The boyfriend invention

When people consider the sexual revolution over the last 100 to 150 years, the invention of the concept of “boyfriend” tends to be discounted.  Other milestones tend to be given greater consideration, and while all of them are relevant, the profoundly disruptive nature of the new concept of boyfriend shouldn’t be overlooked.

Note:  I don’t claim to be an authoritative expert on the history of courtship.  What I’m sharing here is what I’ve been able to piece together based on conventional wisdom and some moderate searching on the web.  If you can provide sources to information which I’ve omitted I will be in your debt.

As best as I can tell, until roughly 100-150 years ago courtship in the west looked something like the diagram to the right.  A woman looking to marry would spend supervised time with a number of gentleman callers who had been vetted by her family.  After some time she would select from the available men, with the formal proposal coming from the man himself.

One example of courtship rituals used in the past is the courting candle.  These allowed the father of the young woman to determine a set amount of supervised time which a caller could spend with his daughter:

When the daughter’s suitor came calling, the father lit the candle in a sitting room where the couple conversed. When the candles burnt to the metal at the top of the candle holder, it was time for the suitor to promptly leave.

Note that not only did the suitor not take the young woman out on exciting dates, but there was also no expectation that the young woman should fall in love with a series of men before deciding whom to marry.  Yet somehow this latter concept has become sacrosanct, even amongst the most traditional minded.

From the point of view of the feminine imperative, something had to give.  How was a Victorian woman supposed to feed the hypergamous beast which lay beneath her prim and proper exterior?  An entirely new creation was needed, something which previously had lacked even a name.  Between 1895 and 1900, that name was created.  Over time this new term bridged the gap between the concepts of illicit lover and husband.  It solved a number of problems for the feminine imperative, providing three essential benefits which previously were only available in (once and done) marriage.  Inventing the concept of boyfriend created a socially approved mechanism for women to obtain/experience the following three things without having to choose/commit to one single man:

  • Sex (recently).
  • Romance/love.
  • Status (having a man publicly invested in her).

Of the three, the last tends to be overlooked by the game side of the manosphere.  Women’s primal desire for the status accrued by a formal relationship with a worthy man, especially marriage, is a counterforce against the hypergamous fear of commitment.  This counterforce appears less significant than it really is because women assume they can have marriage for the taking, at least until it is too late.  The concept of boyfriend finally allowed unmarried women an option for a sort of marriage lite, where the status and morality of marriage were on offer in diluted form.

When looking at the modern SMP, the introduction of the hookup culture is what is most striking to most observers.  However, the innovative concept of boyfriend still plays a central role in providing the essential stamp of propriety the feminine imperative requires.  In fact, the boyfriend is the glue which holds the entire process together:

The criticality of the boyfriend step is evident in the amount of energy directed towards ensuring that hookups result in as Susan Walsh would say “relationships”.  Random groping/sex isn’t something one would logically think should result in men offering to be boyfriends, but it must occur for women to be able to both engage in unrestrained hypergamy and expect the eventual status which comes only with marriage.  Anyone even remotely threatening this crucial step from hookup to boyfriend can therefore expect to draw the outsized wrath of white knights and slut apologists everywhere.

Even modern divorce culture can be seen as an attempt by women to expand the class of boyfriend.  This in fact is the natural state feral women seem to want to push to from either direction.  In the case of hookups and dates, women will attempt push men they retain interest in up into the boyfriend position.  In the case of a husband, feral women are pushing them down back towards the (ex) boyfriend position:

Note that even here, the position of husband is still maintained as actual husbands are demoted to boyfriends.  This is because there is still greater status associated with the concept of lifetime monogamy.  Once she finds “the one”, she still wants to reserve the full status of wife for herself.

See Also:  How young should a woman marry?

This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Death of courtship, Finding a Spouse, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

210 Responses to The boyfriend invention

  1. Jennifer says:

    Please Dalrock, you talk like women were plotting from Victorian times to alter society so it spun around hypergamy and are single-handedly responsible for the invention of boyfriends, which is bullshit. Nowadays you talk about women like we have no control whatsoever and brought down society because of our innate desire to be hypergamous sluts. “Hooking up” was not even a common occurence until after the late ’60’s, and women weren’t alone in creating that, dear man.

  2. Will S. says:

    Interesting, Dalrock. What this means, in practice, is it gives young women twice the choosing capacity, insofar as they get to both vet a young man for the boyfriend role, and then vet boyfriends for the husband role.

    Just out of curiosity, I looked up the word ‘girlfriend’ from the same dictionary, to see when that term arose; it’s a bit earlier, from 1855-1860. However, it carries a dual meaning which ‘boyfriend’ does not, in that women will call their female friends ‘girlfriends’, whereas men do not call their male friends ‘boyfriends’. One would therefore assume that the term ‘girlfriend’ did not pick up the counterpart meaning to that of ‘boyfriend’ until that term came into existence.

  3. okrahead says:

    When Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, He observed that she had “no husband” because she had “seven” husbands, and was at the time living with a man to whom she was not married. I believe this indicates that a woman has one husband or none, Biblically speaking. What the state recognized is, of course, a different matter.
    I would also observe that the boyfriend paradigm is appealing to womyn in that it
    takes the father’s approval out of the picture. In past generations if a young man could not impress a young woman’s father then he could not approach her at all, which left the “bad boys” out in the cold. Only with the advent of the boyfriend paradigm could the bad boy (appealing to the juvenile female hamster mind) replace the responsible beta (appealed to the mature, masculine mind of the father) as the preferred mate. Once again, from a Biblical perspective, one should look at 1 Corinthians 7; it was the FATHER’S choice whether or not to give his daughter in marriage.

  4. bskillet81 says:

    This is why there is a HUGE difference between a woman marrying a divorced man, and a man marrying a divorced woman. HUGE difference.

    The divorced woman just wanted to trade up to a man of higher status, and did so without any reason whatsoever. She is selfish and implicitly (if not explicitly) sexually immoral in that regard. She only ever regardes her husband as a “state-registered boyfriend.”

    On the other hand, the divorced man is usually the victim of a divorced woman, who hit him with divorce and/or infidelity out of the blue. He honestly thought he was going to get someone “till death do us part.” Sucker. He was just a higher-status form of boyfriend.

    But, of course, our culture has it backwards. Ex-husbands are shamed. Ex-wives are glorified. Especially within Churchianity, I might add.

  5. bskillet81 says:

    @Dalrock

    Why don’t you have the Twitter “like” button enabled?

    [D: Good question. I think I fixed that. Is what you are looking for there now?]

  6. The Antigrrrl says:

    Grew up with the “new” courtship practice, the problem with it sometimes is it completely discounts any sexual attraction the woman might have for the properly vetted males. Men like to have some sexual attraction to their mates, so do woman.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    As soon as I saw the subject line, this great moment in film popped into my head:

  8. bskillet81 says:

    @D

    Thanks. I’ll be making heavy use of that button.

  9. Jennifer, why am I answering

    Anyway, he didnt say anything that you railed against. Female derived strawman for rebuttal.
    Nuff Said

  10. Marissa says:

    Jennifer, don’t you know that women are responsible for any and all evil in our society from the garden of Eden to now, and that all the poor, wee little men are innocent?

    This blog, I swear, is getting more and more extreme with each post.

  11. bskillet81 says:

    @Jennifer

    Please Dalrock, you talk like women were plotting from Victorian times to alter society so it spun around hypergamy and are single-handedly responsible for the invention of boyfriends, which is bullshit.

    Dalrock is saying no such thing. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. Rather, Dalrock is recognizing this thing called the “sin nature.” He, apparently, has fallen victim to the radical notion that women are just as sinful as men (GASP!). He is arguing that, by re-ordering the culture, we have removed cultural checks on female sin nature that have existed for thousands of years for a reason.

    Much of this happened for a reason at the beginning, one that seemed innocent at the time: The idea of “eros ubber alles,” or in other words the concept that romantic love should rule society. The idea that marriage should always be “for love.” While women weren’t the only ones pushing this flawed notion (the male Romantic poets bear some blame to be sure), women were at the forefront. This was not because they wanted to create the world as we see it today, but because in the short term they just wanted the freedom to marry whomever gave them the tingles. In the long term, that evolved into the social problems we see today.

    This has resulted in removing some checks on male sin nature (cads), and has also resulted in pushing morally good behavior (dads). Society does not benefit when you encourage sin and discourage goodness.

  12. bskillet81 says:

    Last part should read “punishing morally good behavior (dads).”

  13. Some Guy says:

    This explains a lot.

    When I was in college, I expected that I could just ask girls out for a date. It wasn’t long before I realized that my expectations were something of a relic. I had no concept of how to navigate the “hook up” stage of the game.

    Similarly, I was completely unprepared for having the status of being a husband so quickly being treated as glorified boyfriend and then (as I “beta” upped over time), being relegated back to “beta orbiter” status within the marriage. (I was friend-zoned by my wife.)

    Do I look like I have “chump” written all over me…? Evidently so.

  14. Marissa says:

    And you know, this could have absolutely nothing to do with women wanting to choose their own husband, and not wanting to be sold to the highest bidder by their father or to a man with whom she has nothing in common or is abusive or etc etc etc

    Nope, nothing to do with that at all, it only has to do with women’s desire to be promiscuous.

  15. slwerner says:

    Marissa – “This blog, I swear, is getting more and more extreme with each post.”

    Where is Deti with his female speak translator?

    Well, I suppose I could give it a try:

    “This blog, I swear, is getting more and more difficult to rationally refute with each post.”

  16. Sunshine says:

    “This blog, I swear, is getting more and more extreme with each post.”

    Maybe a typo; she meant “extremely brilliant” I think.

  17. slwerner says:

    Marissa – “And you know, this could have absolutely nothing to do with women wanting to choose their own husband, and not wanting to be sold to the highest bidder by their father or to a man with whom she has nothing in common or is abusive or etc etc etc”

    I’m afraid that you might have missed something very germane to this side of the topic that you’ve just interjected – REALITY!

    A lot more could (should) be said about it, but due to my need to be brief, I will simply point out that the rise in abusive relationships directly coincides with women gaining greater ability to pick out their boyfriends and husbands based on their own.

    Many of the constraints that were previously in place where there for the protection of women. Woman just didn’t understand enough to appreciate what their fathers and families were trying to do for them.

  18. entropy is my god says:

    @ Jennifer
    You are 100% correct Jennifer. All assumptions made by you are accurate and women have no fault in any of societies ills. All problems, both mental physical, spiritual and otherwise are the sole fault of men’s devious sexually immoral nature. As a man I most humbly apologize on behalf of all men.

  19. Marissa says:

    Where is your proof swlerner? I expect that it has more to do with women not being pressured into staying with an abusive man by their families, no more shame associated with divorcing, no more shame associated with acknowledging that your husband is abusive and women having the means to leave.

    And of course with rates being correctly kept and monitored.

  20. Country lawyer says:

    “■Sex (recently).”

    Define “recently” Dalrock.

    One of the early pick up lines was “Want to see my etchings?”

    The twenties, in fact the entire 20th century had plenty of premarital sex going on, it was generally way more discrete, with women going to “school” out of state if they got knocked up.

    I suspect the majority of the people in this country could probably with a little digging find a relative in the last hundred years that had to “go somewhere” for a brief amount of time.

  21. If you read enough pre-20th century literature, you can easily see what women did with the hand dealt to them pre-sexual revolution. Female sexual interest was widely assumed either not to exist or to be pathological. This led to widespread diagnoses of “hysteria”, “nerves” or “neurosthenia” in women, exhibited in bouts of fainting, weeping, or trembling, or even outright lunacy.

    I don’t think the sexual revolution has produced any benefits for women. They are allowed to have orgasms now, but the number of men who can elicit them is vanishingly small, so women have exchanged depression for hysteria. If I were a woman, I don’t think there would be much for me to choose from in being either Anna Karenina/Emma Bovary or a modern Alpha Widow pining over the absent father of her soon-to-be-sexy son.

    Maybe it just goes with the territory. Woman, the serpent’s target….

  22. Marissa says:

    Many of the constraints that were previously in place where there for the protection of women. Woman just didn’t understand enough to appreciate what their fathers and families were trying to do for them.

    Oh yes, most definitely. Women are too stupid to make their own decisions and need their father to pick their spouse. Completely right, and let’s ignore all the other stuff I said about women being “sold” to the highest bidder by their fathers with no regards for her preferences. But wait, I forgot, she’s too stupid to have any preferences.

  23. CL says:

    I never liked the word “boyfriend” much and it only sounds more ridiculous the older I get. When I see older women referring to their “boyfriends” it just strikes me as ludicrous, but that’s where we are now.

    @ Marissa

    No shame in divorce? Think again. That people (mostly women) go to such great lengths to justify and rationalize it should tell you something, not to mention the continual hammering on the statement itself by people like you.

    It’s similar to the way in which Not shaming sluts does not reduce the shame within sluts.

  24. Suz says:

    Jennifer,
    Are you off your meds again? Stop being a deliberately obtuse twit. Women didn’t have to “plot” anything. Women are the gatekeepers to sex (which men want – duh.) All they had to do was open their legs, and courtship naturally imploded.
    You remind me of one of the most embarrassing memories of my childhood, a moment of utterly self-absorbed immaturity:
    Once upon a time, by brother borrowed my (coolest ever) bike without my permission. As he was riding past the neighbor’s driveway, the guy’s parked unoccupied pickup rolled back, the parking brake having failed. It knocked my brother over the curb and onto the grass, and the rear wheel rolled over his leg. Fortunately he suffered only (tire-tread shaped) bruises. I threw a days-long tantrum because that obnoxious little brat destroyed my bike. I didn’t care that the bike could be replaced. I didn’t care that my brother might have been killed. My own petty, narrow priorities dictated my whole response to the situation. It never occurred to me that my entirely misguided interpretation of the event wasn’t the definitive interpretation; it was all about ME. I was nine years old. Could you please coax yourself to act older than nine? At least in public?

