The unworkable bachelor tax.

One of the ideas often put forward when discussing declining marriage rates is that our elites are likely to enact a Roman Empire style bachelor tax.  I admittedly don’t have much background knowledge of how the Romans went about this, but from the bit I’ve read from W.F. Price it seems that the bachelor laws were as much about brutally reinforcing Roman patriarchy as they were about coercing men into marriage via taxation.  I assume those talking about a bachelor tax aren’t talking about reinforcing the patriarchy, so for this discussion I’ll focus on government coercing men to marry.

I see three main reasons a bachelor tax is an unviable solution for our elites:

Problem #1:  Reversing our feminist mindset

Even focusing strictly on coercion would require a reversal of much of our present feminist mindset.  Under the feminist view when men work harder and do more dangerous and difficult jobs than women do, this is proof that men are enjoying some sort of gift of the patriarchy.  This is most commonly expressed as the gender pay gap, with the claim that women are only paid roughly 80 cents for every dollar men are paid doing similar work.  This same foolishness is also accepted unquestioningly by the academics studying marriage, but instead of calling it the gender pay gap, it is called the marriage premium.  Here is how the American Enterprise Institute explains the marriage premium:

Men obtain a substantial “marriage premium” and women bear no marriage penalty in their individual incomes, and both men and women enjoy substantially higher family incomes, compared to peers with otherwise similar characteristics. For instance, men enjoy a marriage premium of at least $15,900 per year in their individual income compared to their single peers.

Whether you are a feminist and call it the gender pay gap, or are a conservative and call it the marriage premium, what we are talking about are the choices men make to prioritize earnings over leisure, safety, a pleasant working environment, the “fulfilling” nature of work, etc.   This is why married men (especially married fathers) tend to hold high stress time intensive jobs which are more likely to involve a substantial commute, while women (whether married or not) tend to focus more on jobs which are lower stress, offer more flexible hours, and are more personally fulfilling.

The problem is the decline of marriage is proving feminist theory for the foolishness that it has always been.  With marriage weakening we are starting to see that unmarried men tend to earn like women.  This is a serious problem for our elites, because the nation’s earnings are the play money they use on their pet projects.  If fewer men are working like husbands and more are working like women, there will be far less money available in the form of taxes, alimony, child support, etc.  However, confronting this problem will require admitting that it is a problem.  This would mean admitting that there is no such thing as a “marriage premium” for men, only men prioritizing the needs of their families over their own personal preferences.  Moreover, admitting that there is no marriage premium would mean also admitting that there is no “gender pay gap”, because the two are one and the same.  Even if our elites try to fudge the issue, this isn’t a secret they will be able to keep.

Aside from the feminist view of men’s earnings, our elites would also have to go against other deeply embedded areas of conventional wisdom to enact a bachelor tax.  These pillars of conventional wisdom are less overtly feminist than the marriage premium view, but are still rooted in feminism because they are rationalizations about how our new feminist family system can be made to work.  As I pointed out in my last post, conventional wisdom is that our current broken family model will work if only everyone thinks and acts like our UMC, by following the “success sequence” and leaving marriage until their late 20s or early 30s.  This brings up the problem of timing, which I explore later in this post.  Another pillar of conventional wisdom is that the secret to making our broken system work is for the bride and groom to exhibit maximum intentionality in their path to marriage.  The National Marriage Project makes the case for this in their most recent report Before “I DO”:

2 – Sliding versus deciding. Couples who make intentional decisions regarding “major relationship transitions” are more likely to flourish than those who slide through transitions. For instance, among those who cohabited, couples who decided to live together before marriage in an intentional way are more likely to enjoy happy marriages, compared to couples who just slid into cohabitation before marriage.

Coercing men into marriage would go against this pillar of conventional wisdom, as a man pushed into marriage doesn’t fit the paradigm for a successful marriage.

Problem #2: The welfare state 

Even if our elites were willing to abandon the feminist tenets I describe above, they would still have the formidable problem of the welfare state.  How do you coerce someone into working harder and earning more using a system designed to punish working harder and reward earning less?  It simply can’t be done.

One of the most commonly cited bachelor taxes today is obamacare.  Yet while obamacare does work as a transfer of wealth from men to women, it doesn’t create a financial incentive for men to marry.  More importantly, it doesn’t create a financial incentive for young men to work hard in order to make themselves more attractive potential grooms by signaling provider status.  To the contrary, obamacare makes coasting easier, because career success is no longer required to be able to afford health care.

Problem #3: Timing

The final problem is the problem of timing.  The long interval between coming of age and the median age of marriage is nearly universally overlooked.  You can see this in nearly every study on the topic of men choosing marriage, most recently in the study regarding the tradeoff between pornography and marriage.  Even if our elites were willing to abandon core feminist beliefs and overturn the welfare state, they would still have the problem of timing.  Women are delaying searching for a husband until their late 20s or early thirties, and it is the thirty-something unmarried women staring down the barrel of spinsterhood who are driving the panic about men being on a “marriage strike”.

The problem for a policy maker is that even if we assume all unmarried 30 something and 40 something men are properly motivated to marry, a very large number of them earn nothing or next to nothing.  Even if these men respond to coercion and propose en masse, the women will decline.  What a bachelor tax would need to do to solve this problem is somehow coerce young men to devote their 20s to signaling provider status so they would be in a position to be coerced into marriage starting around age 30.  I can’t imagine a public policy which would be effective in this regard, especially in our era which has embraced promiscuity for young women.  Even if our elites could somehow craft such a set of incentives, they would still have to wait a decade or more to see the results in the form of higher marriage rates.

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, American Enterprise Institute, Feminists, Foolishness, Marriage, National Marriage Project, Patriarchal Dividend, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

281 Responses to The unworkable bachelor tax.

  1. Pingback: The unworkable bachelor tax. | Manosphere.com

  2. What about men like me, who women would rather drop dead than get married to? Taxing me for not getting married is like taxing me for not walking on Mars.

  3. easttexasfatboy says:

    You know, it’s kind of hard to make a young man who is aware that women hate him……kind of hard to make him care. Virtual reality porn and video games are just around the corner. Take a young guy of, say 22 years old. He knows that feminism rules the roost. He has seen how men are ruined by false accusation. Alienation is a real problem. This is why ISIS is so attractive. Women who are feminists get the chop. Taxing alienated young men ain’t gonna work. There are many types of MGTOW. We will see feminist governments rant and rave, but the horses have fled the barn. If a young guy isn’t going to support a family, he doesn’t have to work much. He can live real cheap. Might even be hard to keep track of him if he moves around. This tax idea sounds like the last gasp of a failed society. Once red pill knowledge began to spread, it’s harder to convince a smart young man that a family is worth it. Much less a treacherous female who will take everything. Most guys know of someone who has been taken to the cleaners. They don’t want to be that guy. Feminists have the law on their side. We have men’s human nature on ours. MGTOW means abandoning women to their fate. Who wants to pay for an American land whale? That’s who we’re talking about. Pretty women will always find a fool. But feminism was created for ugly white women to be a part of society. You know, the women who no one wants. That’s why this type of tax will be a disaster. True, it will be a functional IQ test.

  4. Remo says:

    How about a nice progressive poll tax that ONLY affects unmarried men. It would work like the selective service does and you can justify it because women make less for the same work yada, yada, yada. Naturally you have penalties, coercion, prison, for those who don’t obey land of the free style. Men who are married can get an exemption which disappears *retroactively* if their wife frivorces them. That would be a two fer there as it will keep husbands, who everyone knows drive the divorce rates by immediately running off with the secretaries, in line and compliant. This would be yet another duty to GOD (social justice) and COUNTRY (politicians) and the propaganda writes itself. If a man is paying child support AND ALIMONY then he also gets an exemption as he’s righting the wrong of his evil maleness by handing money to a woman.

    As a bonus you get to fill up the prisons with millions of more men to work as slaves building exports when they can’t afford to pay this tax. It’s a win-win-win.

  5. TAnon says:

    Turn women into whores, convince them to wait seeking out a partner until their looks are gone and then wonder why men won’t marry and dedicate their lives to them . . .

  6. Carnivore says:

    Taking a look at the colonial American approach would be closer to home. Citizen Bachelors by McCurdy would make for an interesting read; haven’t yet tracked down a copy through inter-library loan.

  7. Cadders says:

    Certainly here in the UK, I’m not worried about a bachelor tax. Things have already moved way beyond that. Before you can tax single men, you first have to find them.

    The last national census (taken in 2001) confused ‘experts’ as around 1 million UK men had somehow gone ‘missing’. It appears some of them had in fact gone abroad and others had dropped off the electoral roles (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/01/britishidentity.johncarvel)

    This is what happens when men start disengaging from a society that offers them little to nothing but demands obligations and commitment.

    I would expect to see this trend accelerate at the next census in 2021.

  8. GottliebPins says:

    Having success with women isn’t simply about mastering game. Women always shop up, never down. If you are on the bottom half all the bottom half women are looking for top half men. Of course most or all of them will be unsuccessful but by the time they realize this they will be used up 40 year olds. You won’t need game for those but by the same token why would you want them to begin with? Now game might get you some oaccional action but if you’re looking for someone permanent with today’s women you’re wasting your time.

  9. earl says:

    1) Why is Krauser, who is not good-looking, tall, or rich, able to bed multiple 9s, as proven by videos he posted? Is this not ‘proof’ that Game works?

    He stated his success rate is around 3%. It works if that’s all you do and play the numbers game.

  10. earl says:

    If the elites control the state and make the money…it probably is about gaining power instead of more money.

    Hence breaking down the family…the same thing that made them powerful…is their way of gaining more power.

  11. earl says:

    ‘So is first-date conversion rate is 45%. His approach-to-lay rate is 2.7%, but this includes the majority of approaches that end within 10 seconds, so it is not a ‘cost’.

    In other words…game sometimes works if the chick digs you. 6% of the time you might have half of them stay with you.

    The girl’s interest level in you is the most important thing. Game is a way to keep it up as opposed to acting like a sperg the minute some lady shows interest in you.

  12. Scott says:

    Great post. I will re-blog and make some comments.

  13. greyghost says:

    TFH
    If could choose pussy or 260k with game I’ll the 260. That Nigerian cat has got his game down. That guy got more from that woman than hearing her say ” I love you.” No western woman as we know them can cook, clean, fuck or mother children 260k worth. In fact he can go to India and surrogate him a kid, by a regular hooker and screw at the same rate a wife/mother does and hire a nanny/house keeper and a pickup truck and ten years later still have beer. That fellas is “Game” ,

  14. Spike says:

    Another obvious problem: the very sexism that the feminist state has legislated for in favour of women will subject a Bachelor Tax to High Court / Supreme Court challenge.

    Yet another: Men demotivated for marriage will not go into premium jobs. They will do minimal jobs, because their overheads are minimal. Consider the man who earns peanuts: he will spend $150.00 a year (by conservative estimates) on toiletries such as shaving, haircuts, deodorant and thats about it. A man earning a million a year will spend maybe double that.
    A woman will spend hundreds on hair care, hair removal, perfumes, massage, “threading” (?), crystalline therapy (???) – the list goes on.
    The Bachelor Tax will therefore do NOTHING to broaden the tax base. It would simply be an inefficient tax, costing more to implement than raise revenue.

  15. earl says:

    I’m not against the self-improvement portions of game. That right there is the reason you’ll have a little better success. But do it for you…not to get women. The success rate with women will not dramatically jump up.

    I’ve been around the block enough to know that her desire in you decides just how far things will be going. That can’t be negotiated.

  16. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Earl, I had no idea you were a game denier. Seriously? Game works to pick up girls and it works in a marriage which we prove every day over at /r/marriedredpill. Game is just a set of behaviors that you can easily learn and internalize that is attractive to women.

    What exactly is there to deny? Does game work better if you are 6’4″ tall with sculpted muscles? Well duh. Does a tiny bit of game make you more attractive if you are 5’2″ tall with a pot belly? Maybe a little bit but obviously the best game is not going to hook up that guy with an HB10. Game is just a tool to improve yourself from where you are currently and it is an obvious tool that is really easy to learn.

    Dalrock, I don’t think they can institute a bachelor tax without a dictatorship that brushes away the scourge of feminism- and if we do that we won’t need a bachelor tax. Unfortunately, the dictator is most likely to be a progressive Marxist who will bring on the collapse. I see no way out short of divine intervention although with continuing technological improvement it is possible the collapse will not be as horrible as some of us envision.

  17. honeycomb says:

    If you tax men (bachelor tax) .. you must also tax women (anti-spinsterhood tax) too.

    This will be the undoing of such a tax.

    In the other hand, if legislation is crafted to only effect men .. expect more of what every US citizen does in such circumstances .. react in a dynamic manner to static laws.

    Of course some form of lawsuit will need to be filed.

    Ladies .. I am not available at any cost .. signed a 45 year old high value man.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Remo

    How about a nice progressive poll tax that ONLY affects unmarried men. It would work like the selective service does and you can justify it because women make less for the same work yada, yada, yada. Naturally you have penalties, coercion, prison, for those who don’t obey land of the free style. Men who are married can get an exemption which disappears *retroactively* if their wife frivorces them. That would be a two fer there as it will keep husbands, who everyone knows drive the divorce rates by immediately running off with the secretaries, in line and compliant. This would be yet another duty to GOD (social justice) and COUNTRY (politicians) and the propaganda writes itself. If a man is paying child support AND ALIMONY then he also gets an exemption as he’s righting the wrong of his evil maleness by handing money to a woman.

    As a bonus you get to fill up the prisons with millions of more men to work as slaves building exports when they can’t afford to pay this tax. It’s a win-win-win.

    This would make Ferguson look like a walk in the park. How many Black, Hispanic, and Native American men would our elites be willing to tax and ultimately imprison in order to coerce White men to marry? Even the term you propose for the tax, a Poll Tax, is seen as a historically racist tax. It is a non starter.

  19. greyghost says:

    To get around the gender specific tax they will try to tax a male activity. A porn tax for the actual producers of professional porn. An adult blog registration license for amateur porn blog type sites. (they don’t take pictures or hire the models they just post em) A video game tax along the lines of the cigarette tax kind of thing most likely for education. What ever It is that has a demographic more male that female some kind of licensing or fee will be accessed and not one reference will be made of men being the primary payers.

  20. GottliebPins says:

    But it’s still just a game. Devote large amounts of time and energy approaching, pretending, buying dinners and drinks, just to get some floozy into bed with you. You and the dozens of men she’s slept with already and all the baggage and prizes that go along with that. Sounds like going to college, spending 4 years in graduate school, and a lifetime of debt, just to be an insurance salesman. The upside is what again? Oh yeah, some disease ridden, stuck up snobby, sex tart that will take advantage of you or claim you raped her 6 years from now and ruin your reputation and cost you your career. Sounds like a fair use of my time and effort. I’d rather go hiking, or listen to music, or read a good book, or fix or build something. People who strongly defend game are people who are trying to justify the time and effort wasted pursuing something of questionable value, modern women. If it makes you feel good go for it. But harping on men who see no value in it or don’t have the ability to pretend to be something they’re not night after night isn’t productive.

  21. earl says:

    ‘What exactly is there to deny?’

    I don’t deny it works…I’m keeping it realistic. A woman has to have desire for you in order for it to work.

    ‘Game is just a set of behaviors that you can easily learn and internalize that is attractive to women.’

    I think of it more as behaviors you learn for self-improvement. That way when a woman is attracted to you from whatever triggers her desire…you won’t sperg out.

  22. tz2026 says:

    I don’t believe Marriage is something to be given to Caesar to despoil, but for social engineering:

    Give a ridiculously large refundable tax credit to married couples and increase it for each child borne within the marriage, but they have to pay it back with interest upon a divorce (with proper exceptions for widow(er)s).

    But even better, an Bachelorette tax – with per out-of-wedlock child penalty.

    Wives and husbands will only alter things on the margin. Fathers and Mothers are what is necessary.

  23. earl says:

    ‘But even better, an Bachelorette tax – with per out-of-wedlock child penalty.’

    Oh man…if that ever happens there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
    Women make a career out of having welfare babies.

  24. enrique432 says:

    Again, I am CONTINUALLY running into red pill-aware young men, who have seen what women do to them (or want to) as competition in the work force–men who are banging some MILF with NO PLANS of marrying them, who totally “get” what’s going on. These men have ZERO interest in supporting women, or white knighting at ALL—and I’m loving it.

    I am in many ways, very proud of the 30 and under crowd of men, at least the ones I meet in my professional sphere, because you don’t even have to argue non-manginaness, they totally get it. They have no dreams of supporting ANY woman, and rightfully, see our female peers as the competition they are. A completely different mindset than my fellow GEN-X peers, who are remnants of the “she’s a girl, give her a pass”.

    While I want a productive society, I admit I privately chuckle at the white guy who is 25, into gaming and hopes to do “not much” with his life, in the sense that it deprives women of other choices. I’ve seen their worn out smoker faces, when they are grinding it out in jobs-women who 30 years ago would have a man take care of them. Love it!

  25. MV says:

    Okay, let me be the devil’s advocate here:

    Solution 1: Elite alpha patriarchs can simply promote the new tax as “peter pan man boy pig slacker tax”. Feminists would just love it. And tradcons would employ an army of “spiritual counselors” who will help men realize how lucky they are for being coerced into marriage.

    Solution 2: Why not just limit welfare state to women and minorities and let white heterosexual men work or perish. Surely that would be a correct and reparation after millenia of opression.

    Solution3: Cougarhood. May pumped&dumped out 30-something women make sure that sex-starved 20-something men get enough sexual motivation to make something of their lives. This policy is can start in grade schools where teachers would award good male students with hand jobs (many already do that, and more, anyway)

  26. Exfernal says:

    @TFH
    Not the first woman fooled in a Nigerian scam. Husband-shooter Mary WInkler was as well, as I recall. Apparently, there are shortcuts to singledom that don’t involve divorce…

  27. Let’s not get away from the interesting original topic into another “game” debate.

    A tax on video games would be a good idea, except feminists are currently trying to destroy the video game industrty. If they have their way, games won’t be about plebian concerns like entertainment, but will instead be for teaching people to be good wocial justice warriors. If that happens, sell your EA Games stock.

  28. Lars Grobian says:

    “I can’t imagine a public policy which would be effective in this regard”

    I’m not familiar with any data indicating that our rulers and their spokespeople have the slightest interest in whether policies are actually effective. They increasingly talk about policy choices as a way to signal allegiance and identity: Not “that won’t work”, but “that’s not who we are”. Policy choices are now very often presented as moral imperatives or aids in the self-actualization of advocates.

    It’s not clear to me that they even really expect policies to have any concrete positive effects. A problem is a chance to show you care. You can’t FIX problems — not in the past or present tense. Only in the golden future that never arrives. You promise to fix problems only in order to persuade the stupid literal-minded peasants to support the real holy work of our sacred government: SWPL self-actualization.

    There will almost certainly be a bachelor tax, because we will be found to have a moral imperative to punish those 50,000,000 basement-dwelling acned video-gaming loser millionaire playboy handymen who selfishly REFUSE to dutifully wife up all the deserving sluts. Because “something must be done, even if it has the opposite effect”.

    “Debtors prison” for bereft fathers was obviously insane, but it passed without a murmur. It’s still popular because it sends the “right message” about the feelings of the people who support it.

  29. Gunner Q says:

    greyghost @ 4:59 pm:
    “To get around the gender specific tax they will try to tax a male activity.”

    Or make you pay for the family you don’t have. Under Obamacare, I get four free mammograms a year, my pregnancies are fully covered and my kids have good dental insurance. Too bad I’m neither female nor a parent, but I pay the fine if my “family” is not insured.

    Cadders @ 4:08 pm:
    “The last national census (taken in 2001) confused ‘experts’ as around 1 million UK men had somehow gone ‘missing’.”

    That’s encouraging. After finally giving up on church, I’m only a couple steps away from going Ghost myself. Convincing my boss to pay me in cash might be tricky but I’m starting to trust my mattress more than my bank….

    Man, it sucks to be so unvalued by one’s society that quietly disappearing becomes a good idea. We need Christ to show up, preferably before the State begins mandating GPS tracking collars. Has Communism always resulted in this kind of paranoia?

  30. greyghost says:

    Earl
    You can instill that desire. Game is not “do this to get girls sex you” It is purely understanding nature of women how they talk, walk and behave under the influence of emotion her hamster brewed up. And what triggers sexual desire on their part.
    The asshole way you sometimes comment from the righteous perch is good application of game technique. Think about how women think. You can close the deal with an appeal to your Christian faith. you can make this comment. “I see you are interested in sex with me but do to my faith we can’t enjoy that kind of thing. You do seem to be a very successful and educated women. Rather than be used for sex deposit 11 thousand dollars into this account. Much more fitting for a woman such as you”
    You pull that off I would be swinging from those nuts like a fairy at a playground.

  31. l jess says:

    If a bachelor tax is implemented then It mat just be pay the tax and keep on doing business – or just leave the country with no intention of returning.

  32. Badpainter says:

    Wouldn’t be easier to simply raise taxes generally and then distribute more generous bahelorette/baby momma benefits?

  33. TAnon says:

    @Gunner Q
    >Has Communism always resulted in this kind of paranoia?

    As someone from a former communist country (though I personally didn’t live during that period) I can answer: Yes. They had a special unit that engaged in mostly spying on people and you could be arrested and jailed if you said anything against the system (similar to how questioning gender or race equality nowadays can get someone fired or worse). It created extreme distrust between people too because you could never know who might throw a false accusation at you just because he didn’t like you.

  34. earl says:

    ‘You can instill that desire. Game is not “do this to get girls sex you” It is purely understanding nature of women how they talk, walk and behave under the influence of emotion her hamster brewed up. And what triggers sexual desire on their part.’

    It’s a futile exercise to go down that road. I turned my focus on what instilled desire in me…and said ‘meh’ to her hamster and emotions.

  35. Bob Wallace says:

    “This is just the latest in dozens of examples of proof that Game works.”

    If women hate you, “Game” is worthless.

  36. Looking Glass says:

    A Bachelor’s Tax would hit gay Men proportionally higher. It’d be SO easy to kill that way.🙂

    The elites have painted themselves into corners, which is why they’re just making life rafts now. They really don’t know what to do next. Something that’s been clear for several years now.

  37. earl says:

    ‘The elites have painted themselves into corners, which is why they’re just making life rafts now. They really don’t know what to do next.’

    Last I read they merged their power. I really don’t care which one backstabs the other because that is probably the next part in the plan.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/rockefeller-and-rothschild-banking-dynasties-join-forces/?_r=0

  38. MV says:

    Speaking of communism… this (check link) is what happens to the empire that wants to deprive its male slaves from their last remaining worldly pleasure

    http://www.daytondui.com/blog/2013/10/16/did-prohibition-doom-the-soviet-union/

    …and 30 years later we have western feminists and their tradcon lapdogs waging a total war on videogamers, masturbators and “drunk rapists”. They never learn.

  39. Ralph says:

    You dropped the ball Dalrock. Western governments don’t want their bachelors breeding, they want to replace them with immigrants. However, every gov is desperate for money so if they introduce a bachelor tax it will not be to force men into marriage but to fill the coffers and give them less incentive to marry. Don’t want all those productive while folks marrying and having a dozen kids after all – they may just wake up and realize what has been done to their country

  40. JC says:

    The other challenge is that more men will simply report little or no taxable income. That, and men who chose to disengage from traditional roles of husband, father and provider already see that role as a huge cost to them financially, emotionally and spiritually so a bachelor tax to make marriage seem attractive by comparison would have to be absurdly high.

  41. earl says:

    How high does the bachelor tax have to be to convince a guy? I’d say 100%

    After taxes I get to keep the rest of my money.

    In marriage after taxes the wife gets or controls the money.

  42. MV says:

    @Earl

    100% tax… that would be a definition of slavery… is that not unconstitutional?

  43. Eric says:

    A bachelor tax. After pulling more than my share of the societal load my entire life, for me that would be the crowning indignity. I’m already supporting women who were unwilling to make the sacrifices they needed to make to get and keep a husband.

    Two weeks before the bachelor tax went into effect I’d put my notice in at work and disappear from society, to reappear only when I needed some government benefit.

  44. earl says:

    ‘100% tax… that would be a definition of slavery… is that not unconstitutional?’

    I was more making a point about what a single guy gets for return on his paycheck vs. a married guy.

  45. earl says:

    They won’t outright come out and say bachelor tax…they are a little smarter than that.

    If there is anything that is a bachelor tax…it came from the Affordable Health Care Act. My catastrophic health insurance went from a little to a lot.

  46. slowpoke says:

    All of you are making an assumption that is incorrect. The assumption is that the tax is to get men to get married. The reality of it is that it would be to cover the welfare payments that women and children get that men don’t. Its known that the “marriage bonus” is that men have to work harder. So the idea is that we tax men that aren’t married so that they’ll have to work harder to produce as well, that way the taxes can go “for the children” and we save civilization, hurray.

    Of course, we know how taxes really work; this plan fails; men will just go underground, you can’t really squeeze blood from a stone.

  47. Eric says:

    They won’t outright come out and say bachelor tax…they are a little smarter than that.

    Yeah. They’ll keep raising taxes and also deductions for married people and single mothers. Single men with good incomes will pay more because they’re the only ones who don’t get to deduct anything. It’s already the case except for couples with two high income earners.

    But that won’t motivate anyone to marry. That will motivate them to drop out.

  48. “A Bachelor’s Tax would hit gay Men proportionally higher. It’d be SO easy to kill that way. ”

    Or any bachelor who wants to avoid it could find another bachelor and marry him. Pretending to be gay is no worse than pretending to be a wife.

  49. warlock314 says:

    I read somewhere that the value of game is around a million dollars. As a guy that means you don’t have to work shitty jobs 12 hours a day 6 days a work to get that a hot babe. Add in the possibiltiy of going overseas to a better market and we are seeing an exodus of men from marriage and bad jobs. Our economy is also moving towards a knowledge based economy, so the smartest men are the most likely to learn game or go overseas.
    As for a bachelor tax, sexual equality would force governments to tax both bachelors and bachelorettes. This goes against the both feminism and the welfare mentality.
    The hypergamy bubble is alive and well. I still expect it to burst around 2020. Not that I really care, I am way beyond that with some game, overseas travel, and just enough money to scrape by.

  50. MV says:

    OT

    New York Times explains that rich rape victims should check their privilege in presence of poor rape victims… and, instead of 5-in-1 myth uses 8-in-1000 statistic.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/who-suffers-most-from-rape-and-sexual-assault-in-america.html

    Sweet.

  51. Maunalani says:

    Reinstating the draft for single men would probably work just as well.

  52. Rick says:

    Years ago, except for those I have to talk to at work, I removed women from my life completely. I freed my mind from all of the white knight brainwashing, illusions, enchantments and false beliefs.

    My life has been a lot more peaceful and pain free since then. My only regret is that I didn’t make this decision sooner in life. The bachelor tax would have to be a fate worse than death for me to ever consider marriage – and I have all of the indicators of a provider.

  53. Remo says:

    Dalrock our host said: “This would make Ferguson look like a walk in the park. How many Black, Hispanic, and Native American men would our elites be willing to tax and ultimately imprison in order to coerce White men to marry? Even the term you propose for the tax, a Poll Tax, is seen as a historically racist tax. It is a non starter.”

    I see the bachelor tax not as a way to force men to marry but as a way to punish white males – this has been the focus of the entirety of the family court system for 50 years now. A bachelor tax would be structured and administered in such a way as to preclude blacks and Hispanics the same way the “hate crime” laws are now. It doesn’t matter if a black person wheres a T shirt that says “Kill Whitey” while loudly proclaiming he killed the guy/girl because they are white – no hate crime there. This could be added to the balance of student loans or withdrawn from the paycheck directly to get around both issues – lower classes don’t go to University as much and whites, even unemployed whites, tend to have student loans. If people complain its just angry privileged white males getting upset because they have it easy and justice is now being done. Complaining about this in any capacity be raciss and sheeet and that’s the way it could be sold.

    I think you have a lot more faith in America than I do – I actually think you could get this to work without massive violence so long as you only target mostly white males. They are the favorite whipping boy of the elites and the ones who do most of the work to keep things going. If your goal is to turn the U.S. into a full on banana republic fragmented along racial and ethnic lines this would be a great move and an obvious next step.

