Women today assume they can have marriage merely for the taking

In the discussion on my post Thoughts on the future of marriage, Ricardo di Matteo shared a link to an article on the Daily Mail:   I’m childless because I haven’t found Mr Right – and it hurts as much as infertility  This article reinforces four of the points I made in my post on the future of marriage:

  1. Women today assume that marriage to a worthy man is an absolute given.  This is why so many assume women don’t really benefit from marriage.  They value it so little because it is thought to be so plentiful, not because they don’t want what it brings to them.
  2. There is a significant class divide between women who are willing to raise fatherless children and those who feel that doing this is a mark of low status.*
  3. Serial monogamy presents the allure to women that they can have investment from men without offering men commitment.  This works in the short term, but evaporates as the woman ages and her SMV wanes, and the men she is with have been around long enough to understand the rules women like her are playing by.
  4. Even though assumption #1 is/was almost universally true for women today in their 30s and later, we already hear a hue and cry by the small number of exceptions to the rule.  If it ever becomes such that the average woman has good reason to doubt that marriage is hers for the taking, the hue and cry from women will be deafening.  If husbands become more scarce they will become more valuable as well.

The Daily Mail article opens with:

When I was younger, I always expected to become a mum…
As far as I was concerned, the day I became a mum was just out there waiting for me to reach out and embrace it.

While she refers to the chance to become a mother, she isn’t talking about fertility per se.  She always assumed a man willing to commit to her as a father of her children was as easy to obtain as a dish at the local buffet.  She is looking for a man who will financially support her as a mother.  As she has been an adult for over 20 years, obviously marriage was not a priority for her:

During my 20s, I put in long days as an aspiring journalist, and at night I partied with the best of them. In my mid-30s I battled an addiction to alcohol…

Note that the role of husband (or something very much like one) is so taken for granted, even now it isn’t worth mentioning.  Such a man was simply to be plucked out of central casting to fit the role she defined for him once she decided that was what she wanted.  She expected to hail a husband when needed as one does a taxi.  When the time came she snapped her alcoholic party girl fingers, but for some reason no husband appeared:

Like a lot of women my age, I’d thought 30 was probably an ideal age to settle down. But once I hit 30, it’s was if I hit an oil patch and the years just slipped away. The men I dated either weren’t at the same life stage as me, or simply didn’t have the money to commit to a baby.

But never forget that this woman is the victim here.  She and other women like her put marriage and motherhood last, and for some inexplicable reason are less likely to be mothers:

According to a recent study, 48 per cent of university educated women born in the late Sixties and early Seventies are childless.

She tells us that friends jokingly suggest that she has it made, since she can live the fling filled lifestyle of Sex and The City.  But this isn’t what she wants now;  she asks “But where’s the fun in that?”  I assume the flings were fun enough in her 20s, since she postponed marriage in order to enjoy a full decade of them.  I strongly suspect her beef isn’t with flings, but with what flings are like with her declining SMV and men who have learned that women like her see men as disposable.

Not only do we owe her sympathy for the fact that she is inexplicably childless, but we owe her sympathy for the fact that she hasn’t been offered sympathy.  She complains that women who are biologically infertile are offered sympathy, but not women like herself who waited out the clock.  She reinforces this by quoting another woman who made the same choices, with the same results, and feels the same way:

‘As I saw couples younger than I getting sympathy for their biological infertility, I wondered why all I got were accusations of not doing enough, not trying hard enough. Trying too hard. Being too picky. Not being picky enough . . . And the hardest comment to defend: “You’d better hurry up!” (Hurry up with what? Falling in love?).’

She even appeals to the authority of an expert who tells us that the “circumstantially infertile” experience “disenfranchised grief” due to them being seen as having chose their fate.  We are all guilty of blaming the victim.  The victim of her own choices.

Maybe not.  She then changes course and admits that those who lack sympathy may have good reason to (emphasis mine):

a year ago, I wrote in this very newspaper about how I liked being ‘sassy and single’ and felt no significant yearning to have children. Yet after spending time with my cousin’s adorable little girls this summer, I realised I’d been putting on a brave face.

Fortunately she now understands that men are human beings with hopes and dreams of their own, and not just sperm donors and walking wallets:

Instead of getting to know someone slowly, I find myself sizing them up. Would they make a good father? Are they solvent enough? Could I wake up next to them each morning without wanting to strangle them?

If so, would they be willing to just get a move on and impregnate me?

*Somewhere in the middle are women who would be mortified at the thought of having children out of wedlock but don’t feel the same about kicking the father out after the kids are born.

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Choice Addiction, Daily Mail, Motherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

178 Responses to Women today assume they can have marriage merely for the taking

  1. Y says:

    I do feel for these women, because they’ve been sold this fake ‘sex and city’ existence.

    That’s why I’m so brutally honest with my female friends and tell them to be on the look-out for a good man while they are still in their 20s.

  2. Jack says:

    Nice post Dalrock, been a big fan of yours. I still never quite understood this whole oh poor me I am being judged for my choices rants that these women go on. See it all the time with my female companions. It gets to the point now I just go through the uh huh uh huh response everytime someone does that. Thanks for the good read and can’t wait til the regulars on this board get on this discussion.

    [D: Thanks, and welcome to the blog!]

  3. Dan in Philly says:

    This woman has no clue. Is she really being paid to write dreck like that? Where do you find these dolts, dal? Do you save them up and when you feel like shooting a few fish in a barrell, drag it up? Any women reading this: Don’t be like this woman!!! Unless you are 100% certain you NEVER want to have children, the odds are great that you someday will, and the younger you start the better the man.

    Also, take a note from Badger (http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/primary-source-material-the-hot-crazy-scale/) who used a scale for woman – 0-10 for physical attractive and 0-10 for mental, and realize there’s a similar scale for men: Alpha 0-10 and provider 0-10. If all you care about in your 20s is the Alpha scale, you will quite likely end up with a 0 provider (either one who won’t provide or no one at all). Be wise and scale back the Alpha craving to balance it all out. A guy with a 5 Alpha and a 10 provider is going to blow away a 10 Alpha with a 2 provider 10 times out of 10.

  4. namae nanka says:

    “Meanwhile, the pressure comes in waves from parents, friends and the media. They are either embarrassed, or wholly unsympathetic to our moaning.

    But can we really blame them?

    what?!

    she does ‘look’ more upbeat than the “duped out of motherhood” woman.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-378163/Duped-motherhood.html

  5. Dan in Philly says:

    You know, I can’t get over what an idiot this woman is. I imagine if a male friend of mine decided not to go to college, never held down a job longer than 3 months, partied all night every night, and never showed a single ounce of interest in establishing himself in a career wrote a similar article, he would moan about how unfair he doesn’t have a high paying career! And what makes matters worse, the guys who put in the time and work and got laid off get sympathy, but poor him! he gets none, even though both are unemployed and therefore he deserves it just as much. Cry me a river, lady…

  6. Matt says:

    Oh, she’s a victim, all right. She’s a victim of the scam Western society has been pulling on women since right around the time she was born. She’s been so thoroughly sold the standard pack of baldfaced lies that even now, as she mourns what she’s lost to the scam, she’s not willing to reject it.

    I pity her, and all those like her. It’s far, far too late to do anything to help them get what they want, but we can still hope that their disappointment can serve as a warning to future generations.

  7. Dan in Philly says:

    Matt, since they are not reproducing themselves, I assume their influence will wane as the years roll on…

  8. Jennifer says:

    Thing is, I don’t think that worthy men are that rare. I think they’re mostly being overlooked. And avoiding the female bar-mosquitos, of course.

  9. I am disgusted that women take quality men for granted… I wish men would wake up sooner…. alot of gold in this post

    The fact a hamster can be arrogant & victimize simultaneously is astounding…

    Despite all that, I hope she finds what she is looking for in SMP…

  10. The Continental Op says:

    she does ‘look’ more upbeat than the “duped out of motherhood” woman.

    Duped out of motherhood? Who? A dupe!

    Has a woman been fooled? Only if she is a fool.

  11. The Continental Op says:

    The only way people will learn in this age is in the school of hard knocks. So the reality check is good.

    People: it could be your purpose in life is to be a negative example for others.

  12. Dan in Philly says:

    Jennifer:”Thing is, I don’t think that worthy men are that rare. I think they’re mostly being overlooked. And avoiding the female bar-mosquitos, of course.”

    Jen – the good men get snatched up by women much wiser than this one. By the time she wises up, her SMP value has declined and throw in her lifelong sense of entitlement and her choices are slim and none. Her only hope of not ending up alone is to make enough money to attract a male sponge and try to enjoy life with him…

  13. detinennui32 says:

    “Like a lot of women my age, I’d thought 30 was probably an ideal age to settle down. But once I hit 30, it’s was if I hit an oil patch and the years just slipped away. The men I dated either weren’t at the same life stage as me, or simply didn’t have the money to commit to a baby.”

    Read that quip again. It’s really funny how some women believe they are owed everything and life would just fall into place with no active participation on her part. The author of the Daily Mail piece believes she was and is OWED a child, and a man to sire and father that child. No, it is not just that she wants these things. She is entitled to a husband and a child. They are her birthright because she is woman. And she is not required to do anything or be anything other than a woman with a functioning reproductive tract. She’s not required to seek out a good man. She’s not expected to make herself available, or to cut down her 463 bullet point checklist. No, a man was supposed to drop out of the sky on her command and simply offer himself to her on bended knee.

    And once again, as Dalrock many times points out, it is all about what SHE wants. No consideration is given or even raised on what a man might want. To women like this author, men exist merely as sperm donors and walking wallets.

  14. Dan in Philly says:

    Can we start a recurring theme of darwin award nominees? I think she’s a pretty clear choice here.

  15. Opus says:

    I am afraid I regard this as the usual fake nonsense from the Mail.

    1. This woman is a Journalist i.e. educated and presumably well off. I knew a few and even dated one of those News-at-Ten types. What a pain she was – endless rabbit [talk].

    2. She partied and partied, indeed had an addiction to alcohol – well, if she did then she is still alcoholic, and maybe that is why no man is interested – if such really be the case.

    3. She is not yet forty – so these crocodile tears are false, as she can have sex tomorrow and become pregnant – especially as there is no longer (apparently) any social stigma attached to bastardy (thanks Mum!). In that regard I once – many years ago – had a girlfriend, – been dating her a month or two, and as we were going along in my gt-xlr she said to me ‘I will always be able to have kids because I know this guy (very hunky) who has said he will always be willing to make me pregnant’. Wow, just what one needs to hear. The story however has a happy ending because a year or two after me she married another guy, knocked out three kids and then divorced him. Maybe she should write it up for The Mail. I-passed-up-on-a-hot-lawyer-with-his-upmarket-sports-car-and-now-I-am-a-single-mum (sob).

  16. AC says:

    Yet the vast majority of women suffer no consequences for their behavior.

  17. Kai says:

    “Opus says:
    She is not yet forty – so these crocodile tears are false, as she can have sex tomorrow and become pregnant – especially as there is no longer (apparently) any social stigma attached to bastardy”

    I’ll give her a smidge of credit though for deciding that no man means no baby. It’s better than those who just decide that if she can’t find a man, they must not be important, so she’ll just go ahead and have a baby without one.