  25. Marissa says:

    No, CL, most people won’t shame a woman who chooses to divorce her husband because he’s abusive and won’t try to convince her that his abusive behavior is her fault in the first place like in the good old days.

  26. Danger says:

    Marissa,

    I think you missed the key point where the WOMAN was still choosing which guy to marry. But the difference was that Dad ALSO had to approve before the suitor got in the door.

    The result obviously left the losers out in the cold. Now? Women constantly complain about the dead-beat baby daddy losers. Which of course could have been entirely avoided had Dad been allowed to vet in the first place (and as we all know, Dad’s are not even allowed to exist anymore).

  27. I Art Laughing says:

    @Marissa

    So now women get to choose there spouses, divorce their husbands, falsely cry abuse across multiple issues ranging from emotional to financial abuse (which is very commonly another way of saying that he is doing ANYTHING that she doesn’t approve of) and be promiscuous across a majority of their lives? All to what end? What great benefit can be observed from these cultural changes? Like Eve women have become “free agents” and everyone is reaping the fruit of their choices. Some of us want to learn from the mistake of Adam, and not follow her, no matter how much she attempts to shame us.

  28. Sunshine says:

    “Women are too stupid to make their own decisions and need their father to pick their spouse. ”

    Now you’re catching on!

  29. elemental says:

    Nope, nothing to do with that at all, it only has to do with women’s desire to be promiscuous.

    I don’t understand this statement. Where in the article does it state that women’s desires are only about being promiscuous?

  30. Trouble is, Marissa, women don’t seem to need their families’ coercion to end up with abusers. The abusers seem to have a leg up.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys

    For every woman stuck with an abusive man , there were probably three gentle souls who tried to get her attention but bored her to tears.

  31. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    I first achieved the honoured status of boyfriend when I was fifteen (and very very cute she was too) before being dumped for Harley McBadBoy and his motorcycle. I have never really advanced beyond that position. The great advantage of being a boyfriend, is that one can easily lose the ‘boy’ part of the tag and be demoted to ‘friend’ zone status. You have no cause to complain, as you were only ever friends, and as we know, friends sleep together (although strangely I have failed to sleep with any of my male friends).

    You seem to have hit a female nerve. Well done.

  32. CL says:

    @ Marissa

    No, CL, most people won’t shame a woman who chooses to divorce her husband […]

    I’m not arguing that. There is still internal shame.

    […] because [she’s spun a yarn claiming that] he’s abusive[, with some nebulous definition of what “abusive” means in her own mind].

    Fixed that for you.

  33. Marissa says:

    No, Danger, that’s the story that Dalrock is presenting. How about this, what is more likely to have happened (and still happens in some countries):

    The woman has 5 suitors and she prefers #3. However, #3 is poor (or is of the wrong family or has the wrong occupation or her father simply doesn’t like him, etc etc) but #5 is rich which is what her father wants. Guess who she marries? #5 of course, despite her preferences.

  34. dragnet says:

    @ Marissa

    Like many feminists I think you overestimate the number of actually abusive marriages. In the “olden days” most husbands weren’t abusive toward their wives. Even in religions where men were explictly allowed to beat their spouses and/or take multiple wives (some strains of Islam, for example) doing so was rare.

    @ Jennifer

    No one is talking about any “conspiracy”—that’s just the spin you are putting on it. It’s about hypergamy and incentives. It’s really just that simple.

  35. Marissa says:

    Asinus Spinas Masticans

    Well prestige matters to some stupid women more than proper treatment, what are you going to do? Lock all women up?

  36. Marissa says:

    @ Danger

    Abuse is one factor, there are many, many, many more. Also, as a woman, I don’t understand why my father should be in charge of whom I spend the rest of my life with. He’s not the one living with him, so why should he get to pick?

  37. Marissa says:

    And btw, fathers are still free to give their opinions to their daughters, there’s no one/nothing stopping him from telling her that she’s about to marry a jerk, the only difference is that she doesn’t have obey him.

  38. Suz says:

    Marissa:
    “Oh yes, most definitely. Women are too stupid to make their own decisions and need their father to pick their spouse.”

    If women make such smart choices, why do so many millions of them file for divorce? (after sleeping with a dozen or so men they’re “too smart” to marry?) Why do they despise their husbands? Why do they sleep with and marry irresponsible (but ooh, exciting) men? Why do they continually whine, “Men are such jerks? based solely on their own experiences (with the men THEY choose?) If you can think with your brain instead of you silly ego, you might notice at least some of the overwhelming evidence that (especially young) women ARE TOO STUPID TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS! Who better than the fathers that gave everything to protect them throughout their childhoods, to judge the character of a potential mate? Menopausal mom? The BFF (who gains status every time you’re miserable?) Oh, I know! The grrrlz on “Jersey Shore” or “The Bachelor!”
    Right?

  39. Sunshine says:

    “They are allowed to have orgasms now, but the number of men who can elicit them is vanishingly small”

    I know we’ve all moved on to talking about loftier things, but I’m still hung up on this comment.

  40. @Marissa –

    No. Just the stupid ones, including my daughter or sister if she persists in being one of them.

  41. Marissa says:

    Well then Suz, I guess men are just as stupid as women since they engage in the same behavior and engaged in that behavior long before women.

  42. Phantasmagoria says:

    I’m sure the fact that Suitor #5 is rich would make up for any other failings anyway. As for the whole father picking the suitor thing, I’m not religious and I’ve never read scripture I can’t be 100% certain about it but I think it was something to do with honor thy father and the man being the head of the household and trying to basically ensure the prosperity of his name and offspring for the future. It makes sense from a logical point of view anyway. When negotiating a contract for a business deal you generally wouldn’t take the option that would get you less money just because they guy selling it had a nice suit compared to the other companies.

    It’s 1 am and I apologise if I’m making no sense at all.

  43. Dalrock says:

    Marissa, I think you’ve cornered the market on statements about women choosing husbands. In one comment families are preventing women from going after the abusive bad boy they tingle for, in another women need to divorce because the bad boy she tingles for turns out to be an abuser. In another you accuse families of forcing women to pick the rich jerk over the poor nice guy, etc.

  44. Sunshine says:

    “Well then Suz, I guess men are just as stupid as women since they engage in the same behavior and engaged in that behavior long before women.”

    Wait! Help! Someone explain to me what she means here. I’m ovulating and all I can think about is sex and firearms; that must explain why I can’t follow her superior logic.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Country lawyer

    “■Sex (recently).”

    Define “recently” Dalrock.

    One of the early pick up lines was “Want to see my etchings?”

    I’m not suggesting out of wedlock sex is a new invention, merely the creation of a socially approved way for women to openly engage in it.

  46. Suz says:

    Marissa:
    “Well then Suz, I guess men are just as stupid as women since they engage in the same behavior and engaged in that behavior long before women.”

    See, here’s the thing: reproductively, men are more disposable than women. When women are promiscuous, children are hurt by it. Male promiscuity has a long history of damaging far fewer families than female promiscuity. It’s a simple fact of biology and natural law. It’s one of those “double standards” that cannot be eradicated no matter how much you rebel against it. Kind of like gravity. Smart people understand this and make the most of this knowledge.

    Dalrock:
    “Marissa, I think you’ve cornered the market on statements about women choosing husbands.”
    Deti couldn’t have said it better.

  47. bskillet81 says:

    And you know, this could have absolutely nothing to do with women wanting to choose their own husband, and not wanting to be sold to the highest bidder by their father or to a man with whom she has nothing in common or is abusive or etc etc etc

    Nope, nothing to do with that at all, it only has to do with women’s desire to be promiscuous.

    Your statement is reflective of the general feminist supposition that men are incapable of fatherly love, and therefore the father’s core motivation is his own wealth or well-being. More likely, a man who has a life-time of investment in his daughter, who as a father wants the best for her, and who actually knows how men work, is quite qualified to have significant input on whom she chooses to marry.

    Also, your statement about money is the apex fallacy, since arranged marriages of that sort were more a practice of royalty/nobility than of the regular folks.

    And btw, fathers are still free to give their opinions to their daughters

    Clearly, you live in a fantasy world. Nowadays, one of the best things a guy can have going for him is that the girl’s father doesn’t approve of him. At any rate, feminists have worked so hard to alienate children–especially girls–from their fathers that the father is unlikely to have any meaningful input.

    The woman has 5 suitors and she prefers #3. However, #3 is poor (or is of the wrong family or has the wrong occupation or her father simply doesn’t like him, etc etc) but #5 is rich which is what her father wants. Guess who she marries? #5 of course, despite her preferences.

    More likely, as a hypergamous girl, she prefers the rich cad, #5, but her father knows the guy is a cad and therefore tells her she cannot marry him, and maybe she should take a second look at “boring middle-class beta #3.”

    Friends, Marissa is only here to get her hamster spun. As Professor Ashur alluded in a blog post yesterday, troll women like Marissa are only looking for a particular form of hamsterbation, namely the “man-job.” The manosphere remains the best place for a woman to get a quick online man-job.

  48. Suz says:

    Sunshine,
    Don’t worry your pretty head pretty head about it.

  49. Whitestone says:

    Marissa,

    You obviously have bought into the feminist meme’s of 1) women being sold like cattle 2) Men are abusers. I have no clue if you’re a christian or not, but Dalrock is and if you want to argue on his blog, then you have to play by the rule book that he has established. So from a biblical perspective: 1) Women were the property of their fathers and then the property of their husbands Exodus 20 (aka the 10 commandments reiterates this). The Bible never speaks ill of this and never derides a man for accepting this reality. Jesus placed high standards of care for women upon the men who chose to marry them, but in the end, they belonged to the man. 2) As with most women you have no “set in stone” definition of abuse to hold men up to. The second point is not your fault, just a hole in your argument. We (people in a feminized society) continually move the goal posts on what abuse is defined as depending on which girls we are talking about. Some women get beaten up by their husbands and she “feels” hurt by this – we call this abuse (which would be it’s proper label. However, some women have husbands with backbones who refuse to cater to their whims and the she “feels” hurt by this – we also call this abuse. As you can see, the definition of abuse now extends to anything that a woman “feels” is abuse. That is hypergamy hampster induced insanity and it is being forced down our throats by actual police with actual weapons. It’s insane. If Dalrock is in the wrong for calling women out on their collective “group think” bullshit then you are in the wrong for furthering that bullshit with your (intentionally or unintentionally) vague post about abuse.

  50. Marissa says:

    See, here’s the thing: reproductively, men are more disposable than women. When women are promiscuous, children are hurt by it. Male promiscuity has a long history of damaging far fewer families than female promiscuity.

    Seriously? Children are hurt more by their mother sleeping around than their fathers? How do you figure?

    Women can now leave their cheating husband who had a mistress or visited a prostitute, as they wouldn’t have been able to do before. Why should women be forced to stay with a cheating bastard? And you don’t think children are hurt by seeing their father’s behavior? Yes, they still have their 2 parents living together, but the tension in that house, omg.

  51. Marissa says:

    You know, I don’t even want to know what would have happened to me in the ‘golden’ days. I married my husband against my father’s wishes; my husband’s offense? He’s 10 years older, which in my father’s eyes, makes him a pedophile. My father still refuses to treat him nicely, despite being married for 5 years and my husband being an all around great guy.

  52. Brendan says:

    The hamster is running at 1000 miles an hour — quite entertaining reading. Go, hamster, go! Go go go go!!!

  53. Marissa says:

    The manosphere remains the best place for a woman to get a quick online man-job

    Oh, bskillet81, don’t flatter yourself; it’s more than you could ever get anyway.

  54. bskillet81 says:

    Oh, bskillet81, don’t flatter yourself; it’s more than you could ever get anyway.

    And now that her hamster has run out of ammunition, she resorts to the tired old sexual shaming tactics.

  55. deti says:

    Jennifer:

    “Dalrock, you talk like women were plotting from Victorian times to alter society so it spun around hypergamy and are single-handedly responsible for the invention of boyfriends, which is bullshit. Nowadays you talk about women like we have no control whatsoever and brought down society because of our innate desire to be hypergamous sluts. “Hooking up” was not even a common occurence until after the late ’60′s, and women weren’t alone in creating that, dear man.”

    Not exactly.

    How it actually went down was that women have been plotting from Creation to do it their way. Every woman wants to “do it her way”, to do what she wants. Every woman wants what she wants, when and how she wants it, without regard to laws, customs, mores, or rules; and without regard to what others want or need.

    What happened was a vocal, loud minority of women in the US agitating first for property ownership rights (around turn of 20th century);

    then suffrage (1919 by Constitutional amendment);

    then automation of housework 1920s-1950s);

    then outside-the-home employment (WWII, early 1940s);

    then cheap, safe and effective birth control (approx. 1960);

    then liberalization of divorce laws (1970s);

    then the sexual free-for-all that became the 1970s and 1980s culture

    then rampant hookup culture (approx. early 1990s – present).

    No, women didn’t create the hookup culture alone, but they wanted it this way. They needed the help of alpha studs, who were more than happy to service the increasing number of women trying out their newfound sexual freedoms. Women now have the freedom to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they want, with as many different men as they want.

    Jennifer, you can gussy it up all you want, but the fact is there would be no hookup culture without women going out there and sexing up men.

    There are really two predominant features: (1) Women aren’t going out and sexing up all the men, or the men whom they would otherwise marry. They sex up only the hot dominant alpha men. (2) The entire hookup culture in which hypergamy is completely unrestrained is presented as “normal” and “moral”. This encourages more young women to participate in it.