  54. Alex says:

    greyghost says:
    December 21, 2014 at 4:59 pm
    To get around the gender specific tax they will try to tax a male activity. A porn tax for the actual producers of professional porn. An adult blog registration license for amateur porn blog type sites. (they don’t take pictures or hire the models they just post em) A video game tax along the lines of the cigarette tax kind of thing most likely for education. What ever It is that has a demographic more male that female some kind of licensing or fee will be accessed and not one reference will be made of men being the primary payers.
    —-
    Your have a good point, but government is always behind the curve because men are nimble. From years ago to now, the government has put its weight behind eradicating pirating – software, movies, porn, etc… None of it works. Years ago such things were hosted on websites outside the U.S.A jurisdiction. Now it trades hands in encrypted format on newsgroups or torrents. The laws are on the books, but ineffective on the ground. Just like Prohibition.

    Video game taxes? Porn taxes? Can’t tax them if they’re pirated, not purchased. Can’t admit you can crack the encryption and take it to prosecution, because defense lawyers will then examine your encryption crack techniques in open court and other groups will sue the government for infringing on their privacy making them prove piracy in every case, which will be expensive and unpopular. How many people cheered for the record labels when they were taking people to court. How much money did the recrod companies make off suing people? I doubt it even paid for their lawyers.

    Then only effective way to make people pay, is to make them want to pay, to convince them that they benefit from it, make them feel quilty if they don’t. Any other way is like herding cats – a pain in the ass, and (financially) unrewarding.

  55. Remo says:

    Rick said: “Years ago, except for those I have to talk to at work, I removed women from my life completely. I freed my mind from all of the white knight brainwashing, illusions, enchantments and false beliefs.”

    Serious question: how do you do this? I live in a foreign country so my prospects are far better than anyone still stuck with the detritus in the states but you speak as if there is some switch on the back of your head you simply throw. If I could remove all desire for women – not just sex but the desire for nurturing, caring, softness, etc. that we all crave but never talk about – I’d do it it a heartbeat. It’s the one thing that men cannot create inside themselves and speaking for myself I am acutely aware of its lack of presence. I’m older now so the gnawing want is less (it was basically daily torture when I was younger) but it still occupies the mind. I don’t think I’m special in this regard either. So if you have a solution for this that doesn’t involve a lobotomy I would like to hear it in all seriousness.

  56. Rick says:

    I’d say the bachelor tax is working very, very well and will only get worse and worse on men – especially white men. Am I missing something? Isn’t the bachelor tax a stellar success? If you’re a married man – aren’t most of you really just a soon to be bachelor in waiting?

    Isn’t there already an enormous bachelor tax paid by white men? Aren’t men still the majority of war and workplace deaths? Don’t white men pay the majority of taxes already anyways? They already pay the vast majority of alimony and child support, right? Isn’t federal funding for health and welfare many times greater for women than men? Women live a lot longer then men, so they collect the vast majority of SS and Medicare too, right? As mentioned, you have men financing all forms of medical costs that women primarily use through Obamacare.

  57. embracing reality says:

    Considering the willingness of our illustrious leaders to take on trillions in debt, print money, fail to secure the southern border thereby flooding the market with cheap labor and the needy it’s obvious to me that not much will change until there’s a major economic disaster. We’re a very wealthy and productive nation and that wealth and borrowing power props up the illusion that the current system is working. It could be many decades before most American’s feel any real pain, like hunger or terror. In the meantime they’ll continue to obsess over hollywood garbage and various entertainment, porn, sports, consumerism etc.

  58. Yoda says:

    In the meantime they’ll continue to obsess over hollywood garbage and various entertainment, porn, sports, consumerism etc.

    Manospere during that time will grow.
    Critical mass happen it will.

  59. Rick says:

    Remo said: “Serious question: how do you do this?”

    You’ve been programmed from birth to be naive about many things. How? Movies, books, music, TV, etc. Both your conscious and subconscious are flooded with false beliefs about many, many things. One of those things is women. Women are not sugar, spice and everything nice. Women are, in my estimation, the cruelest of creatures ever created. In my experience, most women are far more ruthless, cunning, manipulative and dishonest than most men. The most important rule a man can learn is to never, ever give a woman power over your life physically, legally, psychologically, emotionally, financially or spiritually. If you do, you will one day deeply regret it. Fall in love and one day you will pay a hefty price. Love is not what most people believe it to be.

    Women don’t love men. Women see men as safety nets, steps on a social ladder and as individual stock funds in their 401K. Why do you think women hold very successful men in much higher regard than less successful men? Women are also biologically programmed to mate with the male with the best genes. In today’s world, the men best capable of providing are smart betas – but don’t necessarily have the best genes (alpha male genes). The reason so many women become single mothers is because they no longer need men to have children. Why? Many women view the state as a better alternative to beta men and alpha men are in short supply. They can still get their children financed by men (through beta male taxes) and screw as many alphas as they can lure in. If they have their own wealth, if older, they often choose younger, poorer men to have sex with (cougars). Most men don’t understand how women view them. Why? Ego. Ever wonder why women dump men after they’ve been long-term unemployed or after their prime earning years are over (see grey divorce)?

    I also see women as a full time job in which I pay my employer. When I’m done with my work day, I can do whatever I want. I don’t have to worry about in-laws, her schedule, what I wear, her idiosyncrasies, her problems, her dislikes, her preferences, etc. As far as sex goes, I can masturbate all day long and not worry about cheating, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, fights, alimony, child support, marriage, false accusations, going to jail, divorce, etc.

    So…when I look at a woman…I don’t get stuck on whatever superficial wiles she might posses. With regard to women, I hold no romantic notions, no illusions and no enchantments. I’ve freed my mind of the brainwashing. In other words, I know what lies beneath and am not fooled by what I see on the surface. All that glitters is not gold. I know how women think. I’m not confused or fooled by them. Surprisingly, once I came to these conclusions, women became more interested in me. My indifference toward them makes me appear confident, aloof and challenging. I’m not concerned with wooing them, so I display no awkwardness in social situations. I consider this to be a negative side effect. Putting zero effort into chasing women, I’ve turned down many an offer to have sex in the past several years. To me, it’s just not worth the trouble that can follow.

    Because of all the above, I simply have no interest in pursuing relationships with women.

  60. MV says:

    An old saying goes:

    Men and women should marry young, while women are still pretty and men are still stupid.

  61. Yoda says:

    So…when I look at a woman…I don’t get stuck on whatever superficial wiles she might posses. With regard to women, I hold no romantic notions, no illusions and no enchantments. I’ve freed my mind of the brainwashing. In other words, I know what lies beneath and am not fooled by what I see on the surface.

    Feel the truth flow.
    Free you it will.

  62. Johnycomelately says:

    Bachelor taxes will never be instituted because ‘monogamy marriage’ is dying and being replaced by ‘serial polygyny marriage’, it’s fast becoming an unworkable institution and feminists and social conservatives are beating a dead horse. We are undergoing a cultural epoch change and nothing is going to impede its progression, not legislation not taxes.

    Social conservatives are (admirably) struggling to maintain the institution of monogamy marriage while feminists are fighting to maintain the benefits and privileges that accrued under the institution but ultimately it will be a futile endeavour. Both will go to the dust bin of history, sure they might get a Pyrrhic victory here and there but it won’t last.

    Feminists are currently mad as hatters because they can sense their monogamy culture privileges slipping away, male deference, chivalry, social respect, assured marriage to dutiful hard working men, ‘good men’, social cohesion, family life, societal protection, higher standards of living, less stress, lower working hours, less stress to be promiscuous to get a man, less emphasis on female physical attractiveness, lower need to dress to impress, not being treated like a pound of flesh, cheaper housing, sound religious life etc.

    Instead, under serial polygyny what they’ll have to look forward to is being single mother working stiffs (with lazy baby daddies) or welfare queens, sure the top 5% might continue to have it good but it’s going to be a small club.

    Feminism is a dead institution, it could only ever operate under the auspices of monogamy culture, once serial polygyny goes mainstream the jig is up, the man fuelled monogamy culture surplus (both cultural and economic) will be gone. There will be no complaints bureau to listen to their whining.

    You see, men operate under two sexual selection pressures, ‘paternal investment effort’ (Trivers Paternal Investment Theory, 1972), which means working hard to provide for a family or ‘mating effort’ (Nathan R. sell, Anthropologist), which means forgoing vocational investment and concentrating on being a sexy bad boy to get sex.

    Once women overwhelmingly select for the sexy bad boys (mating effort) over betas (paternal investment) men are simply going to follow female choice. And as the venerable Whiskey used to say, “Women hate hate hate betas.”

  63. Nathan R. Sell – Anthropologist
    Male parental investment is in direct competition with mating effort….Reproductive strategies are composed of two opposing factors…mating versus parenting effort. A task may actualise the benefits of both factors and be non-mutually exclusive. If, however, both factors cannot be satisfactorily met, then the male will seek to maximise parental investment or mating effort.

    Lancaster – Anthropologist
    Joint endeavour between human males and females reduced sexual selection and increased parental investment strategies in both sexes.

    Monique Mulder – Anthropologist
    A test for linear association showed that men with single marriages were more likely to be “hardworking” (and less likely to be “lazy”) than men with two, and particularly three, marriages.

    Higher-order marriages are common among the heavy drinking and slack working men…these men’s multiple marriages might reflect an associated lax sociosexual lifestyle.

    Draper – Anthropologist
    Male children with an absent father were shown to be more aggressive, more exploitive of females, more critical of authority, and had better verbal skills at the expense of spatial skills than father present boys. Female children also were impacted by the presence of a father as they aged they showed higher sexual interest and less sexual self-control than father- present girls.

    Marlowe – Anthropologist
    Hadza men who hunt and had a child of eight years of age or younger brought in more daily calories than men who did not…men did not forage as effectively if they had a stepchild present instead of a biological one.

  64. Ras al Ghul says:

    The already have a bachelor tax.

    Its called “child support.” Its around 15% for the first kid.

    You only have to tinker a little bit to make it encourage marriage.

    Up it to 25%. Make it mandatory if you’re not married, even if you’re living with the children, make sure the state takes out of the child support any amount that is spent on social welfare programs and the remainder goes to the parent with custody of the child (make it mandatory that in unmarried couples that there has to be a determination of one parent having primary custody (and a default if its not contested to the birth mother).

    Make the minimum amount of child support, regardless of the father’s income, the amount spent on the children per month on social programs.

    Lock up any man that is in arrears over 6 months.

    Conservatives will support it, its holding men accountable and making them responsible, and “cutting social programs”

    Feminists will love it because it empowers women and is “for the children”

    That’s how you make a bachelor tax.

  65. DeNihilist says:

    So I went fishing 1000 times this year. Had 60 fish on the line, and amazingly landed 27 of them. Of course every fish I jiggled my bait in front of was at least 5 pounds! Needless to say, I view myself as a great fisherman (though 2 of my children starved to death).

    Anyone want to buy my book on fishing?

  66. Dalrock.

    One of the ideas often put forward when discussing declining marriage rates is that our elites are likely to enact a Roman Empire style bachelor tax.

    I think they HAVE to do this. They simply MUST financially penalize men who refuse to marry a slut. Because right now, our system is not working. And each year our marriage rate for everyone in the country over the age of 18 drops (on average) by 0.5%. In ten years, only 44% of the people in this country over the age of 18 will be married. That is an economic disaster and a nightmare for a civilized society. You simply cannot have a stable, functioning, law-abiding, civilized society where the majority of the people in it aren’t married. Ordinary, stable cities will more and more resemble Camden NJ, Detroit MI, and Ferguson MO. That would make the United States 3rd world.

    The bachelor taxes are coming. But they will not call them bachelor taxes. Instead, they will come in ways that will champion feminism (ie: prevent men from enjoying themselves or in anyway, objectify women.) That is the only way that there will be popular opinion for it. Society could create “sloth” taxes. What are these? Taxes on anything that men do where they are not producing anything of value. There WILL BE a porn tax. It will happen. There will be video game taxes. There will be huge taxes on tickets to professional sporting events. There will be taxes on “cover charges” for entering sports bars and night clubs. Any activity where men are acting in a “slothful” manner instead of serving women and her children directly, you could tax that. And the feminist imperative would support that.

    How about a “danger” tax? You could tax rock climbing/mountain climbing equipment, skydiving, snowmobiling, hand-gliding, any physical activity that would predominantly hit men (mostly single men) that has a great deal of financial cost and a lot of built in need for time off/time away from family.

    What is the ultimate goal here? The goal is NOT to raise money for the government (although that is a nice ancillary benefit.) The ultimate goal is get the sluts married so that some man (and not government) is held financially responsible for her upkeep and the upkeep of her bastard children for the rest of her life. Government needs men to ante up and not GTOW. That goal is only going to be accomplished with penalties for opting out, never with incentives for opting back in.

  67. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    “With marriage weakening we are starting to see that unmarried men tend to earn like women.”

    Well:

    The earning power of young single women has surpassed that of their male peers in metropolitan areas around the U.S., a shift that is being driven by the growing ranks of women who attend college and move on to high-earning jobs.

    In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data released Wednesday by Reach Advisors, a consumer-research firm in Slingerlands, N.Y.

    […]

    These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.

    Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.

    http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192

    I find it amusing that the conventional definition of the pay gap disappears once, by said definition, the pay gap is in favor of women.

  68. How can they tax what isn’t there?

  69. What about a ‘slut tax’?!

  70. TAnon says:

    @warlock314
    “go overseas”

    Overseas where? Asia? I don’t fully know the situation there but what you are seeing is a phenomenon on a world wide scale, it’s just that the US is ahead of the rest of the world. It all started with women getting the right to vote (and other rights) and being brought into the workforce and continued on a slippery slope from there.

  71. Exfernal says:

    @DeNihilist.
    How long, in hours, did it take?

  72. Red Knight says:

    There’s one way I can imagine such a thing would work, and that’s not via a specific bachelor tax, but a whole paradigm shift in the economics of child-raising. Decree that paying for taking care of those too young to support themselves is a communal duty. Hence, the state pays a child support allowance to the parents for each underage kid they have. Mom and dad need to pay nothing, but they are of course free to contribute (and would probably in almost all cases, since the child support allowance would be sufficient for subsistence but not much more).

    All that might sound horribly statist for much of the Manosphere, but it would be consistent with how taking care of those too old to work has already been made into a communal duty. Sure, there’s pension funds to create the legal fiction that retirees are just cashing out, but at the end, they’re idling and someone else is working to enable their idling, the things they consume don’t magically come into existence because someone took money out of a pension fund.

    It used to be that parents cared for their kids, and the grown-up kids would care for their parents when they’d get old. Currently, the second part of the old paradigm has been done away with, but the former persists. The net effect is that those who do have children are effectively supporting those who don’t, since they pay for the raising of new taxpayers who will one day support the retirement of the latter.

  73. Mark Minter says:

    Wait Dal, don’t make the mistake of not trusting what you see today as something that was also prevalent at some other time back in the past. What gets called the “bachelor laws” was really the “slut laws”, designed to reign in the whorish behavior of women back in those days. The elite of those days saw falling birthrate and hesitancy on the part of men to marry out of fear of the women. The attempts to push men into marrying were to counteract this falling birthrate, and provide some reassurance to men that the state would strengthen the hand of the woman’s father as well as his duty to Rome to police the infidelity of his daughter, that he was allowed by the law, to kill her, and to compel beta husbands to act against their wives if they caught them in infidelity. Augustus had to exile his own daughter, a major slut during the time, to an island forever. He exiled her because he couldn’t bear to kill her. And you will see below that men still had skepticism over the effectiveness of the law in restraining the polyamorous, alpha cock chasing behavior of wives.

    There were the two laws that enacted those acts that you refer, the Lex Pappia and the Lex Julia, the first set the various requirements to marriage and penalties for not doing so for BOTH men and women. But the core of those laws were about Adultery, particularly female adultery. In essence, the same thing went on then as does today, the behavior of the women had gotten soooo out of hand, that there was this big Romans men’s movement RGTOW. And these laws were an attempt to reduce it.

    I have two things for you to read. These are huge writings. The first is Juvenal. Satire VI.

    The whole premise of Juvenal in this 6th and most famous satire is a early Roman rant for MGTOW. Really. The whole satire lists female offense after offense, and all of them will feel familiar to any guy that reads the manosphere. It is worth it that when you encounter some name or reference you do not know then highlight it, right click, and do a Google search for it. They are extremely illuminating.

    http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_06.htm

    Some excerpts:

    “But Ursidius approves of the Julian Law (This is a reference to what I said above about the skepticism, like Juvenal is saying “Yeah right”) . He purposes to bring up a dear little heir, though he will thereby have to do without the fine turtles, the bearded mullets, and all the legacy-hunting delicacies of the meat-market. What can you think impossible if Ursidius takes to himself a wife? if he, who has long been the most notorious of gallants, who has so often found safety in the corn-bin of the luckless Latinus,8 puts his head into the connubial noose? And what think you of his searching for a wife of the good old virtuous sort? ” …..

    “Can our arcades show you one woman worthy of your vows? Do all the tiers in all our theatres hold one whom you may love without misgiving, and pick out thence? …..

    “When Eppia, the senator’s wife, ran off with a gladiator 15 to Pharos and the Nile and the ill-famed city of Lagos, Canopus itself cried shame upon the monstrous morals of our town. Forgetful of home, of husband and of sister, without thought of her country, she shamelessly abandoned her weeping children; and—-more marvellous still—-deserted Paris and the games. Though born in wealth, though as a babe she had slept in a bedizened cradle on the paternal down, she made light of the sea, just as she had long made light of her good name—-a loss but little accounted of among our soft litter-riding dames. And so with stout heart she endured the tossing and the roaring of the Tyrrhenian and Ionian Seas, and all the many seas she had to cross. For when danger comes in a right and honourable way, a woman’s heart grows chill with fear; she cannot stand upon her trembling feet: but if she be doing a bold, bad thing, her courage fails not. For a husband to order his wife on board ship is cruelty: the bilge-water then sickens her, the heavens go round and round. But if she is running away with a lover, she feels no qualms: then she vomits over her husband; now she messes with the sailors, she roams about the deck, and delights in hauling at the hard ropes.

    And what were the youthful charms which captivated Eppia? What did she see in him to allow herself to be called “a she-Gladiator”? Her dear Sergius had already begun to shave; a wounded arm gave promise of a discharge, and there were sundry deformities in his face: a scar caused by the helmet, a huge wen upon his nose, a nasty humour always trickling from his eye. But then he was a gladiator! It is this that transforms these fellows into Hyacinths! it was this that she preferred to children and to country, to sister and to husband. What these women love is the sword: had this same Sergius received his discharge, he would have been no better than a Veiento (the boring husband that she left to run of with the gladiator).

    So the previous was exactly a Roman version of wife throwing away a well place, high ranking, older Beta-ish Roman official, probably some sort of marriage of convenience, for status, maybe somewhat arranged, to go run off, ditch the kids, all for some Gladiator cock, exactly because the guy is a gladiator. Then if the poor fool marries, then she bores of him, and the cycle starts all over again.

    Same as it ever was.

    So then the second reading is The History of Prostitution by William W. Sanger. If you read it “esoterically”, it is another work that is truly damning about women. Especially during Roman times. Actually during any time. Sanger doesn’t mince words. It is remarkable that a book like this had been around for so long. And it is a book that might only have written during that time, the 1850s before a University elite could have squelched it. And it was possible given the circumstances around the book. It was part of a report and a recommendation to the New York CIty government of the day on what to do about growing prostitution in the city. So possibly a very truthful and straight talking report was permitted given the urgency of the problem at the time.

    The link is to a Project Gutenberg page that gives the book in multiple formats. The HTML works just fine. You can download a PDF if you wish for a permanent copy.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41873

    Sanger was a doctor in charge of the medical unit on some island in the waters around New York that served as a women’s prison in the 1850s. He was tasked with coming up with recommendations for the city of New York in dealing with an upsurge of both prostitution and venereal disease, with the attendant crime associated with high levels of prostituion, as well as its impact on other social aspects of life, like ruined marriages, spreading the venereal disease to women outside of the spheres of prostitution.

    Sanger believed that an outright prohibition against prostitution has been difficult to enforce throughout history, so he gave historical examples of both the sexual mores and behavior during various times in history and also the prostitution that did occur during those times.

    Of interest to this post is the sections on Rome, Chap IV, but I also found the section on Greece, Chapter III and the section on the early Christian era to both be of interest. Sanger is very erudite and extremely educated on antiquities and the classics. He gives a remarkably candid writing of the sexual culture of Rome and it wasn’t a tale that was favorable to women at all. He laid the groundwork in my thinking that the acceptance of Christianity first in Greece then in Rome was a correction of society to constrain the behavior of women, and gained great support from women that were so disgusted by the role of women in creating the sick society that Rome was during that era, Sanger does lean heavily on the writings of Juvenal and Martial, another satirist of the day.

    Sanger paints the same picture of “Girls Gone WIld” with examples like the Bacchanalia, a “festival” of drinking and sex that blows away the wildest college spring break in sheer hedonistic excess that it was suppressed and the organizers exiled, jailed, even killed. My favorite story was where the wife of one of the emperors, Juvenal says Claudius, Sanger says it was the daughter of Augustus, perhaps both, would sneak out at night and go and put on the “blue wig”, the mark of the prostitute. They would rent a stall in a brothel, and turn tricks until dawn, when she crept back into the house of the emperor. The critics of Juvenal say he was a paid guy, one who struggled to find patronage, and often defamed people for a fee, and the current emperor or his proxies paid him to make up stuff about the previous one.

    You read these two pieces, and basically, they confirm your version of current events, that the “marriage strike” is really a rebellion of women, that it is the misbehavior and feral sexuality of women that is driving the current sexual regime, and nothing was any different “back in the day”. If anything, the behavior in Rome was just the late stages of a decline that happens to some affluent and powerful society, and America will get there if the current trajectory continues.

    It was the misbehavior of women, particularly in adultery, the way that wives abused husbands, used the law to their benefits, even used poison when necessary. Juvenal notes a thriving business of herbs and potions for anything like making the alpha of a woman’s dreams fall in love with her, to abortion, to murdering the husband.

    Of interest in both Greece and Rome as per Sanger, is the falling birth rate in both societies as greater influence was realized.

    Juvenal makes this statement most fitting to our times.

    “But whence come these monstrosities? you ask; from what fountain do they flow? In days of old, the wives of Latium were kept chaste by their humble fortunes. It was toil and brief slumbers that kept vice from polluting their modest homes; hands chafed and hardened by Tuscan fleeces, Hannibal nearing the city, and husbands standing to arms at the Colline gate.37 We are now suffering the calamities of long peace. Luxury, more deadly than any foe, has laid her hand upon us, and avenges a conquered world. Since the day when Roman poverty perished, no deed of crime or lust has been wanting to us; from that moment Sybaris and Rhodes and Miletus have poured in upon our hills, with the begarlanded and drunken and unabashed Tarentum.38 Filthy lucre first brought in amongst us foreign ways; wealth enervated and corrupted the ages with foul indulgences. What decency does Venus observe when she is drunken? when she knows not one member from another, eats giant oysters at midnight, pours foaming unguents into her unmixed Falernian, and drinks out of perfume-bowls, while the roof spins dizzily round, the table dances, and every light shows double!”

    I advise you to read the whole Sanger book. The essence of early Christianity was to constrain the sexual excesses of women. And they did. This period has one of the shortest chapters on prostitution in the whole book. But as we have written about in the Manosphere, the sexual “misadventure” of women began to rear it’s ugly head again in the era 1100-1500 ad with the invention of “Courtly Love”. And it is my opinion that as the modern church is corrupted today by the sexual dictates of women, the Catholic church was also corrupted in much the same manner. Indulgences and annulments handed out willy nilly lead to dissatisfaction in the church hierarchy and lead to the reformation, puritanism, and another “correction” much like early Christianity, designed to reign in female sexual misbehavior.

  74. Opus says:

    First out of the block was the Real Peterman pointing out that he was kryptonite to all women and that a bachelor tax would be unfair on him. TFH who is a supporter of men marrying says that The Real Peterman’s problems may be solved by his learning and applying Game and he refers to Krauser as proof of its efficacy (twenty-seven women out of a thousand said it made their Gina tingle). This, TFH says is proof that Game works – a 2.7% success rate. Now, suppose that instead of a 2.7% success rate Krauser had a 27% success rate; that out of every four eastern-european Au-Pairs he approaches outside John Lewis in Oxford Street one of those women was to sleep with him. Would that be proof of Game? Apparently it must be. So, what about a 0.27% success rate and for every one thousand approaches that Krauser makes (I’ll round it up) three Au-pairs were to sleep with him. Is that proof of Game? Certainly, that must also be proof that Game really does work. In fact whatever Krauser’s success rate the women he sleeps with are proof that Game works, but if that is as it must be, the case, then game is unfalsifiable and thus being pseudo-science, indistinguishable from religious belief.

    It seems to me therefore that Game is merely the new name for what is only, making an approach and what The Home Office call grooming – in fact exactly the type of behaviour that TFH castigates of the Musselmen of Rotherham who have discovered that all young white women are sluts.

  75. earl says:

    ‘So I went fishing 1000 times this year. Had 60 fish on the line, and amazingly landed 27 of them. Of course every fish I jiggled my bait in front of was at least 5 pounds! Needless to say, I view myself as a great fisherman (though 2 of my children starved to death).

    Anyone want to buy my book on fishing?’

    Exactly. If I had the time and energy to fish 1000 times this year I could have those type of numbers. It’s a matter of remembering the few successes despite the many duds.

  76. Mark Minter says:

    I have another observation that is slightly related to my above comment. It is about the falling birth rate as a function of affluence and also a function of the falling birth rate. The falling birth rate leads to a falling birthrate. The reason it does so is that it creates a surplus of older men for a given supply of younger women.

    I examined the historical birthrates from 1900 on. You can find a multitude of charts by seach for the phrase. The birthrate began to plummet starting in the late 1920s and reached its low for the period 1932-1962 as the nation entered the original depth of the Great Depression. It grow, but very slowly throughout the remainder of the decade and accelerate somewhat in the 40s but what depressed due to the war. Despite the deployment of large amounts of young men, the war led to full employment back home, and the men left behind married exactly because there was a surplus of men to women and the men offered the utility of employment to women, especially after years of tough economic times.

    Immediately after the war, the birthrate began to climb dramatically climbing to a peak in the mid 50s and remaining there until the invention of the birth control pill in the early 60s and augemented by abortion in the 70s.

    Get this, from 1900 to 1932 to average age of men at marriage was 26.2 years of age, and for women is was 22.5. Now consider how in many regions of the country, people married very early. So in many of the affluent urban areas, that age of first marriage was probably higher.

    Steve Sailer often refers to 1946 as this “golden” year when so many “leader” types of men were born. That was the period of time when the birth rate was raising, after a long dearth of births. This was key time to be born for a man, a bad time to be born for a woman. And it remain “bad” for women until the 1960s, really until 1987.

    In each case, there were more women born in a given year, then the recent previous years yielded men. Given the propensity of women to prefer older men, then all women were at a maximum disadvantage. And the accumulative effect on women was great.

    The first effect was that during this time, from 1946 until 1970, the average age at marriage for men was 22.1 and for women 20.5.

    So in the face of a surplus of women relative to men, the dastardly men married. The percentage of married people reached an all time high. So when men had the power, one of two things happened, either the men used their power of numbers to get married, or they responded to their lack of power by locking that one down when he was young and dumb. Either way, the two decades, 50s and 60s was one of the most productive and stable decades ever.

    By the late 60s and the early 70s, the cumulative of this sustained high birth rate, the baby boom produced and unprecedented surplus of young women relative to older men. You had to have lived through it to understand it. Everywhere you went there were huge numbers of young people. And fewer numbers of the men those women wanted. And what is referred to as the Sexual Revolution was really just that men were able to negotiate pre-marital sex as a threat point to gain sexual access from the women, before marriage.

    But they married them.

    If you trace back then, back to 1962, when the birth control pill became available, then walk that forward by 25 years, then you see a trend begin in 1987, the falling marriage rates. At that point, you began to see fewer women relative to older men. And you see the average age of marriage begin to walk it ways higher, and the birthrate begin to decelerate.

    I began to notice this in clubs. Instead of a club being packed with women, and often 50/50, I began to see 3 to 2 ratios, then by the 90s 3 to 1 ratios.

    And as the birthrate fell after an extended period of it falling, you began to sex the social and sexual power of women increase. Woman became status symbols, and they used this power in negotiating myriad forms of financial and social power. And for the past 30 years this birthrate has been extreme.

    Then do some math. If women wait to get married, then there are more unmarried men, more men to give attention to women, to chase them, indulge them, throw privilege at them, money, standing whatever, every reason for women to defer marriage. And in doing so they increase their value, become status entities, preferred and privileged.

    Really the only way to increase the rate of marriage is too create an imbalance that favors men, or least reduces the disfavor they currently suffer.

    You either need to import a massive amount of women from somewhere or you guys need to go out into the street with pistols and shoot every handsome man you see. If each one of you shoots maybe 2 or 3, then you dramatically change your odds.

