This won’t end well.

The Atlantic has a piece out by Leslie C. Bell titled Women in Their 20s Shouldn’t Feel Bad About Wanting a Boyfriend (H/T Free Northerner).  Ms. Bell takes issue with Hanna Rosin’s assertion in Boys on the Side that young women are entirely satisfied with the hookup culture.  Interestingly both Bell and Rosin agree that hookup culture is being driven by the choices of women, they just disagree on how comfortable young women are with the results.  As is typical for this kind of article, neither offers any actual statistics to back up their assertions.

Given the lack of data it isn’t possible to state for certain what is going on here, but my personal guess is that both are right to a degree.  Given the Sexual Market Place (SMP) power position young women hold they are the ones in the position to demand hookups, “relationships”, or marriage.  Since hookups are the order of the day it is clear that this is what young women are demanding.  As to the point of contention, my own sense is that early 20s women are by and large quite happy with the hookup culture while late 20s women are increasingly uncomfortable with it. Either way, those young women who are uncomfortable enough with the hookup culture always have the option of electing for something different.  It isn’t until their mid to late 30s that they will find that men are now the ones in a position to set the frame of the SMP.

What neither author noticed is that young women are comfortable with hookups because they assume that LTRs and ultimately marriage will be theirs for the taking once they tire of hookups.  Flings/hookups are fun, and even (feel) empowering when a woman is young and in the SMP power position;  each new encounter is further proof that she holds the veto power over men.  However, when the men are the ones doing the vetoing empowerment turns into a never ending round of rejection.  Instead of having men pursue her she finds herself being passed around, if not passed over.

Ms. Bell quotes a woman named Katie who at 25 is right on the dividing line between early and late 20s.  Katie is torn between her desire to demonstrate girlpower and her fear of ending up alone;  she worries that her focus on higher education and career will ultimately limit her romantic prospects:

She felt deeply ashamed by such thoughts, worried that they signaled weakness and dependence, qualities she did not admire. To put such a high premium on relationships was frightening to Katie. She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.

Part of the problem is the message parents are sending to their daughters:

Many feel ashamed about being too relationship-oriented in their 20s. Parents warn, “Do you really want to settle down so early?

What neither the young women nor their parents are taking into consideration is that young women who decided to ride the carousel in their 20s are already starting to have great difficulty finding a husband when the time comes.  What young women are doing by voting with their sexual power for hookups and flings over LTRs and marriage is changing the way men are approaching sex and relationships.  When they finally are ready for LTRs and marriage they are finding that the prospective husbands they expected to be in a holding pattern for over a decade are hard to come by.

Men in their early 20s are observing that marriage and girlfriends aren’t in the cards, and this reduces their incentive to work hard to demonstrate provider status.  Their female peers are too busy hooking up with cads while misguidedly trying to signal their own provider status.  In short, the grooming process for grooms is vanishing.

Eventually the reality that an entire generation of women can’t devote their most attractive years to casual sex and then marry in their very late 20s or 30s will sink in.  Not all women will find this impossible, but it is highly unlikely they will be able to marry at the rates they are expecting.  This sense of certainty is what kicked off the entire process, so once reality fully sinks in we will start to see women in their 20s react to this latest round in the sexual revolution.

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Choice Addiction, Death of courtship, Finding a Spouse, Hanna Rosin. Bookmark the permalink.

300 Responses to This won’t end well.

  1. YOHAMI says:

    Depends on what you call marriage, though.

  2. driversuz says:

    The other day I posted Danny’s “Bubble Gum” article – this will make an excellent follow-up! Thanks!
    http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/bubble-gum/

  3. deti says:

    “Eventually the reality that an entire generation of women can’t devote their most attractive years to casual sex and then marry in their very late 20s or 30s will sink in.”

    Yes, but until then it is changing quite gradually. For about the last 20 years or so, and for the most part, women in their late 20s and early 30s have been able to marry after their trips on the carousel. The catch is that these women are not marrying as well as they could have had they married at younger ages. They are marrying men they either aren’t attracted to or who cannot or do not hold their attraction. And they just aren’t bonding to these men they are marrying. These women are marrying less for love or attraction or the desire for companionship than for the status of BEING married and for the provisioning.

  4. an observer says:

    Sigh. Those nasty men have no idea how hard it is to be empowered, and how much help women need to be strong and independent.

    Perhaps a single woman’s tax rebate would help.

  5. deti says:

    “When they finally are ready for LTRs and marriage they are finding that the prospective husbands they expected to be in a holding pattern for over a decade are hard to come by.”

    The “prospective husbands” they are thinking of are the attractive men they were having sex with in their 20s. The way many women look at this is:

    “Well, we were hooking up when we wre in our 20s, and at that time you didn’t want to get married. I wanted to get married but I didn’t say anything about it, because I thought that you’d want to see me again, or date me, or even marry me, because we had sex. Well, I’m really, really ready to get married now. So you hot alpha men should be ready to get married now, because I’m ready. I’ve had my fun, I’m ready to settle down, so it’s time for you to get down on one knee and give me my engagement ring.”

  6. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Katie is torn between her desire to demonstrate girlpower and her fear of ending up alone.

    Don’t worry, dear. By the time you start worrying, it’s already far too late. Just go back to partying and hope it all goes away. Hard liquor will help.

  7. deti says:

    “Given the Sexual Market Place (SMP) power position young women hold they are the ones in the position to demand hookups, “relationships”, or marriage. Since hookups are the order of the day it is clear that this is what young women are demanding. As to the point of contention, my own sense is that early 20s women are by and large quite happy with the hookup culture while late 20s women are increasingly uncomfortable with it.”

    I’ve pointed this out a number of times. Women are saying they don’t like the hookup culture. There are also female bloggers out there saying that you need to hook up smart. Learn how to ju jitsu the hookup culture and parlay that hookup into a relationship. But it’s clear by their actions that women want hookups. The attractive men are out there saying sex or something close to it is the price of admission. And more and more women are responding that they’re willing to pay it. Those same women are saying that if the choice is between sex with a hot alpha and a longshot chance at a a relationship with him; and marriage to a beta — they’ll take the alpha sex.

    So I don’t believe for a minute that young women at the height of their sexual power want relationships and marriage — at least not with the men willing to give that to them. They want what they can’t have — marriage to alphas who will have sex with them but aren’t in the marriage market. They don’t want what they can have — marriage to a faithful nonalpha. For every alpha they chase, odds are there are at least a couple of nonalpha men who would happily wife them up. I think these women know this; but they see these men as “like a brother” or “just friends”.

  8. jack says:

    No Rings for Sluts.

    It is up to men, however, to enforce some dignity for themselves by refusing to wife up a woman who finally wearies of the cock carousel.

    The women are cashing in their best years on play time, and expecting men to commit their best years on them.

    Remember guys, only YOU can stop SlutFraud!

  9. Another chapter in this sad story is how feminist-backed hiring incentives and the feminization of the work-force are robbing betas of their ability to even monetarily provide. Over 50% of college graduates can’t find work. Of that, white females have the second highest employment rate at 55% second only to Asian males at 58% according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers in a survey by Edwin Koc, director of strategic and foundation research.

    Whereas betas never brought on the nookie tingles, they always were at least able to bring home the bacon. Now wives are really going to drive the cycle of hatred as they pull the income and are stuck with their emasculated “trophy” husbands who timidly spend all of their time trying to please the she-man girlpower superhero who is supposedly living the feminist dream: she’s with a submissive and subservient guy who respects and loves her for her ability to provide and she does that as the primary earner. Welcome to your fantasy-land, feminists. Sorry it’s such a disappointment.

  10. greenlander says:

    Great post, Dalrock.

    One thing that you didn’t mention in this post is to what degree the welfare state supports the hookup culture. I believe that supports the hookup culture more than the fear of young women that they might not marry.

    Without makework government jobs, disability, child support, welfare, EIC, medicaid, etc. having an actual provider becomes much more important. Until the system starts to unglue to a larger degree (and it’s pretty clear that the system is starting to fall apart) the “provider signal” will continue to be weak.

  11. gdgm+ says:

    Not to be pedantic, but a slight typo in the last paragraph of the OP:

    “This sense of certainty is what kicked off the entire process, so once _realty_ fully sinks in we will start to see women in their 20s react to this latest round in the sexual revolution.”

    [D: Thanks. Fixed.]

  12. MPK says:

    Hmmmm…..
    “She felt deeply ashamed by such thoughts, worried that they signaled weakness and dependence, qualities she did not admire.”

    That sounds like what I went through. Only I am a GUY. My parents (mostly my Dad) kept trying to lead me along toward marriage, as did many friends who set me up with nice girls. I was scared to death of the whole idea. I now (as a 58 yo man) wish I had started my family earlier. If I had I would have been looking at retirement in the near future. Now I know I will be working until I am 65, if I am lucky enough to stay employed with all of the young lions around nowdays.

  13. jmark says:

    Frankly, today’s woman simply cannot commit to a relationship. The hook-up culture ingrains the habit of non-commitment. Ironically, when the woman also plays “hard-to-get”….well, you end up with a woman who is simply not worth getting. I’ve even witnessed played-out cougars in their 40’s who can’t seem to let go of their habit. They say they want the relationship….but they just can’t commit.

  14. Norm says:

    Who ever marries these women will not have much of a love life. Most of these women cannot bond well (something like iron and clay) and are jaded and have the look. They put out for the hook ups but not for the husbands unless they want kids or the over sized suv. Plus if they are strong and independent, why would or do they want a man?

  15. tbc says:

    A lot of women don’t want the hook-up culture for themselves. The ones who fancy themselves ‘good girls’ don’t want the hook-ups, but they definitely want the culture that sustains it. That is, they want the ability to go to school, be “empowered”, and not have to commit to relationships until they are ready. Some women who are Christian and think of themselves as conservative and who may even be personally chaste don’t want to participate in the hook-ups BUT there are plenty of women who do and the participation of those women has a negative effect on the so-called good girls, creating perverse incentives to play the odds — hook up now and still snag a decent (if not alpha) husband later. And honestly, thus far the odds have been in the favour of women. Most women are still able to get a man to commit to marriage even if they rode the carousel extremely long and hard.

  16. tz2026 says:

    @deti They want what they can’t have — marriage to alphas who will have sex with them but aren’t in the marriage market.
    They could find an alpha who wants to marry, but they are much harder to find and more cautious given divorce laws. They are sexually attracted to alphas but then thinking about marrying one they might not like how he is as a provider. So they are stuck asking the wrong questions, or wanting a disjoint set of characteristics – they want a bad-boy who has a steady income. This isn’t even hamster. It is to want A and not A (A is for alpha) at the same time.
    Math class is hard – Barbie (with the pull-string).

  17. donalgraeme says:

    @ deti

    “So I don’t believe for a minute that young women at the height of their sexual power want relationships and marriage — at least not with the men willing to give that to them. They want what they can’t have — marriage to alphas who will have sex with them but aren’t in the marriage market. They don’t want what they can have — marriage to a faithful nonalpha. For every alpha they chase, odds are there are at least a couple of nonalpha men who would happily wife them up. I think these women know this; but they see these men as “like a brother” or “just friends”.”

    Most women, if given the choice between sex with an alpha male, and marriage with a beta, will choose sex with an alpha male. As simple as that. As long as they have that option, they will choose to be hookup with alpha males. Only when their options with alpha males start to dry up do they choose marriage with the betas.

  18. anonymous says:

    Another chapter in this sad story is how feminist-backed hiring incentives and the feminization of the work-force are robbing betas of their ability to even monetarily provide.

    Yet again, we see dilemma of the modern career woman: She took the job of the man she wanted to marry, and then she wouldn’t date him because he didn’t have a job. This species of foolishness has been observed before –

    “…we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful…
    – CS Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”.

  19. Bob Wallace says:

    “Men in their early 20s are observing that marriage and girlfriends aren’t in the cards, and this reduces their incentive to work hard to demonstrate provider status.”

    I have seen this over and over. “Why should I work hard at college/starting a business if it’s for nothing? No girlfriend, no wife, no children. nothing. What, a house all for me alone?” So they make enough to get by, play video games and hang out with their friends.

    Getting abused/ignored/denigrated is not conducive to anything good. And when the men get older then the woman get hysterical and again abuse and denigrate them for not wanting to get involved with a hostile woman.

  20. Stingray says:

    denigrate them for not wanting to get involved with a hostile woman.

    Come now. That’s not hostility, is it? I thought it was called empowered and strong or some such thing?

  21. TBC, do you equate serial monogamy to the hook-up culture? I do.

    When you say may even be personally chaste it sounds like you are grouping the ONS hook up women in one group, and the serial monogamy woman and chaste women in another.

  22. deti says:

    donal:

    Yes, most women choose sex with the alpha over marriage to the beta. That’s because right now, she has that option. Women had their white knights and manginas legislate that option into existence. Women simply assumed that men would be available for marriage when they (the women) were ready to get married. They simply presumed that men would keep on doing what they had been doing for hundreds of years — get educated, learn trades, become self-sufficient, earn enough to care for themselves, a wife, and kids — with no incentives or promptings to do so.

    The way to fix this is to remove the power and level the playing field. But since that can’t be done. more and more men are simply refusing to play, pay or stay.

  23. deti says:

    Actually, donal, the more I think about it, the way to fix this is to make the women make their choices now, as used to be done years ago.

    Alpha f*cks or beta bucks. Choose now. You have to live with your choice for the rest of your life. Choose alpha f*cks? Fine. That’s all you get. Upside? Hot, fun, drama-filled sex that will tingle you till you can’t stand it. You have your pick of these hot, hot men. Pick one, pick all! Downsides? STDs. Can’t bond to a man. You might fall in love with one of these men, but you cannot have him. You’ll have to work to support yourself. No beta bucks. Eventually you’ll get too old and the hot men won’t want you anymore. Your time with the alpha f*cks is limited. You’ll probably spend your 50s and 60s alone, with no husband, no children, no grandchildren, and no family.

    Choose beta bucks? Fine. That’s all you get. Upside? A man who loves you, cares about you and will support you until he is dead. You’ll be with him a long, long time. He’ll be a father to your children. He’ll be there for you well into your 50s and 60s. Downsides? No alpha f*cks. You don’t get to have any of them. You will miss out on the fun, hot drama filled sex and have to “settle” for ordinary sex in which you’ll likely get to have the occasional orgasm, but it will be with one guy. He’s not all that good looking. He’s not all that much fun. You’ll still have to work, but probably not as hard as if you had chosen alpha f*cks.

    Those are your choices. Choose now. It is not alpha f*cks now until I need beta bucks. You cannot have both. You cannot have alpha f*cks, and then beta bucks.

  24. taterearl says:

    I find it hilarious that women are still trying to be powerful yet they don’t have the testosterone to actually do it.

  25. jack says:

    Shaming, complaining, and ridicule are the only tools left that women know how to use, or are willing to use.

    And they have raised a generation of sackless men who attempt to use the same tools in order to win a pat on the head from the harpies.

  26. YOHAMI says:

    Deti, you’re right. Im deeply sorry for all these beta bucks though. Their lives are going to be rough.

  27. Stingray says:

    deti,

    It could never happen. Most women know (or are aware of) at least one woman whom they at least perceive married the Alpha Bucks. As long as they see this they will strive for it even when they go about the process in the completely wrong way. At least that way they get to live tha fantasy for a short time.

    Fantasy and reality seem to meld at the same age that it is best to marry. The fantasy doesn’t end until the reality they long for is too late to achieve, unless you’re Stella and you got your groove back.

  28. deti says:

    sting:

    I know. Most women of my generation also were able to find someone willing to marry them, regardless of whether they were sluts. I know a group of girls from high school. They were all sluts. They all f*cked, drank, smoked, snorted and toked their way through college and their 20s. And right around age 30, they all ended up married to decent guys — not great guys, not alphas, but decent guys. All but one are still married, with varying degrees of satisfaction.

  29. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    YOHAMI-I’m deeply sorry for all these beta bucks though. Their lives are going to be rough.

    Yes and no. Involuntary celibacy can crush the soul, but part of the trauma is from not knowing WHY it’s happening. I’m hopeful (in the I think it may actually be true sense of the word) that the worst is behind us in this respect. Yes, boys are still being fed lies about what women are and how to interact with them. On the other hand, the genie’s out of the bottle. Boys and men that are mystified that women aren’t what they’ve been led to believe have never had an easier time finding alternate theories if they look for them. And they do.

    And just knowing WHY it’s happening can relieve a great deal of the torture (and replace it with sorrow). The men can see what cards they’ve been dealt and choose how to respond accordingly, rather than flail in the dark wondering what the hell is wrong with themselves.

    And, of course, their odds go up dramatically in finding a worthwhile mate if they know what they’re looking for.

  30. Sherlock says:

    Plenty of alphas marry. Just significantly lower percentage, and at a later age on average. My friend with a 150+ partnercount recently had a babby with is live in girlfriend.

  31. Frank says:

    This is why dating American women is a wasteland of disappointment and pointless grief. If you date them in their twenties they are too preoccupied with hookups. If you date them in their thirties they bring with them a long history of hookups and God only knows what baggage that came with it (kids, diseases, etc.)

  32. deti says:

    “Boys and men that are mystified that women aren’t what they’ve been led to believe have never had an easier time finding alternate theories if they look for them. And they do.”

    If they are willing to listen. If you can wrest them away from churchian lies. If you can get hold of them and teach them.

  33. gdgm+ says:

    But wait, there’s more! _The Atlantic_ also has an additional “bonus” article:

    There’s No Perfect Age To Find A Husband

    Let’s all become more accepting both of women settling down younger than the “right” age, and of women remaining unattached past that point. In the mean time, we as women may—and plenty have already done so—do as we please, and care less what those around us think.

  34. LisainVermont says:

    Here’s a question: Just to play devil’s advocate, if a woman decided to marry in her late 20s or 30s wouldn’t she still have plenty of single betas to choose from? The beta guy might not be her first choice, but chances are he won’t be able to attract a top-tier woman so he’ll settle, too.

    I’m just glad I married in my 20s and that I’ve stayed married for 16 years. I couldn’t imagine dating these days.

  35. YOHAMI says:

    Marriage for those guys is going to be involuntary celibacy plus lack of freedom and tons of nagging. They will become hosts for drama and get a hole in their finances and boundaries and turn into mysoginy. If Deti’s proposal ever comes to fruition, the same choice should be given to men: do you want to be an alpha stud with hot sex and freedom, or to be a beta buck?

  36. Frank says:

    “The ones who fancy themselves ‘good girls’ don’t want the hook-ups, but they definitely want the culture that sustains it.”

    Yep, I’ve met a few “Christian” women like that. Got educated, started careers, talk about how they’re not in a hurry to get married. You think not being into hookups they would be an improvement, but my experience is that they are very rigid and emotionally cold. I’ve seen more warmth out of hardcore 80 year old Catholic nuns running boarding schools with an iron fist. They’re just as equally a waste of time as the hookup crowd.

  37. YOHAMI says:

    LisainVermont, “Just to play devil’s advocate, if a woman decided to marry in her late 20s or 30s wouldn’t she still have plenty of single betas to choose from?”. Yes, and they might settle with one, then divorce.

  38. deti says:

    Lisa:

    “Just to play devil’s advocate, if a woman decided to marry in her late 20s or 30s wouldn’t she still have plenty of single betas to choose from?

    Yes, but that number is dwindling for several reasons.

    1. Fewer and fewer earn enough money to be desirable even as providers. (Provider status is desirable and women want it, but it’s not attractive.) This is the bare, bare minimum for a man looking to get married and fewer and fewer men can even do that.

    2. More and more betas getting wise to the game women are playing, and responding with “no” to marriage — “if you didn’t want me then, I don’t want you now

    The beta guy might not be her first choice, but chances are he won’t be able to attract a top-tier woman so he’ll settle, too.”

    That’s pretty much how it’s been shaking out the last 20 years or so. But I see that changing over the next several decades. It will change slowly. But the quality of the men and women available through this route will decline so much that neither will be attractive enough for marriage.

  39. Frank says:

    “I’ve seen more warmth out of hardcore 80 year old Catholic nuns running boarding schools with an iron fist. They’re just as equally a waste of time as the hookup crowd.”

    Not the nuns I mean, the emotionally cold “Christian” women. 😀

  40. Ton says:

    I’m not sure the typical woman can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Which explains a lot when you apply it to a whole slew of female actions and “logic”

  41. deti says:

    Lisa:

    Yohami is right. Most of those women will settle for betas. Most of those women are also sexually experienced and have been with men more sexually attractive than the man they’re settling for. The result?

    It will start with her growing cold. She likes him less and less. She starts refusing sex. Sex dwindles until it’s once a month or less. She starts demanding more and more of him. She says she’d be in the mood for sex more if he would help her around the house, or he would make more money, or he would take care of the kids, or he would do this or that or the other thing. It’s all a cover up for the truth: She settled. She married a man she isn’t attracted to. She is not sexually attracted to him. She cannot understand why. He is a good man. He did nothing to her. His only offense to her is not being sexually attractive. She resents him for not being attractive. Eventually she blurts out the truth, or has an affair. Or she makes his life such a living hell that he leaves her.

  42. Frank says:

    “It will start with her growing cold. She likes him less and less. She starts refusing sex. Sex dwindles until it’s once a month or less.”

    Just goes to show you can be married and wind up a virtual “incel.” Good times. 😀

  43. Rotten says:

    Lisa:

    1) The betas will not be there because they will not be betas, the will be something less. Once men discover that hard work and playing by the rules is a suckers bet, they will cease to work hard or cease to play by the rules. Look at post communist Ukraine: most of the men there are lazy drunks or violent criminals. That’s the endgame of what the cock carrousel does to men.

    2) Hypergamy: once the woman decides that she is settling, that the man is good but isnt her first choice, the relationship is over. The woman will never be happy, the guy will sense this and the relationship wouldn’t go anywhere.

    3). Divorce Rape: in Europe, once gay mairrage passed (a symbolic issue meaning that mairrage is to be defined by hormone levels, not by the raising of kids), men stopped getting mairred. Again, this had nothing to do with gays and everything with legitimizing the redefinition of mairrages that started with no fault divorces that still punished men. Over half f the mairrages that do happen in Western Europe, happened after the children were already born.