    Jennifer, what you’re missing is that women want it this way. The subtext of Marissa’s comments is that she wants the SMP to be the way it is, because it’s better and more advantageous — FOR HER.

  56. Whitestone says:

    Marissa,

    Show me one place in the Bible where a man was called a sinner for having more than one wife. I’d like to know. You call these men cheating bastards, but the Bible may simply consider them men who needed more than one wife. If society hasn’t produced an outlet for men to deal with their sexual natures in clear counter-position to what’s in scripture, then it’s not the man that’s a bastard. It’s the government that enforces it upon him and individuals who ridicule him for it.

  57. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Slow to speak, Marissa. You’re all over the place and going nowhere, like a blind-drunk man swinging at his imagined enemies as a bemused crowd gathers. Nothing but a series of strawmen, reductio ad absurdum, and misdirected anger.

  58. Marissa says:

    And now that her hamster has run out of ammunition, she resorts to the tired old sexual shaming tactics.

    Hey now, you started it!

  59. deti says:

    slwerner — never fear. I’ll be here with the hamsterlator in a few minutes.

    I need to make some modifications to it, or else I fear Jennifer and Marissa will break it.

  60. Suz says:

    “Children are hurt more by their mother sleeping around than their fathers?”
    Back up a step and try to see more of the picture than what’s an inch from your nose. Male promiscuity produces fewer children (to be raised in chaos with bad-or-no fathers) than female promiscuity. Historically, slutty pregnant females married whomever would have them if the father refused. Need evidence? Compare the results of millennia of male promiscuity, to the results of 50 years of American-style, unrestrained female promiscuity.

  61. Lavazza says:

    I think TFHs 72 hour should be applied here.

  62. elemental says:

    Damn, this thread was quite damaging to her hamster it seems. Really, the courtship game and its outcome is decided by women. And you can’t just ignore the vast amounts of information in this article. Nobody is saying there are no decent women, and I don’t honestly think it suits the purpose of this blog. For both men and women the base character of your partner matters, and there’s no doubt about it that we all choose based on traits we desire.

    So the end result is that based on this strategy, introducing the boyfriend is an optimization technique because it actively advantages the women when they’re looking for a high quality male, and their value is not damaged by short-term relationships etc.

  63. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Compare the results of millennia of male promiscuity, to the results of 50 years of American-style, unrestrained female promiscuity.

    QFT. One step beyond, look at the healthiness of the family unit in various states of subcultures that accept female promiscuity in differing levels.

  64. deti says:

    Jeez, Dalrock, now you’ve REALLY stepped in it, what with these comments from Jennifer and Marissa.

    Wait until the HUSsies get wind of the Ubiquitous Frame post and its progeny…..

  65. Joe Sheehy says:

    ” In past generations if a young man could not impress a young woman’s father then he could not approach her at all”

    That wasn’t true in western Christendom. In Catholicism, (and for a long time in Anglicanism, as opposed to most “reformed” denominations, the right of a daughter to choose her own spouse was guaranteed) Marriage (and permanent commitment) would often result from elopement. The Council of Trent, various acts of Parliament, and a pragmatic sanction of the Spanish monarchy were used to give fathers more power in an increasingly bourgeois dominated society.

  66. Suz says:

    You’re right, Lavazza. Jennifer didn’t even hang around to pretend to debate (unless she’s also Marissa. They do sound the same.) She just showed up to stir the pot, then hit the road.

    Drive-by Trolling.

  67. tweell says:

    Wow, Dalrock certainly hit a nerve here. From my reading and meager knowledge, there was always a mixture in the US between the romantic and arranged marriage types. The percentage varied, the upper class having more arranged marriages than the poor folks, but it was always a mixture. A lot of the time, the parents (don’t even think that the mom had no say!) would do a pass/fail sort on the prospective suitors, then their daughter chose from that bunch.

    Also remember that the suitor wasn’t a free agent either. His parents told him which women he could pay suit to, and which he was to avoid.

    As far as ‘sold’ goes, that was the exception. The rule was the dowry, parents had to pay for their daughter to get married. This has morphed into daughter’s parents paying for the wedding itself, but in recent years that has become more of a “I’m putting up this much” thing, placating Bridezilla only goes so far.

  68. Opus says:

    I really think that what I am about to say is, presciently, not off topic:

    This very day, our much loved and benevolent government has declared that the evil practice of Forced (previously Arranged) Marriage is to be made illegal. A woman should be free to find a man who she really really wants, after having made due and exact comparison after two or three decades of finding herself – there are so few good men these days. How can she do that when she is not even in the same continent as her future husband. The evil practice of Parentally Arranged Marriage must stop, and women must be allowed to pursue their career (which is not code for Carousel riding). Some may see this as a Cad’s charter and some as anti-Indian colonialism from the same people who abolished Suttee, and Thugees, but that surely cannot be right. Not that I would want anyone forcing me to marry their daughter, Indian or otherwise, when I own my own carousel, which you may all ride for free. Quite why forced marriage is worse than a woman tricking or cajoling a man into marriage by reason of pregnancy or threats of withdrawal of Pussy is not immediately clear to me, and of course the track record women have in recent decades of finding Mr Right on their own volition is not very impressive, however, democracy is all about choice and it would be wrong to think this had anything to do with a desire to curb Indian Immigration. Any incentive to marry whether financial, social, or green card (or the opportunity to become Royal) is very wrong and must be stopped – and when it is, I predict a rapid decline in all marriages, hence the need to introduce Homo-sexual marriage, which if you don’t agree with you are an evil bigot.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Marissa, you are clearly an intelligent woman, but I’m not quite getting the gist of your point.
    Could you please explain in more detail?
    I care about what you have to say.

  70. Suz says:

    AR, please tell me that was sarcasm.

  71. Buck says:

    Marissa says:
    June 8, 2012 at 10:01 am

    “@ Danger

    Abuse is one factor, there are many, many, many more. Also, as a woman, I don’t understand why my father should be in charge of whom I spend the rest of my life with. He’s not the one living with him, so why should he get to pick?”

    @ Marissa
    My poor father watched as my three sisters made their respective mate choices. This was in the mid 70’s and the hippy, sexual revolution, ERA, assaults were stalking the land. Dad wanted my sisters to be happy and fully understood that Bad-boy/gina-tingle was a HUGE mistake, and he said as much. I heard the weeping and crazed abuse they spewed back at him , always with your logic, “it’s my life”…yes it is!
    Well, DAD WAS RIGHT….EVERY TIME!!!!!
    To hear my sister’s words of regret now is painful…should have listened, what was I thinking, Dad was right…WOW
    A guy is better able to judge another guy, just as a woman is better able to judge other women.
    When my sainted mum advised my two divorced brothers that their selections were no good, they too ignored sage advice, and paid a heavy price.
    My point is that parental involvement in the mating game is usually a good thing if the child is listening.

    My daughter has a guy she friend-zoned, and pines for an alpha who is not interested. I watch her with friend-zone boy, she is alive, happy, they joke, cut up, have a great time together. When near Mr Alpha she is uptight, bitchey etc, and he is a jerk.
    As a father, I’ve raised this child, I do know her better than she know herself.
    Marissa, it is much like this Blog, you can read and get offended OR you can read and sift the thoughts of others for possible wisdom.
    The scientific evidence is pretty compelling about the modern free-choice relationship paradigm and the reported relative happiness of women. Women today have unfettered opportunities for mating, jobs, education, sexual license, you name it…and THEY report being more unhappy than ever! Women also report record prescription drug use, alcohol abuse, rampant divorce, rampant STD infection rates, single motherhood….are these women all fibbing? Where is the bliss? Look at how angry you are in your blogs…hummm just say’n

  72. bskillet81 says:

    Jennifer, what you’re missing is that women want it this way. The subtext of Marissa’s comments is that she wants the SMP to be the way it is, because it’s better and more advantageous — FOR HER.

    Exactly. The current SMP favors young women and alphas, to the detriment of greater betas and over-the-hill women. Greater betas used to be the chief winners in Marriage 1.0, because they would be the ones to win yon lady’s hand in marriage, and thereby have access to regular sex and the children and stable home life that betas actually desire (feminist myths about “sperm donors” notwithstanding). Alphas were usually SOL, because daddy didn’t want little Suzie marrying a cad. The alphas would still get some, mind you, but no where near as much as they do today. This is the golden age of the single alpha.

    Older women lose out because society today instructs women to never marry at the age in which they are most capable of attracting a marriage-minded man: Their early to mid 20s. They then hit the wall and are left alone. Or, in response to the cheerleading of the female divorce culture, they leave their husbands in their early 30s, only to find out there isn’t some hot stud alpha waiting in the wing to wife her up again.

    My guess with Marissa is that, even if she isn’t sleeping with guys (I’m not going to impugn her virtue absent evidence), she gets lots of dates and attention from guys her daddy may or may not like, and she doesn’t want anyone to agitate for a SMV/MMV where she actually has a responsibility to act out of wisdom and not tingles.

  73. bskillet81 says:

    She just showed up to stir the pot, then hit the road.

    She got her man-job to completion, and now she’s off reading Cosmo.

  74. Dalrock says:

    Several commenters have pointed out that this clearly touched a nerve. My take on this is any time you make a woman so furious she doesn’t know why you are wrong, all she knows is you are an asshole, you have almost certainly just touched on a fundamental truth.

    The interesting thing is this wasn’t a post in favor of arranged marriages. I’ve gone on record very strenuously and repeatedly arguing that women shouldn’t marry a man they aren’t head over heels in love with. The crux of the post is that the idea that women should fall in and out of love with a series of men prior to marriage is quite new, yet now is taken as sacred and beyond question. I suspect the whole “sale of daughters to the highest bidder” bit is just smoke, since the actual point of the post is too difficult to try to argue against.

    Or it could be that I’m just an asshole.

  75. van Rooinek says:

    The woman has 5 suitors and she prefers #3. However, #3 is poor (or is of the wrong family or has the wrong occupation or her father simply doesn’t like him, etc etc) but #5 is rich which is what her father wants. Guess who she marries? #5 of course, despite her preferences.

    IN REAL LIFE: Guess who she marries? #5 of course, because she’ll sacrifice love for money without batting an eye.

  76. deti says:

    OK. The Q36B Space Hamsterlator (Dalrock model, with extra torque capability) is now ready.

    “Jennifer, don’t you know that women are responsible for any and all evil in our society from the garden of Eden to now, and that all the poor, wee little men are innocent?

    This blog, I swear, is getting more and more extreme with each post.”

    Hamsterlation: Damn. The jig is up. They’re onto us.
    _____________________________

    “And you know, this could have absolutely nothing to do with women wanting to choose their own husband, and not wanting to be sold to the highest bidder by their father or to a man with whom she has nothing in common or is abusive or etc etc etc

    Nope, nothing to do with that at all, it only has to do with women’s desire to be promiscuous.”

    Hamsterlation: I’m looking at the most extreme examples from ancient history and applying them to my life now. Because, you know, ALL MEN are sexist abuser pig couch potatos. It’s my life and I’ll cry if I want to.
    ______________

    “Abuse is one factor, there are many, many, many more. Also, as a woman, I don’t understand why my father should be in charge of whom I spend the rest of my life with. He’s not the one living with him, so why should he get to pick?

    And btw, fathers are still free to give their opinions to their daughters, there’s no one/nothing stopping him from telling her that she’s about to marry a jerk, the only difference is that she doesn’t have obey him.”

    Hamsterlation: Men are abusers, that’s just a given. All men will abuse all women if given half a chance. I know better than my old fuddy duddy dad does. HIs ideas are so rustic and quaint. He can say anything he wants but I reserve the right to laugh in his face if I want.
    _______________

    You know, I don’t even want to know what would have happened to me in the ‘golden’ days. I married my husband against my father’s wishes; my husband’s offense? He’s 10 years older, which in my father’s eyes, makes him a pedophile. My father still refuses to treat him nicely, despite being married for 5 years and my husband being an all around great guy.

    Hamsterlation: “I know better than my dad, and I proved it. I married who I wanted. So I am living, breathing proof of the entire point of this blog: I’m a woman. That means I have the absolute right to say and do whatever I want, whenever I want, with whomever I want, as many times as I want. And you have no right to judge me or criticize me. In fact you must embrace and celebrate my choices, no matter how unreasonable or destructive or unwise. My father has no right to any opinions at all, despite the fact that he’s older and wiser. Nope. I know better than he does.

    And you can’t question me like bskillet did up there. If you do, I’ll just trot out the old “You’re just a bitter, ugly, fat loser who can’t get laid!” insult. Always worked on my dumb ex-boyfriends.
    ________________

    Not bad for a trial run on this model. A few bugs to work out, but not too bad.

    [D: Well done Deti. I especially appreciate the extra torque. That will come in handy.]

  77. Jennifer says:

    Wow, this is freaking hilarious. Yes, my comment was in passing, partly because it was meant namely for Dalrock and I didn’t even know if it would get published. And look what happens, the place blows up! From one comment, a bunch of you guys get so pissy.

    “Jennifer, why am I answering”

    I wondered that myself.

    I agree about sin nature, Brent, but these comments “How was a Victorian woman supposed to feed the hypergamous beast which lay beneath her prim and proper exterior? An entirely new creation was needed, something which previously had lacked even a name” strongly indicate that blame here was being placed on women.

    “How it actually went down was that women have been plotting from Creation to do it their way”

    Oh, so THAT’S how long the scheming and sinful sex has been plotting to make your life miserable.