    One other thing I might recommend is to push for some sort of Fast Track K-2 Visa program where the applicant can pay some fee or bond, like $5000, and fill out the base paperwork. Then the 90 day entry visa is cut, and the ICE processes the remainder as a priority, but while the woman is already in country. Perhaps some cursory police check might be done as part of the initial processing. But basically the idea is that get the woman here, deal with the papers after the fact. A million marriages to foreign women would do an amazing amount to stimulating the economy and putting the competitive pressure on American women to shit our get of the pot.

  77. joshtheaspie says:

    It’s unlikely to be a 100% bachelor tax, but something fairly close. What they do is raise taxes, then also increase the deduction for dependents, and anyone drawing social security. Then most married couples and single mothers will have about the same level of taxes (maybe less), while childless singles (including women, but even more commonly men) and Dual Income No Kid households will be taxed higher.at a higher rate.

    I’ve even seen this seriously proposed as a tax reform measure on a conservative news/policy site.

    And note that the literal bachelor tax was a short-lived one introduced by a “conservative”.

    Alternative, you just tax everyone more, but spend more on programs for women. Wealth transfer there too.

  78. Frank-Calif says:

    Dalrock, I think you are missing the point here. You seem to be under the impression that the feminists are really into marriage. They are not. Their support for marriage is lukewarm. It begins and ends with the fact that it is the only legal means they have to procure money from men. If they could force men to turn over their money (and DNA) by some other way, they would be fine with no marriage at all (just look at their celebration of Sweden, a country with a very low marriage rate).
    If marriage becomes rare, which is inevitable, then how will feminists get their money? That’s the question you have to answer Dalrock. Basically, it will be some sort of a Bachelor Tax or it will be a one-world Marxist state where the feminists can control the money, video games, porn, DNA, travel and who (men with money) has intimate relations with whom.
    One last point. Feminists don’t give a damn about men who don’t have any money. Those men are simply invisible to them. Feminist venom is directed only at those men who DO have money who AND who do not kowtow to feminism (i.e. by not turning over their money and DNA to feminist women willingly).

  79. Pingback: A Bachelor Tax in our future The problem… | Honor Dads

  80. Opus says:

    They say you should subsidize that which you wish to promote and tax that which you want to discourage; thus Opera is subsidized and smoking is taxed. Does the government want to promote marriage? It is hard to think that it does, for every year brings forth more anti-marriage legislation (such as criminalizing the man who attempts to control his wife’s profligate spending). Let us, however, assume that in fact the government does want to encourage marriage: if so, what is preventing women from marrying? Is it their freely made choice, or is it that men are going ghost? Men will do what they have to do to have sexual intercourse – but no more – and so the best way to encourage men to marry would be to persuade women that chastity before (rather than after) marriage is their best bet, and further – as male interest can wain – to encourage early marriage. Do they do this? No! they do the exact opposite, by facilitating female carousel riding (which they call female economic and social empowerment) and by punitive alimony rules.

    The calculation a man will then make, is, will I be better off suffering the tax and taking sex where and when I can, or by marrying (if someone wants me) and running the consequences of frivorce?

  81. Dave says:

    In the end, single guys cannot win, though marriage rate might transiently increase.
    One of the major reasons why single men remain single is because they are afraid of divorce. The other one is their idea that marriage is somewhat permanent, so they must find a woman that they can love/handle/tolerate for life.
    With further imposition of a bachelor tax, the fear of divorce and even procreating with a western woman may gradually dissipate, since the guys who get divorced might not fare much worse than those who stay single, financially speaking. Moreover, the guys’ expectation of a permanent marriage might not be all that at the forefront, since he loses little in a divorce. So the men might become less discriminatory in their choice of a spouse. Thus, the net effect of a bachelor’s tax could be a marginal increase in the rate of marriage.
    Unfortunately, this will not translate into greater productivity by the men, since they have lost all incentives to impress the woman (and thus won’t necessarily work harder), and the new system of taxation has minimized their fear of being subjected to divorce theft.
    So, we can look forward to guys getting married without as much thought, and having kids with less scruples, because either way, they lose nothing substantial. But then, over time, guys might adapt to the new system in other ways, making the initial marital rate bump a dead cat bounce.

  82. Rick says:

    And then you have ‘yes means yes’, which to many is a schizophrenic reaction by liberals/feminists to the notion of “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” I’m one of those people who believe this to be the primary motivation behind ‘yes means yes’. Even though the rape stats are wildly false – they’re still being used by conservatives and liberals alike. Why? They know the stats are false. Even some conservatives are like, “Yeah – we want to prevent sex outside of marriage and to promote marriage, but come on!” It appears that Jackie’s whole UVA rape story was based on a rejection by someone she had her heart set upon snagging.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/progressive-schizophrenia-about-campus-rape

    “If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. . . . men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter. . . To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.”

    Afraid of what? Why, sex outside of marriage, of course. ‘yes means yes’ isn’t designed to end the non-existent rape culture. It is intended to end hook up culture. What better way to get men to marry than to make sex outside of marriage an offense punishable by expulsion and maybe years in prison – followed by a lifetime of being unemployable? You can’t prove consent if she claims she withdrew consent after giving it initially. The more men that get married, the more wealth transfer can occur from the subsequent divorces. The more men that get married, the more power women have over men. You just know ‘yes means yes’ will be enshrined in VAWA one day. What better way to keep men on their sex leashes? It worked with DV, right?

    Teach men to respect all women. Redefine any sex women don’t like (aka: sex without commitment when a commitment is desired) as rape. Teach men not to rape. Teach men that women are strong, independent and equal, yet require men to protect and defend women and their virtue (LOL). At the same time, don’t oppress women by holding them to those phony patriarchal standards of virtue – yet punish men when women regret being too sexually adventurous, adulterous and/or after drunk sex.

    The bachelor tax from the above will come through civil litigation and the lifetime of negative financial consequences on men following sexual assault and rape accusations. Train men like dogs. Reward good behavior. Ruthlessly punish bad behavior. Use the media to publicly shame and destroy any man that acts against women’s best interests. Praise through the media men that act like good little white knights.

  83. Mark,

    By the late 60s and the early 70s, the cumulative of this sustained high birth rate, the baby boom produced and unprecedented surplus of young women relative to older men. You had to have lived through it to understand it. Everywhere you went there were huge numbers of young people. And fewer numbers of the men those women wanted. And what is referred to as the Sexual Revolution was really just that men were able to negotiate pre-marital sex as a threat point to gain sexual access from the women, before marriage.

    But they married them.

    I think there might have been another parameter that was present at that time (not present today) that you are not accounting for: conscription.

    Nixon ended consription in 1972. So from 1950 (beginning of Korean War) to 1971 (towards the end of Vietnam) if you weren’t in Faber College living like Bluto Blutarski, Otter, and Boon, you were in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. For over 20+ years, the United States was in a perpetual state of war with “someone” somewhere, where the US always had the military advantage. And you were a man over-seas, (somewhere, be it World War II torn Europe, Cuba, Central America, Korea, or Southeast Asia) you were surounded by foreign women who wanted deperately to marry a GI and go back and live in the United States partially because your own country sucks and partially because all the men of your country were already killed. Meanwhile Boon and Otter were partying in Ft Lauderdale all March surrounded by women like Mandy Pepperton and Fawn Liebowitz who would do anything to catch a man because there were so few available.

    I think the draft totally gave the sexual power to men simply by relocating so many of them.

    If you trace back then, back to 1962, when the birth control pill became available, then walk that forward by 25 years, then you see a trend begin in 1987, the falling marriage rates. At that point, you began to see fewer women relative to older men. And you see the average age of marriage begin to walk it ways higher, and the birthrate begin to decelerate.

    I began to notice this in clubs. Instead of a club being packed with women, and often 50/50, I began to see 3 to 2 ratios, then by the 90s 3 to 1 ratios.

    I would say this is true. I was born in 1970. I didn’t start club-hopping until the early 1990s. I have no memory of anytime at any nightclub, party, or social gathering where the men didn’t outnumber the women at least 2 to 1. There was always too many guys and never enough girls, and the few girls that were there were mostly fat.

    Yes women have pretty much had ALL the sexual power and leverage in all my adult memory. It was only when I hit my 30s and married that I began to notice that women who had the power ten years early had lost it because all they wanted to do is get married… and now men largely weren’t willing to marry them.

  84. Exfernal says:

    […]or you guys need to go out into the street with pistols and shoot every handsome man you see. If each one of you shoots maybe 2 or 3, then you dramatically change your odds.

    That would lead to dumbing down of future generations. Good looks and smarts are positively correlated. No, it’s not only the ‘halo effect’.

  85. Frank,

    Dalrock, I think you are missing the point here. You seem to be under the impression that the feminists are really into marriage. They are not. Their support for marriage is lukewarm. It begins and ends with the fact that it is the only legal means they have to procure money from men.

    No sir. Dalrock is entirely right. Feminists LOOOOVE marriage 2.0. It gives them ALL the power. That is what the want, all the power PLUS all the financial provisioning a man can provide without any accountability on their part. They love it. They will do anything to get it, even if it means bachelor taxes like the Affordable Care Act.

  86. Good article. The main problem I see with anything that would work as a “bachelor tax” is that it would simply encourage single men to make less money, do more work off the books or for barter, and things like that. We’re already seeing that, because to some extent our tax system already penalizes them. Ramp that up, and they’ll drop out even more.

    Where I live, cost of living is reasonable, and a single man can live on $10K. Now, that doesn’t give him a lot of money for fancy toys, but he can have an Internet account and a few games. No Cadillac, but a working car. No health coverage, but an ordinary guy 20-50 doesn’t need that (in fact, that’s one of the main ways they transfer money from guys like him to others already). So he can get a part-time job to pay for his apartment, car, and a bit of beer money, and stay well below the level where he pays any taxes at all. If he wants to, he can find cash work and even be unemployed and draw on government freebies himself.

    So short of requiring a single man to work, assigning him to a job like a fully communist country, there’s no way for them to tax him much more than they already are.

    I don’t see much chance of them encouraging him to marry, either. Feminists hate marriage, and that’s not going to change. They like child support and having a man on the hook that way, but they aren’t going to try to get men to do something they’ve spent the last 50 years trying to destroy. And while tradcons like marriage in theory, they’re too wrapped up in their fantasies about their Perfect Princesses and the awesome careers and righteous wealthy men they deserve. They’re not going to try to talk a “deadbeat” into working just hard enough to marry their daughters. Heck, they send their daughters to college specifically to avoid guys like that.

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Mark Minter

    You either need to import a massive amount of women from somewhere or you guys need to go out into the street with pistols and shoot every handsome man you see. If each one of you shoots maybe 2 or 3, then you dramatically change your odds.

    You are either a feminist shill or are trying extremely hard to sound like one. Take this crap somewhere else.

  88. Dalrock,

    You are either a feminist shill or are trying extremely hard to sound like one. Take this crap somewhere else.

    I think Mark was being facetious when he advocated murder to even out the playing field.

  89. Bango Tango says:

    Porn won’t be taxed. Like everything else tech it has become more easily accessed every year and cheaper to the point of being free for whatever kink you are into.That will not be reversed. There are billions of videos and pics sitting on a billion hard drives.

    Plus free porn easily accessed by children is the best thing to screw up kids at an early age and promote the vagina is everything culture. Porn will get better then ever and cheaper if not free.

  90. new anon says:

    There will be no bachelor tax where they tax unmarried men, because that would encourage marriage–something a significant portion of the left abhor.

    What you will have is an overall higher rate of taxation, with big deductions for certain classes.

    * A tax deduction for children and childcare.
    * A tax deduction for working women to offset the “fact” that women only make 77 cents for every dollar men do (yea, I know it’s a myth, but that won’t stop them from using it as an excuse to tinker with the tax code).
    * A tax deduction to help unmarried mothers.
    * A tax deduction for women perusing education (because the official line is women are discriminated against in education).

    These tax deductions could be implemented similarly to the EITC (earned income tax credit), so the taxpayer actually gets more back from the government than they put in.

    There might be some sin taxes directed at primarily male activities (like video games or sports), but I think the above system is the more likely scenario.

  91. thedeti says:

    @ Marcus D:

    From: “Wife Moved Out Three Months Ago”:

    “I’m new to the forum, but could really use some prayers. My wife of 14-years moved out three-months ago. She actually bought her own house. At this point, she’s not 100% sure yet if she wants a divorce but she doesn’t think I will ever be the husband she needs me to be. She said she needs and wants to date other men. It was hard enough when she moved out, but now it is tougher on me since I know she is on match.com looking for dates and dating. The fact that she bought her own house also leads me to believe that she knows that this is going to become a permanent thing

    *****

    “Even though I have always been faithful, been blessed with a good job and have been able to provide for my wife, I have been far from the perfect husband. I have been selfish and self-centered. I’ve put hobbies, friends, etc. ahead of her at times. She said that she hasn’t ever felt loved by me and had reservations on our wedding day, but went through it anyway. I’m not sure if she truly means that or was just angry and/or drunk when she said it. I truly love my wife, and now realize that I did take her for granted at times. I wish I could do many things in whole relationship over, but realize I can not. She has said I’ve ruined her life and deserve to spend the rest of my life by myself. I’ve went to confession several times over the past 5-6 months, but I am still having a hard time forgiving myself for being such a bad husband, and am really hurting inside knowing that she is dating and doesn’t want to be with me. I am planning on giving her space and keep praying that somehow/someway she will decide not to divorce me and want to work on repairing our marriage.”

    Deti says:

    Your marriage is over. Even if she returns to living with you and sells the house, she is untrustworthy. Almost certainly, she has already committed adultery. This marriage cannot be salvaged. Divorce her, get an annulment if you can, and start over.

  92. Opus,

    They say you should subsidize that which you wish to promote and tax that which you want to discourage; thus Opera is subsidized and smoking is taxed. Does the government want to promote marriage? It is hard to think that it does, for every year brings forth more anti-marriage legislation (such as criminalizing the man who attempts to control his wife’s profligate spending).

    The government does not want to promote marriage, per se. Instead they want to penalize men who “opt-out” of financial provisioning of women. These taxes would not be about promoting anything. It is about penalizing behavior that government sees as destructive to society and the feminist imperative.

    Opus, the opposite of love is not (nor has it ever been) hate. The opposite of love is indifference. In that light, the greatest possible enemy for feminism is MTGOW. That is the enemy, unparticipation. Remember, MGTOW can exist in a perfect vaccum. Men don’t need or even want government. OTOH, feminism (in and of itself) can NEVER exist in a vacuum. Feminism requires financial provisioning from “someone” in order for it to exist. For the previous 40-50 years, men weren’t quite as wise as they are now about what feminism demanded. It is only in the last 5 or 10 years that men have figured out the best move with feminism is simply not to play. That is the death blow to feminism. Feminism MUST have participation of all the players or there is no game.

    Government can give men carrots as opposed to sticks to get them to financially provision women but what carrot could government possibly give men that would not conflict with the feminist imperative? Remember Opus, this is zero sum. All gains that men make with respect towards marriage MUST come at the expense of women. So of course, there can’t be ANY carrots given because to do so would women the position that feminist women have worked so hard to accomplish. Therefore, government is left with only the stick to whack the man who chooses to GHOW.

  93. Frank-Calif says:

    Boston –

    I disagree. Look at the examples you mentioned. The Bachelor Tax is meant to tax single men and redistribute that money to women. The ACA taxes men (all men) more than women and redistributes that money to women. Neither of the above will encourage single men to marry, but it will redistribute money from single men to women. That’s the point. It’s about the money, not marriage. If men refuse to marry, how will feminists get their money? That’s the $64,000 question.

  94. Rick says:

    @new anon

    “These tax deductions could be implemented similarly to the EITC (earned income tax credit), so the taxpayer actually gets more back from the government than they put in.”

    Yeah – it’s all about wealth transfer – so they’ll make it as indirect a tax as possible to hide the transfer. That’s how it’s already done today and not many complain.

    It’s all a part of the fundamental transformation. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

    Sweden – look out – here we come!

  95. easttexasfatboy says:

    Marcus D – move on. She has. If she bought that house while still married to you, you own half of it. Make her buy you out. Quit being a whipping boy. Dude, have some self respect. If this whole thing is real, anyways.

  96. DeNihilist says:

    Exfernal – Exactly!

    I think that if anything, Krauser’s numbers support the “physical” argument over the “get game” argument.

    3% success rate is well within the bounds of chance.

    I would expect that game should help someone of Krauser’s physical looks to hit at least a 10% success rate if it is the great equalizer that some purport it to be.. This means “the bang”, not just a date.

    If he was a fisherman, with that success rate, he would have starved to death years ago.

  97. Frank,

    I disagree. Look at the examples you mentioned. The Bachelor Tax is meant to tax single men and redistribute that money to women. The ACA taxes men (all men) more than women and redistributes that money to women. Neither of the above will encourage single men to marry, but it will redistribute money from single men to women.

    Of course the ACA encourages men to marry by penalizing men that don’t. Think about it, if you are a single young man, you should be working as a temp for cash. Contract, consult, do whatever. All temp agenices offer is cash, no benefits. That is how they compete (for men’s labour) with each other, cash. Temp agencies are your friend because they give you the maximum amount of cash for whatever skills you provide while at the same time, give you the greatest amount of off-time for leisure. When the contract runs out, get in your car and drive to Florida. Come back only when you want to make more cash.

    The above paragraph was the single biggest reason why Mitt Romney wanted Romney care in Massachusetts. So many young men were simply MGTOW and temping for big cash in Boston (at Fidelity Investments, State Street Bank, Putnum, Raytheon, HP, etc) and then never buying health insurance. They didn’t need it. They were young, unmarried, and childless. They never went to the doctor nor did they support anyone who needed the doctor. Instead, they went to New hampshire to go skiing. They were MGTOW before they even knew what that was, thus taking themselves out of the health insurance risk pools making medical care that much more expensive for elderly and young women (who DO put in health insurance claims.) So, they had to go get the stick and whack young single men into the risk pools with a tax. Make health insurance manditory at the state level. Now in Massachusetts you have an economy where you can get away with that because Massachusetts has the highest per capita number of college graduates. They were in their own little information age “vacuum” of elevated lidestyle so-to-speak where feminism could most easily get provisioning and “flourish.” Not so much for the rest of the country with Obama’s ACA.

    The ACA is a bachelor tax in that it motivates men NOT to GTOW and to look for work with health insurance. It forces men to get health insurance and go get stable employment (and NOT “temp for cash”), to get sustained health insurance (that they don’t need) which in turn, makes them more marriable to feminist women who require stability and financial provisioning. You make less cash per hour in exchange for benefits men don’t need that women require. Either that, or you pay a tax at the end of the year. There is no third way (buy something you don’t want or pay a tax.)

  98. Another problem with this idea is that it’s based on the notion that men are refusing to get married, so (according to tradcons) they need to be prodded with carrot or stick into marriage, and then everything will be fine. It may even look that way to us sometimes, but that’s because we’re unusually familiar with MGTOW and men generally being red-pill and wary of women.

    That’s not the case for most men. Most men aren’t marrying because women aren’t interested. No woman has ever suggested to them, “Not until we’re married.” They’re getting laid without sex, or they’re going without it, but in either case they don’t know a woman who wants to marry them. Giving the guy a financial incentive won’t change that.

    If anyone really wanted to increase the marriage rate (I’m not convinced anyone does, except a few of us oddballs), they’d put a tax on single women. Give them an incentive to marry, especially young, and the marriage rate will jump in a hurry.

  99. Yeah – it’s all about wealth transfer – so they’ll make it as indirect a tax as possible to hide the transfer. That’s how it’s already done today and not many complain.

    But it is having an effect, and we’re starting to see complaints. Not from the men targeted — they just scale back their workload, adjust their priorities. Men don’t complain that much about burdens; it’s unmanly. But we’re seeing complaints from the feminists and state actors that expected to benefit from it.

    So yes, there is already a tax on men, and men are already reacting to it where they can. Increasing it or making it more above-board will only speed up that reaction.

  100. Rick says:

    “So yes, there is already a tax on men, and men are already reacting to it where they can. Increasing it or making it more above-board will only speed up that reaction.”

    I don’t really know that “they” care. I don’t think they have any other choice but more of the same. The only way out as far as they’re concerned is to raise taxes and pull the EITC thing as much as possible. Of course it will end in disaster, but what else are “they” going to do? They sure as heck aren’t going to mess with women – those that create the new generation of wage, tax and infantry slaves. They’re not going to admit liberal/feminist policies were society destroying all along. That would mean the end of their party. No, they’re going to make things as miserable as possible on men. They’re going to double down. If it means all of America end up like Detroit, from their standpoint, so be it. I’m not giving tradcons a pass here. They played their part.

    It’s all about power and control. Better to destroy the whole lot than lose power and control.

  101. “So I went fishing 1000 times this year. Had 60 fish on the line, and amazingly landed 27 of them. Of course every fish I jiggled my bait in front of was at least 5 pounds! Needless to say, I view myself as a great fisherman (though 2 of my children starved to death).

    Anyone want to buy my book on fishing?”

    Lovely.

  102. Fifty Seven says:

    Chuck and Larry, baby. Fake gay marriage. Save on cost of living expenses, dodge the tax, and you wear your wedding ring, spit some game and let the SJW “OMG gay is teh hotness” chicks get you drunk and seduce you. It’s win-win!

    …Unless, of course, you actually want to uphold the traditions and institutions that society is built on. In that case it’s a disaster.

  103. Frank-Calif says:

    Boston –
    Look, I admitted that they were OK (lukewarm) with marriage, (or Marriage 2.0 as you call it) because it provides a legal means to confiscate money from men. On the other hand, most feminists understand that women marry men for money, so therefore most men have more money in the marriage. It is not a 50-50 income split as the media likes to trumpet. It is something closer to 70-30 in favor of men as Dalrock’s links in prior articles indicate. The bottom line: feminists hate that about marriage, that women will seek men who are superior financially.
    For single men with money, the ACA (and any Bachelor Tax), by definition, decreases single men’s income while increasing women’s. This makes men less attractive to women, not more, and it will decrease the marriage rate. You are assuming that somehow the ACA (and any Bachelor Tax) will magically put men into a higher income bracket. I have never heard this theory and I think it is pretty far-fetched. So, it will not promote marriage, but it will transfer money from men to women in lieu of marriage. And that’s all that matters to feminists in the end.

  104. …Unless, of course, you actually want to uphold the traditions and institutions that society is built on. In that case it’s a disaster.

    Exactly. Chuck and Larry are not going to breed children that are NOT going to wear stupid Vandetta movie masks and protest police enforcing the law in Ferguson and other places the way children of Heather’s Two Mommies will.

  105. Karl says:

    Looking Glass >> A Bachelor’s Tax would hit gay Men proportionally higher

    Where are you? I’m in a country where straight-couples-only-marriage-laws are dropping like flies.

  106. Opus says:

    I have this bizarre scenario playing in my head where the entire Gay movement are faking it. I know of a young guy from East of Suez who has spent the lest few years being fostered by a family in England. His time is up, he is eighteen (actually he is over twenty-one but he has been faking that too as written records have not apparently yet reached his country of origin) and now he must return home. But wait… it would be a breach of his human rights, were he a Homosexual, to knowingly return him to Homophobistan. His plan is, then, to plead that in fact he is and always has been Homosexual but has so far always hidden his lifestyle proclivity. My experience of the Tribunals is that they will have no trouble swallowing that whole and unmarinated and that his deep-throating skills will not be called upon in support.

  107. Frank,

    Boston – Look, I admitted that they were OK (lukewarm) with marriage, (or Marriage 2.0 as you call it) because it provides a legal means to confiscate money from men. On the other hand, most feminists understand that women marry men for money, so therefore most men have more money in the marriage. It is not a 50-50 income split as the media likes to trumpet. It is something closer to 70-30 in favor of men as Dalrock’s links in prior articles indicate. The bottom line: feminists hate that about marriage, that women will seek men who are superior financially.

    You have defined what they have hated and defined that they hate things in marriage. But I don’t think you linked the two correctly. Let me try.

    You are right Frank, they do hate that make make more money for doing the more dangerous jobs that they are not willing to do. They do hate that men make more money for doing the more challenging STEM oriented jobs that are women are less likely (or even able) to do. But their hatred here is not directed towards marriage. Their hatred here is directed towards the free market for wages. Ideally, feminists would like to create some kind of economic system where men work harder, more demanding, and more dangerous jobs and the surplus income generated from that work is redistributed to the less challenging, less dangerous, more fun and authoritative jobs that feminists want to do like working in HR. In that sense feminism is nothing more that communism in a dress.

    You are also right that feminists hate a certain aspect about marriage but I don’t think you’ve defined that aspect correctly. The don’t hate the fact that women want to marry men that make more money than them. Feminists want to marry men that make more money than them. Feminsts hate the fact that ultimately men decide what women they want to marry and share those resources with. Aside from dad holding a shotgun to junior’s head because he went and already got his daughter pregnant, men don’t generally marry women they didn’t already want to spend the rest of their life with. No matter how hard they try, feminists can’t FORCE men (men whose resources they want to exploit) to find their feminist achievements atractive enough that they would want to pursue them. THIS is what feminists truly hate about marriage.

    For single men with money, the ACA (and any Bachelor Tax), by definition, decreases single men’s income while increasing women’s. This makes men less attractive to women, not more, and it will decrease the marriage rate.

    You got that part backwards. Women (even feminists) want to be married, specifically marriage 2.0. Problem is, there is a significant portion of the female population that men will never want to marry. These could be single moms with lots of bastards, stupid women, older women, or just plain butt ugly, smelly, rancid, women. These women need provisioning and feminism has worked real hard to make sure that government steps in to make these ugly women, whole. THIS is what these bachelor taxes (like ACA) do, transfer money/resources from single men to single women. It is the transfer of wealth in the absense of marriage. If you are a man who does not want to pay these bachelor centric taxes, then you best get married to some woman and transfer your own wealth of your own free will.

    The big mistake the manosphere makes and it drives me crazy is that it assumes that women are reducing the marriage rate. WRONG!!!! 1000-times-wrong! I know there are men here who think they will never get married and that is true. You are right guys, you won’t. But that is not because no woman would have them. It is instead because they don’t want to marry ANY of the women that would actually have them. It’s lind of like the age old expression, you would never want to join a club that would have you. Same thing.

    You are assuming that somehow the ACA (and any Bachelor Tax) will magically put men into a higher income bracket. I have never heard this theory and I think it is pretty far-fetched. So, it will not promote marriage, but it will transfer money from men to women in lieu of marriage. And that’s all that matters to feminists in the end.

    It does not put men into a higher income bracket. It is a penalty paid by bachelor men who refuse to better society by up and marrying an ugly, smelly, stupid, single mom. It is ONLY a stick, never a carrot. Basically if you want to be selfish and (of your free will, opt out of marriage) hoard your hard-earned resources because you are disgusted by pretty much every woman that would want to marry you, government has to step-in and take that money from you and give it to her against your will.

  108. Will Best says:

    Now that we are allowing the gays to marry, it seems to me, that only allowing married people the right to vote seems like the right kind of unmarried tax. The welfare system would dry up leading to a lowering of the marriage age by women, and an increase of provider signalling to men.

  109. I don’t really know that “they” care. I don’t think they have any other choice but more of the same.

    True. They only have one solution for every problem — more government — so all they can do is more of the same and hope to ride it out their lifetimes. They’d rather cut their own throats than ever “go back” and give up any of their “progress” (or at least they think they would).

  110. Exfernal says:

    Success rate per hour equals the number of sex-closes divided by [(the time spent on average approach X number of approaches) plus (the time spent on an average date X number of dates)].

  111. DeNihilist says:

    LOL TFH! I take it you are a modern scientist and only include the data that reflects your hypothesis?

    If I do an experiment a thousand times, but only report on the 60 or so times it almost worked and the 27 times it did work, and use that only in my paper, I would be dishonest. 1000 attempts, 2.7% success rate. Chance.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your belief system my friend, you gotta have hope eh?

    Here is a controlled study, notice they say the guy is good looking. even on the low end, gym bag, 9% phone numbers. Just himself,14%. With a guitar case, over 33%!

    Now we cannot relate this to “the bang ratio”, cuz he never took it that far in the study. But I can guess that since his success rate at getting phone numbers as just a dude was 2.3 times higher then K’s, then his bang rate would more then likely be around 6.2%, just around the edges of chance.

    Krauser game is not about technique, it is about numbers. Anyone can do as good as him, if they get into approach, approach , approach. Which is not a bad thing if you want to have sex with a lot of different woman. But take the same mentality and put it into a good looking dude, the numbers would be astronomical with a lot less time spent single mindedly hunting down pune!

