Rabble rousers

The Daily Mail has a new article by Peter Lloyd plugging his  book Stand by Your Manhood, and also referencing Dr. Helen’s Men on Strike.

Why men refuse to marry: Women complain chaps today won’t settle down. Sorry, ladies, but it’s all your fault, argues a wickedly provocative new book…

Lloyd goes through the string of problems with our modern family courts, an institution which exists in order to break apart families.  He identifies the root of the issue as a fear of ever holding single mothers accountable:

…everyone is petrified of inadvertently apportioning blame to single mothers, even though it’s not about them. Only recently, in a bid to woo the female vote, David Cameron said deadbeat dads ‘should be looked at like drink drivers’, yet said nothing about the mothers who deliberately steer them off the road.

As I’ve written previously, I don’t believe we are seeing a marriage strike;  I believe we are seeing something more ominous.  Still, the problems with the insane family courts and our social contempt for husbands and fathers are all too real, and it is clear that marriage delaying women are starting to become concerned.  This is a real problem for proponents of the status quo, because as women become more concerned the problems which have been swept under the rug for decades will now be discussed in the open.

The whole system is built on denial, with feminists and traditional conservatives standing in agreement that the only problem is weak men screwing feminism up.  But the more that this is discussed in the media, the greater the likelihood that we could start to see men striking, at least on the margins.  For this reason even attempts to improve the system are likely to make it harder for women to find husbands, at least initially.

All of the momentum which to date has propped up the system is pent up and will one day swing the other way.  When our society started changing the meaning of marriage nearly all women married in their late teens and very early twenties.  Now large numbers of women are delaying marriage to their late twenties and early thirties and more and more women are finding it impossible to jump into marriage at the last minute.  The problem for marriage delaying women is that they now approach marriage not in the power position in the SMP, but at an age when men are in the power position.  A panic at this stage would fundamentally shift the dynamics of the marriage marketplace.

This entry was posted in Daily Mail, Denial, Dr. Helen, Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Marriage Strike, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

320 Responses to Rabble rousers

  1. Pingback: Rabble rousers | Manosphere.com

  2. happy sunday dalrockasz!
    Some math mathzematagicizlzozozozozo:
    70% of men are not married = 30% of men are married
    50% of marriages end in divorce = 15% of married men left
    AT LEAST 50% of still married men tell they don’t divorce just because “it’s cheaper” = no more than 7% of men are happily married.
    Conclusion: playing roulette, black/red or pair/despair, is much better than marry. Even Russian roulette is better.
    Logic and math are patriarchal tools meant to oppress women. lzozolzzolozoz🙂

  3. JDG says:

    Logic and math are patriarchal tools meant to oppress women. lzozolzzolozoz

    This is going in my Blog Comments Worth Remembering list. If I ever make a top ten list it will probably make that one too.

  4. Pingback: Rabble rousers | Neoreactive

  5. Cane Caldo says:

    Still, the problems with the insane family courts and our social contempt for husbands and fathers are all too real, and it is clear that marriage delaying women are starting to become concerned. This is a real problem for proponents of the status quo, because as women become more concerned the problems which have been swept under the rug for decades will now be discussed in the open.

    To my mind the question of “What’s Next?” is still very open, and the answers to the problems could be less than inspiring. Despite the cheering-on of demise that is often written in the ‘Sphere, we ought to beware the mindset that people will face the truth once they have to discuss the problems in the open; that they will be forced to, dammit! I think it unlikely. As with the USSR’s downfall there will be no apology; no recognition that communism was wrong, but only that this particular incarnation failed.

    The situation could just go wrong in a new direction. It should be amazing that there wasn’t a nuclear incident in the 90s.

  6. Good post Dalrock. Women waiting until their late 20’s and 30’s to marry simply contributes to keeping the fertility rate suppressed; which was already below replacement for most advanced countries due to the economic costs of raising children. Marriage simply won’t recover likely until the whole system crashes. These enabling leaders are simply embracing extinction for their countries by destabilizing their male populace.

  7. Brookes says:

    It’s good that mainstream media outlets are starting to notice that family courts allow evil women to suck the life out of their husbands and that that creates disincentives for men to marry. But it’s kind of frustrating that the majority of people out there still have their heads firmly up their asses when it comes to the issue of men opting out of marriage. Because there is so much more to the problems of marriage in 2015 than corrupt family courts. The fact that so-called conservatives haven’t caught on to those problems tells me that we’re doomed.

  8. sestamibi says:

    Lloyd had me until he apologized with the caveat that he wasn’t trying to roll back feminism.

    No. Feminism must be smashed utterly, and the patriarchy must be restored. Either men rule or women rule, and when women rule it will get extremely ugly for men.

  9. desiderian says:

    “when women rule it will get extremely ugly for men.”

    All but a few. Also most women.

  10. theasdgamer says:

    Lloyd had me until he apologized with the caveat that he wasn’t trying to roll back feminism.

    He needed to do this for his camel’s nose strategy.

  11. The more I read about MGTOW, the tighter I hold my husband. It makes me more thankful for him, and especially thankful that we married young.
    I don’t know if that’s the right response, but it is my response, nonetheless.

  12. Spike says:

    Good news that a mainstream media outlet, however trashy and misandrist (they publish articles by the joyless harridan, Beatrix Campbell), is willing to say that the Family Court, and women’s actions, are evil.
    The problem now is NAWALT, and men must reply with statistics:
    “It is true that ‘Not All Women Are Like That’. The trouble is, a statistically significant number of them are, to make relationships with them, especially marriage, dangerous for men”.

  13. S. Chan says:

    The claims about the reason for the decline in marriage rates are demonstrably wrong. Among people with a college education, marriage rates are holding up, perhaps even slightly increasing. The decrease in marriage rates is only among people without college education.

    There is a book about this: Our Kids by Robert Putnam. It was published a few months ago, and has been widely and positively reviewed.

    The reason for the decline among non-college-graduates does not seem to be agreed upon. My suspicion is that hypergamy has something to do with it. Specifically, I suspect that non-graduate women are declining to marry non-graduate men. Graduate men, however, rarely want to marry non-graduate women. Hence non-graduate women remain single.

    In the past, non-graduate women had no choice: they had to get married, in order to get provisioned. Nowadays, the state provides for them.

  14. They don’t need men, this is all good.

    It is a marriage strike and it’s only the beginning. Things really get fun from here on out.

    When someone says I want to rollback feminism to 1950, I say “No, I want to roll it back to the 1500s!”. Let those damn wimmenz eat shit covered cat droppings!

  15. earl says:

    ‘The whole system is built on denial, with feminists and traditional conservatives standing in agreement that the only problem is weak men screwing feminism up.’

    Ah yes…feminism is like socialism on the sexual scale. Feminism would work if strong men were involved…socialism would work if there is more money put into it.

    So much for reality.

  16. @S.Chan
    “My suspicion is that hypergamy has something to do with it. ”

    It certainly is a factor but you won’t hear that discussed in the mainstream media. Both Republicans and Democrats have for decades supported “No Job Left Behind”economic policies that mainly affect male breadwinners. The hypocrisy of American politicians has no limits; they will ‘rail on socialism’ yet quickly bend over and drop their pants for Asian Communists, Oligarchs, and Islamists. Combine the lack of economic opportunity with utter feminist hostility for males in higher education and the legal system; it is absolutely no surprise there is a shrinking pool of marriageable men.

  17. mdavid says:

    When our society started changing the meaning of marriage

    You mean back in the Reformation with Henry VIII?
    Point: Once marriage is revokable, the whole idea becomes a farce.

  18. easttexasfatboy says:

    What will happen when young men decline to protect women? Think about it for a minute……feminist hatred runs rampant at colleges nowadays. Don’t you think they’re getting the point? “Yes means Yes” is insane. What about that young feminist who was gang raped on spring break? Those young guys stood there. I reckon they didn’t want anything to do with a skank. What happens when ISIS beheaders are running around the country with Go Pro cameras?

  19. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    Call me Devil’s Advocate today.

    If I read you correctly, you’re saying that the problems with women marrying later, being unable to find suitable men, etc. will all swing the other way and create even worse problems down the road. I’m not sure I see a pendulum swing, or a paradigm shift. I think I see things just going the way they are, for a long time.

    1. Most women can still marry pretty much when they want. I’m familiar with the charts from 2013 and 2014 “never marrieds”. But the fact remains that American society still has a number of first time brides marrying at 35, 38 and even into their early 40s. That’s marrying for the first time after racking up double digit Ns and consuming nearly all of their SMV.

    2. Add to this the fact that there are more and more women preserving their looks and staving off The Wall into their late 30s (in large part because they aren’t going through the stress of multiple childbirths and living lives as wives and mothers).

    3. Numbers 1. and 2. are because, well, the thirst is real. More and more men are going without regular sex for longer and longer periods. They’ll do whatever it takes to get sex (or what they believe will get them sex), including marching a 38 year old carouseler down the aisle. If they think that marrying that carouseler will get them nookie on the regular, they’ll do it. So many men are so thirsty for regular sex they’ll chew through their car seat belts for it. And women know this.

    4. More and more women are working full time jobs. They don’t need to marry to support themselves or even support families. Most women can do that by themselves (with lots and lots of help from government).

    5. When these women marry in their late 30s or early 40s it is just a matter of sliding the standard pattern down the road 5 to 10 years. Most of these women are marrying men they are decidedly less sexually attracted to than the men they used to have sex with. Most of these women are still attractive enough to pull attractive men for flings. We know from experience that, given a choice between 5 weeks with a hot player and 50 years with a boring beta, most women will choose the player every single time. So most of these women’s late marriages will last at most 10 years, after which she will frivorce him for one last shot at the carousel.

    So I don’t agree that we’ll see the pendulum swing the other way. Rather, what we’ll see is sliding the current model “down the timeline” .

  20. Femertilizer says:

    There are many factors affecting the marriage rate, but here’s how I look at it. My boys will be 16 and 12 in 2020. I will already have been planting the idea that marriage may be a detriment to their chances of long-term success and happiness. Not something completely out of the question, but a high-risk scenario that needs to be recognized for the obstacles it will put in their way.

    It is only because I believe it to be in their best interest that I am still married to their mother. I love my boys, but given the chance to do it over again, I would never marry.

  21. easttexasfatboy says:

    I agree with Deti. Women have the vote, and they vote in a fairly herd structure. They really don’t have a reason at this time to change. I believe that ISIS is going to commenced operations here in the USA. Ask yourself, who could they attack to gain public approval? Feminists are their enemies. These men in ISIS have shown that they’re very computer literate. It’s not hard for them to make up lists, is it? Here’s the thing……this has happened before. When the Roman Empire imploded, who helped the Barbarians find the women? Think about it. You might not like Islam, but as a man, you have to realize that feminism is out to destroy men.

    This is really a sad state of affairs. Islam is going to kill a huge number of western women. These feminists depend on male protection. Well, they’ve alienated the very people that would have protected them. When it happens, well, I’m not going to help college educated women. They’re feminists. They can protect themselves.

  22. Femertilizer says:

    I can’t believe I’m questioning Deti, but where are these attractive 30-something females? I live in the Midwest, and the vast majority of the 20-somethings are already dumpy slobs.

  23. David says:

    I’ve been following manosphere blogs for some time now. I’m single at 23 and thank God everyday that I escaped past relationships unscathed. I see these girls now and they are all worse for wear being in their early 20’s either changing their image entirely to cover up their past indiscretions to cope the best man possible, or giving up completely and settling for BB that makes me cringe.
    I on the other hand have learned so much the past few months, thank you Internet. I take care of my body, eat healthy, study things that I find interesting. I guess you could say I’ve had an epiphany. My question is, by the time I reach 26 and the misandry bubbl is about to burst, I feel like the male-shaming for not “wifing up these sluts” is going to go through the roof. Pre-wall thirsty women might just start coming out of the woodwork. I will be reaching SMV peak or at my peak, and will have security and hopefully my good looks still.
    I feel like I’m just going to have a huge red painted target on my back, being tall, white, and handsome with security.

  24. Doesn’t matter what deti has said. More and more men are eschewing marriage, even if 80% or more women eventually marry, that statistic is going to go up.

    The point though is that the current status quo cannot last because those men who marry, marry later, they earn less and they work even less. The women who work do mostly ‘make work’ jobs that survive purely due to tax revenues and government/corporate welfare. There is going to be a shortage of productive capacity to afford the madness that we currently experience, no matter how thirsty these stupid men become.

  25. theasdgamer says:

    @ serving

    The more I read about MGTOW, the tighter I hold my husband. It makes me more thankful for him, and especially thankful that we married young.
    I don’t know if that’s the right response, but it is my response, nonetheless.

    I think I’m in love. ;-] Brilliant comment! Now go make him some sammiches.

  26. theasdgamer says:

    @ Chan

    Among people with a college education, marriage rates are holding up, perhaps even slightly increasing. The decrease in marriage rates is only among people without college education.

    Good catch! This is a very important point.

  27. thedeti says:

    Femertilizer:

    You can question me all you want. Seriously.

    there are a lot of attractive 30-something females. They aren’t model attractive and aren’t as hot as they used to be. But they are attractive enough, they will get the job done, and that’s all that’s required.

    Most of them haven’t yet been through childbirth. They work out frequently. They have taken good care of their bodies. They have the time and money to do so because they work 9 to 5, they have lots of disposable income and they don’t have husbands or children making constant demands on their time. They also have been attracting and sleeping with players and other attractive men. To do so, they have to keep themselves looking reasonably good.

    And a woman doesn’t have to be as attractive as she used to be to attract the lower tier men she will eventually marry. Average attractiveness will do just fine for most of these parched, starving, thirsty as hell men.

    So, you have an increasing cohort of reasonably attractive, formerly hot, now average attractiveness, women of 35 to 45. These women are directing their sights from the players who wouldn’t marry them; down to the lower value men — the divorced men, the never married men, the slightly broken/used men, most of whom have decent jobs, but who these women wouldn’t have given the time of day even 2 or 3 years ago. There are a lot of these women — a lot of them.

  28. BradA says:

    Deti,

    You are missing that families provide support far beyond the immediate paycheck. Solutions to the problem of taking care of all these childless couples in old age, when the paycheck no longer exists or is sufficient, will force a huge change when enough reach that stage.

    It will be well past the time for nice changes though and we will likely have quite the mess on our hands when that time comes.

    What can’t continue, won’t. None of the facts you note remove the need for support when you can no longer do so yourself.

  29. theasdgamer says:

    @ GBFM

    70% of men are not married = 30% of men are married
    50% of marriages end in divorce = 15% of married men left

    LOLZLOZLLLOZLMATHFAKKSLOL

    9 goes into 5, 4 goes into 3, angle of the dangle, heat of the meat, square of the hair

    50% of 1st marriages end in divorce
    67% of 2nd marriages EiD
    75% of 3rd marriages EiD

    I guess that LMC and LC men are entering 1st marriages at a declining rate. UMC men are holding steady.

    30% is a snapshot of current conditions and doesn’t reflect on final conditions.

  30. Boxer says:

    Seriously Serving:

    The more I read about MGTOW, the tighter I hold my husband.

    You are a smart woman to be so self-aware.

    Make sure you tell him you love him often, and express your gratitude to him verbally.

    You can physically express your gratitude to him by fucking him good. Go all hardcore when you get him alone. Wring that mofo’s dick off. Fuck him until he’s half dead, then fuck him some more until he passes out, then in the morning wake his ass up ready to fuck him. Send the dogs out on that bastard.

    If you fuck your man good, he will never look at another woman. Even if he wanted to, he wouldn’t have the energy.

    Boxer

  31. thedeti says:

    BradA:

    I disagree that the issue of elder support and care is going to be an issue. The current situation will simply continue — more and more tax dollars devoted to elder care and end of life care. You and I will pay for it. Single, never married men will pay for it. Working women will pay for it through taxation.

    Women will simply divorce and off-load husbands who can’t take care of them, or themselves. If a husband wants to divorce a woman in failing health, the court will simply impose lifetime alimony on him.

    Bottom line — women WILL be supported, and it WILL be paid for, one way or another.

  32. thedeti says:

    First time marriages among men are declining a little, if I remember the numbers correctly.

    But as far as remarriage is concerned, among men the numbers are cratering. Among men married once with that marriage ending in divorce, an increasing number of them are swearing off marriage and are not remarrying. I suspect a large number of them cannot — they can’t afford to remarry because they can’t afford to support a wife. Hell, they can probably barely support themselves.

    But I also suspect a large number of them just do not want to get married again, ever. At least not legally.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Call me Devil’s Advocate today.

    Of course.

    If I read you correctly, you’re saying that the problems with women marrying later, being unable to find suitable men, etc. will all swing the other way and create even worse problems down the road. I’m not sure I see a pendulum swing, or a paradigm shift. I think I see things just going the way they are, for a long time.

    1. Most women can still marry pretty much when they want. I’m familiar with the charts from 2013 and 2014 “never marrieds”. But the fact remains that American society still has a number of first time brides marrying at 35, 38 and even into their early 40s. That’s marrying for the first time after racking up double digit Ns and consuming nearly all of their SMV.

    You are right that the numbers still show that nearly every woman still marries, and a surprising number marry after 35 and even after 40. But the same data shows that this is getting harder. Moreover, there is a hard stop women have to worry about. They can’t delay marriage until retirement and still feel like they split the difference. For those women who value marriage, it is a status symbol, a marker of class. One of the big parts of this is marrying in time to have children. A woman who waits until she can’t have children to marry has (generally) failed at this game of chicken, and other women know this.

    2. Add to this the fact that there are more and more women preserving their looks and staving off The Wall into their late 30s (in large part because they aren’t going through the stress of multiple childbirths and living lives as wives and mothers).

    From what I’ve seen it is the opposite. Women who married young and stayed married seem to age much better than carousel riders and divorcees. At any rate, they may still look fertile, but their window of fertility is either closed or rapidly closing. Also, the numbers are against them. The pool of single men available for a woman at 35 is far smaller than at 20 or 25. Even worse, by this point the competition with other women is shifting, and having a man commit to her with a respectable job and earnings is a key point of competition. Not only is her pool of single men shrinking, but the percentage of these men who have zero or next to no earnings is rapidly increasing.

    3. Numbers 1. and 2. are because, well, the thirst is real. More and more men are going without regular sex for longer and longer periods. They’ll do whatever it takes to get sex (or what they believe will get them sex), including marching a 38 year old carouseler down the aisle. If they think that marrying that carouseler will get them nookie on the regular, they’ll do it. So many men are so thirsty for regular sex they’ll chew through their car seat belts for it. And women know this.

    This is for the most part how it has worked to date, although we already see a shift at the older age groups. Men without visible major flaws and with jobs are a scarce commodity for women say over 35. What hasn’t changed is those scarce men still view marriage as their best chance to lock down sex. They see their sudden rise in SMV, with women all of a sudden chasing them for the first time in their lives, and think it is a fluke. They rush to lock down the best one in the mix in marriage, which is coincidentally what the women suddenly want. Each thinks they have suckered the other into marriage. But add in a bit more panic from women, and a societal discussion about men being “on strike”, and the thought process will start to shift. It could shift slowly as the generations work their way through the age category, or it might shift more swiftly.

    4. More and more women are working full time jobs. They don’t need to marry to support themselves or even support families. Most women can do that by themselves (with lots and lots of help from government).

    And yet these are the women who value the status marker of marriage the most. They thought they could replace a husband with a career and govt, lots of shoes, and maybe some cats. Only too late are they finding that these things don’t impress their peers on facebook, etc.

    5. When these women marry in their late 30s or early 40s it is just a matter of sliding the standard pattern down the road 5 to 10 years. Most of these women are marrying men they are decidedly less sexually attracted to than the men they used to have sex with. Most of these women are still attractive enough to pull attractive men for flings. We know from experience that, given a choice between 5 weeks with a hot player and 50 years with a boring beta, most women will choose the player every single time. So most of these women’s late marriages will last at most 10 years, after which she will frivorce him for one last shot at the carousel.

    I touched on this above but marriage will always be about children, even though not every married couple has children. The woman who dallies too long on the carousel to marry in time to have children has lost in an important way, in a way her peers viscerally understand. The goal is to change lanes last minute, not to get stuck on the wrong road and not be able to come back. We are on the cusp of this barrier for more and more marriage delaying women. Also, for panic not to set in it has to be that each younger cohort of women delays marriage (as a group) just a little longer. If one of the younger groups fails to do so, they suddenly are competing with the cohort just above them for husbands, leaving the older ones without a chair when the music stops. This, in turn, will spread fear where greed once dominated. As women shift from greed to fear, the danger is that men (at least those who can check the provider box) will then shift from fear to greed.

    So I don’t agree that we’ll see the pendulum swing the other way. Rather, what we’ll see is sliding the current model “down the timeline”

    It can’t go on forever. And if something can’t go on forever, it won’t.

  34. Elderly care will indeed increasingly consume a greater percentage of the GDP, especially when global population decline hits and the GDP starts shrinking. The elderly will increasingly become a greater percentage of the voters and certainly won’t vote for benefit cuts. They’ll increase taxes, cut defense, etc. It will be a gradual declining cycle until there is a crash and reset in about 100 years. It is not a matter of ‘if’ for many countries, it is simply a matter of ‘when’.

  35. earl says:

    If deti is looking at it today…sure there are still women getting married.

    But like Dalrock said it’s getting harder. Between women openly hating men because feminism, education, and society tells her to, boys seeing what their mothers did to their family, and more men waking up to the sham that marriage is once the state, court, and her feelings get involved…even a physically attractive woman won’t have her looks be enough to sway a man.

    The flip side is men and women are still creating problems by not getting married. It’s not a good thing to have a hook up culture and children out of wedlock. They want the sex without the responsibility behind it and that mindset will continue to spiral civilization into chaos. It’s being set up as a lose-lose proposition with modern thought.