    Deti, you can blame women all you want, but there also wouldn’t be a hookup culture if men didn’t so eagerly go OUT to sex up women. Hamsterlator indeed; you think women were the only ones trying to do it their way, throughout history? I never called Dalrock a conspiracy theorist, but you certainly are. Blaming females is your new go-to tactic, which you drag along with male misery wherever you go, condemning us all as wicked.

    “It’s about hypergamy and incentives.”

    That’s my point, dragnet: the entire concept of boyfriends and hookup is being laid at the minds of women.

    “women have no fault in any of societies ills. All problems, both mental physical, spiritual and otherwise are the sole fault of men’s devious sexually immoral nature”

    Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I meant when I said that women weren’t the only ones responsible for immorality. Well-translated!

    “Quite why forced marriage is worse than a woman tricking or cajoling a man into marriage by reason of pregnancy or threats of withdrawal of Pussy is not immediately clear to me”

    Right, because that’s the only alternative to forcing a woman to marry.

    “You call these men cheating bastards, but the Bible may simply consider them men who needed more than one wife. If society hasn’t produced an outlet for men to deal with their sexual natures in clear counter-position to what’s in scripture”

    LMAO I haven’t heard the classic “men just need more sex” argument as justification for polyagmy in ages.

    “Once upon a time, by brother borrowed my (coolest ever) bike without my permission. As he was riding past the neighbor’s driveway, the guy’s parked unoccupied pickup rolled back, the parking brake having failed. It knocked my brother over the curb and onto the grass, and the rear wheel rolled over his leg. Fortunately he suffered only (tire-tread shaped) bruises. I threw a days-long tantrum because that obnoxious little brat destroyed my bike. I didn’t care that the bike could be replaced. I didn’t care that my brother might have been killed. My own petty, narrow priorities dictated my whole response to the situation. It never occurred to me that my entirely misguided interpretation of the event wasn’t the definitive interpretation; it was all about ME. I was nine years old”

    Wow, that is embarassing. You haven’t changed much in your bitchy mud-slinging and deliberately dense reactions, have you?

    Male promiscuity produces fewer children than female promiscuity? Any idea how many bastards were produced before DNA tetsing was invented? Me neither, which is exactly the point; not only can men father thousands of children in one lifetime, whereas women can’t even mother a quarter of that, but they could father many children without anyone other than possibly the females themselves being the wiser, should said females be taken during or after the coupling. Plus, there’s the issue of even single women mothering children whose father was unknown.

    “Jennifer didn’t even hang around to pretend to debate”

    Hell, I won’t even bother being polite; I had a liver biopsy to go to, you stupid crank. So sorry online bitching and bickering isn’t as important to me as it is to you. Maybe you should get OFF that birth control? Now, I have more important things to do again: sleep and try to heal. Good luck finding a worthy day job, or any half-assed worthy goal to occupy yourself with.

  78. Suz says:

    Not bad at all!

  79. Opus says:

    As anyone who consults IMDB can see for himself, before 1970 there was only one filmed version of a novel by Jane Austen. Since then it seems to have been at the rate of one a year – and remember there are only six novels. Given that Mr D’Arcy – who even reappears in the Bridget Jones books – is so cold and awkward (though almost as handsome as Colin Firth) it is worth considering why these books and films are so popular with women. They have a man with money who most certainly is exactly the man your father would recommend you to marry, and yet somehow they fall for each other after much initial dislike. You thus get good sense (no way was Miss Bennett going to marry the local bad boy – at best a penniless servant) and mutual desire.

    Marriage is and has always been a balance between these two competing factors. Women need a push to marry and have children (as I observe with the stories of how my friends married and why) yet marrying without chemistry is not good, although that can develop – humans are designed to fall for those they sleep with (thanks Oxytocin) which is why in the hook-up/boyfriend market there can be so much misery. The British Government seem to be off on a romantic folly of their own. May it all have that happy ending we so enjoy.

  80. Jennifer says:

    “She got her man-job to completion, and now she’s off reading Cosmo”

    I don’t read magazines, especially not Cosmo, sweetie. But once again, you’re sex-shaming and it looks poor.

    Deti, here’s one for you:

    Deti: Women have been plotting since Creation to have things their way.

    Deti translation: I’ve had bad run-ins with women and am now bitter and convinced that they’re all out to get men and must be kept in their place.

    Ta.

  81. Joshua_D says:

    “My take on this is any time you make a woman so furious she doesn’t know why you are wrong, all she knows is you are an asshole, you have almost certainly just touched on a fundamental truth.” – Dalrock

    I’m going to put my money in this explanation. #1. It’s true. #2. It has the bonus benefit of entertainment. #3. Well, #1 and #2 are plenty, I think.

  82. Jennifer says:

    Glad you don’t believe in arranged marriages, Dalrock; I never assumed you did. But whether you blame women mainly for boyfriends and hookup inventions or not, this article clearly indicated the former and I found it very grating. I don’t think you’re an asshole, though the peanut gallery would love to say that I do; I do think you’ve veered off the balance I used to associate you with. Now I really must go; glad to see your feelings were not as frantically wounded as those of so many of your readers.

  83. CL says:

    @ Dalrock

    The crux of the post is that the idea that women should fall in and out of love with a series of men prior to marriage is quite new, yet now is taken as sacred and beyond question.

    If only those who have been through this modern form of “dating” could be honest enough to admit that it sucks. It was basically the accepted norm for me (gen-x) and the result is that it’s just tiring, and that even with a low number (by modern standards) of these “dating “ experiences one eventually feels one has lived too many lives. It can be worked through but the past cannot be erased.

  84. Country Lawyer says:

    Dalrock: “I’m not suggesting out of wedlock sex is a new invention, merely the creation of a socially approved way for women to openly engage in it.”

    That wasn’t my dispute Dalrock. In the context of what you wrote:

    “Inventing the concept of boyfriend created a socially approved mechanism for women to obtain/experience the following three things without having to choose/commit to one single man:

    Sex (recently).
    Romance/love.
    Status (having a man publicly invested in her).”

    It is implied that Sex was the more recent of the three things obtained by having a “boyfriend” and considering that less than twenty years after the word is boyfriend is coined there are pick up lines and a fair amount of out of wedlock sex going on I would say there’s no “recent” about it.

    The concept of boyfriend allowed all three of the things you indicate to occur simultaneously.

    [D: Got it now. Thanks.]

    And while the female posters here are getting histrionic about it, after ruminating on this post of yours it seems that this concept of boyfriend was brilliantly diabolical by whomever came up with it. I doubt feminism would have been able to get nearly as far without it.

    I was the absolutely necessary first step to break the family unit.

  85. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Opus,
    You just gave me an idea. I should re-read Wuthering Heights. I studied it in college (BA Engrish). I wonder how it will read post red pill. Heathcliffe was a jackwagon, or so my notes said. Perhaps a book review to follow. There might be other books worth re-reading now. And Shakespeare. Hmmm, Lady MacBeth, we have ourselves a date. Now, wash up.

  86. Country Lawyer says:

    Actually Deti, your chronology is off and some of these things were more the result of circumstances:

    “then suffrage (1919 by Constitutional amendment);” That actually began at the State level as early as 1870 or so and a majority of the state’s had instituted suffrage by that time (contrary to the myth that it was forced on the states. This slow progression allows a very easy analysis of how the governments at the state level changed once suffrage was instituted (and the change was dramatic)

    then automation of housework 1920s-1950s); This wasn’t the result of agitation by women so much as it was a product of men being men and inventing and producing things.

    then outside-the-home employment (WWII, early 1940s); There have always been women that worked, but WWII was a significant factor in changing attitudes toward women in general working and the leaders of industry were certainly no fools in promoting a way to increase the labor pool and keep costs down.

    then cheap, safe and effective birth control (approx. 1960); This is more 1950s actually, with the condom and access to it for everyone.

    then liberalization of divorce laws (1970s); Again, the no fault divorce is just part of it. The shift from defacto male getting custody of children to women getting children started getting pushed around 1870 or so. That alone was a significant change.

    then the sexual free-for-all that became the 1970s and 1980s culture. It just became more open at this point.

    then rampant hookup culture (approx. early 1990s – present). The inevitable result of a sexual race to the bottom.

  87. Marissa says:

    LOL Deti, entertaining but no dice.

    I most definitely do not want to go back to the days where women had to obey their fathers, regardless of them being grown adults, regardless of how badly they treated their daughters and despite their fathers being jerks. Yes, I know most fathers want what’s best for their daughters, but the price is too high even if only 10% of women don’t (and I’m being generous with the percentage). By the way, if they have a good relationship, then she’s going to pay attention to what he’s saying anyway.

    This manosphere need to control women, be in charge of their lives and treat them as property is absolutely staggering and shocking. How do you translate that huh?

    Here’s my interpretation, but ya won’t like it one bit:

    “Some men are too insecure and doubtful of their own abilities, that in order to prove their masculinity and that they’re manly men, they need to control others, especially the women in their lives”.

  88. Opus says:

    @CL

    You are quite right – it is exhausting, yet with the possibility that you will meet someone who has all the best qualities of all your exes and none of the defects. Sadly they usually have all the defects of all your exes and none of the qualities – thus all men are bastards. Not that I am really complaining, as marriage has always been a lottery and there have always been bad and unhappy marriages, but to suppose that that is solved by encouraging women to slut it up over decades (which is what is actually encouraged under the guise of pursuing a career and finding oneself) is surely even worse, for as we know they will always choose Alpha McStud, who – it’s not his fault – by simple arithmetic cannot possibly marry all bar one.

    @rockthrowingpeasant

    Wuthering Heights and the elusive Mr Rochester (who seems to have locked away his wife – the mad woman in the attic) is just as bad. Note, please, that all the Shakespeare heroines are chaste and in the Rape of Lucrece, Lucrece is not a carousel rider who was unfairly set upon as she cruised the rough part of town, having failed to listen to the advice of the misogynist local policeman about not dressing like a tart. Clearly needs a re-write.

  89. Some Guy says:

    @marissa — “Some men are too insecure and doubtful of their own abilities, that in order to prove their masculinity and that they’re manly men, they need to control others, especially the women in their lives”.

    Unfortunately, giving women what they say they want leads to drastically higher chances of a man ending up divorced and his children fatherless and/or abused by his ex-wife’s boyfriends. It’s not a matter of attempting to impress anyone with a feigned masculinity– it’s “be a man or else see your family destroyed by a woman’s unrestrained lust.” If women actually ever rewarded “nice guys”, I wouldn’t have to explore this politically incorrect information….

  90. deti says:

    Marissa:

    before I turn the hamsterlator back on, let me engage you directly.

    Cupcake, men in the manosphere are not about controlling women, and never have been. In fact, women like you are the ones we would most like to leave to their own devices. Men are here to take control of their own lives after being lied to about male-female relationships, sex, dating and marriage. Men are here to take control of their own lives after being taken advantage of, used and abused by cruel girlfriends, fiancees and wives, their money and resources being squandered and wasted on women who have no interest in them; and then divorced for cash and prizes.

    It’s clear that you’re here because you’re mad at your daddy. You’re mad that you married a man 10 years older than you, and your father wouldn’t give you his blessing. You’re angry that your dad has an opinion about what he thinks is your stupidity and short-sightedness, and has no compunction about expressing that opinion. You’re angry that your dad chose to express that opinion and he won’t back down from it. You refuse to consider that perhaps he knows things you don’t know. You refuse to consider that others might see things you don’t.

    You disrespect your own father (in public, no less), who invested untold time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in feeding, clothing, sheltering and educating you. Then, you have the nerve to come here and shoot off your immature mouth about men taking back control over their own lives. Worthless. If you were my daughter I’d sadly turn you out to the world, and would hang my head as the world sapped you dry and one by one the bull alphas drained you of your femininity.

    Before I go, one last piece of advice: You might try listening a little more and talking a little less. Oh, and you might tell your dad thanks and that you love him, just once, because he cares enough to suffer your pitiful wrath for daring to express his opinions about a woman he loves.

  91. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Yes, I know most fathers want what’s best for their daughters, but the price is too high even if only 10% of women don’t (and I’m being generous with the percentage).

    This is how we get moronic nanny-state laws, like Obamacare, seatbelt laws, and outrage that little Timmy rode a bike without a helmet and little Katie brought a soda to school.

    This manosphere need to control women, be in charge of their lives and treat them as property is absolutely staggering and shocking. How do you translate that huh?

    “Projection,” that’s how.

    “Some men are too insecure and doubtful of their own abilities, that in order to prove their masculinity and that they’re manly men, they need to control others, especially the women in their lives”.

    Your lame “shame” attempt aside, leading is not controlling. This is what I meant when I suggested you are a blind-drunk (wo)man, swinging wildly at imagined foes.

  92. deti says:

    Marissa’s rants are nothing but an immature girl’s temper tantrum because her father said “no” to something she wanted: Her father’s blessing and stamp of approval on her marriage. She knows she was wrong.

    What will you do next, Marissa? Stamp your feet? Whine “IT’S NOT FAAAAIIIIRRRRR!!” Throw your cell phone across the room?

    If I knew your father, Marissa, I’d shake his hand. He’s an alpha among alphas for having the stones to say “no” to one of the most important women in his life.

  93. Sunshine says:

    “that in order to prove their masculinity and that they’re manly men, they need to control others, especially the women in their lives”.

    Because they’ve figured out that the women love it. Thank you, sir, may I have another…

  94. Joe says:

    Ahhh, I get it. In the bad old days, the patriarchy was keeping women down with these traditional roles.

    Now a woman can go blow half of the Sigma Alpha pledge class or sleep with the mailroom crew or kick her husband to the curb to demonstrate to all of us how she has been liberated from the patriarchy.

    Some would say it’s a scam that guys and woman-hating womyn have perpetrated. Not me. I say, “welcome to liberation, ladies! Now drop trou and lets get to liberating you some more.”