    Game can help, but it is not the main ingredient in success with the opposite sex, just like throwing a hook with a worm into an expanse of water does not guarantee a full larder!

    Now, can I put you down for 3 of my fishing techniques book?

  112. DeNihilist says:

    TFH, as for alternatives, I have named many, but as usual with game adherents, they are swept away as being?????

    Try taking a public speaking course. Pay for a course on how to learn confidence. Join a sport league that has both men and women players, etc. How the heck did men ever have the ability to meet and bed women before “game” if it is so Omni-potent?

  113. Bango Tango says:

    @new anon

    “These tax deductions could be implemented similarly to the EITC (earned income tax credit), so the taxpayer actually gets more back from the government than they put in.”

    Yeah – it’s all about wealth transfer – so they’ll make it as indirect a tax as possible to hide the transfer. That’s how it’s already done today and not many complain.

    It’s all a part of the fundamental transformation. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

    Sweden – look out – here we come!

    Yes this is exactly how it’s done and how they will continue increasing in the future. If you are a single man working you will get nothing but higher taxes and no deductions unless you enslave yourself to the bank through something like a mortgage. Many poor working people who have children get a refund check back for more then the taxes that were taken out of their paychecks. Paid for by all single people man or woman.

  114. thedeti says:

    DeNihilist:

    So….

    “Just be good looking”?

    What about the guys who aren’t good looking? What are they supposed to do?

    Just be nice? Just be yourself?

    Or “Just get it and just figure it out for yourself”? Or maybe “just read ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’.”

  115. thedeti says:

    DeNihilist:

    The element you’re missing is men learning about female nature, the current nature of the SMP, and what women find attractive. Men don’t learn about those things from Toastmasters or from sports leagues. They used to learn about those things from their fathers, before our entire society decided that learning the truth about women’s natures is sexist and mean and cruel and heartless. So if they can’t learn about female nature from their fathers, they won’t learn it from their mothers, who tell them that women are all sugar and spice and everything nice.

    Fail.

  116. DeNihilist says:

    Deti, one more time, what I advocate teaches men confidence in themselves. It may not get their lay rate to soar, but will definitely improve their lives.

    Adherents of game as being useful for LTR’s is just a mist in the wind. Game is a supposed system that “teaches” men to act as an alphalpha. Yet the greatest Alpha ever teaches that the truth shall set us free, not pretending to be who we are not. Gaining confidence in yourself and your abilities is more freeing then pretending to be something you are not so your bang rate can climb. Maybe!

    One of my best friends has been a player forever. At 56 he is traumatized and wondering why he wasted his life.

    Is being self fulfilled a guarantee of happy maritial bliss? Nope. Life is a bitch, then you marry one as I used to say to my wife before we were married. All things long term are a struggle.

    And game teaches female nature? Don’t think so. game portends to teach how to get laid by pretending to know female nature. The things I advocate may not “teach” men about female nature, but they will help men develop confidence to go out and explore female nature. Sites like this and RM do more to explain female nature then anything the PUA’s put out there.

    And no, just look good is not what I am saying. I am saying that biologically, looks are at the top. game may help men become better at manipulating women into the sack, but even a master gamer, if he looks like Krauser is still just bedding woman in the chance area of statistical averages. What Krauser has is just a one minded mentality to get laid. Anyone, if they are willing, can do the same, approach enough woman and you will get laid. I am saying that if you were to run a real scientific expirement using K’s bulldog technique, the good looking men’s success rate would be well above the chance portion of the graph. The Krauser looking men, with all the game technique in the world, will probably stay in the bounds of chance, same as K.

    And yes Deti, some guys get a pass with women because of their looks and attitude, while being dicks, while other great men get pushed to the curb. That’s life.

  117. DeNihilist says:

    Actually TFH, game is a subset of what I advocate. Definitions are necessary. Game as defined when first communicated was a system to improve your chances of getting the bang. Nothing more, because all the other things I advocate already existed.

  118. JDG says:

    I think Mark was being facetious when he advocated murder to even out the playing field.

    Maybe so, but he still presented a frame where restraining female sexuality was an imbalance to a given society (when the opposite is true). Restraining female sexuality is not a disadvantage to women unless you accept the feminist frame. If so one may as well posit that self-indulgence is best and men are basically women without breasts who can’t make babies.

    Men, women, and children are better off when men are in charge. That is more like balance, not imbalance. Even more so when these men are righteous. There is no equality between the sexes, and the closest we’ve come to a balance with our vast differences is patriarchy.

    There was someone else who wrote about eliminating a percentage of men here. I don’t know if she was being facetious or not, but she also was using a feminist frame.

  119. Pingback: Make men pay! Because they might not. | Observing the Decline

  120. DeNihilist says:

    And yes Deti, if you have confidence, you will go out and figure it out for yourself. That is what life is really aboot.

  121. thedeti says:

    DeNihilist:

    So…

    “Just Be Confident And You Can Do It”?

    How does that square with:

    “And yes Deti, some guys get a pass with women because of their looks and attitude, while being dicks, while other great men get pushed to the curb. That’s life.”

    Yes, I know that’s life. I can handle the truth about life. What I don’t like and what should be avoided is being lied to about life, which is what our Churchian overlords do. Fortunately, those days are over for me at least.

  122. earl says:

    ‘Anyone who thinks those numbers are bad, has spent so much time at their keyboard that algae is growing on them.’

    Well if the numbers were 1000 women bedded in 1000 tries it would go to show how slutty they’ve become. Perhaps women with some looks and things going for them aren’t as slutty.

    However I consider it a waste of time because for all that energy he isn’t getting much of a return. How many orgasms with decent looking women is it going to take to be satisfied?

  123. thedeti says:

    So…

    How’s a man going to get confident in the area of meeting women and dating them unless he actually, uh, you know, meets them and dates them and has sex with them?

    Confidence at work or in music doesn’t translate to confidence in dating. In fact, being good at your job or in various endeavors can actually work AGAINST a man. I know plenty of men who are really good at their jobs, good public speakers, good men, high character, and yet who are complete failures in their relationships with women.

    Interpersonal relationships and intersexual relationships are a learned skill set. You have to learn how to do it. Someone has to teach you.

    Or you can feel your way through it, blindly, by just “figuring it out for yourself” by “just being confident”.

  124. thedeti says:

    DeNihilist:

    For every 56 year old disillusioned player, I’ll show you:

    –10 men who can’t get a date because no one ever taught them anything about female nature; or taught them the exact wrong things
    –10 men who are miserable in their marriages
    –10 divorced men, isolated from their children

  125. The Brass Cat says:

    Cail Corishev says:

    If anyone really wanted to increase the marriage rate (I’m not convinced anyone does, except a few of us oddballs), they’d put a tax on single women. Give them an incentive to marry, especially young, and the marriage rate will jump in a hurry.

    Imagine the attitude your typical American entitlement princess would take on when she feels she’s been prodded into marriage and is missing the carousel!

  126. Cail,

    Another problem with this idea is that it’s based on the notion that men are refusing to get married…

    They are refusing to get married. This is the correct notion.

    …so (according to tradcons) they need to be prodded with carrot or stick into marriage, and then everything will be fine.

    The problem here is not the carrot or the stick. It is the notion that traditional married conservative men (with daughters) believe that unmarried beta men should just shut-the-f-ck up about the fact that the only women that would marry these men are women that they themselves would never marry. To a traditional conservative women have value and men do not. You just need to take whatever woman will have you and well… you shut the hell up if you think she’s fat. She is beautiful on the inside and you are just lucky to have her. She can always do better than you. The problem here is that entire conversations about the quality of women that single men refuse to marry are conversations that have been placed completely out of bounds. Consider just for one moment Cail if you were on the Dr Phil show and he tried to shame you into manning up and marry a ho. And you said to him that you could get married but the only women who would be willing to marry you are all fat or ugly or have illegitimate children or… (whatever) he is going to make a hand motion across his neck for them to stop recording you, half the women in the audience would start screaming profanities at you, security would remove you from the stage, and they would edit your entire monolougue right out of the program if then even thought to air it. You are NOT ALLOWED to judge the quality of the women who would be willing to marry you. That is the problem created by traditional conservatives.

    It may even look that way to us sometimes, but that’s because we’re unusually familiar with MGTOW and men generally being red-pill and wary of women.

    Everyone is familiar with the concept of extra-ordinarily wealthy men remaining bachelors and why they would want to do so. That is what made George Clooney so unique and special. It is part of what makes Bill Maher so special. Women have been trying to “catch” these men for years. What the majority of society is not aware of (nor do they understand) is that there is a growing movement among ordinary (or in most cases, below average) men who are NOT as special or extra-ordinary as Clooney or Maher of very modest financial means who have evaluated their life and decided to go John Galt on women as a lifestyle choice. This they could not understand because the majority of society has not fully clued in yet on the danger of feminism. They are getting there… slowly.

  127. DeNihilist says:

    Deti – “DeNihilist:

    For every 56 year old disillusioned player, I’ll show you:

    –10 men who can’t get a date because no one ever taught them anything about female nature; or taught them the exact wrong things
    –10 men who are miserable in their marriages
    –10 divorced men, isolated from their children”

    and that is a tragedy my friend, which I have no answers for.

    But do you really believe that game could’ve/would’ve helped these men? (I know that you do accept the definition of game as a system to entice slutty women into your bed, but that is its original, therefore only definition, that is truly clear for discussion)

  128. DeNihilist says:

    TFH – hopefully it is blue-green algae as that was a faddish super food at one time!

  129. DeNihilist says:

    As for K’s :great achievement, just shows how thirsty some men are for vag. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t try to say that bulldog persistence for said vag, with such lousy results, is a great human endeavour.

    Put all the lipstick you want on that pig, TFH, and it is still a pig.

    Less then 3% success rate and I’m supposed to be “amazed” by those results? His time and money would have been better spent on hookers for such pathetic results. But then how do you monetize your experience with hookers?

  130. DeNihilist says:

    IBB @ 1:50 PM

    Big Plus ONE!

  131. DeNihilist says:

    Earl –

    “However I consider it a waste of time because for all that energy he isn’t getting much of a return. How many orgasms with decent looking women is it going to take to be satisfied?”

    That statement alone Earl, stands with some of the greatest Zen Koans.

  132. Thank you DeNihilist.

    I just think that part of being “red pill” is that we should have no time for bullsh-t. It simply is bullsh-t to stipulate that men can’t get married. Of course they can. I’ve asked three women in my life, all three said yes. We just don’t take that notion to its completeness. What would be “red pill” is to state that men can’t always get married to women that they WANT to marry. Of course to state something so blatently obvious, it just gives feminists ammunition that the MRM is made up of short, fat, poor, picky @ssholes.

  133. Bango Tango says:

    Maybe so, but he still presented a frame where restraining female sexuality was an imbalance to a given society (when the opposite is true). Restraining female sexuality is not a disadvantage to women unless you accept the feminist frame. If so one may as well posit that self-indulgence is best and men are basically women without breasts who can’t make babies.

    Restraining female sexuality IS a disadvantage to the monkey brain of all women in the 5-8 range who would never get their shot at 5 minutes of alpha. Alphas will drop down and fuck the 5 through 8’s especially when they are young so you are subjecting those women to a lifetime of beta instead of letting them get their shot at 5 minutes of heaven.You heartless bastard! Funny you never see the women who are 9 and 10’s dropping down to fuck the guys who are 5-8 when those men are young. I wonder why that is? Aren’t both genders on equal footing when it comes to sex?

    It’s so funny how feminist ignore the obvious power that women have in the SMP. Like it doesn’t even exist.

  134. Opus says:

    Krauser (whatever his ability) has it turns out exactly the same success rate as the good-looking guy from NYC who has now handed in his shagging-trousers to pursue matrimony. This rather suggests to me (given Krauser’s relative lack of looks) that it is not about technique per se but about numbers and simply about whether a woman fancies you. There are any number of guys who have success with women who seem to do exactly the opposite of what Game says one ought to do.

    What we really all want to know is whether TFH is just an armchair quarter-back or whether he has some figures of his own. Living as he does in Kalifornicatia I am expecting some impressive figures should he feel able to reveal them.

  135. Opus says:

    I don’t knock Krauser – I am envious, but it is worth reflecting that were Krauser female and attempting to bed men, his figures would be woeful. A women making one thousand approaches a a year would (if she had the time to fit it all in) have something approaching a 100% success rate, her failures occurring when she comes across solid Christians like Lyn 87 (and probably Earl, but he can speak for himself). I’d cave in immediately (unless she were a war-pig but we are assuming average age and looks and figure).

    It is that inequality between the sexes that creates the Krauser’s of this world – a sisypus like effort with little reward (given the effort) but ah! what a sweet reward when successful.

  136. How about a little Christmas comedy?

    MGTOW Nightmare Ultimate Bachelor Tax Dystopia….

    Dr Phil: “Welcome back. Our next guest is from the National Marital Commision, a Dr Elaine Hateallmen. Dr Hateallmen, welcome to the show.”

    Hateallmen: “Thanks for having me Phil.”

    Dr Phil: “So I understand you are heading this new agency created last week by an executive order crafted by President Hillary Clinton is that correct?”

    Hateallmen: “Yes. We are ready to get to work to serve the people.”

    Dr Phil: “That is fantastic. Now yours is mostly an enforcement agency is that correct?”

    Hateallmen: “Primarily Yes. We keep the federal database linked to census data of all unmarried men and all people patiently waiting in line for spouse.”

    Dr Phil: “And by people, you mean our lovely young ladies who are for whatever reason, not quite yet happily married?”

    Hateallmen: “Yes. Its only women who are eligible to get in line, and only women who are not currently married. And only if they want to be married. Some don’t. Just go on line and fill out the application and wait.”

    Dr Phil: “And what exactly is this new marital regulation that has been signed by President Clinton that you are enforcing?”

    Hateallmen: “The goal here is get people married so we can get women and their children off of the local and state welfare roles in this country. It is part of the austerity measures imposed by this new Congress. As far as the law goes, think of it as a biological regulatory clock for single men.”

    Dr Phil: “So in some ways, it is like conscription, but instead of being forced to join the military, you are forced into a happy marriage with one of these beautiful women?”

    Hateallmen: “Exactly! It really is a great benefit for single men. The government just assigns them one of these lovely young ladies from the database on their 35th birthday for whom they are financially responsible if they aren’t already married. Call it a safety marriage for men!”

    Dr Phil: “Outstanding! I might add Adam and Eve was an arranged marriage….”

    Hateallmen laughing: “Ha ha, yes, if you believe in such a thing!”

    Dr Phil: “Okay so how does your agency go about getting these two people to meet?”

    Hateallmen: “We don’t. We just contact the IRS and inform them of the social security number of the man who is now married and his objective financial responsibilities to his new wife. They then contact his employer and arrange the transfer payments to be garnished directly from his paycheck wherever he is to be given directly to his new wife. And then at that point, if the young lady has allowed her name to be given to her new husband, the IRS informs him of the great news of who he is married to and we just let mother nature take its course!”

    Dr Phil: “And the moment the young lady is notified he is married, what if she doesn’t want to be married anymore?”

    Hateallmen: “Oh at ANY TIME for no reason at all, she could go to a judge and immediately file for a formal divorce. Her husband doesn’t even have to appear in court. The judge would then set the alimony payment amount and the court would inform the IRS what the new wage garnishment would be from the man’s paycheck. It’s very efficient.”

    Dr Phil: “Does that make him re-eligible to be remarried under this new piece of legislation?”

    Hateallmen: “Yes of course. He has until his very next birthday to be remarried again or else we will addign him a second wife and there will simply be TWO wage garnishments.”

    Dr Phil: Dr Hateallmen, thank you for your time and the enforcement of this very sensible law.”

    Hateallmen: “It’s my pleasure Phil, thanks for having me.”

    Applause

  137. minuteman says:

    In Canada the government is bringing in “income splitting”. A married mother and father with juvenile children will be able to transfer some of the fathers high income to his stay at home wife with no income to reduce the families tax burden. This is like a reverse bachelor tax. A married man ends up paying less tax than his single peer.

  138. The Brass Cat says:

    minuteman says:

    In Canada the government is bringing in “income splitting”. A married mother and father with juvenile children will be able to transfer some of the fathers high income to his stay at home wife with no income to reduce the families tax burden. This is like a reverse bachelor tax. A married man ends up paying less tax than his single peer.

    I thought in Canada both spouses’ income is considered communal/joint property to begin with.

  139. Gurney Halleck says:

    Game/pick-up artistry is pretty romantic stuff that gives false hope to men who are average to below average in SMV that, by their mere exertion of WILL, they can overcome the fact that women have the upper hand in the current Sexual Marketplace.

    Here is a “Game Denialist” video that convinced me that PUA is a fraud:

  140. minuteman says:

    Brass Cat – I file an income tax return on my income and my wife files one on hers. Now I file a return for my 150k income and my wife has no income. On the new plan I will file a tax return for 75 K and my wife files a return with an income of 75k so as a family we pay less tax. Beyond that I can’t say because it is so new I haven’t filed under this system. I think there is an upper limit on how much I will be able to transfer.

  141. thedeti says:

    Gurney:

    I watched the video also. So, the bottom 80% of men are just shit out of luck and nothing can be done at all.

    Ok. Dalrock, you can go home now. The manosphere can close up shop now. Let’s all just resign ourselves to masturbating to online porn and eating Cheetos in moms basement.

  142. Boxer says:

    Game/pick-up artistry is pretty romantic stuff that gives false hope to men who are average to below average in SMV that, by their mere exertion of WILL, they can overcome the fact that women have the upper hand in the current Sexual Marketplace.

    It’s not just about will development (or WILL development, if you “will”, lol). It’s about being socially aware and competent. Knowing how to talk to people is just part of being a pleasant, confident person. This is something men have problem with in the age of facebook, video games, and the prevalence of no male role models growing up. (It’s men who teach their sons how to navigate social spaces).

    Some parts of “game” are bullshit. “Negging” is one of the most distasteful things that game gurus teach. Sure, you may be able to bang a headcase with a poor self image if you call her an idiot, but why would you want to hang out with such an idiot? Only an idiot would desire the company of another idiot. You know?

    In any event, I liked my education at roissy, years ago, and it certainly benefitted me. If you don’t like game, there are plenty of other alternatives, which are just as effective. Take a ballroom dance class at the community college, or join toastmasters. Join a gym and start dressing better (at least in public). You’ll feel and think differently, and slowly approach your best self.

    Boxer

  143. GeminiXcX says:

    Children require you to play “game”s with them to keep their attention. Real, adult women require you to have life skills. Even though foreign traditional 1.0 women (“good girls”) don’t respond well to the “game”s used for modern women, that doesn’t mean that you still shouldn’t possess raw masculinity — sure of your life-path, set of values that you have defined, other people don’t run your life for you, keep yourself looking like a man through hard physical labor (and/or lifting weights), be firm with your demands, you respect her by blowing her mind in the sack, etc.

    If you’re looking for one night stands and pump n’ dump, realize that your approach and subsequent social “performance” will be vastly different than technique used for finding a 1.0 LTR/marriage. For myself, I can easily go both ways.

    I will leave you this simple advice:

    What you have to use on a woman to be successful in eventually banging her will also determine for you if she’s worth investing in permanently.

    Keep that in mind.

    -GXcX

  144. DeNihilist says:

    TFH – deniers? Really? you a climate change proponent too? Grow some will you, and actually discuss/argue the points instead of lobbing insults.

  145. Gurney Halleck says:

    Game is nothing but what a man whom a woman has already pre-selected does in order not to repel that woman. That INITIAL attraction on the part of the woman is pivotal and leads to more compliance on her part (meaning fewer shit tests, requiring less wooing, etc). Many men spend their lives finding tremendous success with women and not giving a single thought to this Game/PUA stuff — men who don’t have to do so because they so easily pass many women’s instinctive Face/LMS requirements. Heck, most of these men are probably blue pill as you can get, yet they pass women’s attractiveness filters. I

    That video I linked has a pretty devastating line early on: “Most humans innately prefer to have hope than be cognizant of an unpleasant truth that negates that hope even if positive results of that hope NEVER materialize.”

    Game/PUA is substantially about providing hope for the sort of men who in previous generations depended on their provisioning ability to snag a young woman but who find themselves lost in today’s sexual marketplace in which male provisioning ability is not enough (as far as dating women in their 20s is concerned.)

    This is the face of PUA:

    (Warning: Cringe-fest):

    PS :This is a very good post by Dalrock and I always appreciated your famous essay, TFH, despite our disagreement here 😉

  146. mat cha says:

    Nobody thinks the tax should be for both sexes ? Baffling.

  147. Mark Minter says:

    @Dalrock

    This is my last comment at Dalrock. I just cannot leave this rebuke unanswered. But I do so with data.

    You over reacted to that statement you highlighted in a remarkably schoolmarmish sort of way.

    The intention of the statement was to say that given the rates of childbirth and the current population demographics, then marriage rate will remain as it is. I suppose I could have reworded it to say “without more women and unless there are less men, the current regime would remain in place.” Or maybe used “war” as the example means to reduce male population levels. But had you read and understood the data premise I was making, then you would understand I certainly was not a “Feminist Shill”. If it disagrees with some data premise you might have, sorry. I show my data and sources below.

    It is preposterous to assume that I was recommending that men go into the street to kill other men in any other way than as some example of changing the mismatch and imbalance that has lead us to the place where we are. The point was to illustrate the idea of moving the demographics in an immediate and radical enough fashion to change the equilibrium.

    I have long given up trying to influence readers and had attempted to influence writers. You pride yourself on being the data driven site that derives the core of its deeper message on the basis of data. And I think I have readily supported you and your conclusions in whatever participation I may have had on your site. My attempt was to educate you on this data. The data “is”. I show at least associative relationships, and I believe they are causative.

    We all know this situation intuitively. I offer a somewhat quantitative analysis of why. No one else as far as I am aware has presented this data with this premise. And I defiantly defend the premise.

    What we do here is that we are a deliberative body that searches for causes and explanations based on what we believe in our hearts to be “the truth”. We will probably never come up with something that is entirely correct or entirely right, but what we hope might come up with something considered “less wrong”. We wish to create a better body of knowledge that is used to interpret what has happened so that as a people we may correctly choose the future.

    Now I wrote about 5000 characters in two different comments and you focused on the last 150.

    But frankly I standby the validity of two fundamental propositions I made. It is researched, based on data and studies. I echo the statements of major researchers. And the historical record provided by the sources that I cited, Juvenal and Sanger, back it up with historical writing.

    And to place it into a set of statements: “Falling birthrate enhances female sexual capital; Increasing birthrate enhances male sexual capital. The data shows that when men have the demographic advantage, then they tend to marry and marry earlier. When women have advantage, they tend to marry less and marry later. And in a falling birthrate, females tend to be more promiscuous which leads to more societal instability. The Juvenal link and the Sanger link were historical examples of this: affluence, falling birthrate, and scandalous female promiscuity, particularly in Rome, but also at other historical periods.“

    I presented a data driven premise, that there has been an “S” curve, a sine-like data curve of childbirth for the last 100 years. When the rate of childbirth has been climbing, that means each subsequent year produces more children than the previous years. When the rate of childbirth is falling then each subsequent year produces fewer children than before.

    Historical Birthrate Chart 1909-2009

    Women tend to choose men older than them for obvious reasons, status, provisioning, and those things that drive female sexual attraction. Men tend to choose women younger than them. So if you view the “area under the curve” on the graph of annual rates of childbirth, you can derive total population available, and if you then “adjust” based on “like matching of ages” you can see some mismatch in numbers, unless there was a long period of static birthrates, certainly something longer than 5 years.

    Age at First Marriage Chart 189-2010

    CH noted that during times of demographic mismatch where there are more women than men, then the women respond by having children far earlier, like in their teens, to maximize the power they have to have Maternity and the possible care and provisioning that men usually provide. The examples given were after a major war. I show that even though there are just as many men as women, the nature of a declining birthrate shifts power to women because there are more older men than younger women. The above chart shows the shift in the age at marriage across time.

    Notice that prior to WWII, first age at marriage was typically 26 for men and 22 for women. Only during the time of the increasing birth rate of the post war and baby boom years, did the age of both men and women shift downward. Look at the first chart, birthrate, shift the birthrate of women back by four years, actually more than four years, especially if there has been a long period of low birthrate before those four years, and you will see the number of women dramatically outnumber the number of men. And especially if you consider that almost all of those women get to participate in “mating” and not all of the men.

    So I repeat, during the time when women outnumbered the men they would consider marrying but a large amount, when the men had the highest Sexual Capital possible, the men converted that power into marriage. Or you could say women allowed them to marry and women allowed them to marry at an earlier age than before and after. Consider the following chart of marriage and divorce rates from 1860 to 2010.

    Marriage and Divorce Rates 1860-2000

    You see the Marriage Rate spike in the late 40s and early 50s, then dip towards the historical moving average in the later 1950s and 60s. But consider two facts. The marriage rate given is per 1000 people. One third of the United States was under the age of 21 during those years. The population of the country was 150,000,000 prior to the baby boom and 225,000,000 after. And consider the very low birth rates during the late 20s and 30s. Both of these facts created a smaller percent of the total population in prime marriage years. Despite this, the marriage rate remained at the historical average.

    I now offer a source that is a very heavy study. You like data. Here is some math. Dalrock I am dead serious about these premises I give you. I do not go off half cocked in making them. This study was preceded by another, “The Male Dilemma” by Kristen Hawkes, a rather famous researcher from the University of Utah that first proposed this concept.

    Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382477/

    This paper runs some calculations using something called the Tullock Competition Function and Evolution Invasion Analysis. The key take away is that there is this idea of the “Threshold of Monogamy”. This is when the provisioning and care of ONE male exceeds the sexual benefits of access and mating with higher status males AND also the care and provisioning provided by “the village”. The author uses other mathematical terms than “the village” that mostly denote the average care and provisioning provided by males in the group, other than the alphas, in exchange for some sexual access. Below that threshold, then females are promiscuous because the benefits of promiscuity outweigh those of monogamy.

    I hold that in a rising birthrate, the Male Sexual Capital is rising vis a vis that of females. And that shifts that “Threshold of Monogamy” lower. But I also hold that in a falling birthrate, a decrease sustained for some period longer than 5 years, then the “Threshold of Monogamy” is shifted far higher for the same percentage change. The females remain promiscuous, and the lack of monogamy enhances the female bargaining position because there a more single males to bargain with. You can say there are more single monkeys ready to trade apples for sexual access, so more apples to be gained by females.

    We see and note the choices that women seek to do with their enhanced Sexual Capital. The manosphere is full of stories, data, and anecdotes of female sexual and relationship misconduct. And we note that decreasing birthrate leads to a further decrease in birthrate, and also a corresponding increase in Female Sexual Capital. And today that birthrate is so low that it is almost off the charts, and Female Sexual Capital is sky high, and women use that capital to convert it to social, cultural, and economic capital and use all of those forms to oppress men.

    Consider this chart of Marriages per 1000 UNMARRIED women, aged 15 and over, 1960 to 2008. Going back to the data of age at first marriage, 22 for men, 20 for women. Starting in 1960, these were women born in 1940. There had been increasing birthrate every year since 1934. The high point on the chart was 1970, women born in 1950, a remarkably much higher birthrate than for the years 1945-1948, the natural age of husbands for those women. Then consider that from 1970 to 1980, given this chart consists of women 15 and over, those were the years when the peak baby boomer birth years, 1955-60, had its highest level of women aged 15-20, below the average of age of first marriage. By 1980, the peak birth years had reached maturity, and by 1982, the first 20 years born after the introduction of birth control began to reach maturity. As the birth rate fell, fewer and fewer of the unmarried women married. And as noted before, those that did marry, married much much later.

    Number of Marriages, per 1000 unmarried, aged 15 and older, 1960-2008

    Men behave in the opposite manner when the situation is the opposite. Men convert their higher collective Sexual Capital into marriage. I show in the charts that particularly during the late 40s, 50s, 60s, and even into the 70s, men used their relatively strong sexual capital coupled with its corresponding financial utility to marry.

    What the Gavrilets study reference above also shows is that for a society to be at full productive potential, then most adult males and females must be in monogamous relationships and most certainly the highest status males. We refer to this as “trickle down” monogamy. The study showed that in a promiscuous society, the highest status males spend the majority of their time “fighting and mating”. The next level of males spends its time “mate guarding”. When the highest levels of males commit to monogamous relationships, then they convert their time to provisioning, and the next level spends less time mate guarding and more time in provisioning. And this cascades down through the social order.