    The problem is that despite these sob stories, the women aren’t doing anything to help. Any article like this should have the attached point of “so hey, young women out there – fertility doesn’t last, and marriage gets more and more unlikely with age. If you really don’t want marriage or children, you can do what you want, but don’t just assume it’ll wait there until you’re ready. If it’s something you want, then it needs to be a priority while you’re young. Don’t close doors by ignoring them until they close themselves.”
    Instead it’s just a “feel sorry for me – who could possibly have predicted or prevented this?”

  18. Mannerheim says:

    Dalrock, you find some pretty egregious post-feminist victim-of-their-own-choices types out there but this one is a real howler. There’s hardly a sentence you quoted that isn’t utterly risible, like the thinly veiled self-approval with which she quotes her friends comparing her to a Sex and the City character (a show that anyone with an IQ above room temperature should recognize as a wish-fulfillment fantasy, totally unmoored from reality), or the failure to understand why a used-up drunken slut who can’t find a husband deserves less sympathy than a biologically infertile couple. I might feel more sympathy if she’d just been avoiding marriage and children to focus on her career, but the fact that she crows about being the town mattress and an alcoholic and fails to consider how her choices led to her current situation shows a scary lack of self-awareness. She really is a walking cautionary tale; if anything I feel sorry for any man foolish enough to actually marry her.

  19. MNL says:

    I love her very convenient concatenation of words: circumstantially infertile.

    Let’s first read the definition of “circumstance” from which the word, “circumstantial” comes:

    cir·cum·stance. [sur-kuhm-stans or, especially Brit., -stuhns] noun.
    1. a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner, agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event; a modifying or influencing factor

    And now, “infertile”:

    in·fer·tile. [in-fur-tl or, especially Brit., -tahyl] adjective.
    1. not fertile; unproductive; sterile; barren: infertile soil.

    Both terms help her frame the situation as something entirely outside her control. She can thus feel badly about this unfortunate turn of biological events, yet avoid feeling guilty for her willfully volunteering for them. Run, hamster, run!

  20. Jennifer says:

    “Yet the vast majority of women suffer no consequences for their behavior”

    Oh they do. One day, sooner or later, everyone male or female will, even if it doesn’t hit them until their would-be grandparent years.

  21. Joe Blow says:

    Can’t tell you how many times in my 20s various girls I was dating told me they never wanted to get married, never wanted to have kids, just wanted to party and have a rock star career. Man, did I waste a lot of time and effort chasing those dumb bints, and man, was it ever a lot of heartaches. It’s not a good feeling to be emotionally invested in somebody who would rather spend their time boozing than being with you. Funny too because I met my wife after I decided to act like an Alpha jackass – we didn’t call them that at the time – and went on a six month run of bedding and mildly abusing a long string of party girls. I’m not sure I lost respect for all women, just the ones I was meeting. Obviously I stumbled onto some cryptic version of game, and met my wife not long after that, a girl who said she was interested in settling down at some point in the not-too-distant future.

    Occasionally some of the party girls pop up as a Facebook recommendation, friends of friends and what not. They’re usually 40, tired out looking and on the occasions I have happened to click through, single and bitching about, the good men are all taken, etc. Me? Married at 27, got a family, really good job, reasonably happy. Not what the party girls were looking for, apparently. It’s funny because I remember most of them as being really hot and they probably still would be if they’d gotten off the Vodka Tonic Train just a little bit sooner.

  22. JJS says:

    The “oh poor me” is strong with this one. You can just imagine what she was like in her 20’s. I’m sure she had lots of great guys available to her then, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she still has a few now. She simply doesn’t recognize them, which is a good thing for them.

    If she had “settled” for some poor guy 10-15 years ago and had kids, she’d likely be planning her exit from the marriage at this point. Such is the way of the world with people who don’t know who they themselves really are.

    [D: Agreed. Looking at her picture she looks like she has probably always been just attractive enough to have plenty of attention for a one nighter. Men go home with her wearing beer goggles, and wake up with They Live glasses on.]

  23. StrikeforceMorituri says:

    I think it’s only a matter of time before women get their senses together and have a public trial against the producers of SATC for selling them on a life of carefree sex in their twenties and thirties with no consequences. I’m sure they’ll ask for consecutive sentences for the other charge namely that they would end up with a rich, sexy, and alpha husband.

  24. Dalrock says:

    @Jennifer

    Thing is, I don’t think that worthy men are that rare. I think they’re mostly being overlooked. And avoiding the female bar-mosquitos, of course.

    Yes and no. Women in their early 20s hold an extremely strong hand, especially in relation to the men roughly their age. There are an abundance of excellent prospects for a brief window, and then fairly suddenly that window closes. We see this described in retrospect by the bloggers at Date Me DC and Diary of Why.

    The other part of the paradox is that women tend to overlook just how rare a man with the right combination of qualities really is. They can date men who are of above average physical attractiveness, above average game, good earners, good father potential, interested in commitment, etc. But they often don’t notice how seldom all or even most of these qualities are present in any one man. This along with a sense of being entitled to a husband is what drives some women to decide to marry a man who looks good on paper but they aren’t really in love with or attracted to.

  25. Opus says:

    @ Kai

    Maybe… but what does she say: That having children is expensive, so the way I read it it is not that she can’t find a man, but that the expense would cramp her lifestyle – the poor never seem to find poverty a bar to motherhood. In support, you will see that she says she had already chosen her putative children’s names – without any concern for the father’s choice – and indeed her choice seems to be based on the names sounding nice, as there is no reference to family here. Fantasy names: Fantasy children. She also sees herself with a babe in arms – no suggestion that she would have a man’s support – she failed to fantasize that up.

    She describes herself as infertile, which is really an insult to those who are in that state. She is not infertile, at least we are given no reason to suppose she is. Circumstances do not make you infertile, biology does.

    She says that the men she dated were not at the same stage of life as herself. That appears to me to imply she was throwing herself at men a lot younger than herself. That she sees those men as not having sufficient money for a baby supports my interpretation, or it may be that she is just a gold-digger with ideas of a man above her station. It is all nonsense, however, as many young guys end up marrying younger women.

    She says that 48 per cent of women in her age and education group are childless, so as 52 per cent aren’t it suprises me she feels social stigma. Her reference to Sex/City (‘deliciously wicked – short term flings’ is surely code for major slutting) and boozing (to the point of addiction) suggests as Mannerheim noticed that she is the town mattress; an out-of-control hedonist. Perhaps what we really have here is a rather insecure and disturbed woman? As Dalrock has shown before, the more partners you have the less likely you will find a husband, and frankly if you have gone twenty or more years single why would you want a husband now? Most girls from the council estates are engaged by sixteen, married by seventeen, baby by eighteen. It is not rocket science. What she is really complaining about is her lost youth – her reducing SMV as Roissy would say. She clearly could have had a husband but preferred to whore it up – the envy of all her friends, ‘that [Carrie Bardshaw], so popular with all the men – I am so envious’ I have heard the more-together woman talk like that before.

    Her self-pity and verbal-deceit is, to me, unsympathetic. Anyway, she is not yet forty, so she is still young. Maybe I (as a male) should ask The Mail to publish my story of how I too am also circumstantially infertile, and see how much sympathy I get from Ms Baffone and The Mail readers?

  26. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    She says that 48 per cent of women in her age and education group are childless, so as 52 per cent aren’t it suprises me she feels social stigma.

    Never underestimate the competitiveness of women in any area related to reproduction or romance. While I agree with your earlier suggestion that part of this is hammed up for the Daily Mail, I don’t doubt for a second that the sting is real. She wasn’t worried that other women were beating her to the marriage/motherhood punch because she assumed it would always be there for the taking.

    Maybe… but what does she say: That having children is expensive, so the way I read it it is not that she can’t find a man, but that the expense would cramp her lifestyle – the poor never seem to find poverty a bar to motherhood.

    This is where social status and class come in. It isn’t just about the money. She sees women who give birth without a committed father as being low class/low status. This fits with the competitive nature I’ve been pointing out, something men all too often assume can’t be true.

    Part of why this is important is that from reading some of your comments I don’t think that you fully understand what you have to offer a woman. You undervalue yourself because you buy into the lie that women don’t need the status and validation that comes from having a worthy man invested in them. Since you don’t see your own investment as valuable, the women you are with can’t see it either. My advice would be to be very careful which woman you offer investment to, and under what circumstances. This happens to be good solid game advice, as well as essential for any man considering marriage. Very few women are worthy of your investment. Never forget this.

  27. tspoon says:

    I guess at times like this I remember why I like being a man. Sure, people take the fruit of your hands, by guile or force. Sure, you’re always the bad guy. But at least you have the opportunity to learn and change your behaviour to get better outcomes. Oh, and the capability to learn. That part’s important too…

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Two thoughts:

    Anyone care to speculate how this woman would actually deal with being married to a real human being? Going only by the article, she does not seem to be the sort who would be willing to compromise, and “communication” might well boil down to one way “her needs, his duties” talk.Riding the carousel doesn’t seem to have left her with a great deal of empathy for others.

    Two, what makes her so sure she’s actually fertile any more? Chlamydia (sic) can damage the female reproductive system (fallopian tubes IIRC) to the extent that fertility is history. And that’s just one part of the STD soup. If she’s truly been riding the carousel through the 80’s and 90’s and into the 00’s, it’s quite possible she has caught one or more such diseases, and some of them don’t go away, they just go dormant (herpes, for example).

    Conclusion: the kind of man she claims to want is not likely to want her. Yet that thought never enters her head.

    Women readers who desire to be married: this is a textbook case of what not to do. Can’t spell it out clearer than that.

    [D: Well put, as usual AR. Even without STDs, she is pushing it on the age front. It isn’t that it isn’t possible to conceive and bear a healthy child at her age, but it is very different than it would have been just 5 years younger.]

  29. Laura Grace Robins says:

    To sum it all up, this is what modern women expect…..a “Man Vending Machine”. At just the push of a button, the perfect man appears. It’s just that easy.

    http://www.vanksen.com/blog/flossie-invents-the-man-vending-machine/

  30. Bob says:

    “48 per cent of university educated women born in the late Sixties and early Seventies are childless.”

    My jaw nearly hit the floor reading this. Is that just limited to Britain? Who did the study? What’s the long-term effect on the gene pool going to be?

    Anyway, the woman isn’t doing herself any favors with the short hair or with her skin. Didn’t even have to read that she was a former alcoholic to know she’d dome some sort of long-term chemical damage to her body. That stuff shows.

    In any event, what’s really killing her market value (even for her age-group market) is a bad case of the crazies. She’s got baby-rabies and a desperate need for sympathy about her own choices, is a former alcoholic, plus she’s uses the phrase “sassy and single,” which is a red flag right up there with “I party hard!”

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Man Vending Machine” — perfect.

  32. greyghost says:

    Outstanding Dalrock. What is happening in this womans life is still a choice she made. What is happening is a fear women have but it is easily handled by the hamster. So this story is easily dismissed along the lines of NAWALT so to speak. When this is seen as involuntary that will be very interesting.

  33. The Spartan says:

    Poor woman. She has two very fundamental things confused.

    Actual infertility typically occurs through no fault of the person affected. Therefore it could be considered a tragedy and worthy of sympathy.