  95. bskillet81 says:

    By the way, if they have a good relationship, then she’s going to pay attention to what he’s saying anyway.

    This is just a father-daughter version of the usual tripe that, if a husband just treated his wife in XYZ way, she would naturally never cheat on him, never frivolously divorce him, never submit a false DV claim, etc. etc. In other words, it’s a claim that woman are naturally perfect, and they only reason they do something undesireable is that they were just responding to a man who didn’t do the right thing. Therefore, men have all the moral culpability for wrongs in society, and women have none.

    The underlying self-contradiction here is that they assume women’s supposed moral perfection in order to remove any female moral accountability. Reality: A father can be the most ideal dad on earth, and if his daughter is just a bad person, it won’t matter what he says.

  96. In all fairness, the Sexual Revolution was heavily promoted by men in my generation (mid-Boomer) because we believed it would result in the Utopia of More Pussy (and better pussy) for All Of Us. For a brief shining moment, between Roe vs. Wade and Watergate, this was true. Women went a little crazy with their new freedoms and a lot of substandard men got lucky (and spoiled).

    Then women collectively realized that for the same amount of effort (that is to say, practically zero), they could sleep with Manley McHardon and Billy Munnybags instead of Turkeyneck McGeekgeek. But getting Manley or Billy to wife them up got even harder, which caused women to pursue them even more diligently. This caused Turkeyneck to whine and cry “That! Can’t we get back to that?” referring to the halcyon days of the early 70s.

    Ain’t gonna happen. As far as being insecure and wanting to control the women in our lives, we notice that Manley and Billy do actually exercise considerable control over the women in their lives. We’d just like the same control.

  97. Marissa says:

    Yes, you are absolutely right about one thing–I’m against patriarchy and male dominance because of all the stories that I heard about women crying about what jerks their fathers are and how thankful they are that they had the opportunity to leave and make their own decisions and make their own choices. And you know nothing about my father, so stop making assumptions about him. And also stop making assumptions about my husband, he’s a great guy and we have a wonderful marriage, and 10 years is not that big of a deal. It’s not like I’m Woody Allen and married my adoptive daughter or Leslie Moonves and married someone with a 20 year difference.

    Also stop playing the shrink, stop taking your anger out on women on general because [D: Off topic personal attack redacted]. As well, you’re really bad at it.

    About the rest of your post–boo hoo hoo, go cry me a river or write a story about how bad men have it. And oh, I’m here because this website is too entertaining, it’s like reading the tabloids.

    And now I’m done.

    [D: I miss you already.]

  98. Sunshine says:

    Marissa brings out my obnoxious side. I will stop commenting on her comments now in order not to complete irritate everyone. 🙂

    I think I’ll go see what other wisdom I can find..maybe I’ll start here…
    http://community.feministing.com/2012/06/08/single-most-annoying-question/

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Marissa, I think I see what you are trying to tell us, but am not quite sure yet.

    Could you please post some more, and explain in detail what you mean?

    Thanks.

  100. Opus says:

    I realise that the idea of an arranged marriage is anathema to all western people, yet where I live the most successful and stable marriages are contracted by those practising arranged marriage i.e. the Hindus and Muslims. Indeed I knew a woman born in Pakistan who told me that at about the age of 26 (being tired of the carousel) she asked her parents to find her ‘a suitable boy’, which they did. Whether she would have been happier remaining on the carousel I cannot tell.

  101. Is that sarcasm?

    Im slow today.

  102. Sorry, question was for anon guy

  103. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    AR won’t pull the wings off the fly. He’ll just smear some honey on the walls.

  104. I have to wonder about the Pakistani carousel…..Im curious

  105. Danger says:

    @Marissa

    Perhaps I should be more clear in my point. Given the number of “deadbeat dads” going parabolic while simultenously lined up with women’s sexual liberation, it seems pretty apparent that women are ALREADY choosing very poorly.

    It is pretty well established that young women like men who have a “fire”. Their hypergamy demands they satiate that fire regardless of the long-term consequences.

    Dad’s role was to protect his daughter and channel it appropriately to the RIGHT man, not necessarily the RIGHT NOW man.

    We can clearly see the impact on today’s society from the removal of that very important vetting instrument. A world full of single mommies and fatherless children.

    The father may not have to live with the man, but it would appear that he still knew best. And played the part in the best way possible to protect both his daughter and his grandchildren.

  106. Cane Caldo says:

    This coincides with the rise of the idea of “adolescence”.

    Going from childhood to adulthood is too hard. I know: let’s invent an in-between time. We’ll give it a name. That way, while we have technically defined it, in practice it is as flexible as necessary.

    Adolescence dovetails nicely with the boyfriend idea. Now there’s an appointed time to not expect people to grow up. It’s perfect for un-adult scenarios like boyfriends…you know, for un-adult things like fucking without commitment.

  107. elemental says:

    Marissa, you think you’re being clever by throwing some incisive remarks and turning peoples words around against people, but you’re just making yourself look like someone who never got over her daddy issues. Talk and verbal-fight is just for women and effeminate men, it has no affect on people unless they’re emotional.

  108. deti says:

    Deti: Women have been plotting since Creation to have things their way.

    Deti translation: I’ve had bad run-ins with women and am now bitter and convinced that they’re all out to get men and must be kept in their place.

    I don’t know why I feel the need to respond.

    It’s more like this:

    “I, like every man alive, have had bad run ins with women. I now know why I had those bad run-ins. I am convinced that most women are looking out only for themselves and their own interests, and I must therefore protect myself and my children. I will therefore trust only those who have earned that trust and proven themselves worthy of it.”

  109. There is nothing stupider on the planet than a 52 year old woman introducing me to her 55 year old “boyfriend”.

    Shit, I’d rather you just come out and say “This is the guy I’m fucking now”.

  110. Opus says:

    @Empathologicalism

    What more can I tell you about the Pakistani woman?

    She wanted to marry; was not having enough luck using the western method of finding Mr Right; and went without any shame to her parents for assistance. (I did not enquire whether she was being pumped and dumped or ignored). She had a photo of her husband on her computer and I thought he looked like one of those Bollywood Movie Stars with that full moustache of his – she laughed at my mistake.

    I think she rather liked me, but then I am not into married women, but as dusk came on and she began to stand somewhat closer to me and for longer than was neccesary, I realised that even women in arranged marriages cannot resist my aristocratic charm (or whatever it is). She was pleasant and helpful to work with.

    Now you know all about her, but I do not think it would have occured to her to describe her marriage as Slavery for the sole (?) reason that it was arranged by her parents.

  111. Joe Sheehy says:

    Fathers are on board with feminism as much as anyone else, because blue pills keep fathers from going insane. And part of that blue pill is to believe their daughter is a good girl in college, until there’s no plausible deniability left.

    Generally speaking they act against interests of devout Christian men, because a Christian man will be overt in his intentions, instead of a sneaky cad. The blue pill renders cads invisible, but makes “Christian men” into abusive, creepy perverts who want to touch their “little girls” (18 year olds)

    Marrying without father’s consent is not something goes against tradition. Certainly not in America. Jefferson Davis thought about challenging the father of his first bride to a duel.

  112. deti says:

    Marissa:

    “I’m against patriarchy and male dominance because of all the stories that I heard about women crying about what jerks their fathers are and how thankful they are that they had the opportunity to leave and make their own decisions and make their own choices.”

    Thank Gaia you only HEARD about those stories. You made your own decisions and choices, despite any efforts to stop you or influence you, and despite your father’s contrary opinions. No ill has befallen you. You still got everything you wanted, yet you come here throwing your temper tantrums and insulting and denigrating good men.

    Why are you so angry? You got everything you wanted.

    “Also stop playing the shrink, stop taking your anger out on women on general because [D: Off topic personal attack redacted]. As well, you’re really bad at it.”

    I bet that was a good off topic personal attack. The fact that you felt the need to write it and Dalrock felt the need to redact it tells me my aim was and is true. I am really good at it, and what’s more — you know it. If I weren’t, you wouldn’t have written it.

    Game, set, match.

    OK, who’s next?

  113. pb says:

    I just started reading the comments, but in case it hasn’t been mentioned yet – From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America by Beth L. Bailey, which does talk about the introduction of cash dating.

  114. Crank says:

    @Marissa

    “Abuse is one factor, there are many, many, many more. Also, as a woman, I don’t understand why my father should be in charge of whom I spend the rest of my life with. He’s not the one living with him, so why should he get to pick?”

    First, in the vast majority of cases he wasn’t generally picking – he was simply reserving a right to reject someone he deemed unsuitable (and, ironically, such a person would have been more likely to be abusvie). You need to keep in mind that these decisions were often made when the “woman” was 16 or so, and I would say that at that age she probably was not capable of making that decision without guidance. Educated white middle class and upper class women now tend to marry and have kids much later, so yeah, they are capable of making that decision, generally better than their fathers would. But, outside of that little cocoon, minorities and lower class whites are generally getting knocked up (either out of wedlock or in an early marriage) much earlier, and I think it’s pretty obvious that those young women are making relatively poor decisions about which men to reward with their sexuality. Unfortunately, the fathers are no longer around in those communities to influence this choice, so Dalrock’s point is moot here.

    Secondly, save the “sold to the highest bidder” crap for people in India or Saudi Arabia. Fathers in the west tend to really dote on their daughters, and the idea that any meaningful number of them would simply sell their daughter into misery is silly.

    Lastly, save the crap about abuse and infidelity driving women to divorce for people who won’t question your claims. The available information suggests that very few of the many many women who blow up marriages are doing so because of physcial abuse or infidelity (and, ironically, the women in those situations seem to be more loyal to their husbands than the women who have nice respectful husbands).

    None of this is to suggest that I am advocating that women not have the right to choose their husbands or mates, since it would be entirely unworkable and preposterous now. But we do need to force them to own their choices after they are made.

  115. Crank says:

    @marissa
    “I married my husband against my father’s wishes; my husband’s offense? He’s 10 years older, which in my father’s eyes, makes him a pedophile. ”

    Ironically, it appears your father has been very much influenced by modern feminists and their demonization of normal male sexuality, including attraction to younger women (and I mean “women”, not “girls”). Your father never would have held those views 80 or 100 years ago. He would have been relieved to see you with an older and more mature man who was ready to take on the responsiblity.

  116. Marissa didnt do the women need to be able to divorce to get away from abuse…..did she? did she?
    Oy….
    Its a running list of push button cliche responses

  117. deti says:

    Funny. Because of men like her father, and because of patriarchy and male dominance, twits like Marissa can sit in air-conditioned rooms, houses and offices and type out screeds on laptop computers invented and paid for by men, communicating through sophisticated electronic means invented and refined by men on blogging programs invented and refined by men, while sitting on comfortable ergonomically designed chairs and sipping clean, clear, filtered water from a glass or Evian from a safe plastic bottle.

    Because of such men, tonight she will dine on safe, healthy and nutritious food prepared by knowledgeable workers, most of whom will probably be men. She will drink some wine shipped here and imported here by men, from fruits planted and grown by men, and paid for by other men. She will shower in a home constructed and maintained by men. She will watch some TV on a device invented, refined and paid for by men; or take a jog on roads and sidewalks constructed and maintained by men. She will sleep tonight on a mattress invented and built by men.

    She will do all this in a country whose borders are guarded by rough men who are willing to lay their lives on the line. They are willing to kill or be killed in Marissa’s defense.

    Yet, we’re told patriarchy and male dominance is the enemy.

  118. @Deti…

    Don’t forget that men are supposed to do things AND be completely subservient to women.

  119. bskillet81 says:

    She will watch some TV on a device invented, refined and paid for by men

    Don’t you mean, “She will watch some Lifetime TV on a device invented, refined and paid for by men”? Which, of course, explains why she is blissfully oblivious to the obvious truth of everything else you just said.

  120. Looking Glass says:

    This thread was pure, high comedy. I had a great laugh.🙂

    And, to all, great work. I’ve never seen a Hamster throw a torque converted that badly before. It was a sight to behold.

  121. But when she is under the man will she lay back and think of England

  122. pb says:

    CC:

    “This coincides with the rise of the idea of “adolescence”.

    Going from childhood to adulthood is too hard. I know: let’s invent an in-between time. We’ll give it a name. That way, while we have technically defined it, in practice it is as flexible as necessary.

    Adolescence dovetails nicely with the boyfriend idea. Now there’s an appointed time to not expect people to grow up. It’s perfect for un-adult scenarios like boyfriends…you know, for un-adult things like fucking without commitment.”

    This would seem to highlight the rise of dating as a consequence of the breakdown of “traditional” society as a result of industrialization and changes in the political economy and the loss of family and other communal institutions. There would seem to be a growing infantilization of Americans in the 20th century, accompanying the increasing necessity of secondary education (followed by the increasing necessity of a college education).

    Changes in middle- and lower-class practices in matchmaking here in the US probably paralleled changes in Europe; I suspect that the two world wars may have accelerated these changes in Europe, especially the U.K.

  123. Comment_Whatever says:

    Please Dalrock, you talk like women were plotting from Victorian times to alter society so it spun around hypergamy and are single-handedly responsible for the invention of boyfriends, which is bullshit.

    Plotting is hardly required. The dark side of Woman wants certain things. And that dark side in every woman applauds and promotes the removal of barriers on endless courtship and serial monogamy. It despises and seeks to remove barriers on those things.

    No conspiracy is required. Simply the dark side of women in general pushing for the getting what it wants. Are is plotting now required for someone to push for what they want?

  124. CL says:

    @ Marissa (at the risk of beating a dead horse…)

    This manosphere need to control women, be in charge of their lives and treat them as property is absolutely staggering and shocking. How do you translate that huh?