    The only way to change this climate of promiscuity, without religious and societal sanctions, is by changing the demographics, by upping the number of reproductive aged women or lowering the number of men. I say “men” because almost all men could be considered “reproductive”. Surely there are demographics of men that could affect this more than others. But if you review the paper above, removing any men from the pool of single men, reduces the “Threshold of Monogamy” because the “village” contribution is lower. And the other shows that it cascades up the social hierarchy. As more men are then above the threshold and gain a monogamous relationship, women begin to sense what is happening and rush to claim some provisioning and care.

    This goes against the prevalent thought that more male employment raises the rate of marriage because more men “man up” and are then attractive to women. But the math shows that if you increase overall male employment, or increase the income produced by most males, then you move the “Threshold of Monogamy” upward, increasing what each particular male would have to exceed in order to cross the threshold. The negotiating power of females remains constant, but the “take” that each female may “rake in” increases. And you probably also increase that which each female may gain from “the village”. The net effect is the same number of girl monkeys but more boy monkeys with some apples to offer and more boy monkeys with more apples to offer. There may be some movement at the bottom of the social order, but the top and middle is what most of the men are concerned with, and you would see little movement at those levels.

    As I said, this is my last comment. Frankly, none of this pertains to me anymore. I am married. We have been together a year now. I always say that “I am the biggest winner in the manosphere.” I have a life that is peaceful, enjoyable, with a woman that possesses every attribute that is celebrated in the manosphere, attractive, much younger than me, conservative, feminine, low N count. Our home is truly home. We take the kid for religious instruction every Saturday at the Catholic church exactly because it is rigorous. We instruct her the need for femininity, the importance of chastity, the value of being a woman, the value of marriage as her life goal, and those things that truly bring happiness in the life of a woman.

    I have learned everything I need to learn from this community and from my own research and writing. And frankly it has brought me nothing but grief. Steve Sailer wrote an essay chiding a strategy that combines fringe elements of a society into a coalition. It brings out the crazies. And I can say much the same about this community. And probably I can say it about me. I have to ask “What is the point?” Any small contribution I might have made is over and I refuse have to fight the world to get my points made and have crappy stuff said to me when I am trying to offer my versions of research into the community. Whether you agree with the above presentation, you have to admit, the data is there, and there is some associative relationship.

    And what if I am correct? What if demographics are everything, and trump the idea of income as the driving reason that the rate of marriage is dropping and the average age of marriage is rising? What does this say to individual men? What does it say to society? At what point does the right of women to postpone marriage and children until the latest moment possible begin to impinge on the right to happiness and normal life in boys that are born today and will be born into a climate of such a low birth rate? At what point does it lead such an imbalance of Sexual Capital that it creates a social climate that places boys at a social and cultural disadvantage from birth? Look around, what the age of the boys raging on Return of Kings? When were they born? After 1980 for sure. Most after 1985. Frankly I think this is valid piece of research.

    And this is where I leave you.

  148. Opus says:

    My best advice to men keen to seduce women is this. Do it at Xmas. I don’t know about you but in the last few days women have been falling over themselves to be nice to me. Take yesterday. I go into the Post Office to post a letter – a small packet. I am standing in the queue and wondering if I have enough cash. The female assistant who is milking the line approaches me and asks which line I am in. I am not sure. I ask whether there is more than one line. She says there is. It seems I am not in hers. I continue and show her my packet and my few coins and ask her whether she thinks I have enough money or whether I should return home and get some more. She is not sure but assures me that if when I finally get to the front of the queue I am short of change and am rejected I can return to her and she will do it for me on the cheap.

    That is the third time in the last week that sort of quasi-romantic encounter had happened to me – and on the first occasion I received a friendly nudge in the ribs for what was a double entendre.

  149. Opus says:

    Once again this all puts me in mind of Lorenzo da Ponte’s libretto Don Giovanni. I have discussed Donna Anna and Donna Elvira (respectively: false rape and why won’t he marry me, before) but rather overlooked Zerlina, who not being a Donna is just a peasant girl, probably aged about nineteen and in fact it is her wedding day when she firsts comes into the view of Don Giovanni (The Don, as he is usually called). Notwithstanding the imminent nuptials to her omega boyfriend Mazeppo, The Don (who is not merely very rich and very handsome but in true P.,U.A. style full of his own superiority) moves in and quickly suggests that she and he go somewhere quieter. Just to make things clear he beats up Mazeppo. She, Zerlina is all for it, and off she goes with the Don. Now, The Don has, as we know from Leporello’s Catalogue, an N of 2045 but even P.U.A.’s have bad days and The Don thinks that Zerlina’s last minute fitness test is just that but it seems it isn’t – even women who are mid-coitus throw fitness tests – and so she thinks she is being raped. She escapes from his evil embrace (which does rather suggest that he is not the rapist that she alleges he is) and goes to tend the wounds of her fiancee who of course, would not have been injured had she not encouraged The Don to seduce her in the first place.

    In the end of course The Don is taken down to hell, held fast by (the ghost of) Donne Anna’s father. P.U.A.s whatever they may think are never going to get a good press.

  150. Exfernal says:

    Try to imagine why, Opus. Is it because this time spent without a guy sucks for them?

  151. Opus says:

    @Exfernal

    Certainly; together with the fact that I am usually fairly irresistible to women (at least in relation to other men – not all men, but most; always have been, and I rather expect it so i suppose I exude it) …but enough about me, that Japanese Bob Dylan look-alike in the video linked by Gurney Halleck is indeed utterly cringe-worthy. Any day you like you can see Charity Muggers on the street doing the same thing and I am guessing getting similar results.

    Now, I don’t say that one cannot improve ones situation by not failing fitness tests, taking women at their word, or failing to make a move, but if you have looks and physique you really won’t need to worry too much about fitness tests and the like.

    One day when I was seventeen I was returning by train from Belgium (so it must have been a Tuesday) and the train being overcrowded, I was standing in the carriage passageway. Next to me was a young English female and a young guy, also English who she had clearly only just met and it being a warm day he was wearing a T-shirt.’ Ooh’ , she cooed, touching his arms ‘you’re like Tarzan’. He wasn’t bad looking but the muscles added to his looks made him instantly attractive to her. I would not have had the same effect on her, being then neither a manual worker nor gym attendee, indeed it is the muscles (and height) rather than the looks that turn women on.

  152. Tam the Bam says:

    Exf:- My impression is that it’s purely because Those Other Women (meee-ow) are always watching.
    Otherwise they’d rather be sunk in the couch, sat on their stockinged feet watching some hideous rom-com, and slurping weak tea. Or hot water even. All day, every day.
    With somebody else they don’t have to talk to fetching stuff to them. Mostly snacks.

    Yes boys, sorry to break it to you. Women (i.m.e.) are really, really boring people, except for one irreplaceable facility. Which they were born with, so they’ve never been motivated make the least effort at, well, almost anything (except when competing against T. O.W.).
    Wheel on the NAWALTs …

  153. earl says:

    ‘Women (i.m.e.) are really, really boring people, except for one irreplaceable facility. Which they were born with, so they’ve never been motivated make the least effort at, well, almost anything (except when competing against T. O.W.).’

    Well they used to be motivated to have other skills besides having the one which goes away by the time they are 30-35 so that they could keep their husband. But since the age of unrealistic demands, never ending narcissism, and wanting to be a man instead of a wife and mother became the norm…then they grew to be boring people.

  154. Lyn87 says:

    I’ve been otherwise occupied lately, but I see that the Game / Game-denialist / Denial-denialist argument has reared its ugly head again.

    I have another view, and from my view it appears that guys are talking past each other to a degree. Frankly, I see some truth in each camp, and I see how each camp is in denial about the truth in the other camp.

    TFH… I love you brother, but where I disagree with you is that you think that “game” represents an original concept and what guys like DeNihilist, Earl, and Gurney Halleck are saying is a subset of that. You’ve written several times that no alternative to “game” is ever offered, but that’s not true – I’ve done it myself, and the alternative is from the Bible. The word used in the Greek New Testament for manly self-possession is sophroneo. I posit that it is “game” that is the derivative subset of traits known to the ancients as sophroneo. We don’t have a single word in the English language that captures the full meaning: we have to use phrases. But call it what you will: to rule oneself, to be the captain of one’s own ship, to be firm in the face of adversity (or the storms of female emotion)… but the Apostle Paul encourages young men to foster sophroneo in their lives to be better men. In addition to the other benefits of that, we know that women find that attractive. Isn’t “game” just a subset of that? But God makes good things and mankind screws them up… Satan offers subtle counterfeits to get us to step off the path. Just as fornication and adultery are inferior substitutes for the act that God designed for marriage, “game” is the inferior substitute of sophroneo, and like all good counterfeits, it’s pretty close to the original to the casual observer. But where sophroneo aims to make a man better in ways that please God and help him in his life (in that order) – which has the added benefits of making him content and more attractive to women – “game” seems to be about self-improvement mainly so a man can bed women and be happy (in that order), even though it doesn’t deliver on the moral improvement and long-term contentment that sophroneo imparts.

    To the anti-Game crowd: I love you guys, too, but TFH has a point as well, and I’ll even quote a Bible verse for that: Luke 16:8b:

    …for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

    The “game” gurus are definitely “children of this world.” The big names are all about picking up women, and even the main “game” guru for married men (Athol Key) is an atheist. They have taken something God created for good – sophroneo – and derived a substitute that focuses on the parts of it that trip the sexual attraction triggers of women. Think of it this way: one can take a bottle of the finest wine, and it may be a beautiful and delicious thing. Another man may extract the alcohol from it to achieve a more potent result – if one’s only purpose is to get drunk. That’s what “game” is to sophroneo: the distillation of a good and noble thing to concentrate those ingredients that (for the most part) create one of its effects – female sexual attraction. And it works for that purpose to a degree – because it’s based on the real thing. But it’s vastly inferior to the original overall: true, a single result is enhanced, but most of what makes the original item a thing of great value is lost.

    But our society doesn’t stress sophroneo any more (we literally do not have a word that captures its full meaning in the English language). And even if it did, most churches have dropped the ball as well. That leaves “game” gurus a vacuum in which to operate. And they can offer what men want – the promise of bedding attractive women. In our post-Christian culture, sex sells. It’s gotten to the point where the very concept of sophroneo – which used to be a common concept – is virtually unknown, while our hyper-sexualized culture demands “game”: all the sex without the hard work of true self-mastery represented by a lifetime of cultivating sophroneo.

    GeminiXCX says it well, “What you have to use on a woman to be successful in eventually banging her will also determine for you if she’s worth investing in permanently.” If you can “game” a woman into bed she’s not worth having and you’re not pursuing a worthwhile goal anyway. A quality woman requires sophroneo, but you’re only going to bed her after you commit to her for life.

    (That’s not to say that the marriage needs to be recognized by the state, but that’s a different topic.)

  155. earl says:

    Yes Lyn…you touched on the third path which most of the modern world and secular don’t get…

    Self-improvement to please God.

    It was an odd path for me to get there…but the concepts of self-improvement game can be a catalyst to get to that point. You realize that most of the time you can’t please women, you can’t please everyone, and you really can’t even please yourself. True peace is humbling yourself in order that God may become a bigger part of your life and letting Him control it.

    Then once that happens you see that you don’t have the burden or yoke of trying to do it on your own…you really do take on an easier yoke and find rest. Matthew 11:29-30

  156. Mark Minter,

    We see and note the choices that women seek to do with their enhanced Sexual Capital. The manosphere is full of stories, data, and anecdotes of female sexual and relationship misconduct. And we note that decreasing birthrate leads to a further decrease in birthrate, and also a corresponding increase in Female Sexual Capital. And today that birthrate is so low that it is almost off the charts, and Female Sexual Capital is sky high, and women use that capital to convert it to social, cultural, and economic capital and use all of those forms to oppress men.

    Yes. You’ve said with many-many words what I have been saying to the manosphere with very few words: women are not moral agents. There is NO agency here. You have just explained very clearly as to why women (in general) always act in a manner where they try to extract as many options and resources from men as their current parameters and barriers would mathematically and culturally allow. They aren’t focused on doing what is right, ONLY on what they can get away with.

  157. earl says:

    ‘women are not moral agents’

    You keep saying it…but that doesn’t mean it is true.

  158. It does if you buy what Mark just wrote.

    Go back and read it. Really focus on the data he provided. Look at the math. And stop focusing on what you WANT to be true about women that you were brainwashed to believe in your blue pill upbringing.

  159. earl says:

    ‘ And stop focusing on what you WANT to be true about women that you were brainwashed to believe in your blue pill upbringing.’

    It comes from God in the Bible. If women didn’t have moral agency…Eve would still be in the garden.

    Quit thinking they have NO moral agency…they have weaker moral agency.

  160. BradA says:

    ‘women are not moral agents’

    You keep saying it…but that doesn’t mean it is true.

    Men seek to avoid consequences for their actions too. They just get away with it less often. I guess they aren’t moral agents either per your ling of thinking IBB.

    You are full of bunk though. All of us are moral agents and responsible for our choices, whether society holds us to them or not.

  161. BradA says:

    “ling” should be “line”

  162. DeNihilist says:

    TFH – got it.

    You see game as masculinity. I do not. I see game as a small subset, that was developed to help get slutty women into my bed. Period.

    Of course in this anything goes world of the 21st century, definitions can be anything we want to be. That is why nowadays so many people talk around each other, because definitions are no longer defined and solid, they are fluid. Not in reality of course.

    Yes I get that now anything that is considered masculine has “game” attached to it. Can’t sell books or videos calling them “How to Improve Your Confidence and Enjoy your Life”. To old fashioned.

    So I take a Toastmasters seminar, learn to feel comfortable speaking to strangers, and from this, feel more confident approaching women. This is game? Nope, this is working on yourself to improve your masculine traits. And so on. I have listed probably upwards of 20 different ways to self help, that were around for far longer then game, but in this non defined world, game is now The Blob that absorbs everything. Wrong! Once more, game is a subset of actions that are supposed to help men become more attractive in the eyes of slutty women so that said men can bed them. Is that finally clear enough?

    As for LTR’s, if you have to game that women constantly to keep her, then my friend you are dating/married to a slut.

    And just to let you know, I think game does work, on a certain subset of women.

    And no matter how much you try to obscure the truth, the truth is, one of the so called masters of game, has proven beyond a doubt, that game does not help you bed more women beyond chance. K has overt confidence and a skin so thick that having 940 or so women say no to him does not reduce him to a mass of blubber. That is his big secret that he wants you to fork over a hundred bucks for.

    There you are right, you don’t have to fork over the bucks, just grow some and approach if you want to bang more. There just saved you a hundred bucks, you are welcome.

  163. greyghost says:

    GeminiXCX says it well, “What you have to use on a woman to be successful in eventually banging her will also determine for you if she’s worth investing in permanently.” If you can “game” a woman into bed she’s not worth having and you’re not pursuing a worthwhile goal anyway. A quality woman requires sophroneo, but you’re only going to bed her after you commit to her for life.

    That’s why I like game. with women being liberated and all they now do all of their thinking and moralizing through their pussy holes game is good just day to day working way beyond getting some skank into bed. But lyn is right any woman that can be gamed is a piece of ass not worthy of marriage some will marry her but she is damn sure not worthy.
    MGTOW is better for a man anyway

  164. DeNihilist says:

    Lyn @ 8:13 AM – Just Wow!

  165. Earl,

    It comes from God in the Bible. If women didn’t have moral agency…Eve would still be in the garden.

    The only reason why Eve left the garden was because Adam was physically stronger and dragged her out of there kickign and screaming. There was no government authority that Eve could run to and get a restraining order against Adam for domestic violence. The only reason why she stayed with Adam once he removed her from the garden was so she didn’t have to forrage for her own food (now that the garden was no more), that and her ‘gina tingles. It has NOTHING to do with Eve listening to God.

    Quit thinking they have NO moral agency…they have weaker moral agency.

    They have none. Zero. The only thing that limits women’s behavior is what they can get away with within the bounds of government authority. And even then, women as a whole will still make excuses for other women when the government is FORCED to take action. I have never met a woman in my life that told me that she believed that inhuman moster Andrea Yates (a true soulless demon straight up from hell) deserves a bullet in the brain for what she did (but I have heard quite a few that said that her husband should be held responsible for the drowning of her children since he didn’t “do something” before it was too late.) That is because even ordinary women know that other women are not responsible for their heinous actions, why can’t you guys see that?

    Here is an experiment Earl. Actually it is an experiment for the entire manosphere (with the exception of Opus since I know what the women will say in England): ask any random woman if she thinks that lying b-tch Amanda Knox should be extrodited back to Italy to rot in a jail cell for the rest of her life for what she did to poor Meredith. See what they say. Watch their facial expressions, watch as they stop looking you in the eye before they speak. Really listen to their hamsterization here, the complete and total avoidance of any moral agency. And for extra credit, see if you can find any women that would be willing to personally execute Jodi Arias (or even any that think ANYONE should execute her?)

  166. Lyn87 says:

    greyghost says:

    That’s why I like game. with women being liberated and all they now do all of their thinking and moralizing through their pussy holes game is good just day to day working way beyond getting some skank into bed.

    Greyghost definitely gets my point. If all you want to do is get women into bed or get them to react to you the way women react to men they find attractive in general, game works reasonably well (more on that in a minute*). To carry my wine analogy a bit farther: if all you want to do is get drunk, then extract the pure alcohol from a bottle of Moët & Chandon and get yourself good and hammered. A few ounces of the extraction will do the trick far better than a similar volume of the Moët & Chandon you extracted it from, but you’ll lose almost all of what makes Moët & Chandon special. Likewise, if all you want to do is get laid, extract the “game” attributes from sophroneo, but you’ll lose most of what makes the cultivation of sophroneo into a good and worthwhile man. Soproneo is the superset of attributes that make one into that man – “game” is the concentrated subset of those values that attract women.

    ———– Break ———–

    * I said “reasonably well” for a reason: like Opus and others have noted, raw attraction helps a lot. I can become a faster runner than I am now by working at it, but I’ll never be really fast the way some people are naturally. Likewise, a man can become better with women than he is now, but most men will never be great with women the way some men are naturally. I recall once when I was a young Lieutenant – there was a club in the college town of San Louis Obispo called “the Graduate.” Groups of us used to go there when we weren’t on duty to hang out, dance, and tip a few beers. One night one of the new guys (I think his name was Dave), went with us. Not only was Dave a genuinely nice guy, but he looked like a re-born Adonis. As we all sat around the table talking amongst ourselves, one cute co-ed after another came to the table to ask Dave to dance. He wasn’t running “game” on any of them – he was sitting there talking shop just like the rest of us, and attractive women were throwing themselves at him. The three rules still count more than any amount of “game”…

    Rule #1 – Be handsome.
    Rule #2 – Be attractive.
    Rule #3 – Don’t be attractive.

    It’s not all physical attractiveness (although that matters a lot) – some plain-looking men just exude whatever it is that a lot of women find attractive. We’re all born with some of it, and some guys are born with a lot of it, and everyone can get better at it, but not everyone can get 1000 cute young women into bed – and it’s an unworthy pursuit anyway.

  167. Lol, talking about the ACA, it seems it raised your GDP to 5%, and nobody can really use it much before paying huge deductibles first and then still having to fork out for co-pays. IBB is right, it’s a Bachelor Tax and it’s working as intended..

  168. Hank Flanders says:

    thedeti,

    Ok. Dalrock, you can go home now. The manosphere can close up shop now.

    While dalrock and much of the Christian manosphere discuss a lot of topics about society that I finding interesting, I don’t see how they’re Game blogs. That is, I don’t see how they teach men the specifics of how to attract and keep women. They do have overall generic themes about being assertive and manly and dominant, as well as what to look for in a wife, but I don’t see actual attraction explored in terms of specific things I can feasibly do to get the kind of wife I want. (I know lowering my standards is always an option).

    From what I’ve seen so far, true Game blogs seem to only discuss how men can get laid. As I’m interested in gaining a wife and not getting laid before marriage, I’m not interested in those, and I don’t find them very helpful for that approach, anyway, because people’s standards for sex are substantially different than what they are for marriage. So what if some PUA bed 27 women he met off the street? The fact that those women would be willing to do that tells me I wouldn’t want to marry them, anyway. In other words,in my view, that Krauser guy had NO success in that scenario. He was 0 for 1000 from my perspective.

    Since dalrock is someone whose values seem to line up with many of my own, I’ve tried digging through his archives to find the types of entries that would be more Game-oriented but haven’t come up with much unless I’ve just been missing something. If so, please feel free to steer me in the right direction.

    While donalgraeme’s touched on what boosts attraction among Christian singles, he usually seems to move on to something else before fully exploring the topic like he initially claims he wants to do at the beginning of such a series.

  169. Lyn87 says:

    IBB is at it again. Rather than taking the clear wording of scripture about God ejecting both Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, he/she made up a story about Adam dragging Eve out. Yeah… right. What version of the Bible are you using, IBB? Mine seems to be missing that part.

    As for your “experiment” – my wife, my mother, at least one of my sisters-in-law, and at least two of my nieces get outraged at female murders like Andrea Yates, Jodi Arias, and (probably) Casey Anthony. There ya’ go – five women who pass your test: and that’s just among the close relatives of one guy. If women had no moral agency they would be incapable of sin. If they had no capacity to sin they would not need a savior.

    You’re being ridiculous again. You should stop.

  170. Boxer says:

    The only reason why Eve left the garden was because Adam was physically stronger and dragged her out of there kickign and screaming.

    That’s not in the text, I’m afraid. If I were a Christian, I’d point out that you were a false teacher. I think it’s more likely that you simply don’t know your own book very well.

    16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

    18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

    19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

    20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

    21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

    22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

    24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=KJV

  171. fh,

    IBB is right, it’s a Bachelor Tax and it’s working as intended…

    Thank you. The thing is, the less and less of God’s sacrament of marriage we have in this country (and we have less now than we have ever had) the more and MORE government will be forced to scramble around and look for ways for unmarried men to financially provision for unmarried women. There simply is no other way. A health marriage society would fix all this but before that can happy, we have to get rid of this marriage 2.0 nightmare. That will not happen in either of our lifetimes. It will be a miracle delievered straight from God if society as we know it will ever recover.

  172. earl says:

    ‘That’s not in the text, I’m afraid. If I were a Christian, I’d point out that you were a false teacher. I think it’s more likely that you simply don’t know your own book very well.’

    You don’t need to be Christian to point that out…because you just did.

  173. earl says:

    Besides I see women going to confession along with men. So if they didn’t have moral agency…why would they bother going?

  174. Boxer,

    and thy desire shall be to thy husband

    that is God creating ‘gina tingles in women…

    and he shall rule over thee.

    that is women obeying those ‘gina tingles. And they do provided there was only ONE COCK that satisfied the tingles. Multicock them, and now which ‘tingles to they obey? Whichever one provides the most provisioning. In our case (today) that is government.

    24 So He drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    I don’t see where God drove out the woman, do you? Nope, He drove out Adam. Eve only left because Adam made her leave. God didn’t make her leave.

    Adam’s curse was listening to Eve. That was his “fall.” When she offered him the apple, he should have refused it because that was God’s commandment. That was the only reason why God was pissed at Adam and drove him from the garden. There was NO WAY that Adam was going to listen to anything that Eve was ever going to say going forward. She blew it Boxer.

  175. JF says:

    One of your most insightful posts, Dalrock. Among many, many others.
    Time to sing with Eric Idle “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.” We’re doomed as a civilization. National captivity straight ahead.

  176. And to be more correct (I would add this if I could edit above)….

    Eve only left (the garden) because Adam made her leave because only Adam could satisfy ‘gina tingle. I am quite sure she wasn’t too happy about leaving. That apple tasted pretty good I’m guessing. But she wasn’t going to stay there alone not with those new ‘tingles she discovered.

  177. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    I don’t see where God drove out the woman, do you? Nope, He drove out Adam. Eve only left because Adam made her leave. God didn’t make her leave.

    Not only is your (on-the-fly) response logically problematic, it reveals that you don’t know much about the structure of your own language. English has an epicene pronoun: he, and the word “man” isn’t specific to male-sexed humans.

    It’s part of the same grammatical structure that leads us to call ships “she” and gives rise to the phrase “all MEN are created equal” etc. Your wife, in the context of the Middle English text, is “MAN” just like you are. Think of it as a shorthand way to say “human being”.

    In any event, your contention is transparently silly. If you want to continue with the interpretation that Adam dragged Eve “kicking and screaming with him out of the garden”, then you need to point to the part of the text where it supports this. You can’t, of course, because it doesn’t.

    Best, Boxer

  178. Gunner Q says:

    IBB, you worry me. You’ve gone from ‘women have no moral agency’ to ‘women are sinless’ to ‘it’s man’s fault women aren’t still in paradise’.

    I hope that’s the eggnog talking.

  179. MV says:

    Let us not forget the DEFENSIVE aspect of the Game.

    In order to merely SURVIVE in a society full of false rape accusers a man must at least APPEAR too dangerous to be blackmailed by some wannabe “Jackie”. (Either with an expensive suit and watch that indicate “friends in high places” or with pumped muscles and tattoos that indicate “friends in low places”.) Middle class boring beta providers are the perfect sitting ducks for this unofficial “Potential Rapist Tax”. Don’t be that guy!

  180. earl says:

    There’s God’s interpretation of how things go and the world’s. Because God sees all and knows all.

    Just because the world and society are making it out that women have no moral agency and it’s all men’s fault doesn’t mean it is true. By saying women have no moral agency is basically ‘listening to your wife’.

  181. IBB, you worry me. You’ve gone from ‘women have no moral agency’ to ‘women are sinless’ to ‘it’s man’s fault women aren’t still in paradise’.

    That’s the tradcon script exactly, and why they end up on the same side as feminists, whether they admit it or not. They can’t bring themselves to hold women responsible for their actions, but they still prefer order to chaos. So instead of turning women loose to run feral as the feminists do, they hope to get men to herd them like animals.

    Feminist: women are sinless.
    Tradcon: women are blameless.

    The result is always the same: everything bad that happens can be traced to a man’s failure.

  182. Boxer,

    Not only is your (on-the-fly) response logically problematic, it reveals that you don’t know much about the structure of your own language. English has an epicene pronoun: he, and the word “man” isn’t specific to male-sexed humans.

    It is only problematic for red pill men (such as yourself) who still bothers to eat blue pills while posting here. Then yes, it causes problems. If you were in the office and you have to eat blue pills to remain employed, that is one thing. You don’t have to do that here. Instead, all you have to do it see what makes sense with your own eyes in the world that you and l live in today.

    Simple red-pill question: who do women listen to? They listen to whomever they DESIRE. They desire whatever men give them butt and ‘gina tingles. Now, they should listen to their husbands (as that is God’s commandment) but it is not what they often do. That is because they don’t always desire their husbands. (If they did, our divorce rate would be approaching zero percent and our marriage rate for people over age 18 would be in the lower 90s.) But we are where we are.

    Who do women marry? Well at the moment, they can pretty much ONLY marry men that are willing to marry them (and with marraige 2.0 that is a ever shrinking percentage.) So they go out of their way to do what they must to attract those who do the best providing of “herb of the field” (the Bible right there.) But they will only obey those whom they desire. Eve didn’t have quite as many options as women have today in the DESIRE category now did she?

  183. Hank Flanders says:

    Gurney Halleck,
    While those Red Pill Remix videos are pretty interesting and somewhat revealing, I did have a few problems with them.

    First, at the end of the first video, the narrator said, “Do you need good looks to snag an attractive woman? The answer is ‘no.’ However, there’s a huge ‘but.’” I could never tell that the filmmaker—I’ll call him “he” to make things easier—actually followed up on this one hope he gave us average looking guys in amongst all of this other Red Pill knowledge.

    Second, he claimed that better looking people are considered smarter. I disagree. In Video 1, he mentions the Diet Coke commercial from the 90s in which the construction worker would take off his shirt, while the office ladies watched. The narrator posed the question of whether they could have used a much less attractive looking man seen at 4:42 in the video. It’s true that no, they couldn’t have used him as an effective prop in a provocative Diet Coke commercial, but I could see the less attractive guy being the engineer in charge of the construction project rather than as just one of the construction workers.

    Just like this video implied, Exfernal above mentioned that good looks go along with intelligence, but I’m not so sure about this. There’s a reason smart guys are often considered unattractive geeks by women, whereas the good looking people such as football players and cheerleaders have a higher likelihood of struggling academically. I can’t say whether that scenario outcome is due to environment (i.e. the geeks have to work harder at life because less is given to them, or maybe they simply have more time to study due to a less active social life) or genetics (e.g. some are gifted in looks, while others are gifted at say, math, while being extraordinarily gifted in both is rare) or whether maybe it’s a bit of both, but I do see a link there.