    Her “infertility” was caused by her own decisions and therefore qualifies as “life’s lesson” and if anything is worthy of scorn.

  34. Omnipitron says:

    “Note that the role of husband (or something very much like one) is so taken for granted, even now it isn’t worth mentioning. Such a man was simply to be plucked out of central casting to fit the role she defined for him once she decided that was what she wanted. She expected to hail a husband when needed as one does a taxi.”

    This.

    Stories such as this will only be seen as an Urban Legend by and large by most women. Most believe that it will never happen to them, it only happens to ‘someone else’ or ‘a friend of a friend of mine’. The thing is the absolute finality of the ‘Motherhood Window’ is something every woman needs to remember.

  35. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “The thing is the absolute finality of the ‘Motherhood Window’ is something every woman needs to remember.”

    The thing is that modern women complain that they know that and that is sexist to assume they are not aware of their own fertility. So is an uphill battle because all this women assume “baby blues” won’t happen to them because they are special liberated independent women…till it happens and is too late.

  36. greyghost says:

    Stephenie Rowlings you must have heard the hamster at work before.

  37. mjay says:

    Bring her forward – The Carousel awaits……

  38. mjay says:

    hahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  39. JG says:

    This gal should be commended. For not causing heartache and ruin to a man who would have married her in her earlier years and been exposed and possibly victimized by her narcissism and sense of entitlement. She’s attractive enough that in her prime she probably had no shortage of men who would have married her.

    Perhaps there are men who would marry her now despite her declining looks and ability to give him a family. But as to men who want children of their own and a happy family, she has very little to offer and even that is steadily declining.

  40. Rebel says:

    Something none has seen thus far: this story has a happy ending…

    The man she thought she could snare into oblivion is… still a free man!

    Kudos to her for saving a man’s life from misery.

    Give that woman a medal.

    I always see the bright side of things. It makes life so much more… comfortable.

    P.S.: 42% ?
    How can that number be increased?

  41. Kai says:

    “Opus says:
    Maybe… but what does she say: That having children is expensive, so the way I read it it is not that she can’t find a man, but that the expense would cramp her lifestyle – the poor never seem to find poverty a bar to motherhood.”

    I think she just fails to see any of it as a reality, and just notices that she has been left behind by her peers.

    Some women truly don’t want children for different reasons*. Some don’t want children because they’d rather spend the money on other things, and they make that decision and live with it. And good for them for not having a child they weren’t really going to devote themselves to. She didn’t make the decision to not have children in favour of a career, or money, or anything else. She just assumed she always could, so she failed to take any actual steps towards making it happen.

    *I know a lot of people disagree with this and believe that all women want children. It’s true on the vast-majority-of-the-population scale, but not for every single woman out there. Some people are simply genetic mutants, and do not have the same desire to reproduce found in most of the species. by definition though, they are not reproducing in enough numbers to have any effect on the vast majority.

  42. The Continental Op says:

    This woman is a psychopath.

    Here’s another, well described by Mark Richardson:

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-reasons-not-to-glamourise-60s.html

  43. Johnycomelately says:

    A comment from the article.

    ” I’m still not pregnant, but I did find the love of my life. I’m now almost 39 and still “infertile”. You can never give up looking for the man of your dreams. Many women have children in their 40s.”

    Dat.

  44. greenlander says:

    The flip side of this whole discussion is that’s it’s super easy to game chicks in their thirties if you have the right kind of game. Many of them realize that the sand is running out of the hourglass and they need to make the call soon. So, if you can pick up on that vibe, you can lure them in with an appropriate mixture of alpha and beta. You need enough alpha to generate some attraction but not too much to make them think you’re a player. You need enough beta to make them think they can keep you. Tucker Max game isn’t the right game for girls in their thirties.

    If you can calibrate right, sportfucking thirtysomething chicks like the one in this article and then dumping them is free beer.

    If you can run that game on them, you can lure them in, pound them half a dozen times and then delete their phone number and not call them. It’s just good clean fun, just the same way they treated you when they were at their own peak of power in the SMP.

  45. krakonos says:

    @Bob
    “48 per cent of university educated women born in the late Sixties and early Seventies are childless.”

    My jaw nearly hit the floor reading this. Is that just limited to Britain? Who did the study? What’s the long-term effect on the gene pool going to be?
    The same situation should be in Germany (different researches, the same results) and I suspect, in most european countries. The effect cannot be seen, simply because the not born children would be reaching 20 now – not productive members of society, yet. Plus there is a huge inertia in society (up to two generations) because people stay “productive” for at least 45-50 years. Do not worry about long term effects. It will take another century. And societis live and die. It is natural principle.

    @TFH
    What is amazing to me is how European, Indian, and Chinese societies all followed the same formula despite major differences in other parts of their culture. Could it be that this is the only formula that works? That societies that did not follow it were quickly displaced and forgotten (which is why we don’t hear about them)?
    Yes and no. There are societies/tribes which work on very different principles. They just cannot build civilization. But women are prefectly happy with it.
    Note: I read somewhere that similar principles were valid even for old American civilizations. At least Mayan.

  46. Twenty says:

    Someone ought to tell this overgrown adolescent to stop whining and man up already. He … what’s that? A woman you say? Oh, righty-right then: Carry on. As you were.

  47. Gorbachev says:

    Dal,

    Women generally feel they’re *entitled* to many things. It’s the Pussy Pass. Women deserve lighter sentences for the same crimes (now official policy advisements in the UK, unofficially standard oer here), they’re entitled to Robert Redford and they can piss on any man they’re with for not being him, they deserve the right to trade up for any man at a moment’s notice without being criticized by anyone – and above all else, no matter what choice a woman makes – single mom, bloated whale, drugs or debt, bad career choices, childlessness voluntarily or not, – women deserve support from the mere fact of being female.

    On the other hand, men are treated as the opposite: Even if the choice wasn’t theirs, they’re always to blame, always deserve the maximal punishment, and should be thoroughly beaten down for their poor choices.

    Man divorces his abusive, angry wife who hates the world and marries a pretty, smart woman? His fault, he should pay his ex for the rest of her life because WOMEN ARE OWED.

    For what? For being born with vaginas.

    No matter what issue you find – in this case, women feeling like they’re owed a husband on their own terms and when it doesn’t work it’s someone else’s fault – it always boils down to the sense of complete entitlement. Women are owed for the mere fact of being female.

    And by default, men (or possibly other women) have to pay.

  48. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “Stephenie Rowlings you must have heard the hamster at work before.”

    I didn’t knew the scientific term back them but I was an avid reader of commenter at Jezebel for about two years, aside from regularly checking feminists personal bloggers…they are never happy and the women in their 20’s bitching this way, don’t read the comments of the other feminists in their 40’s complaining that there should be more awareness about the fertility window for women,is insanity…total utter craziness.

  49. Opus says:

    @ Dalrock

    Thanks for the personal advice – it’s appreciated . I will re-read and reconsider what you say – I may be missing something. (Oh to see ourselves as others see us).

  50. detinennui32 says:

    greenlander: I’ve seen you post sentiments like this before. At some level it’s cruel, but at another it seems like such delicious justice. Wish I could have a taste. Guess you’ll just have to do it for us.

    And you wouldn’t have that market opportunity had the women not created it themselves.

  51. Kane says:

    Cry me a river. I have no sympathy for someone who deluded themselves into “circumstantial infertility”. What a load of crap.

  52. detinennui32 says:

    greenlander: in my younger blue pill premarital days I dated a few never married almost-cougars who were around age 28-30. They were nice-looking. My experience was the same as yours, but these didn’t require a lot of alpha. I could not believe how easy they were to get into bed. They would do anything I wanted and essentially were available anytime I wanted.

    Now I know why. As you said, it’s all because the bio-clock is roaring in their ears like a freight train, time is running out fast and they know it, and they are desperate. Some know they have wasted their best years and are genuinely looking to get off the carousel the only way they know how – in the arms of a willing man. A few others have just decided, well, now it’s time to get married, so I’ll get a husband the way I got hookups — I’ll just show up and he’ll select me.

    It’s funny that some women still think they can just do whatever they want even though they have almost nothing to offer. And they have nothing to offer because they gave away their best; but now demand that you pay full price for used goods that were parceled out for free 10 years earlier.

  53. demirogue says:

    “It’s funny that some women still think they can just do whatever they want even though they have almost nothing to offer. And they have nothing to offer because they gave away their best; but now demand that you pay full price for used goods that were parceled out for free 10 years earlier.”

    If all you do is rely on sex history and looks as what women offer then you’re overlooking a lot more. While obviously most men don’t care to settle for a carousel rider, women in general don’t offer anything these days that make men think twice. Their skills at being simply women and complimentary partners have faded.

    Just the conversations amongst my attached friends with their own experiences makes this obvious. And what’s the main complaint of these men? That their women have unreal expectations, offer no compromises, and live not to be a part of a family unit but to keep up with other women. That many times husbands and kids are nothing more than an accessory and at other times a burden. That women are truly selfish, self serving, and egotistical and if they don’t get their way, watch out. One guy I know is flat broke yet his wife wants to travel to Spain with the tax refund they received from the government because her friends are going. And there’s nothing he can do about it because he realizes the monster that he lives is a psycho. He wants the marriage to end but wants her to leave him mainly so he can be at peace. He’s afraid of her because she’s so inherently unpredictable. Think about that.

    See past the looks and realize what you’re really getting with women. It isn’t much. Or it’s too much. You guys figure it out.

  54. Ricardo di Matteo says:

    Thanks for expanding on the link I posted, Dalrock. I’m pleased to see it got people interested.

    I have a sneaky feeling that the DM posts articles such as this one to warn against the precepts of feminism. The DM can’t explicitly bash feminism because the paper broadly appeals to a female (albeit conservative) readership.

    Btw, you picked up on the point that Rachel Lloyd, in this article, refers to an article she wrote just over a year ago, in which she denied the desire for motherhood. Here it is:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1286611/What-singletons-think-Lisa-Snowdons-bane-Successful-Attractive-Single.html

    She mentioned that the men she went for were ‘good looking villains and addictive personalities’.

  55. Jennifer says:

    “Wish I could have a taste. Guess you’ll just have to do it for us”

    Right detinn, have a taste of a lower level instead of a worthy woman.

  56. wavevector says:

    Dan: “Matt, since they are not reproducing themselves, I assume their influence will wane as the years roll on…”

    Unfortunately, this mindset is embodied in a cultural meme, not a gene. This meme reproduces itself like a virus – infecting a host and exploiting the host’s resources to spawn numerous clones of itself. In the case of feminism and female entitlement, the primary hosts are the university system and the media. They don’t need to have daughters of their own – inculcating their beliefs into other people’s daughters is sufficient.

  57. Jennifer says:

    “She mentioned that the men she went for were ‘good looking villains and addictive personalities’”

    What does that tell us? A lot..

  58. Ricardo di Matteo says:

    Jennifer, It seems the lady in queston was having a rare old time on the carousel but got off a bit too late.