  44. taterearl says:

    Personally those hookup women don’t even deserve betas. They deserve cats and/or loneliness for their poor choices. However since most guys do still have a sex drive and are flattered a gal actually notices them for once…there will still be some that get duped into marriage.

    It’s more important to teach the betas how the world really works…and at least tell them to stand up to women. If you take away the sluts golden parachute…they will either shape up or end up alone.

  45. anonymous says:

    In the end, Alpha men marry only the top tier women, and the rest of the female population has to “settle” for Betas. It has ALWAYS been so.

    However… what’s different today, is the promiscuity. A couple of generations ago, and for most of human history before that, the woman who married a Beta man was a virgin. The Beta husband was by default the “best sex she ever had”, since he was the ONLY sex she ever had.

    Today, most of the young women spend most of their 20’s getting nailed by Alpha men, far hotter and handsomer and higher-status than they could ever hope to marry. This means that a Beta man who, in an earlier age, might have married a virgin at 21, must now wait and wait and wait… and marry a well-used woman of 30 or so.

    Why is this a problem? Besides the reduced fertility and the high disease risk such a woman poses, there is also the cold hard reality that she enters the marriage chamber with a whole lot of sexual memories far, far more intense than Mr. Average Beta can ever provide. This destabilizes marriages, and even if the marriage doesn’t break up, it generally means that she’ll get tired of putting out for her “mediocre” lover after a few years. As a result, the couple’s sex life will dwindle to near zero after a few years of marriage, despite Mr Beta’s desperate. frantic efforts to keep it going.

    The sexual revolution was great for Alpha men. but very bad for nearly everyone else.

  46. greyghost says:

    greenlander
    Look at the whole picture. All of feminism is meant to give women total unempeded hypergamy. All Checks from providership, physical strength, mental strength, sexual power, constitutional rights under the law, even relegion has been feminised to enable hypergamy. Women are getting what they demand and are miserable. All men today are at all measures completely helpless to women except in one area , reality. I fully encourage all women to be true to themselves and to continue their godly devine hypergamous quest for joy and happiness. I always when around young girls feed them the feminist crap about education and not relying on a man stuff. The over all term for society as a whole is the feminie imperative. The ironic thing as discribed by The Karamazov Idea is that it destroys what the hypergamous quest is seeking, years and destroyed lives before they get there. A good example is lost women cannot even go to the church for help or anywhere else. Think about that one.

  47. TMG says:

    Couldn’t it also be said that the men at the top of the food chain are setting the agenda along with women?

    As a lowly benighted lump of a man in my mid 30’s (over six feet tall, decent looking, presentable, solid middle class income, great career prospects, world traveler, intelligent, funny, and creative) that no woman has any interest in, I am unfamiliar with the demands of the top 20% of men but I imagine it goes something like “Dating is for women you’re already sleeping with.” So, is it the case that women are doing hookup culture, at least in part, to access these top men?

    I am not trying to relieve her of responsibility for her decisions, just seeing if there are more pieces to the puzzle.

  48. deti says:

    Lisa:

    In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I married one of the women you describe. My comment at 4:21, except for the last two sentences, was the trajectory of my marriage. The only thing that turned it around was me saying essentially that I was sick of this shit and wasn’t going to take it anymore. She was either going to (1) live up to her promises to me and provide me regular, frequent sex; or (2) be a divorced woman. That’s the “rough life” Yohami’s talking about. To get past it I have had to increase my alpha, absolutely crush her disrespectful attitude, call her out on her disrespect every time it happens, and sort through her department store full of baggage. Is that worth it? Not for most betas/omegas.

  49. Johnycomelately says:

    I find the gist of the article amusing, having a ‘boyfriend’ is settling down?

  50. greyghost says:

    The sexual revolution was great for Alpha men. but very bad for nearly everyone else.

    This was the main reason for a civil society. Rule of law made productive betas the most attractive men. With welfare and government favors and suspention of rule of law for PC classes of people beta males no longer have real social status or admiration. (look at reality TV and see who is laughed at the most) In a broken society (inner city ghetto) with the gross national product being welfare and food stamps paid out to baby mammas the most sexed men are the biggest thugs. The only men able to bring the tingle.

  51. deti says:

    “Couldn’t it also be said that the men at the top of the food chain are setting the agenda along with women?”

    Of course. anonymous pointed that out at 4:27. Alpha men might not be able to demand sex from HB 9s or 10s; but they CAN demand it from HB 6 and 7s, who readily give it up. The price of admission for average HB 6s and 7s with alpha men is sex. Such men in effect say to women: “You want to hang with me, you’re gonna put out. Otherwise, GTFO and don’t waste my time.”

    Sexual experiences with beta men pale in comparison to the tingles she gets from sex with alpha men. The difference is that beta men don’t get sex with HB 9s and 10s unless they pay for it. An average girl can give herself up for an alpha pump and dump; and to her, it’s still more fun , exciting and tingle-inducing than commitment from a beta.

  52. taterearl says:

    ” The only thing that turned it around was me saying essentially that I was sick of this shit and wasn’t going to take it anymore.”

    Which should be the mantra of every beta male.

    After all what is one of the biggest differences between an alpha and beta….alphas don’t take their shit and betas do.

    Men took away the boundary and it has to be up to men to bring the boundary back.

  53. jlw says:

    Guys,

    There will be a pool of suckers for any reasonably-well maintained late 20s/early 30s woman ready to settle down. A lot of sideline chumps in the manosphere talk big about their revenge fantasies of sad former sluts going grey with their cats and so on. That doesn’t happen so much in my experience. There’s a lot of suckers that fapped their way through their 20s that can be snookered into marriage in their 30s.

  54. Rico says:

    My wife’s cousin “dated” A-Rod for a brief period, and married some guy a couple of years later. I don’t know the husband, but I feel sorry for him because there’s no way in hell she’s not comparing her husband to the uber jock every single day of her life.

  55. deti says:

    jlw:

    that’s how it is now, but I don’t see that situation continuing. The quality of men will decline so much, and women will have to reach down so far, that it won’t be worth it. The quality of women is declining a lot too, so much so that marriage won’t be worth it even to men with nothing to lose. It won’t be marriage as we know it now.

  56. Highwasp says:

    I think part of the delusion of women expecting to whore themselves out and then find a great husband, or women who expect to have a great career and financial success plus find an equal or greater male earner, comes from the belief in the lie of the ‘evil white male patriarchy’ oppressing and enslaving women for thousands of years. This lie has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by western culture, women mostly, but men too and with that belief of women’s oppression firmly folded into their brains, women probably believe that the abundance of exploitive masculinity is endless.

    After all, so the lie goes: women were oppressed by men for thousands of years… “heck they just got the vote only 100 years ago” – and of course that’s men’s fault for keeping it from them – therefore – they probably believe this is just the beginning as far as revenge, gaining equality and exploiting the evil patriarchy is concerned… they have another thousand years to catch up to be ‘truly’ equal. If the evil white male patriarchy can do – so can we!

    Take away the lie of the ‘oppressive white male patriarchy’ and their delusional ‘house of cards’ falls thereby exposing the corrupt, self loving, delusional, vindictive, hateful and manipulative nature of the feminine.

  57. greyghost says:

    1) The betas will not be there because they will not be betas, the will be something less. Once men discover that hard work and playing by the rules is a suckers bet, they will cease to work hard or cease to play by the rules. Look at post communist Ukraine: most of the men there are lazy drunks or violent criminals. That’s the endgame of what the cock carrousel does to men.
    Rotten you have said a mouth full this is why all feminised societies fail. The tipping point for america has been reached the majority of voters are looking for free stuff the beta male is a shrinking minority. Sad thing is the beta male is the only type that can live with out all others.

  58. rivsdiary says:

    dalrock, i think this is a perfectly written essay, but hasn’t this same topic been discussed several times — and what i mean is, can’t we go deeper? can’t we go deeper and talk about how women are almost childlike in their wants and needs, how they are so emotional and illogical, and how they need a firm and strong masculine leader to show them the way? i read your blog on and off, and every time i read it, what i read is 1000% accurate and beautifully argued, but it always reaches the same level, if you know what i mean.

    also, have you talked about the book “marry him” on your blog? she makes almost the same point that you just made.

    http://www.amazon.com/Marry-Him-Case-Settling-Enough/dp/B0053U7EII

  59. Ton says:

    I don’t think so jlw. I work with young men. 42 makes you the old man in my line of work. Most of them are up to speed on the smp, and weary of women when it comes to LTR. The only beta I can recall marrying in the last few years found his wife in the Ukraine.

  60. Opus says:

    These articles always look at life from the perspective of the female. I look forward to an article where Dalrock can quote as follows:

    “He felt deeply ashamed by such thoughts, worried that they signalled weakness and dependence, qualities he did not admire. To put such a high premium on relationships was frightening to Kevin. He worried that it meant he wasn’t liberated and was worried that he was still defined by traditional expectations of men”.

    Since when, by the way, was the name Leslie (rather than Lesley) appropriable by women. Perhaps the author felt that Lesley signalled weakness and dependence and was worried that she was still defined by traditional expectations of female names.🙂

  61. Tilikum says:

    “The sexual revolution was great for Alpha men. but very bad for nearly everyone else.”

    te hehe. Yep. Things are very very good for a few. But….

    hit 38 (as a Sigma really) and attract 20 yo HB9+’s on up but realize that they are utterly worthless, worthless, worthless. All of em. They have forgotten how to be women. All of em.

  62. I agree with jlw. If you go to any evangelical church, you’ll see plenty of beta men who married used-up sluts. But they don’t see themselves as betas who got leftovers. They see themselves as real men who are so much better than those Peter Pan man-boys their wives were forced to hook up with.

  63. 8oxer says:

    Plenty of alphas marry. Just significantly lower percentage, and at a later age on average. My friend with a 150+ partnercount recently had a babby with is live in girlfriend.

    You’re pretending that getting married and having a condom break is the same thing, or so precisely similar as to be the same thing. In fact, they’re not.

    I don’t know what an alpha is, and certainly I don’t know what you mean by the term. I agree that a fair number of playas “get played” by women who go digging condoms out of the garbage and “forgetting” their pills and such. Some of these playas might be OK with having a kid, particularly if there isn’t much income to impute. I don’t know any playas who are eager to get married, in contrast.

    Once you see the true nature of the human female laid bare, appreciate her endless grasping and amoral urges, and fully understand her carnal and duplicitous nature, there’s really not much attraction in marriage or long term relationship. No one can play in the sexual marketplace and fail to come to know women for all their qualities and all their faults besides.

  64. tbc says:

    When you say may even be personally chaste it sounds like you are grouping the ONS hook up women in one group, and the serial monogamy woman and chaste women in another.

    No I’m thinking of 3 different categories: ONS hook-up women, the serial monogamy women, and the chaste women (N count <2). The chaste women may have had one or two 'slip-up', but not in the context of multiple serial relationships. That is, she genuinely messed up, genuinely repented, and is genuinely on the straight and narrow. Than again she might be an actual virginal woman. These women are increasingly rare, but they are out there.

    But as I said, they enjoy the benefits of the culture that sustains the hook up culture, complete with all the empowerment, etc. What they don't realise is that the whole thing is a package deal. The so-called sexual and gender revolution that kicked open the door to the hook up culture is the same one that kicked open the door to so-called women's empowerment.

  65. shinzaemon says:

    Upon reflection, I find the betas are still wifing up the carousel riders. However, no one is committing to single mothers anymore. The white knights must have been all taken. Now is too early to enjoy the Spinster Generation. But I believe the captain save a ho era is over.

  66. Jack says:

    Surely, Hanna Rosin must be the dumbest educated person on the planet!

  67. Johnycomelately says:

    Greyhost makes an interesting observation, the Japanese herbivore phenomenon will play itself out differently across diverse cultures.

    In the ex Soviet block the herbivores are drunken violent layabouts who knock up women and leave them, heck in Russia the state is coercing the Orthodox church into sending out priests to socially shame fathers to pay child support (it isn’t working and they have he world’s highest divorce rate).

    Given these cultures have witnessed massive socialism since the 40s and the West has only been on that path since the 70s, we may only be on the cusp of such a change in the West.

    Betas marrying sluts may only be the last vestiges of the ‘old culture’ as Western men begin going down the same route of other socialist cultures. It seems Britain is a decade ahead of the US and the country is in absolute free fall.

    I wonder how the herbivore phenomenon will be expressed in the US?

  68. BC says:

    early 20s women are by and large quite happy with the hookup culture while late 20s women are increasingly uncomfortable with it.

    Younger women are happy with hookup culture because it lets them pull men with higher relative SMV than their own for short-term relationships and one-night stands, which lets them believe that they are more valuable than they really are. A quite seductive lie, if you will.

    Then, as women age and relative female SMV declines, they become increasingly uncomfortable with hookup culture because they find that the men they are able to pull for STR and one-night stands more closely approaches their own (declining) SMV, which is a rude wake-up call as to their true value, not to mention the lower SMV of men they can pull for LTR/marriage.

  69. YOHAMI says:

    Yep, they get critical of the hook up culture when the culture expels them out in favor of younger, hotter girls.. Classic.

  70. greyghost says:

    Captain save a ho is gone next to go will be the beta sucker. As the youger girls ee want is happening and the carousel starts to look bad the young 20’s will actually marry the male late twenty’s/ thirty’s. That is when the fun really begins for the 30 something slut/carousel riders. Throw in a male pill and we have histeria. liitle sutle trends that slide in under the radar getting hapless sluts one at a time with out headlines or fan fare.

  71. Solomon says:

    a little anecdote for ya-

    I lived with a girl for 2 years from age 19-21. She was hot as hell. I was beta as hell. I think I lured her in with ‘safety’ in her tumultuous drama-filled world. (bi-polar etc)

    Naturally, she tired of me and my whining. She couldn’t hack the waitress jobs because of her erratic self, and I couldn’t solve her financial problems with my restaurant work. She looked into taking up stripping, and began cheating on me forthwith. She dated a singer in a rock band, all the cliches. Broke my heart.

    I was shocked that she took on the stripping, too, since she was once a modest girl, but I underestimated the lavish welcome she would receive down that road. She left me, and off she went.

    A couple years ago I ran into her again. 18 years since I last saw her, she was actually still looking pretty damn good, except her complexion and the look in her eyes betrayed her. She could have taken a safe and happy life with me, and I’d have treated her well. Instead, she became a stripper and a prostitute (blatant), replete with a couple straggling kiddos.

    She came on to me thinking that I might still be the beta that she once knew, that ‘safe place’, and that after 18 years of carousels and cocaine, that my buying temperature would still be hot as it was when I was 21. She has to know that her value is diminished, but I think she was hoping I wouldn’t take that into account, or that somehow I never forgot how magical she was or how very much I loved her.

    Well, I never forgot, all right. I recalled the 4 months of excruciating pain I endured when I found her in bed with another guy, even after all the sweet words she once told me.

    so I serviced her that night, and then I sent her packing.

    no charge.

    It had always grieved me that I couldn’t save that girl from a road of great suffering. After seeing her, it grieved me all over again. It left me wondering what might have been, not just for ‘us’, but just for her as a person.

    I reckon she made the bed she is sleeping in, wherever that might be.

    I am so thankful that the road I have traveled in that time, especially recent years, have brought me enough wisdom not to white-knight her. You cannot save them. You just can’t.

    That’s the problem with the issue in the OP- Women are often poor arbiters of what is best for them. Disastrously poor. This is the secret the “empowered grrls” desperately try to sweep under the rug. Most of them flat-out suck at life. The baby that got thrown out with the bathwater is how VERY much a man can help a woman reach her greatest heights, and how VERY likely it is that she will ruin herself on her own accord, squander her natural fortune, and taste great suffering that a man could have led her clear of.

    Male leadership isn’t about oppressing women- It is about helping them.

    I wish I could have helped that one.

  72. dannyfrom504 says:

    Suz-
    thanks for the linkage.

    i’m single and knee deep in the SMP, i will NEVER get married. i have yet to be more than FWB to a woman in her 30’s. most of the women i “date” tend to be 19-25. 19-23 yo’s usually don’t care about it being just a sexual thing. after 23 they tend to get more relationship minded. i’m seeing 2 women now, 21 and 24 and the both know we aren’t exclusive. i ONS frequently. i’d MUCH rather be in a meaningful relationship, but most of the women i encounter just aren’t worth being serious with.

    it sucks that it has to be the way it is, but i didn’t invent the game. i’m just surviving it and trying to help other guys be more successful in the SMP.

  73. imnobody says:

    @LisaInVermont

    if a woman decided to marry in her late 20s or 30s wouldn’t she still have plenty of single betas to choose from?

    Yes, indeed. See some scientific discussion in:

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html
    (later posts of this same blog are also interesting).

    There is a shortage of women in America. For every woman who gets off the cock carousel, there are many sex-deprived betas who are desperate for some affection and sex and that they are willing to marry her. It is this or being married to your hand for the rest of your life.

    And this is exactly the problem. Women behave this way because they can. They know there is a beta for them if the alpha of her dreams doesn’t want to commit. So why don’t give it a try?

    When a woman whines: “where have all the good men gone?”, she not referring to betas. She is referring to the responsible alpha provider of her dreams, who, as Deti says, should want to commit to her, now that she has had her fun.

    When they lose hope about marrying the alpha, they get married with a beta. Only the most picky/hypergamous ones (Kate McBolick, Lori Gottlieb) miss the chance to land a beta.

  74. greyghost says:

    Solomon I bet she would have a whole different complection on her face Sitting on the couch in yalls living room together knitting some booties for her first grandchild. Instead she got the dick and go.

  75. Solomon says:

    well, I went on to make a million bucks. She lost out on that, and she’s still lost today.

  76. greyghost says:

    Solomon
    what did you get into to do that

  77. Anthony says:

    The number of women in TBC’s first category – the hook-up culture’s women – is pretty small. But they get all the attention for a variety of reasons. The women who have a boyfriend in high school, another one in college, another one or two in their mid-20s, and *then* look for a husband is much greater. A lot of these women’s boyfriends have all been borderline beta.

    In that case, the damage, and the prognosis, is different. They’ll get married to a guy who’s a lot like her previous boyfriends, except the husband will be somewhat ready for kids. He’ll be better at some things than the previous boyfriends, and worse at others. The smarter and more self-controlled the woman is, the less likely she is to divorce him once they have kids, unless he’s really useless with them.

    My wife and I are something like this. We both had long-term relationships and occasional flings before we started dating. Neither of us are 9s, or even 8s. I’m not an alpha, though I can play one on TV. I’m not rich, but I’m regularly employed for a decent amount of money. My wife won’t leave me as long as I keep up being who I am, because that would mean a minimum of a year or two as a single mother, and she dreads that for a variety of reasons. A couple like us where there wasn’t that dread of single motherhood, or where the man was irregularly employed, or bad with the kids, or any several other major defects, wouldn’t last.

  78. Solomon says:

    Real estate sales, 1996 to 2006. 1.3 mil.

    I should clarify that I lost my ass to the single mom I ended up with, and I have been struggling (poor as hell) ever since. Only just now, this year, is my penance paid to her and my path clear to rise up once more.

    I lost it all, to be sure. But I still got the talent, and still got my license. =)

    Should be a hell of a year.

  79. Francine says:

    Early 20’s women who want to remain chaste are dis-empowered in the SMP by all the young 20’s women who are willing to give it up easily. A young woman can easily hold out for a “college boyfriend,” as you put it, but if she is unwilling to perform sexual acts even with her “college boyfriend” it takes a very special kind of young 20’s man to agree with that. No actual statistics here, but I don’t think it’s a controversial statement to make that a young 20’s mainstream man who will want that girl unless she’s *really* something special is in short supply.

    Perhaps a more established older man would find that woman attractive, but there isn’t a whole lot of interaction between those age groups, (at least in your typical middle class, every one goes to 4-year college kind of situation) and therefore not much opportunity to meet him. Not to mention the stigma her peers would slap her with (probably out of jealousy) for dating the “creepy old man”.

  80. Male leadership isn’t about oppressing women- It is about helping them.

    Simple, and amazing truth. Everything points to the declining condition for women, depression, that woman’s (your 18 year ago friend) face and eyes, the children, society, all of it, overtly and unequivocally in a place where circling the drain would require significant travel against the flow.

    At least, yes, the real estate market is back. Heard today inventory of homes is low. The biz I’m in is tied largely to new home construction and we feel it big time. Good for you, after all that.

  81. freebird says:

    And, as usual,to mention the now $4 Billion /year that says “Arrest men.”

    No recourse.

    No alpha can out-alpha the law,SHE IS THE ALPHA
    her and her ARMY

  82. Stingray says:

    Most of them flat-out suck at life. The baby that got thrown out with the bathwater is how VERY much a man can help a woman reach her greatest heights, and how VERY likely it is that she will ruin herself on her own accord, squander her natural fortune, and taste great suffering that a man could have led her clear of.

    This is it right here. But everything they value, career, money, stuff, 5 bedroom house, etc is not what ultimately makes them happy. Showing them this at 19, when they are beautiful and getting full attention of a LOT of men and telling them “No way, those men over there and that feeling of power you have right now will fade in 7-8 years.” DO NOT DO IT. It’s not worth it. She may hear you. She may even get it, but the herd tells her that knitting booties for the grandbabies is a waste of time and oppressive. You will never be happy. Couple this with that feeling of power and 7-8 years is an eternity. It’s a hard fast burn of a jet engine with a flame out that the end vs. a life time of a steady flame with some flash fires every now and then.

    They wish for the latter after the flameout as hindsight is 20/20, but how can one compete with the jet engine of excitement that comes from today’s SMP?

  83. jlw says:

    I strongly agree with Imnobody. There are plenty of beta providers to go around. Poor guys.

    “There is a shortage of women in America. For every woman who gets off the cock carousel, there are many sex-deprived betas who are desperate for some affection and sex and that they are willing to marry her. It is this or being married to your hand for the rest of your life.”

  84. anonymouse says:

    The beta birthrate simply is too low to ensure the continuation of the hypergamy phenomenon. The future is Russia/Jamaica. 0 beta males left, the population split between man that do nothing and violent thugs with a small number of men at the very top acting as vultures to occasionally “slum” with the trash women barely surviving.

    Or, where the ghetto in any inner city in the US, or any native reservation.