    Finally, the filmmaker used some reality shows as evidence of his argument. I think it takes a certain kind of person to want to be on a reality show to begin with, so there could be some survivorship bias in the examples shown. That is, women who go on reality shows may have personality types that are more likely to be turned on by a man’s looks than by his personality.
    I balk at calling such women “shallow,” because everybody knows that looks matter to a certain extent, and it’s not fair to call that viewpoint shallow, but I HATE reality shows, because I don’t tend to like the personalities of the people on them, and I get annoyed watching them. Therefore, I’d also take the ways in which women act on reality shows concerning guys with at least a modicum of salt.

  184. Lyn87 says:

    MV reminds us all to not forget the DEFENSIVE aspect of the Game:

    “In order to merely SURVIVE in a society full of false rape accusers a man must at least APPEAR too dangerous to be blackmailed by some wannabe “Jackie”. (Either with an expensive suit and watch that indicate “friends in high places” or with pumped muscles and tattoos that indicate “friends in low places”.)”

    So “game” now boils down to being a credible as a criminal – either of the white-collar variety who can get a judge or prosecutor to make an indictment go away or the leather-jacket variety who can make a potential witness “go away.”

    I’m glad we cleared that up.

  185. MV says:

    @Lyn87

    I don’t know if Game boils down to that. But from the purely practical view, even if being MGTOW, it is healthier to be feared than to be blackmailed by feral females.

    Now excuse me, I have to go comb my terrible ominous Francis-Drake-style black beard😉

  186. Lyn87 says:

    MV,

    Well played, Sir. I was just having a bit of fun with your comment. On a serious note, sophroneo is a large thing, and it is comprised of a lot of smaller things. The subset of attributes that trip the sexual attraction triggers of women (“game”) is one of them. The subset of attributes that inspire admiration is one. The subset of attributes that inspire fear is another. The subset of attributes that make a man a good father is yet another. The subset that helps a man keep his head in great adversity is one. The subset that helps a man keep his head in great triumph is another. There are others, and there is overlap between the subsets. But they are parts of a whole, not stand-alone things. To borrow from Yoda – a balance required is. A man who only cultivates the attributes that would make him a good father may never get the chance unless he also cultivates those other attributes that help him attract a woman enough to bear his children, for example. Likewise, a man who refines his “game” to the exclusion of the attributes that fall outside that subset will be that most pathetic of men – a cad.

    A cad is a man who thrives on the adoration of women (in the form of sex) and men (in the form of envy), but only from those for whom adoration is meaningless. He thinks himself a king, and he is one – a king of jackasses.

  187. thedeti says:

    Most men, the bottom 80%, don’t look like Lyn87’s friend “Dave”. For those men, they need something else. And provider bona fides aren’t going to get a man there, not even close—not when women earn their own money. And most men do not want to swear off women; most men want a woman (women) in their lives. So most men need something other than good looks. For most men, that’s Game, or sophroneo, or Godly masculinity.

    But if Gurney’s videos and Lyn87 and DeNihilist are to be believed, there’s scant little that can be done. Even with Game or sophroneo or Godly masculinity, most men aren’t going to have any real success with a woman. Most men are not physically attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of a woman. Period. End of story.

    Therefore, there’s nothing that can be done to help these men, not even with Game, not even with sophroneo, not even with Godly masculinity. DeNihilist just yesterday threw up his hands, like his mentor Zippy, and said in effect “Oh well, I’m really sorry there are men out there who can’t get a date because no one taught them anything useful, but there’s nothing I can do. I’m really sorry there are men in miserable marriages, but that’s not my problem. It’s a tragedy that there are divorced men who are isolated from their kids. Sucks to be them, but I’m sure glad I’M not like them.” There’s nothing—NOTHING—that can be done for them. Their lives are condemned.

    So if there’s nothing that can be done, then let’s just fold up the tents, and go our separate ways, and make the best of it with what little we’ve got. Let’s just let the top 20 or 25% of men have sex with all the women and see to the continued propagation of the species; and the remaining 75% of men will get nothing. That’s pretty much where we are now. Let’s just accept that this is the way things will be for the next four or five generations or so.

    Let’s just accept that most of you unmarried men who are posting here are never going to marry. Let’s face it—if you all were attractive enough to get women without learning any of this, you wouldn’t be here talking to other men trying to learn how to do it. If you all were attractive enough to do this, you’d be doing it and not posting in comboxes about it. If what all of you are doing is working, you wouldn’t be here trying to learn doing it differently. And let’s just accept that about 30% of you married men are going to get divorced, and there’s not a damn thing any of us can do about it. Let’s just accept that of the remaining 70% of you married men, about half of you will remain in miserable marriages. There’s not a damn thing you can do about that, either.

    I mean, that’s what DeNihilist is saying, right? That’s what Gurney is saying, right? You have to look good, and if you don’t look good, you’re just SOL. You have to be handsome and be attractive, and most of all that is your looks. So if you don’t have looks, you lose, and that’s just the end of the inquiry. So if that is the beginning and the end of the discussion (the “alpha” and the “omega’, if you will), then there’s no point to any of these. You’re all wasting your time learning about masculinity or sophroneo or Game. Go get your fat ass in the gym, start losing weight, and invest in good cosmetic surgery. And if you can’t do any of that, or if you invest a year or so and it doesn’t work, well, then, invest in a good high speed internet connection and an antivirus program for your online porn. Get a job as an assistant manager of BigBoxRetailStore, and limit your earnings to juuuust enough to support yourself. Because, hey, there’s no point in doing anything more. The tradcons will tell you to man up and marry the slut; and if you won’t, they’ll leave you to flail alone. No one else cares.

    Right?

  188. earl says:

    ‘You’re all wasting your time learning about masculinity or sophroneo or Game.’

    It’s a waste of time if you are doing it just to get women.

    Really all you are talking about in your long statements is that the expectations of women have become unrealistic. Which when you are told from birth you are the greatest thing ever created there could be some unrealistic expectations.

  189. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    Just to keep us all on track, here’s what you wrote:

    The only reason why Eve left the garden was because Adam was physically stronger and dragged her out of there kickign and screaming.

    This is what I had a problem with, and it’s the only thing I continue to have a problem with. Don’t care too much about your conservative political beliefs, nor your religious ones. I care about fidelity to the text and the truth process of which it’s a part (to steal a verse from Alain Badiou).

    When asked to back this strange claim up, you have merely relied on obfuscation.

    I don’t see where God drove out the woman, do you? Nope, He drove out Adam. Eve only left because Adam made her leave. God didn’t make her leave.

    Actually, the text is pretty clear that the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god kicked “man” (meaning all humankind) out of the garden. He put his boot up Eve’s ass, and told her she could never come back. It’s right there in the text. Your semantic red herrings remind me of Earl, who earlier this month argued that Lenin and the Red Army had secretly taken over the USA, but for some reason they didn’t institute political or economic communism, they just passed VAWA and other feminist laws (laws which were never offered up in actual Marxist countries).

    By the same token, I could contend that Bigfoot and gray space aliens conspired with the Loch Ness Monster to feed Adam the apple. The text doesn’t specifically say this didn’t happen, so my theory is valid, right?

    It is only problematic for red pill men (such as yourself) who still bothers to eat blue pills while posting here. Then yes, it causes problems. If you were in the office and you have to eat blue pills to remain employed, that is one thing. You don’t have to do that here. Instead, all you have to do it see what makes sense with your own eyes in the world that you and l live in today.

    We’re not talking about current events, though. We’re talking about a text that I can read independently. If you want to argue that the text says such and so, then you have to provide evidence in the text to support that contention. You can’t do this, because it’s not in there.

    Best, Boxer

  190. earl says:

    And I told you what the definition of Marxism is.

    ‘Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and societal conflict, that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation.’

    In this scenario…your class relations and societal conflict are men and women.

  191. Boxer says:

    And I told you what the definition of Marxism is.

    ‘Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis that focuses on class relations and societal conflict, that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation.’

    In this scenario…your class relations and societal conflict are men and women.

    By your own definition, the Jesus character and St. Paul are both “Marxists” — despite being born long before Uncle Karl ever got out of his own dad’s cock. (Matt 26:11)

    The fact is that you, like IBB, want to claim that certain texts are valid to back up your own personal beliefs. This is fine, but those of us who have read these books will generally call you out on your misuse of them.

  192. JC says:

    “In Canada the government is bringing in “income splitting”. A married mother and father with juvenile children will be able to transfer some of the fathers high income to his stay at home wife with no income to reduce the families tax burden. This is like a reverse bachelor tax. A married man ends up paying less tax than his single peer.”

    ———————-
    Ya but this proposal is being attacked from many sides – on the one side you have the “income inequality” crowd saying this proposal only benefits the top 15% of earners, and from the “social justice warrior” crowd you have criticism that this tax would ignore alternative family arrangements (i.e. single moms, unwed gay/lesbian couples, other couples that don’t identify as married, etc). Finally, on the “welfare state” side any attempt to reduce taxes and/or spending is immediately attacked as harming social programs.

    Traditional marriage isn’t any better off in Canada than it is in the USA. In fact, pressure from non-conservative minority interests is quite strong.

  193. Lyn87 says:

    thedeti,

    I’m not as much of a nihilist as that. There was a time within living memory when things worked pretty much as they were supposed to work. Men and women haven’t hanged, but the incentives and stigmas have. When I was dating in the early-mid 80’s, things were pretty bad. A lot of young guys today are anti-Panglossian – they think that today’s young women are the worst possible, but truly there is nothing new under the sun. I was widely informed that my requirement for virginity was absurd – “nobody saves it any more” I was told. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. I know women in their 20’s who are serious – and for the most part they get snatched up by equally-serious men – “players” are sent packing in short order.

    But a man ought to cultivate sophroneo in all it’s aspects no matter what it gets him directly – it is worthwhile in its own right. Some unlucky men will strike out no matter what they do – just as some unfortunate handicapped men will never walk no matter what they do. They are not to be mocked but consoled and assisted. If we see a man who was born a paraplegic we don’t mock him by calling him a “cripple” and telling him to “walk like a man.” So why does the “game” community mock guys who are socially crippled by calling them “beta/omega/loser/whatever” and telling them the only thing that stands between them and a three-way with a couple of hotties is force of will and a $200 “game” seminar?

    But even those guys generally did okay when we still had a culture of assortive mating. Nobody was telling women to spend their youth riding the carousel, and cads ran real risks if they got caught.

    So, is it bad? Yeah, it’s bad. Is that new? Not historically. Can we fix it? Not without changing the culture and the laws. Is there hope for guys who don’t look like Dave? Yes (shoot: I don’t look like Dave and I did great – but I’ve admitted that I’m a lucky man), but the odds are poor for winning the marriage lottery – I freely admit that much. So I posit three other rules to replace the three noted above:

    1) Cultivate sophroneo in yourself.
    2) Don’t play the odds – work the odds as best (and prayerfully) as you can.
    3) Be lucky.

    One cannot do anything about the last one in the strict sense, but the other two are under one’s constant control. And as the great golfer Gary Player once said, “The more I practice the luckier I get.”

  194. earl says:

    No by my definition some of the disciples were a ‘marxist’ or people who were sowing discord between classes and people…if you would read the text before.

    ‘Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.’

  195. Rocket says:

    TheDeti: I know you were tongue in cheek but yes that is essentially the situation. Your numbers were wrong but in the ballpark. The sexual winners amongst men are the top 5-10%. All other males are losers in the current environment. If you TALL and have good genes, spend every waking hour trying to fake that you’re an “Alpha male” by that I mean diet, exercise, sleeping, wardrobe, your work, your social skills, being socially aware and adept, learning about all sorts of nonsense like Reality TV, Pop Stars, and Twitter, FB, and all forms of social media. And becoming addicted to your phone, too. Oh and learn to be a complete Dick, ahole, bad-boy. Start fights, get arrested, get some street cred. Learn PUA and how to manipulate other people to become completely selfish and self absorbed. Completely revamp your life so you can get a little pussy. So, if you are already TALL and already in the top top 30% or so you may elevate your status via GAME into the top 10% so you get regular access to sex. Is it worth it ? Can most men even accomplish this ? No and No.

    All other men are screwed and left out. The reality is that many of the top 50% of males will marry the used up sluts; after they have treated decent men like crap for years and had their fun fucking whoever they wanted. And it wasn’t them. Most of them are BPers who do not realize that to women the are nothing more than a glorified ATM from which they get to steal. Once they pump out a kid or two they will get bored of you and rape your ass in divorce court and steal most of your assets and most of the income you will earn for the next 10-20 years; or maybe life.

    They have all of the political, legal, and cultural power to enforce this.

    There is no way to win this battle. There is no way to change it to restore order. And there is no way that the current situation can exist over the long haul; it is completely unsustainable.

    TheDeti stated: “Let’s just accept that this is the way things will be for the next four or five generations or so.”

    My answer and all of the manosphere’s answers should be NO. If left to its normal course it may have taken 4 or 5 generations but we now live on internet time and things happen much faster/ And besides the US has more debit than any country in all of recorded history; as soon as that debit is called in … the dance ends. What me and most MGTOWs realize the situation is untenable and wish to bring this horrible, ugly experiment to an end. By opting out and refusing to participate. Do not engage the sluts and do not reward their behavior. Do not marry. Do not have children. Do not support those that do. Let this mess just collapse. What’s next ? I haven’t a clue … I would guess it would be back to some form of monogamy since that seems to have been the most successful model. Frankly I think the absolute worst thing to do would be to drag this out for years and years. Lets just stop the ride and all get off.

  196. Cail

    I am a traditional conservative.

    IBB, you worry me. You’ve gone from ‘women have no moral agency’ to ‘women are sinless’ to ‘it’s man’s fault women aren’t still in paradise’.

    That’s the tradcon script exactly, and why they end up on the same side as feminists, whether they admit it or not. They can’t bring themselves to hold women responsible for their actions, but they still prefer order to chaos. So instead of turning women loose to run feral as the feminists do, they hope to get men to herd them like animals.

    More of less… yes. Traditional conservatives DO “hope against hope” that men can herd these feral cats like animals. That is why you hear Traditional conservatives always harping on the LEAD HER aspect. They want men to LEAD.

    Where traditional conservatives tend to go tone deaf is when ordinary men ask them how to lead their wives when their wives no longer obey them (if they ever did.)

    Feminist: women are sinless.
    Tradcon: women are blameless.

    The result is always the same: everything bad that happens can be traced to a man’s failure.

    Great job Cail. Yes traditional conservatives are right, everything bad can be traced back to a man’s failure. And ultimately it WAS a failing of man as to why we are where we are with these feral women. What was that failing specifically? Man gave women the right to vote. They should NOT have done that. That is against The Bible. And why?

    Women vote => women voting ONLY for candidates that enable the feral behavior of women => government empowerment of feminism through government authority => changing of laws to enable the feral behavior of women => creation of law enforcement agencies and judiciary rulings to support those change in laws that enable the feral behavior of women => marriage 2.0 => (divorce, child support & alimony) + (existing threatpoint marriages) + (marriageless 3rd world communities such as Camden NJ, Detroit MI, and Ferguson MO)

    Anyone who disagrees with any of the above equations could ONLY do so because they just popped a blue pill.

    Unlike traditional “traditional conservatives” I have the unique willingness to point out the failures in thinking of “traditional conservatives.” But I only got to this point with red pills (I was blind but NOW I see.) Tradcons eat ONLY the blue ones. And what those blue pills do is prevent tradcons from seeing things all the way through (they are still partially blind Cail.) They can only get to a certain point in their thinking and then their brain goes into vapor lock. “Traditional conservatives” never get to the Biblical foundation layer of female behavior the way Archie Bunker did. That said, it is not that they all need to regard women the way Archie Bunker did. Far from it. It is instead that they fail to recognize what made Edith Bunker so beautiful and why Archie loved her so much that he would be willing to die for her. Ask a “traditional conservative” as to why a misogynist dinasour Archie Bunker bothered to marry a woman like Edith (or why any chauvanist pigs ever married any women at all) and you are likely to get a moment of dreadful silence from them before they start saying that is all just make-believe or that any women like Edith or anyone who would marry chauvanist pigs like him are helpless flowers with no self-esteem.

    Far from it. Edith portrayed a fictional character with more self-esteem than almost any real women that ever lived. She had enough self-esteem to be completely at peace enough to understand that her job (in that house) what to obey her husband, in all things. Do that, and their home was a place of perfect peace and tranquility. Archie would have done anything for his wife, a woman he would never have ever harmed. Edith would go to Catholic Mass with her neighbor but remained Protestant because that is what Archie commanded of her. Edith would smile and listen to Gloria but ultimately would defer to Archie in all things regarding Gloria. Edith would smile and hear all the new kinds of thinking that meathead would say and yet she would still defer to Archie to make sure what meathead said made sense. Edith was beautiful, a true wife worthy of a wonderful marriage version 1.0.

    “Traditional conservatives” will never understand the obey part Cail. Of if they do, they would never tell their daughter’s that. They can’t. They’ve eaten too many blue pills. And all those blue pills have done is turn every would be son-in-law for their daughters into a violent, domestic abuse, headcase who is going to f-ck any and every other woman that is willing to spread her legs for him.

  197. Lyn87 says:

    Rocket,

    TFH has set the mark on the wall: Anno Domini 2020 – five short years from now. I was writing my last post the same time you were writing yours, and I also wrote that only a reset of our culture and our laws would do the trick. I’m not optimistic about what comes next, though. The historian in me says that these sorts of things lead to Dark Ages much more frequently than Renaissances, at least in the short term.

  198. thedeti says:

    Rocket, Lyn:

    I was tongue in cheek, but only a little. I’m not quite THAT nihilistic. But let’s hang back and take a look.

    1. If you’re tall and good looking, you don’t need Game, inner game, Godly masculinity, sophroneo, or anything else. You’re golden.

    2. If you’re NOT tall and good looking, it really doesn’t matter much what else you have – you will get the dregs. If you’re lucky, you might – MIGHT – get to marry a banged out slut. Most of you won’t marry, because you won’t be willing to marry a 30-odd year old slut when you yourself are in your mid 30s or so. Nor will you be willing to wait that long. (And you would be wise not to do so.) And most of you will have given up by then if you haven’t already. So it isn’t about confidence or dominance – women don’t really find these things attractive. It’s really about looks, according to Gurney and Lyn and DeNihilist; and well, if you don’t have looks, you’re just SOL.

    3. If you’re married, some of you are going to get divorced; and about half of the remainder will be in unhappy, unsatisfying marriages.

    4. It’s not much better for Christian men. Most of you don’t know anything about sophroneo or Godly masculinity or Game. And most older Christian men aren’t going to teach you anything about it – most such men expressly disavow that they can, or even that they should. Most such men just say “just get it, just figure it out for yourself”. So you’re basically on your own.

  199. Exfernal says:

    Simple answers are for simple minds. ‘Genetically’ good looks correlate with the ‘genetic’ component of smarts. How much effort is spent on either one is a kind of trade-off. One tends to concentrate on things which bring better payoffs. Also, the time of mother’s pregnancy and early childhood influence both, directly and indirectly (vitamin deficiencies, for example). The problem with measuring it is that the effects depend both on genetics and environment, and inconsistently to boot.

  200. greyghost says:

    Eve left because Adam left. he ruled over her and her desire was for him. They were the only two mo-fo’s there so the AMOG issue was a no factor. God told Adam to get out of my garden and when he left Eve was with him.

  201. Eve left because Adam left. he ruled over her and her desire was for him. They were the only two mo-fo’s there so the AMOG issue was a no factor. God told Adam to get out of my garden and when he left Eve was with him.

    Yes.

  202. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 12:37 pm:
    “But if Gurney’s videos and Lyn87 and DeNihilist are to be believed, there’s scant little that can be done.”

    Correct, just from the supply side of things. Too many women are too feral/corrupted to ever be wife material. That leaves us Christian men to either compete hard for the few available or give up.

    Game works but it can’t guarantee success.

  203. Gunner Q says:

    “Eve left because Adam left. he ruled over her and her desire was for him. They were the only two mo-fo’s there so the AMOG issue was a no factor. God told Adam to get out of my garden and when he left Eve was with him.”

    That mean old Adam! First he didn’t stop Eve from disobeying God, then he did what she told him to do even though he knew it was wrong, too! Then God cursed Eve to obey that wretched Adam instead of letting her continue to be Strong and Independent and Adam forced her to leave the garden even though she was innocent because Adam wanted to keep using her for sex!

  204. thedeti says:

    Another thing:

    Most of you Christian men who want to marry virgins: It’s not going to happen unless you are tall and good looking. A Christian virgin woman is immensely valuable, can command a high price, and will do so. Christian women want high value, good looking men just like their secular sisters. And a Christian virgin will hold out for the absolute highest status, best looking man she can get — because Christian woman want that as well as, if not more than, devotion to God.

    Most of the Christian women you know will not be virgins. So you will have to accept that, if you want to get married. A few of you will not accept that; but most of you will. Most of you will buckle, and you’ll marry one of the Christian nonvirgins. Your desires for a virgin bride are unrealistic. You’ll have to accept a nonvirgin or nothing, because , truth be told, the vast majority of you are not attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of a Christian virgin woman.

  205. Rocket says:

    TheDeti, I think we are saying the same things but you are talking about absolutes and I’m talking about averages. Let me give you an example. Lets talk about the Lottery, shall we ?

    I am under the opinion that almost everyone who buys a lottery ticket loses. So my recommendation is don’t play. Don’t waste your money on buying a ticket cause you aren’t gonna win. In fact, by everyone continuing to buy lottery tickets you are keeping the lottery in business. And since 99% of people who play lose, its a raw deal. Those guys who didn’t buy tickets would be better off if the lottery didn’t even exist because they wouldn’t be wasting their money on something they have no chance of winning. So lets all stop buying lottery tickets !!!

    Your position is that if you don’t buy a ticket you CAN’T win. And somebody eventually does win the lottery … it keeps going drawing after drawing so eventually somebody does. And when you win … you win BIG !!! Don’t you want to be that guy !!! So if you feel lucky then by all means … buy a ticket … if you don’t play, you can’t win !!!

    So Deti, who is right ? You or me ? Both of us?

    Kinda of sad reminder on how much our society has changed too. Used to be that Gambling was a Sin; well still is, isn’t it. Yet you can gamble pretty much anywhere anymore. Sickening how evil just sneaks up on you till on day you wake up and its all around you. Kinda like Feminism. Didn’t sound too bad when it started out and look where its gotten us. And even worse, look where its headed. And no way to change it either.

  206. Rocket says:

    Ooops bad typo: Those guys who DID buy tickets would be better off if the lottery didn’t even exist.

  207. Hank Flanders says:

    Exfernal

    ‘Genetically’ good looks correlate with the ‘genetic’ component of smarts.

    On what are you basing this? Just as the Red Pill Remix videos point out, maybe some people perceive that there is a correlation (you apparently being one of them), but I don’t know what the basis is for this. I provided examples to support my viewpoint. What are yours?

  208. Exfernal says:

    You know the do joke about women: “Hot, smart and sane. Pick two.” Don’t you? There are similar ones about code and diet. In statistics, there are several interrelated problems, generally about tradeoffs between being concise, informative and comprehensive:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
    Apologies, but it’s the way it is.

  209. Exfernal says:

    And when one tries to describe underlying causal mechanisms, it’s extremely easy to stray from truth, become misconstrued, or become too boring to bear.

  210. Exfernal says:

    ^
    “be misconstrued”

  211. There’s a blessing in being single. I’ve let a large part of my worries go away and decided to focus on far smaller and more enjoyable things in my life. I don’t need to earn a bucket load of money to enjoy those things, I don’t need to sweat my life away worrying about money or if I will keep my job. There is a freedom to being single and I will enjoy it.

    I have far more time and energy for things of God now and to learn new skills, take on new hobbies and just relax. I don’t have to lament the lack of female companionship anymore. I might be unattractive but I have an easier time accepting that now and trying to change what I can. If I’m not good enough for a Christian virgin, I’m accepting my fate as a single man.

    Less stress, more leisure, more time to actually do things I enjoy and gain a benefit from, rather than spending my life working and watching that energy go to the government.

  212. thedeti,

    Most of the Christian women you know will not be virgins. So you will have to accept that, if you want to get married. A few of you will not accept that; but most of you will. Most of you will buckle, and you’ll marry one of the Christian nonvirgins. Your desires for a virgin bride are unrealistic.

    The beauty of motion pictures like The Godfather is that it demonstrates (from a historical perspective) how things worked and why they worked. Consider the merits of Michael Corleone’s first marriage in 1947 Sicily. Here he is he sitting at a table with his two heavily armed body guards discussing the beauty of one of the girls he just witnessed while walking on a road. The older man stipulates how those girls were all so “virtuous.” (For our younger readers, virtuous girl = intact hymen.) After some unnecessary unpleasantries regarding a language miscommunication, Michael confidently asks the father of this virtuous girl (who ONLY has her virtue to offer a husband and perhaps a small dowry provided by dad) if there is any chance he could court his daughter to become his wife? The father stipulates that Michael is come over for dinner that evening. Discussion is now OVER (for now.) Dad didn’t even check with his daughter to see if she was comfortable was this. It WILL be happening, he ARRANGED it. And why? Father knows what is in the best interst of his daughter (not her) because she doen’t have moral agency. So of course Michael comes over and the virtuous girl who has been prepared that she might be courted meets Michael for the first time. They sit next to each other and after dinner, both feel comfortable enough to continue dialogue. So they go off (sort-of) alone to talk, walking down the road, with a BROOD of older women walking about 100 feet behind them, far enough away so they hear none of the private conversation but yet close enough that they can look after and protect the virtue of the virtuous girl (both to prevent the still largely unknown Michael from violating her AND to prevent her for voluntarily “giving it up.”) They do this because… well…. they don’t know him and if his intentions are sincer and well, she’s a girl and has no moral agency. His confidence and charm might be just too much for her to resist, too many ‘tingles. Moreover, this whole BROOD of women would be “witnesses” to whatever behavior happens between Michael and the virtuous girl (protecting both of them from slander.) All these cultural parameters we established because it was so plainly OBVIOUS to people (pre-feminism, pre-blue-pill) about the differences between men and women.

    Contrast the above scenario with today. First of all, younger men and older men basically never talk about women with each other. The term “virtue” means virtually NOTHING to men today (both younger and increasingly, older.) So for a young man to want a virgin bride, whoever that man is, the guy would probably be thought of as a pervert (either that or he must have such a small penis that he needs a virgin bride because he doesn’t want his future wife to know how good she COULD have had it!) See where this train of though goes? There is just darkness here. There is no foundation for any proper courtship. And forget about courtship because too many girls don’t even LIVE with their dads anymore and even if they did, dad is certainly not going to arrange suitors to come over for dinner on his command. She has to go out there and find these guys, date these guys, and of course, she knows what is in her best interest. Afterall, she can take care of herself and she is the best judge of men’s character. And we know this because she has moral agency. Moreover, if anything unfortunate happens and the girl’s “virtue” is lost, we have government to step in and prosecute the rapist and well its ALWAYS rape if she says it happened that way. That is what feminism teaches us. She can’t possibly lie to incrimidate an innocent young man who never touched her because women are moral agents.

  213. Gunner Q says:

    “If I’m not good enough for a Christian virgin, I’m accepting my fate as a single man.”

    Amen, brother. No sex is no fun but it’s hardly the end of the world.

  214. Newdist says:

    There already is a bachelor tax. It’s called tax everyone, subsidize women.

  215. innocentbystanderboston I love your Dr. Phil skit. That could never really happen though…right?

  216. I love your Dr. Phil skit.

    Thank you. It was tongue in cheek.

    That could never really happen though…right?

    Never say never.

  217. Rick says:

    Tall, great looking men have every single advantage that great looking women have.

    I was one of the tall, great looking guys. I say “was” because I’m a little older now. I was so attractive in my teens, 20s and 30s that women would just show up, knock on my door, walk in, drop their shorts and offer themselves up to me. Married or not – it didn’t matter. No, I wasn’t rich or famous. Women are programmed to breed with the genetically superior. They can’t help it. I had an average dick size, but that didn’t matter. It was impossible for me to starve to death. If I didn’t have a place to live, I’d just walk into a bar and some cougar would take me home. I was never homeless – no matter how poor – no matter how lazy. I’ve had women give me thousands upon thousands of dollars in living expenses a month just to have the opportunity to feel my affection.

    As a man, I know what it is to be a very, very good looking woman. Let me be the first to say – it’s a great thing. Not being tall and good looking as a man is definitely a bad thing. Like unattractive women – you’re going to have to use your intelligence to navigate life. As I got older, my looks faded, so I got a degree in a field that paid lots of money (my girlfriend at the time paid for it). Fortunately, I’m highly intelligent as well. Men’s looks fade as they age, too.