  36. Dalrock,

    The whole system is built on denial, with feminists and traditional conservatives standing in agreement that the only problem is weak men screwing feminism up.

    My father in law wont even have this conversation. Whenever I mention to him about the “marriage strike” (for lack of a better word) he’ll just turn the whole thing around and reframe it in a “…well then why did YOU marry my daughter???” kind of way. He will put the entire discussion out of bounds. That is the denial instinct that gets kicked into overdrive for a lot of white-knight men who refuse to acknowledge simple reality of today’s marriage marketplace.

    The thing is, with all this data that is available, I still contend that most of us haven’t fully examined the data correctly. I’d argue that women still want to get married as much (or even more so) than they ever did, but have fewer and fewer (perhaps NO) options. Everyone here keeps harping on women to be blamed that their horrible marriage statisitics (its her fault she is not married at 38 because she didn’t get married at 22) but I would argue that (for her) there was no diamond and no bended knee at 22, 27, or 32. She had NO options. Even if she wanted to get married, she couldn’t. I think we need to really look at the data a bit deeper.

    What do I mean by that? I saw a frightening statistic the other day, don’t know where I saw it so I can’t confirm it. But it claimed that only 35% of men who are 5’6″ or shorter will ever be married at all in their entire lifetime. I think that if those statistics are true (maybe they are and maybe they aren’t) hypergamy would claim that it is the highest earning and most educated of these unfortunately short men who would probably have the higher marital rates. But I’ll bet (by the same token) that women tend to avoid/dismiss short men the exact same way men tend to avoid/dismiss ugly women. There is no real objective numeric measurement of a woman’s beauty vs her ugliness the way there is for a man’s height, but you get where I am going with this. It is completely out of a short man’s control that he is likely never to marry the way it is completely out of an ugly woman’s control that she will never have a marital offer. And she can’t pick. She must wait to be picked.

    I’ve been to quite a few weddings over the last 20 years Dalrock, quite a few. And in all those weddings (one where the wife was as young as 19, one where the wife was 46, divorced, already with two grown children) only ONE was a fat girl (and she was just chubby with a pretty face, not fat, AND she had to “import” her husband from another country) and NONE were weddings where the bride was “ugly.” None. Pretty much every wedding had the ugly girls table and I would say that all of the girls at that table were still single (at any age.) As has been said here over and over, marriage rates for the MC and UMC haven’t declined at all (and might be in a slight upswing) I would contend that we could say that marriage for the taller men (who want to marry) and the beautiful women (at any age, never married or divorced) are just as high as they have ever been. As marriage seems to separate one by social class, I’d also argue it separates a man by height and a woman by beauty.

    Feminism is to be blamed for much of this marriage strike that is for sure. It has created entirely too many pitfalls and traps for men without giving them any real benefits over remaining single (all sticks, no carrots.) So sure, on the margins men will entirely “opt out” of something that offers them… nothing. But I still contend that this marriage strike is really mostly harmed the shortest men, the least intelligent men, and the ugliest women.

  37. earl says:

    ‘I would argue that (for her) there was no diamond and no bended knee at 22, 27, or 32.’

    Probably the chicken and the egg thing…did she never have the proposal, or when things got serious did she run away before a proposal could happen because the man didn’t fit her criteria.

    Besides I’m 6’4″…if my height has helped me get women, it hasn’t helped much. I’ve still heard every excuse in the book in my dating adventures. I don’t doubt height can be a detriment to shorter men though.

  38. Besides I’m 6’4″…if my height has helped me get women, it hasn’t helped much. I’ve still heard every excuse in the book in my dating adventures.

    Earl, you once told me about one of your dating adventures. You said that at age 36 you were hanging out with 19 year old girls from church. You think maybe the problem you might have is the dramatic difference in emotional and physical maturity that separates you from your potential mates? I don’t know.

    I don’t doubt height can be a detriment to shorter men though.

    It definately is. I know way too many short men who are not only not married, they never have been.

  39. easttexasfatboy says:

    You know, now that you mention it, I’ve never seen an ugly bride, IBB. It’s said that feminism was created for the rich ugly white women. Trying to remember if I’ve ever seen a short groom. Nope. No, this marriage strike we on have near the effect that ISIS will. What an interesting time to live in. I never expected ISIS to come here.

  40. earl says:

    ‘You said that at age 36 you were hanging out with 19 year old girls from church.’

    That wasn’t me. I’m not that old. Plus most of the women I hang out with from church are widows after Mass…there isn’t a bevvy of 19 year olds there.

  41. earl says:

    The youngest gals I’ve dated lately are around 23…but it was normally in the 26-30 range. The 23 year olds were more fun to be with.

  42. Okay then it must have been someone else earl. I don’t allocate any memory blocks in my brain to try to remember much about people’s personnas here.

  43. Boxer says:

    I would argue that (for her) there was no diamond and no bended knee at 22, 27, or 32. She had NO options. Even if she wanted to get married, she couldn’t. I think we need to really look at the data a bit deeper.

    She couldn’t, because she was a skank-ho that no man would risk his fortune on.

    Anecdotal, but I’ve known and dated several “marriage material” types. These were marginally religious girls (both Christian and Muslim) and a mix of both Black and White chicks. The one thing that stood out was that none of them were going beyond very tame kissing with me, despite the IOIs flying every which way.

    I’m pretty open about the fact that, at this point, I wouldn’t make a good husband, so I cut these gals loose pretty quickly. They all (to the very last one) married rapidly, and married men who averaged much better catches than little ol’ me, too. We’re talking physicians, accountants, and relatively uneducated but savvy small business owners who will likely make more money than the physicians and accountants (and way more money than Boxer the slacker).

    Here’s girl game, for the smart chick who is looking to get married quick:

    1. Don’t be a whore.
    2. Don’t have tattoos or weird piercings.
    3. Don’t drink or smoke pot to excess.
    4. Be quiet and “sweet”. Don’t show off your “moxie” (as Dalrock would put it).
    5. Don’t be old.
    6. Don’t be fat.

    It’s really that simple. None of these women I dated were stunners, but they were pleasant looking and pleasant to be around. They said thank you after I bought them sushi or coffee, and meant it. They were polite when turning down my annoying, repeated requests for same night sex. Some of them were so nice that I was tempted to keep them around for a while for social occasions. I decided against this (and I think it’s proper not to string anyone along with promises of marriage) but it was tempting.

    Best,

    Boxer

  44. Opus says:

    The problem started when electoral suffrage was extended to women. No political leader can afford to be seen as anything other than the ultimate in white-knightery, and thus political leaders vie with each other to demonstrate that they are more feminist than their opposite numbers. David Milliband (a man) and leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition looking cringe-worthy in his ‘This is what a Feminist looks like’ Tee-shirt – a man who had to be dragged into marriage to his ‘partner’ to be electable – or perhaps Mrs Milliband, another pretentious feminist female barrister but not as slim as Mrs Clooney – only agreed to marriage when the chance of being Prime Minister’s wife looked possible. Read the Tweets that David Cameron, Her Majesty’s Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury (or his staff?) sends out on Mother’s Day and compare them with those that he Tweets on Father’s Day. How ironic that the person saying how wonderful women are and how awful men are is also a man – this from a man married to a woman with a Tat. See the photos of Cameron surrounded by members of the Military Wives (I nearly wrote Reader’s Wives) Choir – under the control of their male director and general svengali (did they make Number One at Xmas? – I forget). If one Tweets back to disagree – as I did – one is met with howls of protest from assorted male SJWs and other Manginas.

    Recall (if anyone is that keen) how I was met with the accusation of being ‘offensive’ from my local council’s CEO (yet another male) for pointing out – in a light and polite manner – what I thought were some fairly misleading and unhelpful ideology in the Council’s Inspiring Victorian Women exhibition (as well their being in breach of The 2006 Terrorism Act) wherein they encouraged girls to forget marriage but instead to seek fame and fortune as a scientist or the like (little boys being dragged along to complete their sexes humiliation as they toured round an exhibition of famous ladies that neither they, nor I, nor anyone else had ever heard of). How ironic then to see – photo in recent edition of local paper – this bastion of equalism being marked-out, female hand gratuitously resting on his shoulder as if to say ‘ he is mine’ by a middle-aged woman at a party given to celebrate how the council propose spending a lot of my money. I trust that his wife did not see the photo.

    Happily there is a fight back. A new Political Party: Justice for Men and Boys (J4Mb) is fielding three candidates at the forthcoming election including one candidate in the constituency in which Harriet Harman’s is seeking re-election.

  45. ETFB,

    You know, now that you mention it, I’ve never seen an ugly bride, IBB.

    I saw just one. It was 1991 and she was ugly and obese. Her husband was MORBIDLY obese, like 400 pounds obese. But that was it. She was the only ugly bride I’ve ever seen, and we are going back 24 years now (wow, I’m old.) But yeah, in the last 20 years, no ugly brides.

    It’s said that feminism was created for the rich ugly white women.

    That is what Rush Limbaugh said and he was (IMHO) right.

    http://mediamatters.org/video/2005/08/16/the-truth-according-to-limbaugh-feminism-establ/133652

    I have long told you, for example, Undeniable Truth of Life No. 24, written back in 1987: Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. And even to this day, people pooh-poohed this and say it’s insensitive: “How can you possibly say something like that?” Well, because I mean it, because I believe there’s something to it. And now, lo and behold, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 2 that the supervisor could sue the company for allegedly retaliating against her with poor evaluations and job requirements because she was ugly. She didn’t fit their mold of hot.

    Pretty much, yes. That is why we have feminism. Ugly women get excluded from the mainstream of society. It has been that way for thousands of years.

    Trying to remember if I’ve ever seen a short groom. Nope.

    I saw just one. It was in 1993 and he had an IQ up near 130+. That is what made him so attractive to his wife, his intelligence. But in the last 20 years, no I have not been to even one wedding with a short groom.

  46. Durandel Almiras says:

    I don’t see what could possibly change to stop us from going into the Scandavian non-marriage family model…though supposedly divorce laws in those countries are more fair. Porn and easy sex kinda take the wind out of what most women have to offer, even Christian girls, even though the sex surrogates are sins. How many would rather sin and live well over not sinning and get taken to the cleaners and be treated like a chump? The thirst is real, but people in the past learned how to fast…no reason the pain of drinking it in doesn’t get so high that more and more decide to drink elsewhere or just avoid the aqua vita completely.

    Since it will likely be devout/orthodox Christians who will keep up the marrying and kids, and their societies’ views of such groups continues to go towards the negative, I don’t think social values will change much. If maybe celebrities or the rich flaunted marriage and babies as a social status, maybe the status whores of the West would change their tune but it would still be for solipsistic reasons such as having pics of the baby on twitter in order to get more tweets.

    Some correction has to come to this nadir of the idea of Liberalism. Communitarian systems I don’t think will make a come back, but the rampant self-centered individualism that Liberal systems tend to engender needs some type of counter-balance. In the mean time, if women keep with their selfish ways, more and more men will simply follow suit.

  47. earl says:

    @ Boxer…

    Yes the marriageable women tend to act that way…while the rest have plenty of reasons and flags as to why they aren’t marriageable. Or if they do get married the type of man they get isn’t top shelf. It’s not rocket science as to why some women get married and others can’t find a man to save their life.

  48. Opus,

    The problem started when electoral suffrage was extended to women. No political leader can afford to be seen as anything other than the ultimate in white-knightery, and thus political leaders vie with each other to demonstrate that they are more feminist than their opposite numbers.

    Here (across the pond) as well.

    As a traditional conservative, it almost pains me to say this but here it is, conservatives can’t win elections in our country without being white knights pandering to feminism. That is trad-cons, neo-cons, and paleo-cons. And paleo-cons can’t really win election AT ALL anymore, but you get the idea.

  49. l jess says:

    @seriouslyserving – “The more I read about MGTOW, the tighter I hold my husband. It makes me more thankful for him, and especially thankful that we married young.
    I don’t know if that’s the right response, but it is my response, nonetheless.” I love your response – If all women felt that way then there would be no need for MGTOW.

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    To my mind the question of “What’s Next?” is still very open, and the answers to the problems could be less than inspiring. Despite the cheering-on of demise that is often written in the ‘Sphere, we ought to beware the mindset that people will face the truth once they have to discuss the problems in the open; that they will be forced to, dammit! I think it unlikely. As with the USSR’s downfall there will be no apology; no recognition that communism was wrong, but only that this particular incarnation failed.

    Agreed. The other thing to keep in mind is the suffering is and will be widespread. TFH uses the analogy of a bubble, I’m using a similar analogy of a shift from a bull to bear market. Neither analogy is perfect, but one thing that is true about a serious shock to markets is that it is very difficult to not take at least a partial hit. If your whole society has a crap sandwich to eat, everyone takes a bite. The best you can hope for is to avoid extra helpings.

    We are squandering a great deal of goodwill regarding marriage. Once it is gone it will be extremely difficult to regain. This doesn’t mean marriage will be done, but we could reset to a new baseline of perspectives about marriage.

  51. earl says:

    No kidding. If women acted like they should…MGTOW wouldn’t exist. The only reason it does is because feminism exists.

    I don’t subscribe to MGTOW as a response to avoid all women…but I understand the thought process behind it.

  52. easttexasfatboy says:

    Let’s just say that young men will be much more sanguine about the whole subject of marriage.

  53. Dalrock,

    TFH uses the analogy of a bubble, I’m using a similar analogy of a shift from a bull to bear market. Neither analogy is perfect…

    I think you AND TFH are both right. We are (right now) in the bear market, as you stipulate. Men really have all the power regarding who gets married now. And of course, nothing will change with that power shift (government will just double and triple down on the feminist imperative with ACA, war on women, gang rape tribunals at universities which are nothing more than which hunts, and Life of Julia) until the bubble bursts entitely (ala communism 1991.)

    Once it is gone it will be extremely difficult to regain. This doesn’t mean marriage will be done, but we could reset to a new baseline of perspectives about marriage.

    We already have some terrible baselines developing.

    http://www.amazon.com/Is-Marriage-White-People-American/dp/B00CVDYQN6

  54. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 9:18 am:
    “They’ll do whatever it takes to get sex (or what they believe will get them sex), including marching a 38 year old carouseler down the aisle.”

    But getting sex today involves NOT getting married. A married woman has no incentive to please her man and the qualities women want in a husband aren’t the qualities they want in a lover. More men are aware of this than ever.

    S. Chan @ 4:56 am:
    “Among people with a college education, marriage rates are holding up, perhaps even slightly increasing.”
    If this is true today then it surely won’t be true tomorrow. Women only marry up and they’re the ones getting college degrees and hiring preferences. No way their marriage rate is going to be high & stable.

    “Graduate men, however, rarely want to marry non-graduate women. Hence non-graduate women remain single.”
    I suspect your book is actually arguing for class structure. The idea that Feminist U promotes stable marriage is preposterous, not to mention the idea that educated men are only interested in marrying their intellectual equals.

    Men value women for their fertility, not providership.

    easttexasfatboy @ 9:55 am:
    “I believe that ISIS is going to commenced operations here in the USA.”
    Fine, it’s Homeland Security starting operations I’m scared of.

    “Ask yourself, who could they attack to gain public approval? Feminists are their enemies.”
    Feminists are their allies. Surely you’ve noticed how much respect the feminist governments of the West have for Islam? The two are united in their hatred of us Christians.

  55. thedeti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    You are correct that it can’t go on forever. But it can go on a long, long time. It’s been going on a long time already — we are at least 40 years into this mess, and it shows no signs of slowing down. I think it can go on at least another two generations like this, at least 50 to 60 years.

    “You are right that the numbers still show that nearly every woman still marries, and a surprising number marry after 35 and even after 40. But the same data shows that this is getting harder. Moreover, there is a hard stop women have to worry about. They can’t delay marriage until retirement and still feel like they split the difference. For those women who value marriage, it is a status symbol, a marker of class. One of the big parts of this is marrying in time to have children. A woman who waits until she can’t have children to marry has (generally) failed at this game of chicken, and other women know this.”

    It’s hard for me to believe that most women marrying for the first time at 35 to 45 believe they’ll start families. Age 35, maybe. But not past 40. Perhaps I’m just being naive, but a woman starting a family, trying to get pregnant at 40, is sheer madness. I think you’re correct that women are having a harder time marrying after 35 but I don’t see that it’s that much harder. Maybe it’s not harder in flyover country where I live. Where I am, a woman of middling attractiveness can write her own ticket. If she wants marriage, she can have it anytime she wants, even if she’s 39 and divorced twice. She wants a fling to scratch an itch, she can have that too.

    “Women who married young and stayed married seem to age much better than carousel riders and divorcees. At any rate, they may still look fertile, but their window of fertility is either closed or rapidly closing. Also, the numbers are against them. The pool of single men available for a woman at 35 is far smaller than at 20 or 25. Even worse, by this point the competition with other women is shifting, and having a man commit to her with a respectable job and earnings is a key point of competition. Not only is her pool of single men shrinking, but the percentage of these men who have zero or next to no earnings is rapidly increasing.”

    This could also be a regional thing as well. Where I am, it’s less a function of early marriage than it is the resources available, and how well she used those resources. For example, where I am, women who were stil single in their mid 30s use that disposable income on gym memberships and running shoes.

    You keep saying that marriage is about children. Perhaps it is for most people; but I don’t think it is when a woman gets to 35 and is JUST THEN starting to get serious about getting married. At that point, from what I can see, marriage for those women is about checking off a box, not about having a kid. Many try to have a kid and some do; but from what I can see the mid-30s to mid-40s woman is marrying so she can say “I did that. I got married. I was attractive enough and had enough to offer to get some man somewhere to commit to me.” It’s not about family or love. It’s about ticking off a box and qualifying for that particular merit badge.

    “[Male thirst] is for the most part how it has worked to date, although we already see a shift at the older age groups. Men without visible major flaws and with jobs are a scarce commodity for women say over 35. What hasn’t changed is those scarce men still view marriage as their best chance to lock down sex. They see their sudden rise in SMV, with women all of a sudden chasing them for the first time in their lives, and think it is a fluke. They rush to lock down the best one in the mix in marriage, which is coincidentally what the women suddenly want. Each thinks they have suckered the other into marriage. But add in a bit more panic from women, and a societal discussion about men being “on strike”, and the thought process will start to shift. It could shift slowly as the generations work their way through the age category, or it might shift more swiftly.”

    The scarcity of “decent” men suitable for the over-35 female crowd doesn’t mean those men are sexually attractive or that these women really want to marry them. And it’s not something that will create lasting marriages even if there is a panic. If you’re saying a panic (presumably in women seeing older women unable to marry, or marrying poorly) could cause a shift in the thought process such that women get serious earlier about marriage, I kind of doubt it. Most women don’t tend to pay attention to such things until and unless it starts affecting them personally, or affecting their friends personally. Kate Bolick’s fall 2011 article about her own experiences, as well as a plethora of other articles about this, have done next to nothing to affect it. All that’s happened are louder cries of “MAN UP” and “Where have all the good men gone?”

    “marriage will always be about children, even though not every married couple has children. The woman who dallies too long on the carousel to marry in time to have children has lost in an important way, in a way her peers viscerally understand. The goal is to change lanes last minute, not to get stuck on the wrong road and not be able to come back. We are on the cusp of this barrier for more and more marriage delaying women.”

    See above. Marriage, or at least the phenomenon in American society we currently call “marriage”, is not about children. It’s about la dolce vita: self-actualization, having fun, taking cool vacations, acquiring material possessions, and consumerism.

    “Also, for panic not to set in it has to be that each younger cohort of women delays marriage (as a group) just a little longer. If one of the younger groups fails to do so, they suddenly are competing with the cohort just above them for husbands, leaving the older ones without a chair when the music stops.”

    This is what’s happening already, more or less. And it’s not shifting or changing anything. It just continues in the same direction in which it’s already proceeding. It’s not reversing course, or stopping, or even slowing down.

    “This, in turn, will spread fear where greed once dominated. As women shift from greed to fear, the danger is that men (at least those who can check the provider box) will then shift from fear to greed.”

    That could be. But even if it does, I very much doubt that a woman’s fear of being unable to marry and/or unable to have children will make all that much difference. I also doubt that younger women will look above them at their older counterparts, and say “I need to change what I’m doing so that doesn’t happen to me.” They will say “Those things happen to other people, not me. I’m special, and I’m not like that, so that will not happen to me.”

    That’s why I think it will just keep going the way it is.

  56. earl says:

    I learned Game…gals can see right through that in no time. All game does is put a band aid on a shotgun wound.

    I focused on cleaning up the house rather than using ways to manipulate women into thinking the house isn’t dirty.

  57. Hank Flanders says:

    innocentbystanderboston

    And in all those weddings…NONE were weddings where the bride was “ugly.” None.

    How ugly are we talking about? Also, what about the women you knew who got married but whose weddings you didn’t attend?

    While I didn’t attend all of their weddings or even many of them, I’ve known or known of plenty of unattractive (ugly?) women who were able to find husbands, but those women were almost always young and likely virginal or at least were when they met their eventual husbands. However, while ugly, the women tended not to be fat. That’s good news for women who were unfortunate enough to be born with unattractive faces, as people can usually do something about a weight problem, and weight is more of a deal-breaker than an ugly face from what I’ve seen. Also, the women were usually quite sociable. Therefore, based on my experience, if a woman is sociable, thin, and chaste, I believe she has a good chance at overcoming an average or even ugly face, but she should really try to do so early on in adulthood. Usually, if she demonstrates the above-mentioned traits, and she’s still single into her late 20s and 30s, then she’s at least had some guys who were interested.