    It might hurt beta/omega guys to see that they have no future. But at least without them, neither does anybody else. The “revenge of the nerds” might not be what betas/omegas dream of with their collapse fantasies, but it will be just as painful, and just as permanent.

    Of course, those beta/omega guys would be welcomed with open arms by the 9-10 women around the world, where they can carve out a great future for themselves.

  85. MrT says:

    The failure to find marriage partners for these young women of the hookup culture will not be absolute and devastating enough to cause their little sisters to behave differently. Some women will fail to get married, but many will still succeed. It will take generations to undo the damage and real cultural change will probably only come from a seismic economic/cultural shift like the former USSR experienced in the 1990s.

    BTW this is a topic I haven’t seen addressed in the manosphere before: the transition from feminism to post-feminism in former communist countries and how this might be relevant to the west.

  86. James says:

    @Sherlock

    “Plenty of alphas marry. Just significantly lower percentage, and at a later age on average.”

    True; but there are not enough alphas to marry all the women who want one. A woman in her 20s can find an alpha to hook up with, but he won’t stick around, and he can only marry one of the women who want him.

    @anonymous March 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm – you’ve nailed it.

    “In the end, Alpha men marry only the top tier women, and the rest of the female population has to “settle” for Betas. It has ALWAYS been so.”

    The statistics in Dalrock’s page “The Weakened Signal” (linked to “grooming process for grooms” in the main story) show that nearly 90% of women marry by age 40. The 10% who don’t marry are often very noisy with their dissatisfaction, but they are a small minority.

    As you point out, it’s the state we’re in when we marry that is so important – the age and the number of partners. Much better to marry at 25 with a brief sexual history, than at 38 with a long one.

    The interesting thing is the reason for the decline of the provider male. On today’s average salaries, it is hard to raise a family on a single earner’s income. The beta provider male should still be in demand, even among women who are empowered/employed/liberated (TM). The fact that he is not is a consequence of welfare safety nets created with the best of intentions, that mean (at least in Britain) that a woman with children is often better off without a husband.

    It’s one thing for a woman to be independent and not need a man, if she has earned that status; and quite another if she has traded dependence on a man for dependence on the taxpayer.

    The insanity of these arrangements is made even worse by the fact that we have long ceased to be able to finance them by taxation: instead we borrow the money from abroad, from countries like China. In doing so, we are breaking the cardinal rule of not living a more dissolute life than one’s creditors. One day the Chinese will be telling us where we need to economise, just as we did, with ruthless efficiency, when dealing with debtor nations in the 70s and 80s.

    As Dalrock said, it won’t end well.

  87. David Collard says:

    Steve Moxon claims, and I have seen similar data for Australia, that there has been no increase in the number of truly financially independent women. Just a transfer of dependence from husbands to the government.

  88. TMG says:

    I am in my mid-30’s and I think women 28-35 are so outrageously entitled, I don’t ever see them settling for leftover betas unless they find themselves in really desperate financial circumstances. Furthermore, I could see those married now kick him to the curb thinking she’s going to get a trade-up. They reek with the odor of entitlement and bitterness.

    I’m watching a couple of them screw over my male friends and it is pissing me off, but it isn’t my place to manage their women for them.

  89. Farm Boy says:

    this same topic been discussed several times — and what i mean is, can’t we go deeper?

    I agree. There must be more. Let’s figure it all out.

  90. imnobody says:

    @Farm Boy

    If we go deeper, we find economic factors: marriage has ceased to be necessary for subsistence and hence the beta provider is an outdated product, with lack of demand.

    If we go even deeper, we find that people have changed. Yesteryear they did things because of duty with the community or God. Now people do things only for their pleasure, happiness or self-interest. That is, the society has become more individualistic and every one only thinks of him/her. (“If a need to divorce my husband to be happy, why not? Life is short”)

    If we go even deeper, we find that (real) Christianity is disappearing from Western countries, replaced by atheism or a vague feel-good religiosity. Without the threat of punishment in the hereafter, people are free to behave selfishly as much as they can and to the hell with everyone else. After all, life is short and we don’t know if there is something else.

  91. an observer says:

    “Men in their early 20s are observing that marriage and girlfriends aren’t in the cards, and this reduces their incentive to work hard to demonstrate provider status.”

    “Why should I work hard at college/starting a business if it’s for nothing? No girlfriend, no wife, no children. nothing.”

    Been said before, women are not good at cause an effect.

  92. Mark Minter says:

    Deti,
    I am a MillionaireMatch maven. Before Red Pill, the profiles used to piss me off. Now I can “read” them better. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen the headline “I’m Ready”. And my thought is about the same as yours. “Ok, “I’m done screwing everybody in LA west of the 405 but only those North of San Vincente, and now I’M READY for my millionaire to give me the life I deserve, but only those in Bel Air, Beverly Hills, maybe Beverly Hills Post Office, but too high up, Maybe Hollywood Hills, but not to close to Sunset, more like Sunset Plaza, maybe a nice bird street …”.

  93. an observer says:

    Dc,

    “Just a transfer of dependence from husbands to the government.”

    Got that right. Make work jobs for the girls.

  94. an observer says:

    Imnobody,

    You mean like hedonism?

    The whole cultural focus on happiness sure sounds like it. The gospel of personal happiness, through pop gnosticism and cultish media figures.

  95. Mark Minter says:

    “Surely, Hanna Rosin must be the dumbest educated person on the planet!”

    Not really. She’s about the best “outrage journalist” in the internet. Only Hugo really comes close in America and Liz Jones in England. Girl is getting paid for getting you mad. She’s smart enough find the right “button pusher” topics that provide link-bait and cha-ching for the publications she works for.

  96. Mark, yes, it is good journalistic schtick to annoy people. It is a form of hucksterism really. People on what might broadly be called the Right do it too. The late Auberon Waugh had a genius for it.

    observer, yes, but I really meant welfare payments from government. In fairness, I worked in government for many years, and the women were generally competent.

  97. Mark Minter says:

    One last comment and then I promise I’m for the rest of this post.

    “Dalrock, i think this is a perfectly written essay, but hasn’t this same topic been discussed several times — and what i mean is, can’t we go deeper?”

    OK, the cheap answer is “No, we all like this topic and we all like kvetching (I can’t believe the spell checking accepted ‘kvetching’ but not “men’s: or misandry. It’s a freaking Yiddish word) about the carousel and it’s a little like dancing on the couch when the parents are gone. After some hard posts about the role of the church in divorce and some other serious stuff, we all get to stick out our tongues and give the raspberries to carousel riders” pptttttttt

    Second, it is the role of the major blogs to answer, in kind, postings from “the bad guys”. It is a lot of what blogs do, to discuss and refute topics brought up on the other side of the “aisle”. So one of the biggest “bad guys”, Ohannah Bin Rosen, throws out a “hook ups are great and girls with girl power should ‘go’ like the strong and independent girls with girl power that they are” and Dalrock gets to come back with “Slut!”, well, in that Dalrock kind of way of saying it. The C*ck Carousel is Dalrock’s meme contribution to the culture and it does have teeth. So if he works it, he deserves the right to do so. And even more so, it needs to be worked because it works. It works to continually remind men, these men reading here, of what is really going on with born again virgins so that they can avoid the ,…. (let me search for accurate words here to fully convey meaning correctly. Play the Jeopardy theme song while I search)… ass raping they could receive if they enter into one of these marriages. And it works for women to remind them that, yes, the Jeopardy theme song is playing for them as well. And eventually it will stop.

    Check back next blog after we have gotten it out of our system. I know what you mean and we really need to break on through to the other side. And we’ll get there.

  98. Clarence says:

    Mark Minter:
    Ms Sarkeesian (see A Voice For Men for more details) has the schtick of outrage down as well. She knows how to insult all the geek and video game guys and she does it for fun, power, and profit.

    To everyone in general:
    While they refuse to ‘sweeten the pot’ for males in marriage, they do keep making more and more sexually repressive laws that usually vastly disproportionately affect men. The latest thing is http://theantifeminist.com/influence-eu-vote-porn-ban/
    This is only a vote for a resolution on a ‘report’ but if you know how the EU governing system works you know that such reports almost always result in legislation.
    The point seems to be to basically potentially criminalize all sex within (marital rape) and downright criminalize all sex and sexual expression outside of marriage or having a relationship with a legally ok woman. And it will be legal in those relationships ONLY at her sufference, for she can always claim the ‘sexual victim’ card and get Big Daddy government to take that nasty man away. And even not having anything to do with women is becoming increasingly unsafe. An this ‘ban porn’ idea shows one example: since most men who GTOW retreat into porn of various types, well, why not ban that?
    In short, they seem to be increasing the cost of the male sex drive any way they can.

  99. Clarence says:

    Good catch, Farmboy. I was thinking of that one as well.
    Still, it’s not as big a ‘nail’ as you’d think as we know judges have been coming up with myriad ways to invalidate prenups for years. They are potentially of use depending on STATE and moreso if both you and the prospective bride have drawn them up using lawyers (otherwise they’ll claim she was in an inequitable position if you have a lawyers help and she doesn’t). Otherwise they are not often worth the paper they are printed on.

  100. David Collard says:

    That whole “sexist” video game thing reeks of First World Problems. I mean, who cares? If the vidbimbo is upset, she can design her own feminist video games. I am sure they will sell like hotcakes.

  101. Infantry says:

    @ Mark Minter

    I’m becoming more and more aware of Outrage journalism being used as a money spinner. It used to be political articles (left vs right), while all major news outlets would toe the feminist line in mainstream articles (Ostenisbly to keep female readers happy as they control 70%+ of spending).

    Now they seem to realise that there’s cash to be made in the more and more prevalent undercurrent of disenfranchised males calling feminism out. Dailymail is a good example of this as you can see via the amount of times its quoted in the /r/MensRights subreddit.

    I like refuting feminists in the blogosphere, but I hate my mental energy and time being harnessed to line someone elses pockets. I comment less and less in a MRM capacity as a result.

    I agree with you that after a while, rehashing the same memes in blog posts becomes so much mental masturbation. We really do need to break new ground and find solutions, or else we are just treading water and waiting for a critical mass of disenfrancised men. This has historically been very very bad for societies and often leads to war or societal collapse.

  102. Johnycomelately says:

    “There are plenty of beta providers to go around. Poor guys.”

    That’s what I used to think but deeper analysis shows otherwise.

    The difference between Japan and the west is immigration, low fecundity rates are propped up by immigration which produces temporary net gains in economic growth. Each successive wave of immigration produces a diminished net gain in economic growth until it reaches zero (the US has reached the zero point).

    Negative economic growth, negative fertility, lower male employment and higher female employment (remember women don’t produce wealth) will lead to Japan.

    Dalrock may be ahead of his time but he is only off by half a generation or so.

  103. Krakonos says:

    Noone here except imnobody (and jlw) has understood the problem. There will always be plenty of (good looking, well to do) betas for 30s women. Actually, the only question is if the women are willing to marry these men. This is a result of a hidden polygyny (unstable, rotating harems). The problem cannot be solved because women are happy to share an here-and-now-alpha, plus some kind of a welfare society can be estabilished and sustained (just look at existing “matriarchies”). The civilization will have ended, for sure, but society itself will continue. Until someone other overtakes the playground…

  104. an observer says:

    Reminds me of Rollo’s definition of a man: one who produces more than he consumes.

    With bigger government promoting dependency and blowing more debt bubbles, there is one thing I really do believe: this will not end well. Honest history books suggest war.

    Meanwhile, in another reality:
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.liquidgameworks.unicornapocalypse

  105. krauserpua says:

    I think something missing from your analysis is that much of hookup culture is driven by the preferences of the most attractive men. They are the ones who don’t want to commit because they are having such a great time running soft-harems or racking up notches. The women want to get these men to commit but can’t enforce it, thus settling for hookups. It only takes three sessions of good sex with a girl to trigger her bonding hormones and have her hung up on you.

    It’s a dual market. Beta males having hookup dictated to them (and mostly frozen out) while alpha males dictate it to the women.

  106. an observer says:

    Japans problem stems from currency manipulation in the eighties that sparked a speculative real estate boom, and subsequent stock market frenzy that began falling apart from 1989. Its never really recovered. but since its occupied territory and receives substantial benefits from the US (and a continuing carry trade), it still limps along.

    The generations that rebuilt the country after being bombed into unconditional surrender (nuke the civvies, they’re only foreigners, after all ….) have reached old age, and the younger generations see lost opportunities.

    No jobs for life, no interest in being an overworked salaryman, no interest in a multigenerational mortgage and a two hour commute each way. Why make babies in that environment? May as well be a ‘parasaito shinguru’. With the Japanese smp probably affected by westernised dating trends, might as well enjoy whatever life you have.

    This has yet to really unfold in westernised countries. The dropping fertility levels following the availability of abortion has resulted in many countries importing cheap labor to make up for less home grown citizens. Cultural diversity is wonderful until it isn’t, and at that point, it’s too late to change course, as the Romans found out.

    So yes, there will be plenty of betas to provide fodder for the divorce industry, just less children, and a high proportion of legal and semilegal immigration for unskilled work with a high fertility rate to make up the difference. Since the west went with women’s rights and decided its young and fertile women should be at work, the mess that exists now is hardly unsurprising.

  107. I wonder how Aunt Giggles will respond to this (the Atlantic) article. Over the past year she’s been on a tear about how the “hook up culture” is really some kind of urban legend or some fiendish alpha-created social schema intent on convincing women that their only option IS hooking up – with them – and quotes one college self-report study after another illustrating that all these poor coeds really want is a ‘nice sweet guy’® but are forced into hooking up because the Alphas they really want are indirectly coercing them to think they need to ride the carousel.

    You see, it’s really men’s fault that women feel compelled to become a generation of Alpha Widows.

  108. Opus says:

    May I make two points which I trust everyone is either enlightened by or otherwise already agrees with:

    Firstly; with regard to men: If you are an ordinary guy and you have been burned a number of times, then in the endless game of Prisoner’s Dilemma you will eventually realise that you must play Hawk and not Dove; in other words you must assume that the attractive young woman you have recently met and notwithstanding the fact that she gives the impression that butter would not melt in her mouth, is a Carousel Rider. She may, of course, not be, in which case you have so to speak backed the wrong horse, but you have not otherwise lost out, as you would have had you assumed she wished to be courted but was in reality a slut. The problem however for her is that her notches are now moving up such that she is being co-opted onto the carousel.

    Secondly; with regard to women: Leopards do not change their spots, and if as a woman you have been getting through a couple of boyfriends a year (leaving aside such other things as casual hook-ups, mercy-fucks and the like) then by, say, the age of thirty when you decide at last that the guy you have just met (and who is in reality indistinguishable largely from any other guy) is The One, you will find it hard, whatever your avowed intentions, to stop your usual and now accustomed sexual-quota behaviour. For those women reading this now, crying, ‘double standards’ may I remind them that it is always infinitely more difficult for men to pull (look at the trouble even avowed PUA, Krauser, is presently having in Brazil – the supposed land of Hot-Totty, at least for white guys – something of a rarity over there); and for other reasons, only too often rehearsed, male-promiscuity is not of the same seriousness as female, at least the consequences are rather different.

  109. Ton says:

    Are chaste women in their early 20’s dis-empowered in the SMP or do those women not value the kind of men who value you them?

  110. tickletik says:

    Male leadership isnt about helping or oppressing women. Male leadership is about acting righteously with God. For this we need a helpmate because “it is not good for man to be alone”.

    But nowhere have I read that God expects us to lift a finger for a whore. Nowhere does He tell us we are here to “save them”. Save them? From who and for what? That is the real question and here is the real answer. We save them for our brother, for our father for our sons, for our cousins and nephews. We save them so our brother can have a life which is truly good. A life lived in the approval in the eyes of our Father in Heaven

    All this feminsim, socialism, all these isms, are about jealousy and greed to steal from our brother. True faith is knowing that God will aid us if we act like true men. And part of that is to act like true brothers, honestly, courageously, compassionately, righteously with BOTH justice and mercy.

    We have forgotten how to act like men. Few of us have any idea what a Man even looks like, i barely understand it myself. For that we have to apply our intellects given to us by God, and pray for great mercy as we have been drunk and foolish these many years. Some of us have played as “alphas”, some as “betas”. Both are necessary, but both have there vices and eaknesses. I think the key thing is, what works? What in the behavior of the alpha aids his brother whose nature is that of a follower? What in the behavior of a “beta” truly strengthens the heart and moral judgement of his brother who is a leader? Can a leader function as a sane good man if his men wont demand him to be upright? Can a follower survive if he constantly seeks to give power over his fellows to those in authority?

    Much of this society is wicked and foolish. Driven by irresponsible lusts and greed. We must each stand and support one another, be mindful to deal only with those who act honestly and forthrightly. Give strength and hope to pur brothers.

    We complain about the family courts, who is standing up to them? We complain about whorish women, how many avail themselves and reward them? We complain about the culture, have you thrown out your televisions yet? We complain about the newspapers, who tries to offer the alternative? The politicians are corrupt in the Federal gov, are we at least working together to make sure the local ones know we are watching? Their is yet power in our hands, one may say it is not enough, that we will lose anyway, but what of it? Is it not better to fight and die than to grovel and snivel with chains forged on our necks? Do we not all know in our bones how this must end if we do not stand up to it? All things are in the hands of God, it is not our business to decide for Him how best this world should be conducted, He knows what is best, but it is our job to give Him pleasure through honesty, courage andrighteous conduct.

  111. L'addition says:

    @Tickletik

    all good, stirring stuff etc I truly appreciate that you haven’t gone for the shaming aspects of the man-up argument, but basically you are trying the old ‘man-up’ approach much beloved of tradcons. Variants of this message have been tried here repeatedly, they don’t work, tempers get frayed, people stomp off etc.

    At this point of the game though, I think that you’ll find that many men have done the maths and concluded that there’s very little upside in it for them if they now man-up one last time, but huge potential downsides. This site has a majority of men that would have heeded your call in earlier times, but they’ve since taken the red-pill and recognise today’s reality; manning-up leads to man-down with no sympathy or gratitude from society in general whatsoever.

    But don’t lose hope as your time is coming, I believe.

    The coming financial collapse will do the heavy lifting of breaking down entitlement mentality, no more money means the end of the reality gap. Vast swathes of people will be introduced to ‘earning their own way’ for the first time. A lot of attitudes are going to get adjusted. The other side of that tsunami should be a lot more fertile ground for your brand of masculinity, assuming that one makes it to the other side of course. I wish you luck as I value many of your values highly, I just don’t believe that they fit our current reality very well.

  112. Some Guy says:

    >> We have forgotten how to act like men. Few of us have any idea what a Man even looks like, i barely understand it myself.

    Stop right there.

    I do not believe this at all.

    No, I do not look like one of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. I’m still a man, though… driven by a desire to compete, to dominate, to control… to achieve mastery and prove myself. And yet that drive is tempered with a sense of honor. And yeah, maybe I am a bit of a nerd. But truth and discernment are as much the domain of manliness as wrestling and shooting guns. What’s it to anyone if I prefer Archimedes over Achilles?

    Men haven’t changed, but the culture has. Look at this gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption that it is required to suppress manliness. Look at how much shame and finger wagging get deployed at the first hints of manliness in the church or in the home. And these bitches and man-bitches cannot be reasoned with.

  113. deti says:

    @ Rollo:

    “I wonder how Aunt Giggles will respond to this (the Atlantic) article.”

    She already has, but not with the same takeaway.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/03/11/politics-and-feminism/the-failed-female-strategy-of-life-splitting/#comments

  114. deti says:

    “There will always be plenty of (good looking, well to do) betas for 30s women.”

    I doubt there will ALWAYS be enough betas available, ready and willing to marry the banged out sluts at 30 and above. There are right now but I suspect the number is dwindling.

    “Actually, the only question is if the women are willing to marry these men.”

    Those women are willing to GET married to those men. They just aren’t willing to STAY married to those men. Those women are willing to marry men they aren’t attracted to, I think for the mere status of being married and for the provider support. The difference between now and 60 years ago is that the law allows them a way out, complete with an income stream from the ex husband.

  115. Retrenched says:

    @ Clarence, Minter

    There will be a lot of man-bashing articles and videos like those, when colleges produce tens of thousands of women’s studies graduates every year, whose only “skill” is bashing men and masculinity and blaming them for all the world’s problems.

    I mean, what else are these girls going to do after graduation besides demonize men and maleness?

  116. deti says:

    Francine:

    “Early 20′s women who want to remain chaste are dis-empowered in the SMP by all the young 20′s women who are willing to give it up easily. A young woman can easily hold out for a “college boyfriend,” as you put it, but if she is unwilling to perform sexual acts even with her “college boyfriend” it takes a very special kind of young 20′s man to agree with that. No actual statistics here, but I don’t think it’s a controversial statement to make that a young 20′s mainstream man who will want that girl unless she’s *really* something special is in short supply.

    Perhaps a more established older man would find that woman attractive, but there isn’t a whole lot of interaction between those age groups, (at least in your typical middle class, every one goes to 4-year college kind of situation) and therefore not much opportunity to meet him. Not to mention the stigma her peers would slap her with (probably out of jealousy) for dating the “creepy old man”.”

    A college woman in her early 20s who wants to remain chaste can solve her problem by making it clear she is ready to get married, and searching for attractive marriage-minded men. I don’t see any “creep factor” in a 20 year old college student dating a man out of college, say 24 or 25, and getting ready for marriage. There is no reason the college student can’t get married while going to college. If that is the end goal, might as well get there sooner rather than later.

  117. deti says:

    “Are chaste women in their early 20′s dis-empowered in the SMP or do those women not value the kind of men who value [] them?”

    Chaste women are still women. Like their slutty sisters, they still want the hot alpha stud — but they want him to wait, and they want him for marriage. Not possible, not in this SMP. Young chaste women are still powerful in the SMP, but they blunt their own power by directing it at men all the other women want. And they doom themselves to failure because (1) to get the alphas they have to put out, which they won’t do; and (2) they aren’t attracted to betas and won’t stoop to their level.