    Until my late 30s, I survived on looks alone. Now days, I have to walk the walk and talk the talk. I’m fortunate as I was gifted in both looks and intelligence. When the looks faded, the smarts took over. These days, I’m edjumacated, flying solo and loving life. Where I once used to be entirely dependent on a woman in my life – I’m completely independent now and loving it.

    Now that I have lots of money, a house, tons in savings, etc., I no longer need a woman in my life. When I look back on things, women were always a necessity in my life. Now, they’re a nuisance that I no longer need. I gotta tell ya, unless she brings a whole lot to the table, the answer is going to be a loud, rude “GET OUT!” She’d have to bring with her tons of money, tons of foot and back rubs and present illusions and enchantments of love that even I, an eternal misogynist, could not possibly deny.

    Having said all of the above, you can be unattractive with lots of money and achieve the same in life. You just need more and better attorneys when things go south.

    I’m personally done with women. They served a purpose in my life at an earlier age. These days, they mostly just annoy me. At my age, my hand is way more attractive than most vaginas, too.

  218. Hank Flanders says:

    Exfernal,
    You know the do joke about women: “Hot, smart and sane. Pick two.” Don’t you?
    No, but that’s funny and unfortunately, sometimes true.

    In statistics, there are several interrelated problems, generally about tradeoffs between being concise, informative and comprehensive:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
    Apologies, but it’s the way it is.

    This is pretty non sequitur to me. I was wanting to know how you concluded that there was a correlation between looks and intelligence, not general statistics terminology. Oh, well. I’ll quit asking questions now.

  219. Opus says:

    @IBB

    You are correct. The women of England think that Knox should have hanged (that is what we do to people who murder – or used to), and whilst we are on the subject of murder, no one here believes in the innocence of O.J.Simpson or Oscar Pistorius.

    As for Eve, perhaps she left voluntarily. Funny how the man gets blamed for Eve’s disobedience – so no change there then.

  220. You know the do joke about women: “Hot, smart and sane. Pick two.” Don’t you?

    I think this terminology was captured from concepts used by management in information technology in describing to business management that they can have two and ONLY ever two. Such as for databases: cheap, fast, stable, Pick two. Websites: artistic, fast, cheap, Pick two. Employee quality: cheap, dependible, technical, pick two. Etc. But you can do this with anything. A CEO is running a business and he wants to please: customers, employees, shareholders, pick only two.

  221. DeNihilist says:

    Dear Deti, quit being a Drama Deti.

    I will say this again;

    For mating, looks and confidence are at the top,

    Then looks only

    Then confidence

    So I prescribe to your “ugly” men, go get trained in confidence building techniques, join clubs/sport leagues where there are women so you can just learn to chill with the opposite sex. Get involved in toastmasters, so that you can learn how to talk confidently and wittily to men and women.

    I do not say that if you are “ugly” just accept it and lead a lonely life.

    Are we clear on this now?

    If you want to bang a lot of different women, get involved with game, lie to yourself and to these sluts, and enjoy it. I actually recommend going to Krausers site to learn his bulldog style game.
    Approach every women you want, and chances are you will get laid at least 3% of the time. Which isn’t bad if you run the numbers.

    Are we clear now?

    I love women, and I love sex. I have an N-count north of 20, but nothing added since I got married 27 years ago. And yes, most of those notches were from women approaching me, because I had looks, but not much confidence. Until I got married, my Lothario friend and I had about the same count. He was out there trying hard for the notch, I was not. This informs me that yes, LOOKS do matter more then most anything else when it comes to mating. So be it. Accept who you are, decide what you want, then go out there and fail til you get it right. Take courses, learn pick up techniques, do what-so-ever you think is what is going to help you attain what is important in your life, just don’t be a woman and make a drama outta it!

    And for Gods’ sake, accept that game is a set of techniques to bed slutty women. Period!

    Anywho, Merry Christmas to all of you guys, love this site and love the give and take, and especially love to you DalRock for taking the time to provide such a great site!

  222. Hank Flanders says:

    Exfernal,

    The Genetic Correlation between Height and IQ: Shared Genes or Assortative Mating?
    Adolescents but not Older Women Misjudge Intelligence from Faces and Do not Consider Intelligent-Looking Men Attractive (PDF)
    Rare Copy Number Deletions Predict Individual Variation in Intelligence
    (genetic component of IQ)
    Several results of Google Scholar search for: “intelligence quotient” “fluctuating asymmetry”

    Thanks for providing some more detail.

    For the first link, my counter-argument to their rather wordy essay would simply be one word: Asians. You can probably figure that one out for yourself.

    The second link doesn’t show a positive correlation between looks and intelligence as far as I can tell. It only demonstrates that older women are better able to guess a man’s intelligence based on his looks than an adolescent girl is. The authors conclude then that making a proper judgment about a man’s intelligence based on his looks comes with experience and is not inherent in the woman’s psyche. If anything, this essay would clash with the view that looks and intelligence have a positive correlation, as the title itself specifically states that “adolescents but not older women misjudge intelligence from faces do not consider intelligent-looking men attractive.”

    I couldn’t tell that the third link mentions looks much aside from maybe symmetry, but that’s only one component of looks.

  223. GeminiXcX says:

    If women have no agency, then they have no free will.
    If women have no free will, then they cannot be held responsible for their actions, as everything they do would be either. . .
    1) The sole result of purely programmed instinct.
    2) External influence by men who possess agency (and therefore have the real control).

    If women’s actions are purely programmed instinct:
    Then women are animals; and animals cannot sin.

    If women’s actions are influenced solely by external factors of agency-possessing men:
    Every single thing a woman does, whether good or evil, is a man’s fault.

    So, IBB, are women animals (less than human), or is every sin of every woman our fault as men?

    Your Bible presents a third option, that “*all* have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Therefore *all* have a responsibility to combat being fallen. Women are meant to be led, but if they choose rebellion, any divine judgment would not allow her to ‘pass the blame’.

    -GXcX

  224. GeminiXcX says:

    Height you cannot change. Most other things you can.

    -Unkempt, or dress like a slob? You annoy even me.
    -Footwear? Unless you’re doing physical work of some kind (or you’re in snow), dress shoes at all times. Get lost with the running shoes, you look like a kid.
    -Crooked teeth? Fix them.
    -Skinny-ass, or fat-ass? Get off said ass, put the video games away, get off the Internet, and go to a facility with a strength/mass building building program and connect your hands to the damn steel.
    -Unhealthy diet? Learn about nutrition and stop munching on prefabricated shit.
    -Balding? Really short buzz cut, or shave it all off.
    -Get those hands out of those pockets.
    -Stand up straight. (Example: Slouching-over chops 2-3 inches off my height.)

    -Shy, introvert, intimidated? Doing the above^^ will definitely help take the edge off of some of that, but this in an internal thing. It’s more than likely the result of a violent past with an ineffective father, the media, and/or emasculating religious influence. Confidentman.net would be a good place to start. I never bought his products, so this is not a ad-post, but I did read the free blog articles and they gave me great insight into myself.

    “No one wants me”
    Then *do something about it*. If you don’t want to work on improving yourself, then consign yourself to a “woe is me” attitude, and make room for guys like me.

    “Women should solely love me for who I am”.
    Oh yeah??
    Maybe they should. . . but they don’t. Just like you men in here have standards, I’m sure. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it goes both ways. Do I bother with women who are obese and have ugly faces? Absolutely not. Does that make me shallow? Yeah, I guess it does, but this is not a perfect world.

    Seems to be some limp-wristed whinny faggots congregating here. My bluntness is for your benefit, gentlemen — Become something that women want, because it’s interesting that “what women want” also benefits you as a man even if you choose to remain single despite having options. It sucks that you (we) were deceived, and you (we) have every right to despise those who fed us lies, but now we have the truth. Bitterness and rage can produce action, or produce a victim-fear-paralyzed mindset. What will you choose?

    -GXcX

  225. GeminiXcX says:

    Mark Minter says:
    @Dalrock
    “You over reacted to that statement you highlighted in a remarkably schoolmarmish sort of way.”
    “This is my last comment at Dalrock. I just cannot leave this rebuke unanswered. But I do so with data.”

    The irony of the above is not lost on me.

    Mr. Minter, there was an apparent misunderstanding. You must realize that Senor D and the rest of us have dealt with what you originally said (‘Shoot, or import’), in the form of shaming-language from feminists and white-knight pansies many times. Perhaps D-man jumped on you too quickly, but storming off in the fashion you have proposed (already done) will accomplish nothing for you, or for us. Whatever you feel you must do.

    -GXcX

  226. Boxer says:

    While I’ll never agree with IBB on the whole “wimminz should be held harmless for all the shit they pull, as they aren’t moral agents” routine, he’s right on the mark with:

    The beauty of motion pictures like The Godfather is that it demonstrates (from a historical perspective) how things worked and why they worked.

    The Godfather is an absolutely must see film for aspiring patriarchs. Pretty much any Stanley Kubrick film will have a healthy dose of red pill in it also.

    Old films are really a treasure, as are old novels, in that they can be used to reconstruct a healthy model of the future from the examples of the past. (Lukács said that, and it’s true for us).

    Boxer

  227. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    No by my definition some of the disciples were a ‘marxist’ or people who were sowing discord between classes and people…if you would read the text before.

    I’ve read all of Marx’s collected works. I even slogged through all three volumes of Capital. Your definition is totally meaningless.

    Here’s the scumbag faggot conservative who sponsored the VAWA travesty:

    http://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=339851

    He’s a conservative republican, from the reddest of all red states: Idaho. That faggot simp ruined more marriages with a stroke of his pen than all the feminists put together. You can call him many things, but he’s not a Marxist, unless we use your useless definition, which sounds suspiciously like “anyone Earl doesn’t like”. Capisce?

  228. Lyn87 says:

    I haven’t been following the dispute between Boxer and Earl very closely, but the last post caught my eye. I, too, had to read some Marx in college – not nearly as much as Brother Boxer, but more than I wanted to, surely.

    The fact is – Marx was an idiot, and a bad person to boot. Boxer is certainly correct that the term “Marxist” is overused. But I will posit that Marxism – as it is popularly (mis)understood – can be distilled down to the following:

    “Every inequity between different classes of people is the result of the “haves” taking advantage of a systemic unfairness to exploit the “have-nots.” A better system would be one in which everybody contributed and everybody prospered: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

    But Marx said a lot more than that, and he had a very specific set of “haves” and “have-nots” in mind. In his thinking, the proletariat were being exploited by the bourgeoisie. Many people reject that, but retain the underlying philosophy, only with different groups playing the roles of proletariat and bourgeoisie. For Andrea Dworkin, women are oppressed by men. For Al $harpton, blacks are oppressed by whites. For Christopher Hitchens, atheists are oppressed by Christians… Sexual Marxism, Racial Marxism, and Religious Marxism. Note that each “Marxist” group risibly assigns the role of the downtrodden proles to themselves while marking the other group as evil oppressors clinging to their ill-gotten gains. Occasionally, some member of the designated “bourgeoisie” class sides with the proles – such as when men become feminists or white knights.

    So in the generic sense, Earl may be right to call a lot of people Marxists – most people have bought into some form of “Fill-In-The-Blank Marxism.” On the other hand, Boxer is correct in his argument that “Marxism” has become a catch-all term, and catch-all terms are useless, as they have no concrete meaning.

    Point to Boxer.

  229. DeNihilist says:

    And Lyn this is one of my arguments with the term game, it now encompasses anything that is masculine, it has no real definition anymore, thus rendering the term useless.

  230. Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/12/24 | Free Northerner

  231. Opus says:

    It is the fault of the English, in that we allowed Marx to reside here and use the resources of the British Library – yet as I was once a frequentee of The Library of Congress, America seems to be no less generous when it comes to hot-headed rebel-rousers. Germans I have found really do not have a sense of humour even though some have long beards

    I haven’t read the collected works of Marx or any of them in fact but I have read a certain amount of Badiou (who gets a Boxer mention up above) and is it not the case (I thought) that the expulsion form the Garden of Eden is (in Badiouan terms) the ultimate truth-event – beneath the garden of paradise lies the desert, he might have added. How IBB has Eve kicking and screaming I don’t know for there is nothing in the text to suggest that, yet are texts as reliable as Boxer implies. I (and IBB) obviously find texts to be opaque, never quite the same from one moment to the next. I , imagine Eve complaining to Adam that the place is looking a bit shabby and why can’t she have a new home with some of those new mod-cons she has read about in The Jurassic Times colour supplement, which thanks to God ending their tenancy-at-will, she may now acquire doubtless on some form of credit. You may of course take an entirely different view; that (as they say in court) is entirely a matter for you.

  232. Exfernal says:

    @Hank Flanders
    Do your own research. I have linked these studies as an illustration, not to convince you of anything. And for Asians, there are two additional factors in play that are common among mammals. Are you able to name them on your own?

  233. Exfernal says:

    Hint: both stem from selection pressures whose intensity is related to geography. Both are subjects of allometry.

  234. Exfernal says:

    Hint: both stem from selection pressures whose intensity is related to geography. Both are subjects of allometry.

    Internet connection is bad out here today. I tried to post this twice and got “Duplicate comment detected”.

  235. Boxer says:

    Dear Opus:

    Re Badiou…

    I haven’t read the collected works of Marx or any of them in fact but I have read a certain amount of Badiou (who gets a Boxer mention up above) and is it not the case (I thought) that the expulsion form the Garden of Eden is (in Badiouan terms) the ultimate truth-event – beneath the garden of paradise lies the desert, he might have added.

    The truth-event, in my interpretation, was the creation of the story itself, which opened up a new way of being for the readers of it. The truth procedure, which as Meillassoux reminds us, is “always post-evental,” hinges upon the story, which resides in the text, rather than in our interpretation of it.

    It may be that innovating new parts of the story is a new truth event for IBB, or is perhaps a simulacrum (see Ethics for the danger here). It’s surely not an authentic part of the actual truth procedure that the rest of us are using, as we read the book.

    I don’t know for there is nothing in the text to suggest that, yet are texts as reliable as Boxer implies.

    Well, we don’t have to hold that there was an actual, historical person, named Eve, to find her story in the text meaningful. (I don’t think too many Christians believe it to be absolutely accurate, even if they do have faith that the story is meaningful).

    I do find the writing of the KJV reliable as a truth event, given that it’s the foundation of the language we’re speaking right now (along with Wm. Shakespeare’s works). The emergence of the Bible is certainly a truth event, in Badiou’s definition, in that it filled a void and allowed people to “be” in a novel way, and reading it continues to be an authentic part of a truth procedure.

    If we’re sincere in our readings of it, we need to read it without injecting our own “spin” onto the text. I guess that’s my point with IBB.

    Best, Boxer

  236. thedeti says:

    DeNihilist:

    No, you’ve convinced me. Looks are all that really matter. Confidence is only a distant second. Confidence is important, but only in a man who is physically attractive. So face it, gentlemen: Most of you are not going to marry, or you’ll have to wait until you’re 40 or beyond, because you are not physically attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of a woman. There’s nothing you can do to fix that.

  237. Boxer,

    Well, we don’t have to hold that there was an actual, historical person, named Eve, to find her story in the text meaningful. (I don’t think too many Christians believe it to be absolutely accurate, even if they do have faith that the story is meaningful).

    I believe in the literal interpretation of Eve as it is written in the KJB, fundementally. What I don’t believe (not for a second) is that she was the only woman that God (in His infinate wisdom) created. I don’t believe that because I don’t believe that Seth had incentuous sex with any of Eve’s daughters (his sisters) or his mother, to keep things going. Just because God created and Adam and Eve it didn’t mean he “stopped” and outsourced all future human being production to Eve as the sole human factory on the planet. Of course none of my speculation is written but we don’t exactly have a whole lot of references to who Eve’s sons were married to either. I really wish God would have filled in the rest here.

  238. Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/12/24

  239. DeNihilist says:

    Eggsalad Deti! and a Merry Christmas to you and yours!

  240. If we’re sincere in our readings of it, we need to read it without injecting our own “spin” onto the text. I guess that’s my point with IBB.

    Fair enough. The way I look at it, Eve was given one very simple, basic instruction, where she didn’t even have to DO anything. All she had to DO to follow God’s commandment is NOT DO something (eat of that tree.) She couldn’t even handle that.

    Sadly, I’ve known women long enough now in the 44 years I’ve been on this planet to understand that this type of full-on-rebellion to authority is standard operating proceedure of our fairer sex. Its almost as if they are compelled to rebel if for no other reason that to see what happens to them when they do. Growing up in my late teens and early twenties, I just expected this behavior of them. I could never count on a woman (even if she said she was my friend) to do…. anything that I asked her. Nothing. No responsibility or accountability. No keeping her word. No nothing. I call that a complete lack of moral agency. You can call that whatever you want. My learned behavior here is that I simply stopped asking women to do anything. That way I would not be disappointed the way so many men here in the manosphere are with the women they know.

    We can just simplify this type of thinking (from a red pill standpoint) and conclude that it is against a woman’s nature to follow orders not because they are incapable of doing so, but instead, because they don’t acknowledge anyone else’s authority to tell them what they can or can’t do. They will acknowledge that the understand but in the end, they just do what they want to do. That said, they WILL follow instructions (to the letter) if said instructions make her happy or fulfill the ‘tingle.

    Old films are really a treasure, as are old novels, in that they can be used to reconstruct a healthy model of the future from the examples of the past. (Lukács said that, and it’s true for us).

    Not just old ones. New ones too, unfortunately decreasing in number with our ADHD obsession for movies with CGI and no plot. Just last night I rented “Jersey Boys”, the 2014 docudrama-motion picture adaptation of a musical adaptation of the lives of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. It was sort of a documentary and what a troubled past these men had. Without getting into too many details, there is a scene in the movie where Frankie is confronting his daughter who ran away from her New Jersey home to New York City to do drugs and fulfill her ‘gina and butt tingle that some pimp-drug dealer was currently satisfying. He was very busy working but he knew she wanted to be a singer. He arranged everything for his little girl, the recording sessions, the songs, the person who would produce them, everything. She said she would do it and she started but part of the way in, she listened to her ‘gina and not her father and went back to the drug dealer pimp and she started doing drugs again and she ODed and died. That happened. Full rebellion, no moral agency. In the movie the character that played Frankie Valli said that he felt like maybe this was his own fault because he couldn’t “chain her up” to keep her from going out (and of course, fulfilling the ‘tingle.) Here’s the thing, it was not his fault (it was her fault) but a father would say that because he understands at the most basic level that a daughter of his is going to rebel against his authority. And he wasn’t there to prevent that from happening. And now she’s dead. And her mother probably blames the father.

    You look around today at our world Boxer and what do you see? I see father after father after father destroyed by wives who frivorced them and daughters who went out and bred bastards because of their ‘tingle. They did whatever they wanted to do because NO MAN was going to tell them how to live, not their father and CERTAINLY not their husband (particularly when there is no longer any ‘tingle.) The fact that he is giving orders in their best interest means NOTHING to them. And we have a government that endorses this full-on-rebellion with laws and financial penalties. That is where we are. The Curse of Eve manifests itself in our own laws and our very lives. You and I have to deal with it. It is so much easier on yourself just to expect shit behavior from them and try and insulate yourself from whatever damage they could do to you. I can’t tell you how many girlfriends I went through (who lived lives of full rebellion) before I finally met (and married) the first one who actually “got Genesis.”

  241. Gunner Q says:

    “What I don’t believe (not for a second) is that [Eve] was the only woman that God (in His infinate wisdom) created.”

    This is a complete denial of Christianity, IBB, that there are humans who did not rebel against God (and therefore do not need Christ). Inventing an “Original Miss Perfect” on no Biblical basis (there being no law against incest at that time) only serves the purpose of claiming women are descended from a sinless matriarch.

  242. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    Of course the sons of Adam and Eve married their sisters – there was no one else to marry. The reason incest is considered to be bad now (and how one defines incest is cultural to an extent), is because close blood relatives tend to share the same genetic abnormalities, which are then much more likely to be passed on to their children. Non-closely-related couples tend to have different abnormalities, and the bad ones tend to not manifest in their children as long as one parent has the normal gene for that trait. The accumulated detritus of generations of genetic copying errors that we all have is our genetic load. Adam and Eve were created perfect, so they had no genetic load. The first-generation offspring would have had a trivial amount, and siblings could have procreated with no significant risk.

    The fact that genetic load accumulates a little bit more in each generation is one of the reasons we may categorically reject the absurd idea that we have been evolving for billions of years – our genetic load would have killed off humanity long ago. Our genetic load is consistent with a species that had none a few thousand years ago, not a species that has been evolving for the amount of time required for the Church of Scientism to perform the sacrament of macro-evolution.

    The money quote is here:

    Time, the usual “hero of the plot” for evolutionists, only makes genetic burden worse. As time goes on, existing mutants build up to a complex equilibrium point, and new mutations are continually occurring. That is why marriage among close relatives (e.g. Cain and his sister) posed no problem early in human history, even though now, thanks to the increase in mutational load with time, such marriages are considered most unwise. Already, 1% of all children born will require some professional help with genetic problems, and that percentage doubles in first-cousin marriages.

    Genetic burden, then, becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists trying to explain the enormous adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For any conceivable favorable mutation, a species must pay the price or bear the burden of more than 1000 harmful mutations of that gene. Against such a background of “genetic decay,” any hypothetical favorable mutant in one gene would invariably be coupled to harmful changes in other genes. As mutational load increases with time, the survival of the species will be threatened as matings produce a greater percentage of offspring carrying serious genetic defects.1,3 [emphasis added]

    Please IBB, for Heaven’s sake, stop making up silly stuff to cover gaps in your understanding and then claiming scriptural justification for it.

  243. Bluedog says:

    Dalrock – normally I take the trouble to read all the comments before adding mine but, Christmas season.
    Anyway – I admit I’m puzzled by your argument here, and that this argument is coming from you. I would hold that it is a manifest reality that a bachelor tax already exists – perhaps the only coin to offer to detractors of such a claim is that it is a hidden tax. In any case it is easily revealed by anyone with Google, “Intuit Tax Calculator” and a spreadsheet.
    To put together this table which will probably render poorly on the comment I used the assumption (in all cases but one) of a single-earner, either single or of married status, making $100,000 / year, then I ran it through the paces in TaxCaster.

    Key:
    SIFJ= Single income filing jointly
    DIFJ=Double income filing jointly
    DIFS=Double income filing separately
    SI=Single income
    HoH=Head of Household
    DBaseA = Delta of Base A
    %DBaseA = Percent Delta of Base A
    DBaseB = Delta of Base B
    %DbaseB = Percent Delta of Base B

    Table:
    Case M Status F Status # Children F.Tax DBaseA %DBaseA DBaseB %DBaseB
    Base A Married SIFJ 2 9866 0 0.0% -1778 -15.3%
    Case 1 Married SIFJ 1 10656 790 8.0% -988 -8.5%
    Base B Married SIFJ 0 11644 1778 18.0% 0 0.0%
    Case 2* Married DIFJ 0 18782 8916 90.4% 7138 61.3%
    Case 3* Married DIFS 0 18789 8923 90.4% 7145 61.4%
    Case 4 HoH SI 1 15169 5303 53.8% 3525 30.3%
    Case 5 HoH SI 2 14181 4315 43.7% 2537 21.8%
    Case 6 Single SI 0 18341 8475 85.9% 6697 57.5%

    Cases of lowest practical tax on an individual (i.e.: a person of status either “bachelor” or “married”) are taken to be “base cases”. Two are identified – one with children and one without – deltas (differences) from these base cases based on less favored household cases are computed in the last four columns.

    In cases 2 and 3 what I did was assume a combined income of $200K, 100K from each partner. In each of these cases the progressive tax overcomes any affect of marriage-status/”bachelor tax” and so I would argue that those cases should be thrown out. The tax system is expressing several values. At lower levels of income – approximately below $120K per household, the tax system is saying that it values intact marriage the most. Above $120K it is saying that it values the principle of progressive taxation more.

    What you can draw from this table is that as an individual your lowest rate of federal taxation is married and additional “bonus” factors take affect when you are married and have children.

    Your highest rate of taxation is single and without children – in this case your tax rate is 57.5% greater than if you were married without children.

    Relatively favored status exists if you are a single parent raising children (HoH) – but not as much so as if you are able to hold your family intact.

    It exceeds space for a comment on Dalrock’s blog … but interesting computations can also be derived for various cases of single-parent families (i.e.: what happens to dad in divorce – and what happens to the solvency of the household that children are expected to be raised in on account of that).

  244. Rocket says:

    Just watched this again; pretty much nails it. Being attractive is #1 by far … and large component of that is being tall. Its kinda ironic if you watch it, cause Mystery is really Tall and all the guys coming to him for advice are average height or shorter. Why are they not having success with women ? Well a huge part of it is because you are short. And un-attractive. He can help fix the un-attractiveness. And help them with social skills and PUA techniques but he can never help the dudes that are short. Hmmm.

    I think that what is frustrating for huge numbers of men is that now that hypergamy has been unleashed and left uncontrolled … it changed the rules and nobody told men. And only via RP thinking can men find this out and even in Sphere most men get really bad advice. And yes some of it is deliberate; men MAKING MONEY off of other men by selling them something that doesn’t work; i.e the PUA/Seduction community. And there is some advice which has good intentions but again, pretty much doesn’t work … like WORK ON SELF IMPROVEMENT FIRST. That is good advice because men are improving their lives but does it lead to increased success with women ? In my opinion, in a small number of cases it can but for MOST men it does not and will not. See the comments up thread about the 2.7% conversion rate and fishing, So if people recommend that they work on self improvement to increase their success with women or find better quality women … that advice is likely to fail.

    Since I’m bored cause of the holidays, I’m thinking of creating a Table. If anyone else is interested they can chime in. The table would compare and contrast what traits women find attractive today vs 100 years ago. For example, the new found emphasis on looks; were looks important to women 100% ago. Sure they were but not like they are today; today its way, way more important than it used to be. Ditto for Provisioning. 100 yrs ago it was probably #1. Education, skills, career, income potential, etc. Today ? Its probably 5th or 6th on the list. Women can earn money themselves, rely on the government, for shack up with some Beta schmuck who will pay the bills. Women DON’T NEED PROVISIONING like they used to. 100 yrs ago it was probably #1: if you had or made a lot of money it opened doors with women big time; today … meh, not so much. Can being very Wealthy overcome a lot of other things ? Sure it can. But its not nearly as important to the average male as it used to be.

    So there are 2 really big changes: being tall/attractive is way more important than it used to be and being a good provider really doesn’t matter all that much. Who told men ?

  245. Lyn87 says:

    I and others have speculated that IBB is really two people because some posts from IBB directly contradict other posts made within hours. I have put side-by-side quotes to show just that several times. Now I’m not so sure, since IBB has managed to directly contradict himself in two consecutive sentences of the same paragraph in his post at December 24, 2014 at 9:42 am,

    Full rebellion, no moral agency. In the movie the character that played Frankie Valli said that he felt like maybe this was his own fault because he couldn’t “chain her up” to keep her from going out (and of course, fulfilling the ‘tingle.) Here’s the thing, it was not his fault (it was her fault)…

    Obviously, it is impossible for someone with no moral agency to be at fault for their moral failures.

  246. Bluedog says:

    It’s funny to be away for awhile and then come back and people are still wrangling over IBB.

    So:
    Theory A: IBB is unwell, in which case you are allowing your hairs to be raised by someone who is unwell. Not good for you, or the unwell.
    Theory B: IBB is a troll (or two trolls), in which case IBB is definitely enjoying himself (or her).
    Theory C: IBB is a truly unintelligent individual, in which case the joke is on everyone who continues to engage and discuss.

    If Theory A – you need to stop paying attention to IBB, or at least stop taking him seriously.
    If Theory B – I guess that’s ok as long as you are enjoying the tit-for-tat – the trouble is that such a troll, by suggesting women have no moral agency, makes laughingstocks and fools of anyone he/she draws in. i.e.: if I were a troll and I wished to expose the retrograde, medieval moral thinking that I would expect of denizens of an anti-feminist blog – even though I know women have all the moral agency men have, I might say this over and over again just to draw out the cockroaches.
    This is a real weakness of Dalrock’s blog because while Dalrock is not like that and nor are most readers, such folks will inevitably be drawn here. You should guard against that weakness.
    If Theory C – … well, that is totally possible. If IBB doesn’t understand that women have moral agency after having this explained to him and his puerile statements refuted over and over and over again ad infinitum, … well he/she is truly too stupid to merit arguing with and anyone who so argues is a fool for doing so.