  58. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    You keep saying that marriage is about children. Perhaps it is for most people; but I don’t think it is when a woman gets to 35 and is JUST THEN starting to get serious about getting married. At that point, from what I can see, marriage for those women is about checking off a box, not about having a kid. Many try to have a kid and some do; but from what I can see the mid-30s to mid-40s woman is marrying so she can say “I did that. I got married. I was attractive enough and had enough to offer to get some man somewhere to commit to me.” It’s not about family or love. It’s about ticking off a box and qualifying for that particular merit badge.

    Marriage will always fundamentally be about children, again even if not all married couples have children. It is true that a woman who waits to 35 and only then starts looking for a husband is seriously running out of time. But most women don’t wait that long to panic. The panic centers around age 30, give or take 2 years. The reason for this is they already know in their gut that waiting until 35 is too late. They see women in that position and don’t want to be there. And yes it is about ticking off a box. But even if a woman doesn’t want kids, marrying after it is too late to even try says she failed. She can’t really check off the box if she walks down the aisle at 40 or 45. Maybe a partial check, in that she is no longer unmarried, but it reeks of desperation and failure, and she knows it.

  59. thedeti says:

    “Men really have all the power regarding who gets married now.”

    What?

    Any woman — ANY woman–at a 4 or above in attractiveness can get whatever she wants, whenever she wants it, when it comes to intersexual relationships. If she wants to marry, she can do that. Might not be to the best man or to a man she is really attracted to. But she CAN marry.

    Women who don’t marry or who put off marriage do so because that’s what they want to do.

    Any woman who is unmarried is so because that’s what she wants.

  60. Hank Flanders says:

    Boxer

    Here’s girl game, for the smart chick who is looking to get married quick:

    1. Don’t be a whore.
    2. Don’t have tattoos or weird piercings.
    3. Don’t drink or smoke pot to excess.
    4. Be quiet and “sweet”. Don’t show off your “moxie” (as Dalrock would put it).
    5. Don’t be old.
    6. Don’t be fat.

    Yep, although they shouldn’t smoke pot or anything else at all.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    The scarcity of “decent” men suitable for the over-35 female crowd doesn’t mean those men are sexually attractive or that these women really want to marry them. And it’s not something that will create lasting marriages even if there is a panic. If you’re saying a panic (presumably in women seeing older women unable to marry, or marrying poorly) could cause a shift in the thought process such that women get serious earlier about marriage, I kind of doubt it. Most women don’t tend to pay attention to such things until and unless it starts affecting them personally, or affecting their friends personally. Kate Bolick’s fall 2011 article about her own experiences, as well as a plethora of other articles about this, have done next to nothing to affect it. All that’s happened are louder cries of “MAN UP” and “Where have all the good men gone?”

    I don’t see this suddenly righting itself. I see different forms of misery and vice. Some group of women, the ones who are most interested in marriage and least interested in carousel riding, will take the signal and marry sooner. For the rest the problem is the dwindling pool of single men with decent jobs, and the risk that the men remaining will catch on that not marrying means more sex than marrying. The thing is, the carping won’t make it better. It can’t. All it can do is convince the men they want to marry to shift from fear to greed. Carping and whining won’t make young men prioritize signaling provider status. As women while away the time on the carousel, the pool of men they are counting on to snap them up once they are done will continue to focus less on being ready to snap them up.

  62. Hank,

    How ugly are we talking about?

    For me, this is binary.

    Also, what about the women you knew who got married but whose weddings you didn’t attend?

    I don’t know. I agree with Dalrock that something is happening in the Marriage Marketplace and I’m only concerning myself with recent trends. If ugly duckling lady got married in 1940, I don’t really care.

    For weddings I didn’t attend that happened in my lifetime? I don’t know. What I try to look for is women who are 40 (or younger) who are (IMHO) “ugly” AND are married. I’m not going to say that this number is zero (it isn’t) but it is approaching zero. There are a lot of “ugly” women out there (even some younger ones) and I dont see them getting married right now. Of course these are just my co-workers so we are talking a very small sample. YMMV.

  63. earl says:

    ‘Then you didn’t learn Game properly. ‘See right through that’ indicates a conceptual flaw on your part.’

    Oh no I learned it. You are playing the same thing women do all the time. That’s why they see right through it.

  64. earl says:

    ‘How many daytime approaches did you do?
    How many women get back to your place (whether you chose to have sex or not)?’

    I lost count.
    I don’t make it a point to have a woman come to my place. So 0.

  65. Dalrock says:

    @Durandel Almiras

    I don’t see what could possibly change to stop us from going into the Scandavian non-marriage family model…though supposedly divorce laws in those countries are more fair.

    We have more weddings than Scandinavia, but they have more children growing up with both parents than we do. Both models are deeply flawed, but I would argue that a woman who remains with the father of her children without saying “I do” is closer to being married than the woman who says “I do” and then doesn’t.

  66. thedeti says:

    @ Hank Flanders:

    Every woman I have ever known who wanted to marry, could do so. Every woman I have ever known who got serious about finding a husband found one. These women run the gamut from hot to hideous, attractive to unattractive, kindly to bitchy, athletic to morbidly obese, Mensa level genius to dumber than a bag of hammers.

    I’ve known disabled women who married. Moderate cases of cerebral palsy. Moderate cases of Down syndrome. Blind. Amputees. Paraplegics. One who was a ventilator-depended quadriplegic.

    I will not ever listen to anyone tell me that a woman “can’t get married” or “can’t find a man to marry”. It’s BS.

  67. earl says:

    Yeah the Scandinavian model isn’t good or ideal…but it is certainly better for children than what we have for marriage. Anything that keeps a family intact is better and marriage without the constant threat of divorce is the best course of action.

  68. Novaseeker says:

    Lots of different things going on here which intersect in various ways that can be hard to disentangle.

    If there is one general link between them, it seems to be this: people who are more desirable (I will define what I mean by that in a second) have an easier time marrying in general, and in less than ideal situations, leverage matters quite a bit and can come from surprising directions.

    In general, in a world where women can fend for themselves independently (with state help or not), the bar is going to be raised, de facto, when it comes to husband expectations. That is, a man as a provider is not perceived to be needed per se, at least not at the *expense* of other desirable traits, all things being equal. So what we see is that people who have the most to bring to the table demand the most from their prospective spouses – education, income, health, appearance, personality. Among the UMCs, the percentage of people who score high in all of these areas is substantially higher than in the general population, which makes them more attractive as prospective spouses, which is why they have high marriage rates. (I know that the most guys in the manosphere say that education and income for women doesn’t matter when men select spouses, but it matters a lot for the high marriage rate and low divorce rate UMC men – they *do* sort on that basis very much so – almost no man who is UMC marries a woman who is not very similarly educated and having a similar income.) It isn’t because a college degree or higher acts as a magic wand, but rather that the kind of persona who completes higher education, and especially post-graduate (which has very high marriage rates) tend to make more attractive spouses. They may not be the drop-dead gorgeous types like movie actors and actresses, but by and large they are healthy, eat well, keep themselves in shape and are not obese – so even with relatively modest genes, they are still attractive enough to attract a spouse. This is even the case for short UMC guys, most of whom I’ve known have been married and married successfully to women who were not obese or unattractive (although not beauty queens either – very few beauty queens among this set of women as well). These men and women are simply more attractive as potential spouses, and also often more attractive, once married, than available alternatives – both of which serve to increase the marriage rate and decrease the divorce rate among these people. This has been so even as the marriage age has continued to increase for this set. It’s because they bring the most to the table for marriage.

    When you get below that, you get people who are less desirable – among men and women alike. In ages past, things were different in that many people in this group married anyway, mostly because social mores forced it and women had no good alternatives. That’s changed. Now, a woman who is in this group can always live independently – which she will prefer to do if the men are not viewed as marriageable. What is viewed as “marriageable” in 2015 is, of course, different from what has been viewed as marriageable in the past as well, given things like alpha widowhood and so on, but in this group of women – the group that doesn’t have access to the best “BB” prospects that the UMC women do – very often the preferred option is simply to not marry at all. So, we see lower marriage rates. As the economic and social situation of men below the UMC level continues to deteriorate, this pattern will only increase – it will not fix itself by means of an pendulum type shift unless there is an accompanying economic pendulum which enhances the economic situation of the related group of men who would be the husbands in this group – and, regrettably, this does not seem to be in the cards for the next few decades.

    In terms of where things are going overall, I expect we will see more bifurcation by class, marriage ages continuing to slowly rise but UMCs still getting married and having the appointed numbers of kids, but with some pressure coming at the fringes there as well in the years ahead. The reason for that pressure is pure math – matriculation and graduation rates at colleges overall have skewed massively female in the past 10-15 years and while that trend has slowed it hasn’t stopped. This means that among the more marginal “merely college educated” set of women, there will be a numbers game akin to musical chairs in the years ahead, just because there aren’t enough male college grads for them to marry – and not only a few too few, but rather far too few (when college grad rates are 65-70% female, the shortage that implies for 10 years down the track is not a small one). This won’t impact the “core UMC”, because there is sex parity in that group (the most selective schools don’t skew based on sex, because they have chosen not to, among other things to avoid this kind of situation for the kinds of people they are graduating – people who are the future “core UMC”, who will in turn be donors and so on). But it will begin to erode marriage among the “merely college educated” group in the years ahead – this hasn’t impacted the data *greatly* yet, because the real wave of sexual skew in grad rates hasn’t fully worked through to the “marrying age” yet, but that will happen in the next decade, and it will be ugly. Of course, there will be women who are pragmatic (think nurses who marry tradesmen, or schoolteachers/social workers who marry cops, etc.), but for the typical corporate female college grad who is not “core UMC”, her pickings are going to be quite slim when it comes to male college grads to marry in the next decade. That’s just math, and it’s math that no-one really seems very concerned about (how often do you see articles fretting that there are too few men in colleges?), so it’s a trend that will be durable for at least a while if not longer term.

    It’s true that the trend of marriage drifting away can’t go on forever, but forever is quite a long time indeed. The current trends in marriage won’t trend in the other direction unless and until the economic and social situations/opportunities of the “80 percent” of men improve significantly, and this doesn’t seem to be anyone’s real focus or concern currently, so it is hard to see things turning around greatly in the broader demographic. Marriage will slowly rather become more elite and slightly older over the course of time, as the society drifts closer and closer to winner take all in *all* areas – economic, social, sexual, familial, etc.

  69. earl says:

    Yes almost any woman can certainly get married…she may not like the suitors, but she will have hundreds of them. If she’s not married it is of her own volition.

    A man…even if he has everything down, will still never approach the level of suitors a relatively attractive woman can get. If he’s not married…it possibly could be his decision or more likely it was because of the numerous women turning him down in one way or another.

  70. S. Chan says:

    innocentbystanderboston, at 11:29 am and 12:24 pm, presents some important evidence (albeit anecdotal).

    The big question is this: what has been driving the decline in marriage rates?

    It has been claimed that a major factor is reluctance of men to marry due to two causes: (i) the strong anti-male bias of divorce laws and (ii) the high incidence of riding the c*ck carousel by women. If that claim were true, however, then it would presumably be true for college-educated men; yet the data shows that such men are continuing to marry at the same rate, or even a slightly higher rate, as before. Ergo, the claim is false.

    That still leaves the above big question.

    One possible answer is that the decline is primarily driven by women. I suggested that at 4:56 am.

    Another possible answer is that the decline is primarily driven by men. In particular, men generally are disinclined to marry women who are obese, and obesity is a far more serious problem among people who are non-college educated. This is, essentially, the idea presented by innocentbystanderboston, and supported by others.

  71. Dalrock,

    For the rest the problem is the dwindling pool of single men with decent jobs, and the risk that the men remaining will catch on that not marrying means more sex than marrying.

    Fortunately (or unfortunately) young men have already figured this one out.

    The thing is, the carping won’t make it better. It can’t. All it can do is convince the men they want to marry to shift from fear to greed.

    And we are there already, IMHO. I hate to beat a dead horse on this “beauty” thing, but that is the ticket. How does it apply to greed from a marriage marketplace standpoint?

    The Trophy Wife

    I see that a lot, way too much. It’s almost as if men (or at least the men that I know) are clued into the fact that they KNOW that they are NOT going to be able to build a lifelong commitment with a woman whom will have his children, stay faithful to him all his years, and then they die together. That type of marriage does not exist anymore. Even if they wanted it, they will never get it. And instead, we have marriages where men keep score with each other based on how s-xy, thin, and bubbly their wives are. They will brag to each other “…ha ha, I can afford to have a stay-at-home wife, and yours has to work!” Or better still, “…ha ha, some lady at the store thought I was buying a dress for my daughter and it was for my wife!” Or worst of all “…. ha ha, I was able to afford to trade in my older wife and get a new younger model and look at her t-ts!” And crap like that. Its not Christian and its not healthy for society. But it is (as you said)…. greed based.

  72. thedeti says:

    “I don’t see this suddenly righting itself. I see different forms of misery and vice. Some group of women, the ones who are most interested in marriage and least interested in carousel riding, will take the signal and marry sooner. For the rest the problem is the dwindling pool of single men with decent jobs, and the risk that the men remaining will catch on that not marrying means more sex than marrying.”

    I think you are more or less correct here. But you seem to believe that, because of all these problems which I agree loom over everything and color all the decisionmaking, women will notice all this, and then make changes in their own behavior and decisions. I don’t see women doing this en masse. That would require women (or at least a majority of women) acknowledging that they bear a major part of the responsibility for their own miseries and vices. I don’t see that happening. That would require a major, major cultural shift and a sea change in the way we as a society think about these things. That’s not going to happen, at least not for a long time. And like Cane, I don’t think that even a “collapse” as people like to discuss in the ‘sphere (which I don’t wish for, because of the massive pain it will inflict on most folks) is going to mean an acknowledgment of responsibility or accountability from anyone. So in the final analysis, I don’t see women noticing the problems and then taking action to address them, not on any sort of grand scale.

  73. earl says:

    ‘Exactly what, do you think, determines male attractiveness to women’

    Strength, confidence, stability. For normal, healthy women. For damaged women…the opposite.

    ‘Is it dozens?’

    Dozens

    ‘What was the initial reaction, on average?’

    Pleasant.

    ‘At what point did the transition/escalation fail?’

    When I asked for the number or another meeting.

    ‘How did you aim to improve the weak areas?’

    But realizing that manipulation wasn’t going to cut it.

  74. earl says:

    *By realizing

  75. Novaseeker says:

    On the “ugliness” issue, I think this very much varies by location, local market standards and so on, as being an absolute disqualifier for marriage. The UMC people I know who are married (I know a lot of them) are generally not obese, but many of them are at best plain and not in any way “attractive” — men and women alike, really. There are, of course, couples among them who are strikingly attractive, but there are also couples among them who are strikingly … not. They don’t tend to be morbidly obese, but the ones I am thinking of right now just running my mind down the hallway of offices of mostly married female lawyers between 45 and 55 reveals not exactly thinness, either, and that development wasn’t recent (I’ve known them for some time). Physical appearance is as assortive among this set as any other, but it hasn’t been my experience that people who aren’t “attractive” can’t get married — they just have to marry people who are assortively as attractive (or not) as they are. I suppose in some places the bar is higher (LA, Miami, Phoenix), whereas in some others the bar is lower (some places in the Midwest and South) in terms of physical appearance before it’s “no dice”, but in my observation the issue typically doesn’t arise because of an outright bar, but rather because of a mismatch between what is desired and what is achievable for the person in question. When those are mismatched, marriage may not occur.

  76. Nova,

    I agree with everything you just said. Nice post. This part really brings it home.

    Marriage will slowly rather become more elite and slightly older over the course of time, as the society drifts closer and closer to winner take all in *all* areas – economic, social, sexual, familial, etc.

    Yes. We were already heading that way in pretty much every single state in this country not named Utah.

  77. Nova,

    I suppose in some places the bar is higher (LA, Miami, Phoenix)

    I live in Arizona now. The joke here for the boys when they rate girls and how “hot” they are is if they are just “hot” or if they make it all the way up to “Tempe Hot.”

  78. TFH,

    I have, in my life, personally known only 6 women who were 9.5s/10s in looks, and also intelligent.

    Don’t do it like that.

    For marriage marketplace value you shouldn’t be rating women (on an attractiveness scale) from 1 to 10. You should be rating them binary, on vs off, true vs false, not ugly vs ugly. It is just a 1 or a 0. Now obviously there are way more 1s than 0s. But I would argue that the 0s (who used to get married) are now no longer able to marry.

    The TROPHY WIVES, those you rate 1 to 10 (and actually, that is more like 8 to 10.) But if a woman just wants to get married in general? She needs to be a 1 and not a 0.

  79. earl says:

    @TFH:

    If it works for you, that’s fine. It doesn’t work for me. I found the thing I needed.

  80. Dave says:

    I will not ever listen to anyone tell me that a woman “can’t get married” or “can’t find a man to marry”. It’s BS.

    But does the quality and/or desirability of the husbands matter at all? If not, then it is easy for a woman to drag virtually any thirsty, nothing-to-lose, unemployed guy to the altar, all expenses paid (by the bride to be, of course). But if we are talking about good quality men, the story would clearly be different. There are millions of women all over America who are single but would rather be married, because they simply can’t snap their fingers, and make the Big Daddy legislate marriage for them.

  81. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I think you are more or less correct here. But you seem to believe that, because of all these problems which I agree loom over everything and color all the decisionmaking, women will notice all this, and then make changes in their own behavior and decisions. I don’t see women doing this en masse. That would require women (or at least a majority of women) acknowledging that they bear a major part of the responsibility for their own miseries and vices. I don’t see that happening. That would require a major, major cultural shift and a sea change in the way we as a society think about these things. That’s not going to happen, at least not for a long time.

    Just to clarify: I’m not saying women will react to fix the problem. I’m saying women will react/panic, and the problem will (initially at least) get worse.

    I think Novaseeker has it pretty well dialed in with his comment above (April 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm). This will break by class. UMC women, and for the most part UMC men, value marriage and will find a way to make it work (ish). But that leaves a large swath of middle class marriage delaying women who are counting on marriage just in time, who will at least find it much harder to marry than expected. But a family system that only works for the elite is a huge problem for our society.

  82. thedeti says:

    Dave:

    The definition of “good quality man” has changed in recent years. As Nova said up above, the bar has been raised for most men. I have to believe there are a lot of good men who would make good husbands, but the women who are their assortative mating counterparts reject them out of hand.

    What’s going on is actually that women are overestimating their own value and underestimating men’s value. Women are also conflating their sexual market values with their marriage market values. The two are not the same; women usually have higher SMV and lower MMV. Women can usually attract much higher men for sex than they can for marriage.

  83. earl says:

    ‘What is that thing?’

    A deeper relationship with God.

  84. Deti,

    Women are also conflating their sexual market values with their marriage market values. The two are not the same; women usually have higher SMV and lower MMV. Women can usually attract much higher men for sex than they can for marriage.

    The reverse is also true. There were a few super-s-xy hot women in my past that had SMV ratings that were out of sight. No way on God’s green earth would I ever have married these women (their MMV was about a zero.) On the other hand, I was engaged to three different women whose MMVs were quite high indeed (at least as far as I was concerned) albeit their SMVs were not nearly as high.

    To men who only see value in women for s-x or for marrying to show off as trophies: SMV > MMV.

    To men who only see value in women for lifetime marriage and being a mother to his children: MMV > SMV.

  85. Dalrock says:

    @S Chan

    The reason for the decline among non-college-graduates does not seem to be agreed upon. My suspicion is that hypergamy has something to do with it. Specifically, I suspect that non-graduate women are declining to marry non-graduate men. Graduate men, however, rarely want to marry non-graduate women. Hence non-graduate women remain single.

    Hypergamy isn’t a good explaining factor for this. A better explanation is that men are pulling back from marriage to the most risky women. This only makes sense. Black women for example have the highest divorce rates of any race, and they have the most trouble marrying. Women without degrees divorce at much higher rates than women with degrees, and men are much more hesitant now about marrying outside their class. Likewise, men are more hesitant to marry a divorced woman now than in the past. There is even a degree to which men are avoiding young brides. Below a certain age, women are (rightly) seen as an exceptional divorce risk.

    If hypergamy were the cause it would look the other way around. UMC women would have the hardest time marrying, because the supply of men with higher status than they have is much smaller than for lower class women.

  86. imnobody00 says:

    @Dalrock

    “The whole system is built on denial, with feminists and traditional conservatives standing in agreement that the only problem is weak men screwing feminism up. ”

    The denial is deeper than that, Dalrock. It’s not that men are screwing feminism up, because feminism is thought as a given (such as the air we all breath) and, hence, receives no consideration or thought. Feminism is so assumed that it is invisible now and people only see the way a society works.

    So it is weak/irresponsible men screwing society up. Or, to be more fair, men acting like parasites of society so they must MAN UP! (TM)

  87. earl says:

    ‘Women can usually attract much higher men for sex than they can for marriage.’

    I don’t think it’s that…women can get men to have sex with them easier than they can get men to marry them. One takes minimal investment (their bodies), the other takes complete investment. If the only thing a woman has to offer is sex…she doesn’t have what it takes to be marriage/mother material.

  88. MrTweell says:

    es, a woman can find a man to marry. However, as long as Uncle Sam acts as a wallet for women, the man they marry has to provide more than the government does.

    Millenial guys aren’t interested in working hard and accumulating those resources. They’ve watched their fathers get taken to the cleaners, and decided that the best way not to lose is not to play. The ambitious ones are going elsewhere for women and the great majority that I know are getting by and playing video games.

    That’s what TFH is looking at, the thirst is much less in the Millenial generation and they don’t have assets to take. As they populate the over-30 slot that folks are currently getting married, expect reality and panic to set in.

  89. TFH & earl,

    I have no real dog in this “game” vs “no-game” fight. I find “game” to be interesting from a historical perspective. I like looking at history and data and demographics.