  118. stillsvideo says:

    lzozozozozoz

    hey dalrock you arez a geniusszzz

    you need to start a radio show as all i get on my sisurius sirus satelltite radio is da focus on da familyz whihc never gets to the crux f da matterz–da whorish nature z of twnety year oldz cock-carosel ridingz womenz zlzoozlzzllzzo

    but dalrock you are a pinoeeneer

    and in a year or twwo many many more will followz

    in finding the proper context and fram
    –the truly biblical frame
    for the ancients prophetsz
    and poets
    recognized da true nature of da womwnezz

    keep up da good workz!!!! greta tahingz to ocmezz!

    zlzozlzlzlzolzlz

  119. stillsvideo says:

    thank you deti:

    “Those are your choices. Choose now. It is not alpha f*cks now until I need beta bucks. You cannot have both. You cannot have alpha f*cks, and then beta bucks.”

    yes my poem capauturezz da poetic justice, as we see our little cocka cocalrousles rider ending up with catz lzozozozozozo

    here is my PG-13 version edited for all da good churchainz zlzlzlzlzolllz

    i need to send dat lady some t-shirts!!!!!!

    http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.582539775

    “da professional womenz ode”

    alpha f*cks and beta bucks
    dat is how we roll
    da butthexting cockass we f*cks and sucks
    and in our anuthes it doth deosul
    alpha f*cks and beta bucks
    it is da way of da fed
    to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
    cuckold dose who pay for our bread
    beta bucks and alpha f*cks
    it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
    da assetts from betas we plucks
    after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
    lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
    cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
    datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
    as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
    and say da great books for menz was all fools.
    yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
    dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats

    zlzlzzozozozozlzozlzooz

  120. greyghost says:

    Tickletik
    You are a few decades late with the man up talk. The society we have now kills a man that thinks and acts in the glory of god. (I do mean KILL). Civil war is the only thing that will truely end this now and the government knows it that is why it is trying to disarm the public. Have you noticed the civil arms race against the government this last few months. (out of stock). Eric Holder: It’s ok to use drones to kill americans mister president.
    Reality doesn’t care if your wife wants to have sex with you.

  121. Georgia Boy says:

    Yep, been thinking lately that manosphere guys should be clearer when they say government is the new husband. Government is the new babydaddy, hookup culture is the new husband.

  122. greyghost says:

    Deti
    It looks like the basics are still there. 80 percent of the women chasing 20 percent of the men. I think that is the truely normal state of women. It is nothing new or modern it just is. In a feral trible world it works for the tribe. In a civilized society not so much. To be civilized is to put in check feral behavior to acheive much higher greatness. It doesn’t go away it is controled with consequences within the civil society that range from shame, to civil and crimminal viloations of law to being left to the results of your actions to the fate of reality. In a true civil society based on rule of law with reality consequences for behavior taken good and bad the beta male is very sexy so to speak. The same man in a society founded on the feminie imperative makes the same strong beta man discusting pussy repellant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw) These guys in the world of the feminie imperative if looked at by what is said and the laws to enforce it are the sexiest studs america has to offer. Reality doesn’t play that shit. A civil society not based on reality will fail. Western society is not based in reality and the christian faith has even been changed to churchian to go along with the feminie imperative.
    This conversation needs to survive because when the end comes there needs to be a foundation to build a civil society. Because any survivers will only know the feminie imperative. Think about it. As a good drill start a conversation about a mythical post apoclyptic world and you as a group will rebuild civilization, most likely they will think to put in place what is causing the real death of civilization today.

  123. She already has, but not with the same takeaway.

    She says the following in her response:

    I did things like organize school fundraisers with all the confidence of a C level executive, desperate to prove I could be successful at something.

    There is a whole blog post in that comment. If you lived into middle age and had kids and owned homes etc., you have encountered these DayTimer driven women, on HOA’s, PTA’s, even the church panders to these urges with their task lists for spirituality.

  124. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    the government is used to extract beta bucks from all the hard-working men, and fund women hooking up as well as the resulting offspring.

    the reason for this is that feminism is a multi-trillion-dollar industry of wealth transfer (And destruction).

    the bernankifier central bankers profit in a massive manner by casting woman’s immorality — the desire to enslave other men via claiming their assets — as a virtue, as they fund and finance it.

    property rights, from homer and moses on down, were at the center and circumference of civilization. the ancients devices codes of honor so that women and men might rise above their basic instincts.

    the central bankers, who can only create fiat debt, must fund feminism so as to train women to transfer the assets of good, hard-working men to the corporate state.

    and women are victims of this too, as rather than living out the moral story of moses and jesus and becoming mothers and grandmothers honored by husbands, fathers, and sons, they become buttcocked, asscocked transferers of assetstst zlzozozozoozozoz.

    the favorite method of the cetral bankersz is to fund the sectrive assoccking and sdeoulsing sessisions of future wives in college, thusly deosuling them and making them more loyal to the bank than to god, man, natural law, and family. once asscocked, the women will be far more easily swayed to go forth and transferz assetetz of menz.

    lzozozozlzozlzollozlzlozlzlzlzlzlzz

    another idea for a ms paint cartoon for da new yorkerrr !!!!

    have a women in a bussiness suit
    all tiered and haggard
    tired and haggard in a business suit with a sore anuth
    with lotsa cocka stuffz all over her
    and fiat dollzrz stcking out of her pockets zlozlzolzlz and an mba and ivy league degrees lzozlzlz and student loan debt certiicate slzozlzlz
    and losta cats behind her

    and then have her looking at
    a owmen cradling a baby and with three small chicldren
    and a husband just coming home
    and a white picket fence lzozlzlz

    and have the women in the business suit saying, “boy am i glad i’m not just someone’s property.”

    lzozozlzlzlzlz!

  125. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    llzozozlzlzlzl

    how the fatassed in the beltway neocon jonah goldber william benenetes operate lzozllzlzlzlzlzozo:

    1. deconstruct the great books on univeristy campuses
    2. tell men they need to man up
    3. dumb down the entire schools system
    4. tell men they need to man up
    5. assrape men in divorce court
    6. tell men they need to man up
    7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neoocn wars
    8. tell men they need to man up
    9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
    10. tell men they need to man up
    11. encourage woem to giver thie aholes and ginaholes early and often to douchebags
    12. tell men they need to man up
    13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neocon movies, replacing them with asscocking gay cowboys
    14. tell men they need to man up
    15. print money from thin air and inflate and dlate bubbes to seize a man’s home and property
    16. tell men they need to man up
    17. enocurage women to become fat, whiney bitches
    18. tell men they need to man up
    19. publish, promote, fund, and finance asscokers licke tucker max who film secrtive tap9ng of assockinhg session without the girl’s consent, tucker ma rhymes with goldam sax, repeating tucker’s lies that he is six fet tall inthe neocon weekly standadth .
    20. tell men they need to man up
    21. transofrm the church from an instititution where a man coul once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three asscockers go to rope in a betabmale to pay for the assocker’s spawn
    22. tell men they need to man up
    23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
    24. tell men they need to man up
    25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neocon women exalting asscockers, asscokcing, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great book and men, and rewading the servile future nannies of teh nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
    26. tell men they need to man up
    27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocns) and taped it secrtly without her conthent lzozozlzoo. remove all men form the publishing industry and repalce deep, prodoufn real great books for men with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty rape fanatsatsy “roamance” novels
    28. tell men they need to man up
    29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalzize men and force them o hand over their assetts to women
    30. tell men they need to man up
    31. financially incentivizee womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their futrue assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assetts
    32. tell men they need to ma up
    33. fill the law schools with fatm, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks an spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, an replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with bernake’s banker laws whichexlats theft via the inflation tax
    34. tell men they need to man up.

    lzozoozozo

    what aalalz am i mizssing here:???

    feel free to addodoon ti oit! lzozlzl

  126. Georgia Boy says:

    deti: I doubt there will ALWAYS be enough betas available, ready and willing to marry the banged out sluts at 30 and above. There are right now but I suspect the number is dwindling.

    More importantly, these women aren’t these men’s only option anymore. FWIW, I was that guy, in my 30s, no baggage, had cured most of my anti-game but wasn’t a player, established professionally with lots of savings, in good shape. I met a 21 year old who wanted out of the hookup scene and ended up marrying her. So some would say I cheated some 30 something cad chaser out of her rightful choice to take me off the shelf. Younger women aren’t always harder to get, why deal with the cynicism of the older one when the younger one loves you more deeply and unreservedly (not to mention looks better).

  127. jmark says:

    Neocon wars? Really. Obama is a neocon?

  128. Novaseeker says:

    The number of “eligible betas” is certainly getting smaller over time. There are many trends that play into that, including the education gap, the hookup culture which freezes out most men, and the overall culture which seeks to promote and reward women at the expense of men (average men).

    There will, of course, always be ambitious men. There are just fewer of them already today than there were previously, and the younger generation looks to be even *less* so. This trend means fewer eligible beta providers. There will still be some, but there are noticeably fewer of them, and this is now starting to cause some concern among people on the left and the right as they are seeing family formation go out the window in a very broad demographic outside the ghetto.

    I don’t really see what can be done about this, to be honest. The trend is buttressed by robust social trends and mores which will not be easily dislodged.

  129. greyghost says:

    Georga Boy
    That is what will break the trend with out blood shed. The young women should marry while in school ( finish and be educated) while devoting themselves to being good wives. (attitude)
    The feminie imperative will not approve but that option and path nees to be there for women and men that chose otherwise.

  130. Jeremy says:
    She felt deeply ashamed by such thoughts, worried that they signaled weakness and dependence, qualities she did not admire. To put such a high premium on relationships was frightening to Katie. She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.

    Part of the problem is the message parents are sending to their daughters:

    Many feel ashamed about being too relationship-oriented in their 20s. Parents warn, “Do you really want to settle down so early?

    deti says:
    March 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    …To get past it I have had to increase my alpha, absolutely crush her disrespectful attitude, call her out on her disrespect every time it happens, and sort through her department store full of baggage. Is that worth it? Not for most betas/omegas.

    Solomon says:
    March 12, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Male leadership isn’t about oppressing women- It is about helping them.

    I wish I could have helped that one.

    This ^^ Is just a sampling of the OP and comments here that basically say the same thing everyone else here is saying… Women are told to be strong an independent, they’re expected to be less-than-dependent (mostly by their parents), but in practice many of them utterly fail. They simply have not yet spent enough time thinking about what they really want to know how to recognize it when they see it. Many have no concept of true sacrifice for satisfaction in later life, because their friends and the carousel beckon them. They’re toddlers thrown into the candy store when they hit 18 and feminism is just encouraging them to simply chomp down on anything they can grab. Even their own parents are warning these ‘toddlers’, “Are you sure you want to eat that single vegetable? There’s a whole box of half-eaten chocolates right here.”

    Under the circumstances, the individual behavior of the female in this environment is almost forgivable. Note that I’m not saying I would forgive any woman who rejected me in the past.

    So why is male leadership in a woman’s life needed? Is it precisely because our SMV is so low early on? Is it because we’re forced to work hard and produce more than we consume to get anywhere when we are young? Is it because self-sacrifice and future planning are something that our parents generally drill into us while ignoring the same instruction to our sisters? Is it parenting?

    This, IMO, is what is worth exploring.

  131. deti says:

    Tickle:

    The democracy that is the USA has decided that it does not want men such as you describe. Given the choice, the majority of the women who vote have said loud and clear they want alpha f*cks, and they’ll take their beta bucks from the government.

    At least beta Uncle Sam doesn’t expect her to give him sex or wash his skid marked underwear.

  132. Aurelian says:

    To Lisa back up thread: Your devils advocate position will lead to men like me who saw through marriage many moons ago. I am 53 and in the shape of a bodybuilder through consistent hard work. It’s just the sex now. 24-35 year olds who come very willingly. After the sex move on to the next one. And I am absolutely ruthless.

  133. deti says:

    Jeremy:

    Novaseeker has said in the past that fathers are encouraging daughters toward education and careers in large part because they want the best for their daughters, and they want to help their daughters do what they want to do, and when a daughter says what she wants is to get educated and work, fathers want to help them do that.

    And it is also fathers taking stock of the changing world around them, more women entering the work force, more dual income families just “to make ends meet” and to “get by”, more women getting divorced or abandoned or otherwise losing a spouse, and these fathers don’t want to see any harm come to their daughters, and so they honestly and in good faith believe that encouraging them into careers is best for them.

    Another concern fathers will often express is that if his daughter marries while in college, she will be distracted from school; she will have a husband who will expect her attention and care; she will become much more sexually active; she will likely get pregnant. For all these reasons, he becomes concerned she will not finish college and won’t get her degree. And if she doesn’t get it done while she is younger it will be much, much more difficult to finish when she is in her late 20s, married about 6 or 7 years, and with a couple of kids, a husband, a house, and a lot of work to do. Fathers know this, and so they’ll often encourage her to postpone marriage at least until she “finishes college and gets settled in a career”.

    But women need male involvement, and early on it is supposed to come from fathers. The above instructions are good if you have a daughter who is doing precisely what many women are doing: Going into careers and riding the carousel, or going into a career and striking out repeatedly with men because she won’t put out. What should be done is to help direct women into what they want. Most will want to get married. A lot of fathers drop the ball here because (1) they aren’t in the kid’s life; and (2) they know nothing of the current SMP, and (3) if they are in the daughter’s life, he might be a churchian, and churchian men are told that women and girls are “more moral” than men. All you have to do, dad, is just leave her to her own devices, and she’ll just naturally gravitate to getting a husband because that’s just what women do.

    Or, if he’s a churchian, he’s always told his family has to follow Titus 2 which says the women are to teach the girls and young women how to be, and act, and how to be with husbands. What do the older women teach the younger women? Carouseling, nagging, bitching, complaining, “I’m not haaaappy” divorce, career girl, cougaring, spinsterhood.

    So the problem is cultural and social, and is widespread. Everyone is getting these messages, and what you’re seeing now are the results.

  134. AJ Miller says:

    Someone did articulate the fact that Christianity in the West is dying and that is the biggest difference between our modern culture and society 100 years ago. 100 years ago people did believe in the afterlife and in an eternal judgement. How you lived your life today had eternal consequences. Honor, duty , courage, and Godly virtues were the standard way of life for people 100 years ago. There was a reason why young men were willing to march straight into machine guns during WWI without flinching. There was a reason why most women were chaste back then and why they wouldn’t dare look at another man while they were married. Yes, life was short but they knew that eternity was forever.

    There are good women out there for sure. There is always a remnant. The problem is that it is hard to filter the wheat from the chaff in the modern church. What is needed are church leaders and pastors who are willing to start a movement that does not compromise with the world. One that sticks to the Word.

  135. GKChesteron says:

    The more we remake ourselves into something other than human the more it will hurt. We need Men. And we need Women. And the two are not the same thing.

  136. Stingray says:

    For all these reasons, he becomes concerned she will not finish college and won’t get her degree.

    There is one reason you are missing and it is one I remember very vividly from my high school years. I don’t know if fathers are still teaching their daughters this or not, but I know many girls were taught this in my generation:

    Girls, you must get your education and you must get that degree. The divorce rate is now 50% and there is a good chance that you will end up on your own some day and you need that degree to fall back on to earn a living for you and your kids.

    Now, I don’t remember if it was implicitly said or not, but I do know that what girls took away from this was that if you marry, there is a good chance your husband will leave you and you must be prepared for that.

  137. Stingray says:

    Ah, sorry. The italics should have ended at the end of my second paragraph.

  138. greyghost says:

    Chicken and the egg thing. Now with her degree and education and high paying job she has no reason to be married 70% and more of divorce is the woman’s doing dad. The man will leave you meme is the foundation of the feminine imperative that is the the reason for misandry of western civilization.

  139. Draggin says:

    I would love to see one of Dalrock’s data based articles on the change in women’s financial independence since the 60’s. It would be a great counterpoint to the feminist cry of independence. I imagine it would as insightful as that study that shows that women’s overall happiness has actually declined since the onset of feminism.

    ========================================================================

    David Collard says:
    March 12, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    Steve Moxon claims, and I have seen similar data for Australia, that there has been no increase in the number of truly financially independent women. Just a transfer of dependence from husbands to the government.

  140. imnobody says:

    @AJMiller

    This is why I meant but you explain it better. Without eternity, why don’t follow our heart? Life is short and the grave is waiting for us. There is no bad consequences to acting badly (for example, dumping a beta husband). Life becames a struggle of everything against everything: every one trying to maximize his/her happiness and to the hell with everyone else.

    @Stringray

    This is why divorce was forbidden by the ancients If women are not sure of their man sticking around for the rest of their life, it’s not rational for them to give up careers so they can marry young and become housewives. Life is long and feelings change. Nobody wants to be left alone to raise some kids while the husband has gone. (I know that wives divorce more often than husbands, but bear with me).

    If you establish your career before you marry, it is hard not to have a couple of relationships (read: carousel) before marrying. There is a lot of time and there is a emotional/sexual void to fill. And your relationships are not directed to get married (because marriage is in the future) so you can follow your instincts and taste some alpha c*ck. There was a reason why the ancients married young.

    IOW, the breadwinner-housemaker model requires an early marriage. An early marriage requires not needing a career. Not needing a career requires being sure of the man sticking around. And being sure of the man sticking around requires the non-existence of non-fault divorce.

    By transitivity, the breadwinner-housemaker model requires the non-existence of non-fault divorce.

    This is the folly of the moderns. They change things without knowing the consequences, as Chesterton explained. They thought that divorce was a good idea for these couples that were miserable. So they allowed divorce. The result: the culture crumbling, the end of Western civilization, people being miserable, fathers without kids, etc. They didn’t know that something can look ugly but it can play an important role. They thought it was ugly so they removed it without realizing the consequences.

    This is pride: they think they can do better than the solutions that they have worked for millennia. We are seeing how this has turned out.

  141. Doc says:

    “early 20s women are by and large quite happy with the hookup culture while late 20s women are increasingly uncomfortable with it.”

    They needed a study for this? This is why I only see women in the 18-25 bracket – they start wanting to “settle down” once they get over that 25 mark. So the solution is simple – limit yourself to those readily available sweet-young-things. Then tend to be better across the board… By the time a woman gets into her late 20’s she’s on the decline, and becoming more and more of a b*tch. Why deal with that crap? I’ve never had an 18 year old who wasn’t as enjoyable a month after I’ve bedded her, as she was the night before. They want nothing other than your company for a couple of hours. When they get older, they become more of a pain in the a**. No thanks… I’ll stick with the “young-uns”….🙂

    This is why I wholeheartedly support feminism – more and more of those young women don’t have a father figure at home, so will do ANYTHING for the approval of an older male. All I can say is, “Thank you ladies, and keep them coming.”

  142. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    lzozozoozozlzlozozozo

    lzozozozzolzozlzozz

  143. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    zlozlzlozolzolzloz

    zlzozozozolzlozozolzoz

  144. James says:

    An African proverb says that a woman’s beauty is her wealth, and a man’s wealth is his beauty.

    In order to understand the behavior of a young woman, we should imagine a young man who is given all the wealth that he will ever own at the age of 18. How would he behave?

    There are two categories of men that are close to this description – those born with a trust fund, and the top echelon of professional entertainers – sportsmen and rock stars. Many such men have absolutely no idea how to handle their wealth, and fall into a swamp of cocaine addiction and other forms of bad behavior.

    Only a few young men are wealthy enough to face these problems.

    Young women’s tragedy is that most of them are tested in ways that we are not. Riding the cock carousel is the female equivalent of the trust fund boy who develops a liking for cocaine.

    I think this is why women dislike the word “slut” so much (except when using it against each other, he he). They can reply with outrage about a supposed double standard; but the real sting is that the man using the word has never been tested for sluttishness. He will never find out whether he has the moral strength to pass such a test.

  145. Jeremy says:

    deti says:
    March 13, 2013 at 10:44 am
    Jeremy:

    Novaseeker has said in the past that fathers are encouraging daughters toward education and careers in large part because they want the best for their daughters, and they want to help their daughters do what they want to do, and when a daughter says what she wants is to get educated and work, fathers want to help them do that.

    That’s all well and good Deti, and I agree with most of what you said. However, Why do educated, intelligent women repeatedly fail to understand their own desires, their own limited time in the SMP, and the correct use of both to increase their own happiness later in life? Why do these women who were encouraged by fathers to gain the ability to sustain themselves fail so miserably when it comes to life choices? Has the wall been sufficiently masked off from parents that even they deny the low value their daughter will have to a potential mate if she merely pursues carousel riding during her prime? Why are women being taught to wait on marriage until past their most attractive years?

    Sons are not taught this way. They’re taught mostly the brutal reality of life and what consequences to expect from bad choices. Sons are taught to learn a trade, find a job, work hard, and know how to increase your wealth. It’s much as Tim Allen so aptly put in his lone good comedy stand-up bit..

    (paraphrased) “Women have all these choices, full time mom, part-time mom, part-time-work/part-time-mom, half-time-artist/half-time-mom, etc… Men have the same choices we’ve had since the beginning of time…. We can work……. or Prison.”

    Women are never taught the consequences of all of those choices they are given. They end up presuming there are no trade-offs. Boys are taught all the practical things, and they’re held accountable when a choice goes the wrong way for them. Fathers seem to simply be telling the girls, “Yes, do this if you want,” with no discussion of the negatives of any choices, and significant help if/when she fails.

    Worse still, there is simply no discussion of the realities of the sexual marketplace by parents with their children. This is the true crime of the family structure in America. I was never taught how to find a girlfriend, I was never taught what my options would be. I was never taught about the wall that women face, or the low SMV that I should expect to have early on. I was never taught what women really look for and why they (especially young women) say the opposite most times. I was never taught how to read IOIs or that women who find you interesting will challenge you to respond with authority to their behavior.

    My parents were christian, and they were SCARED SH*TLESS to talk about my own sexual/emotional future and how I might best position myself to achieve what I wanted. Despite this I’m still in a lot better shape than my sister because I at least had a foundation of understanding tradeoffs and consequences for choices, she just got coddling whenever things went badly.

  146. Georgia Boy says:

    stingray: There is one reason you are missing and it is one I remember very vividly from my high school years. I don’t know if fathers are still teaching their daughters this or not, but I know many girls were taught this in my generation: Girls, you must get your education and you must get that degree. The divorce rate is now 50% and there is a good chance that you will end up on your own some day and you need that degree to fall back on to earn a living for you and your kids.

