Now we are haggling about the price.

The Washington Post has an opinion piece up by a law professor named Irina D. Manta. The title of the piece is The case for cracking down on Tinder lies, and her thesis is:

There should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.

This is an interesting claim, since the basis of our sexual morality is that no one should be expected to do anything they don’t want to do.  Our moral paradigm is that sex is for pleasure, and nothing should get in the way of women and men having sex when and with whom they want to, and nothing should compel a man or woman to have sex if they don’t desire it.

Manta isn’t arguing that women are coerced into sex they didn’t want (at the time).  She is arguing that women of a certain age stop engaging in sex for pleasure and start trading sex for the hope of obtaining financial security.  This is why she is calling it fraud and not rape, not unlike a prostitute willingly trading sex for money only to find out later that her John’s check bounced.

New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact. Lies related to physical appearance would thus typically not be punishable, while ones about marital status, fertility circumstances (say, existing children or the ability to have future children) or employment may lead to sanctions.

Not surprisingly, all of the examples she offers of sexual fraud involve older women having sex with men they were mislead into believing were attractive as potential future husbands.  As Manta notes, she understands this situation well.  She points to her own wedding announcement at the NY Times.  The announcement explains that she met her husband in 2017 via online dating, and was 37 when they married in May of 2018.  While I’m confident that Ms. Manta didn’t hit her late 30s and set out to use sex with men she wasn’t attracted to and barely knew as an enticement to bag a husband, no doubt she encountered many women who were doing just that.  I can only assume that her empathy for women who chose a different sexual strategy than she did has lead her to nobly fight to enshrine the Alpha F***s and Beta Bucks (AF/BB) strategy into law on their behalf.

…we punish low-level shoplifting, or false claims in commercial advertising, more harshly than we punish most forms of sexual deception, despite the suffering and harm to one’s dignity the latter brings. For a woman in her late 30s or early 40s who wants to marry and have children, the opportunity cost of a fraudulent relationship can add another dimension to the pain in the form of diminished fertility.

Manta argues that such a law is needed to make it safe for women to have transactional sex with men they know next to nothing about, men who are well outside their own social circles:

There have always been people who tell lies to get sex, but apps make it easy to deceive victims on an unprecedented scale, and in relative anonymity, well outside the perpetrators’ social circles.

Ironically, her complaint is that men making themselves appear more attractive for marriage (vs men making themselves appear more sexually attractive) increases women’s search costs for a husband.  Yet the very women she claims are being victimized will (as a group) have spent a decade and a half raising men’s search costs for wives.

A carouseller returning to spawn.

The male sexual strategy she wants to criminalize is what I dubbed Revenge of the Nerds back in 2010, and is a rational response to women’s AF/BB strategy:

But salmon face a unique problem.  Their route and timing are known in advance, and this makes them easy prey.

If I were a bitter beta I might decide I had a different choice other than “Take it or leave it”.  He knows women of a certain age and a history of promiscuity are going to be looking for a sucker nice guy like him to marry and settle down with.  What if he decides to con the conwoman?  All he has to do is what comes naturally to him.  He may want to learn a little game to make him seem more interesting, but he doesn’t have to move to full alpha status.

All he has to do is put himself out there in places where these women are looking for marks, and look like a better mark than the others.  Since some of the remaining betas will be manning the picket line and the alphas are busy with the new crop of carousel riders, this probably won’t be too hard.  Then he just strings her along for a while, or maybe strings several along all the while talking the provider talk and enjoying the ride.  And since she is in full blown (pardon the pun) bag a husband mode, she’s going to be giving him the best sex she can to seal the deal.  After a while she’s bound to get wise to the jig, but then another salmon carouseler should be jumping into his mouth bed to fill the void.