  59. Jennifer says:

    Story of the modern woman all right.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jennifer, I’m not detinennui32 but it could be he’s referring to a taste of justice / revenge.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @sean

    Dalrock, I think this woman is a lot more honest http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576458134196248312.html?KEYWORDS=infertility

    Thanks sean. That was one powerful piece. As you said, she is much more honest, although even she doesn’t seem to fully get it. I suspect many young women reading this sort of thing in the manosphere assume it is all a conspiracy to stop them from having any fun. That piece should help them understand (if they want to). What she still misses is that her approach to relationships is exactly why she is in the situation she is in:

    The first thing I’d like to tell women ages 26 to 34 is: Start having babies. I know it’s not polite or funny. But I don’t want others to go through what I’m going through now.

    I recently mentioned to an old friend how nobody talked to me in my early 30s about children. Earthquake kits? Sure. Fertility preparedness? Nope. She said she and her married friends had gabbed about it all the time. Their presumption, it seems, was that if you weren’t married, you weren’t maternal.

    I’m guilty of that kind of conventional thinking as well. For too long, I believed that having a husband was what made you ready for a child.

    She still cant face what it was that she really did wrong. She wanted to call all the shots, have all the options, and have no obligations. Somewhere along the way I would bet she became addicted to the carousel. From what I have read it doesn’t seem to take very long for women to dramatically change the type of men they are attracted to. The problem isn’t as simple as get off the carousel in your mid 20s. By then the damage may well be done. And by then they have grown to enjoy it too much not to want to wait just a little longer. If it isn’t too late already, then they must have just a bit more time to spare, so why not enjoy the ride just a little bit longer. I’ve seen the same thought process with a married friend of my wife. She wasn’t on the carousel but was fixated on her career. She always thought she had one more year. 5 one more years later and her window is almost undoubtedly closed.

  62. Will says:

    TFH “The thing is, all traditional civilizations KNEW this. A father would always go to great lengths to keep his daughter chaste. Whether in Europe or Asia or the old days in the US, keeping a girl’s partner count low was known to be very important.”

    Behaviour is habit forming which leads to the continuation of that behaviour.

    If all a person has experienced is carousel riding or even multiple serial monagamy they’re not likely to be able to adapt to being married permantly.

  63. The comments on the original column are typical and too often, quite wrong. There are lots of calls for the writer to choose voluntary single mother-hood and the usual “don’t settle for anything less than Mr. Perfect.” Emotional pornography, feminist ideology, and just bad advice permeate Western culture.

  64. Buck says:

    Demirogue;

    Your blog was a good read.
    Here is a list I made from the anecdotes gleaned from my 1/2 century of life’s interactions married guys.
    Some observations:
    A guy will stay with a woman if she hits on any 1 or more from this list…this even trumps the “cheaper-to-keep-her” clause.
    1) nice looking
    2) strong libido
    3) keeps house
    4) cooks well
    5) makes money
    6) winning personality, fun to hang with
    7 )good with kids
    8) thrifty, good money/ resource manager
    This list is random, the order doesn’t matter, but if 2 things stand out it is “thrift” and “winning personality”…a spend thrift and a bitch make life a living hell and most men will bail, if not for real
    then emotionally…
    Now mind you, I’m not talking about bliss, just peaceful co-existence.
    I don’t know a single married guy who is truly happy or would marry her again if he could do a rewind. The slumped shoulders, the thousand yard stare, the foot dragging lurch step, the resignation on their face as she nit picks, drones, complains…if mine knew what I was thinking behind a well rehearsed plastic smile…oh boy!

  65. Buck says:

    Sorry…
    forgot
    9) faithful

    the shocking thing is the number of women that can’t hit on a single bullet point…ouch

  66. Jennifer says:

    “Jennifer, I’m not detinennui32 but it could be he’s referring to a taste of justice / revenge”

    You’re right, but in order to get said revenge he’d have to be with a lower woman. And lower himself by going to her level of treatment.

  67. Jennifer says:

    One person called this woman a psychopath. I wouldn’t use such a strong term; it’s possible they meant sociopath.

  68. Legion says:

    “Man Vending Machine”

    Not one guy looked like any of the craftsmen who put the thing together. What do women think it takes to develope useful skills or do they just want a good lay and a wallet?

  69. Legion says:

    Jennifer says:
    August 26, 2011 at 8:55 am
    “Right detinn, have a taste of a lower level instead of a worthy woman.”

    A worthy women didn’t ride the cock carousel. She didn’t become an alcoholic. She didn’t think of men as something that always has to meet her demands.

    A worthy women was smart enough to marry relatively young and make the family she wanted with mutual sacrifice from she and her husband.

    But your right, the leftovers are lower level women.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Buck, you make some good points. I strongly suspect that for most men, if they think about it, fidelity would be the first required property in a woman – not negotiable – and a cheerful disposition the second, again, not negotiable. Other things can be worked on, provided a man has some Game. But there’s no way to Game a woman into being loyal, so far as I can tell – a woman can be Gamed such that she doesn’t want to stray, but if she’s not loyal in the first place, it’s just a ticking bomb in her heart. Ditto for attitude – some people just seem to enjoy being angry, and only they can change that. If they don’t, then eventually they wind up living alone, one way or another. No way to Game that. Willingness to go along with sex, priorities on the house, all can be Gamed. Someone who is loyal and cheerful should be able to figure out how to deal with children, too.

    It’s funny, one of the happiest guys I knew some years back lived with a disorganized woman who was a mediocre cook, and who tended to let the dishes stack up. But she was loyal to him, and while parts of their house looked like a tornado had just gone through, their bedroom was always a wonder to behold – not something out of House & Home magazine, but a very comfortable, tidy, indirectly lit, downright sensual place. And she was a giggler, pretty much always grinning or smiling about some private joke. Now, they didn’t have children, so all that might have changed, I dunno. But at the time, she was loyal, cheerful and clearly a sexual being. So what if he did the dishwashing and some of the house work? He was happy, she was happy, their life was pretty good.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Buck
    I don’t know a single married guy who is truly happy or would marry her again if he could do a rewind. The slumped shoulders, the thousand yard stare, the foot dragging lurch step, the resignation on their face as she nit picks, drones, complains…

    You know, that can be fixed in many cases. Really, it can. It takes time, and there are some definite moments of tension along the way, but it starts by putting away the slumped shoulders and squaring them up. A man who acts confident is automaticallly more attractive to women than one that acts beaten down. One way for a man in an LTR / marriage to get his woman’s attention is by DHV such that other women clearly begin to find him attractive, and his woman notices. As it happens, heartiste has an article on this:
    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/another-game-concept-confirmed-the-allure-of-male-choice/

    Suggested (strongly suggested) reading for every man in any sort of long term relationship. I’ve seen this applied in the last few months, by a man in my family.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    And to tie my last two remarks back to Dalrock’s original article: the authoress in the UK shows at least two bad traits in her piece of writing. I’ve already mentioned the issue of STD’s and the very likely inability to compromise as being dangerous. Full of caffeine and thinking better, I look at this sad woman and I see someone who has serious difficulty with self control. In order to be loyal, to be faithful, a man or woman has to have some degree of impulse control – the ability to forgo immediate gratification in order to get something more significant, better, etc. in the long run. A man who is tempted by a younger woman in a short skirt at work has to be able to talk himself down by considering the long term effects. A woman who finds her man to be “not the man I married” needs to consider why that is, and if there is anything she can change that would make a difference.

    A carousel rider like the authoress has clearly demonstrated she has a hard time controlling her impulses. The fact that she’s an alcoholic simply squares and cubes that issue. Self control is like a muscle, it does not get strong by not being used…quite the opposite, in fact. A man or woman who learn how to deny some fun, or pleasure, in order to gain something else worth having – those are the individuals who won’t ride the carousel, won’t let carousel riders “ride” them, and thus are worth knowing in the long run.

    And now, speaking of self control, I have work to do.

  73. Jennifer says:

    Other than insisting on standards for your woman to have and being confident and not standing for crap, I wouldn’t recommend using any of Roissy’s methods. At least not with a worthy woman, who will realize that if you disrespect her home, hang out with players, snap at her for asking who called during your date, and constantly cancel with little to no reason, you’re worthless as a potential mate.

  74. Jennifer says:

    “In order to be loyal, to be faithful, a man or woman has to have some degree of impulse control – the ability to forgo immediate gratification in order to get something more significant, better, etc. in the long run. A man who is tempted by a younger woman in a short skirt at work has to be able to talk himself down by considering the long term effects. A woman who finds her man to be “not the man I married” needs to consider why that is, and if there is anything she can change that would make a difference”

    Very true.

  75. Opus says:

    I have been re-reading and thinking about Dalrock’s comments to me.

    I want to respond but first let me make one or two more comments about the woman in the article.

    1. She said her friends described her as fashion-conscious. Is this code for spendthrift?
    2. She says she feared being being abandoned with a newborn baby. It happens; it is a risk, but it is also very unusual. Does she imply that she turned down offers of marriage? Is she really implying that she is commitment-phobic, especially when there is still that carousel to be ridden.

    Nowhere in her Moan-Fest does she bewail the fact primarily, that she is single; that she does not have a man invested in her; that she is not married, never mind in an LTR. It is all about her add-on extra, her fashion-accessory, her next status-symbol – a baby.

    Now to Dalrock who rightly cautions me (in the words of the song) not to throw my love away, pointing out that there are very few women out there worthy of me – but I am not meaning to be boastful; that (when I look back on my woeful choice of girlfriends – women in whom I have invested emotional capital) seems in the 21st century to be the reality too often for most single men in the West, I regret to say. At the same time he points out that I do not seem to see myself as having much to offer a woman. I agree. It seems to me that men can provide women with only one of two things:

    1. Financial security
    2. Sex

    There are people better off than me and also there are people who are younger and fitter. If, you as a woman, seek either of those things then why limit yourself to one man? Serial Monogamy is better for No 1. and Whoring is better for No 2. Again as far as No 1. is concerned most women are well off, that there is little need for additional financial security and they can also pay for all the sex they can handle (that is far more common than is generally realised, I would suggest).

    Having said that I am reminded of a conversation I had with a fairly recently (at the time) married woman. She had met and married her husband whilst they were both at Cambridge. I forget what she had read but he had read Law – He was good looking, arrogant and lazy and has the strange distinction of having obtained a 3rd (!) He then qualified as an Attorney. She said to me that being married to a lawyer made her feel – I forget her exact words – but important as a person. As she was obviously no intellectual slouch, this struck me as very strange. She was one of these women who seemed to get better looking as she got older. I asked her husband about this, and he said she had to be good looking to keep him interested😉. Sadly, she died young, to his great distress. So, clearly some women do value marriage.

  76. Kai says:

    in order to have something to offer a woman, you don’t have to be the best in the world at it, just as you don’t need to be a genius to be useful at a job.
    Men want women to be attractive. There are always going to be supermodels out there, but that doesn’t mean an attractive woman can’t be enjoyed by a man.
    Women want financial security, yes. But good women are looking for simply security – the ability for you to help them out, and perhaps be able to support her and the children if you decide that’s how you want to raise them. You don’t need to be Bill Gates to provide that.

    As for the sex, young women can get as much of that as they want, but that ability erodes over time – hence a woman committing to a man her best years, and he in turn staying with her later on.