    Yeah, that’s about what my wife says was the message she got. “It’s good to get married, but men die on you, men leave you, men drink, men refuse to work.” We talk a lot about why but I don’t deny a lot of men do stuff that merits a defensive divorce (i.e., one where she has no choice, it’s that or ruin). Men here like to think of betas as responsible, but that doesn’t square with a lot of even non-playerish guys I’ve known who made bad life choices and habits in other areas too, not just dating. (NABetasALT?) Getting educated and having career options is the rational choice.

    But I also agree with other commenters that leftist feminsts overhype the supposed female financial independence of today. I met my wife when she was still in college, she had little family support. I gave her money and childcare to finish college, I paid for her masters and gave her childcare and transportation while she studied, I’m paying her student loans too (about three years left). But she still can’t stand on her own money-wise. I can give her support but can’t make there be more jobs in her field, or do her job interviews. I’ve suggested she consider other fields but she won’t hear of that. It’s her masters field, or menial jobs. I can only imagine how much harder independence would be for the majority of women who don’t even finish college. But your average Slate/Huffpo/NYTimes columnist just associates with other ivy league grads like her and doesn’t realize the End of Men doesn’t ring as true outside of NYC/DC.

  147. deti says:

    It’s a pretty good analogy, James. But I don’t agree that women dislike the word “slut” because most men aren’t tested for “sluttishness” (leaving aside whether men can be sluts, because they cannot).

    Women hate being called a slut or hate the term being applied to a promiscuous woman because it connotes a value judgment against the woman to whom the label is applied. (IOW, women hate it when you call a slut a slut.) Women hate it because they don’t want to be judged, and expect not to be judged, for what they do. Implicit in the judgment is an appraisal and assessment of the woman’s worth as a woman and as a human being. Women instinctively know that nearly all their agency, all their power, is contained within their ability to select their sex partner(s). And they don’t like it when you point out correctly that some of them aren’t very good at it, and thus are reducing their own power and agency.

    They want to act like sluts and be sluts; they just are appalled that anyone (especially some man) has the audacity to judge them for it.

  148. imnobody says:

    Worse still, there is simply no discussion of the realities of the sexual marketplace by parents with their children. This is the true crime of the family structure in America.

    Not only in America. In Europe it’s the same. And it’s not only parents. It’s also the whole society: mass media, pundits, female friends, etc. I used to be very angry at having squandered the best years of my life in a lie.

    But you have to understand parents: they simply don’t know. For example, my parents raised me to be a good provider and a good person. They didn’t teach me how to attract women because:

    1) They didn’t know it was necessary. They thought that, by being a good provider, good women would be interested in me. This is how it was for their generation and lots of generations before them.

    2) My father didn’t know how to attract women. He was just a provider. He didn’t need the skills and he didn’t know the skills.

    Our parents raised us to live in the sexual marketplace that they lived and they assumed that the sexual marketplace was going to be the same. But things changed.

  149. YOHAMI says:

    Except when it’s about women they dont like, or women preying on men they are interested in, then they can call those women sluts and worse.

    Women dont act on principle, but on convenience – It’s not that the word slut should not be used as a principle, and should be banned – but that they dont like other people judging them personally. Which is understadable.

    Same for cheating. It’s not that cheating is bad on principle – it’s that they dont like being cheated on. Which is understadable.

    Still, for every thing they can complain about, it’s not that they are higher moral beings that denounce the craps of the world – they do so when they get the short end of the stick. When it’s their turn to call other women sluts, cheat, etc, the decision will be made according to its convenience, not it’s principle

  150. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    lzozzlzlzozz

    it’s hard to get a womanz
    modern womenz
    to climb on down off da cock carosel
    long enough
    to talk about jesus/life/christainaianitzyzzozzl

    men wrote created
    mathew mark luke john
    exodus
    the psalmz

    women created
    twilight
    eat, pray, buttehtx

    zlzozlzozlozlz

  151. Frank says:

    “They needed a study for this? This is why I only see women in the 18-25 bracket – they start wanting to “settle down” once they get over that 25 mark.”

    Doc, out of curiosity where do you typically go to meet these women? I ask because I don’t drink, so all the obvious choices where alcohol is involved are out for me.

  152. Looking Glass says:

    Only a little over 25% of women in the work field have completed bachelor’s or higher (they like to through out 34%, but that includes all certificate/AA or technical licenses), which means that the advice to “finish school” is actually monumentally stupid. It doesn’t overcome monumentally stupid other choices, as well. (You know, most guys can be sorted out in a few hours if someone has a bit of insight into the male operating pattern… like a Father, for instance)

  153. taterearl says:

    @Yohami…

    Yes! They’d twist Jesus’s words into…Judge everyone else, but don’t judge me.

  154. deti says:

    “Why do educated, intelligent women repeatedly fail to understand their own desires, their own limited time in the SMP, and the correct use of both to increase their own happiness later in life? Why do these women who were encouraged by fathers to gain the ability to sustain themselves fail so miserably when it comes to life choices? Has the wall been sufficiently masked off from parents that even they deny the low value their daughter will have to a potential mate if she merely pursues carousel riding during her prime? Why are women being taught to wait on marriage until past their most attractive years?”

    Because women are being left to their own devices. Older women aren’t teaching younger women about things like “don’t screw the bad boys and the alpha dickbags because they’ll knock you up or give you a disease and then leave you”. Older women aren’t teaching younger women to be housewives and mothers, because those older women divorced their daughters’ fathers.

    Most women act out of convenience, not principle, as Yohami said. They don’t have good future time orientation and are concerned only with here and now.

    And yes, feminism has obscured nearly all the truths we have long known. It’s a combination of denial, political correctness, and the apex fallacy, The Wall is obscured (40 is the new 20! My best friend’s second cousin’s wife had a baby at 45!). Women are being taught to wait on marriage because they are merely assuming marriage will be there when they are ready. What they are being taught is that the men, not the women, are the problem. They are told the reason they aren’t married is because the hot alpha studs don’t want marriage, so the women will have to wait until the hot alpha studs are ready to settle down and get married. They are told that unattractive men are creepy and sexual harassers.

    Top all this off with parents like mine, raised in the 40s and 50s, who thought they were sending their children (me and my sisters) into an SMP that looked much like the one they went into. I agree with imnobody in that my parents thought all they needed to do was tell their son to work hard and keep his nose clean, and he would be OK. To my mom and dad, I didn’t need to know how to get girlfriends. All I needed to do was have money to attract girls.

  155. I doubt there will ALWAYS be enough betas available, ready and willing to marry the banged out sluts at 30 and above.

    That depends on the women. Even at 30, how many of the women who bemoan the lack of men and say they’re ready to settle down are still focused on the alphas and working from an arm-long list of must-haves? It wasn’t that long ago we were all discussing an article about women in their 60s who are still holding out. I’m not sure all that many, even of the ones complaining, are honestly looking for a quality husband. Most are just getting frustrated and trying to convince the universe to make one of the alphas in their orbit turn marriage-minded.

    Are chaste women in their early 20′s dis-empowered in the SMP or do those women not value the kind of men who value [] them?

    A bit of both. Even most of the chaste ones — like someone said above, the ones who are really trying to be good and regret any slip-ups — tend to have (at best) an egalitarian view of marriage. Even in fairly traditional circles, parents will send their daughters off for college and a career, so when she finds a man and settles down at 28 or so, she won’t be “dependent” on him. And of course, no matter how good they are, they’re still subject to human nature, including hypergamy. So no, even the good ones generally don’t value the right kind of men.

    A chaste, non-obese, 20-year-old woman who wants to get married can accomplish that yesterday. She’ll have to work at right-angles to society to do it, though. She’ll have to ignore society, friends, even parents telling her that she’s throwing away important options. She’ll have to ignore the people who say she shouldn’t be marrying a guy several years older (since the guys 5-15 years older will be much more ready to take on a wife and family). She’ll have to fight her own cravings for alpha, with no help from others. She’ll also have to find ways to signal to men that she is different from other women in that, A) she’s chaste, and B) she’s marriage-minded. Otherwise, the men who would make the best match for her will look right past her, assuming she’s still in party mode like all the other girls her age.

  156. imnobody says:

    @Yohami

    Right on. And this is why feminism won. Feminism was framed as a movement about principles (for example, equality) so men (being creatures of principles) allowed it (by passing the laws they thought were fair). You know, white knights…

    But, in reality, feminism was a movement about convenience, that is, about trying to grab more power for women. That is, equality is good when a woman wants it and it is bad when a woman wants it (for example, divorce court). The same as saying “slut”.

  157. Georgia Boy says:

    @ looking glass
    Yeah that’s a good point, and re-pokes the huge hole in the Left’s solution to all complex social problems: “This problem happened because people were never taught X, and the solution is more education.” And then I’m right back to my most enduring problem with Slate/Huffpo/NYTimes feminism, that they only reason they can think like they do is that they are steeped in the very privilege they rail against. If you’re the daughter of a prominent NYC surgeon father and a famous writer mother, your parents could pay for you to go to Columbia and send you abroad for a semester in Europe, you’ve inherited intelligence from your genetic lineage, you’re not married with no kids and have a strong family support network and friends to help you out when things go wrong, then sure, do/screw/study/drink/smoke/date/don’t marry whatever and whoever you please, and solve everything by leaning on your folks until you get the job your education and connections give you the chance to get. But that’s not most women, and when called on it, they just snark and forget. The meaning of privilege is, never having to explain why your solutions don’t work for others. Hence their behavior in the SMP, at the ballot box, on the Internet, etc.

  158. anonymous says:

    you have to understand parents: they simply don’t know… my parents raised me to be a good provider and a good person. …. by being a good provider, good women would be interested in me. This is how it was for their generation and lots of generations before them….

    Being a provider and a good man, will still get you married. But back then, it got you married at 21, to a 21 year old virgin. Today, it’s likely to get you a decade of unwanted celibacy, followed by a 30+ well-used slut.

    Our parents raised us to live in the sexual marketplace that they lived and they assumed that the sexual marketplace was going to be the same. But things changed.

    Indeed. My dear departed parents could not fathom the cultural changes that had taken place since their youth. My mom, in particular, simply couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that, there just was not some vast, untapped pool of nice marriageable girls out there, just waiting and praying to be found by a guy like me. She steadfastly believed that I was just not circulating enough, not looking in the right places. (If church isn’t the right place, I don’t know what the hell is…) and gave me all kinds of totally useless advice on finding a nonexistent “mother lode” of good marriageable girls.

  159. taterearl says:

    Convenience also means you want to lead when things are going well…then blame somebody above you for not leading when things goes bad.

  160. Women dont act on principle, but on convenience

    One of the smartest things David DeAngelo ever said (dunno if it was original) is that men are true to their word; women are true to their feelings. Obviously those are extreme generalities, but in general, the typical woman simply doesn’t know what she might do next, because she doesn’t know how she’ll feel. (The more moody or personality-disorder-afflicted she is, the more this will be true.) She can’t act on principle in a meaningful sense, because when her feelings change, her principles may change. She does what feels right (New Agers call it “obeying the Divine within” and such nonsense), so yes, “convenience” is a good word for it.

    This is why women should have as few choices in life as possible — they can’t be expected to make them according to principle with consistency. They’re just not wired for that. A father should be making most of their choices until adulthood, and then a husband or religious order should take over. We just had a long conversation on my blog [shameless plug] about how female personality disorders like BPD may just be the result of women having their minds burned out from too many years of making decisions for themselves (with the extreme cases involving something extra, like childhood abuse or neglect).

    A content woman is one who doesn’t have to decide anything more important today than what to wear. And she’s probably better off if that’s not left up entirely to her either.

  161. Novaseeker says:

    Indeed. My dear departed parents could not fathom the cultural changes that had taken place since their youth. My mom, in particular, simply couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that, there just was not some vast, untapped pool of nice marriageable girls out there, just waiting and praying to be found by a guy like me. She steadfastly believed that I was just not circulating enough, not looking in the right places. (If church isn’t the right place, I don’t know what the hell is…) and gave me all kinds of totally useless advice on finding a nonexistent “mother lode” of good marriageable girls.

    Same. My parents were silents, so they grew up in a different universe when it comes to this kind of thing. There were always sluts, even in their day, but in their day sluts were shamed as such, and the good girls outnumbered them. My parents are flabbergasted really that this switched 180 degrees such that now the non-sluts are shamed, and everyone is basically a slut (sleep around as my Mom puts it — “shacked up with one guy, and then another guy next year” — serial monogamy, which is accepted today, but in her day was seen as sleeping around and slutty). Does not compute for them, which is understandable because it’s 180 degrees the opposite of what they grew up with. How could they expect that the rules around mating would so radically change in a few decades?

  162. Novaseeker says:

    However, Why do educated, intelligent women repeatedly fail to understand their own desires, their own limited time in the SMP, and the correct use of both to increase their own happiness later in life? Why do these women who were encouraged by fathers to gain the ability to sustain themselves fail so miserably when it comes to life choices? Has the wall been sufficiently masked off from parents that even they deny the low value their daughter will have to a potential mate if she merely pursues carousel riding during her prime? Why are women being taught to wait on marriage until past their most attractive years?

    This is easy — because they see many women doing precisely the same thing — engaging in serial monogamy (the carousel on slow speed setting) and marrying between 28 and 35 to good betas. That is — they do not see the problem, because most women so far have not had a problem with this approach.

    The issue is that this is gradually changing as more and more men opt for x-box, the graduation ratios skew even more heavily and so on — fewer betas are going to be showing up. It will be a gradual trend — not something that falls off a cliff, and because of that it isn’t really seen as a problem by very many women.

  163. anonymous says:

    me: ndeed. My dear departed parents could not fathom the cultural changes that had taken place since their youth.
    Novas: Same. My parents were silents, so they grew up in a different universe when it comes to this kind of thing. There were always sluts, even in their day, but in their day sluts were shamed as such, and the good girls outnumbered them

    Yep. I tried over and over to explain, that the freaky shameful outcast fringe of their day (the promiscuous) had become the new norm, and the old norm (save it til marriage) had become the freaky fringe. This, they just DID. NOT. GET.

    Mom tried to set me up with daughters of her friends — invariably 30+ careerists. I saw right through them. Besides, with only one exception, none of these women even made the remotest pretense of following their parents’ religion, so they were FOR SURE either carousellers or at best serial “monogamists”.

    The one exception, the only religious one, was still a virgin — but — she made a comment to the effect that sex wasn’t important in marriage. So, no second date for her.

  164. Johnycomelately says:

    “There are plenty of beta providers to go around. Poor guys.”

    Right on queue, a woman bemoaning men not wanting to have sex.

    Incentives reinforce behavior, the mistake made by social planners is that they didn’t factor that men aren’t sex mad automatons and will seek personal utility.

    http://www.gq.com/news-politics/mens-lives/201303/men-dont-have-sex

  165. My parents set a great example and figured that would do the job. Not so much. I absorbed some parts of it, such as treating women honorably, without picking up on other things like the need for the man to be in charge (even though my dad was, so go figure). So: white knight. When I went wrong in a big enough way that they had to address it, they seemed bewildered that I didn’t know better about things (like the advisability of shacking up with a single mom). They seemed to think I just should have gotten that from them, and probably I should have.

    Today, thanks to media pressure, lots of parents talk to their kids about sex, but I think very few talk to them about relationships and marriage, and even fewer would be telling them anything useful.

  166. Right on queue, a woman bemoaning men not wanting to have sex.

    Yep, we are all just the same, its 50/50, its balance, its…….its, its all Rodney King and stuff

  167. Doc, out of curiosity where do you typically go to meet these women? I ask because I don’t drink, so all the obvious choices where alcohol is involved are out for me.

    Food Court at the Mall?
    Claires Boutique?

  168. Georgia Boy says:

    More like, she’s pushing the old myth of female scarcity again. She must be new around here. Jlw, that is one of the first things that men on these blogs unlearn, no one here is going to believe you. Deti put that one away some time ago, wish I could find the post but I don’t remember which blog he was guesting on at the time.

  169. Looking Glass says:

    @Johnycomelately:

    Men have tolerances. Once you get past X level, a guy will simply take the opposite approach. It’s exactly the same thing that happens with Taxes. Incentives matter. Costs matter.

  170. Höllenhund says:

    “There will be a pool of suckers for any reasonably-well maintained late 20s/early 30s woman ready to settle down.”

    Just what % of late 20s/early 30s women are “reasonably-well maintained”, really? I mean reasonably-well maintained both physically and psychologically? Not even a run-of-the-mill beta wants to marry a stressed-out, psychological basket case with emotional baggage.

  171. greyghost says:

    There are not as a whole a lot of beta provider types. Plenty of betas but most will hook up but not marry. If not most a large number won’t. We also have MGTOW, peter pans and divorced men that are financially broken and/or are in no mood to be in love with a women just off the carousel.

  172. Höllenhund says:

    “Upon reflection, I find the betas are still wifing up the carousel riders.”

    As others have pointed out, these marriages are bound to fail because the wife eventually grows too frustrated.

  173. an observer says:

    “Are chaste women in their early 20′s dis-empowered in the SMP or do those women not value the kind of men who value them?”

    Women have chosen the hookup culture through their preference for high status males. It is logical that those guys expect the woman to put out. If she doesnt, there are plenty of others that will.

    The problem is her mate selection process. She isnt attracted to marriage minded betas – at least not yet. And by the time she is, her ability to pair bond will be well and truly broken.

  174. Norm says:

    I saw an add on Craigslist(won’t say where :)). This woman aged 31 was looking for a man for her friend who is probably the same age. She wants a Christian man in the same age bracket. There is a line in the ad that says where do you go to meet men “after the bar phase” has passed. Sounds like her and or her friend were carousel riders and now want some guy to man up for them. I guess if you were able to show them this article ten years ago they would have told you where to go.

  175. Julian O'Dea says:

    Cail Corishev:

    “This is why women should have as few choices in life as possible — they can’t be expected to make them according to principle with consistency. They’re just not wired for that. A father should be making most of their choices until adulthood, and then a husband or religious order should take over … A content woman is one who doesn’t have to decide anything more important today than what to wear. And she’s probably better off if that’s not left up entirely to her either.”

    Julian O’Dea:

    Yes. In the Catholic dispensation, this is still theoretically true. There are no women who are not at least notionally under the authority of a man, father, husband, parish priest, bishop, and so on. This was actually what happened with my wife, who literally went from her father’s house to mine. And was “given away”, which used to mean what it says.

    I am not saying we have completely followed that timeless script, but we kept elements of it.

    And I agree that women are bad at making important life decisions. And that the stress and depression they often feel today may well be due to trying to be their own authority. I wouldn’t argue that women are incompetent in mundane matters, necessarily, but that they do not find it easy to make rational decisions on a lot of crucial matters.

    It is interesting that, even in the traditional division of household tasks, those requiring imagination and judgement tend to devolve to husbands.

    As for what to wear, I am quite ready to advise my wife on that too. Women often have no clue what suits them.

  176. anonymous says:

    Deti: Chaste women are still women. Like their slutty sisters, they still want the hot alpha stud — but they want him to wait, and they want him for marriage. Not possible, not in this SMP.

    Rare, but it IS possible. There really are a few “Righteous Alphas” who will wait til marriage. But, like all men, they hate sexual abstience, and since as Alphas, they can get any woman they want, they quickly marry the hottest girls in the church and are off the market forever.

    [Chaste women ] doom themselves to failure because (1) to get the alphas they have to put out, which they won’t do; and (2) they aren’t attracted to betas and won’t stoop to their level.

    Hence the phenomenon of the “Unmarriageable Evangelical Princess”. She is holding out for the rare Righteous Alpha, which she can’t hope to get unless she herself is a 9 or 10. And while waiting, she’ll turn down dozens, perhaps hundreds of marriagable Betas who try to date her… all the while, bitterly complaining that there are “no men”.

    Some of them hold out for a Righteous Alpha for decades. I hate to break it to any 40 year old princesses reading this, but it must be said — The man you’re holding out for, just celebrated his 20th wedding anniversary with somebody else. Such a man is NOT going to abstain from sex from age 18 to age 40, holding out for YOU — he will marry the first good woman he can get, as young as he possibly can get her. (Hey, don’t we all…)

  177. deti says:

    “I tried over and over to explain, that the freaky shameful outcast fringe of their day (the promiscuous) had become the new norm, and the old norm (save it til marriage) had become the freaky fringe. This, they just DID. NOT. GET.”

    “My parents were silents, so they grew up in a different universe when it comes to this kind of thing. There were always sluts, even in their day, but in their day sluts were shamed as such, and the good girls outnumbered them. My parents are flabbergasted really that this switched 180 degrees such that now the non-sluts are shamed, and everyone is basically a slut ….”

    Me too. My parents had absolutely NO idea what was going on when I was coming up in the early to mid 1980s. My dad was a silent generation; Mom is at the very beginning of the baby boomers. But they were clueless about how things had changed — virgins are shamed. All the girls are sluts. You help your virgin buddy turn in his V-card by getting him laid with some girl, a bottom feeder slut if you have to. It was all perfectly normal. There were no vast pools of marriageable women dying to meet a nice boy and get married. Church is absolutely the WORST place to meet girls. All the women, including the church girls, flock to alphas. The Catholic girls are absolutely dying to get their hands and bodies on some c*ck when they get to college. My parents absolutely could not understand this.

  178. GKChesteron says:

    Deti, I think that’s turning a pattern behavior into a rule. It isn’t.

  179. Novaseeker says:

    It’s a strong pattern, and was even when I was in college in the 1980s.

  180. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    This is easy — because they see many women doing precisely the same thing — engaging in serial monogamy (the carousel on slow speed setting) and marrying between 28 and 35 to good betas. That is — they do not see the problem, because most women so far have not had a problem with this approach.

    In fact, there is a name for this form of sluttiness: It’s called Hooking Up Smart…

  181. deti says:

    GKC,

    Nova’s right about this. I gather from his comments that Nova and I are around the same age. I was in high school in the early to mid 1980s. I was in college in the mid 1980s, and graduated in 1990. What I described above was the strong, noticeable pattern when I was in college and from the sounds of things it has only intensified.

  182. 8oxer says:

    Most women act out of convenience, not principle, as Yohami said. They don’t have good future time orientation and are concerned only with here and now.