    Parsimonious conclusion: it is advised that you stop worrying about IBB. Don’t ban him, just ignore him and add a comment from time to time that he is tolerated but everyone thinks he’s an idiot.

  247. deti says:

    Rocket:

    The only thing I’d add is to qualify “attractive” as per men. This doesn’t mean “confident” or “dominant”. It means “hot”. Like having a symmetrical face with proportional features and a strong jaw line, a full head of hair, being trim, and having muscular definition.

    Any facial deformities? Out. Bald? Out. Balding? Out. Big nose? Out. Weak chin? Out. Protruding ears? Out. Paunchy? Out. Fat? Out. You better have a BMI proportional to your height and 5% body fat or less, and you better have abs that can cut diamond, or you’re not “Hot”, and therefore you’re OUT.

    DeNihilist said it himself – the reason for his successes with women is because of his looks. So if you don’t have looks, you’re just screwed and you might as well give up.

    I think most of you men should just accept that your physical appearances are such that you have no hope in this SMP of attracting or keeping the interest of a reasonably attractive woman of your comparable SMV, and you probably cannot improve enough to attract a woman of even modest or comparable SMV. Life isn’t fair, and you all should just accept that now.

    Everything DeNihlist is prattling on about – Toastmasters, sports leagues — will help a man with self-improvement. It might make him confident and dominant, might help him get in shape. It will get him a job, probably, and make him self-sufficient. But it’s been pretty well established that a man can be quite confident and dominant among people; and competent (even proficient) in his profession, but none of that skill set translates to success with women. None of this will help him with intersexual relationships. It will not get him a woman of comparable SMV to himself. He will certainly not get a sex partner or three. Being a pickup artist is out of the question.

    It’s simply laughable that the man with the cranial deformity is running day game, approaching women in broad daylight talking about how he thinks they’re beautiful, asking for their numbers, attempting kiss closes. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. He comes off like a creep at best; a potential criminal at worst. It’s hopeless for him. He has no hope –NONE—of attracting even a woman of his comparable SMV, which is pretty damn low. This is a man who should be trying to meet women in a Catholic church, or having his parents help him, not standing outside a café leering at and chatting up horrified women. It’s beyond ludicrous.

    So by all means. Go join Toastmasters, go play some softball, go make some money, and spend it on yourselves. But give up on the silly notion of a girlfriend, or a wife, or children. That’s not going to happen for most of you, unless you are “hot”.

    And I’m done on this thread.

  248. No, you’ve convinced me. Looks are all that really matter. Confidence is only a distant second. Confidence is important, but only in a man who is physically attractive. So face it, gentlemen: Most of you are not going to marry, or you’ll have to wait until you’re 40 or beyond, because you are not physically attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of a woman. There’s nothing you can do to fix that. — deti

    Right. We can shut down all the Game blogs, since they’re just peddling a lie to hopeless, ugly men (I’m sure Dalrock is getting rich off this somehow). And that stretch in my mid-30s, when I got more attention from women in one year than in the entire previous 30, despite being 50+ pounds fatter, going bald, and broke — I guess that must have been a dream, because it couldn’t have happened for real. Or I must be lying about that for nefarious purposes of my own.

    So we might as well just shut it all down, and accept our fate as eunuchs and beta orbiters for women who cluster around the tall, handsome men. That’s how it’s always been in the past, right? I thought I remembered my grandfather’s generation being one of mostly ordinary-looking, quietly assertive men who nonetheless got wives and kept them, but that must have been a dream too.

    This will certainly save me time on blog reading and commenting!

  249. deti says:

    Well, yes, Cail. It’s mostly tongue in cheek, except for the pathetic ugly guy trying to run daygame. But I am starting to come around to the notion that all the confidence and dominance in the world will not overcome a physically unappealing exterior, or even an average exterior. The ordinary looking men of your granddad’s generation would have a much, much more difficult time of it now. Just ask DeNihilist.

  250. Rocket says:

    Rocket’s Quick and Dirty Female Attraction Trait Table

    100 Yrs Ago Today’s
    Trait weighting weighting Comments
    Provisioning 40 20 Education, career, income, income potential, actual
    material goods – money, nice car, home
    Age 10 0 Sugar baby/Cougars are A-OK. Most middle aged
    women who are NOT FAT refuse to date men age
    appropriate for them and demand men 5-10 yrs younger.
    Religion 20 10 Probably not popular here, but religion does not rank
    very important for most people anymore.
    Family Background 15 5
    Culture/Language 10 5
    Race 20 10
    Integrity 10 -10 Nice guys finish last; liars, cheaters, and criminals to the
    front of the line.
    Health 20 10 Obesity epidemic !!
    Attractiveness 10 40 With Hypergamy unleashed ALL WOMEN gravitate
    towards the same men: Those with Alpha Male traits:
    Tall, strong, good hair, teeth, skin, smells good, dresses
    well, body language, posture, confidence
    Height 5 20 100 yrs ago as long as you were as tall as or taller than
    a woman you had a good chance. Today ? A guy must
    be at least 5 inches taller than the girl OR over 6 ft
    Clothes/appearance 5 20 See attractiveness. A good example is “Smell”. 100yrs
    ago a man could come in from the barn and Literally
    smell like shit and still have a good wife.
    Social Skills 5 40 This is a huge change that most are not aware of. Most
    “male dominated careers” focus on work and individual
    performance … NOT on social skills. Think Engineering,
    computers, agriculture, mining, ranching, construction,
    etc. How important is having “good social skills” to any
    of these ? The skills that make you a good provider now
    make you a LOSER with women. WHO TOLD MEN ?

    I spent a total of about hour on this and pulled this out of my ass. My opinions only.

  251. Rocket says:

    Dang, the format got all messed up !!! Sorry folks. Its an excel Table.

    Col1: Trait
    Col2: weighting 100 yrs ago
    Col3: weighting today
    Last column is options: general comment at the trait and what’s changed.

  252. The ordinary looking men of your granddad’s generation would have a much, much more difficult time of it now.

    Oh, no doubt. But that’s because women are screwed up and have twisted expectations, and because the laws and mores no longer support men being men, not because those men suddenly aren’t good-looking enough. And while it’s true that 20% of the men are getting most of the women, I’m not seeing that that 20% is the best-looking guys, necessarily. Some of them are, but I’ve also seen guys in that 20% who were short, or funny-looking, or fat, but they had an attitude that drew women. Looks matter, especially in this age when the homosexual-driven media has conditioned women to expect men to have 5% body fat and a waxed chest, but attitude is still the most important factor and can overcome a great deal of middling looks. And looks may matter primarily because the guy whose looks are frequently admired is more likely to approach women with confidence.

    But what I’m really responding to is the drive-by game deniers (not deNihilist, who has reasonable concerns, but the guy with the Dune name whom I haven’t seen here before) who don’t want to discuss it, but just want to tell us we’re hopeless losers and should go kill ourselves because we’re not as gifted as they are.

    I don’t believe in astrology, and I think people who do are wasting their time and being foolish (and possibly flirting with evil). And yet I don’t think I’ve ever, even once, sought out an astrology blog and spammed it with that opinion. So I’m bemused by people who do that here about game. I can only assume that they do it because our discussion threatens them somehow.

  253. Lyn87 says:

    To degrees that are far beyond what one would expect of chance…

    People of Asian ancestry dominate diving.
    People of Northern European ancestry dominate power lifting.
    People of Western African ancestry dominate sprinting.
    People of Eastern African ancestry dominate long-distance running.
    People of Northern African ancestry dominate middle-distance running.

    So why is it any surprise that tall men with naturally symmetrical facial features, full heads of hair, straight white teeth, strong jawlines, and heavy musculature would have an easier time creating favorable impressions on women than men who don’t naturally possess those traits?

    Nobody, including DeNihilist, is saying that the 80% of men who women think of as initially unattractive are screwed – just that it’s harder for them, and they may not ever achieve the same degree of success. I’m a smallish half-breed who is, I think, about average looking. I could practice any of the above sports until I get better at them, maybe even reasonably good (at least when I was younger), but being world-class in any of those sports was never going to happen. Fortunately, the number of women is roughly equal to the number of men, so one doesn’t have to be a world-class specimen of manhood to pair off with a woman… pretty good is generally achievable, and pretty good is good enough to walk away with something.

    That leaves open the question of what kind of “prize” one can claim, which is where Deti makes his most potent point. Example: I was never in contention for a spot on the Olympic Team (or even an invitation to the state finals), but I won a ribbon or three in high school track and field. Likewise, in the mating market, pretty good isn’t going to “win” you a loyal genius supermodel virgin heiress, of course. That’s Olympic Gold material, there, and not many people get those. It’s up to each of us to decide if what he can get is worth what it will (and may) cost him. And there are some good deals in the bargain bin – not every high-quality girl knows her MMV – and a “pretty good” guy with the balls to approach her may walk away with a real prize.

    In some ways I had a lot going for me when I was single and looking. In other ways I got some major bad breaks, and I did very well. Some of that was luck, but a lot of it was influenced by good decisions and discipline as well… things that were under my control (even if I stumbled onto some of them by accident in my pre-red-pill days). If, God forbid, I found myself single again, I have no delusions about being able to lock down a woman like my wife was the day we met. Could I find someone willing to marry me? Certainly. Could I do well enough to secure a woman who I would want in return? I like to think so, but I’ve been out of the game far too long to say for sure.

    One thing is for sure, though. If I found myself single and looking at this point of my life, I would go on a months-long crash-course of self-betterment to improve my odds. I couldn’t turn myself into Brad Pitt, or even myself from 25 years ago, but I could become a better catch than I am now. One of the great things about being in a good marriage is that you don’t have to work at “preening” (for lack of a better word) all the time. My wife and I keep ourselves in pretty good shape, but neither of us puts in the absurd level of effort we would have to put in if we were in direct competition in the dating market. The level of fitness I maintain would make it relatively easy for me to ramp up to “pretty d@mn good” in an age-appropriate way – the question I would have to answer is whether any of the women the “Improved Lyn87” could get would be worth the cost and risk.

    I hope I never have to find out.

  254. Exfernal says:

    Two factors I had in mind were:
    – energy expenditures for body heat loss (Bergmann’s rule and Allen’s rule);
    – the degree of fragmentation of resource-rich environments and different winning strategies for utilizing these resources (Foster’s rule).
    Both are mainly relics from the past.

  255. Lyn87,

    Obviously, it is impossible for someone with no moral agency to be at fault for their moral failures.

    Yes Lyn, specifically when someone who IS a moral agent instructs their subordinate on what they should do, and their subordinate does otherwise (like in the case I stipulated above.) Then it IS their fault.

  256. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    That is all very well and, of course, a fiction (of whatever sort) might thus be a truth event. After writing my comment it occurred to me that I might have called in aid, Derrida; words being different from things. I always had this trouble: we know that Eve left the garden but we don’t know whether she left willingly, reluctantly or in what manner; the author of Genesis failed to say – perhaps he thought it unimportant or of little interest or perhaps he assumed we would guess and guess correctly. Now the way I look at it: we can assign probabilities to how she left from 0 being most unlikely to 1 which is most probable. We all of course assign different truth values and IBB’s version might well have been exactly the right one. Now, as to your preference for the ultimate truth event being Creation, that is all well and good (assuming you think there was a creation) but from the point of failed and frail humanity the expulsion from Utopia seems to me to be the more pressing and immediate consideration. I am with the Atomists myself but what would I know and disagreeing with the likes of Plato and Aristotle always makes one look, if not stupid, at least somewhat arrogant; still Ockham lent me his razor and thus was my view. Perhaps one should go all Zizek at this point and say ‘The crucial point to notice here is..’ but I don’t know what that point might be, unless it be to suggest that Eve’s sin was in fact her means of ensuring that she and Adam were turned into non-immortals – it’s what she wanted all along.

    I haven’t read Meillassoux; in fact never heard of him which is odd as I thought I was familiar with all the French philosophers, at least by name.

  257. P Ray says:

    Merry Christmas, everyone!
    Have a gift:
    MAP: Divorce Rates Around The World
    Pamela Engel
    Law & Order

    May. 25, 2014, 8:58 PM
    http://www.businessinsider.com/map-divorce-rates-around-the-world-2014-5
    (Looks like the world really wants to create more bachelors). Oh well, women can pay for their houses themselves, lol.

  258. Dave says:

    Ditto for Provisioning. 100 yrs ago it was probably #1. Education, skills, career, income potential, etc. Today ? Its probably 5th or 6th on the list. Women can earn money themselves, rely on the government, for shack up with some Beta schmuck who will pay the bills.

    Really? I don’t know the demographics of women you’re referring to, but most women find masculinity and game irresistible. Why do you think white women would secretly sleep with black slaves in those days? Was it because they found black men more attractive? I don’t think so. It was the masculinity. Those male slaves were bathing in a sea of testosterone, though they might appear deformed from years of oppression by their masters.
    When a thoroughly masculine man with game also has money, models will fall for him like flies, no matter how “ugly” he looks. . Or how old he looks.

  259. Rocket says:

    Dave, not to be condescending but I think you unknowingly proved my point. What I call being Attractive you call being Masculine and yes being Masculine is attractive to women; always has been. As having money or being able to be a provider always has been as well.

    So from your example, 100yrs ago the white woman may have had sex with a slave but she did not marry the slave. Assuming she could marry a slave, he was not in an economic position to take care of her financially. So she married a Provider who could take care of her and whatever family resulted; children. Provisioning was a higher concern. She was attracted to both but being a Provider was more important.

    In today’s world, where provision matters far, far less … that same women would in fact marry the Slave. Of course that is being hypothetical cause there arent’s slaves any more. But you get the point. The woman would go to the male she finds the most Attractive, the Masculine guy.

    In prior times Provisioning was more important, in today’s world Attractiveness is more important. That was the point I was trying to make and you just backed that up.

  260. Lyn87 says:

    TFH @ December 24, 2014 at 11:45 am,

    No argument from me on that score. It sounds you were like my fellow-Lieutenant Dave I mentioned up-thread. I’ve known some players in my day, but this was a step beyond anything I’d ever seen – attractive young women were literally lining up to ask him to dance while ignoring the rest of us. Dave didn’t appear to be any kind of a player: the fact is that I didn’t know him all that well, but even with good-looking coeds throwing themselves at him one after another, he didn’t pick two and run off to a local motel for a three-way. Whether that was because he wasn’t in the mood, or wasn’t looking for female companionship right then, or just didn’t realize it was an option is something I’ll never know.

    By the same token, I had a good friend in high school named Paul. He was tall, relatively popular, and he played on the basketball team. He and I were on an extended field trip and there was a very attractive girl on the same trip. She was nuts for Paul, and was constantly sending a barrage of IOI’s his way, and he had no idea. He wasn’t interested in her (I have no idea why – she was gorgeous and very interested), but I wanted her something fierce. I had the balls to ask her out three times before we graduated, and three times she shot me down. Knowing what I know now about attraction triggers, my “game” toward her was WAY better than Paul’s, but she wanted the tall, good-looking guy and didn’t want anything to do with the confident-yet-scrawny guy with acne, overbite, and a touch of Tourette Syndrome.

    But… a mere two years later I was at a frat party of an Ivy League school I was visiting, and I easily picked up a pretty young pre-law major for an evening of dance-floor grinding and sucking face. I didn’t take her to her dorm to shag her brains out (I was celibate before I got married), but I certainly could have. That was a rare event for me – but a guy who looks like Dave can have that any time he wants. So I’m not saying that height and looks are the be-all-and-end all of attraction, but they certainly help.

    It’s like the difference between your father teaching you how to hit a baseball and being in an actual game. You father is initially going to throw slow pitches right through the middle of the strike zone: he wants you to hit the ball. An opposing pitcher will do everything he can to get you to not hit the ball. Sure, most guys get a few hits from time to time, but to be tall and good-looking means the “dating pitches” usually come slow, straight, and right across the middle of the plate. Everybody hits a few either way, and any guy can improve his batting average with work, but not everyone is going to be Babe Ruth, and it’s a lot easier to hit like Babe Ruth if the opposing pitcher pitches like your Dad did when you were a kid.

  261. American says:

    … and we wouldn’t pay it anyways. The government can’t afford to more than double the number of people presently incarcerated with millions of males who refuse to pay a totalitarian “bachelor tax.” They can go pound sand. We would resist such a measure to our dying breath.

  262. American says:

    I would also add that I saw a funny post from a young man that said, despite being completely 100% heterosexual, him and his friends would just “marry bros” meaning marry each other to avoid the bachelor tax and then continue living their lives as they always have engaging in casual sex with women using strict birth control to avoid children. This very much lends credence to the old adage, “bros before hos.”

  263. I always had this trouble: we know that Eve left the garden but we don’t know whether she left willingly, reluctantly or in what manner; the author of Genesis failed to say – perhaps he thought it unimportant or of little interest or perhaps he assumed we would guess and guess correctly. Now the way I look at it: we can assign probabilities to how she left from 0 being most unlikely to 1 which is most probable. We all of course assign different truth values and IBB’s version might well have been exactly the right one.

    Thank you Opus.

    See the thing is, we all know what women are like. It is in that context where I could see Adam forcing Eve out of the garden against her will. But she went because she was going to submit to him because in Genesis, God gave her ‘gina a tingle.

    We all know what kind of women we want. We want to marry a submissive wife who does everything we tell her to do. God (in His infinate wisdom) designed women to be that way in Eve’s image. As SSM has said repeatedly on her blog (when she still had a blog) about women in general she is going to submit. The question is, who is she submitting to if it is not her husband? For Adam it was easy. Eve had desire for her husband since he was the only possible husband she could find. It didn’t matter at all how hypergamous Eve was, she didn’t really have any other options. She couldn’t just frivorce him and get new husband.

    For men today it is not so easy. Yes she is still going to submit (as that is how God designed her) but now she will only submit to whomever gives her butt and ‘gina tingles. The question men who want a submissive wife should be asking, how can I be SURE that I will always make her butt and ‘gina tingle for me? Well for a few thousand years, that problem was solved with men marrying only virgins (she had no other cock to compare him to and whoever breaks the hymen, gets the forever ‘gina tingle, gets the “pair bond.”)

    Explaining these concepts of “pair bonding” and the tingles and submission and all the like are basically IMPOSSIBLE conversations to be had in a Catholic Pre-Cana class or any kind of pre-marriage counseling sessions (to prevent a young couple from making a terrible mistake) because the narrative has to fit within feminist thinking. And the above three paragraphs are completely unreadable for any true-blue-pill feminist. To a feminst there IS no “submission” to her husband (or to ANY man really.) And no feminist is going to admit what we all here already know is true because we took the red pill, YES WIFE you WILL submit, it just might not be TO ME. You will submit to someone (or something, perhaps government?) whatever makes your ‘gina tingle. But I (your husband) need to know definatively what makes you submit so I can use that to save our marriage and keep me from being frivorced. And I’m sorry guys, I don’t think GAME is it.

  264. Gunner Q says:

    I can’t agree that height and looks do much for a guy these days, based on my personal experience. Is it possible women no longer value attractiveness in a boyfriend because they can have sex with attractive men at will? The only reason for a total Tinder-slut to have any kind of ongoing relationship is drama, dominance & status.

    An interesting consequence of women mixing with PUAs.

    Opus @ 11:56 am:
    “we know that Eve left the garden but we don’t know whether she left willingly, reluctantly or in what manner”

    We do know. Eve disobeyed God. She even quoted God’s command to the serpent before choosing to disobey. The fact that both of them then realized they were naked is proof they both had guilty consciences. Then she was kicked out of Eden for the same reason as Adam. I don’t see what’s hard about this, other than that it blows up the “women have no moral agency” argument.

  265. Opus says:

    @Lyn87

    There is or may be the exception but that only goes to prove the rule that if you are tall, (genuinely) good-looking and not cursed with a personality that scares women away [Mr Angry] women will throw themselves at you. All the players I have ever seen, different in their own ways, fitted the model. Looks + muscles is what you need. There are, of course, always a few who brag of their success with women but who are suspected of being at the very least Walter Mitty and more likely lie-ing to pull the wool over your eyes. You may see them with girls on their arm, but they are only Trophy-chicks and nothing ever happens as they tend to see the guy as a kindly uncle. Women just don’t trust me – no idea why, but they trust those guys which is why they allow him to put his arms around their shoulders to give the impression, but that is as far as it goes.These tend to be short , fat, ugly men and have to use a different and pro-active approach, and it is noticeable that a lot of stand-up comedians are or at least used to fit that description – make a woman laugh or amuse her in some way; what they lacked in looks they made up for in wit and more often that male-perfume known as money – men like Bernie Ecclestone or Mickey Rooney. They. nevertheless had to try very hard, rather as Krauser does. So, to my mind, Deti’s rule holds: don’t be unattractive and short fat ugly men are by definition unattractive – not perhaps in the long run, but we are not talking, marriage here, but pick-up for a ONS. Women simply do not throw fitness tests at hot guys, why should they, they know what they want – can’t help themselves. That excellent video up above (not the cringe-worthy one) makes it clear – it rings true to me – and say what you like about black guys (the one who so so eloquently provided the narration – sounded British to me) – they do seem to have their finger on the pulse of what attracts women.

    Can I say I was getting a lot of arm punching last night, but I am not interested, (I am out of her league) so I just ignore it.

  266. Hank Flanders says:

    Exfernal,

    Do your own research. I have linked these studies as an illustration, not to convince you of anything. And for Asians, there are two additional factors in play that are common among mammals. Are you able to name them on your own?

    Yeah, I can do my own research, so I though I’d start with some research you provided.

    Anyway, no, I don’t know what the two additional factors are.

  267. Another example of how it’s all about looks and game is useless: When I was first in college, I was a fairly good-looking guy (though I didn’t know it at the time). I happened to live in the same building as the football players, and people occasionally asked if I was on the team, so I was in pretty good shape. People sometimes remarked that I looked like a popular actor of the time (no, not Danny Devito). In retrospect, I can see that girls were interested in me. I was shy, but I wasn’t a geek about it. I had kind of a “strong silent” thing going that made me seem a lot more confident than I was, so when I worked up the courage to ask a girl, I could get a first date if a girl didn’t already know me too well.

    But I couldn’t get a second date. Mostly what I got from girls after the first date was contempt and pity. Why? Because I had no game. In fact, having no game with good looks is almost like having negative game, because the girl feels like she was tricked somehow. She expected the inside to match the outside (the tingles the outside gave her), so when I was a sappy beta instead, she’d react strongly the other way. Incongruence is a tingle killer.

    Obviously it’d be nice to have all the LAMPS attributes, but looks are nowhere near enough by themselves, and you can do a lot without them.

  268. Opus says:

    What’s a second date? No, I don’t understand that at all.

  269. DeNihilist says:

    Lyn, I think a good metaphor for looks/game is Steve Nash from the NBA. He’s 6’2″ so is considered to be on the small size. What he did though, was bring the art of the set up back to the NBA by being an amazing passer and seeing the whole floor. He won the MVP of the league 2 years straight. Led in assists for many years, has one of the highest free throw averages ever, yet has never been on a championship team.

    My argument is that looks open the door, then YOU have to do something once you get inside. So if you have looks AND confidence, you are golden if you want to bang many women, have a strong marriage, prosper in the job market, etc.

    If your looks are average, then you better have confidence if you want any of the above.

    In the end, confidence is King, but looks make it a whole lot easier to at least approach, or as happened to your Army pal Glen, get approached.

    Finally to Deti, for the last time, I do not say that looks are all that matters (and of course you know this), read the above and GROCK it! But if you do not have those door opener looks, then stop the girly drama and work on the masculine traits! And if you can get to a level of confidence, and your goal is to bang a lot of women, then you can be like Krauser and single mindedly approach thousands of women. There will always be someone interested in an overly aggressive guy. If your goal is marriage and a family, again, confidence will allow you to process as many women as it takes to find some women who are worthy wives.

    So for the normal looking guys, the question is what to do to be more attractive to women? I state if you want to bang sluts, get into game techniques. If you want to find a mate or an LTR, Toastmasters, sports clubs, etc, etc, etc.

    Life was never intended to be easy Deti, God in His wiseness creates diffulties, cuz that is the only way to grow up!

  270. Exfernal says:

    @Hank Flanders
    The answer is 13l comments above yours.

  271. Dimitri says:

    I think the guys who live and die by game are in straight up denial when they say looks aren’t a BIG proponent of it, and that whole ‘oh just work on your attitude’ reeks of feminist ‘oh you go grrrrrl you’re perfect just as you are’.

    At the end of the day though I’m always going to say money is the biggest difference maker of them, women do want that security but they want a luxurious security, like an absolute minimum six figure earning guy. I don’t give a shit how much game you have, when Mr. Ferrari shows up and says to your girl ‘I’m going to take care of you’ she will be off before you’ve even blinked, and there won’t be a damn thing you can do.

    I agree with certain game principles but I think it can all be boiled down to ‘don’t be such a spineless jackass’ when interacting with women and don’t be an idiot. Working out, changing your style, getting a new haircut etc will definitely improve your chances but this is all like toppings on a sundae. They are nice to have for sure, but the ice cream itself is the most important part.

    Having game and knowing social rules between the sexes is something any man should have basic knowledge of, but I despise the way PUA’s try and convince hapless guys their world will be changed forever and provide false hope to a lot of guys looking for an answer.

    You want to bang that hot skank more than once every blue moon? You need to make ‘fuck you’ money aka seven figures plus and move yourself into that top 10%, or become a drug dealer or something and get a bunch of stupid tattoos. Whatever vogue magazine is telling the ladies is hawwwt.

    Long term I have no idea, it seems like sticking your hand in a fountain full of piranhas in order to pick up a quarter.

  272. Kari Hurtta says:

    How often this kind tax is used?

    Wikipedia tells that there was bachelor / spinster tax on Finland between 1935 – 1975.

  273. A.B Prosper says:

    I know that PUA stuff is a big part of this board but honestly, the best thing we could do for men, baring making a drug that negates libido safely without side effects or stigma would be to teach them sublimation and meditation instead of or at least along with pick up artistry. PUA work plays into women’s hands by giving them the illusion of what they want whereas MGTOW or any other alternative shifts power back to men.

    Also if we are changing the male/female dynamic measuring manliness by how much tail they get is just repeating the old script. I don’t know what to replace it with though.

    As for a bachelor tax, with male unemployment and underemployment so high, its would be pretty hard to make useful . Take California, only around 25% of the population of the whole state that is White Men, the entire taxable White Male population of this state is maybe 15% and of those quite a few are on the brink of “drop 5 hours a week and make it up in benefits” So maybe 10% of the guys have anything to tax. Its a little better at the Federal level but the only people with real money are seniors or already married. With White Men of taxable age being maybe 30% of the population and half of them poor or unavailable , you have a small pool or manipulate even if you federalize it.

    And yes non White males mostly Asian with money are out there, they don’t have as much money in general to tax and the Democrats who would be the party most likely to endorse an idea like this don’t want to lose those votes. Well off non Whites in the private sector aren’t a locked in vote

    Also its even dawning on the blind idiot flute players of Azatoth that make up the people in charge that it takes money to start families and if you tax it, they won’t be there. Higher taxes plus student loans means less families. Forging student loans or paying the whole thing would help if you don’t care about the waste and moral hazard but the policy issues make it a no sell

    As for going full Sweden, we can’t. The military has to be paid for and between it , debt and old age pensions, that’s nearly every penny we take in .

  274. Anon S says:

    Men don’t have money, as others have pointed out. Single women far out earn single men in every city, where most people live. And it doesn’t matter if there is a wage gap for 50+ year old men and women, the ones that would be getting married are in their 20s, and to a lesser extent 30s.

    Add in misandric divorce laws and promiscuous behavior, and the only men that can be convinced to marry are the double digit IQ men that can actually be shamed, whom the women don’t want anyway because their incomes are low.

    If they really want a tax, they have to tax single women then. Tax them so hard that they’d rather get married, which is what the tax was used for when men made more. But I don’t see that happening in our feminist nation. They will tax men only, even though it would be un-Constitutional. Any gender neutral tax would smack females since they make more money.

  275. Pingback: Bizarre Things SJWs Say « Conservativenuke's Weblog

  276. Robert What? says:

    There is one other “solution” for our elites: bring back actual slavery for unmarried men. I don’t mean the unofficial slavery that modern American marriage has become for men. I mean real, official, State sanctioned slavery. Bull whips and all. You don’t marry? You do hard labor for the State until you do. You marry and don’t produce enough? Back to the work camp. Of course they’ll need to finesse the Thirteenth Amendment. But that should be easily doable. Just look at the mental gymnastics John Roberts did over ObamaCare

  277. Slavery will make a come back and women will be the ones calling for it in heaps and spades.

    In individual cases they already do.

  278. Yaya says:

    What about gay men who won’t marry a women anyway ?

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