    And how do men treat their property? They value, defend and even cherish it. Don’t you want to be valued, defended and cherished?

  125. flybynight says:

    Really some great posts here today..yes @CL exhausting.. makes it hard to get back in the pool.

  126. okrahead says:

    It’s this simple really….
    1) Old school: Father (mature adult with a gimlet eye towards suitors and daughter’s long-term best interest at heart) selects a group of greater betas from whom his daughter is allowed to pick a husband. Greater betas in question must first have palpably demonstrated to the father their noble intentions, good character, ability to be providers, etc.
    2) New school: Daughter (immature juvenile ((the brain is not fully mature until mid-20s)) picks a “husband” ((long term boyfriend)) after having “hooked up” with several “guys”, this “husband” is chosen based on his bad-boy alpha traits, which means he will be short term fun and long term misery.
    No, it did not and does not happen this way in every instance, but this is the paradigm and the majority of outcomes for both instances. It (the old school) is also the pattern established by Paul in I Cor. 7.

  127. bskillet81 says:

    2) New school: Daughter (immature juvenile ((the brain is not fully mature until mid-20s)) picks a “husband” ((long term boyfriend)) after having “hooked up” with several “guys”, this “husband” is chosen based on his bad-boy alpha traits, which means he will be short term fun and long term misery.

    A few folks here have said something similar on this post. But I think it needs slight correct.

    It is more accurate to say that in the New School, the daughter is given full control over whether or not she even marries, and is given full control without oversight on whom she dates and what she does with them. As a juvenile, she of course goes after bad boys until she hits the wall at age 30.

    She then gets desperate, and possibly has a bad case of baby rabies. So she tricks some beta schlub into marrying her. After she gets the kids she wants, she promply divorces him, taking half his assets as and much more than half his income in alimony and child support for the rest of her life.

    She takes the kids and moves halfway across the country, alienating the kids against their father. Poor beta schlub ends up despairing of life. Either he ends up finding the manosphere and growing a will to fight, or he falls into nihilism, or he just blows his brains out with a .44 one day.

    As for her maturing in her late 20s, the fact is that because feminism has worked so hard to remove any and all responsibility and moral accountability from young women, she never matures intellectually. She just bounces from hamster wheel to hamster wheel for the rest of her life.

    Witness our friend Marissa.

  128. Joe Sheehy says:

    Okrahead, the difference is not the power of the father. Fathers still do have a lot of power to keep certain men away from their daughters and to discourage marriages. Particularly for girls under the age of 18. It could be said they have more power than before.

    What they don’t have is the will to enforce sexual propriety. That is, they will delude themselves, find scapegoats to blame, to blame anyone for their daughter’s behavior but their daughter and themselves. And if their daughter does marry under their auspices, they are likely to be very meddlesome with their son-in-laws. Fathers today are a major part of the problem. It’s not that girls under a protective father are not getting guidance. It’s that they’re being led down paths that lead to short term social approval for the father, despite the potential for disastrous long term consequences.

  129. nitouken says:

    Deti; I’m seriously begging you here; PLEASE start blogging. Three times in your absolutely STUNNING responses to Marissa I sat here slack jawed amazed at what I was reading.

  130. Suz says:

    Ah. Jennifer reveals herself. We now know why she always “has to go now.” She’s sick. At the risk of being presumed utterly evil, I’m going to speak the unspeakable. Jennifer is scared, so she spends her spare time trolling the Manosphere to distract herself from her worries. She is indeed a drive-by troll, with no real interest in the topics. She’s just looking for a place to let off some steam. Men, as usual (along with the women who actually LIKE them) make convenient targets for random vitriolic attacks.

    Jennifer, I am sorry that you are sick and scared. Your medical condition however, is not an excuse for your malicious behavior. You are very immature.

    Marissa, you are absolutely determined to be a waste of skin. Enjoy your drama, because that’s all you’ll ever have.

  131. an observer says:

    Wow. Nerves hit and all that.

    I find it hard to understand the arrogance that says ‘i know best’. Most of the people i knew that married in their twenties made poor choices. Many acted out of rebellion, as i was friends with most of the parents, too. Most went on to separation and divorce. Their lack of experience and insight leading to a predictable outcome.

    Most of my early gf choices were no better.

    In mate choice, why would you solely trust your own judgement?

  132. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Most of the people i knew that married in their twenties made poor choices.”

    Or maybe they lived in a society that punished them for marrying in their twenties, and that rewards women for divorcing and blaming it on youth and inexperience.

  133. Joe Sheehy says:

    Young men need more guidance in avoiding a bad marriage than young women. It’s one of the few benefits of the marriage market being the way it is today, that young men are able to avoid rash decisions because they generally don’t have the option of marrying early.

  134. bskillet81 says:

    In mate choice, why would you solely trust your own judgement?

    You shouldn’t. I listened a lot to dear old mom and dad. Still chose poorly, largely because of things I ignored that mom and dad didn’t know about.

    Dear old mom in particular gave me lots of advice that I would later recognize as latently red-pill (like, watch out for Disney Princess fairy-tale types). And I, on the other hand, clung to the blue pill notion that wives never cheat and divorce is always the guy’s fault. As long as I didn’t screw up, the ex-Mrs. BSkillet and I would be together forever, I thought.

    Man, that was a hard lesson to learn….

  135. Wudang says:

    Deti:

    “The subtext of Marissa’s comments is that she wants the SMP to be the way it is, because it’s better and more advantageous — FOR HER.”

    Not really. It is more advantageous for her evoloutionary agenda of getting the “best” offspring not for her happiness. Are women really happier with this SMP? Not at all, it is much worse for them and womens happiness has dropped sharply since hte advent of the sexual revoloution acording to happiness researchers.

    Whenever someone advocates strongly for society to be formed acording to what is 100% in line with their evoloutinary agenda they are speaking from a selfish instinct. That influences the whole psychology of the person in a selfish direction and is detrimental to the person in other areas because any selfishness infests the rest of a persons psychology and character and lets loose bad instincts.

    In this case where we are talking not about the best evoloutinary agenda in terms of what gives you the best genes to pass on AND how to best have your children raised but only what gives the best genes to the detriment of how the children best can be raised. When what you are advocating for is something that will give you good genes but will give your children bad conditions to be raised in your psychology picks up on that and is poluted by that just as happens when you desire or advocate anything else that serves an instinct in you but will make your children miserable. For example planning to get impregnated by a sexy bad boy you know will not be involved in his childrens lives can not help creating rot in your character because you are putting your selfish animalistic desire for hot sex and sexy babies above your childrens need for not feeling unloved by their father and not having contact with their father.

    Feminism in all areas advocates for the instant superficial gratification of the mother above the deeper needs of the child. Frivolous divorce for the flimsiets of reasons above a secure home for the children, satisfying the mothers need to not have to have anything to do with the ex husband above the needs of the child to have a strong bond and frequent contact the father, the mothers selfish interest in getting the baby she adopts away as far away from her as possible above the childs interest in being adopted by the father, the mothers desire to be the primary caretaker above the need of the child to have the father as primary caretaker when he is the more fit parent, the desire of the mother for total sexual freedom without consequences above a society that isen`t rotting in all areas because of that etc. etc. etc. This way feminism trains women to see their own interests as more important than their childrens interests while fooling them into thinking their own instant gratification interests are actually always in perfect alignment with the best interest of the child. Now the thing is your subconcious can tell the difference between this and a stance on how things should be that does not spring only from a narow selfish primal drive but from carefull reflection of consequences that puts the happiness of children and of men and women in society at large above your own in the way you think the societal contract should be formed. The process is entirely different and it influences ALL of your being making you rot in other areas as well.

  136. DYOR says:

    Excellent post Dalrock.

    The statistics are proof of the decaying society we live in(US). I think you upset and struck a nerve with certain ladies on this topic. You whore around in your prime, don’t expect a good man to come swooping in with his captain save a hoe cape. Cause and effect? There are consequences in the way you behave.

    I grew up seeing many promiscuous(slutty) women. I don’t have a problem with them I just won’t marry any of them.

    Good points deti

  137. dgarsys says:

    I know this blog is mostly christian – oriented, but as someone who’s known a few in the Wiccan community, there are two types there. The (majority) fluffy bunny huggers (hamster wheel feminists, even the guys) and the ones who don’t eschew self-defense, nature red in tooth and claw, and the male nature.

    While both may touch on stories/etc. related to “bad” feminine traits, the fluffy ones typically only have a “positive” focus.

    The minority ones – the ones for whom it’s not just a trendy way to stick a middle finger in the air to their parents or some such – have taken a serious look at nature, and men, and women, and reality, and fully understand that women can indeed be exactly as often described here – capricious, wanton, disloyal. And that there is a positive male nature.

    Of course, most of that minority are men, and most male neopagans I’ve run into are not Wiccan, but Asatru (norse based) – where odin/Thor provide a somewhat more manly model.

    The capacity of women to ignore their own natures, even as so many of them look at a movie like “Mean Girls” as a documentary, is mind-boggling. The inability to acknowledge that they may be equally flawed and act in their own self-interest for what gives them sensual / physical pleasure despite consequences, is almost more mind-boggling.

  138. an observer says:

    Most of those marriages ended when the woman said do. ’nuff said.

    Counsel from others was essential. My own vetting ability was blue pill, nice guy, marriage 1.0 clouded.

    I count myself blessed to have married well.

  139. Clarence says:

    Jennifer:
    Good luck with the biopsy.
    Dalrock: Another post of yours I will probably end up linking someone to. I find myself doing that quite often. Good job.

  140. an observer says:

    Tfh,

    Are you sure its every three weeks?

    Sounds almost like an ovulation cycle.

  141. chaz345 says:

    Dalrock,

    You know you are on target when people who want or desparately need to disagree for some reason, can’t do so without massively distorting what you’ve said like Jen and Marissa do.
    I haven’t been at this all that long and already the objections have become predictable and boring. Toss out a few accusations of wanting to control women, sprinkle in a little hysterical fear mongering about abuse and finish with a couple accusations of hating women and they’re done.

  142. tm says:

    Somebody pointed out once that any sentence that contains ‘as a woman’ is likely to be a feminist statement. These days we hear it all the time. I have noticed it’s been used no less than four times in the comments to this great article. Incidentally, ‘as a man’ does appear, but only once, and said in jest as the poster is sarcastic.

  143. bskillet81 says:

    As a man, I greatly enjoy torturing the hamsters of women who say things like, “As a woman.”

  144. Wudang says:

    dgarsys, my impression has been that pagan circles, like tantric circles, produce some of the most extreme cases of female entitlement and superiority beliefs. Women being spiritual guides for men etc.

  145. Stingray says:

    And how do men treat their property? They value, defend and even cherish it. Don’t you want to be valued, defended and cherished?

    CL, that is brilliant!

  146. dgarsys says:

    Yeah – that would be the fluffy hugger Wiccans. Definitely overrepresented there, and in far more virulent form. All obsessed over the feminine aspects of nature (forgetting the other half), and the female gods (while ignoring their personality issues or the male deities in the pantheons they borrow from). The ones who can’t realize that sometimes the feminine is a stone cold selfish b*** among other things (and not at all nice), or that there IS a masculine nature as well – and that it is not all awful, inferior, etc. A bunch who proclaim how wonderfully self-aware they are, while utterly lacking in self-awareness.

    But then most counterculture types are far more ideologically rigid to their counterculture model than any normal person is to normalcy. And blinkered to things that just don’t fit.

    The rare ones I knew who dig deeper than “I am goddess” have been virulently anti-feminist.

  147. Jimmy says:

    Don’t you want to be valued, defended and cherished?

    No, they merely want to be rented.

    That is why Marissa and Jennifer are sluts.

  148. Wudang says:

    Thats very interesting to me dgarsys. My meditation teacher says that the women he meets who have done some real spiritual work are an absolute pleasure to be around and are very balanced, while most of the new age crowd, male and female, which rarely get down to really doing anything substantial, are just anoying and on some sort of neruotic trip.

    The goddess (and god) thing anoys me immensly. I don`t know much about the original philospy but I would imagine it points to the deeper divine parts of mans nature which one can come into contact with in deep meditation and eventually bring forth to an increasing degree. But it seems like to me what is more common is believing that instead of this being something that is an inherent potential and in a sense also a constant aspect of the whole person it is taken as almost or in fact meaning that any dumb neurotic thing a woman does or thinks is somehow something divine and amazing. It is sort of infusing your everyday psychological ego self with the BELIEF that it is angelic or perfectly synonomous with a deeper divine self instead of actually REALIZING some of that divine self through spiritual practice. So no matter how narrow minded, stupid, neurotic and selfish a woman is she is still worthy of having that narrow mindedness, stupidity and selfishness validated as goddesslike divine. To me it seems like the whole goddess thing just creates immense narcisism and entitlement of galactic proportions in the women.

    The whole new age scene strikes me as a case of extreme yin excess and no yang. There is a lot of feeling, a lot of intuition and basic spiritual and bodybased instinctual pull in a good direction but there is zero rigour and discipline and goal orientedness in practice which leads to people sort of aimlessly roaming about in stead of actually practicing with the effort, sense of mission and will to push oneself and truly confront oneself which has always been necessary to get anywhere, there is no realism in evaluating anything, whatever one irrationaly feels at the moment is confused with profound intuiton, there is the faulty belief that softness is good and hardness is bad, there is a confusion of momentary symathy with real empathy, there is no understandin of moral stricture or morality ever costing anything, and a bunch of other silly stuff. To me that is all about there being lots of yin but no yang, only femininity and no masculinity. If you look in a manual of chinese medicine and you look at how they descirbe states of loads of yin and very little yang that is a state of disease. As is a state of lots of yang and very little yin which would create a reverse imbalance. Its mind boggling to me that those people can not see that. How can you have even just the most basic knwoledge of yin and yang and not see that?