    As for what you can offer a woman, if all that’s desired is sex and money, then yes, she’s better off as a prostitute. But there’s a lot more than sex and money.
    The biggest thing you can offer is companionship, which isn’t quite as easy to get as sex and money, especially with age. The women in each of these articles talk a lot about loneliness. Are you a nice person to be around? Can you listen when someone’s having a bad day, and add enjoyment to an activity? That alone is a LOT to offer a woman.
    Complementary skills (/division of labour) was the original point of marriage. A lot of women aren’t great with physical things. A lot of women don’t seem to realize it until they’re alone, but men often do a lot to keep things running.

    If you’re interested in having children, fatherhood is a huge thing to offer a woman. A good women who wants children also wants a good father for them. If you can do that, that’s a lot to offer.

    Why do you think sex and money would be the only useful offerings?

    (before the criticism that I wrote a whole comment focused only on what a man can do for a woman, please note that this is simply because Opus was talking about what he could offer – not because what a woman would have to offer him to be worth the investment isn’t just as important.)

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    Other than insisting on standards for your woman to have and being confident and not standing for crap, I wouldn’t recommend using any of Roissy’s methods

    Jennifer, it has already been established that you do not understand Game. It might be best if you just didn’t comment on such things.

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    She said to me that being married to a lawyer made her feel – I forget her exact words – but important as a person. As she was obviously no intellectual slouch, this struck me as very strange.

    It is strange to a man. It is not at all strange for a woman. That is because female and male psychology is different, no matter what various ideologues may chant. He has high status in the community she cares about, no doubt he Displays Higher Value (DHV) every day, and therefore she feels good because he qualified her by choosing her – he could have chosen other women, but chose her. Go read the heartiste article I linked up the thread, this example is in there.

  79. Jennifer says:

    I do understand basic game, AR, and I understand perfectly the immoral crud Roissy puts out;; I simply don’t agree with it.

  80. Jennifer says:

    If anything were to make someone misunderstand basic game and how harmless it is, though, it’d be Roissy.

  81. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    You are tantalizingly close to getting it. The story you shared about the woman married to the lawyer is a glimpse into the truth. In addition, the fact that you are having some success with women already is another great sign. With a fairly subtle change in frame of mind you would be cleaning up.

    I don’t know the right way to put this, because it is so different than everything men today are taught. You need to understand that there is something special about being a man. Men are expected to live up to very different standards than women, all the while denying that it is true. The fact that you and I both probably know some women who can live up to the same or nearly the same standards at least some of the time doesn’t change this. They aren’t men, and they won’t ever be men. Moreover, these very women are just as likely to appreciate what is special about you being a man as other women are, perhaps moreso. She wants and needs to be proud of you as a man; she can’t do this until you are proud of yourself as a man.

    Can any other men here help me out in explaining this? Gorbachev? The Private Man? Badger?

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Jennifer

    Other than insisting on standards for your woman to have and being confident and not standing for crap, I wouldn’t recommend using any of Roissy’s methods. At least not with a worthy woman, who will realize that if you disrespect her home, hang out with players, snap at her for asking who called during your date, and constantly cancel with little to no reason, you’re worthless as a potential mate.

    This is a very common concern from women, but I think it is wholly unfounded. Nice guy betas aren’t going to turn into asshole alphas after reading Roissy, at least not without consciously deciding to make a wrenching personality change. As a woman you misunderstand the condition of men, specifically beta men. I don’t fear that nice guys will go to read Roissy and turn into something entirely different; it simply isn’t who they are. In addition, game can be a very difficult concept to pick up, especially inner game. Seeing the ultra concentrated form of it can be especially helpful. It is a bit like watching something complex in slow motion. For this reason I do recommend that men read Roissy including the comments section. This takes a strong stomach, but is worth it in my opinion. Another good choice is Solomon II. He is a little less harsh, but still has that ultra concentrated quality.

  83. Jennifer says:

    We’ll just have to disagree, Dalrock. Even if nice guys don’t turn into as*holes, the influence of those sites is still very strong; one of my own nice friends has said the thought-processes are hard to shake off. This is why I’m relieved to have nicer game bloggers.

  84. Jennifer says:

    But thanks for the reassurance, Dalrock.

  85. Jennifer says:

    “The fact that you and I both probably know some women who can live up to the same or nearly the same standards at least some of the time doesn’t change this. They aren’t men, and they won’t ever be men”

    Very true. Some advocates of gay marriage said that as long as there are two parents, kids will be fine. I told them no, kids need both sexes parenting, and a butch lesbian does not a father make.

  86. greyghost says:

    Game is not something one agrees with really. It is female psychology in a context of sexual relationships between men and women. .

  87. Kai says:

    There is surely something to be said for *how* one uses game being a little different when one is looking for a one-night conquest vs a wife. I’ve seen that difference explained by a few men to pretty good effect. It’s not that game is all for players, but it might be that following exactly in Roissy’s footsteps will lead to sex but not marriage.

  88. Jennifer says:

    Like I said, I get the basics of game, TFH; I’ve read enough to know about it. And I also know the difference between Roissy’s advice and Athol Kay’s; disagreeing with Roissy’s on several points does not mean one doesn’t comprehend game. It shouldn’t be surprising if it is confusing, though, since several damn gamers give slightly different advice and even differ on how effective it is (Private Man says it takes a guy’s chances from zero to small, whereas Roosh promises you’ll virtually never hear “LJBF” again). But the basics of it and how it defines presentation of male character is universal; I’ve remarked on this in the past, including with you. Any woman who understands what women are attracted to and what works in LTRs is equipped to give advice; I know perfectly well more is required from men than to be “nice”.

  89. Jennifer says:

    Roissy’s better advice lies in telling men to be spontaneous to spice up their marriages. It’s some of his darker advice that I disagree with, not necessarily on a psychological level, but a moral one.

  90. Jennifer says:

    Opus, you offer many wise words.

    “Sadly, she died young, to his great distress. So, clearly some women do value marriage”

    You have no idea how many women I know do; such women are far less confused than some about what they want and need. That lady’s death is tragic, but at least they treasured each other.

  91. pb says:

    “I wouldn’t recommend using any of Roissy’s methods. At least not with a worthy woman, who will realize that if you disrespect her home, hang out with players, snap at her for asking who called during your date, and constantly cancel with little to no reason, ”

    ? Any links for 1 and 3? As for constantly cancelling, that might be an exaggeration, and I don’t see #2 as being a facet of game; nor do I see him talking about his friendships, even if he does mention others like Roosh..

  92. Jennifer says:

    PB, most of what I mentioned is here: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/cheap-and-easy-ways-to-raise-your-value-to-a-girl/. Roissy didn’t say “frequently cancel”, but he did say “Take frequent leaves of absence, preferably international” and “cancel dates, with reasonable but suspcicious reasons”. He said if you accept a call during a date, scold her for being a creepy eavesdropper if she asks who it was. It’s true, these are smaller rules that don’t apply to everyone’s game. They do, though, contribute to the ideas of keeping an air of mystery, making a woman anxious (and therefore never bored), and acting arrogant, all of which are things different gamers have advised.

  93. Jennifer says:

    TFH, I don’t believe negs are dark; they’re basically just teasing. If you overdo it, though, to the point where you seriously make fun of her weight or make her doubt your regard for her (once you’re in a LTR and your general feelings should be clear), then that’s not good. No, I’m talking about playing with things like heartbreak and emotional turmoil. But trust me, I do hold women to the same standard; this is why I despise and have often spoken against shows like “Desperate Housewives” and the worst episodes of “Raymond”, with Ms. Constant PMS Debra Barone (strangely though, my dad tells me to lighten up when I fuss sometimes over these things. He’d never put up with Debra’s crap, though). Not to mention junk like “Grey’s Anatomy”, with its army of sluts and a nurse that sneers when a male patient dares ask for a male doctor (he claimed modesty, but we all know he was sexist, right? Oh nope, turns out he was a Nazi who didn’t want the sneering black nurse to see his swastika. Silly me, men who act modest and want male docs are always secretly Nazis, and sexist women are always right..) I also used to side with Tim Allan more often than not in the old show “Home Improvement”; his wife wasn’t half as bad as Deborah on her worst days, but I thought she overreacted several times, and I found Allan’s negs and caricatures of female behavior hysterical.

    On another note, I verbally scalded a book on Amazon that told girls to act like children, simpering around men and acting like they knew nothing. One woman came to my review and said, “Hey it works, my hubby does everything I want him to!” I told her that if she lowered herself just to control her hubby, she was missing the entire point of marriage anyway. I had this same suspicion (about acting submissive to control men) with Laura Doyle’s book “The Surrendered Wife”. She had some good points, but some were very condescending; she told women to leave a mess their husband made until he learned to clean it up, and to refrain from telling him if he missed a turn on a trip because he might get mad, and he needs to learn for himself how to do it. Feminists hated the book while other women praised it, then one anonymous reviewer suddenly said, “To all you femmies who hate the book, who do you think has the power now??!” Makes you wonder. I’ll give you a link to a couple of my reviews if you like.

    Women have indeed bought a terrible bargain with their behavior. As a Christian, I want both sexes to reach for higher grounds and nurture, not exploit, each other’s weaknesses.

  94. Jennifer says:

    “Yes, but I would say that the number of women who are truly capable of discussing this realistically is a very small percentage. Perhaps 1-2%. Yes, that low”

    The problem can be complicated; many women, when they tell men to “be nice” don’t know that that’s ALL they might do. Learning confidence is no longer automatic for men, because being told to succeed and excell in competitiveness is not always automatic for men, since we’ve now got boys medicated and often repressed as young as their elementary school years. And God forbid they exclude girls in their play (anyone catch the sequel to “The Sandlot”? Ugh). Back when the older generation of women were growing up, boys were raised to be strong, assertive, dominant, so the “be nice” was an addition to this, a reminder to treat ladies nicely while you’re out conquering the world. Now, young men often aren’t taught to conquer the world anymore, so “be nice” is just one more limp limb to add to an already slumped body, which has been told from elementary school to college to calm down, sit still, let girls go ahead, consider them equal and pedestalize them at the same time. Such a formula makes a defeated man.

    Plus, lots of women today just don’t trust men. When they say “be nice”, they’re assuming men will NOT be nice on their own, because that’s what feminism teaches them to think: men are bad, they grow up mean and will HURT you if you don’t tread on them.

  95. Ricardo di Matteo says:

    Jennifer, I think this is my favourite Roissy post:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/how-to-attract-girls-by-doing-almost-nothing/

    I like the cartoon at the bottom.

  96. Jennifer says:

    Typical Roissy.

  97. Jennifer says:

    This was actually my first introduction to game, though I didn’t know it at the time: http://www.amazon.com/Male-Chauvinists-Cookbook-Cory-Kilvert/dp/0876911580/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314431459&sr=1-1

    Now that’s funny. And nothing gross like breaking wind in bed (blecch, blecch, blecch). It reminds me of Roissy, but there’s no advice that could be considered really harmful; the introduction can be considered offensive, but I think it’s clearly heavily sarcastic humor. The chapters on how to cook for dates and keep them around long enough to eat are damn funny; gives macho advice all the way.

  98. MarkyMark says:

    If you can run that game on them, you can lure them in, pound them half a dozen times and then delete their phone number and not call them. It’s just good clean fun, just the same way they treated you when they were at their own peak of power in the SMP.