Novaseeker noted that Manta is getting eviscerated in the comments section, and this isn’t surprising.  To start with, she is trying to formalize the AF/BB strategy into law, but the strategy relies on denial.  Key to the AF/BB strategy is pretending that the woman didn’t shift sexual strategies once her youth and fertility were all but gone.  Such women can’t come out and say they are shifting from having sex with the kind of men they are sexually attracted to (sex for pleasure) into a strategy of having sex with men they don’t want to have sex with but think would make a good husband.  Otherwise, the man who mans up and marries a woman in her late thirties after she tires of having sex with other men looks like a chump and his bride looks like a whore!

Imagine if Bumble and Tinder created checkboxes for women to indicate that they only will have sex with men they hope to entice into marriage, and they have a strict one penis at a time policy.  This would make enforcing Manta’s law much easier, but none of the “victims” would want to check such a box.

Even worse, Manta is saying that a man’s marriage vow has substantial financial value to a woman.  Otherwise, why would she argue that a woman should be able to sue a man for $10,000 for giving her the false impression that he would be a good man to use sex to extract such a vow?  And if a fertile successful man’s potential marriage vow is worth $10,000 in sexual favors, imagine what his actual vows are worth, especially once his fertility is converted into children!  In the unimaginable event that Manta has children with her new husband and then decides to divorce him and take his assets, children and part of his income, this logic would mean that she has defrauded him and owes him a phenomenal amount of money!  He after all gave her something of great value, something she would pay $10,000 just to hope to create the opportunity for him to make such a vow.  In that case she would have defrauded him of what he hoped to receive in exchange for his vows, and she would have used her own formal vow to do so.


H/T Novaseeker.

Bear photo licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Dmitry Azovtsev.

Posted in Cracks in the narrative, Death of courtship, New York Times, The Washington Post, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 133 Comments

2018 Median Age of Marriage

The US Census has released the median age of marriage stats for 2018.


Here is the data for the last 19 years in table form (source has data back to 1890):


Note:  I removed the duplicate for 2011 and just included the revised figure.

H/T Emperor Constantine


Posted in Data, Marriage, Marriage Strike | 123 Comments

Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers.

While the claim is that our family courts are primarily driven by the best interest of children, in reality they tend to focus instead on transferring power and wealth from men to women.  When considering the family courts, it is critical to understand that they don’t just impact the unfortunate families they destroy.  The goal is to undermine all married fathers, who see that the family courts stand ready to take their children away from them and send them a bill for the pleasure.

The term social scientists use for this is bargaining in the shadow of the law, and the use of the family courts to weaken married fathers is an open secret.  Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine).

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

For an example of this see the paper Do joint custody laws improve family well-being?  by Martin Halla, a professor of economics at the Johannes Kepler University Linz.  The paper opens with:

Joint child custody laws affect not only divorced families but intact families as well.

Halla focuses on the implications of moving towards a joint custody model.  For the purpose of this post, I’m more interested in the perspective of the author than I am in the paper’s findings*.  Number one in the “cons” of joint custody is that it weakens the threatpoint wives can use to gain power over their husbands:

The introduction of joint custody reforms reinforces the traditional division of labor within the family and gives men greater bargaining power over the intrahousehold allocation of resources.

Another “con” that stands out is the fact that the study didn’t find an effect on women’s suicide rates:

Joint custody reforms have had no robust, long-term effect on female suicide rates.

I’m assuming Halla isn’t expressing disappointment that women’s suicide rates didn’t increase.  What I think this bizarre statement boils down to is a complaint that joint custody decreases men’s suicide rate (listed as a pro) without decreasing women’s suicide rate (listed as a con).  In a sane world that would be seen as a positive without a corresponding downside, not a pro and a con.

At any rate, the takeaway from both items is the same.  When the family courts crush men it is according to plan, and they fully understand the devastation they are meting out to men in the process.  They don’t want men to commit suicide, but they know that in order to generate the kind of fear they want to instill they have to inflict extreme brutality on the men who are made examples of.

In closing his Author’s Main Message Halla advises policy makers to be careful when changing custody laws to avoid the negative consequences he found in the study (number one being lessening the coercive power of wives by reducing men’s fear of losing their children):

Policymakers should acknowledge that regulating families’ post-divorce life may affect intact families and try to minimize any unintended negative consequences.