    The way I see it, “game” (for men to use to attract women and maintain that attraction from women), “game” in and of itself has replaced “charm.” “Charm” is basically outdated, a historical relic from our not-so-distant past. “Charm” is what Sean Connery, Patrick Stewart, Cary Grant, Jack Nicholson, Gregory Peck, and James Garner would use to make themselves irresistible to women. “Charm” is what older women still value in older men. And “charm” is all that unattractive men needed to get the women as it was 80% confidence and only 20% substance. Today, if an unattracive young man tried to use “charm” quite often the young women would see right through it and laugh about his outdated effort to try and woo them. They would think he was just a PUA or a bar-fly or a sleeze bag or whatever. Younger women today are much more battle tested, much more sophisticated to be “chamed” out of their panties by any man whom they did not already find to be “attractive.” That leaves “game.”

    IMHO, “game” takes over where “charm” left off. And quite a bit of “game” is still confidence, but not nearly as much as it took to be merely “charming.” “Game” is more like 30% confidence, 30% substance, and 40% something else (that something else being entirely deceitful and perhaps dangerous if used by the wrong man around the wrong women.) That 40% of course, is NLP…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

    In the late 1990s, a complaint that was commonly used by women who were being “subdued” by men (basically having s-x with men that they would not have, otherwise) was that the men in question were doing Speed Seduction on them. Speed Seduction is NLP for men. And I would argue, is 40% (or more) of “game.” And men who used it, used it for s-x. Women were also using NLP in the late 1990s (and use it still) but women use NLP for accumulation of financial resources. Society seems to think that when women use NLP, it is moral and good because the end goal is marriage (for us, marriage 2.0.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rules

    That is “game” for women, pure NLP in an effort to “catch a man” to “get his money” by tricking him into marrying her. The premise here is that she is forced to use NLP (as taught in The Rules) because the man in question would not marry her otherwise. Because she is doing The Rules (a woman’s “game”) he finds her so attractive, so irresistible, he simply has to marry her to keep her.

    I hate NLP. I hate the fact that women seem to think they can use it to catch men. I hate the fact that men seem to have to use it to keep women attracted to them in order to s-x them. I think it is deceitful and sinister, almost satanic really. NLP is basically what the snake used to get Eve to eat the apple. It will always work (as “game” works) but should we as Christian men, be using it?

  90. earl says:

    @ IBB

    There’s a reason the Bible states:

    ‘Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.’

  91. Gunner Q says:

    imnobody00 @ 2:40 pm
    “Feminism is so assumed that it is invisible now and people only see the way a society works.”

    Except feminism is being pointed out these days so ignorance can no longer be an excuse. When you point out the Emperor has no clothes and the crowd shouts you down, it isn’t because the crowd sees clothes. It’s because the crowd doesn’t want the consequences of not seeing clothes.

    That’s the denial Dalrock speaks of.

  92. earl,

    ‘Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.’

    Yes sir. Unfortunately (for Christian men) the likelihood (in their lifetime) of them actually meeting (and marrying) a woman who both loves and fears the Lord our God (and follows His commandments) is rapidly approaching zero.

  93. earl says:

    Depends if you know where to look and how to assess that trait in a woman. They are rare…but they as rare as men doing the same thing.

    I’ve met women like this before…the common trait with a lot of them they were either married or in religious life. I imagine a relationship with God helped them in finding the man they desired.

  94. @innocentbystanderboston: Unfortunately (for Christian men) the likelihood (in their lifetime) of them actually meeting (and marrying) a woman who both loves and fears the Lord our God (and follows His commandments) is rapidly approaching zero.

    The idea that no women are becoming born again, being set free from sin, and living godly lives is absurd.

    Either find a community of godly people, or if it you can’t find one to your liking, create one. If you want to find a pre-made wife you’d probably better off with the former.

  95. Marriage will slowly rather become more elite and slightly older over the course of time, as the society drifts closer and closer to winner take all in *all* areas – economic, social, sexual, familial, etc.

    Returning to the feudal state, the Aristocrats vs the serfs. Still sure you want to continue to breed and marrying knowing your children won’t be part of the Aristocracy. And do note, anyone who writes here is not part of the elite. Case closed.

  96. Cadders says:

    My read of the masculine response to the feminized, social-Marxist culture we now find ourselves in reflects the ‘equal and opposite’ nature of the sexes.

    Feminists overtly joined together to form an army of millions to engage with society’s formal power structures in order to be granted the things they sought.

    Red Pill men covertly share information to form a million armies of one who disengage from society’s formal power structures to take the things they seek.

    The feminists used the female herd instinct to leverage their natural pre-disposition to be ‘acted upon’. It was essentially a passive tactic reliant on powerful institutions (read – men) to give them what they wanted.

    The Red Pill uses the male ‘pack animal’ instinct to form loose and dynamic groupings of men who act in their own best interests. It is a fundamentally active tactic that results in denying the institutions some or all of the wealth, effort and support they rely on for their power.

    I see this cultural battle unfolding as it began, but with an equal and opposite dynamic. So, right now, instead of the 1950’s style self proclaimed patriarchal society we have a thoroughly feminist culture that denies it’s own existence. Instead of seeing feminist ‘consciousness raising’ and academic groups being formed, and MSM being co-opted, we have red-pill knowledge spreading via alternative channels. Instead of legislatures and the judiciary making rules and laws to force change we have red-pill guys finding ways to avoid, subvert or by-pass State entities to live the life they seek. Instead of the mass of men producing enough for themselves, their families and the State, we have increasing numbers producing just enough for themselves.

    And this is the way it has to be. Any sort of formal grouping of men to fight for their cause is as doomed as the ‘prepper’ eschewing modern society to escape. The first will be infected by SJWs and feminists. The second is an irrelevance.

    The way this battle will be fought – is being fought – is the way it has always been fought. When society is structured to deny men their productivity as a method of sexual access to women then men will deny society their productivity. The marriage dynamics Dalrock so ably documents and analyses are (an important) part of this process.

    Big Daddy Government can only be the alpha provider when it has the funds to do so. But it is just as much subject to hypergamy as the lowliest man. And when the wealth runs out, it will share the same fate.

  97. Either find a community of godly people, or if it you can’t find one to your liking, create one. If you want to find a pre-made wife you’d probably better off with the former.

    Trying to start such a community is a bridge too far for most normal men with normal means, i.e. no real wealth and no real land….

    If I ever found such a community, I know they wouldn’t let outsiders in. Just the way it is.

  98. Dalrock,

    If hypergamy were the cause it would look the other way around. UMC women would have the hardest time marrying, because the supply of men with higher status than they have is much smaller than for lower class women.

    Chan is right Dalrock, it is hypergamy but not in the sense that you and I are used to hypergamy. Its hypergamy with a big slice of dread. I’ll explain.

    A 29 year old cock-carrosel-rider with a graduate degree in w-t-f-ever, working on her PhD in w-t-f-ever is naturally super-hypergamous. She wants to marry UP in social class, but has no takers. She can’t find anyone worthy of her hand in marriage. She is too far advanced in her education. So if she wants that UMC lifestyle (or if possible, LUC) she may have to widen the choices a bit. She is not going to marry a labourer (ever) or a warehouseman or a elementary school teacher or a policeman, but maybe an accountant.

    Along comes stable 27 year old beta-bux IT guy. He has computer technology degree that took him 6 years to earn while going part-time at DeVry. He has been hopping around from company to company to keep giving himself his annual 10% pay increases (things women don’t do as that is the opposite of stability and you never accumulate vacation time) but he desires cash. He is saving for a house, not another degree he can’t use. Anyway, he gets the helpdesk ticket and arrives at her office to install some software on her machine. They get to talking, he likes the look of her, wants to have s-x with her, he risks the visit from HR and asks her out for a drink. Harmless enough. She is thinking he is nowhere near as educatred as she is, but whatever, its just a drink. She tells him afterwork they can meet for a beer and chat but she has to go to the gym afterwards.

    The two of them meet somewhere and the get to talking. He asks about her life, she asks about his, the normal mundane BS of your typical date-0, and the conversation finally gets around to his future. He says he is saving for a starter house and she starts thinking…. well, if I want a house which I know I’ll NEVER be able to afford with all these d-mn student loan payments, maybe there is a future here. He’s a little bit of a fixer-upper, but helping him pick out his house which might become MY house, that is an increase in my “lifestyle.” So things progress further because she lets it happen. She is not all that super attracted to this guy (not like all the guys whose c-x she has ridden) and he doesn’t make a million a year, but he is stable and might help give her the lifestyle she feels she is entitled plus she isn’t getting any younger. What she is feeling here is dread. She was hypergamously holding out to breed with and marry the hunky-multi-millionaire-alpha-mcrockbanddrummer-PhD-harley-rider but there aren’t any to be found. Dread. But she has this guy and he does make some money, is likely to be a good daddy, and this might be her ONLY PATH to get to that MC or UMC lifestyle, even if marrying him is marrying down. So they proceed along that track. She starts giving him the s-x. If he doesn’t start talking marriage in at least six months, she might either be dumping him OR might start to forget taking that little pill the same time each day.

    Point is this, she is hypergamous but she isn’t stupid. She dreads being alone at age 40. She knows that there aren’t any other options so if this man makes himself available at the right moment, even the most hypergamous woman is likely to take that option than to remain single-Samantha on SITC.

  99. deti, what happened, did your wife eat your balls for breakfast?

    It doesn’t matter what pussy worshiping men do, if they want to sacrifice their entire lives for one night of pussy, let them. Even if these men do this, they are still only going to get a unstable and romantically unavailable skank who opened her legs for all those playas.

    All that matters is continuing to open the eyes and ears of men who listen and get it. That is the target audience. If other men want to and will continue to pay for this insanity, let them. Just glad someone else gets the bill.

  100. ….dread, cont…. so if they get married, 5 years later she is increasly unlikely to frivorce beta-bux IT guy because who is she going to replace him with? More dread. Yes, she has a PhD now (he will never come close to matching his level of education or sophistication) but she has no real other option and she doesn’t want to be alone. And she has already figured out (crunched the numbers) that even with his paltry alimony payments (which would be smallish to non-existant given her own income) a frivorce on her part means a likely reduction in lifestyle class. She can’t Eat-Pray-Love her way to a better man, she is 34 now and they have a kid.

    “Hypergamy” drove her away from the Camden resident whom she would bang but never exchange phone numbers or intruduce to her parents. “Dread” forced her to settle for the beta-bux guy probably for the rest of her life. What choice does she really have? I’d say… none.

  101. @innocentbystanderboston: The model you describe has definitely been in force during the 1990s and 2000s; I think it’s nearing its end. Even beta chumps who got their degree at DeVry are figuring out they can just enjoy six months of s-x, and then not bother marrying the woman. This isn’t just some isolated Red Pill phenomenon. I’m seeing it everywhere, and men openly talk about this. “I like this girl, the sex is great, but if we get married the sex will stop!”

    @feministhater: If I ever found such a community, I know they wouldn’t let outsiders in. Just the way it is.

    We have outsiders convert in all the time, and they are, to an extent, and important part of the lifeblood of the community. (It’s much easier to convince young people that becoming wordly is stupid when you have a previously-worldly person explaining just how bad it is out there.) Of course, you have to actually legitimately desire to convert and to abandon a worldly lifestyle.

    It took me a decade and a half of adult life to figure this out, but eventually I figured out that the feminist, blue-pill mainstream culture the world has to offer isn’t really something I would want, spiritual concerns aside. (The fact that it’s clear from the Bible that a blue-pill feminist lifestyle with feminist sex ethics is a one-way ticket to hell did help motivate me a bit.)

    Returning to the feudal state, the Aristocrats vs the serfs. Still sure you want to continue to breed and marrying knowing your children won’t be part of the Aristocracy.

    As a Christian, my agenda is building the kingdom of God (which isn’t based on wealth or the aristrocracy). We marry and breed for the purpose of raising children who will be followers of Jesus.

    Given that most of the elite in our nation right now seem to be followers of feminism or hedonism, I’m not even sure I’d want to be part of the elite. Having enough food to eat is nice, but the main effect it seems to have had on our nation is to render us obese.

  102. “Hypergamy” drove her away from the Camden resident whom she would bang but never exchange phone numbers or intruduce to her parents. “Dread” forced her to settle for the beta-bux guy probably for the rest of her life. What choice does she really have? I’d say… none.

    Yep, that was the deduction I used when contemplating the lower divorce rate for women 40 and over. The marriage might last but it wasn’t a marriage worth starting in the first place. An entirely irrelevant example upon which to base society. Neither the man, nor the woman, are Incentivised to achieve their best. No love, no respect and no dignity.

  103. Gunner Q says:

    John Nesteutes @ 3:59 pm:
    “Either find a community of godly people, or if it you can’t find one to your liking, create one.”

    If the peasants have no bread then they should eat cake, eh?

  104. innocentbystanderboston has really assessed the situation correctly. deti is a few years out of date.

    Guys I know who are 18, 20, 26, aren’t even interested in girls, despite plenty of girls interested in them. I’ve taken the time to talk to them about the reasons:

    “I want a girl with good character and who’s attractive. So far, I only know ones with either one or the other.”

    “After watching my cousin’s divorce, I’m not sure marriage is a good deal for me… ever.”

    “If marriage is to be for life, how can you be sure your wife will believe that? How do you know she won’t change her mind?”

    “I think I’ll be happier if I don’t get married.”

    What do these guys do instead? They hit the gym, HARD. They flirt with cashiers, baristas, girls at youth group at church, anyone, really. The attention and feedback is good enough for them. The running joke amongst us is that what counts is if you could have gotten a girl to go out with you, not if you actually did ask her out. “If she says yes, you’ll just have to spend a few hours with a girl who probably isn’t worth it.”

    I see girls hitting on these guys in the gym; kino’ing them at the cashier’s stand when giving change; or blatantly asking “So when are we going out?” Doesn’t work.

    The other thing these guys have is pornography… and lots of it. They’ve got high-definition streaming porn. From what I hear, it’s all free. A friend of mine recently told me about 60 FPS porn. I don’t use porn, so I don’t know if he’s joking or not, but I’d believe it.

    If that’s not to their liking, they all seem to have a girl or two on Snapchat who has an unhealthy addiction to sending them nudes. Back in my playa days, you had to actually work for that. No more. One friend of mine ended up blocking girls on his list because she was just sending him too much smut.

    Some of these guys who have less self-control or aren’t religious do have casual sexual encounters, but nothing at all that’s serious. None of them will bring these girls around their friends. It’s one step removed from prostution; there’s just no exchange of money involved. Men just don’t see the point in dating a girl if it doesn’t seem like a good idea to marry her.

    Thirsty beta chumps have discovered the Internet and are learning game. Women might have a hope of snagging one of these guys, but is snagging a short, unattractive guy several points lower in SMV and MMV really what women consider winning the game?

    And these are the guys that women will be trying to convince to marry them 10 or 15 years from now. Ain’t gonna happen.

  105. earl says:

    “I want a girl with good character and who’s attractive. So far, I only know ones with either one or the other.”

    I always figured good character and attractiveness went together. I have yet to see very many ugly girls with good character. They are just as mean and bitter as the pretty girls who are mean and bitter.

  106. @Gunner Q: If the peasants have no bread then they should eat cake, eh?

    What alternative do you propose? We aren’t going to be winning elections anytime soon and rolling back bad laws.

    So far, this is the only thing I’ve seen that actually works in appreciable numbers… and there are hundreds of thousands of like minded people all across North America. You might as well join forces with the ones you can stand to be around the most.

    Plus, the social activities are sorta fun. Some of them are really into firearms and European-style social dances (think Laura Ingalls 19th century). Other ones like getting together and playing music, singing, if that’s your thing. Some are quite intellectual: long philosophical discussions (think of it like a good Dalrock comments thread) around a bonfire.

  107. @earl: I always figured good character and attractiveness went together. I have yet to see very many ugly girls with good character. They are just as mean and bitter as the pretty girls who are mean and bitter.

    I think that guy was referring to being fat/not fat, and guys these days have high standards. They don’t want to wife up a 4.5 who’s going to hit 3.5 territory once she gains some baby weight.

    There are some good girls with good character who nevertheless are dangerously close to being unattactive if they gain 5 lbs – personally, I think being fat is a sign of bad character, but I’m quoting his words, not mine. And his assessment is that most the hot girls he knows don’t have good character. (To his shame, he goes to a blue pill churchian mess, which might be why his social circle is full of slatternly women.)

  108. theasdgamer says:

    I focused on cleaning up the house rather than using ways to manipulate women into thinking the house isn’t dirty.

    Earl is a Blue Piller who still has no idea what Game is. Confidence. Status. Options. Engaging playfulness. Instigation (to sex or marriage with sex). Where is the manipulation in any of that? Doesn’t exist.

    Men can “clean up the house” and thereby practice biblical Game.

  109. earl says:

    I’d agree that most fat women have bad character. Pretty ones are hit and miss…but obesity is a big red flag.

    @theasdgamer

    If that’s the case of not being manipulative then you just filtered it down to…be yourself.

  110. earl says:

    And if manipulation isn’t part of it…why is Machiavellianism included in the ‘Dark Triad’ traits. Are we to believe that game is all about being sincere now?

  111. theasdgamer says:

    If that’s the case of not being manipulative then you just filtered it down to…be yourself.

    If “yourself” is confident, with high status, plays the field (uses Preselection), is engagingly playful (do you understand what this looks like?), and instigates to sex or marriage with sex, then your statement is true. From what I see of most men, “yourself” isn’t these things. Rather, they need Game.

  112. theasdgamer says:

    Earl, you are trying to drag the specter of vagueness into the discussion. Please stick with the definition that I used for biblical Game and quit muddying the water.

  113. elmer says:

    Bitter MRAs, not her own strident feminism, are killing Amanda Marcotte’s dating opportunities :

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/how-the-bitter-men-of-the-mra-movement-ruin-things-for-other-guys/

  114. OKRickety says:

    @IBB,

    I think you are never-married, and I am curious. Why didn’t you marry any of your 3 fiancées with MMVs you considered to be quite high?

  115. earl says:

    ‘Earl, you are trying to drag the specter of vagueness into the discussion. Please stick with the definition that I used for biblical Game and quit muddying the water.’

    Biblical game would usually entail something out of the bible. So what bible verse(s) backs up your definition of biblical game?

  116. earl says:

    “What types of self-improvement are you diligently engaged in right now?

    I told you…growing in a deeper relationship with God. That’s the fuel for every type of self-improvement you can think of.

  117. Opus says:

    There are a number of words which have come into out language in the last few decades and I have to confess that I have absolutely no idea what any of them are trying to describe. If they really described human behaviour then I think we might have heard of it before now.

    Words such as:

    Date-Rape
    Sexual Harrassment
    Game
    Stalking
    Grooming

    Note: all these words describe alleged male activity of a bad kind, but I cannot think of any new words or expressions used to describe new but good male behaviour.

    Then there are words or rather expressions which I understand but where I think the concept is oxymoronic much as the word centaur describes an impossibility. Words like:

    Marital Rape
    Gay Marriage
    Cis Gendered

    I do however appreciate such distinction creating expressions for boyfriend such as:

    Friend with Benefits
    Booty Call
    Fuck Buddy

    although I am not sure I can really tell them apart.

  118. OKRicketty,

    @IBB,

    I think you are never-married, and I am curious. Why didn’t you marry any of your 3 fiancées with MMVs you considered to be quite high?

    I married number three. Still happily married, best decision I made in my life.

    I dumped #1 when she turned out to be full blown BPD. Dumping her was the second best decision I made in my life.

    I dumped #2 when after 18 months of living together she showed that she couldn’t make a credit card payment even when she had no real living expenses. Dumping her was the third best decision I made in my life.

    They all had relatively high MMVs as they didn’t have any serious detracting qualities men have to put up with in bad marriages (like no b@stard children, no obnoxious ex-husbands, were relatively submissive and mostly did whatever I told them, etc) I just couldn’t deal with the raving insane lunacy from #1 and the refusal of living within a budget of #2. Could you blame me?

  119. Opus, there is not enough karma in the world to give you for that post from 5:35. Kudos sir. I would knight you if I could.

  120. earl says:

    ‘What, pray tell, does that mean?’

    Praying is part of it…following His commands, going to church and hearing the word and receiving the Eucharist, reading scripture, being involved in the parish.

    ‘Does God inform you of the progress you have made towards increasing depth of your relationship with him?’

    Yes.

    How do you know if you are succeeding?

    When it becomes a bigger part of your life.

  121. earl says:

    @IBB

    I’d consider BPD a full blown red flag and low MMV even if they don’t have the other things saddling them down. They are on another planet of crazy compared to average women.

  122. Earl, at the time (at the time) I thought I could handle the BPD. I was wrong. I had no idea how much effort it would take (on my part) to help her get over her crazy @ssholeness. Looking back now, of course you are right, her MMV was not that high. It was quite low indeed. But at the time (comparing her to my other gfs) I would have rated her MMV very high because I didn’t have much to compare her to….

    …see where I am going with that?

    I lacked the wisdom I now have. So I just got lucky by getting out when the getting was good.

  123. S. Chan says:

    @ Dalrock, at 2:35 pm
    Ahh, I was forgetting that divorce rates are much lower for people with college education. Thanks!

  124. earl says:

    Yes you get involved with one BPD gal and you look for that big bottle of crazy in every other gal you meet.

  125. OKRickety says:

    @IBB,
    Thanks for the response. I’ve primarily lurked here for quite a while. Without keeping notes, it’s hard to keep up with all of the commenters.

    I don’t blame you for dumping #1 and #2. I hope marrying #3 was one of the best decisions of your life. I wish you well.

    I married one I thought had high MMV, but, unfortunately, I found out otherwise. It took 21 years of slow deterioration before she blind-sided me. I think her involvement in Celebrate Recovery during the last 2 years or so of our marriage was a significant factor in her decision to get a divorce. Financially, I may well be better off 3 years post-divorce, but it’s not what God wants, what I wanted, nor what our 2 children wanted.