  149. Nas says:

    Dalrock you are brilliant!

  150. Very interesting history. Sure makes a lot of sense. Boyfriends are a place holder. Before you were either single or married. That was it. Now, there is limbo land of boyfriends. With boyfriends, you can keep one around until you are sure there is absolutely nobody better. I don’t get the women who have boyfriends for 5 plus years. If he hasn’t asked you to marry him, he isn’t going to.

    Even more interesting is how a post like this can get women so worked up. I’d say this is a very mild post for the manosphere.

    CL,
    “And how do men treat their property? They value, defend and even cherish it. Don’t you want to be valued, defended and cherished?”

    Well said. That got me thinking…much better to be a man’s private property than to be public property. As public property, meaning unmarried or in boyfriend limbo, with no one invested in them, women are not treated as well. As public property you are fair game to the gamers and other characters.

    bskillet,
    “As a man, I greatly enjoy torturing the hamsters of women who say things like, “As a woman.””

    LOL.

  151. greyghost says:

    I’m very late to the party and I had to comment at # 1. This first one is from our beloved Jennifer
    “Please Dalrock, you talk like women were plotting from Victorian times to alter society so it spun around hypergamy and are single-handedly responsible for the invention of boyfriends, which is bullshit. Nowadays you talk about women like we have no control whatsoever and brought down society because of our innate desire to be hypergamous sluts. “Hooking up” was not even a common occurence until after the late ’60′s, and women weren’t alone in creating that, dear man.”
    Dalrock you are doing the lords work. That was the funniest thing I ever read. I teased you numerous times about always finding a way to support MGTOW when you are trying to find ways to have healthy relationships. But them bitches,churches and any where else you go and resaerch over and over again tell you things are not good. You have seen so much it is getting hard for you to pretend like there is something to hold on to.
    Keep working at it. (I’m waiting for your article titled “Fear of Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood is Societies only Hope”) All men out there know this we are living in interesting times we are witnessing and most importantly participating in the changing of western civilization.
    BTW screw you Jennifer for talking to my boy Dalrock like that he is a local Texan and gun owner.

  152. Sunshine says:

    @ Wudang
    “Feminism in all areas advocates for the instant superficial gratification of the mother above the deeper needs of the child.”

    Yes, that is very well put. Recently a French feminist named Elizabeth Badinter has been in the news for her book “The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women,” which argues that women are held back and imprisoned by the current emphasis on “natural” motherhood, which she says is such things as women breast feeding their babies, taking care of them while they are small instead of putting them into daycare centers, and so on. She only seems ever to talk about women..what they want and “need” and never about what would be best for the children. It disgusted me to read it.

  153. Sunshine says:

    nitouken wrote: “Deti…Three times in your absolutely STUNNING responses to Marissa I sat here slack jawed amazed at what I was reading.”

    I’ve been amazed by almost everything he’s written for the past three days. I’m taking notes.

  154. Suz says:

    Sunshine, I keep several of Deti’s comments in a Word file.

  155. Phantasmagoria says:

    Wow. I’d like to be surprised at the amount of hostility in some of the comments made here, but I simply can’t (which is depressing). Does it always have to come down to someone’s opinion being somehow better or more valid than the other person? Why can’t we just have a civil debate without having to resort to infantile name calling and personal attacks on people just because they have a different opinion?

  156. bskillet81 says:

    Does it always have to come down to someone’s opinion being somehow better or more valid than the other person

    Here’s something to chew on: If two people are stating mutually exclusive ideas, at most only one of them can be correct. This is called the law of non-contradiction, and the very fact that you can read this on the interweb depends on this law.

    So yes, someone’s opinion must be inherently better and more valid than someone else’s.

  157. Will S. says:

    Damn straight, Bskillet!

  158. Phantasmagoria says:

    Okay, I can accept that, but what I can’t accept is having to resort to ad hominems that have nothing to do with the current voicing of opinions in order to try and validate your own, like what Marissa was doing. It defeats the whole point of the debate, in my opinion.

    I’m sorry if I’m missing the point here and I’ll admit that there are things that I am just not able to wrap my head around but if you’re not going to address the issue in question and instead resort to shaming tactics and strawmen arguements then why bother getting involved at all?

  159. Suz says:

    Attention whoring. It’s not about the issue, it’s about *ME* That’s what Marissa’s and Jennifer’s do.

  160. Will S. says:

    Exactly, Suz; it’s all about them…

  161. RICanuck says:

    As I read Marissa’s comment, (which only tangentially related to the post), she leaves out one major motivation for her Dad being such a ‘controlling bastard’. Dads with sons or daughters of marrying age or already married are deeply invested in their real or potential grandchildren. I’m a grandpa myself. We don’t want our daughters to marry cads, no matter what the tingle. We don’t want our sons to marry solipsistic women (even if most of us don’t know what the word means).

    I know several men my own age who are just torn to pieces after seeing what their grandchildren are going through with family breakdown. It’s even worse for paternal grandpas, because their grandchildren are very often ripped right out of their lives.

    Older men seldom discuss this sober, so the Marissas of the world, and their moms don’t hear about. They just think we’re callous. BTW it hasn’t happened to my grandkids.

  162. infowarrior1 says:

    @Jennifer
    You need to get dominated(I mean get laid). You will love it.

  163. Johnycomelately says:

    Great post but I don’t think the sexual revolution was driven by hyperagamy but is an effect of wider cycles, primarily technology and affluence. Older customs stem from states of material deprivation and were designed inherently to promote survivability (no state to take care of bastard children and no male investment in promiscuous women).

    Wealth breeds licentiousness, it did for the Romans, and as we know the wages of sin is death, so this is eventually going to get very ugly.

  164. lavazza1891 says:

    “Well said. That got me thinking…much better to be a man’s private property than to be public property. As public property, meaning unmarried or in boyfriend limbo, with no one invested in them, women are not treated as well. As public property you are fair game to the gamers and other characters.”

    I don’t think that the criticism is directed to one state over the other. The idea is rather that women shiuld have the right to cherry pick their favourite things from both states, without the collolaricies (spellling?).

  165. lavazza1891 says:

    Johhnycomelately: For me the meta explanation for most things that have happened in “modern time” is cheap and bountiful energy.

  166. Just1X says:

    Greyghost’s suggestion of a post on
    “Fear of Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood is Societies only Hope”

    is the best idea that I have seen in a long while. If that doesn’t put the hamster amoung the pigeons / cat amoung the hamsters, I would be very surprised.

    Please Dalrock, pretty please. You know that you want to…

  167. P Ray says:

    Marissa:
    “Some men are too insecure and doubtful of their own abilities, that in order to prove their masculinity and that they’re manly men, they need to control others, especially the women in their lives”.
    And yet a husband who isn’t manly enough doesn’t deserve to be/stay married (trad-CONs say that).
    Why, it’s almost as if women want the license to do whatever they want … but claim that the man made them do it!
    But I suppose in the statement about being “strong, independent women” … the idea of responsibility get left out, because men are responsible for everything men AND women do.
    Doesn’t that mean women get out of their responsibility for their own choices?
    Wouldn’t that mean men and women aren’t equal?
    How strange.

  168. Opus says:

    I have just re-read the entire thread comments, and thus have been most amused by Marissa; but I am concerned. Marissa is married to a man ten years younger than her and her Father did not approve of the marriage by reason of the age gap. This seems to be a festering sore. We do not know how old the respective parties were at the time of the nuptials, but we do know that if Marissa was of minimum age (16) that makes Husband 26. The ages were almost certainly greater, but even so, what exactly is wrong with that? Do I detect a quasi-incestuous desire by Dad for Marissa? Is that what lurks behind Marissa’s tirades?

    I was thinking about evil patriarchs who refuse to allow their daughter to marry the man of their choice; and what better example can there be than Clara Weick who was only seventeen when she and Robert Schumann met and fell madly in love. Father did not approve and blocked their happiness. Eventually after many trials and tribulations they married. Ten years later (doubtless caused by Clara’s new infatuation for young Johann Brahms – fifteen years youner than her) Schumann having first been committed to a mental asylum drowned himself by throwing himself in to the Rhine.

    We at least have some great music (Robert’s and Johannes – not Clara’s) – and I have the status of being (pianistically )a pupil of a pupil of a pupil of Clara’s.

  169. ukfred says:

    @Marissa “And btw, fathers are still free to give their opinions to their daughters “

    I was only a few years younger than my mother’s youngest sister. I remember when she was about to get married for the first time. I recall my grandfather, her father who was a foreman in a local foundry, telling her that he’s had to sack her intended because he could never get up and get into work on time. Her elder brother’s friend came and told her that her intended was a complulsive liar and had been sacked from the place they had worked together because he kept having unauthorised days off. Her best friend told her he was a no-user. But she still went ahead and married him because she was ‘in lurve’. She finally kicked him out after about 10 years when they were evicted for non-payment of rent when she had given him the money to pay the rent and they had two kids of 7 and 9. She ony learned her lesson when it was taught to her by bitter personal experience, and at a cost to her two children. This woman was not stupid. But she let her heart rule her head, as many 20 year olds do.

    Have you read the results of the Terman longitudinal study and the effects of divorce on children. If not, please do so and then comment on divorce and its effect on the children of the marriage.

    You might see better if you took the 6-foot cubed block of bigotry out of your eye.

    @ Country lawyer
    “The twenties, in fact the entire 20th century had plenty of premarital sex going on, it was generally way more discrete, with women going to “school” out of state if they got knocked up. “

    Indeed. Have a look at the Alan Watt videos on Ukfred’s blog to see that this was with the active consent of the the state so that the family bond would be more easily broken.

    @Whitestone
    I agree with what you have written, but I would ask you to note how many cases of polgamy resulted in a successful familial relationship with all the children in later years.

    @Joe Sheehy
    I think that there is a difference between being able to choose, with the family filtering out the undesirables and having an open choice of all,including the cads and bounders.

    @Deti
    I wish I had your gift of translation!

    I just loved your description of Marissa as gordon Brown having a temper tantrumn and throwing her / his mobile across the room.

    @Wudang
    You have eloquently shown that feminism is simply a branch of marxism designed to destablise the family

    @LauraGRobins
    “I don’t get the women who have boyfriends for 5 plus years. If he hasn’t asked you to marry him, he isn’t going to. “
    This is part of why I keep telling one of my daughters to move on, but not to openly because I think if I did, she would dig her heels in and turn out like Marissa.

  170. dgarsys says:

    @Wudang:

    Heck yes on all that you wrote. “I am goddess” meaning “I am a goddess and whatever whim I follow is well and good” – not “I have the potential for greatness if I actually choose to do what is necessary to achieve it and meet the consequences squarely”. “Do as thou wilt” being used for “follow your whims” – while forgetting that everyone else can do as they wish also (including guys) – and also forgetting that WILL (and thus persistence, discipline) – not whim – is where you achieve mastery. All too easy to get stuck in the shallow aspect of “Ohhh shiny” without plumbing the depths.

    No surprise it’s full of raging feminists who seem to forget that nature can be an impersonal and uncaring, selfish b***h. Few, if any, have been in an environment where they have to confront that, and where what you FEEL doesn’t matter. What you DO, does. Where acting out like a child and not directing your emotions appropriately will get people hurt or killed.

    An alternate look – originally applied to firearms and how dealing constantly with situations where you have to be aware of life or death issues changes you: Ethics from the barrel of a gun – http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

    I’ve excerpted the main point below. I’ve found the themes brought up almost anathema to most touchy-feely feminists of any stripe, but as Dalrock has pointed out elsewhere – many women don’t want danger. They want safety with the THRILL of danger. They want to be entertained like children and to know that it is safe.

    The first and most important of these lessons is this: it all comes down to you.

    No one’s finger is on the trigger but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can’t move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?

    A second is this: never count on being able to undo your choices.

    If you shoot someone through the heart, dead is dead. You can’t take it back. There are no do-overs. Real choice is like that; you make it, you live with it — or die with it.

    A third lesson is this: the universe doesn’t care about motives.

    If your gun has an accidental discharge while pointed an unsafe direction, the bullet will kill just as dead as if you had been aiming the shot. I didn’t mean to may persuade others that you are less likely to repeat a behavior, but it won’t bring a corpse back to life.

  171. Opus says:

    Is the boyfriend going the way of the Dodo?

    In an age of Hook-Up culture what is the point of a boyfriend?

    I have reason to believe that Manfriend is a euphemism for male prostitute.

    Frequenters of Female prostitutes enjoy what is known as Girlfriend-experience.

    Men and women cannot be friends because sex will always get in the way.

    Some women are Honourary blokes – as are faghags – and men merely tolerate them.

    The tragedy for men – but not women – is that casual sex is unsatisfying if paid for.

    A single man is a loser; a single woman desirable.

    Career-minded single women are the new courtesans.

  172. greyghost says:

    Marrisa is just a straight up crazy chick. I would not try to argue any points with her other than as a way to speak to the crowd of spectators.

  173. Sunshine says:

    (Off Topic, if guns can ever really be off topic…
    “An alternate look – originally applied to firearms and how dealing constantly with situations where you have to be aware of life or death issues changes you: Ethics from the barrel of a gun”

    By the way, Happy National Take Your Daughter to the Range Day! My husband and four-fifths of our daughters are out the door to the range…hope you’re doing the same. 😉 )

  174. Opus says:

    One of the greatest fallacies, as implied by Marissa’s comments at 09.14, is that (in choosing for oneself) women or men thus have an almost unending choice spread out before them of suitable prospects. This I say is nonsense. Take any point in your life, say now, and ask yourself, ‘if I desired to marry, who might I place on the list of possible candidates?’ One would of course remove anyone who was not acceptable, and I am guessing that the number of people available to choose from would be at most two or three and more likely no more than one (The One).