    This is absolutely true, and it is equally true of the most intelligent women, in my experience.

    One of my colleagues, who is probably a standard deviation ahead of me and the rest of my peers, who did her dissertation on some mathy shit I don’t even begin to understand (manifold spaces and such), and who can break down a complex problem better than anyone I know, is a single mother, with a kid fathered by some badboy who lives across the country, and who recently got into a road-rage incident with her neighbour. This woman, in terms of raw cognitive ability, probably trumps 99/100 men in the world, yet she can’t figure out how to get along with people from one minute to the next and is constantly embroiled in emotional nuttery, just like any average ho you would meet at the night club on Saturday evening.

    I’m convinced that women have a part of their brain reserved for things like social climbing, fashion and gossip, and this is the space which, in men, is used for long-term planning and delaying gratification and such. Of course I have no evidence (other than anecdotes) but it’s an appealing pet theory of mine. Women think men are idiots, and men think women are idiots, and we’re both right, from one another’s points of view.

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    The issue is that this is gradually changing as more and more men opt for x-box, the graduation ratios skew even more heavily and so on — fewer betas are going to be showing up. It will be a gradual trend — not something that falls off a cliff, and because of that it isn’t really seen as a problem by very many women.

    Sure, as long as any given woman in question can catch a man, it “works for her” at the individual level, and the aggregate don’t matter. It is like the old joke about the bear in the woods – she doesn’t have to outrun the bear, just outrun another woman.

  184. 8oxer says:

    “I tried over and over to explain, that the freaky shameful outcast fringe of their day (the promiscuous) had become the new norm, and the old norm (save it til marriage) had become the freaky fringe. This, they just DID. NOT. GET.”

    No worries. Brother Boxer has a solution for you gents. You just pack up mom and dad on Friday evening, and take them with you as you cruise the nightclubs and pubs. Pointedly ask your mother which of the regular skanks and hoes she would prefer as her new daughter-in-law.

    What? You don’t want me to wife up any of these fine specimens of young womanhood?

    Yeah, I didn’t think so.

  185. Anonymous Reader says:

    Norm
    I saw an add on Craigslist(won’t say where🙂 ). This woman aged 31 was looking for a man for her friend who is probably the same age. She wants a Christian man in the same age bracket. There is a line in the ad that says where do you go to meet men “after the bar phase” has passed.

    You could offer this reply: “How about Alcoholics Anonymous?”…might want to do so under a one-use account name, though.

  186. Ton says:

    The more failed beta/ carousel marriages the fewer betas that will marry

    Boxer, you missed a step. He needs to show his folks those girls in action on Friday night and at church on Sunday. Otherwise his parents will say find a church girl.

  187. anonymous says:

    You just pack up mom and dad on Friday evening, and take them with you as you cruise the nightclubs and pubs. Pointedly ask your mother which of the regular skanks and hoes she would prefer as her new daughter-in-law.

    Mom’s dead, Dad’s dead, I’m happily married, and I never did hit the clubs and pubs anyway. So, that’s not going to happen.

    However… I have to say…. Mom was out one time (after Dad died) with some other older friends, and she and her companions were horrified at some younger folks that they saw, engaging in really raunchy dirty-dancing. As she described it me, I explained that this was rather commonplace nowadays. Just for a few minutes, a glimmer of understanding crossed her countenace. But, ultimately, she still couldn’t accept that what she saw, was the norm.

  188. Novaseeker says:

    Nova’s right about this. I gather from his comments that Nova and I are around the same age. I was in high school in the early to mid 1980s. I was in college in the mid 1980s, and graduated in 1990. What I described above was the strong, noticeable pattern when I was in college and from the sounds of things it has only intensified.

    Yep, one year apart only. Same time, same culture. It was the beginning of what we see today among the young, and that was already ~20-25 years ago now.

  189. Chuck Hammer says:

    Novaseeker
    It will be a gradual trend — not something that falls off a cliff, and because of that it isn’t really seen as a problem by very many women.

    Not so gradual. The cliff approaches. I’ve been charting the marriage rate data published by the National Marriage Project for the last several years and the decline in the marriage rate is accelerating. The marriage rate fell by 8.6% from 2009 to 2010!!! The 2011 data was not published, I assume because it’s so negative. And yes, we’re in a recession, but there’s more to it than that.

    The projected marriage rate reaches zero between 2025 and 2032. I don’t think this is overly pessimistic. There are very powerful cultural changes occurring and at some point soon the meme that “only chumps marry” will become dominant.

    Here’s the data – marriages per 1,000 unmarried women age 15 and older.
    1980 61.4
    1990 54.5
    2000 46.5
    2007 39.2
    2008 37.4
    2009 36.0
    2010 32.9

  190. Novaseeker says:

    Nothing continues in a straight line progression for very long. The trend is clear, but 2008-2011 are a special period of economic crisis, and not really the basis for an extrapolated trend.

  191. James says:

    Will there always be a supply of betas who will marry ex-carousel-riders at 28-35?

    The danger for a man in his early 30s is that a carousel-riding woman’s biological clock makes her more marriage-friendly for the few years until she has completed her family. Then she goes back to the carousel, while keeping the house and a slice of hubby’s paycheck.

    When such a woman marries, she does not know that she will feel differently in a few years’ time. A man’s own desires also cloud his judgment and prevent him from seeing what is happening. Above all, it is the legal rewards for no-fault divorce that facilitate the screwing-over of the beta male.

    One of the other posts on this blog pointed out that second-wave feminists enjoyed a generation of sexual “liberation” before the age at first marriage had significantly increased. They could enjoy the benefits of liberation and still marry young, but eventually their liberation changed the SMP itself.

    The betas will not be around for ever. Eventually, the message will get around that marriage to an ex-carousel-rider is a bad bet. It will take another 20 years, but the SMP will change, and will continue slowly changing as each sex reacts to the changes made by the other.

  192. Chuck Hammer says:

    Novaseeker
    Nothing continues in a straight line progression for very long. The trend is clear, but 2008-2011 are a special period of economic crisis, and not really the basis for an extrapolated trend.

    It’s not like you to jump to conclusions. The data series is from 1980 through 2010, the best curve fits are polynomials, not straight lines, and the 2008 through 2010 data (2011 is not available) have only moved the x-axis intercept (zero marriage) up by a few months.

    I don’t expect the marriage rate to actually reach zero, of course, there will always be a few diehard holdouts, but the data doesn’t lie. The marriage rate has been declining at an accelerating rate, for thirty years. And the rate of decline continues to accelerate.

    A chart would make this all very clear, but I can’t post that.

  193. Farm Boy says:

    In fact, there is a name for this form of sluttiness: It’s called Hooking Up Smart…

    Just Walsh those women out of your hair.

  194. Chuck Hammer says:

    Gonna give this a shot. Here’s the marriage rate chart.

    Marriages per 1,000 unmarried women age 15 and older.

  195. Novaseeker says:

    I just don’t buy that the the acceleration can be extrapolated like that.

  196. donalgraeme says:

    Agreed Novaseeker. It is going to level off. The question is, where? ‘
    20%?
    15%?
    10%?
    Less than that?

    We are watching the slow collapse of Western Civilization before our very eyes. Assuming there isn’t a shift in the trend lines, we are looking at another Dark Ages. At best.

  197. Chuck Hammer says:

    Novaseeker
    I just don’t buy that the the acceleration can be extrapolated like that.

    Well, you’re right. It’s unreliable to extrapolate so far ahead of the data.

    Having said that it’s a well-behaved data series and it’s not unreasonable to conclude it suggests a future continuing decline in marriage.

  198. Novaseeker says:

    At some stage, perhaps. The issue is when. And also whether there are any tech (or other) wildcards that screw up even any decent discount on a straight-line model. Lots of uncertainty in a world of rapidly evolving tech.

  199. Novaseeker says:

    That post was responding to donald.

    Chuck, I agree on the trend. I just don’t know how much we can assume in terms of the timing of its vector in light of the pace of technological change.

  200. Chuck Hammer says:

    donalgraeme
    Agreed Novaseeker. It is going to level off. The question is, where? ‘
    20%?
    15%?
    10%?
    Less than that?

    The marriage rate numbers aren’t percentages, they’re rates. So in 2010 there were 32.9 marriages for every 1,000 unmarried women age 15 and older. In other words, for all unmarried women, 1 women in 30 got married in 2010.

    Just a gut estimate, but I’d say the wheels come totally off when we’re down to about half that rate – 1 woman in 60 getting married, or a marriage rate of about 17 per 1,000. That happens right around 2020.

  201. Novaseeker says:

    But who’s to say that a system like they have in, say, Sweden, or other Euro countries, doesn’t replace marriage to a large degree? That is, a life script where the order is fuck-school-fuck-grad-school-fuck-lowlevelwork-fuck-boyfriend-kids-andthenmaybemarriage — won’t be what happens by and large here, with the upper professional classes still marrying (as is also the case in Europe). In other words, why aren’t we just becoming more like Europe with backwards relationships for most non-elites (whether prole or middle) and marriage for the elites.

    Isn’t that really what’s happening?

  202. greyghost says:

    The dark ages are coming. The only new innovations will be military or police type weapons and surveillance technology. otgher than that very little technical and social advancements. women will slowly be treated as harshly as men but not quit so no man will care because women will be seen as having it good.

  203. YOHAMI says:

    “only new innovations will be military or police type weapons and surveillance technology.”

    Innovations usually come from weirdos, omegas, etc. Marriage has little to do with them.

  204. donalgraeme says:

    @ Chuck

    That was sloppy reading of me. Thanks for pointing that out. But take out the percentages, and the question still applies: where does it level off? At a low enough rate of marriages per 1,000 women marriage becomes a statistical anomaly,

    @ Novaseeker

    That model is not sustainable. And the European elites know it. Part of the impetus for the expansion of the EU and Euro is to try and spread the collapse around, buying more time for the states already in it.

  205. greyghost says:

    With the marriage rate at 1 in 60 they will still have children so it will mask the marriage problem. Women will be married to the state. Now as I always bring up throw in male birth control pill and see any unmarried women as a childless spinster and things are different big time. Ex: Beta marries an ex carouseler/slut that just turned 32 he takes birth control because he is not ready yet. Slut hits 35 -38 pussy turns bad or better still she gets her self knocked up on her own and beta hubby knows before birth child is not his. Fun times for MRA’s out to destroy feminism.

  206. Chuck Hammer says:

    Novaseeker
    But who’s to say that a system like they have in, say, Sweden, or other Euro countries, doesn’t replace marriage to a large degree?…..Isn’t that really what’s happening?

    I agree with you again but that still leaves us with an ever more intrusive federal government, huge wealth transfers from men to women, unmotivated men and slutty single mothers.

    It just does not offer the same civilizational foundation that innocent but engaged and hard-working, married betas provide. No new insights there though.

  207. greyghost says:

    Yohami
    With no dog in the hunt the number of men motivated to produce goes down. Look at college inrollment now at 60 percent female A lot of men never got the education that would give them one of the “2’s” to make the 2+2= 4 or a new energy souce(innovation) Hell that guy is playing x-box. Think of what the modern “african american” culture has done to NOT make another George Washington Carver. In a subtle way we are in a slope into the dark ages just by removing the pussy insentive for a productive man. MGTOW is more than not investing in women it is also laving less for the government. Going off grid is a growing trend.

  208. SlargTarg says:

    Just a gut estimate, but I’d say the wheels come totally off when we’re down to about half that rate – 1 woman in 60 getting married, or a marriage rate of about 17 per 1,000. That happens right around 2020.

    I think the far more important number (for predicting societal collapse) than marriage rate is the percentage of the population born to unmarried parents.

    For newborns that percentage is approaching 50% in most western countries, however the full effects of this aren’t being felt as the world is being run by the older generations for whom that number was substantially lower.

    I have been unable to find a number, but it would be interesting to know what percentage of the current adult population was born to married parents.

    As the social capital runs out (the older generation born into intact families dies off) and the bastards inherit the earth that is when its going to get very rough.

  209. greyghost says:

    Also innovations come from demand. Without the excess wealth created by the family man demand is not there for real innovation.

  210. One thing that strikes me is how unaware women are how their beauty and fertility decline with age. This state of unawareness allows them to squander their youth with partying, philandering and careerism.

    In the Los Angeles area, women believe that they can focus on their own pleasures until their late-30s. Yes, much later than in most other cities. They have no inkling that the vast majority of them are even one iota less attractive as mates due to their age. Indeed, they would be offended if anyone made such a suggestion to them. The S-word [“sexist”] would spew from their lips within a millisecond. The notion that their beauty — their most precious currency — could be flittering away quickly so offends their sensibilities that they deny their own physical changes.

    Many of these older women in denial maintain their figures. This encourages them to maintain the false sense that they remain as attractive as at 25. They can still have one night stands with the same types of men, but they are not marriageable by any quality man.

  211. Anonymous Reader says:

    2020, eh? Paging TFH…

  212. Chuck Hammer says:

    2020, eh? Paging TFH…

    Maybe more like 2025. Not that far off either way. There’ll be a huge pig in the demographic python of never-married and too old to marry women. Dalrock has written about this previously.

  213. Looking Glass says:

    Somewhere between “1 in 50” to “1 in 60” is probably the breakpoint/floor. Though the never-marrieds piling up is going to shove that number down pretty fast, on its own.

    The really important detail is that the largest number of yearly births 1990/91 are between 21 and 23 at the moment. This is part of what is driven that number down lately. It’s a big group that isn’t even looking to marry, yet. In about 4 years, we’ll see the major damage, as they’ll reach the average age for first marriage, for women.

    I should point out that, in the USA, the best case scenario is something like what happened with Canada in the 90s. The bond market came calling and they cut very, very deep on the budgets. That’s one possibility. There is a whole lot of other ones, including some wackier things short of another civil war.

    But I don’t expect a domestic war, Stateside, in my life time (and I’m pretty young) because it’s coming to Europe fairly soon. And it’ll be ugly. Very ugly. Though it’s kind of hilarious to guess who’ll actually be able to fight. Which suggests it probably happens in the streets and the ballot boxes. People tend to forget that a lot of the countries the USA deposed the leaders of in the 1946-1960 period were properly and duly elected Communists. I suspect we’ll see a rise of European Fascist movements into control of a few countries. Then, all bets are off. Though I imagine they’ll go more for the actual foreigners rather than the Jews… this time.

    And all because they told their women to “go have a good time, don’t worry about the consequences” and setup an entire society to do that.

    [Fun side bar: as recently as the late 70s, the USA & France worked the same amount of hours, per worker. Then the French enforced “leisure” time and made firing impossible. Now we have the impression of Lazy French. These things can change rather rapidly.]

  214. Looking Glass says:

    Oh yeah, the Japanese come up a lot in this topic discussion, but it’s probably best to be very mindful of attempting to learn anything from them. They’re pretty much the Germans without even a vague Christian conception. What this means, in practice, is that the USA obliterated their culture in August 1945. They’ve yet to actually replace that with anything functional.

    They’ve ended up a people in search of “pride” that they aren’t ashamed of. Which is much of the reason I like to put Murder Rate together with Suicide Rate, for an actual understanding of how violent a society ends up being.

  215. Novaseeker says:

    Many of these older women in denial maintain their figures. This encourages them to maintain the false sense that they remain as attractive as at 25. They can still have one night stands with the same types of men, but they are not marriageable by any quality man.

    And there’s the reason. They’re still hot. They can still pull sexually. Pulling commitment is of course a different thing, but that’s the case for any woman — a slut at 22 has a hard time getting a commitment from any man of quality, too. So yes behavior impedes MMV at any age, but SMV can be retained to a significant degree well into the 40s if a woman keeps herself. This ability to generate sexual attention from men and generate boners even in significantly younger men is what drives the egos of such women — their lives from 15-45 have been characterized by being able to pull sexually with ease. When you’re coming at life from that perspective, it does seem warped to say that women are screwed past 25. Because they aren’t. Most women who want to marry in the 30s pull it off. Certainly not to the guys that would have been top of the list — of course not — but they can get married to respectable men all the same. I see this all the time still. Just a few years ago a quite hot colleague of 38, obviously a carouseler in her younger years, married a nice beta and now, at 40, has the requisite kid. Women are pulling this off *all* *the* *time* here in DC. That’s why they’re not worried.

    As I say, things will change, gradually, because the beta supply is gradually dwindling. But that isn’t the case for women who are right *now* 35+, and those are the women that the girls who are between 25 and 35 are looking at. The Bolicks and Gottliebs are the losers of this generation who simply were too picky and not as skilled in deciding when to hop off the double-decker carousel-bus — most women have managed it just fine and are now ogling their beta babies.

  216. Krakonos says:

    @Novaseeker
    You are right. Most women can have it all. I see around me even most of not pretty ones being able to find a man (better then them) in their thirties.
    I have only one objection:

    As I say, things will change, gradually, because the beta supply is gradually dwindling. But that isn’t the case for women who are right *now* 35+, and those are the women that the girls who are between 25 and 35 are looking at.

    I do agree the things will gradually change, for sure, but you should not be counting in years but in generations. The beta behavior is hardwired in white and asian men. It takes time to remove those genes. You have to think in scope of centuries or even millenia.

  217. Novaseeker says:

    The only thing I would say about that is that the pace of change has greatly increased. What previously was changeable over the course of centuries is happening now in a decade or a generation. So I do think that given the increased pace of change generally it isn’t a question of centuries or millennia.

  218. deti says:

    What is affecting change now is the light years advances in tech, especially the internet and communication. Another thing is the rapid de-Christianization of the West. Yet another is economic pressures on men — they simply cannot get decent jobs which for many of them is the price of admission to conventional marriage and fatherhood. To this last point, they can’t get married because they can’t afford to.

    With the internet, people are learning more and faster about intergender relationships. The jig is up on the scam feminists have been running for the past 50 years. Men aren’t going to try to effect change on a macro level; rather they will make individual decisions on a micro level which collectively will have the macro effect we are seeing now — retreat into individual or solitary pursuits, producing just enough to support themselves individually, hookups, swearing off marriage and fatherhood because the effort outlay required to obtain and sustain it is too costly and risky.

    The rapid descent into secularism and paganism is only accelerating this because many men and women no longer feel any sense of obligation to the world outside themselves, nor any intellectual curiosity. Life is one indulgence after another for such people. History for them begins with their earliest memories (or somewhere around 1995). They have no sense of historical perspective at all even about their own country and heritage.

    The barbarians are not just at the gate, they’re living among us, and have been for a long time now.

  219. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    laoaolzlzozlzozlozolzlz

    when a womanz hits thirty, she asks 2 quetsionsz zlzozzlzo

    1. whwere have all th e good menz gones and
    2. why is my butt sore?

    be sure to read the front and back of theGBFM THONGZ zlzlzlzlzlzlzl which you can take off your fiance you beta herbsz zlzlzloz when you marryry her when she turns 31 zllzlzlzlllzzlzlzzozzolzz:
    http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.653757685

    zzolozzzlzozlzozozozzlzlo omg zlzozozlzoz

  220. Novaseeker says:

    Yeah, except if she’s quite hot.

    Just sticking with the example from my post earlier this morning, this woman was quite hot in her late 30s. Like top 10% of late 30s women hot, lawyer or no lawyer, and knew how to deploy this, obviously indicating quite a good deal of experience in the SMP and with manipulating men. She basically carouseled until she was 35 and then started looking and filtering, went back to church and so on (didn’t lengthen the skirts, mind you), and found a nice beta to marry at 38. A pretty high quality guy objectively as well — not a schlub.

    Now, most women are not in the top 10% of late 30s women. So most women will need to settle more after riding the carousel for 20 years from 15 to 35. But the issue is that all women see women like this one “having it all”, and they then think they can do that, too. And the reality is that they *can*, but they need to settle more or less based on their hotness post 35. And yes there are hot post 35 women, there just aren’t as many of them as there are at 25. Note that this also means that if you *are* one of the hot post 35s, you have a huge advantage especially if you are fishing in the UMC pond where your law practice is also an MMV plus.

    Really, I have seen women who have been left behind because they are too picky (self inflicted), and women who have been left behind because they aren’t attractive (bad luck, but the lower 20% always has problems of either sex), but for women who are in the top 80% there isn’t a problem into the 40s. The difference between them relates to how they ave maintained themselves *and* genetics (they make a big difference as to how beautiful a woman remains as she ages), but almost every woman can find a man if she wants to. 90% of women are married by 40. The other 10% are the losers — either terminally picky or not attractive enough (bottom levels).

    Heck, there are women in their early 50s like this. Just yesterday I was at a business lunch with a client of mine who is a total alpha male in his mid 40s, and one of our female colleagues, who is around 50 and very hot for 50, was there, and there was a total attraction observable. Although he had never met her, he hugged her out of the blue as soon as he saw her (he just wanted to do it, obviously) — she was surprised, but not resistant (of course, not, he’s an alpha male). She’s hot, She can still pull. Even obvious alpha males who are younger than she is.

    The issue isn’t that there aren’t women like this. The issue is that the *average* woman is NOT like this, and so when they see the women who ARE like this they get the impression that THEY can ALSO be like this, and they can’t because they are not hot enough.

    In the 21st century, the critical path to success in this area is hotness. Hotness, hotness, hotness. Some of that is effort and some of it is genes, but it is everying.

  221. imnobody says:

    Many of these older women in denial maintain their figures. This encourages them to maintain the false sense that they remain as attractive as at 25. They can still have one night stands with the same types of men, but they are not marriageable by any quality man.

    And there’s the reason. They’re still hot. They can still pull sexually. Pulling commitment is of course a different thing,

    This is the problem with women. They don’t fully understand the difference between being attractive for sex and being attractive for commitment. It is a case of projection. Most women won’t have sex with a man, if she doesn’t perceive him as something with “potential” which could end with a relationship. In other words, woman don’t say “I’m going to have sex with this man but I am positive that I am never going to marry him”. Women project this attitude to men.

    When young women see lots of men throwing themselves to them, they think: “Wow! All these men see me as a something with potential for a serious relationship. So I don’t need to hurry and I can be picky” (“I can always have my pick” as the 29-year-old girl in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0 says). Women don’t realize that 90% of men interested in them are only interested in pump and dump. So there is a false impression of abundance which distorts the marriage market.