  126. OKR,

    I think her involvement in Celebrate Recovery during the last 2 years or so of our marriage was a significant factor in her decision to get a divorce.

    I am real sorry to hear that. It is not all that uncommon though. It’s kind of like when women 12-step they sometimes wind up 12-stepping themselves right out of a marriage because they realize they never really loved their husband (kind of like in that Meg Ryan-Andy Garcia movie “When a Man Loves a Woman.”) They just depended on him for stability due to their alcoholism. I see that crap all the time and it pains me. (You want your spouse to get better, but then she does and now she thinks she deserves better than you.)

    Financially, I may well be better off 3 years post-divorce, but it’s not what God wants, what I wanted, nor what our 2 children wanted.

    And (as a result) your two children are ONLY going to want to continue to have a relationship with their father in their adulthood. They get what their mom did. They will forgive her, but they wont forget. And they wont forget that you didn’t want the frivorce. And (ironically) it will be you that will probably encourage your children to try and re-establish some kind of relationship with their mother because their writing her off might motivate her to “use” again. I see this all the time too.

  127. ace says:

    “Why men refuse to marry: Women complain chaps today won’t settle down. Sorry, ladies, but it’s all your fault, argues a wickedly provocative new book…”

    Seems like wishful thinking to me. Men aren’t refusing anything, It is women that are refusing to settle down (at least when in their twenties…and sometimes early thirties al so). Why are they doeing this? Well, because they can. Women have options up their */#@$*. Men are more than willing to tap dance on command and women know it.

  128. S. Chan says:

    The original article in The Daily Mail seems to be generating some interest: after one day, there are over 3500 comments.

  129. easttexasfatboy says:

    Well, women aren’t fixing to change unless it’s a matter of survival. ISIS has set up a training center in Mexico. Yes, I’m aware of terrorist theater. However, they’re fixing to start operations here. Think Islamic beheaders with Go Pro HD cameras. Yes, they’re going to behead folks. And broadcast it. Here’s the thing…..Feminism has really hated on young men for a while. There isn’t a social contract with these guys, and they know it. So, why protect women? Are all women feminists? The better question is do all women benefit from feminist cultural destruction? And, how about the feminised young guys who can’t fight? Well, I’m not going to help a college educated woman that I don’t personally know. Yes, that’s extreme, and I know it. Root and branch, root and branch.

  130. Oscar says:

    earl says:
    April 20, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    “Depends if you know where to look and how to assess that trait in a woman. They are rare…but they as rare as men doing the same thing.”

    John Nesteutes says:
    April 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    “The idea that no women are becoming born again, being set free from sin, and living godly lives is absurd.”

    I’ve made those observations here before. They didn’t go over too well.

  131. Boxer says:

    John Nesteutes sez:

    The idea that no women are becoming born again, being set free from sin, and living godly lives is absurd.

    Then Oscar sez:

    I’ve made those observations here before. They didn’t go over too well.

    Yeah, me too. It was a weeks long shitslinging match. “All women are whores, no exception” seems to be an axiom of the manosphere, despite any evidence to the contrary (of which there is plenty).

    It’s a lot like feminists, who say “all men are…” (pigs, rapists, scum). Unhealthy and distorted view of reality, but understandable in many cases where someone is hurt very badly and needs to vent a generalized anger.

    Boxer

  132. ActualTruth says:

    There is but one path in which men might free themselves from the misandric gynocracy and the even more man-hating patriarchy. That path is the MGTOW path.

    For those of you that support the patriarchy – remember that it was they that voted in Title IX, ‘Yes Means Yes’, no-fault divorce, man hating alimony and child support, active discrimination against men through affirmative action for women, far less federal funding for men than women in health, education, welfare, etc. The powerful, naive, white knights, captian-save-a-hos and manginas of the patriarchy are not the friends of most men. They instead serve the hyper-gynocracy (feminists). They use the majority of men as disposable pawns to gain favor, wealth and poody for themselves – all at the expense of the common man’s life.

    Both the patriarchy and gynocracy are the enemies of most men.

  133. easttexasfatboy says:

    Yep, nawalt……but there’s a good number who are. Thing is, most of the guys here are learning red pill in one way or the other. I, personally, was livid when I saw how badly I’d been played. Takes a while. I view this as a men’s locker room, without the smelly feet. Most of us can remember when marriage wasn’t so venal. That’s sad. All a man can do is survive. That’s going to be a real trick in these interesting times to come.

  134. @Seriouslyserving; “The more I read about MGTOW, the tighter I hold my husband.”

    I am sure they would be thrilled to hear that. If I were your husband I would Google “MGTOW Sandman” and have a ball playing it in the car with you.

    @Deti: “So I don’t agree that we’ll see the pendulum swing the other way. Rather, what we’ll see is sliding the current model “down the timeline”

    Agreed. Dalrock is precious thinking they are going to roll back the “gains” which all point towards feminine primacy. Family Courts, criminal courts, education system, primary schools, child custody, divorce, chiliminony, vaginamony. 80% of the money paid in taxes is paid by men. 80% of that is paid from government to women. They are not backing down. There is no pendulum swing.

    They are trying to kick that damn pendulum into the next gear with ‘yes means yes’ and rape culture. The boys in my classes are so checked out. Almost no couples walk around campus. There are often large groups of girls gathered around a single extra loud Alpha type in the lunch room. The rest of the boys, 90% of students, walk around, eyes on the floor, mumbling and stumbling. Yes, Dalrock, it makes sense they would start to back off when the result is so ridiculously obvious. Except they are not operating on common sense or logic. Logic and math are patriarchal tools meant to oppress women. lzozolzzolozoz

    @Earl: “I focused on cleaning up the house rather than using ways to manipulate women into thinking the house isn’t dirty.”

    Good job improving your game.

    @Earl: ” If the only thing a woman has to offer is sex…she doesn’t have what it takes to be marriage/mother material.:

    AND a virgin, AND a believer AND pious AND submissive AND makes sandwiches AND is a good mother AND loves kids AND loves to do housework etc.

    I do hope that one day you are able to identify the problem you are having finding this unicorn.

    @Gunner: A married woman has no incentive to please her man and the qualities women want in a husband aren’t the qualities they want in a lover.

    The only incentive the feminists have left us is the ability to leave, take away our time and attention, and ultimately love other women- or go MGTOW.

    TLDR: The campaign to dis-incentivize marriage for men is just the first step in the BIG plan and the feminists were useful idiots. This is a long march and a scorched Earth policy all the way to year 0, Comrade.

  135. olympiapress says:

    @David (good name, btw)

    My question is, by the time I reach 26 and the misandry bubbl is about to burst, I feel like the male-shaming for not “wifing up these sluts” is going to go through the roof. Pre-wall thirsty women might just start coming out of the woodwork. I will be reaching SMV peak or at my peak, and will have security and hopefully my good looks still.
    I feel like I’m just going to have a huge red painted target on my back, being tall, white, and handsome with security.

    Y’know, I’m older than you, was recently separated, and ran into that same thing, though my first batch was 35+, getting younger later. Mostly I’d meet them when I was just going out to hang with my new (male) friends, but they’ll spot you weeks before you even notice them. And it gets weird.

    If a woman has decided you are her BB provider to be, she will:

    1. First approach you in a manner that’s obnoxious. Complete stranger telling you you’re OK, but there is some room in your life for improvement. (And note the lack of self-awareness… divorced guy has been waiting his whole life to meet a nag.)

    2. Then, second visit, decide to turn on the charm, whether or not you’ve “fixed” whatever was wrong enough to bring out her worldly insight. This is when you’ll somehow get her number. If you’re dumb enough to try and make a date with her, she will flake. Even if you get her into bed, nude, it will be the “wrong time.”

    3. Realizing after a few weeks that she’s gone “too far,” she will then stage some impossibly lame chance meeting, in my case at a karaoke bar I used to frequent 4-5 nights a week. Totally shocked to find you there. What a coincidence. Creepiest thing you can imagine.

    4a. If you still fail to show “proper interest,” she will in desperation prove that she “still has it,” by engaging in sex with some dude who has no provider credentials. Either a much-younger guy who lives with his mom, or just some loser. Fascinating to watch from a distance. This 39-year-old went home with two gents, one of whom I knew to be gay. They did an Eiffel Tower on her, which… I mean, I didn’t want any part of her before, but now that I know I can follow that…

    4b. If in your self-improvement you’ve developed one of the skills that makes you attractive to younger females without the same N-Count (Karaoke, Swing/Salsa/Ballroom Dancing, or Guitar), providee’s epiphany may strike when she sees you enjoying the attentions of said younger creatures. The rueful headshakes she’ll give when she sees that are typically a thing of beauty. In my case, it mostly happened at this downtown karaoke bar I used to frequent, one that was right next to a 70-percent female liberal arts college in St. Pete. Every Thursday they had $1 Miller Lites, and I was kind of the date for all of them. Sort of like how Dick Clark was for single gals on New Year’s.

    You can’t imagine how many women “sought me out” at that establishment, ‘cuz by then I was in grad school and only going out a couple times a week. When a 27-year-old would-be former carousel rider sees the one guy with an AmEx Platinum enjoying the affections of dozens of women literally half his age while belting out Bruno Mars, Franz Ferdinand or Buckcherry, it’s a thing to behold as she slowly slinks into the darkness.

    Sadly, I didn’t even enjoy those looks after a while. One of the weirdest of my would-be providees was a gal named Stevie. Late ’30s. Divorced poorly from a high-income guy. Had a “career” in the auto industry that was made redundant. She lived in my complex in the farthest building away from the water, definitely knew I was on the water, and Sunday nights, after I started school, I’d get my projects and quizzes in by the 7:30 deadline. Mentally drained after 14 hours of regression analysis, I’d take Uber to this biker bar that had outlaw karaoke and football. Just got slammed there and screamed my head off on whatever.

    Stevie was driving for Uber. First ride, she was unprofessional, having to run back into her apartment for keys or something. Whatever, that was the “test.” She talked about herself, about her financial difficulties (weirdly, she was driving Uber in a recent Mercedes SUV.) I kinda listened halfway, tried to encourage her about life in general, not me specifically.

    Stevie was somehow my Uber driver on numerous Sundays after that. Getting friendlier. The last one came after Thanksgiving. I was all done with classes. Yay. Stevie came on to me, hard. The whole ride. We get to the biker place, and it usually had, you know, bunch of Vietnam vets, some grandmothers. Except every now and again, the girls from Winghouse down the street (similar to Hooters) would come by to be entertained. That night, work done, they raced up as they saw us approaching, “Dave! Dave! What are you going to sing tonight?”

    I’ll be honest, I’ve never taken a Winghouse girl home. I’ve already had stripper drama. But Stevie sat in her truck, nodding her head. Ruefully. And that was that…

    … Until Dec. 31st, 2014, when Stevie took her two dogs to a kennel, then took her own life on New Year’s. We didn’t find out ’til the second when the kennel called.

    You may not be interested in drama. But, sadly, drama is going to be very interested in you. It’s only gonna get worse. More than 1.5 million women have left the labor force since Jan. 2014, rate’s now 100k a month vanishing and that’s with the government fudging the numbers as much as possible. 1/3rd of all student loans are currently in default, and it ain’t the dudes majoring in robotics or engineering or big data.

    My advice to you takes two forms: be more of a moving target than I was. (I’ve since left FL to do some consulting in the Midwest, may be back but to a different part of town.) And, if you can’t buy toiletries from a subscribe ‘n save, Target, a pioneer in associative marketing, has that one “man aisle” in cosmetics with razors and deodorant and toothpaste. Seems real convenient, but you don’t know how many times I’ve been stalked by would-be providees coming out of there when I headed down to get steaks or beer or diet coke or whatever. If you must visit, only go late at night.

  136. Signor Farfalla says:

    @Innocentbystanderboston,

    “where men keep score with each other based on how s-xy, thin, and bubbly their wives are.”

    In America? I’ve never seen that scenario at all.

    All those sexy, thin trophy wives, yeah? Can’t move for them….wow.

  137. @Boxer

    I’m not really worried that my husband will stray – we both believe divorce is not an option.
    It’s more that I see the amount of men now declining to marry, and I see what an awesome guy my husband is, and I want to be worthy of him.

  138. anonymous_ng says:

    @olympiapress, you’ve handed out some good stuff there. The thing I run into is that while I could be banging a different coed or mid-thirties divorcee every night and twice on Sunday, unicorns worth and interested in marrying are exceedingly rare.

  139. OKRickety says:

    @IBB,
    For those who don’t know, Celebrate Recovery is not the typical program for recovery from addiction, but it is “a biblical and balanced program to help people overcome their hurts, habits and hang-ups”. For what it’s worth, CR is a program begun at Saddleback Church where Rick Warren is the senior pastor.
    Let me clarify the situation. My ex-wife was in a 12-step CR group to deal with the “hurt” caused by my behavior, not to deal with any “habit” of drugs or alcohol. However, I think she was heavily influenced by her fellow group members (all female as per CR rules), and became convinced that I was emotionally abusing her, and on the verge of physically abusing her. This may well have been true for many in her group, and I think she succumbed to the herd mentality. In other words, she was a victim of a “bad” man and I was almost completely responsible for the poor state of our marriage.
    Before we told the kids about the divorce, she said she “owned” her decision, but she wanted me to agree to tell them that “we had decided divorce was the best option”. I refused, and made certain that the kids knew that I did not want the frivorce. Perhaps they will forgive her, but I wouldn’t bet on it, unless a miracle occurs and she confesses and repents of her sin. If she doesn’t, I want them to mourn, heal, and be nice to her. If she does confess and repent, I definitely want them to forgive her and reconcile, and, as crazy as it sounds, I think God would want me to forgive her and work toward reconciliation and restoration of our marriage. A restored, strong marriage would be an awesome example of God’s power, and, I think, a genuine miracle.

    Rick

  140. Dale says:

    seriouslyserving says:
    April 20, 2015 at 4:13 am

    >The more I read about MGTOW, the tighter I hold my husband. It makes me more thankful for him, and especially thankful that we married young.

    It is wonderful when a husband and wife choose to focus on being grateful for the good things in their marriage, rather than the irritants.
    And it is excellent you chose to give yourself to him while still young. Very wise. Hope you follow that up by maintaining a feminine appearance and sweet disposition for him. And of course I hope he loves you with the consistency you need to feel safe as behind a stone wall.

    And although Boxer (at 10:36 am) was a bit crude, I definitely will firmly endorse with a +1🙂 A feminine wife, who is generous with her body and heart together…… sigh🙂

    @Dalrock
    >Men without visible major flaws and with jobs are a scarce commodity for women say over 35. What hasn’t changed is those scarce men still view marriage as their best chance to lock down sex. They see their sudden rise in SMV, with women all of a sudden chasing them for the first time in their lives, and think it is a fluke.

    I do not see the increase in attention you describe toward me or my friends. Granted, several did successfully marry in early 30s, although only one somewhat-well. She is feminine and attractive for him, but spouts feminism, so I am not sure how things will be in 5 years. I would never have married someone with her attitudes.
    For the others, I cannot help but think they grabbed their wife out of desperation to have someone, anyone. If they had had significant interest, then presumably they could have chosen higher quality women.

    Although part of the problem for me, is that, just like women, I do not “see” those I feel are unworthy. If she is dressed like a man or obese, I see no attractiveness and thus no marriage value in her. And thus do not pay much attention to any interest she shows.

    @IBB
    > Everyone here keeps harping on women to be blamed that their horrible marriage statisitics (its her fault she is not married at 38 because she didn’t get married at 22) but I would argue that (for her) there was no diamond and no bended knee at 22, 27, or 32. She had NO options. Even if she wanted to get married, she couldn’t

    If she did not marry by 25, it absolutely is her fault (okay, say 95%), at least in this culture which has plenty of decent, although not millionaire rock-stars, men. Any woman 18-24 can choose to immediately become better than 95% of her competitors for marriage, simply by choosing to consistently dress like a woman, have a healthy weight, have hair to her elbows, a temporary occupation instead of a student debt and career, and a pleasant disposition. A woman like that will get attention. The problem is that while some women occasionally choose to be feminine, or choose to be feminine in only a few ways while also being masculine in others, very few choose to fully embrace the fact they are a woman. I can think of 1 or 2 from work, and 3 from my prior church. That’s it.
    The remainder do not deserve marriage, any more than a guy who has “most” of his stuff together, but deliberately chooses to have no job. Or chooses to wear a dress in public, even if “only” once a week. Or chooses to come across as weak and without self-confidence or self-respect.

    You also mention that, in your experience, the ugly women do not get married. At least for me, a woman’s beauty is about 80% determined by her femininity. Since that is entirely under her control, I think it is great that ugly women do not marry, although I am not sure you are correct in your contention.
    You mentioned only one of the weddings you attended had a fat bride. Fat = ugly, and it is self-imposed. So again, great.

    I can feel sympathy for a man with short height, or a woman with small breasts or a woman with weak hair that (supposedly) keeps breaking off at shoulder length. These are not under the person’s control. For everything else, they can choose to be the quality of person they want to be.

    >To men who only see value in women for lifetime marriage and being a mother to his children: MMV > SMV.

    This is absolutely true. I am willing to deliberately sacrifice surface beauty for other characteristics, although I have to choose to think and act in that way.

    @easttexasfatboy
    I remember a short groom. But his wife was even shorter🙂

    @thedeti
    >It’s hard for me to believe that most women marrying for the first time at 35 to 45 believe they’ll start families. Age 35, maybe. But not past 40.

    I knew a woman who was 43 at the time. She firmly expected to get married and have no problem having children. We discussed it a few times. Of course, she could be the outlier, I’m no doctor so I cannot judge that.

  141. JDG says:

    remember that it was they that voted in Title IX, ‘Yes Means Yes’, no-fault divorce, man hating alimony and child support, active discrimination against men through affirmative action for women, far less federal funding for men than women in health, education, welfare, etc. … Both the patriarchy and gynocracy are the enemies of most men.

    When “they” voted in the laws listed above, their society ceased to be a patriarchy. To my knowledge patriarchy (particularly Biblical patriarchy), as flawed as it is, is the best societal system that as been tried up to date. If there is a better way to utilize the strengths and weaknesses of men and women for the best possible outcome for everyone involved, someone please enlighten me.

  142. DeNihilist says:

    Boxer, all women are whores, it is just how bad do men want to believe otherwise?

    A very smart Jew said something about 2100 years ago – “the truth shall set you free”.
    So to see the truth, sets men free. If the woman you love and are married too, re-affirms the axiom that all women are whores, then you can freely decide whether to cut the tether, or accept that she is a whore and live with her and that knowledge.

    Simples.

  143. Boxer says:

    Dear Seriously Serving:

    I’m not really worried that my husband will stray – we both believe divorce is not an option.

    I honestly think that regular women don’t know how brazen many of these skank-ho “empowered” career women are, when they’re alone with a man and no one can hear or see them. There are probably several of those women who are alone with your husband in an integrated workplace all day.

    Even out in the general rat-pen which is North American society, there are tons of skank-ho women who would fuck your husband, just for the ego boost of causing strife in your marriage. The ho thinks she’s done something significant when she succeeds at this. It’s like she’s proving she’s better than you.

    This is one of the prime fruits of feminism. Everyone’s favorite ideological cancer.

    It’s more that I see the amount of men now declining to marry, and I see what an awesome guy my husband is, and I want to be worthy of him.

    You were a smart girl when you were young. I can tell. You saw the prize and you got it. Don’t be complacent. Be that dude’s own private playmate, and you’ll have everything you want, in a long and happy life together.

    Best,

    Boxer

  144. DeNihilist says:

    Jeez, IBB, I never believed in dopple-gangers before, but hell man, you and Deti must be twins!

    ‘. She is not all that super attracted to this guy (not like all the guys whose c-x she has ridden) and he doesn’t make a million a year, but he is stable and might help give her the lifestyle she feels she is entitled plus she isn’t getting any younger. etc.”

  145. John Nesteutes says:

    @TFH:

    Ugh. That is pathetic.

    I made a decision to stop fornicating when I got born again. Cold approaching worldly women seemed to be my downfall for ending up in bed with loose women, so I dialled it back. There is nothing positive for a man about a high N count.

    1) Cancel dates from time to time. What this does to your own confidence as well as how women see you, is miraculous, and well worth the risk of possibly losing a few.

    Of course it is. At my zenith, I stood up girls on every major holiday, most Fridays and weekends, and on their birthdays. This assured a steady supply of desperate sex.


    2) If you can’t get the women back to your place any later than the third meeting, and certainly before you have spent over $10 on her on the outside, you aren’t doing it right. If you aren’t having sex with her after that much, someone else certainly is.

    My game was always at her house, not mine.

    Nowadays I don’t associate with women who will have sex with anyone except their husbands. I avoid any women who meet your definition of “someone else certainly is”.

    Virtuous men beget virtuous women. They’re sure a lot more pleasant to be around.

    A life of endless hedonistic sex bites. It’s about as much fun as being a heroin addict.

    @TFH
    Please do continue to hassle earl about his hopeless pursuit of virtuous women. I know plenty, so the problem is with him, not with them. Perhaps a move is in order to a place with more rural or traditional Catholics.

  146. JDG says:

    If father’s are not the authority in their families or children are not considered as belonging to their fathers, that society in which they live is not patriarchal.

  147. John Nesteutes says:

    @olympiapress

    Men who stick to biblical rules against marrying divorced women, and who heed its wisdom against marrying loose women (I.e. Any single mom) will find themselves inoculated against these sort of female predators.

    I shudder to think how I nearly ended up involved with one. She was pretty, sweet, and had cute kids. Ended up pregnant after having sex with a guy after me… just once. The chump takes care of her kids and his now, and she apparently “doesn’t like sex, but I try to make him happy.” What a joy.