    In an Arranged Marriage system (or Dating Agency system) the number of possible candidates would appear to be much greater, as the list would not be limited to ones personal acquaintances, but would include all those who not only wanted to marry but who would be in a position to do so without impediment within a wider circle of people. Dr Johnson opined that marriage should be left to the decision of The Lord Chancellor without reference to the wishes of either party, and thought that would be as likely to produce suitable matches as personal choice. Onitis, is certainly, for a man, a bar to clear thinking on the subject; choice-addicted alphaitis is a clear-thinking bar for a woman.

  175. Sunshine
    Practice the head shots. When the zombie infected spread outside Miami, ammunition is the order of the day, no wasting on panic semi auto. One head, one shot

  176. Brendan says:

    Okrahead, the difference is not the power of the father. Fathers still do have a lot of power to keep certain men away from their daughters and to discourage marriages. Particularly for girls under the age of 18. It could be said they have more power than before.

    What they don’t have is the will to enforce sexual propriety. That is, they will delude themselves, find scapegoats to blame, to blame anyone for their daughter’s behavior but their daughter and themselves. And if their daughter does marry under their auspices, they are likely to be very meddlesome with their son-in-laws. Fathers today are a major part of the problem. It’s not that girls under a protective father are not getting guidance. It’s that they’re being led down paths that lead to short term social approval for the father, despite the potential for disastrous long term consequences.

    I agree very much with this. Fathers are a large, large part of the problem. Fathers don’t want to exactly know what their precious princesses are doing after dark, but they *do* encourage them very strongly to go down life paths that put them (1) in direct competition with men (which the fathers vicariously enjoy when the girls “beat” the boys, as a proxy for he, himself, shoving them aside competitively), (2) on the path to late marriage and (3) in a position of complete independence from any male “partner”. Fathers are the biggest cheerleaders of feminism going, to be honest. Yet another case of men being each other’s greatest enemies.

  177. Elspeth says:

    Yes, Brendan you are both correct. I think some of the protest from women at the beginning of the thread was more about the fact that many young women are steered toward this path by their elders and the culture, not that it is what they desire. They just haven’t been exposed to anything else. I feel great sympathy for many women under 25. They simply do not know any better. And I feel great anger toward their mothers and that generation of fathers for setting their daughters up this way.

    It’s more complex than, “Young women want it this way.”

    My own father was very diligent about my comings and goings, so much so that I was mocked for being a 17-year-old who not only couldn’t date, but couldn’t even leave the house if one of my parents wasn’t there to do intel. I was an anomaly in my community to put it mildly.

  178. Elspeth says:

    Oh, and when I was allowed to date a boy from a family my father trusted, I was 18. It did not go well, and I was back on lockdown until I left home just shy of the age of 21. 18 months later I married my husband.

    What i saw as oppressive then, I see as a great blessing now.

  179. Brendan says:

    Exactly. It works better that way, but most parents aren’t willing to do that any more (and if they do, most kids just move out when college comes along and don’t look back, and do what they want, with the full applause of virtually the entire culture, which worships youth right now).

  180. Anonymous Reader says:

    The idea that 18 year old women should move several hundred miles away and live in a totally unstructured environment with strangers is a rather new innovation. It dates to the 60’s, IMO. Relations who went to college in earlier times have told me of women-only and men-only dormitories, where adults put limits on social life in various ways. And of course only a minority of people even went to any college at all. Most people went to work in a family business, or attended a trade school, night school, and so forth.

    “Dating” is, as Dalrock implies, only 80-odd years old. It was made possible in cities by innovations such as the subway, the street car, etc. as well as the automobile.

    I’d say off hand, our experiment in letting 18 year old women and men decide pretty much everything for themselves is not working out quite the way it was supposed to. More families like Elspeth’s parents could only improve the situation.

  181. Elspeth says:

    and if they [parents] do, most kids just move out when college comes along and don’t look back, and do what they want, with the full applause of virtually the entire culture,

    That’s what my older sister (13 years my senior) did. Moved out one week after graduating high school. She was 17. Said she couldn’t deal with the strictness.

    I’m not sure why I stayed home until almost 21. I often thought I’d follow in her footsteps. I’m glad I didn’t. But you’re right. Most young women simply escape to do what they think they should be free to do, with disastrous results. They don’t see it as disastrous because they think their idea of “freedom” is the way life is supposed to be lived. After all, everyone else is doing it.

  182. Rodimus903@hotmail.com says:

    I think that society has greatly reduced any social controls for the young, particularly women. My freshman year in college I lived in a “Boys” dorm. It was nominally an all male space but their were more than a few girls coming and going to meet boyfriends (I don’t know if in a social setting if this should be the right term since most of those being seen appeared to be the rare 19-20 year old upper class man, the Freshman, not so much).

    I first was really confused about the mating seen upon entering the bathroom and behold a young, erm,, “lady” exiting the showers with a young man, nude. Now mind you, this was an all boys dorm and I can not stress how much of a shock that moment was.Never in a million years did I think a girl would act like that, outside of a Hollywood Raunchy comedy like “Animal House”, and even then they stressed the restraints on female hyper-gamy (its amazing to watch “Animal House” with red pill eyes and see just how much their were restraints on female hyper gamy, how involved the parents were in maintaining social boundaries). I think in hindsight, it was my first red pill experience on just how daring or foolish a female can be for an alpha male who had mastered game (not much of word for it then). It took finding the Manosphere years later to begin to understand why a woman would put herself in that situation amongst a lot of young horny men. It took years of reading and slowly applying the concepts of game to understand what a woman desires “right now”. I wonder how many men see a woman in that state, in that situation, in that place, with no male around think she’s offering herself for sex with them.

    This was in fall 1997 before Girls Gone Wild raunch had taken off, and the I get the distinct impression that college social scene has only gotten more dangerous for alpha and higher beta men, more confusing mid range beta men, and more angering for omega men, and driving more women down the cat lady path 10 years later.

  183. Wudang says:

    Its of topic but I found this extremely interesting:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/women-decide-to-rule-the-roost-1-1503380

  184. Comment_Whatever says:

    Exactly. It works better that way, but most parents aren’t willing to do that any more (and if they do, most kids just move out when college comes along and don’t look back, and do what they want, with the full applause of virtually the entire culture, which worships youth right now).

    How many of you “good parents” out thier have apologized to your children for selling hard the “go to college no matter what” bag of *bleep*? None?

    THAT IS RIGHT.

    Maybe they have caught on to the fact that if you waste years of their lives cause they were stupid enough to listen to you then the answer is not to listen to you. See? They are TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for being stupid enough to listen to you and fixing the problem on their own.

    You should be happy.

    You mean the whole cultural is filled with ENVY for young people and strives hard to make their lives sufficiently miserable so as to make up for the “joy” the young people get in being young.

    Pretty women do have some advantages… mostly because of the large number of 25-35 year old men who are unmarried. This is also hated by “the cultural”.

    Young men are simply supposed to be miserable.

    I’m sure the whining of your compatriots when they can no longer strive to make their children miserable because their children are no longer listening to them is quite loud. That doesn’t mean they are “worship” their children though.

  185. @ Opus – kudos for the well thought out replies. Definitely at the deep end of the pool.

  186. Comment_Whatever says:

    And here I always thought it was the mother who bullied the daughter into dating an appropriate man.

    Now I discover much to my surprise and all previous knowledge, that it is the Father who relays the demands of the mother and thus the Father who is entirely responsible for the young woman’s choice. Not the old woman knitting circle.

    How surprising. Learn something new every day.

  187. Wudang says:

    This british MP is anti feminist:

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/tory-mp-blasts-obnoxious-feminist-bigots-and-says-men-get-a-raw-deal-6559004.html

    I am going to email him with links to manosphere sites. If anyone here is british (I am not) they might start sending him emails about britsh mens rigths issues:

    dominic.raab.mp@parliament.uk.

  188. freebird says:

    “Eve-always at risk of being tempted by the serpent-could=
    Serpent out of wedlock sex and/or adultery.
    “Knowledge of good and evil = your either faithful to God (the Father) or your whoring after out of wedlock penis.(Or adultery)
    @ Suz, it kinda turns me on when you attack these wanna be harlots.Perhaps the ‘now order’ will be-
    “Let she and her fight.”ROFL.
    BTW -Marrisa is not thinking with “her ego.”
    She’s considering empowerment to take of the fruit of good and evil.
    (Out of wedlock Penis-adultery)
    It’s her right-because men did it first?
    The hamster is strong with this one.
    But hey,any excuse to fly through life crotch first-right?
    Also: I do not understand this recent universal rebellion against the father, it seems that is what fuels a lot of bad-boy seeking- to hurt the father,whether he is aware of it or not..
    Must be something in the water.
    (Or academia)

    Wise women listen to what father say.
    Rebellious women act out spitefully.
    (Out of ignorance,I suppose)

  189. freebird says:

    Lots of spelling mistakes above.
    Please bear w/ me.
    Christianity/stable society= strong pair bonding+solidarity/faithfulness.
    Paganism/satanism = bonobo action.
    Either way the recent doctrine is to blame the male for either of her choices (of the day)
    Men do pair bond more strongly than women.The male suicide rate post divorce is 7 times that of the female.
    It seems we are replaceable/interchangeable at will, and the law supports this innate female tendency.
    The rate of never married is inverse to promiscuity?

  190. freebird says:

    strike “inverse” and insert direct proportion.

  191. Opus says:

    @Michael Singer

    Thankyou for your kind and encouraging words.

    I have found the head-essay rather revelatory, as I had never previously considered the points Dalrock makes. I am still considering the implications and perhaps a future post will enable us all to return to the subject of what is a form of sexual/social/relationship Limbo – the boyfriend.

  192. Legion says:

    Phantasmagoria says:
    June 8, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    If the care bears have a blog, maybe you should go there.

  193. freebird says:

    My last few comment sure look disjointed.
    Missing words and improper spelling.
    Will leave it the reader to insert words,ect.Was letting the flow of thought get into text.
    *Waves jazz hands*

  194. Phantasmagoria says:

    Care bears? What do they have to do with anything? I’m confused.

  195. Pingback: Never marrieds piling up part 2; what should I do? | Dalrock

  196. imnobody says:

    @Marissa.

    Oh yes, most definitely. Women are too stupid to make their own decisions and need their father to pick their spouse.

    Yes, definitely. As Clotaire Rapaille explains (“The Culture Code”).

    The Japanese offer perhaps the best illustration of the differences in attitudes toward love between an adolescent culture and an older culture. Japanese men and women often ask me to describe how Westerners marry. I tell them that a young man meets a young woman (often one younger than he) and they begin the process of getting to know each other. If he happens to fall deeply in love, the man will ask the woman to marry him, and if she loves him as well, she will say yes (obviously it is more complicated than this in practice, but I get the main point across this way).

    Stunned expressions always meet this description. “The man is young?” the Japanese questioner will say. “If he is young, how can he possibly have enough experience to make a decision of this type? Only his parents can know what kind of marriage is appropriate him and will allow him to raise the best family. And you say the woman is younger? That means she is even less experienced than he is!”

    They save their greatest contempt, though, for the notion that Westeners marry for love. “Love is a temporary disease”, they tell me. “It is foolish to base something as important as creation of family on something so temporary”.

  197. Aleph One says:

    I have a grandmother who was born in 1880 and died in 1985. She once mentioned to me that she had been engaged to 12 different men. I was shocked. “Grandma! Were you really?”

    “Oh, yes.” She blushed. “You had to be engaged before you could kiss.”

    Only the term “boyfriend” is new. Female behavior has not significantly changed.

  198. Will S. says:

    @ Aleph One: Really? I take it, from your stated timeframe, that most or all of her engagements were in the days before engagement automatically meant a diamond engagement ring for the woman…

  199. terra says:

    What’s even more ironic about Marissa’s grade-A BS is that these are the same women who will turn around and cry hysterics about the modern plague of domestic abuse, battering husbands, abusive boyfriends, etc. etc.

    Never mind the fact that women tend to get themselves into these situations and that there’s a substantial body of evidence that it actually turns them on; how about the fact that “liberating” themselves from those awful fatherly protections apparently didn’t do squat for their chances at staying safe?

    Do girls even read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” in their kindergarten years?

  200. Opus says:

    Having had some weeks to reflect on this thread:

    The concept of boyfriend expands; thus Husbands are no more than temporary boyfriends: to date someone more than once creates an LTR: the celibate boyfriend is a fool to himself by investing emotional energy which may not be reciprocated: The boyfriend’s position is, given women’s greater sexual powers, merely marriage-lite. All men are thus advised to avoid boyfriend status, for it is neither fish nor foul; neither marriage nor casual sex: an arrangement where the woman can determine at any time and post facto what her relationship with the man is, yet if the woman is not celibate she treates herself as an unpaid prostitute and if celibate is merely a tease.

  201. Michael says:

    Amazing Charts… beyond true.

  202. Pingback: A Vindication Of The Writings Of Men

  203. Pingback: Their misogyny excites every feminine cell in her body. | Sunshine Mary

  204. Pingback: Links and Comments #16 | The Society of Phineas

  205. Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man

  206. Pingback: A Feature, Not A Bug | Donal Graeme

  207. Pingback: A Feature, Not A Bug — courtshippledge.com

  208. Pingback: Random Musings and Links- #6 | Donal Graeme

  209. Pingback: Attack on Japan: Marriage | YAMANOUS

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s