    The ancients knew better, as with everything. This is why suitors only dated women with the parent’s authorization. This way the woman knew that the man was for real. But this was not FUUUUUN!!!

  222. imnobody says:

    Sorry bad markup. The first two paragraphs are a quote.

  223. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Nova

    ” The issue is when. And also whether there are any tech (or other) wildcards that screw up even any decent discount on a straight-line model. Lots of uncertainty in a world of rapidly evolving tech.”

    Frankly I cannot fathom any possible technological innovation that’d somehow benefit marriage-oriented betas and the institution of marriage itself. These innovations normally benefit women striving for economic/sexual independence and men who want to slack, by making life easier and work less hard. There have been innovations that benefited both men and women; there have also been innovations that disproportionately benefited women over men (like the Pill and safe aborton); there has never been any example of any technological innovation disproportionately benefiting men over women.

    Another issue to consider is that technological progress is decelerating:

    campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/no-more-industrial-revolutions/

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324461604578191781756437940.html

  224. Clarence says:

    I don’t think anyone can really predict whether ‘industrial revolutions’ are over esp as both articles seem blind to the ever increasingly smart A.I., the 3d printing revolution (and it really IS a revolution) and the potential growth of an actual ‘space economy’ with Space X, Planetary Resources, and Bigelow Aerospace leading the way.

  225. Chuck Hammer says:

    Krakonos
    I do agree the things will gradually change, for sure, but you should not be counting in years but in generations. The beta behavior is hardwired in white and asian men. It takes time to remove those genes. You have to think in scope of centuries or even millenia.

    Wishful thinking from a woman – the betas will continue to man up. Good luck with that. We’re not talking about evolution here, we’re talking about culture. Culture is nothing more than commonly held ideas, it has nothing to do with genes.

    After sleeping on it, here’s what I think. One more decade will be enough for the ideas that are now broadly understood in the manosphere to penetrate the mass consciousness.

    This is the meme that will kill marriage. If you’re an average man with average earning potential and an inclination to monogamy, the woman you marry in her late twenties will be more sexually experienced than you, have sexual memories that are more intense than any you can provide and who you will pay to marry you whether she stays or leaves. Only chumps marry.

  226. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    lzozozlzozozoz

    LZOZOLZL VINTAGE GBFM & ROISSY LZLZLZOOZZO

    http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7936233/lzozolzl-gbfm-roissy-lzlzlzoozzo

    lzozoozzozoozzoz

  227. donalgraeme says:

    @ Chuck

    “This is the meme that will kill marriage. If you’re an average man with average earning potential and an inclination to monogamy, the woman you marry in her late twenties will be more sexually experienced than you, have sexual memories that are more intense than any you can provide and who you will pay to marry you whether she stays or leaves. Only chumps marry.”

    Actually, based on the latest data, its more likely early to mid thirties than late 20’s.

    You are correct that the controlling factor is mass consciousness of what is really happening. Look at it this way:

    What sane, non-desperate man would study hard at school for four to 10 years, then work hard at a job for 50, 60, 70 or 80 hours a week for the opportunity to marry a washed up former slut whose pair bonding ability is destroyed and who is likely to divorce him after a few years, taking the kids, half his income and probably the house?

    What kind of man would deliberately walk down that path?

  228. donalgraeme says:

    Shouldn’t be half his income in my above post, but rather half his wealth (depending on the property laws of the state).

  229. Novaseeker says:

    What kind of man would deliberately walk down that path?

    The kind of man who prefers having occasional sex from a relatively unattracted woman to fapping.

    Sure, if a guy has women all over him and has great Game why the hell would he marry. But those aren’t the guys who are marrying these women.

    In order for this to change, there has to be a player movement among the guys who are not x-boxing it.

  230. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Yeah, except if she’s quite hot.

    Just sticking with the example from my post earlier this morning, this woman was quite hot in her late 30s. Like top 10% of late 30s women hot, lawyer or no lawyer, and knew how to deploy this, obviously indicating quite a good deal of experience in the SMP and with manipulating men. She basically carouseled until she was 35 and then started looking and filtering, went back to church and so on (didn’t lengthen the skirts, mind you), and found a nice beta to marry at 38. A pretty high quality guy objectively as well — not a schlub.

    Aside from your point that very few women are this level of “hot” in their late 30s, it is misleading for another reason. Yes, she married an objectively “high quality guy”, but it is extremely unlikely that she married as well as she would have had she gotten serious 5 or 10 years earlier. You’ve made the point that UMC men want to see the merit badge, so assuming this is true her ideal age for marriage was about 5-10 years earlier. But for most women the ideal age is even younger, more like early 20s. That they still manage to marry a man who on paper looks great doesn’t change the fact that the man in question was forced to settle for a woman who took great care not to waste a moment more of her youth on him than absolutely required. If he’d had better options, he would have taken them.

  231. Chuck Hammer says:

    What kind of man would deliberately walk down that path?

    One that didn’t get the memo.

    My brother-in-law once said to me he thought that I (and his sister) had the perfect marriage. From the outside it does look pretty good but it has been 25 years of relentless competition and head-butting. I’m trying to decide if I have the energy to split when my youngest goes to college in a couple of years. I probably will.

    I have this half-baked fantasy of making a speech at our (theoretical) 30th wedding anniversary party – “I’d like to tell you about my wife, about how much she means to me, about her love and support, about how she helped me build a career and successful life for all of us. I’d like to……but I can’t because it wouldn’t be true.”

    lzozoozzozoozzoz

  232. Höllenhund says:

    “What kind of man would deliberately walk down that path?”

    The kind who wants to sire children and raise them in an intact two-parent household. If you don’t want to do that, Marriage 2.0 is a crappy deal no matter how you slice it.

  233. Novaseeker says:

    Yes, she married an objectively “high quality guy”, but it is extremely unlikely that she married as well as she would have had she gotten serious 5 or 10 years earlier. You’ve made the point that UMC men want to see the merit badge, so assuming this is true her ideal age for marriage was about 5-10 years earlier. But for most women the ideal age is even younger, more like early 20s. That they still manage to marry a man who on paper looks great doesn’t change the fact that the man in question was forced to settle for a woman who took great care not to waste a moment more of her youth on him than absolutely required. If he’d had better options, he would have taken them.

    Sure, but my point is that the “not optimal but still pretty good” mate is an attractive enough option such that it is preferable to women like this (and other women who think they are like this) to forgoing the carousel entirely and marrying at 23. That is, the “delta” isn’t big enough to justify forgoing the ride. If it were, far more women would be marrying young. They’re making a calculus based on the idea that they can marry later and marry pretty well, for most of them. Again, maybe not the same quality they could have married at 23 (although most don’t believe that’s when they’ll find the best quality, either, but that’s a separate issue), but the delta between what they think that quality would have been and what they think they will get between 35-40, based on what they see women like this getting, is not big enough to justify the opportunity cost of marrying early in terms of skipping the chance at the carousel and the low probability but jakcpot return of landing an alpha (and even if that doesn’t happen, the “fun and excitement” in the meantime before settling down for Mr. Okay at 38). I’ve seen this time and time again here in DC. I would say the norm is still for the UMC professional women here to marry between 28 and 34, but there are also plenty who marry between 35 and 40. To the same kinds of guys. Pretty much *none* of them are married at 23. None. They’re too busy finishing grad/prof school and starting careers to marry then.

  234. 8oxer says:

    Novaseeker:

    there was a total attraction observable. Although he had never met her, he hugged her out of the blue as soon as he saw her (he just wanted to do it, obviously) — she was surprised, but not resistant (of course, not, he’s an alpha male). She’s hot, She can still pull. Even obvious alpha males who are younger than she is.

    While I don’t want to presume that I know what went on in this business meeting, there’s another scenario. The younger alpha might have just been socially gaming this woman, for the purposes of flattery and getting along.

    I do this all the time to older women in professional settings, most of whom I would never touch in a sexual manner. Lots of women are on the make. Letting these types think you’re attracted is simply a way to be friendly and get them to lower their bitch shield.

    Charles:

    None of my biz, but I hope you dump the bitch after your kids are on their own. Pay her off if you must, and enjoy some peace and autonomy in the golden years ahead. Your life story sounds about as close to hell as I’ve heard in a while.

    Best, Boxer

  235. Chuck Hammer says:

    8oxer
    Your life story sounds about as close to hell as I’ve heard in a while.

    It’s been OK at times. I’m very close to my son who’s an Ivy League college athlete. I know a UMC guy whose UMC wife left him and took his two boys to shack up with a lesbian biker bitch. So, it could be worse.

    The bottom line is, you want children the cost is everything you’ve got. If you’re lucky. Some men pay more than everything they’ve got.

    I like your new improved friendly persona, btw.

  236. Opus says:

    I have a new theory:

    Just as men seem to reach intellectual maturity at about or just before the age of twenty-eight, so women reach the peak of the attractiveness at about the same age. They are never going to look better. It is also the age at which women are giving birth to most children; this cannot be coincidental.

    Women who wait until they are nearly forty if not older to marry are unlikely to be the relationship/children type (whatever their protestations), so it is no surprise that later marriages tend to be few and produce even fewer children. The upside for the single thirty/forty-something provided her looks hold, is that she may be the envy of her married contemporaries with her tales of exotic foreign holidays, breathless romances with yet another Mr Big (Alpha cad), and career advancement as she effortlessly rises through the corporate cubicles by reason of vagina (a fact of which she will not be conscious). Should she marry, the options are either, divorced men with families, or foreign toy-boys who she will have to keep, or losers-in-love whom Deti reminds us are not sexually appealing to her. That is the inevitable price of riding the carousel too hard, too long.

    As Dalrock says, if the man had had better options, he would have taken them.

  237. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes to Opus’ timimg. Men mature intellectually slower than women but probably ultimately go further than women, and we seem to retain our intellectual interests longer. This is likely the reason that women seem to do better in formal education than in real life achievement.

    I would say a woman is at her peak attractiveness at about 25.

  238. There’s another option:

    Be Annette Bening when Warren Beatty is ready to hang up his strap. Sure, he’ll be 15-20 years older than you, but he’ll be a bonded and bottled at the spring Genuine 80 Proof Alpha, and at his age, he’ll probably be yours for life.

  239. Höllenhund says:

    “In fact, there is a name for this form of sluttiness: It’s called Hooking Up Smart.”

    It’s simple. The sisterhood of HUS wants to return to 1983. The sisterhood of Churchianity wants to return to 1953. And the tiny sisterhood of reactionary Christianity wants to return to 1913. That’s pretty much the only difference between them. Their gynocentric mentality is essentially the same.

  240. Höllenhund says:

    There’s no evolutionary need for women to mature intellectually, which is the main reason why most women never actually do so. Women have a dual evolutionary purpose: 1. give birth to the largest possible number of healthy children 2. take good care of them until they reach the age of 6 or 7, after which they are better off under the authority of their father. No intellectual maturity is needed for that.

  241. YOHAMI says:

    “This is likely the reason that women seem to do better in formal education than in real life achievement.”

    Success in formal education is achieved by conforming to the status quo, doing as been told, and playing nice.

    Success in real life is usually achieved by doing the opposite.

  242. Opus says:

    Indeed: It must be absolutely galling for females. They seem to reach their intellectual peak at about twenty one, but men mature more slowly and then frequently continue to develop even beyond the age of twenty-eight (the age at which men catch-up and begin to overtake females). At the risk of hubris, women, I once thought my intellectual equal, I now regard with tolerant amusement. Nature is parsimonious, and has a just-so approach, and thus in all but the rarest cases does not grant females any more intelligence than they would actually be likely to need for their main task, the bringing up of small children. Creativity and rebelliousness is not thus usually given to them.

    Of course, a man does not want to be saddled with an ignoramous, and a woman needs to demonstrate that (all other things being equal) she is a better prospective mate and mother of future intelligent offspring, and thus the paper-chase by females for academic qualification. Sometimes however, the female stays on that Carousel just that bit too long, enjoy the ride just that bit too much, and like Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice (almost) misses the Alpha catch who she has so abruptly rejected as she rejects every one else. Nature, however, does not care, and its purpose (the production of more men) is achieved just as easily with ‘trailer trash’ as with corporate-cubicle-drones

    All the corporate-hiring affirmative action, Title IX incentives and other female privileges, surely cannot hide these facts from any woman of even average perceptiveness.

  243. Julian O'Dea says:

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/womans-intelligence-as-mirror/

    ” I have a theory that women have evolved intelligence sufficient largely to assess the intelligence of men as potential sexual partners. They are clever at detecting cleverness. They are good at mimicking and copying intelligence. I find this with my wife – she is always repeating my opinions, sometimes word for word, back at me. I think this is why women excel in formal education. They can repeat the lecturer’s opinions back at him. “

    Opus, I believe it is galling for feminists, because they keep graduating young women, launching them into the world, and finding that they just disappear, often transmuted into Mrs George Corporate Lawyer or whatever.

    Opus, do I hear echoes of the late David Stove in the above?

    As for Nature’s purpose being the production of more men, I have theorised rather that Nature’s “purpose” is actually the well-being of chromosomes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intragenomic_conflict#Evolution_of_sex

  244. Opus says:

    Not Stove this time, but I am partly indebted to F.Roger Devlin.

  245. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Sure, but my point is that the “not optimal but still pretty good” mate is an attractive enough option such that it is preferable to women like this (and other women who think they are like this) to forgoing the carousel entirely and marrying at 23. That is, the “delta” isn’t big enough to justify forgoing the ride. If it were, far more women would be marrying young. They’re making a calculus based on the idea that they can marry later and marry pretty well, for most of them. Again, maybe not the same quality they could have married at 23 (although most don’t believe that’s when they’ll find the best quality, either, but that’s a separate issue), but the delta between what they think that quality would have been and what they think they will get between 35-40, based on what they see women like this getting, is not big enough to justify the opportunity cost of marrying early in terms of skipping the chance at the carousel and the low probability but jakcpot return of landing an alpha (and even if that doesn’t happen, the “fun and excitement” in the meantime before settling down for Mr. Okay at 38).

    This would make sense if we were talking about men, but it doesn’t apply to women. As you note, they don’t actually understand that their options are dwindling. A man could well be happy making such a trade off, but this isn’t true for women. They spend the time on the carousel dreaming of their future perfect husband, with an ever growing list of expectations. The carousel ride isn’t a trade off in their mind, but merely a prelude to the really exciting and satisfying main event; marriage. This is the lie they are being sold and this is what they are predisposed to believe. From the outside it looks like it all worked out fine for the woman, but to her it is a catastrophe.

  246. donalgraeme says:

    “The carousel ride isn’t a trade off in their mind, but merely a prelude to the really exciting and satisfying main event; marriage. ”

    I wonder how much this is actually true now? That sort of seems to be the Sex and the City argument, but that has, to my understanding, been replaced by Girls. Which supposedly laments the quality of men out there.

    So is that still the fantasy? I guess should start asking those women…

  247. SlargTarg says:

    “The carousel ride isn’t a trade off in their mind, but merely a prelude to the really exciting and satisfying main event; marriage. ”

    I wonder how much this is actually true now? That sort of seems to be the Sex and the City argument, but that has, to my understanding, been replaced by Girls. Which supposedly laments the quality of men out there.

    Keep in mind that the creator of “Girls” is quite unattractive and thus has a very different perception of the world than aging Kim Catralls of the world.

    While Catrall could pull the alphas when she was in her prime, the Lena Dunhams couldn’t unless they were drunk enough.

  248. Keoni Galt says:

    It’s simple. The sisterhood of HUS wants to return to 1983. The sisterhood of Churchianity wants to return to 1953. And the tiny sisterhood of reactionary Christianity wants to return to 1913. That’s pretty much the only difference between them. Their gynocentric mentality is essentially the same.

    Absolutey true, Hollenhund. TRUTH.

    Don’t you think there’s a reason for that? That perhaps, somehow, they either were designed that way, or that they evolved that way?

    Do you hate the sun for always rising in the East and setting in the West?

  249. Opus says:

    Once upon a time, a respectable girl would be courted with a view to marriage; then the Boyfriend was invented, which allowed her to have a quasi-marriage on her own terms, in which the Boyfriend had no exclusive rights but which would also act as a reduction of the pool of available girls, thus driving up the value of Pussy and forcing men to settle for whatever they could get. One could always, of course, attempt to steal-away someone else’s girl, but that could be a risky game and with a lowish chance of success and anyway if she has done that once you can be sure she would do it again. Hook-up culture seems to turn all female participants therein into part-time unpaid whores but where only the Alpha males get to be customers. Why, I ask rehtorically, would you wish to marry a woman who has a high partner count any more than you would wish to marry a former Prostitute?

  250. Opus says:

    Is Dalrock correct that women do not see the consequences of riding the Carousel? Is it as TFH says that women are not very good at seeing that causes have effects? Certainly men are not adversely affected in their marriage prospects if they have had multiple partners (presumably because women do not seek youth, beauty and fertility on men, but rather ability to provide resources), so is it a case yet again, of women attempting to imitate men on the naive assumption that because it works for men it should work for them too? (Cargo-cultism in fact, and for that I acknowledge my indebtedness to David Collard).

  251. Höllenhund says:

    “Absolutey true, Hollenhund. TRUTH. Don’t you think there’s a reason for that? That perhaps, somehow, they either were designed that way, or that they evolved that way?”

    That’s not my concern. I don’t care about that issue. The origins of gynocentrism, the evolutionary origins of women’s deep-seated and complete lack of empathy for men, don’t interest me. The only thing I need to know is that they don’t serve my interests as a man. In fact, they hinder my interests.

  252. Höllenhund says:

    “Certainly men are not adversely affected in their marriage prospects if they have had multiple partners (presumably because women do not seek youth, beauty and fertility on men, but rather ability to provide resources)”

    That’s just one side of it. The other is preselection.

  253. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus, I have always felt like that. Sex with a woman is so very invasive, so much of a symbolic and indeed actual physical conquest, that the thought of marrying a young woman who had, as the Bible puts it, known another man, was repulsive and intolerable to me. As for carousel riders, still more horrifying.

    On the cargo cult notion, my original meaning was in reference to the feminist conceit that if you, say, dress a woman as a paratrooper, or put her in a suit, or in a lab coat, that she will, by some secular miracle, acquire all the capacities of the kind of man she is imitating.

  254. James says:

    @Höllenhund – The sisterhood of Churchianity wants to return to 1953.

    This can’t be completely true, or they would be seeking early marriage.

  255. James says:

    @Julian – it isn’t only women who have this conceit. I’m sure we’ve all met male pseudo-managers whose only similarity to the real thing was their attire.

    @Opus – nature also spares most men from the burden of intelligence. Natural selection achieves this result because, above a certain level, intelligence is anti-correlated with number of offspring. I suspect the main difference between men and women is not raw intelligence, but such things as future-focus, awareness of consequences, attention to the physical world rather than personal relationships, etc.

    When trying to tell it like it is, there is no need to over-compensate for female pedestalization by making the opposite error.

  256. LisainVermont says:

    Opus,
    “Is Dalrock correct that women do not see the consequences of riding the Carousel? Is it as TFH says that women are not very good at seeing that causes have effects?

    Both are generally true, but of course it doesn’t apply to every woman. Men are more calculating when making a mate selection while women tend to think with their hearts.

    I was very calculating when it came to finding a husband. I knew that I was pretty with various desirable qualities, but not so pretty that I could nab a top-tier man with little effort. Riding the carousel or even having premaritial sex was not an option as it would have lowered my market value.

    Premaritial sex has horrible consequences for women—everything from disease, to pregnancy to heartbreak. The risks certainly aren’t worth the few moments of pleasure it provides. Most modern women fail to understand this.

    Waiting until marriage paid off for me. I met and married a wonderful man in my mid-twenties. He loves and respects me. I submit to him and respect him. We have three beautiful children, live in one of the loveliest, safest places in the U.S., work in interesting careers, and are generally quite happy.

  257. Höllenhund says:

    James,

    it seems like I wasn’t clear enough. The Sisterhood of Churchianity wants to return to 1953 in the sense that they want young men to behave exactly as if it was still 1953. In other words, they basically want tens of millions financially secure alphas to suddenly show up from nowhere and immeditely offer commitment to the women who want early marriage – marriage 2.0, that is. The think that all men in the past were somehow more alpha. Plus they selectively want to reinstate those parts of a bygone culture that women find desirable and nip the rest in the bud.

  258. Julian O'Dea says:

    All men in the past WERE relatively more alpha. The status of men in general has fallen in recent decades. I have noticed it within my lifetime.

  259. Julian O'Dea says:

    Lisa, that is good to read.

  260. LisainVermont says:

    Julian O’Dea
    “All men in the past WERE relatively more alpha. The status of men in general has fallen in recent decades. ”

    So true. No one had to teach my dad how to be a man. The fact that sites like this are popular because men are desperate to be more manly is quite sad

  261. LisainVermont says:

    Opus
    “Why, I ask rehtorically, would you wish to marry a woman who has a high partner count any more than you would wish to marry a former Prostitute?”
    Julian
    “Sex with a woman is so very invasive, so much of a symbolic and indeed actual physical conquest, that the thought of marrying a young woman who had, as the Bible puts it, known
    another man, was repulsive and intolerable to me.”

    Most men who post here seem to prefer to marry virgins. I agree that a woman should wait until marriage (this would be good practice even for non-Christians) and this is what I will teach my children.

    However, not much is posted about male chastity. I think this is equally important given Biblical commands as well as the societal problems caused by male promiscuity. Did most of you wait until marriage to have sexual relations, or do you have different standards for yourself and other men than you have for women?

  262. Julian O'Dea says:

    Lisa, I married a virgin. I had had one previous sex partner. My wife and I are Catholics.

  263. Johnny says:

    Nova is correct in that the current crop of women can have their cake and eat it too.

    But this generation (30-50) is special in that it is a go between generation between positive fertility (pre 75) and negative fertility (post 75) rates (for white non Hispanics).

    So the back end supply of men is higher (as men marry younger women) than the front end supply of women. This is only temporary though as once the floor on the back end supply of men drops the supply of competing betas will collapse. That is when Dalrock’s assertions will come to the fore.

  264. Johnycomelately says:

    Nova is correct in that the current crop of women can have their cake and eat it too.