    Ka-ka-kaboom! Greenlander NAILS it! Yeah, hump ’em & dump ’em like they did good men in their 20s, when they were at the peak of their SMV…

  99. clarence says:

    Aww my lil Jenn all grown up about game!
    Defending “negs” even!
    I’m glad I clued you in to Hugh Ristic and you can see the good and bad parts of this stuff.
    Yep, playful teasing is different from trying to mess up someone’s self esteem, and usually the difference is very noticeable.

    Gives Jenn an intellectual hug.

  100. Jennifer says:

    Heh, thanks Clarence. Well i haven’t been *against* it for some time, but I’ve seen plenty of fluctuating between the good and the bad smaller areas, and sometimes my understanding of it fluctuated too, based on the different ways people kept describing it. I’m still very much against a lot of the less basic suggestions I’ve seen.

  101. Jennifer says:

    I recall Hugh Ristic now Clarence, and boy what I’ve seen in the meantime, from sites I should have stayed away from because they’re purely muddied between their balance of good and bad. No wonder my understanding has shifted.

    Mark, that’s revolting behavior from anyone.

  102. Will says:

    MarkyMark

    “If you can run that game on them, you can lure them in, pound them half a dozen times and then delete their phone number and not call them. It’s just good clean fun, just the same way they treated you when they were at their own peak of power in the SMP.

    Ka-ka-kaboom! Greenlander NAILS it! Yeah, hump ‘em & dump ‘em like they did good men in their 20s, when they were at the peak of their SMV…”

    Whilst entirely justifiable for the reasons given above – If one of these dumb broads feeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeels Rayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyppppped because you didn’t call her back she just might hit you with a False Rape Allegation. You better make sure that you video record every sexual encounter you have with her.

  103. Pingback: Game Chat « Blogging Bellita

  104. pb says:

    Thanks Jennifer for the link.

  105. tspoon says:

    @will
    Here in NZ, a male was accused of rape by some hopelessly drunk slut, supposedly from upper class society. When he produced the video evidence of consent from his phone, he was charged with some sort of privacy breach charge….

  106. ElectricAngel says:

    Actual infertility typically occurs through no fault of the person affected. Therefore it could be considered a tragedy and worthy of sympathy.

    “Typically?” Methinks not. For a woman in her early 20s who’s infertile, I can agree. For women who throw away their most fertile years (18-24) in pursuit of some other goal, I must disagree. The brutal fact is, female fertility starts declining at 24, takes a steeper downward turn at 27 or 28, and is basically gone by 35. Ignorance of the laws of nature is no excuse.

  107. Jennifer says:

    Are you kidding? Many women can have babies into their 40’s.

    “For women who throw away their most fertile years (18-24) in pursuit of some other goal, I must disagree”

    They do not throw away such years; that is VERY young. If they want to have careers or big jobs, they’re very justified having them before children, not after.

  108. Kai says:

    If they want really big careers, they are probably going to have to have them *instead* of children. If they want some kind of work, it is reasonable for them to be thinking by 18ish whether their priorities will be children or career, and making choices accordingly rather than leaving it to default when they run out of one option.
    If you want a really big family, it’s a good idea to start quite young. If you want at least a kid or two, it’s a good idea to start before fertility declines, so you don’t leave it until you’re 35 and then find out you’re not one of those whose fertility sticks around.
    Most women today having kids over 40 are doing it with assists. That’s not what I’d want to count on if children were a strong priority of mine.
    It doesn’t mean that someone who hopes to raise two kids needs to have them by 24 – yes, it starts declining, but it’s pretty slow for a while. Few people who want to become pregnant between 25 and 35 are unable to. But if you start at 27 and find out you’re not the easily-fertile type, and it takes you a few years, you’re starting to really cut into how you can space the kids, or running out of how many you can have at the end.

    I don’t have any problem with a woman putting her career first, but it should be done after a reasoned assessment of the options and tradeoffs – not by just never thinking about the other side.

  109. Jennifer, it’s irresponsible to say that women can have babies into their 40s. It’s a fraught process, not something you’d want to recommend to anyone. Kai is right, a fair percentage of women take several years to fall pregnant, so if you’re serious about even having 3 kids it’s best to begin in your 20s. My wife began to try at age 33 – in the end we only just managed to wind up with two children (and we were lucky to get no. 2). If we had begun earlier we would definitely have opted for a larger family.

  110. Jennifer says:

    That’s utter bull, TFH, as I have not once supported women doing any of those things to men, nor do I care about comparing Roissy’s actions to theirs; wrong is wrong, and being Christian means I don’t go around saying, “Oh, he’s emotionally abusive, but hey he’s not as bad as many women.” Or, “She divorced her husband for almost nothing, but at leats she’s not as bad as men who mutilate girls in other countries.” That’s a crock of logic and morality.

  111. Jennifer says:

    “Misleading a man in order to use him financially”

    Or misleading a woman and keeping her on an emotional string so that you can use her sexually.

  112. Jennifer says:

    Good points, Kai.

    Mark, I didn’t say anything about waiting until you’re 40; I merely said that fertility’s not dead so drastically early in a woman’s life. Unless you want a huge family, there’s no remote reason to get pregnant at 18.

    “Like most women, Jennifer is happy to believe that an outlier is an average, since most women will believe what makes them feel good, even if untrue”

    More typical BS interpretation of my words. My are some people sensitive about women’s fertility.

  113. Jennifer says:

    So, TFH, you assume I have not actively condemned them; that’s completely inaccurate. The women in those slutwalks weren’t really harming anyone, but I have no patience or sympathy for them whatsoever, because I expect women to be more than stupid, self-absorbed panty-poppers. I’ve condemned far less severe behaviors in women than using men and I gave you examples. To assume I don’t hold men and women to the same standards because I don’t give Roissy a pass on his crap is not really logical. Incidentally, regarding Christianity, it depends what fields you’ve seen; you might be surprised to know how severe certain Christians are to women. There are those who would condemn a woman for getting a life-saving abortion.

    “Your statement is scientifically wrong”

    It’s scientifically wrong to claim that it’s impossible for a woman in her 40’s to conceive; someone else here pointed out that the woman in this article is not completely out of hope. I certainly would not recommend a woman waiting until then, but it’s by no means scientifically impossible for a 40-year-old woman to get pregnant.

  114. greyghost says:

    40 is old jack for a women to have a kid. Image some 57 to 60 year old lady at the high school.

  115. Jennifer says:

    LOL Reminds me of an episode of Roseanne; she got pregnant at 42 and her husband said, “I’ll be 60 when this kid graduates.” Roseanne replied, “Well it’s one of OUR kids, Dan, so you’ll actually probably be 65 or 70.”

  116. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: School’s in Session Edition

  117. Will says:

    tspoon “Here in NZ, a male was accused of rape by some hopelessly drunk slut, supposedly from upper class society. When he produced the video evidence of consent from his phone, he was charged with some sort of privacy breach charge….”

    Better to be charged with breach of privacy than rape.

  118. Will says:

    tspoon, So she makes a false rape allegation and she doesn’t get charged with anything but he gets charged with breach of privacy…..

  119. Kathy says:

    “Like most women, Jennifer is happy to believe that an outlier is an average, since most women will believe what makes them feel good, even if untrue”

    More typical BS interpretation of my words. My are some people sensitive about women’s fertility.

    Indeed Jen. He has no idea. Unmarried.. no children…

    I had a child in my mid thirties… not a problem. First month we tried.. In fact had four pregnancies(only two live births) each time fell pregnant first time we tried. My cousin had first baby at 38 and second at 42 fell pregnant straight away.. Also an aunt who had three children in her forties.. Okay it is not the ideal..( Not the ideal for men to have children in their forties either increased chances of autism and downes) Fact is a woman who is healthy has not engaged in a promiscuous lifestyle and has not abused her body with alcohol and drugs can indeed have children in her forties.. The average age of menopause is 51..

    You need to stop listening to men who have no idea about women’s fecundity, Jen.😉

  120. Gorbachev says:

    Kathy,

    Several friends f mine work in health cae. One is a gynecologist (female). Talk to doctors.

    The myth that women are fertile to their 40’s isconvenient. But the truth is, as my doctor friend explains to me endlessly, that after 28, a woman’s fertility drops about 10% until she’s about 40. At that point, unless she’s a rare outlier, it’s easier to get hit by lightning than to get pregnant without help.
    At that point, her eggs are 40 years old.

    Yes, many women get pregnant. But your stories of one or two women getting pregnant easily after 35 are useless.

    You need *AVERAGES*. Not isolated stories.

    And averages are very unforgiving for older women.

    One friend was shocked and angry at the entire world when she was 36 and went to the doctor. The doctor told her point blabnk that it was going to be very hard tor her to get pregnant. She had NO IDEA.
    She had been told her entire life that she could put off aving babies as long as she wanted. She had an abortion at 31 and thought – no worries, I can have a baby any time.

    She’s now 42 and childless.

    She is very healthy, doesn’t smoke, and is fit. You want to talk to her and give that same advice?

    Your anecdotes are the same misleading tripe that caused my friend to now be childless.

  121. Kathy says:

    No you are wrong G. Menopause occurs at around 51. Which means a woman still has viable eggs if she is healthy. That’s a fact. My own Obstertrician has delivered many babies from women in their forties. She says the same thing.( Again I stress much better for men and women to have children when younger, less chances of birth defects.)

    If you know your fertile period it is so very much easier. Remember a woman basically has only three days in a cycle in which she can become pregnant.

  122. Kathy says:

    You also need to consider your friend’s male partner. Sperm count does decrease with age. In the case of my first husband his sperm count was so low he was considered to be infertile.. and he was in his twenties.

  123. Kathy says:

    I also have to say that many women these days will indeed have problems falling pregnant due to their unhealthy lifestyles.. Junk food, alcohol, obesity, diseases due to a promiscuous lifestyle.

    The fact that sperm counts have been decreasing steadily is also a contributing factor.

    “The worrying thing about this downward trend is that a sperm count less than 20 million sperms per ml is interpreted as being infertile, if this downward trend of counts were to continue then values less than this will be the average in the next millennium.

    Table 1:

    Assuming, this data is correct, then the cause (or causes) must lie with changes in our environment or lifestyle over the past few years. We have released endocrine disrupters to our environment over time especially in Western industrialised countries where these horrific changes are most pronounced (2). Pharmacological investigations and natural poisoning episodes have led to the association between exogenous chemicals and alterations in multiple hormonal systems (3). Certain persistent environmental contaminants have been shown to modulate the activities of several different hormones. The unborn child or the neonate may be at special risk from these chemicals because of rapid growth and development, in addition to enhanced exposure to these persistent chemicals via food and water. ”

    http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/iju/vol2n1/sperm.xml

  124. Chels says:

    Kathy and Jen, I somewhat agree with you. I have personal stories too–my greatgrandmother had her last kid at 49, my grandmother had her last at 45 and my aunt (father’s sister) had her last daughter when she was 42.

    However, I also agree with Gorbachev–it’s misleading to tell women that it’s ok to wait until they’re 40s to have kids, there’s a high chance it won’t work like that, and they will end up childless.

    Not to mention that women don’t actually check to see if they have fertility problems, they just assume they will be able to get pregnant right away. If a young woman has fertility problems, it will likely take her years to conceive, and she might also need special treatment, and at around 40, time’s running out.