    Another one literally threw herself at me, before I could deflect her hug into a proper Duggar sidehug. She about had a meltdown when I explained the divorced shouldn’t marry, in response to her interrogating me as to why I refused to go in a date with her. (She had 1 kid.)

    Back in my youth, I liked a cute girl and she liked me, but she ended up dating a mutual friend of ours. No biggie. Male friendship trumps potential girlfriend. We drifted apart, they broke up, she dated someone else and got pregnant. He turned out to be “abusive”. (Always are, aren’t they are?) She hit me up, telling me how much more she appreciated me and how I’d be a great dad to her new kid. I was young and dumb back then, but the extra 25 pounds was enough to scare me off.

    I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

  148. DeNihilist says:

    Deti – ” So in the final analysis, I don’t see women noticing the problems and then taking action to address them, not on any sort of grand scale.”

    Totally right. This I know from being a passenger when my wife drives. Men look ahead and behind constantly as they drive. Knowing if douchebag-el derado pulls a U-turn, that a certain part of the sidewalk is open, so maybe I don’t get hit today.

    My wife drives in never-never land. She only checks the mirrors, AS she is doing her move, yet has a very low accident history. White knuckles constantly!

  149. DeNihilist says:

    Sorry TFH – But Amanda says your gamey-game is lame!

    “PUAs encourage them to focus their efforts on trying to have a series of one-night stands with drunken women in bars. To achieve this, they argue, men need to learn to be callous and nasty to women—the way they imagine “alphas” acting.
    There’s nothing wrong with one-night stands, but this mentality is discouraging and cruel to men who are hoping to form a lasting, intimate relationship with a woman. “

  150. DeNihilist says:

    Uh T, it was a joke. But you knew that already right? Hint – this is an Amanwhore Marclott quote.

  151. Robert What? says:

    There are still young fools out there who, like me, were tricked by society into believing that marriage is somehow beneficial to them. I see these young men – mostly in their early 30s – with sheepish grins, dutifully shuffling behind their sexless wives with widening asses, pushing the stroller. Sad.

  152. @ Dale
    “And of course I hope he loves you with the consistency you need to feel safe as behind a stone wall.”

    It’s funny, because I spent a lot of time earlier in our marriage feeling dissatisfied that he wasn’t loving me “like Christ”, because he wasn’t falling over himself to give me what I want or always conceding to my opinion. And it’s only in more recent years, and largely due to discovering Dalrock et. al.’s blogs, that I realise his love is more Christlike than I thought – correcting me when I fall, reaffirming his commitment to me and encouraging me to grow in the Lord.

    @ Boxer
    “You were a smart girl when you were young. I can tell. You saw the prize and you got it. Don’t be complacent. Be that dude’s own private playmate, and you’ll have everything you want, in a long and happy life together.”

    Oh, I wasn’t trying to show complacency, just trust in my husband – if he says we are together until death, I believe him.
    But that doesn’t preclude me trying to be the best wife I can – it’s just that it’s out of love and thankfulness, instead of fear of losing him.

  153. Johnycomelately says:

    I’m surprised by the talk of bubbles and bear markets, this not a zero sum game, the can is going to to get kicked down the road a lot further than most people can imagine. In this market supply can be changed with a legislators pen.

    We are only just now hearing the rumblings of tax payer subsidised child support for all children and removing liabilities from divorced fathers.

  154. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I live on the westside of Los Angeles. I see plenty of, apparently married, young couples on the streets. Some things that many have in common:

    * The men are lean and TALL.

    * The women are beautiful. Often blonde, sometimes Asian.

    * They often have a baby or toddler. The MAN is often the one with the baby strapped on his chest. Either that, or the MAN (alone or together with the wife) is pushing the stroller. Curiously, they often push the stroller during their exercise regimen, jogging while pushing the stroller.

    So it seems to me that…

    * Lean, well-to-do, TALL men have no trouble finding beautiful wives while still in their 20s. And young, beautiful women will marry an apparent alpha while still in her 20s.

    * Even lean, muscled, TALL alpha males are feminized so that they walk around with a baby strapped to their chest. (Is this partially the wife’s way of signaling her claim on him to other women? Marking her man with their baby?)

    * Young wives refuse to give up their pre-marital lifestyles. They continue to run and jog like they did before they were married, bringing the baby along, while insisting the man carry it.

    I don’t see hardly any young couples with short, or even medium height men. All six foot and over.

    (I’m talking about the whites, which the westside is full of. Not the Latinos, who have their own dynamics.)

  155. @ Red Pill Latecomer
    “* Even lean, muscled, TALL alpha males are feminized so that they walk around with a baby strapped to their chest. (Is this partially the wife’s way of signaling her claim on him to other women? Marking her man with their baby?)”

    My husband insists on pushing the pram whenever we’re out together. And he loved having our kids in the carrier when they were smaller. I hope people don’t think he’s feminized! It’s not always the wife “making” them do it…

  156. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Speaking of marriage as a merit badge, anyone ever notice how quickly women blurt out “But that’s by choice!” whenever her single or unmarried status comes up?

    I’ve seen women interviewed on TV, whether minor celebrities or shows featuring regular folk. The interviewer will mention in an offhand way, “And, you’re single–”

    “By choice!” the woman will suddenly interject. Even though she was not asked why she was single.

    This is especially true among older women (age 40 and above).

    Women really do hate for people to think that they’re alone because they can’t get a man.

  157. earl says:

    @John Nesteutes

    Yes following the biblical thoughts on divorced women and adulteresses will keep you out of a lot of snares. They didn’t put that stuff in there for giggles.

    I’d rather pursue a virtuous Godly woman because their tendency to be a snare is less. My mother is one…so that’s the standard I’m going off of here.

  158. Pingback: Rabble rousers | Truth and contradictions | Sc...

  159. earl says:

    ‘I do hope that one day you are able to identify the problem you are having finding this unicorn.’

    Please inform me of the problem, sir. You seem to know what it is.

  160. greyghost says:

    I always like carrying around the baby. I used to cruise around in the neighborhood with the infant daughter in the stroller fairly often.

  161. John Nesteutes says:

    I can back up @Red Pill Latecomer’s observations as being true in the Greater Toronto Area as well (among suburban and urban whites. Immigrants are their own story.)

    @TFH: whilst LTR game does exist, LTRs serve the FI. The only reason for a man to be sexually exclusive to one woman, FOR LIFE, is to (a) avoid adultery and fornication and (b) raise a family.

    That’s why LTRs (or marriage followed by divorce) is a clunky fit for game. It works, but you’re ultimately pleasing her ends, not yours.

    @Johnycomelately
    Where is some more info on rumblings of universal state sponsored child support? That’ll be the last death blow to providing any incentives for men to signal provisioning.

  162. Pingback: Logic and Math | Rasputin's Fire

  163. thedeti says:

    @ Femertilizer:

    “It is only because I believe it to be in their best interest that I am still married to their mother. I love my boys, but given the chance to do it over again, I would never marry.”

    Prayers for you and yours, Femertilizer.

  164. Scott says:

    Marcus-

    That CAF thread soliciting the “top ten” qualities to look for in a man is hilarious. I would love for to Deti to go on there are write..

    “You all forgot HOT HOT HOT HOT HOT!!!!!!”

  165. earl says:

    ‘That CAF thread soliciting the “top ten” qualities to look for in a man is hilarious. I would love for to Deti to go on there are write..’

    Some of the better ones are just as important qualities for a wife. They seem to know what they want a man to be and could easily attract that type of guy if that is the type of person they are.

    But there are a few things different in a man women are looking for…most notably leadership skills, confidence, and strength.

  166. theasdgamer says:

    Biblical game would usually entail something out of the bible. So what bible verse(s) backs up your definition of biblical game?

    A whole book. Song of Solomon.

  167. Signor Farfalla says:

    @Robert What?

    Very succinct entry there. Nice.

    “Sexless wives with widening asses”

    Thank you for not over-intellectualizing like many manosphere posts/comments end up doing. They’re FAT. This is the underlying everything of everything in gender relations.

    I remember in college one of my buddies had a memorable line;
    “I can’t wait to be married so I can just wake up and get laid.”

    I repeated it once (I was 34 or so and single) when a married colleague was giving me the ‘what gives?’ line of questioning about marriage-less life. He was cool and meant well so I was all; “Yeah, one day it might happen. I remember a friend once said..(above line about waking up to sex) and that sounds cool.” The questioner was like, “Uhhh, buddy, ummmm….like, no. Not happening dude. Back it up. Let’s back things up here. Yeah, um no. That’s not going to happen. Does…not ….happen…..like….that. We’re gonna have to dial that one waaayyy back.” Okay, ha, ha. We had a laugh. But then I would always use that line to slyly bait guys into admitting where they’re at with sexual access to their wives. It was ALWAYS that same style of “Wooooaaahh, back up. Let’s back that one up. Time for a lesson from a married guy. You see…It…is…not…like…that.”

    Never once was a guy like ‘Damn right.’ or even, “Yeah, not exactly quite so easy, but it’s cool to get laid all the time.” It has always been that tone of “Stop, right there. Let me explain…” kind of playful but earnest remonstrance, more or less scolding me (the single guy) for thinking I’ll have sex when I’m married. Very revealing over the years.

  168. Scott says:

    But there are a few things different in a man women are looking for…most notably leadership skills, confidence, and strength.

    …and HOT HOT HOT! But none of them will admit it on a Catholic (or any other “Christian”) website.

  169. Escoffier says:

    I see zero evidence of PhD women marrying Devry Tech grads. If there are stats on this I’d love to see them, but anecdotally / observationally, it is not happening–at all–in the NYC or NorCal areas that I frequent.

  170. earl says:

    Is Hot, Hot, Hot…just physical attributes?

  171. Scott says:

    Is Hot, Hot, Hot…just physical attributes?

    They are whatever attributes gets a woman excited (see LAMPS, PSALMS, etc). The “tingle” causing stuff. And without them, a woman will not even notice you. Without noticing you, she will not care how good of a provider you are, what a great dad you would make or how kind to animals you are.

    All the women in that thread are being dishonest by not admitting this.

    At least guys in the manosphere are up front about what they require physically.

  172. earl says:

    ‘All the women in that thread are being dishonest by not admitting this.’

    Perhaps…or they are just expressing their theories but in practice they know what desire feels like.

    And much like the example of Song of Solomon mentioned above…what is the thing the female is expressing to Solomon? Her desire for him. It has to be there for anything to get going.

    There’s 90% of your game fellas. The other 10% is you not screwing it up. Which is something you can get by asking God for wisdom.

  173. Dave says:

    AND a virgin, AND a believer AND pious AND submissive AND makes sandwiches AND is a good mother AND loves kids AND loves to do housework etc.

    I do hope that one day you are able to identify the problem you are having finding this unicorn.

    Reminds me of the rhetorical question asked by the angels in white:

    Why do you seek the living among the dead? Luke 24:5

  174. thedeti says:

    “I see zero evidence of PhD women marrying Devry Tech grads. If there are stats on this I’d love to see them, but anecdotally / observationally, it is not happening–at all–in the NYC or NorCal areas that I frequent.”

    Nor in the Midwest. It doesn’t happen to that extreme degree, but there are some more slight educational/skill level differentials. What you have usually is a woman with a bachelor’s, maybe a master’s, married to a high wage earning tradesman, a public servant, or a profession requiring a 2 year associate’s degree. What often affects it is what the earning potentials are.

    I know the following in my own personal life:

    –Woman with master of social work degree married to electrician (she is a teacher’s aide)
    –Woman with master of education degree married to professional land surveyor (no college, on job training) (She is an early childhood teacher)
    –Woman with bachelor of science in mass communication married to correctional officer (She is a local newspaper reporter)
    –Woman with Education degree married to police officer (she is an elementary school teacher)
    –woman lawyer (she is a local prosecutor) married to man with master’s degree in political science (he teaches at a community college)

    They have roughly the same earning power and more or less the same social status. The woman lawyer if she plans on a career in public service will do fine financially, but she will never get wealthy. Now if she goes into private practice and does well, she will outearn her husband by multiples of 3 or 4 and that’s where that marriage will get strained. Further, the job market for female lawyers has exploded recently, as firms and governmental agencies strive for “diversity” and seek to promote and advance female lawyers and avoid the appearance of law being the sole province of pasty, overeducated white guys (because privilege). As for the rest of them, their salaries and social status are roughly equal.

    I think we’ll see a lot more marriages like this as time goes on, presuming that men can hold on and not lose ground economically and professionally.

    Most women with Ph.D.s are either marrying their rough counterparts if they can find them, or remaining single. Then, when they want to become mothers (and they always do), they head to the sperm bank for the donor sperm from the Ph.D. guy/George Clooney lookalike, and write the check for the IVF.

  175. BradA says:

    Deti,

    You fail to realize that people will eventually rebel against more and more taxation, whatever the justification and whoever is pushing it. History is full of that. It may take longer than we think, but it cannot and thus will not continue forever.

  176. Hank Flanders says:

    Scott

    All the women in that thread are being dishonest by not admitting this.

    At least guys in the manosphere are up front about what they require physically.

    You could generalize these statements to just “women” and “guys,” and the statements would still be true.

  177. Hank Flanders says:

    Red Pill Latecomer

    I live on the westside of Los Angeles. I see plenty of, apparently married, young couples on the streets.

    Have you looked for rings to determine if they’re actually married? Celebrities have kids together all the time without getting married, and you’re specifically talking about LA where a lot of celebrities are located.

  178. BradA says:

    Earl,

    If it works for you, that’s fine. It doesn’t work for me. I found the thing I needed.

    I am completely disgusted by much of the PUA aspect of game as it is pushed today, but that doesn’t mean some of the ideas are not valid.

    How is your own approach working?

    Personal confidence is a powerful thing, are you really arguing that is worthless?

    be yourself.

    Only if that is being a true man. Modern society seeks to train that out. I am definitely not the master some seem to be, but I have always had a strong determination. Realizing that is a good thing, not a bad thing, is very helpful.

  179. S. Chan says:

    @ Bluepillprofessor
    “80% of the money paid in taxes is paid by men. 80% of that is paid from government to women.”

    Do you know reliable citations for this?

  180. earl says:

    ‘Personal confidence is a powerful thing, are you really arguing that is worthless?’

    No I’m arguing the manipulative aspect of it. Personal confidence is always #1…but trying to hide your flaws with false confidence (or arrogance) is going to get you exposed.

  181. theasdgamer says:

    what is the thing the female is expressing to Solomon? Her desire for him.

    …because the maidens also desire the Man. Preselection and Dread. Match. Set. Game.

  182. theasdgamer says:

    false confidence (or arrogance) is going to get you exposed.

    False, you know, because you are like a demi-god to her as regards strength. And your intelligence is likely higher. And you can tolerate risk better. No reason to be confident just because you have a penis. And strength. And intelligence. And risk-taking.

  183. Fred Flangesky, Der Kommissar says:

    Two thoughts:
    @seriouslyserving: Really there’s no reason why many man should be reticent or ashamed about carrying his infants around, or pushing the pram sometimes. Your attitude has a lot to do with this; I simply did it and never gave a fig what any critic might say. And you know what? There weren’t any. I got compliments.

    I drew the line at the male Snugli though. No floggin’ way was I wearing one of those. I saw other dads use them, they looked stupid. Refused one when offered. I vastly preferred just carrying the baby on the shoulder, and when she was old enough to sit up, setting her on my shoulders (kids love love love this).

    I also had no problem with changing a baby. Learned how from a nurse. I saw the obligation to do it as providing relief from a child’s discomfort, something men do very well. Like first aid. There were one or two times at church-type functions I had to bat away a couple old busybodies who didn’t like my techinique and tried to butt in to “do it right”. A sharp glare from me (plus my doing the change right and quick) stopped that.

  184. earl says:

    All that stuff is good in theory…a real test of confidence is how you handle adversity in practice. That’s where a lot of guy’s confidence in themselves can go down fast.

  185. theasdgamer says:

    That’s where a lot of guy’s confidence in themselves can go down fast.

    Adversity builds proven character.

  186. theasdgamer says:

    And, nothing theoretical about any of what I wrote. All very real.

  187. BradA says:

    BPP,

    Sandman’s core problem is his atheism and core ties to those who preach such nonsense. It skews what he says and often neuters otherwise powerful arguments.

    Boxer,

    Yeah, me too. It was a weeks long shitslinging match. “All women are whores, no exception” seems to be an axiom of the manosphere, despite any evidence to the contrary (of which there is plenty).

    It is an ongoing thing. I am not naive, but I see God as more powerful than any foolishness of man (which includes women for the dense). Some here do not and only look at the physical.

    SS,

    I’m not really worried that my husband will stray – we both believe divorce is not an option.

    That doesn’t prevent problems. Talk to my wife. We went through hell with our adoptive children and it almost caused her to walk out a few years ago. She KNOWS God told her to marry me as well, yet that did not matter at the time.

    No easy solutions for anyone, but I suspect my innate stubbornness played more of a role than many would acknowledge. Hopefully your husband has the same, though your open eyes should help the situation as well. Your feelings will change. Follow Sarah’s Daughter’s advice on controlling yourself over time.

    My wife still thinks I read too much in places like this, but has seen the wisdom in much of this.

    Note that we are going on 27 years this year.

  188. BradA says:

    Earl,

    No I’m arguing the manipulative aspect of it. Personal confidence is always #1…but trying to hide your flaws with false confidence (or arrogance) is going to get you exposed.

    Who said it had to be fake? Would you exercise and workout if you were overweight? Why not do the equivalent in the relationship arena?

  189. Fred Flange, B.S., Lysenko Institute says:

    @bluepillprofessor: I note with interest the pushback on “yes means yes” as an enforceable legal principle. It’s about time. But the SJW’s don’t realize the extent of the victory they already achieved: “yes means yes” as a social standard and conduct policy. It’s been drilled into the incoming classes and now many schools require at least some kind of “consent” lecture as part of freshmen orientation.

    The lesson being taught, perhaps wittingly, perhaps unwittingly: a man must never approach a woman, or at the very least, a fellow female student. If you’re going to date, do not do so on campus. This message is being obeyed by the 95% of the remaining men, the collegiate good boys. Which is why you’re seeing beta men no longer approaching and instead keeping to themselves at bars and parties. That trend will get worse. They may get the courage to ask a particular girl out if they think it’s a sure safe bet; otherwise there’s HD web porn. Let’s face it: HD web porn won’t file an anonymous expulsion complaint. (Provided you use your private cell phone as a hotspot; you’re an idiot if you use the campus internet for that; all your web usage can be tracked by the school, since you’re using their servers).

    The message is filtering down to formerly raucous environs like marching band (where drunken debauchery and rudeness were features, not bugs), and as we know there is a big effort to hamstring, and even kill off, fraternities. (Which, like it or not, are the few places where the YMY message hasn’t penetrated. Of course, bad boys will still make their moves and get their notches as they always did, not giving a flying fandango about YMY, though if called upon they could recite the SJW catechism from memory whilst ignoring it in the field).

    The “Yes means nothing less than affirmative enthusiastic consent sworn under oath” meme aimed at male students is infiltrating the high school level too (as related by my unimpeachable sources). Guys stay on their side of the room at dances. They may go over and say hi to girls they know, then they retreat and nothing happens, except maybe a group meetup at a diner after, then everyone goes home. Senior and Junior Proms are changing: instead of a boy asking out a girl being the only way you got to go, now non-dating couples and groups of whatever configuration go together as a bunch of friends to hang out with their other buds as if it is a more formal class dance. I am still getting my head around this concept. It will be interesting to see if it really takes root and becomes the future.

    So far at least, I am told, the girls haven’t caught on to this being a thing. For all the noise about “sex positivity”, most women are still waiting for things to happen to them and if they’re baffled by it they aren’t seeing it as a trend, only that they can’t seem to find a boy who likes them “that way” she deems worthy. Only the smaller “fast crowd” is making moves on the 10% of alpha men they deem worthy. Sure there are still high school romances, and serious Getting Jiggy by the chosen few. But the whole atmosphere has gotten much frostier.

  190. earl says:

    ‘And, nothing theoretical about any of what I wrote. All very real.’

    What I mean by theoretical is almost every man has some distinct external advantages over women that they can see, what is going to be the thing that separates you from the rest of the pack internally?

  191. earl says:

    ‘Who said it had to be fake?’

    Roissy. Fake it till you make it. However from what I’ve seen a lot of what fake confidence is about is arrogance.

  192. John Nesteutes says:

    @Fred

    A friend of mine consistently wears his child, at the behest of his wife. I usually look away in horror and disgust.

    @BradA

    I’m sorry to hear about the agony of adoption you went through. It seems to be very, very common amongst adoptive parents.

  193. John Nesteutes says:

    @earl

    This is the classic inner game vs outer game debate. Both work.

  194. earl says:

    Yeah both work…but inner game lasts for the long haul after all your outer game fades.

  195. earl says:

    If you really wanted to break it down much of the inner game in both sexes is lacking. That’s why outer game’s importance has been pushed more. I’m not going to say it doesn’t work…but outer game does have its limits. It is better to work on them at the same time…but I would stress inner game’s importance much more based on how much this society seeks to beat it out of us.

  196. @Earl: “I do hope that one day you are able to identify the problem you are having finding this unicorn.’
    Please inform me of the problem, sir. You seem to know what it is.”

    The problem is that unicorns are mythical creatures that do not exist.

    While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners? There are PLENTY of those out there- girls who do the serial monogamy thing and decided early on they were not going to ride the carousal. There are not so many virgins.