    But this generation (30-50) is special in that it is a go between generation between positive fertility (pre 75) and negative fertility (post 75) rates (for white non Hispanics).

    So the back end supply of men is higher (as men marry younger women) than the front end supply of women. This is only temporary though as once the floor on the back end supply of men drops the supply of competing betas will collapse. That is when Dalrock’s assertions will come to the fore.

  265. 8oxer says:

    I’m actually going to agree with a woman here. Note this for posterity’s sake.

    However, not much is posted about male chastity. I think this is equally important given Biblical commands as well as the societal problems caused by male promiscuity. Did most of you wait until marriage to have sexual relations, or do you have different standards for yourself and other men than you have for women?

    While the Christian bible doesn’t make as big a deal about male chastity (how many sex partners did King David have? Didn’t he kill his best friend to bang the widow?), and while I generally think the parity argument is bunkum (there’s a great article on this blog which equates the female slut to the male coward) I think there’s something to this.

    In order to get a young man to sign his life away, and promise to support a naggy bitch for the rest of his life, a patriarchal society would have to approach him when he doesn’t have a whole lot of experience: sexual or temporal, and when those hormones are raging.

    In the past 24 hours, on this blog, I’ve seen two different men, in two different conversations, speak candidly about their marriages to women. Neither made marriage sound much more attractive than an endless series of dental surgeries. Of course, when confronted, such men always remind me that “things could be worse”. Conceded, that’s technically true. North Korean paratroopers could kick down such a man’s door and begin gouging out his eyeballs with a grapefruit spoon tomorrow. Even so, it’s not a fate I would wish on anyone.

    There were several chicks I was pretty hot about when I was age 15-17. If I had been promised sexual access to them for the rest of my life, at that time, in return for promising to feed and shelter one, along with all her kids (at least some of which might be mine), listening to all her whining, complaining, put-downs, and insults, until the day I died, I am sure I would have accepted. Now that I’ve seen how you bitches act? I think I’ll keep my freedom and let you have yours. Thanks.

    And this is really the crux of the issue. The girls will never be satisfied until they have a stable of alphas with which to have sex, and a different pool of “beta” virgins who don’t know any better, to support them financially. All you “beta males” who have had sex before just know a little too much to ever give princess all she thinks she’s entitled to.

    Regards, Boxer

  266. 8oxer says:

    All men in the past WERE relatively more alpha. The status of men in general has fallen in recent decades. I have noticed it within my lifetime.

    This is why I don’t understand the whole “alpha” and “beta” dichotomy. It isn’t consistent over historical time.

    In my grandfather’s day, the “alphas” were the men who married virgins, took their crap, went to the factory or the office and got stuff done. A guy like mystery would probably not have been a beta. He’d have been seen as society’s parasite, not even fit to shine shoes, probably, and one mistake away from being hung from a tree.

    I feel sorta sorry for the younger brothers who study game and go overboard, making some sort of lifestyle out of it. Sure, you do what you have to do, to get your needs met, but in the mean time you should start a business, get a solid degree, or bust your ass at a job where you are doing something you’re interested in and start working your way up. When you get to the late 20s and early 30s, women won’t be the focus of your life any more. All the lessons the women taught you (about how worthwhile they truly are, lol) will sink in, and “alpha” wont mean shit if you don’t have a job you like, money, and some fun hobbies.

  267. earl says:

    “This is why I don’t understand the whole “alpha” and “beta” dichotomy. It isn’t consistent over historical time.”

    Society dictates it a bit…I like to think of alphas as the people who decide themselves to perform an action, and betas that have to ask if it is okay to perform such action.

  268. YOHAMI says:

    8oxer, look as beta and alpha as sets of behaviors

    Mystery is not an alpha, he’s a codependent omega with makeup and a bag of tricks designed to push hypergamy buttons on narcissistic profiled girls – which happen to be most girls nowadays. The reactive nature of his method, the catering for the girls buttons, etc, is feminine seduction.

    What’s valuable about him is the part concerning the nature of women and what they respond to, even though he’s really targeting a psychological profile, there are lot’s of generalities that can be applied to every one.

  269. YOHAMI says:

    An alpha is an adult, a beta is a child. The child is mature and the beta is immature. The alpha leads and takes charge while the beta follows and needs to be provided for. The beta might be doing “everything right” and providing for his wife and family, but he does from a subservient role and not from a leader / in command role. The beta bends, while the alpha make everyone else bend. The alpha makes compromises when needed, the beta only has compromises to offer. The alpha has women that use him for guidance, the beta ask guidance to his woman. Long etc.

  270. YOHAMI says:

    *The child is mature and the beta is immature.” Meant that the Alpha is mature and the beta is immature.

    Mix that set of traits with masculinity and the Alpha is in a greater position to display it. You cant show your raw power and do as you will if you’re first trying to please and bending backwards. The attractiveness of bad boys is less the bad part and more the man part. The “bad” idea comes from a man not obeying and not doing what’s expecting of him, not being interested on pleasing. That single trait, paired with manhood, puts you on top of every pleaser out there – who will be trying to please you and making you a contextual alpha in their circle, even if you dont posses the rest of the alpha traits / behaviors.

  271. Höllenhund says:

    “All men in the past WERE relatively more alpha. The status of men in general has fallen in recent decades.”

    The two have nothing to do with each other. Western men used to have higher status because it was not yet possible to create a social system where women aren’t financially dependent on men on an individual basis. That doesn’t mean that the great majority of men weren’t betas.

  272. 8oxer says:

    Thanks fellas. That’s actually a good definition in part, but it isn’t totally coherent with what I’ve seen.

    The 30 year old dude who lives with his parents is the usualy real-world example of “alpha cred”. I know a few of these personally. “I live with my mom and dad so as I can have a nice car, afford to game chicks off the dance floor on weekends, and visit prostitutes.”

    These are guys who are doing exactly what they want to do, so they’re alpha by the definition, but they’re not really respectable IMO.

    Yes, you can pay a woman (with drinks at the club or with cash at the Asian health spa) and she’ll part her well worn meat flaps for you. But, that’s not really something that most men should aspire to.

    At the same time, I sympathize. I’ve been there, and I don’t want to be too harsh, because I know how it feels. In a world where most avenues to manhood are cut off, banging a lot of women is an easy way for younger brothers to feel like a man. Even so, I think we should cultivate a culture where manhood is given by other men, rather than the present one, in which manhood is a convention which is given by female approval.

    Best, Boxer

  273. Höllenhund says:

    “In my grandfather’s day, the “alphas” were the men who married virgins, took their crap, went to the factory or the office and got stuff done.”

    This happens to be the description of the typical beta. In your grandfather’s day, the alphas were, in fact, the men who had regular premarital sex with the girlfriends and wives of beta chumps, getting serviced sexually in ways the betas could only dream of while fapping, marrying late and marrying younger virgins, keeping them faithful while cuckolding betas, or not marrying at all, earning big bucks by swindling beta chumps out of their money in various ways (real estate, insurance, MLM, you name it) or finding some way to life off the gummint, thereby avoiding hard work.

  274. YOHAMI says:

    8oxer,

    “I live with my mom and dad so as I can have a nice car, afford to game chicks off the dance floor on weekends, and visit prostitutes.”

    Yep. But he’s still more fun that the guy who works in a cubicle. He’s catering to a market of women that dont care about his future or real world abilities, because they are not interested on their own future nor their own life abilities themselves. Short term satisfaction. The guy who’s in a cubicle and doing everything “right” is less happy than this dude who’s doing whatever he wants and doesnt give a fuck. This dude is probably more genuine, real, direct and masculine that the cubicle one.

    He would still be trumped by a dude who is here, now, in the present, masculine etc, not giving a fuck AND successful in the real / material world. You’d see the girls calling him loser while flocking to this new guy. Seen it happen.

  275. 8oxer says:

    Höllenhund: Thanks for responding. Your assertions prove my point, that “beta chump” and “alpha” are relatively meaningless phrases.

    FYI: There was no way to “live off the gummint” [sic] in my grandfather’s day. He came of age before Johnson’s great society nonsense in the USA. The swindlers you describe were dealt with summarily, usually by running out of town, sometimes with the lynching rope. Read a little history and you’ll see what I mean.

  276. Höllenhund says:

    “Steve Moxon claims, and I have seen similar data for Australia, that there has been no increase in the number of truly financially independent women. Just a transfer of dependence from husbands to the government.”

    The big difference is that the gummint doesn’t expect any woman to service him sexually and look after the children he sired. It’s no wonder women love to have the gummint as their beta prodider.

  277. 8oxer says:

    Yohami:

    Thanks for the input man. This is interesting.

    Yep. But he’s still more fun that the guy who works in a cubicle. He’s catering to a market of women that dont care about his future or real world abilities, because they are not interested on their own future nor their own life abilities themselves. Short term satisfaction.

    That’s a really good point. “Alpha” and “beta” are terms that are defined by women. Maybe that’s my underlying contention. Thanks for showing it to me.

    So, I’ll conclude in the hopes that men can create an alpha and beta designation and bestow respect on other men in the future. What women think shouldn’t matter too much (although I’ll concede it means a lot today).

    Best, Boxer

  278. Höllenhund says:

    8oxer, there have always been cushy gummint jobs. There have always been legal ways to separate beta chumps from their money and exploit their labor. The sexual strategy of alphas is to sire bastards and then divert to them the money of betas so that they don’t starve to death before reaching adulthood. There are various ways to achieve that. Cuckoldry is just one of them.

  279. Höllenhund says:

    “In order to get a young man to sign his life away, and promise to support a naggy bitch for the rest of his life, a patriarchal society would have to approach him when he doesn’t have a whole lot of experience: sexual or temporal, and when those hormones are raging.”

    Very good point.

  280. earl says:

    Alphas have more fun because they dictate things on their own terms. That also includes their emotions. Think about it…if you didn’t have some nagging wife telling you to do such and such activity wouldn’t you be happier?

    On the flip side…if you only care about your emotions…would they change based off whatever vibe the chick is giving you? I purposely test myself to see if I can stay in my frame and not react to her emotions. It’s hard at first but gets easier. I stay in a pleasant mindframe and most of the time the chick reflects that (sluts, feminists, and other failures of women excluded).

  281. James says:

    @LisainVermont

    “However, not much is posted about male chastity. I think this is equally important given Biblical commands as well as the societal problems caused by male promiscuity.”

    There are good biological reasons for women to be less concerned about male chastity than men are concerned about female chastity. However, biblically and morally you are right.

    We generally agree that a large number of sexual partners is a stain on a woman’s soul. To a lesser extent, the same is true for a man. The alpha PUA imagines himself as

    but in fact he is

    He does not notice or even care what he looks like, because he is having such a good time; but the rest of us see us for what he is.

  282. James says:

    Ha! the images don’t show.

    He imagines himself as

    but in fact he is

  283. Höllenhund says:

    It’s safe to say DSK can easily pull the kind of sexual partners that he finds attractive. The rest doesn’t matter.

  284. donalgraeme says:

    I’m jumping in late to the whole Alpha versus Beta thing, but I think most of you have making a significant mistake. First off, Alpha and Beta are attributes or traits. They aren’t simple descriptors of men, because there are men who don’t fit that kind of simplistic analysis. Instead, think of Alpha and Beta as measurements of two different sets of characteristics a man can have.
    Also, Alpha and Beta traits are not on the same axis. That is, they don’t necessarily conflict with one another. A man can “be” both Alpha and Beta at the same time, or neither. I created a visualization that might help this make a little more sense at my own site:

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/alpha-versus-beta-part-1/

  285. greyghost says:

    Alpha are men that are sexually and emotionally arrousing. All of the rest of the characteristics are just all of the rest of the characteristics. An alpha can be a man missing his legs in a wheel chair. That doesn’t mean all betas should chop their legs off and then enjoy long sexual lives with the woman they married. The number and type of man that is sexually arousing can go up and down based on practical circumstances. That is how betas get pussy. Reality is a beta’s spanish fly. The laws of misandry are in place to remove practical circumstances that make betas sexually/emotionally arrousing. Civil society with rule of law, merit based praise and promotion. Throw in real biblical principle (not churchian) and morality. Have individual actions determine good or bad consequences and you have beta males looking very sexy for practical reactical reason. So much so that people will think all men were alpha’s back in the day. Alpha’s were and are still there they were Cads and women that could resist were tramps sluts and whores. An apoligetic women that wanted back in to civil society was said to be a woman that made a mistake.
    Human nature doesn’t change but the cucumstance humans are in changes all of the time. And with that once again we come to an end of an outstanding article and conversation. The laws of misandry are what is fueling this madness. Todays bitch is literally tomorrows helpful and dutyfull wife with what appears to be love and empathy. Both are of the same solipsistic selfishness in her own best interest. And that is the part nobody seems to get. Dalrock and the conversations he leads are not going to change things but are very important as a foundation of a civil society. His words and the ideas of all here are more important for mankind than even the church. (We are basing our ideas on christ) It will take aggressive action to cause enough pain and suffering to bring about an end to the laws of misandry. I’m hoping that doesn’t mean we need to suffer a civil war with the government we have being destroyed with millions of deaths. I hope the reality of cat ladies and a male birth control pill sending millions of career women to childless spinsterhood along working and getting taxed at 50 percent will do it.

  286. greyghost says:

    It’s safe to say DSK can easily pull the kind of sexual partners that he finds attractive. The rest doesn’t matter.

    Höllenhund you are absolutely right nothing else matters.

  287. kios says:

    Agree with whoever said that carousel riders ought to spend the rest of their lives alone, but unfortunately that isn’t happening anytime soon. and it’s amazing how many financially well of betas settle for these women and believe the whole trope that interested young women are only interested in their money. I know a bald fat man that has money in his mid 40’s, and he just married a woman in her late 20’s. Everyone tells him she only wants his money, yet she signed a prenup that entitles her to basically nothing unless she has kids with him, and even then she only gets the cheapest house he owns. She barely asks him for money either, which is in complete contrast to women in thelr late 30’s.early 40’s he was dating before her, who expected to be wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

    I’d say if you can get a younger woman, you may as well. There are no benefits to marrying a woman after the age of 35 imo. and chances are it’s going to cost you. It’s a myth that only young women expect you to pay for things. Dates cost me far more in my mid 30’s than they did in my early 20’s, that’s for sure. Women’s expectations increase as their SMV goes south, as the Manosphere generally acknowledges, so why the hell should we be expected to make sacrifices for them?

    Fuck them. It’s not our responsibility to look after older women. We are not obligated to ‘man up’ and marry them. But too many betas out there are operating from a model of scarcity and fear it’s their only chance. I’ve met far too many established betas settle for women that were well below their SMV and it’s sickening to me.

    The game is rigged beyond belief.

  288. Pingback: Random Comments and Stuff #2 | The Society of Phineas

  289. Pingback: Women And Manginas Will Resurrect Hitler Rather Than Accept Men Have Rights | The Black Pill

  290. hurting says:

    @Norm…

    Met a real live ex-carousel jockey the other night who talked a lot about relationships now that she’s 48. After she told me how whe used to really live it up in her 20’s.

    We did not talk about relationships involving me, however. If you sense disappointment in my tone in reporting this, I’ve failed to communicate properly.

  291. hurting says:

    @Chuck…

    Careful, ‘bro.

    I can relate to the idea of outsiders looking in and seeing a great marriage (mine was by all external benchmarks). Know about the head butting, too.

  292. Pingback: Haunted by a number | Dalrock

  293. Andy says:

    I can really see the ‘hate’ for women thing after the red pill has been taken. I cannot stand them and would not life a finger to help.

  294. Pingback: American Beauty | A Mule In The Chapter House

  295. Daxamite says:

    FWIW,
    I am in my last year of college and the guys I know wouldn’t hook up if it were offered up on a plate. I’ve been Mgtow the whole time and it seems to be spreading. Personally I’m glad to see the girls cannot get any more desperate. From the look in their eyes it is clearly starting to dawn that marriage is dead. They may have (stupidly) killed it but it is men that have buried it and walked away. A few are hardy about it but it rings very hollow and is a tiny few, most are crushed and just so unhappy.
    Well, too bad. As far as I am concerned it is going to stay that way.

  296. Mark Minter says:

    “2 female Marines unable to complete demanding officer course”

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17519782-2-female-marines-unable-to-complete-demanding-officer-course

    They let 2 women attempt Marine Combat Infantry Officer Training course. Both were out after the first week. They couldn’t get through the obstacle course.

    Here are some photos of the course.

    http://www.jpshouse.com/usmc.htm

    The course isn’t easy and is harder than the one I went through on Parris Island, but still doable. The daily one I went through on Parris Island was more of playground with only tough thing being a rope. I went through something called the “confidence course” which was more difficult than our daily obstacle course, but again still doable. Most people made it through. There was long cable over water and you had to change directions and positions on this cable that sloped down from a 40 ft tower. And the cable moved quite a bit because there three other guys on it at the same time. It was a little unnerving at the top when that cable was moving on 3 or 4 feet swings. If you fell, you hit the water and had the embarrassment of having that nasty wet uniform on the run back to the barracks. About 10% fell.

    The issue I assume for the course at Quantico is the wall and “the pipes” , two horizontal pipes that look like a pull up bar with two bars. You have to go over the top of both. And there is a rope. But in the Marines, ropes where never a big deal if you use the technique they teach you. You “step on” the rope with one of your feet to trap on the top your boot on your other feet and use your thigh power to lift yourself up the rope. Your arms are really only used for stabilization. You don’t really pull yourself up with your arms. Your legs do the work. But those two “climb over” obstacles require some upper body strength as a ratio of your body weight. Smaller, shorter men tend to have a very good ratio of strength to their weight. What they lose in height advantage, they tend to make in the ratio and often scramble over those obstacles quite quickly. My favorite was a black guy, highly athletic, who had never done a lick of gymnastics in his life, did a half pull up, kicked his feet forward until he was almost horizontal to the ground, then used the downward momentum to swing 270 degrees and up and over the bar. Backwards. He just had that body intelligence to see it and do it.

    Not every male Marine passed every thing in boot camp. Most failed Water survival. Out of 120 only 5 qualified. The rough parts were swimming with a rifle hanging from your neck for 75 meters and staying in the pool for an hour, both in full uniform. But if you followed the instructions it was doable. I did it. And I passed every

    But in OCS you must pass everything and I am sure the tests are even more difficult in Combat Infantry Officer Training. But in my opinion, high school football was far harder, far more taxing, required far more physical ability, and often took more courage, then most of the things I ever encountered in any Marine training. Putting your head and body in the way of a 200 pound running back coming at you full speed took more courage. You knew you were going to feel pain. The effort and exertion in football practice is far greater than anything I did in the Marines.

    Taking off a gas mask in a gas chamber was pretty rough and I would never wish to ever do that again. But most of it was a matter of paying attention and following the training. They should the necessary techniques and coached you as you did it.

    I am not familiar with the syllabus of the course and could not say that those tests in the first week were intended to wash out the weak and lesser motivated candidates or whether or not things get progressively more difficult. Boot camp certainly was the later and did get progressively more difficult. I could have done anything I encountered during boot camp during the first week. But I played 3 sport in high school, including football. A lot of things I encountered as I encountered them were certainly easier after weeks and weeks physical training.

    But in my opinion anything in either boot camp, OCS, or Combat Infantry Officer Training is doable for most men in decent physical condition typical for someone younger than 25. If you could run three miles in 25 minutes, lift 85 pounds of weight in a military press over your head, curl maybe 60 pounds, you could do it. None of those are extraordinary feats of endurance or strength.

    The article said 1 in 4 wash out. But I think the pass rate would be higher if you no choice, that once you entered, you couldn’t get out until you completed it without some massive penalty. I think a lot of that 1 in 4 are people that think “You know, this shit sucks. I would rather work in an office than this.”

    I had a normal job in the Marines. I worked in a lab and carried a HP scientific calculator in the cargo pocket of my trousers. I had hours of 7:30-4:30 with an hour and a half lunch everyday. I slept in a bed. I ate in a mess hall and while the food wasn’t anything to write home over, it beat the shit out of MREs. I had to do a Physical Fitness Test every three months that required a 3 mile run, 3 pull ups, and 40 sit ups in two minutes. I rarely saw dawn. And even more rarely saw “Zero dark thirty”, which was the slang for pre-dawn darkness, very early in the morning. In Boot Camp yes, but in the rest of the 4 years, no. And the infantry does practically everything everyday beginning at those moments right as the sun starts to come up. And there wasn’t one day during my four years where I woke up and though “Heck, I would rather be in the infantry”.

    So I would bet at least half of that 1 in 4 just say “Screw this. Mr Wizard, I don’t want to be a Marine Infantry Officer anymore!!”. You can look at all the recruiting brochures you want and get all caught up in the whole “Oh 300” thing in the Marines and think you want to the “stud”. And being infantry or a pilot is a requirement for being a general in the Marines, but “zero dark thirty on Quantico” has a way of letting you know what your true life priorities might be. And about 12.5% find out that “Oh 300” isn’t one of them.

    But on the flip side, 3 out 4 men make it through the course. And 1 out of 8 didn’t want to stay in it. And only 1 out of 8 physically couldn’t. And possibly some of those were due to injuries sustained, broken feet and arms, serious sprains, pulled ligaments, from falling, landing wrong. Yes, there was a prior winnowing of the weak in OCS, followed by the Basic School for Marine Officers, and yes, only someone that viewed himself as a physical sort of man would say “Heck Yea, Sir. I want to be in the infantry”, but keep in mind that is a major per-requisite of higher command. So maybe some that enter do so because they feel compelled more than actually have a desire for infantry.

    But I am sure those women were real TankGurlz and the Marines just didn’t grab two typical female Lieutenants and say “Hey you’re going”. I am sure they were far better physical specimens than the typical woman. They definitely volunteered. And they were probably as motivated to complete it as any, “for the girls”, “to show those men”.

    Looks like they didn’t. And there aren’t a bunch of major headlines publicizing that fact.

    So sleep well Marines. The gurlz won’t be commanding Marine infantry in combat, at least, for now. And they continue to be The Few, The Proud.

  297. Pingback: Started with a bang, ended with a whimper | Dalrock

  298. Pingback: So You Want Me To Man-Up and Marry That Slut? | The Society of Phineas

  299. Pingback: Divorce is Good for Women and Families | The Reinvention of Man

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