  125. Kathy says:

    “it’s misleading to tell women that it’s ok to wait until they’re 40s to have kids, there’s a high chance it won’t work like that, and they will end up childless.”
    I totally agree Chels. It is what I tell women myself. Have kids while you are young.. For more reasons than just fertility..
    Fertility does decrease with age, it’s true. But to spout nonsense such as this:

    ” It would take about 2 seconds of Googling to see how quickly female fertility drops after 30, and how it is all but gone after 35-36. 40s is way too late.” ……Is completely erroneous.

    Female fertility does drop after age thirty but a healthy woman in her forties with a partner who has a normal sperm count can still conceive.. And many do…

    No one wants to mention the decreasing sperm count here. This is a reality, that will affect a woman’s chances of conceiving along with the age factor.

  126. Chels says:

    ……Is completely erroneous.

    I completely agree, and I’ve even read men saying that a woman by 25 is basically infertile (lol) There are a lot of misconceptions out there, and it’s best to check them before promoting them further and arguing that women should forego an education so they can become very young mothers.

    No one wants to mention the decreasing sperm count here.

    It’s not only the decreasing sperm count, it’s also the increasing mutations in the sperm leading to miscarriages, birth defects, etc..

  127. Jennifer says:

    Thanks for your input, Kathy🙂 and Chels!

  128. Kai says:

    The point is that while women *can* get pregnant at 40 and beyond, it’s much less likely than earlier. And most women who haven’t yet tried for a baby have no idea how fertile they are, and thus should give themselves enough years just in case.
    You can get pregnant at 40, but you shouldn’t count on being able to. You might be on that happy late-fertility end of the scale and have no problems. Or you might be on the difficult fertility/early dropoff end and find that at 37, you can’t do it.
    If you are up for having children but don’t feel strongly about wanting them, then go ahead and wait, secure in the knowledge that you’re okay if it doesn’t work out. But if you really want children, it’s a really bad idea to put it off until a point where the odds are against you.
    If you go to an amusement park, and you really want to ride the big roller coaster, you head there first to make sure you get a ride. Yes, you might be able to put it off until a half hour before closing time – after all, lots of people get to ride it then. But you might have something else delay you, or you might get there and find out the line-up is an hour long and you won’t make it, or you might get one ride but have no time for more if you like it.

    The point is, it does get less likely with time, and if children are a priority for you, don’t leave them to the end.
    And it’s incredibly irresponsible of anyone to tell young women that they have plenty of time and shouldn’t worry about it. Far better to give them accurate stats and let them make an informed decision based on reality and priorities.

    Also, having a uterus doesn’t make you an expert on them. You may know yourself really really well, but that still says nothing for the rest of the population. Men and women can look up fertility statistics equally well, and suggesting that someone can’t know numbers because of what’s in his pants is ridiculous.
    There’s no magical female knowledge about fertility – it is as subject to hard math as anything else, and outliers prove nothing.

  129. Jennifer says:

    “Also, having a uterus doesn’t make you an expert on them”

    We’re quite well-aware of that, Kai. But not having one usually makes you even less so.

    TFH and Kai, not a SINGLE person here recommended waiting until you’re 40 or denied that fertility is less by then; not a SINGLE one. What we did was deny the ridiculous idea that it’s not POSSIBLE to conceive by then.

  130. Svar says:

    Haha. It’s obvious that it’s best for women to have children at peak fertility than not. Mark Richardson/Oz Con and Gorbachev are right.

  131. Kai says:

    “Jennifer says:
    August 28, 2011 at 3:13 pm
    “Also, having a uterus doesn’t make you an expert on them”
    We’re quite well-aware of that, Kai. But not having one usually makes you even less so.
    TFH and Kai, not a SINGLE person here recommended waiting until you’re 40 or denied that fertility is less by then; not a SINGLE one. What we did was deny the ridiculous idea that it’s not POSSIBLE to conceive by then.”

    “Kathy says:
    August 28, 2011 at 7:31 am
    Indeed Jen. He has no idea. Unmarried.. no children…
    …You need to stop listening to men who have no idea about women’s fecundity, Jen. ”

    “Jennifer says:
    August 27, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    Are you kidding? Many women can have babies into their 40′s.”

    Kathy twice makes the implication that a guy can’t possibly comment on what is a mathematical and statistical research question because he doesn’t happen to have a uterus. A man can’t know what it feels like to carry a baby, but he can sure research pregnancy statistics.

    It is true that no-one said ‘wait until you’re 40 to procreate!’ but no-one ever said ‘it’s impossible to have kids at 40’ either.
    Everyone knows it is *possible*. but it is also *unlikely*, and the fact that it is *possible* for some women to have kids late is irrelevant to the fact that it’s a lot less likely, and women need to be aware of the decline in fertility.

  132. Jack Amok says:

    Something else to consider – Endometriosis. A woman who doesn’t give vaginal birth by her late 20’s has a high chance of endometrium buildup. It irritates the fallopian tubes and uterus, decreasing fertility. Vaginal childbirth seems to impede the buildup, so having babies in your early-mid 20’s improves your fertility in your late 20’s and early 30’s (C-sections and abortions don’t help, for whatever reason…)

    Fertility docs can fix it, laser surgery with a scope sent in through your belly button removes the buildup without much risk. But it’s not exactly cheap, and your insurance probably doesn’t cover it. And if it does cover it now, it probably won’t when the medical cost crunch gets even worse in the near future.

    Same thing for the majority of post-40 pregnancies. Most of the women who can have a child after 40 can only do it with a lot of help from modern obstetrics. In the US at least, OB-GYNs are becoming a bit rare, thanks to out-of-control malpractice systems. If you’re 20 now, don’t assume the same medical landscape will exist when you’re 40.

  133. Jennifer says:

    I never responded or denied the facts about Down Syndrone, TFH, because everyone knows about them. Yet now it’s you shifting goalposts by claiming that I “ignored” them so you can also claim that women are just illogical and stupid. I’m getting tired of your games.

  134. Jennifer says:

    “It’s obvious that it’s best for women to have children at peak fertility than not”

    We’re aware of that svar.

    “no-one ever said ‘it’s impossible to have kids at 40′ either”

    Both TFH and Electric Angel very strongly implied that it was impossible.

  135. Jennifer says:

    “If you admit that in terms of reproductive viability, a woman of 35 is like a man of 45, and a woman of 42 is like a man of 65, then we would agree that you are being realistic.

    Agree or disagree?”

    Of course I agree that risks are greater as women age. Satisfied? Or do you need to posture more before the other males?

  136. Jennifer says:

    Chels: “it’s misleading to tell women that it’s ok to wait until they’re 40s to have kids, there’s a high chance it won’t work like that, and they will end up childless.
    Not to mention that women don’t actually check to see if they have fertility problems, they just assume they will be able to get pregnant right away. If a young woman has fertility problems, it will likely take her years to conceive, and she might also need special treatment, and at around 40, time’s running out”

    Kathy: “Have kids while you are young.. For more reasons than just fertility..
    Fertility does decrease with age, it’s true”

    Me: “I certainly would not recommend a woman waiting until then, but it’s by no means scientifically impossible for a 40-year-old woman to get pregnant.”

    Every woman here acknowledged that waiting until 40 is a bad idea, due to numerous factors mentioned. TFH’s estimation of our beliefs and logic is faulty as usual.

  137. Kathy says:

    “Possible, but an outlier, and highly risky. Apparently the women commenting here don’t care about Down’s Syndrome risks, which rise greatly after the woman turns 35. ”
    Your superior and arrogant (implied) opinion regarding the worth of Downs Children speaks volumes to me.

    A good friend of mine had a Downs baby at 45. he is a gorgeous little fella, and his, parents would not swap him for the world. He is a human being, and was a much wanted child.(they already had two kids) My friend refused the tests prior to giving birth, even though she was badgered by health professionals(male and female) to do so,. They could not understand how a woman could choose to have a child with a disability.. btw my friends pregnancy was an accident. She was not going through menopause, either.

    Now, Chels, Jen (or myself for that matter ) have not advocated that women wait until forty to conceive… As I said earlier, better for a couple to be young and healthy and have children.

    Some men google some stats and think that they know it all. Fertility is NOT all but gone at 35-36..TFH.. In fact many mothers at my kids school have indeed borne children in their mid-thirties.

    My obstetrician has delivered babies to women over forty, the bulk of the mothers however being in their mid thirties.. Women who have led a healthy lifestyle as previously mentioned can and do have children unassisted by technology. Unfortunately many men and women are not in good physical shape, and this can greatly impact on fertility.

    I notice how you conveniently ignore the decreasing and often abnormal sperm counts, here. It is very telling.

  138. Jennifer says:

    “er….you are doing a better job of proving that than anyone else”

    LOL Nothing I said remotely contradicted facts, and I made it clear from the beginning that waiting until 40 was a bad idea. You and the other four men have been arguing pointlessly. You’ve been looking for some time for any faults with female posters that you can find, and your conclusions are in fact illogical.

  139. Kathy says:

    Hey Jen, maybe if I put it in capitals it might sink in, eh?😉
    WAITING UNTIL FORTY TO HAVE CHILDREN IS A BAD IDEA!
    Okay, are we all clear on that one now
    Pointlessly arguing indeed.. (rolls eyes)

  140. Jennifer says:

    Indeed Kathy. I guess some of the men wanted to make sure we weren’t encouraging waiting; nice to be concerned about women.

  141. greyghost says:

    Not women just some kid born with downs syndrome

  142. Jennifer says:

    The risks can hurt women or the babies.

  143. Kai says:

    “Kathy says:
    I notice how you conveniently ignore the decreasing and often abnormal sperm counts, here. It is very telling.”

    I think decreasing sperm counts are also something to be noted, but a separate issue. For a woman to have the best chance of conceiving, she should try before her eggs get too old, AND she should try with a man of a similar reproductive age. But having time for lots of viable eggs is an important step, and one that she controls, and one that needs to be considered early on.
    I don’t advocate children – I just advocate informed decision-making. I think every person should think about it when they are young, and determine what they want out of life, and then arrange to achieve their priorities, rather than just leaving it to chance.
    For a woman who wants children, she should set up her life so she can start on them relatively young.
    For a man who wants children, he should set up his life so he can start on them before his sperm counts go wonky, and should find a woman and start when both are at a reasonable age.
    I just see the sperm count as a separate point, and secondary from the point of view of making sure young women know the realities.

  144. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    Kai,
    Note how Jennifer will avoid answering my simple question, which addresses the goalpost-moving that is happening”

    To be fair, you only gave her an hour. I can assume she might have been doing something else with her life, not just reading and refusing to answer you…

    “At any rate, this debate can best be summed up as :
    Men (Gorb, Mark, Kai, TFH) present widely accepted facts and logic, and supporting data.
    Women are more interested in what makes them feeeeeel good, facts be damned. They continue the discussion due to their desire for male attention in any form.
    There is nothing more to this than that (and most other dialogs between men and women). Period.

    er….you are doing a better job of proving that than anyone else. At least 4 men here are disagreeing with you (Kai, Gorby, Mark, myself) by providing hard data.”

    I agree that that sums up ‘most’ dialogue. But only most. There are outliers on all scales, including that of ‘male population’ and ‘female population’.
    I agree with how you have seen this discussion with one side using data and the other side using anecdotes and feelings, but there is one problem with your summation of the debate. I am strongly on the facts, data, and logic side,
    but I am female.