    Also, you are assuming she will tell you the truth about her sexual history which is laughable. Your screening criteria sifts out the honest girls and leaves only the liars. Your screening criteria also leads you to a virginal princess likely to put you into /r/Deadbedrooms immediately after the honeymoon. Some girls actually don’t like sex and trust me, you do NOT want a nice Christian girl who doesn’t like sex. Read that Reddit for just 5 minutes and you will appreciate your current celibacy for what it is- a gift from the Lord.

    Finally, you are also assuming that this young, inexperienced girl you land won’t decide how much she missed out on riding the carousal when she approaches the wall and decide to take a spin. I actually think your chances are better long-term with a serial monogamist rather than a virginal girl who has never consciously made the decision to avoid the CC. You are looking for a young girl who still has to make that decision or an older girl who has avoided sex and relationships- and that could be a bigger problem than you appreciate.

    I am not saying a reformed slut is all that is left, but I am suggesting that a girl who sleeps with a couple long-time boyfriends (who she thought she was going to marry blah blah) and who doesn’t club and slut around, but who has had 2-3 partners in her life is a better bet than a 24 y/o virgin (who is likely 900 pounds or otherwise damaged goods with a sexual abuse history- hey, does that mean they are still a virgin?) or an 18 y/o virgin (who is likely to pine for the carousal she never got to ride no matter how many babies you pump into her belly).

  197. jeff says:

    I thought there was a study indicating the elites were less likely to marry and reading the comments after that was: “good they will die out”

    Now it seems they will marry and there is less divorce? I’m confused. I thought the edumacated were more likely hamsterized, less likely to need the stronger gender and less likely to marry.

  198. BPP,

    While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners?

    Because earl wants a wife who will pair bond with him. He wants to be her one-and-only (no knowledge of any other penis.) He wants to break her hymen and (thus) pair bond. If she is not a virgin, and earl is, that will make him sad. He will feel awful. It is so bad, he never wants to marry her. And he simply MUST KNOW ahead of time. How difficult is this to understand?

    A virgin marrying another virgin has a 99.7% chance of never divorcing. And why? Because they pair bonded. You can ONLY ever pair bond with the person who takes your virginity. They know of no other person in their life, s-xually, and the entire thought of having that person removed from thier life (via divorce) is so unthinkable, so horrifying, its as to be a complete and total non-starter. That is the marriage that earl wants. Even one penis (just one) entering his future wife’s vagina before he gets there…. that would be devastating for him. He knows he will always be compared to the other man who had her first. If he can’t get a virgin, then (possibly) he doesn’t ever want a wife and he’ll die a virgin. I don’t know, maybe he’d be open to marrying a widow (who was a virgin before she got married) even if she can’t really pair bond with earl, but that’s up to earl.

    So no BPP, your advice here is absolutely horrible, and it is best you stop typing right now. No, they don’t trust you.

  199. Hank Flanders says:

    Bluepillprofessor

    While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners? There are PLENTY of those out there- girls who do the serial monogamy thing and decided early on they were not going to ride the carousal. There are not so many virgins.

    It would be one thing if women were actually ashamed of their promiscuous past and intended to turn from it, but from what I’ve seen, the culture has now shifted so much that the women who have sex outside of marriage don’t intend to stop. Marriage for them is (maybe) just the next step in their already sexual relationships.

    I was just viewing the OKCupid profile of a woman in her mid-20s with whom I used to go to church, and I remember her in particular, because she had her first child out of wedlock while she was still in her teens. Now, she’s still a single mom but has two kids and still identifies herself as a Christian. As far as sex questions go, it’s “3 to 5” dates for when she expects sex to start in a relationship and 14 sex partners in one’s sexual history sounds like an “average number” to her.
    She’s not bad looking and never was. She was always nice to me at church, too, so a part of me wonders where things could go if I decided to contact her, but even her past promiscuity and the two kids notwithstanding, her cavalier attitude about sex is just way too much. If I were to contact her, it would be because I was interested in one thing only. If I, a virgin male who’s waiting until marriage can have that thought, then how much more will other guys who think nothing of engaging in sexual sin be thinking the same thing? In other words, what kind of guy does she think she’s going to get?

    The above example is not an isolated incident. People, including Christian women, are unbelievably cavalier about God’s special gift that is intended for marriage only. I’m more concerned about attitude than I am someone’s past, but non-virgin women’s attitudes don’t really seem that great either.

  200. Hank Flanders says:

    Bluepillprofessor

    Finally, you are also assuming that this young, inexperienced girl you land won’t decide how much she missed out on riding the carousal when she approaches the wall and decide to take a spin. I actually think your chances are better long-term with a serial monogamist rather than a virginal girl who has never consciously made the decision to avoid the CC. You are looking for a young girl who still has to make that decision or an older girl who has avoided sex and relationships- and that could be a bigger problem than you appreciate.

    I am not saying a reformed slut is all that is left, but I am suggesting that a girl who sleeps with a couple long-time boyfriends (who she thought she was going to marry blah blah) and who doesn’t club and slut around, but who has had 2-3 partners in her life is a better bet than a 24 y/o virgin (who is likely 900 pounds or otherwise damaged goods with a sexual abuse history- hey, does that mean they are still a virgin?) or an 18 y/o virgin (who is likely to pine for the carousal she never got to ride no matter how many babies you pump into her belly).

    Is this really that much of a problem? This virgin before marriage woman who feels like she “missed out,” so guys are better off going with a woman who’s fairly broken in sounds like something feminists would come up with, because from my understanding, the divorce rate among people who were virgins at the wedding is extremely low. Anyone is free to correct me if I’m wrong on that.

  201. BPP and Hank,

    I liked SSM’s chart that she used to determine the best possible marital combinations by s-xual history:

    (Best) Him virgin – her virgin
    (#2) Him not virgin – her virgin
    (#3) Him not virgin – her not virgin
    (Worst) Him virgin – her not virgin

    The one on the bottom (according to SSM) has the worst possible marital outcome. So for men who have waited/abstained as long as people like earl have, you never-ever want to recommend any other combination than the first.

  202. earl says:

    Glad to see bluepill is here to virgin shame and proclaim the ‘man up and marry the women who made a few mistakes’ mantra.

    ‘While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners?’

    Jesus didn’t marry her. The temporal consequences of giving herself to another man/men are still there and will always be there. You can’t look past that even if you do forgive her of her past.

    ‘Also, you are assuming she will tell you the truth about her sexual history which is laughable.’

    If she lies about that…then she’s going to be a liar about a lot of stuff.

    ‘I actually think your chances are better long-term with a serial monogamist rather than a virginal girl who has never consciously made the decision to avoid the CC.’

    That doesn’t even make sense. So it’s better to take a woman who already ate the fruit and opened Pandora’s box as opposed to taking a woman who is tempted by it but could still be molded by me. Besides there is plenty of research on divorces stats being much lower for a virgin versus a serial monogamist.

  203. I’m not really worried that my husband will stray – we both believe divorce is not an option.

    No you don’t. You both believe that, right now divorce is not an option. Read the trash spread around by Christian women who once were strident about not divorcing…….until __________.

    _________ is always something “she couldn’t have imagined”, which is very different than something unimaginable.

  204. earl says:

    ‘I was just viewing the OKCupid profile of a woman in her mid-20s with whom I used to go to church, and I remember her in particular, because she had her first child out of wedlock while she was still in her teens. Now, she’s still a single mom but has two kids and still identifies herself as a Christian. As far as sex questions go, it’s “3 to 5” dates for when she expects sex to start in a relationship and 14 sex partners in one’s sexual history sounds like an “average number” to her.’

    Once the seal is broken….

    Very rarely is it ‘1 or 2 boyfriends I slipped up with’. There’s usually a pattern of a few dates, or a few ONS, or a boyfriend or 2 she did it with for a long time. The become very liberal with how they view sex and have very little repentance shown for their actions to their (future) husband. If they take sex outside of marriage…they can certainly take it out when they are married.

  205. American says:

    To thedeti says: April 20, 2015 at 10:40 am,

    Look at the rapidly rising interest payment liability on the national debt that must be paid annually from the federal budget: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

    As you can see it was $430,812,121,372.05 in 2014. To put that in perspective, consider that total revenue was $3.02 trillion; total expenditures were $3.50 trillion with a deficit of $483 billion adding to a national debt which surpassed $17 trillion in 2014 noting that the U.S. national debt is now the largest ever recorded of any nation in the history of human civilization. And, this occurred in an environment of low interest rates.

    Now, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting that the annual interest liability on the U.S. national debt is set to triple over the next decade: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45684

    And this is going to occur in an environment in which real dollar government revenue is decreasing while expenses are increasing.

    So real dollar revenue is decreasing while liabilities and debt are rapidly increasing. See the problem deti? The present situation is unsustainable.

    Though you obviously aren’t versed in economics, you need to understand that even the U.S. government can’t race upside down like this forever (especially with competitors like China seeking to supplant the U.S. economically, with respect to currency, politically, etc…) without incurring draconian socio-economic consequences.

    Which is why, of course, the CBO asserts that there will be “a significant projected decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy” in the relatively near future.

    Let that sink in for a minute. Apart from court mandated child support, alimony, etc… ; what does the present feminist model rely most on?

    Bingo! They rely on “discretionary [government] spending.”

    The real question is will the dramatic reduction in social service programs for single mothers and their households be a game changer?

    ^ Dalrock, CAN YOU ADDRESS THIS QUESTION?

  206. BradA says:

    Earl,

    ‘Who said it had to be fake?’

    Roissy. Fake it till you make it. However from what I’ve seen a lot of what fake confidence is about is arrogance.

    Part of it can be arrogance, but being more like a Biblical man takes effort and even some “fake it until you make it” attitude. Are you really going to assert that you would never try to lift more weight than you could easily do? Isn’t pushing yourself in that area a form of “faking it until you make it”?

    Do so in the social realm. Don’t use it to be a PUA, but do use it to be a more Godly, determined, etc. man and you will do much better than just “being yourself.” Just being yourself will make most fat at an old age. I know that for a fact. I am personally wrestling with that issue and I don’t agree that I should just quit because some misuse the principle.

    You might do well to consider a different perspective.

  207. BradA says:

    John,

    I’m sorry to hear about the agony of adoption you went through. It seems to be very, very common amongst adoptive parents.

    Thanks. It was not what we planned on for sure. Perhaps not ironically, it is the oldest, a daughter, who is the most hostile to us now. She is quite solopsistic and credits all her success with herself and us as just evil (especially me), not factoring in that we raised 4 very troubled children.

    My youngest is hooked on drugs and a poor lifestyle and headed to lose custody of her two children. The birthfather would rather the children end up in foster care rather than even seeking what we might do.

    My oldest son and I do have a relationship now, but it is still working through some major bumps and he faces some serious marriage challenges of his own (in my view). My youngest son has made contact recently and we are cordial. He has let the past go (at least) and can talk to us now without anger.

    I did just realize it was my daughters who have had the hardest time even admitting I did good for them. Fits the things that come up here a lot. Society reinforces their (false) claims as well.

    All you can do is plug along. I can’t change what happened in the past.

  208. S. Chan says:

    I am still confused about something. I do not really understand why marriage rates for college graduates are much higher than for non-graduates. I realize (now) that divorce rates are much higher for non-graduates, and so that makes non-graduate men leery of marriage. But, why are divorce rates much higher for non-graduates?

    Any ideas? (Does it have something to do with hypergamy?)

  209. BradA says:

    Emily,

    Check out http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/eph5.pdf

    I don’t think you can do a word-for-word translation since the wording in Greek is different than English. The word “submit” is not in that version, but the concept clearly seems to be.

    (This may be a repeat.)

  210. While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners? There are PLENTY of those out there- girls who do the serial monogamy thing and decided early on they were not going to ride the carousal. There are not so many virgins.

    You simply don’t get it. A non-virgin woman has shown she is not fit for marriage. Furthermore, the deck is so stacked against men legally and otherwise, there is no point to marriage other than to a virgin woman.

    No marriage is better than marriage to a woman who has any N above that of her husband.

    They can repent of their transgressions to God, that doesn’t entitle them to marriage as they still gave away for free what they now expect a man of God to pay in full and risk all. No way, stick that where the sun don’t shine.

  211. Sorry, ambiguous statement above.

    I meant to say, no marriage is better than marriage to a woman who has sex other than with her husband. Meaning, N = 0 until she marries her husband, at which time N = 1.

  212. S Chan,

    I am still confused about something. I do not really understand why marriage rates for college graduates are much higher than for non-graduates.

    Because college graduates strive to be UMC (or better) and they are educated enough to understand that if they want to raise a family AND be UMC (and stay there), they better get (and stay) married. If they don’t want to have kids, then the college educated tend not to marry (as there are far too many risks associated with marriage 2.0.) Much of this stems from the basic desire to breed and raise a family with healthy, functional kids coupled with remaining in a higher social class. They know their kids will be better off if not born b@stards.

    For non-graduates, many of them aren’t even responsible enough to take a pill every day or put on condoms before having s-x. They wind up getting pregnant out of wedlock and (they look around) and they don’t exactly have many (or even any) examples of any friends of theirs who are married (certainly not happily.) So they figure they know everthing already, they can raise kids out of wedlock and everything will be fine. One year after baby is born, daddy has split and mom is on government benefis and the cycle repeats.

    I realize (now) that divorce rates are much higher for non-graduates, and so that makes non-graduate men leery of marriage. But, why are divorce rates much higher for non-graduates?

    Far less dread, for starters.

    Think about it, it is one thing if you want to frivorce your spouse. It is another thing altogether to go ahead and do so. Because to go and nuke a marriage, you are basically saying that you are CERTAIN that you can replace that person with someone else (someone better) OR (worse) you would rather live alone for the rest of your life than spend one more minute alone with that other human being. That is how much they disgust you.

    For non-grads this is a much smaller concern. A woman thinks she can replace one red-neck truck driver for another in the blink of an eye. This is NOT THE CASE for college graduates. They are a much more precious commodity (so to speak) and for women wanting men with that degree, even scarcer since more and more men and learning trades and bypassing college. So there is real “dread” associated with frivorcing your spouse, you have so much more to lose.

  213. Robert What? says:

    @Signor Farfalla: I remember in college one of my buddies had a memorable line;
    “I can’t wait to be married so I can just wake up and get laid.

    And maybe it happens for the first several years. But the idea that wives have any responsibility to the husband for sex and affection is considered “demeaning”. Hell, the idea that they have any responsibility to the husband for anything is considered demeaning. I know the look of a husband who isn’t getting any. Been there myself, until I hooked up with a mistress. Modern American Marriage for most men is very high risk and very low reward. Basically a form of slavery. Law and custom are now both on the women’s side. Many young men are starting to wake up, but there are still many who buy into it.

  214. Robin Munn says:

    @bluepillprofessor –

    While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners? There are PLENTY of those out there- girls who do the serial monogamy thing and decided early on they were not going to ride the carousal. There are not so many virgins.

    Another problem with your advice, which nobody has mentioned yet, is that it conflates two different things. True repentance should lead to forgiveness — if she is truly repentant, then God has forgiven her and so should her brothers and sisters in the church. But it does not erase the temporal consequences of sin. Repentance will not cure her of any STD she may have picked up in the past, nor will it restore her ability to pair-bond like a virgin would.

    @innocentbystanderboston –

    A virgin marrying another virgin has a 99.7% chance of never divorcing. And why? Because they pair bonded. You can ONLY ever pair bond with the person who takes your virginity.

    I’ve been looking for stats on the divorce rates of virgins marrying other virgins, and I haven’t been able to find any. (The NSFG data doesn’t ask the right questions for this one.) If you’ve found some, that’s great. What’s your source? I’d love to quote this number to people, as long as I have a source to back it up that’s better than “some anonymous guy on the Internet”.

  215. thedeti says:

    “I am still confused about something. I do not really understand why marriage rates for college graduates are much higher than for non-graduates. I realize (now) that divorce rates are much higher for non-graduates, and so that makes non-graduate men leery of marriage. But, why are divorce rates much higher for non-graduates?

    “Any ideas? (Does it have something to do with hypergamy?)”
    ______________________________________________________________

    Novaseeker’s comment of yesterday at 1:03 pm really set it out. Generally, college graduates bring more to the table for marriage. College graduate men tend to be prepared for work and earning enough money to support themselves and a wife, and possibly a child. College graduate women also are prepared for work and to supplement, if not replace, the husband’s income. College graduates also tend to think more about marriage as a desirable lifestyle choice, because of stability, predictability and resource preservation. They usually are children of college graduates and have had that lifestyle of long term marriage modeled to and for them.

    College graduates tend to rate highly on future time orientation. That is, college graduates tend to be less impulsive and more focused on the present and future. They tend to focus on long range planning, consider the long range consequences of present decisionmaking, and at least attempt risk-benefit assessments of present decisions. How that translates to marriage is that they usually are more careful about selecting their mates, and once selected, commit for the long haul. They also tend to plan for children and have children, and make decisions with their children and families in mind, all of which tends to form these marriages and keep them together.

    How “happy” those marriages are, and how functional and fulfilling they are, and the quality of the sex lives of the participants, are different questions altogether.

    Divorce rates tend to be higher for nongraduates because:

    1. They tend to marry each other. Not too common for a college man to marry a woman with no college. (He will have sex with these women all day long. But he won’t commit to them.)

    2. They bring a lot less to the table in terms of desirable marriage characteristics. They don’t have as many resources, and what resources they have are quickly consumed. Many of the men don’t have good provider skills (which is what men need to bring for marriage). Many of the women don’t bring firmly grounded loyalty, fidelity, maternity or kindness (which is what women need to bring to marriage).

    3. Nongraduates tend to be more impulsive, have less future time orientation, and are more concerned with here and now, not next month or next year. Marriage isn’t as important to them for this reason.

    4. Because of 2 and 3, many of these marriages fail, even when there are children.

    5. Middle class and lower class women don’t need men to provide for them or for children. Many times, it makes more economic sense for a baby mama to get on welfare. Government can provide better than most of her assortative male peers. She can enjoy sex every so often with men, if that’s what she wants. If she is not hideous, sex will always be available to her.

    6. And many middle and lower class men want sex like their higher-positioned peers. But for them it’s feast or famine, and they accept it, for the most part. For the lower class men who are good looking douchebags and players, they have sex with willing women and don’t marry. All the other men resort to online porn, video games, beer, weed, and the occasional “get lucky”.

  216. Gunner Q says:

    Bluepillprofessor @ 11:43 am:
    “if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners?”

    Because each of us knows half a dozen divorced men who chose to trust such women. I want to play Russian Roulette with one bullet in the cylinder not two and if that means I’m not allowed to play Russian Roulette at all then fine. Maybe I shouldn’t be playing anyway.

    “I actually think your chances are better long-term with a serial monogamist rather than a virginal girl who has never consciously made the decision to avoid the CC.”

    And a politician with three corruption convictions is a better choice for governor than a rival who was never offered a bribe… because you don’t know what the rival will choose to do?

    S. Chan @ 1:07 pm:
    “I am still confused about something. I do not really understand why marriage rates for college graduates are much higher than for non-graduates.”

    It’s just a form of self-selection. Finishing a four-year college degree takes planning, diligence and some sacrifice. Impulsive people tend to not complete either their degrees or their vows.

  217. Dalrock says:

    @S. Chan

    I am still confused about something. I do not really understand why marriage rates for college graduates are much higher than for non-graduates. I realize (now) that divorce rates are much higher for non-graduates, and so that makes non-graduate men leery of marriage. But, why are divorce rates much higher for non-graduates?

    Any ideas? (Does it have something to do with hypergamy?)

    I haven’t read the other replies, but wanted to note that I looked at this question in this post. The short answer is IQ is very likely the driving factor, with the correlated trait of future time orientation.

    Another data set to look at is this one which breaks it down to a more granular level. Interestingly “some college” is the worst of all groups, and didn’t graduate HS has a surprisingly low divorce rate. The first makes sense from the point of view of someone who doesn’t finish what they started. The latter is explained by the very low divorce rate of first generation Hispanic immigrants.

  218. Dalrock says:

    One more thought. The difference in divorce risk for college grads vs non college grads is probably greater than the data shows, because it stands to reason that men are doing their own filtering and (to some extent) avoiding marrying the riskiest non college grads. Put another way, the pull back from marrying non college grads probably reduced divorce rates for that group.

  219. thedeti says:

    And just to continue on with my answer before:

    Women who choose single motherhood and government largesse might be making decisions that at present make economic sense. But they are not good marriage candidates because they have no loyalty to the men who impregnate them. They can make rational short term decisions but tend to make poor long term decisions. As TFH likes to say, their decisionmaking reflects poor understanding of cause and effect.

    Men of any socioeconomic class who select the player lifestyle might be making rational short term decisions in light of current sexual mores, but their sexual lifestyles render them unsuitable for marriage.

    Middle and lower socioeconomic status men who become players similarly might be making rational short term decisions, but their sexually immoral decisions and their nonprovider status renders them not suited to marriage.

    And middle and lower SES men who aren’t players and lack resources aren’t suitable marriage candidates because they cannot provide; they don’t earn enough to support anyone other than themselves.

  220. Dalrock,

    …because it stands to reason that men are doing their own filtering and (to some extent) avoiding marrying the riskiest non college grads. Put another way, the pull back from marrying non college grads probably reduced divorce rates for that group.

    Agreed.

    College educated men are seriously filtering women (as wife potential) based primarilly on their education levels. I would argue that is increasingly becoming the norm, for right or for wrong.

  221. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Thanks for the Daily Mail link.I was in Buenos Aries when I started to read it.There were 5 pages of comments….not there about 20.The majority of the comments were all concerning the laws.When they pass laws in the UK,you can almost be certain that they will eventually end up in Canada…being a Commonwealth country.Also,I am really starting to like Argentinian women!!!

