proven sources of information. Dalrock (google it) is another.

    There is a huge difference between being “a good man” and being good at being a man. Learn from men who are good at it!

    I posted that around 11 AM my time (Pacific). I had some stuff to do today and am just stopping in. They’re getting less efficient at banning folks, hint hint. ;)

    Troll on, dudes…

    Boxer

  585. MarcusD says:

    I’d love a screenshot to add to the collection, if you don’t mind. imgur.com is a good place to host it (free).

  586. Actually, bluedog, my theory is regulars here are engaged in conversations which have nothing to do with anything Dalrock says. When he talks (posts) they remain silent only for a very short time, tne then continue where they left off last thread. I already have plans fo next thread, unless this one lasts several more days.

    Many regulars , maybe even most regulars…..I agree completely. For example the IBB debates run large through all threads.

    Sometimes when Dalrock plops something down like this post, or simply states some excellently derived statistical truth, there is not much to really unpack through discussion because the point stands and we agree. When one of us disagrees some germane discussion occurs. Otherwise it’s a conversation with intermissions.

  587. MarcusD says:

    Excellent. Thanks.

  588. MarcusD says:

    Number of children by years of education: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/04/gss-fertility-by-years-of-education.html

    Notice the differences in male vs. female.

  589. Pingback: I have got to immortalize this PDF with its own download page – great thanks to Marcus D and Anonymous Age 71 | vulture of critique

  590. paddy says:

    @Elspeth, I don’t mean to hold myself out as the one true answer for your daughters, however, I think the kind of marriage you want for them, includes the future son-in-law and maybe even his parents, as being part of your extended family. Thus, you and your husband should start to grow your own network of acceptable people, so that their sons/cousins/etc. will be naturally in your daughters’ orbit of acquaintances. This is how it seems to work with homeschoolers, for example (I have brothers that do this). As well, your husband might consider being part of a youth group or young men’s group (doesn’t have to be church-related) where he can find and groom some young guys in the ways of masculinity and leadership. From there, a likely suitor could well emerge.

  591. greyghost says:

    Paddy
    That is an outstanding and possibly best way to give a daughter a chance. It is the strangest thing is I find myself thinking of ways to manufacture good husbands. .

  592. Desiderius says:

    “Thus, you and your husband should start to grow your own network of acceptable people, so that their sons/cousins/etc. will be naturally in your daughters’ orbit of acquaintances.”

    If you’re a parent, and you don’t already have one of those, you’ve got issues that go beyond marrying off the daughters. That said, many Boomer parents were aggressively passive in not using those networks on their kids behalf, whether for courting or employment opportunities.

    My guess is the Groucho (in reality Henriette) Marx problem. They’d rather brag about how their kids have outshone the rest of the group, rather than having them become part of it.

  593. greyghost says:

    Desiderius
    It is a concept and idea that has most likely never been really thought about in modern culture.

  594. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Yawn! More of the “If you lead women will submit” comments. Contrary to both common sense and what the Bible says.

  595. theasdgamer says:

    @Tam

    lolz for sure! You should write humorous books and sell them to the yanks. With slang dictionaries, of course!

    @Anon71

    If you lead, women may submit…or go their own way (ignore you) or fight you over leadership or divorce you, etc., etc., etc.

    That being said, it’s probably easier for women to submit to a leader.

  596. Anonymous age 71 says:

    IBB is a very important person. Not IBB himself, because he is nothing but a fly buzzing around, making a nuisance of himself.

    No, IBB is very important because there have been many people like him in history, and they have at times dramatically changed history.

    A review. IBB gets very angry because people do things that are not illegal, nor proscribed by any religion. He calls people names, like pervert and bozo because they do not accept his personal belief that there can be only so many years difference between people who marry, as decided solely by himself. Not by the adult couple who wish to marry.

    Where do IBB’s prefer to be? Historically, working for the government where they can actually use government powers and guns to control everyone else. They don’t just enforce laws and rules, they enforce them beyond a decent level, and interpret things to suit themselves. And, as IBB has made clear, he doesn’t care what the law says. He wants you to do what he wants you to do, only because he wants it.

    A fellow technician in the ole’ radio factory got himself placed on our county zoning and planning commission. He once told me that his personal right to float down a river (though I think he never did it) and see only trees was more important than the right of a property owner to build a house of his own unique design. Sure sounds like IBB to me.

    IBB type kings or Emperors or presidents can really make people suffer.

    The Founders understood IBB’s very well. That is why they passed the Second Amendment, which other IBB types, such as SCOTUS, are trying to weaken. They well knew that IBB types gravitate to government work, thus they stated the government was the biggest enemy of freedom on the planet. And, they understood that IBB types listen to nothing when they decide to persecute their fellow citizens, except extreme defensive force. They were smart people.

    Every civilization goes through the same cycle. It starts out poor and weak, and people work hard to build it up. As soon as there is any created wealth, IBB types start trying to wrest control from those who made it happen. And, every year, they increase the burden of laws and confiscation of wealth from those who created it. This never stops until either the people withdraw (ala MGTOW) or are forced to fight to survive.

    So be it!

  597. theasdgamer says:

    @Marcus

    “You appear to be posting with different e-mail addresses – why is that?”

    Probably because he has Multiple Email Address Disorder. And plays videogames in his parents’ basement where he lives. And has mommie issues, not to mention a small penis.

  598. MarcusD says:

    Probably because he has Multiple Email Address Disorder. And plays videogames in his parents’ basement where he lives. And has mommie issues, not to mention a small penis.

    Well, it need not be the real “Micha Elyi.” (I’ve witnessed [attempted] ‘impersonation’ in WordPress comments in the past.) That’s basically the reason why I asked.

  599. eon says:

    Paddy’s suggestion is excellent: “… the kind of marriage you want for them, includes the future son-in-law and maybe even his parents, as being part of your extended family. Thus, you and your husband should start to grow your own network of acceptable people, so that their sons/cousins/etc. will be naturally in your daughters’ orbit of acquaintances. This is how it seems to work with homeschoolers, for example (I have brothers that do this).”

    This would also be a way for older boys, under the guidance of their parents, to identify potential NAWALTs (Not All Women Are Like That) who could become ideal wives. (Yes, they do exist, but I could write the names of all of the ones that I know on the palm of my hand with a grease pencil.)

    I have seen a few girls grow into NAWALTs and, in retrospect, it is obvious that they all had one essential characteristic, and two secondary characteristics, from a very young age.

    The essential characteristic was that they all cared for, and tried to take care of, their brothers from the time that they were around five or six.

    The adults thought that this was funny, and the brothers sometimes found it annoying, but no one seemed to appreciate the significance of such a divergence from more common behavior.

    One who particularly stood out had to be given many times more presents for her birthday and for Christmas, from the time that she was at most five, because the first thing that she insisted on doing was immediately sharing them with her brothers.

    (Notice that this has to come from within or not at all. I am talking about her fundamental nature, which percolates throughout her entire personality. While it is possible to teach a child to share, for example, something artificially imposed will at best be limited to that one area, and cannot express itself in other ways.)

    And while the specifics evolved over time (once she figured out that boys were different, she no longer pushed her dolls on them), the fundamental need and desire, and thus behavior, remained.

    They also somehow had an innate knowledge that gaudy did not mean better. People noticed how much joy they would get from simple things, but the significance was again not properly appreciated.

    And finally, they were all eager and enthusiastic, not as the common female acts (temporarily and specifically) while trying to snare an alpha provider, but as a fundamental component of their core personality. So, when a young girl becomes jumping up and down excited, not about