He further elaborates in Summary and Policy Advice (emphasis mine):

Joint custody laws affect both intact and non-intact families in substantial ways. A very crude description is that joint custody improves men’s bargaining position within marriage, enforces traditional gender roles, and leads on average to worse outcomes for children. A more detailed account would contrast these clearly negative and unintended effects with positive effects on other outcome variables (such as lower male suicide rates and less domestic violence)…

Despite the negative effects of joint custody on some family outcomes, abolishing it may not be a desirable policy option….

To predict the effects of a planned reform, it would be important to assess how the relative bargaining positions of spouses will be affected. This can be approximated by checking how the reform affects the well-being of each partner in the case of a potential divorce. The party who will benefit from the reform will gain power within the marriage.

*See Larry Kummer’s caution on papers like this here.

Related:  Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy.

Posted in Child Custody, Disrespecting Respectability, Economics, Larry Kummer, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists | 108 Comments

You’ll have to buy a few dinners on the road to finding your 53 year old dream girl.

As 53 year old never married Wendy Griffith explains in her book on how to find a husband, it is important for women to only date men who are willing to buy them dinner and desert.

God wants you to know that you are worth the price of dinner and dessert—and so much more! You are worth someone being “extravagant,” even lavish, over. After all, you are a daughter of the Most High King, a royal treasure, a beautiful masterpiece, a pearl of great price. You are a lady, and a true gentleman will recognize your value and act accordingly. Don’t settle and don’t forget to order dessert.

This way they know the man is chivalrous and old fashioned.  And if he has to wait a few years (or decades) while the woman pursues her career and savors her “season of singleness”, surely she is worth the wait.

Plus, the longer he waits, the more practice he will get at being chivalrous.  From the New York Post ‘Sneating’ is the online dating trend that feeds on chivalrous men

I could get used to hanging out with strangers for a decent meal. I’m hardly the first person to think of this — it even has its own dating term, “sneating,” which means sneakily chatting someone up solely for the purposes of a free meal — but I’m committed.

I started being more strategic about the guys whom I matched with on Tinder. Guys who said they were old-fashioned or knew how to treat a lady were in. They were the ones who were likely to pay on a first date.

H/T:  Nick Mgtow

Posted in Chivalry, Death of courtship, New York Post, Traditional Conservatives, Wendy Griffith | 84 Comments

Pushing Rubber Downhill

A few weeks back I noted that fellow men’s sphere blogger Adam Piggott’s wife caught the discontentment bug and declared their marriage to be over.  Adam’s tagline is Gentleman Adventurer, and Pushing Rubber Downhill is the name of both his blog and one of his books.  From the book’s description on his blog:

Always order a witchdoctor from the eastern part of Uganda if you want to get the best results, a predicament that Adam Piggott was not expecting to find himself in when he accepted a job as a rafting guide in deepest darkest Africa. But the unexpected becomes the new normal when he chucks away his life to ride across Australia on a motorbike chasing a girl, and in the process winds up in situations that he never imagined.
From the tropical rainforests of Northern Australia, to the mountain rivers of British Columbia, the mighty Ugandan White Nile, and finally the cultural wonderland of the Italian Alps, Pushing Rubber Downhill explores one young man’s desire to make something of his life by doing the unbelievable.

Intrigued by the description and wanting to do a brother blogger a solid during what has to be a difficult time, I decided to buy the book on Kindle.

I’m very glad I did.

I won’t give away any spoilers, but the book starts off with Adam on an adventure right out of the chute as he rides an aging motorcycle across the outback, camping along the way.  There is a fairly subtle “red pill” message included in the book, as Adam learns the hard way that pursuing a woman is a prescription for disaster.  At times it is also funny, especially a hilarious police chase in Uganda.  But mainly the book is about the adventures young Adam throws himself into as he leaps before he looks.  Adam is an excellent writer and the book held my attention the whole way through.

If Adam’s adventures sound interesting to you, you can buy the book on Amazon here.

Posted in Adam Piggott | 51 Comments