  145. Jennifer says:

    Thank you for your input, Kai. But please know that we have used facts as well.

  146. Jennifer says:

    I think you’re incorrect about the contents of most dialogues, Kai. All the women here have used facts, and our arguments had nothing to do with “feelings”; we know that the idea of women’s fertility being practically gone by 40 is false. Conception is more difficult, particularly the pregnancy term itself, but women are by no means dried up.

  147. Kai says:

    It is not my given name. I think it is used differently by different cultures – I didn’t find the examples of it in males until after I had adopted it as an internet handle.
    Though I think it useful to use a handle that is a little ambiguous – I think people are fairly quick to jump to conclusions once they can put people in a box. On this site, for example, I do think men and women are often a little too quick to assume the worst of the other’s argument.

    I am agreeing with TFH’s characterisation of ‘most’ dialogues based on experience with people in my own life. I can’t believe the number of people with whom I talk who are completely impervious to logic. And sadly for my gender, there is a definite link with that population.

    ‘practically gone by 40’ would definitely depend on how one defines ‘practically gone’. It would probably be helpful to have defined terms. It sounds like most can generally agree that while some women can have children just fine after 40, some women can’t at all, and most women will find it much more difficult.
    My big red flag was the comment that the men can’t possibly know anything about fertility, as though one needs to be part of the uterus club to be able to comment on a statistic about them.

  148. Jennifer says:

    No one remotely said that men can’t possibly know anything about fertility, Kai, but the general attitude here from some men, that they could tell us about our own level of intelligence, emotion AND fertility, got old very fast. Numerous assumptions were made and they were all offensive. Incidentally, you’d be amazed at the lack of logic I’ve seen patriarchal men, especially religious ones, display in arguments.

  149. Chels says:

    No one remotely said that men can’t possibly know anything about fertility, Kai, but the general attitude here from some men, that they could tell us about our own level of intelligence, emotion AND fertility, got old very fast. Numerous assumptions were made and they were all offensive. Incidentally, you’d be amazed at the lack of logic I’ve seen patriarchal men, especially religious ones, display in arguments.

    I second this–it gets extremely tiring to hear men being so concerned about your shriveling eggs (not!) while ignoring their mutated sperm that decreases by the year.

  150. J says:

    it gets extremely tiring to hear men being so concerned about your shriveling eggs (not!) while ignoring their mutated sperm that decreases by the year.

    And on a less emotional level, it is a shame that men think that they can put off having a family without any biological consequences. Among infertile couples, the proportion of infertility issues that affect the man only is equal to that which affects the woman only. And in many cases, both the parties have issues. Her old eggs and his defective sperm work together to lessen the odds of conception. Additionally, autism, which seems to affect the manosphere’s children in high numbers, is associated with paternal, not maternal, age.

  151. J says:

    @Jack Amok

    I had endometriosis and two surgeries for it. Most insurance will cover it; it is a painful and unhealthy condition even without the consequence of infertility. The insurance industry would need to justify letting women live in a lot pain before it could drop coverage of a minor, minimally invasive day surgery that eliminates a lot of pain. IVF and other high tech procedures are what most companies won’t cover.

  152. J says:

    @Kathy

    Menopause occurs at around 51.

    Yes, it does.

    Which means a woman still has viable eggs if she is healthy

    Actually, it doesn’t. There may be a viable egg or two in the ovaraies of a 51 year old, but most eggs will be duds. Google “perimenopause.” Egg quality, hormome levels, etc. decrease 7-10 years before actually menopause.

    I’m saying this as a woman who had two healthy kids in her late 30s and early 40s. It certainly is possible, but it’s much less likely.

  153. Kai says:

    ‘Arguments’, no matter the gender of the arguers, tend to be characterized by emotion instead of logic. I’d hazard a guess that a majority of the population fails in this regard.
    Heck, when I took formal logic in university, the class – preselected for people who were going to need formal logic for their intended degree – still had at least 40% people who lacked an intuitive grasp of logical concepts.
    It’s really about time it was taught in schools again. You can’t do anything to help people gain the intuitive grasp, but you can at least teach people to work through it.

    I don’t think men are overly concerned about your shrivelling eggs. Some people are concerned when women tell young women that they don’t need to worry about fertility since they have tons of time, because many women can have babies in their forties! It’s pretty normal to bring up such concerns when talking conceptually about the world. I doubt any of the men here run around their daily lives telling women about their fertility.

    An individual may know him/herself well, but large populations can be defined by numbers. Women, as a whole tend to lean on emotion more. Men and women differ in intelligence in that the men’s curve is broader, showing more extreme geniuses and more …whatever the latest accepted term for ‘idiots’ is.
    I do think people screw up by taking a characteristic from the majority of a population and assuming that the given individual *must* have that characteristic, rather that ‘is fairly likely to’.

    I think the theory with men putting of families is that fewer men will feel great regret if they don’t get around to it. I don’t happen to know whether statistics bear out that theory, but all statistics on how people feel about their choices are flawed by construction, so it’s not exactly easy.

  154. Jennifer says:

    Very weird that they’d turn down eggs from such young women. I guess it’s because they could be waiting for a long time, or could mesh unpredictably with another woman’s body.

  155. Chels says:

    While we’re at it, women can freeze their eggs while they’re young and use them when they’re ready.

  156. Kathy says:

    “Arguments’, no matter the gender of the arguers, tend to be characterized by emotion instead of logic. I’d hazard a guess that a majority of the population fails in this regard.”
    I would agree with that. It is something that we all do .

    This is why I said of TFH’s following comment,

    ” It would take about 2 seconds of Googling to see how quickly female fertility drops after 30, and how it is all but gone after 35-36. 40s is way too late.” ……Is completely erroneous.
    Fertility is NOT all but gone after 35-36. THIS IS A HIGHLY MISLEADING AND EMOTIVE STATEMENT NOT BACKED UP BY FACTS. FERTILITY IS NOT ALL BUT GONE BY 35-36.. 40 is another matter.. I fell pregnant at 36 first month we tried. I even know the night that I conceived. I am not an outlier here. I know many women who have had children in their mid thirties after trying for a few months..

    Mid thirties is not 40! Please do not conflate the two. Bigger drop in fertility from age 40!

    “And on a less emotional level, it is a shame that men think that they can put off having a family without any biological consequences. Among infertile couples, the proportion of infertility issues that affect the man only is equal to that which affects the woman only. And in many cases, both the parties have issues. Her old eggs and his defective sperm work together to lessen the odds of conception. Additionally, autism, which seems to affect the manosphere’s children in high numbers, is associated with paternal, not maternal, age.”

    J makes some good and valid points here.
    Men tend not to even consider the possibility that they may have a problem with their sperm counts.

    It was the same for my first husband who was initially in denial when he found out he was infertile. And he was only in his early twenties.

    Also the risk of having an autistic child is higher if a man is over forty.

    Men and women should be encouraged to marry and have children in their twenties.. Sometimes this is not possible.. But, women and men should both be aware of the factors affecting fertility.

    “Among infertile couples, the proportion of infertility issues that affect the man only is equal to that which affects the woman only”

    This is. indeed correct.

  157. Anon says:

    Typical woman logic: I can’t argue with anything so I’ll blubber on about “guys get it too”

    Laughable. And sinful to try and deceive women like that.

  158. pb says:

    Re: endometriosis and other reproductive issues, for alternate therapies check out the Paul VI Institute: http://www.popepaulvi.com/ .

  159. Chels says:

    TFH, I wasn’t actually serious, if you didn’t catch the tone in what I said.

  160. Jennifer says:

    “Women seeking donor eggs still want the donor female to be under 27. No man is forcing this decision, but rather a woman decided that the other women has to be under 27”

    Oh.

    Anon, grow up. No one’s trying to deceive anyone.

  161. tspoon says:

    ““Among infertile couples, the proportion of infertility issues that affect the man only is equal to that which affects the woman only”

    This is. indeed correct.”

    Among people who squandered their chance, the proportion of those loudly wailing is equal to that which affects the woman only.

  162. Kathy says:

    TFH: “Egg donors older than 27 are usually turned away.”

    This is incorrect.

    •Egg donators are required to be at least 21 years of age and usually no older than 35.

    http://factoidz.com/egg-donation-the-facts-and-risks-of-becoming-an-egg-donor-for-assisted-fertility/

  163. Kathy says:

    Then there is IVF Australia, who will TAKE EGGS FROM WOMEN UP TO AGE 38!

    “Donors are ideally aged between 21 and 38 years of age, who have usually completed their own family and want to facilitate pregnancy for another woman”

    http://www.ivf.com.au/ivf-donor-program/egg-donation.aspx

  164. Pingback: 40 is the new 20! | Dalrock

  165. Pingback: Cord Ivanyi is not a mangina! | Dalrock

  166. Pingback: Charts on delayed motherhood | Dalrock

  167. Pingback: All the lonely feminist spinsters | Dalrock

  168. Pingback: Boundless is their foolishness. | Dalrock

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

  170. Pingback: The boyfriend invention | Dalrock

  171. Pingback: Financial Frame | The Reinvention of Man

  172. Pingback: Tales From The Wall | The Badger Hut

  173. B says:

    Men also need to be careful or they will end up alone when their parents die. I know many men who never wanted to commit when they were in their 20s and early 30s. They thought a princess was waiting for them somewhere. Their ex-gfs eventually married and settled down, while they continued to just wait around. Flash forward a few years, they are in their 40s and 50s and don’t have the looks or money or status of a George Clooney or Leonardo DiCaprio. Girls in their 20s and 30s use guys like this for their money. The smart ones will eventually find a woman close to their own age and settle down. The ones who still live with this delusion will go to Thailand or Russia or Romania or insert any other Eastern country (because let’s face it their chances with Western girls are fading) and they will get used for a visa. I know these guys. I know the ones that waited for 50 to become fathers. They are miserable. By the time their kids are 30, they will be dead. They will forever be the uncool old dad. Not to mention for all you late 20s and 30s guys who think 19 year olds are swooning for you, think again! At 19, I thought guys that age were creeps who couldn’t get women their own age. I would use them for all that I could including if they could get me into a club and them I would ditch them for guys my own age. To all the men out there who resent women for having the ability to date more often at a younger age, stop being an asshole and start taking care of your looks. Don’t blame women for problems you had in your teens and 20s. Don’t assume every girl wants to settle down with a guy who is her father’ s age or even her older brother’ s age. Next, don’t judge all educated women by the few professional elitist women you might know. Men have also been sold a fantasy and it’s because of this ridiculous fantasy men have been sold that women are not knocking down your door!

  174. B says:

    Btw, the looks of men also fade!!!! You can’t tell me you are more handsome at 35 then you were in your 20s! Granted, there are the few awkward guys who grow into their looks, but that is not always the case. Also with that being said, there are plenty of women who don’t get into their prime until their mid 20s. In HS and undergrad, their bodies might not have been as womanly. They are more shapely and more full on woman at that age. Personally, I think women are most attractive at 25-35. In their earlier 20s, some women have a more girly figure and don’t grow into their looks until later. Different strokes for different folks!

  175. Pingback: Does Fornication Matter When It Comes To Marriage? | The Society of Phineas

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s