    @MarcusD

    Thanks for the link.I was reading a Book Review about Kate Bollick.The title should be re-titled…..”How to Be Happy with Cats and Vibrators”

    @Deti

    Love your posts.I have to disagree somewhat of what you are saying about women can land a man for marriage anytime at 35 to 45.Maybe it is the different locations in which we reside( I live in Toronto…that should say volumes).I see these types of women all the time…everyday! I do not see them getting dates…let alone marriage proposals! I see them asking men out for dates and they end up getting used as “booty calls”.MarcusD ‘s post of Kate Bollick’s new book is a perfect example.This is the type of broad that I look for. Would I date her?….NO!……would I chase her?….NO!……I would use her as a “booty call”…..nothing else!….Take it or leave it!…..Leave it?…..FINE!…….NEXT! They are a dime a dozen.Men are not lining up to date her….woo her….looking for a relationship with her……They just want to FUCK her….and keep the sex going.That is what I do…..and I get more sex than any married man that I know.They are nothing but a fucking headache and bullshit.She brings nothing to the table except 2 things…a used up clam & debt…..nothing else! They think that they are the “end all and be all”….and are the greatest thing since sliced bread…….that I cannot live without them…….Lmao!…….I can live without them just fine! When they start giving me bullshit and ultimatums?….I say “We are finished”…and they I let them see me with a younger hotter broad……just for “the encore effect”.I put up with no BULLSHIT with wimminz like these…..besides banging them….they are a waste of time and energy!

  222. Dalrock says:

    @easttexasfatboy

    Well, women aren’t fixing to change unless it’s a matter of survival. ISIS has set up a training center in Mexico. Yes, I’m aware of terrorist theater. However, they’re fixing to start operations here. Think Islamic beheaders with Go Pro HD cameras. Yes, they’re going to behead folks. And broadcast it. Here’s the thing…..Feminism has really hated on young men for a while. There isn’t a social contract with these guys, and they know it. So, why protect women? Are all women feminists? The better question is do all women benefit from feminist cultural destruction? And, how about the feminised young guys who can’t fight? Well, I’m not going to help a college educated woman that I don’t personally know. Yes, that’s extreme, and I know it. Root and branch, root and branch.

    I can’t imagine many, if any, Texas men who might be in a position to stop such a terrorist refusing to do so on the basis of the terrorist only beheading feminist women. Just like occurred not too long ago in OK, an ISIS beheader would be bringing a knife to a gunfight. With that said, a more dangerous world would certainly tend to walk back the whole fish/bicycle claims. We are blessed to live in an extremely safe world today, but interestingly the perception of safety has been going down in recent years.

  223. MarcusD says:

    @Bluepillprofessor

    “While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners?”

    Who says she isn’t faking the repentance?

    Besides that, there are many, many reasons to avoid anyone with N>0. In fact, I would even say that a man has a moral responsibility to avoid such people, given the consequences. To add to that, you’re making the classic CAF mistake of confusing forgiveness with removing temporal consequences.

    “Also, you are assuming she will tell you the truth about her sexual history which is laughable. Your screening criteria sifts out the honest girls and leaves only the liars.”

    Promiscuity is a dependent variable. As such, you can ask questions *around* that, then finally ask the question. If she smokes and has a few tattoos, for example, you can assume N>0.

    “Your screening criteria also leads you to a virginal princess likely to put you into /r/Deadbedrooms immediately after the honeymoon.”

    This is wrong. Plenty of research demonstrates that frigidity has no correlation with partner counts in married women.

    Wait, did you copy-paste all of your arguments from CAF?

  224. earl says:

    ‘Promiscuity is a dependent variable. As such, you can ask questions *around* that, then finally ask the question. If she smokes and has a few tattoos, for example, you can assume N>0.’

    Yeah there’s a lot she presents in full bloom that gives you an indication she isn’t a virgin.

    And if you find me a virgin who smokes and has tattoos, she’d be the first one I’ve ever met.

  225. Eric says:

    As women while away the time on the carousel, the pool of men they are counting on to snap them up once they are done will continue to focus less on being ready to snap them up.

    I believe this is going to be a key driver going forward. Men who can’t get sex at all or can’t get sex with an acceptable partner in their twenties are not going to structure life so a carousel jumper will find them “least objectionable” at 35. They’ll spend less time at work and school, they’ll drink more alcohol and smoke pot. They’ll stop exercising and kill entire weekends playing video games, eating Doritos, and drinking HFCS-laden beverages.

    Not every one, to be sure, but enough to narrow the field of men women will find “least objectionable” for sexual retirement when the more attractive men stop calling.

  226. Regular Guy says:

    @ Boxer

    “Here’s girl game, for the smart chick who is looking to get married quick:

    1. Don’t be a whore.
    2. Don’t have tattoos or weird piercings.
    3. Don’t drink or smoke pot to excess.
    4. Be quiet and “sweet”. Don’t show off your “moxie” (as Dalrock would put it).
    5. Don’t be old.
    6. Don’t be fat.”

    7. Don’t have kids from previous relationships.

  227. Larry J says:

    @American

    Which is why, of course, the CBO asserts that there will be “a significant projected decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy” in the relatively near future.

    Let that sink in for a minute. Apart from court mandated child support, alimony, etc… ; what does the present feminist model rely most on?

    Bingo! They rely on “discretionary [government] spending.”

    The real question is will the dramatic reduction in social service programs for single mothers and their households be a game changer?

    ^ Dalrock, CAN YOU ADDRESS THIS QUESTION?

    I’m not Dalrock but I have to point out that most social service type government programs aren’t part of the discretionary budget. They’re “entitlement” programs. As mentioned here:

    “Discretionary spending is a spending category through which governments can spend through an appropriations bill. This spending is optional as part of fiscal policy, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory. In the United States, discretionary spending refers to spending set on a yearly basis by decision of Congress.”

    As entitlement spending continues to increase, everything else in the budget will get squeezed out. That’s what the CBO was saying in the quote you provided. The government will have to continue to service the debt or it’ll run into problems borrowing more money. They’ll have to continue paying for the so-called entitlement programs, so short of continued massive borrowing to live beyond its means or printing even more money, every discretionary item in the budget will suffer cuts. That includes things like roads, defense, and everything else that isn’t an entitlement program. Those social programs will continue to grow because they represent votes bought from the recipients and those government employees who administer the programs. The feminists won’t care in the least because they’ll have theirs, screw everyone else.

  228. earl says:

    ‘“Here’s girl game, for the smart chick who is looking to get married quick:

    1. Don’t be a whore.
    2. Don’t have tattoos or weird piercings.
    3. Don’t drink or smoke pot to excess.
    4. Be quiet and “sweet”. Don’t show off your “moxie” (as Dalrock would put it).
    5. Don’t be old.
    6. Don’t be fat.”

    7. Don’t have kids from previous relationships.’

    8. You love men and think feminists are nuts to hate men or blame them for everything.

  229. greyghost says:

    easttexasfatboy
    If ISIS starts in California I’ll cheer that on. They start operations in Texas, law enforcement will spend all of it’s time trying to stop Texans from getting in on stopping them.

  230. S. Chan says:

    Much kind thanks to innocentbystanderboston, thedeti, Gunner Q, and Dalrock for answers to my question! 🙂

  231. BradA says:

    I can’t see ISIS being successful much in Texas except maybe the tougher inner cities.

  232. jsr says:

    Anyone know what happened to Society of Phineas?

  233. Rover’s confession..I am beginning to have this discussion with all 3 of my kids…don’t marry and don’t have children…it’s too easy for someone to take everything from you on a whim..until they change the rules and laws and our society and culture quit devolving..it’s just too risky

  234. @ Brad A and empathologism

    Perhaps it was insensitive of me to talk about divorce like that when I know so many are divorced around here.
    I didn’t mean to suggest that I am perfect and that conviction alone will make my marriage last.

    But surely it counts for something, that my husband and I both believe God’s word that divorce is a horrible thing? I’d like to think that if we seek to grow in our marriage continually and rely on God’s grace to do so, that will divorce proof our marriage.

  235. Random Angeleno says:

    There’s another aspect to college educated men picking college educated women for marriage in addition to the future time orientation mindset mentioned above: that is the unequal status in education likely carries over to income and skills, hence the alimony will very likely be high if a UMC or higher man marries down and they get divorced. Used to be fairly common for men to marry down, now it appears not to be as common as it once was since men may be seeking to defend themselves against the possibility of paying alimony in the event of divorce. A man’s wife could still be a SAHM but if she has a degree and a work history, a case could easily be made for going without alimony. Not saying that’s foolproof, but I think there is something to this.

  236. Oscar says:

    @Escoffier says:
    April 21, 2015 at 8:50 am

    “I see zero evidence of PhD women marrying Devry Tech grads. If there are stats on this I’d love to see them”

    This blog post I wrote contains links to some of the info you seek.

    http://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2014/02/good-advice-for-girls-wrapped-in.html

  237. Oscar says:

    @earl says:
    April 21, 2015 at 8:23 am

    “But there are a few things different in a man women are looking for…most notably leadership skills, confidence, and strength.”

    It’s often repeated – rightly – that a man needs confidence to win a woman’s heart. But the obvious question rarely asked is “confidence in what?”

    Confidence is always based on something, after all.

    The womanizer will answer “confidence in yourself”, or “confidence in game”, or something like that. But to do that creates a dilemma for a Christian man, because…

    Jeremiah 17:5 This is what the Lord says:
    “Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
    who draws strength from mere flesh
    and whose heart turns away from the Lord.
    6 That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;
    they will not see prosperity when it comes.
    They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
    in a salt land where no one lives.

    We’re not supposed to “trust in man”, whether that man is ourselves, or some internet-famous womanizer. We’re not supposed to “[draw our] strength from mere flesh”, whether that flesh is ours or someone else’s pick-up system. A Christian man is supposed to place his confidence in God.

    Jeremiah 17:7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,
    whose confidence is in him.
    8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
    that sends out its roots by the stream.
    It does not fear when heat comes;
    its leaves are always green.
    It has no worries in a year of drought
    and never fails to bear fruit.”

    Psalm 71:5 For you have been my hope, Sovereign Lord,
    my confidence since my youth.

    2 Corinthians 3:4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.

    Proverbs 3:5 Trust [place your confidence] in the Lord with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;
    6 in all your ways submit to him,
    and he will make your paths straight.

    Everything in our lives should flow from that.

    I get the feeling that you understand all of that. You seemed to imply it. But I think it’s important enough that it should be written explicitly.

  238. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    It’s like everything is backwards now.

    Here’s an article I read earlier today:

    The Footwear Cadets Were Allegedly Forced to Wear During Political Event March Has Sparked an Uproar
    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/301448-controversy-after-rotc-cadets-allegedly-forced-to-march-in-event-wearing-questionable-footwear

  239. Scott says:

    MarcusD-

    From the article: “Does not support the battalion Sharp/EO mission” on the OER.

    That is a career ender. It results in a referred OER (contains negative information). They are killing your career while you are still in college for not towing the line.

  240. Pingback: Unfold How? | Spawny's Space

  241. desiderian says:

    Escoffier,

    “I see zero evidence of PhD women marrying Devry Tech grads. If there are stats on this I’d love to see them, but anecdotally / observationally, it is not happening–at all–in the NYC or NorCal areas that I frequent.”

    women PhDs often end up like this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/sports/basketball/a-grizzlies-fan-finds-fame-as-the-bongo-lady.html?WT.mc_id=2015-APRIL-OUTBRAIN-EMAILED_AUD_DEV-0320-0430&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVAPRIL&_r=0

    unless they married young and made it last.

    If they wait too long, they don’t marry at all, DeVry or otherwise. See also: Boyhood.

  242. embracing reality says:

    Bluepillprofessor @ 11:43 am:
    “if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners?”

    I don’t understand why anyone would even ask this question.

    Jesus, forgave the sin. That consequence is in eternity, eternal life vs eternal death. What does forgiveness of sin that have to do with the consequences, in this lifetime, of making bad decisions? He never recommended anyone marry an adulterous, in fact he commanded the opposite! In Matt 19 Christ warns us that to marry a woman who was not released from her marriage *is adultery*. Only an absolute idiot would marry a woman who cheated on her last spouse. Yes, there’s lots of idiots around but being one cannot be recommended.

    The consequence of a woman slutting around in her youth should be, and once was, she became virtually marriageable to any respectable man. You know why we have a generation of sluts available for marriage? It’s obvious, because dumb asses keep marrying them. Take away the consequences and you take away the incentive to try. Amerika is based on this failure. Stop trying to sell crap sandwiches. More importantly, stop buying that crap.

  243. embracing reality says:

    “Virtually UN-marriageable”

  244. Dalrock says:

    I thought maybe the marching in heels was an internet urban legend when I saw it the other day, but WaPo The Washington Times has picked it up with photos.

  245. embracing reality says:

    Dave said,

    “AND a virgin, AND a believer AND pious AND submissive AND makes sandwiches AND is a good mother AND loves kids AND loves to do housework etc.

    I do hope that one day you are able to identify the problem you are having finding this unicorn.

    Reminds me of the rhetorical question asked by the angels in white:

    Why do you seek the living among the dead? Luke 24:5”

    Sounds like something a slutty churchian woman would say doesn’t it?

  246. Boxer says:

    Blue Pill Prof sez:

    TLDR: The campaign to dis-incentivize marriage for men is just the first step in the BIG plan and the feminists were useful idiots. This is a long march and a scorched Earth policy all the way to year 0, Comrade.

    OK, kooky. It’s not like women might be responding to social forces that weren’t part of some huge, shadowy conspiracy. There must be some group behind it. Better call Hipster Racist, so that we can learn more about DA JOOZ.

    (LOL! Moving on…)

    While seeking a virgin is laudable and highly desirable, if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners? There are PLENTY of those out there- girls who do the serial monogamy thing and decided early on they were not going to ride the carousal. There are not so many virgins.

    I’ve got to side with BPP on this one, at least in spirit.

    There are plenty of women in successful marriages who weren’t virgins at the time of the wedding. Furthermore, historical sources suggest that virginity was an ideal largely because it was the closest thing to ensure parentage before the DNA cheek swab. A man who married a virgin girl and spent a couple of months in seclusion with her (the origins of the honeymoon) suggested a decent shot at fathering one child who was likely his genetic heir. After that, all bets were off. (Among the priest and merchant caste in medieval Europe, it appears to have been an open secret that people were unfaithful generally).

    All that aside, there’s some pretty compelling statistical data that suggests that two virgins who marry each other have much better rates of sticking out the bad times. Human beings are pair-bonding animals, and we were not really meant to whore around with multiple partners in bonobo type casual couplings.

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1327.html

    I’ve posted this here before, because it’s accessible to people who are clueless about biology (Boxer raises hand) and makes a broad point. There’s a reason that Epicurus talked about the value of a “cheerful poverty” in carnal matters. People who have regular sex with one person are going with their own neurobiological hard-wiring. The playas and sluts are usually jaded and miserable, not because sex is inherently shameful, but because our brains were wired up to pair bond, and by slutting it up, we’re resisting our inborn natures.

    Best,

    Boxer

  247. Waaaahhhhh, David banned me for defending this site on his site!

    http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/11/18/dalrock-on-why-men-should-avoid-women-whove-wasted-a-lot-of-courtship-and-used-up-their-most-attractivefertile-years/

    You’ll note, I never used one swear word, one nasty comment, one personal attack. Nothing. Just giving them red pills I caused them to respond with over 200 comments to my 15 or 20 comments in a matter of 48 hours.

    I mean, I just want to save civilization. Why are feminists hell bent on wrecking it?

  248. BradA says:

    seriouslyserving,

    I was just trying to get you to see that even a commitment can change. My own wife is as strong of a women on the Word of God as I have seen, but she was pulled away by her own emotions as well. That is just something you need to always watch for, not to feel chastised for not realizing. I doubt my wife ever planned on doing that even 5 years before. The Enemy just got a hand in and tried to stir things up, with the help of my youngest daughter as her “parting gift” as she left home for the last time. (The one that is completely messing up her life now.)

    A commitment to the ultimate supremacy of God’s Word is far more important, yet is truly missing in most today across a range of areas.

    Hope this gives context. I have not nor never plan to be divorced, but I do know I would be quite ruthless if things came to that as I have a strong stubborn streak. I am partially convinced that this is exactly what will keep it from happening though, since I combine that with a lot of prayer.

  249. BradA says:

    Wow, I disagree with Boxer for once!

    I’ve got to side with BPP on this one, at least in spirit.

    You might get a great hit or even a home run starting a strike or two down, but that is not a wise thing to do on purpose. Merely claiming repentance is not sufficient, much more is required. Even then, all those past couplings will still bring up issues for the rest of their lives together.

    That is why a woman or man who is not chaste before marriage is stealing from their future partner. That is a hot topic many will shout against, but it is a core fact. Don’t intentionally start down in the count!

  250. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    Waaaahhhhh, David banned me for defending this site on his site!

    I’m absolutely confident that David Futrelle is one of us. It’s pure black propaganda (google it).

    If anyone reading my message wants to start a traditionalist or antifeminist blog, but feels threatened by the PC police, take a cue from Futrelle. Just start what looks like a pro feminist blog, and daily include links to sites like Dalrock, Rollo, Roosh, and Heartiste. Make sure to display a long list of antifeminist sites in your blogroll, under some meaningless “enemies I hate” header. Drive as much traffic over here as you can, while making your pro feminist stance as goofy, ridiculous, and inaccessible as possible.

    We’ll all pretend to hate you, and shout “traitor traitor” on a regular basis, and you can spread the good word without fear of the shitlibs and sjw fags in the HR department at your office.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  251. Boxer says:

    Wow, I disagree with Boxer for once!

    That’s OK dog. If I had “dittoheads” I’d shoot them.

    Bear in mind that I only disagree in theory. Having a low partner count appears to be very important, and the statistics bear this out.

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

    I think it’s a little more complicated than IBB’s analysis, but he’s largely right. I also feel compelled to point out that I don’t really dare trust my fortunes to any woman in marriage, but if I did, I’d look for a virgin or near virgin (maybe one or two partners, tops). Low partner count isn’t the only thing that matters, but it is one of five or six big deals.

    Best,

    Boxer

  252. b0xer,

    I’m absolutely confident that David Futrelle is one of us. It’s pure black propaganda (google it).

    Did you read some of the feminists screedish responses to me? It was pure comedy gold. I didn’t even have to do anything that just quote red pill stuff and I thought some of them were either going to have a heart attack or a brain aneurism. I can’t even imagine how it must feel to be that miserable in life.

  253. The thing is TFH, I didn’t want to torture anybody I don’t want to do that. I just wanted to correct David for coming down so hard on Dalrock and try to save civilization.

  254. hoellenhund2 says:

    Bitter MRAs, not her own strident feminism, are killing Amanda Marcotte’s dating opportunities :

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/how-the-bitter-men-of-the-mra-movement-ruin-things-for-other-guys/

    Thanks for the link. This underpins my pet theory, which I put forth earlier at J4G:

    One clear development of the past few years is that a sizable segment of American online media explicitly focuses on attacking and discrediting all men who express any disagreement with feminist dogma. Included in this are blogs that exist for the specific purpose of attacking the Manosphere (Bodycrimes, Futrelle’s new site etc) plus websites aimed mostly at women, most of their content spewing snark and venom at men branded as ideological enemies (HUS, XoJane, Elite Daily, Raw Story, Feministing etc).

    The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that feminists and their supporters are deliberately escalating the culture war. In other words, they’re gearing up for bitter ideological conflict. I’m not sure this policy, if we can call it that, is coordinated and clear-cut, but it seems they’ve agreed to pursue it and obviously they are serving certain goals with it.

    The signs are clear. They’re seeking out ideological enemies everywhere, attacking all potential points of resistance. Novaseeker called it a mop-up operation, which is a military term that describes this rather accurately. Their rhetoric, and the policies they’re promoting, is becoming more and more extreme, and one obvious reason for this is that they want to provoke their remaining opponents to put up resistance. They want to antagonize even more men, and then attack them furiously if they express any disagreement. That’s why they’re now attacking gamers and the metal genre.

    They’re probably doing this because they’re in high spirits – they believe their final victory in the culture war is in sight. They’re certain that soon they will eliminate the last bastions resisting them.

    We can very much look forward to more of the same in 2015 and obviously 2016 as well, since it’s an election year.

    I’m not sure what predictions to make about the long-term consequences of this culture war and the antics of SJWs in particular. What is sure is that feminism is generating more disagreement and opposition than before. For example, older Manosphere denizens are claiming that 10 years ago any feminist agitprop could get posted on any major news site without as much as one opposing comment appearing. That’d be unthinkable today, which is why we’re seeing more calls for stricter comment moderation and an end to online anonymity. We’re also seeing more and more public arguments against feminism. Some people see this as a reason for optimism, but then again, it’s pretty obvious this resistance is something feminists actually want to see. After all, they’re practically poking all their opponents with a sharp stick. It’s obvious that they are drunk with power and very full of themselves. That’s not how losers behave. These are the antics of those sure of victory.

    On a different note, I don’t think any of this is a reason for despair. Things have to run their course – it’s only natural. A growing number of people are complaining that relations between the sexes are “dysfunctional” in the West. It’s probably true, and we can also be sure they’ll get even worse in the near future – all signs are pointing to that direction. YMY, Gamergate, you name it. But why care, really? A society as large and complex as the USA has tremendous inertia – there’s simply no way to make substantial changes to it. Besides, such dysfunction can be an engine of cultural change and social change as well. And such changes can be welcomed.

  255. hoellenhund2 says:

    And a comment I left earlier:

    The thing I’m seeing, though, is that the feminist media machine is constantly looking for new enemies to rail against. That’s what Gamergate, the endless brouhaha about street harassment and rape culture, plus the constant attacks on the mythical violent PUA-MRA subculture of online misogyny are apparently about. It’s as if feminists are deliberately taunting and provoking all real and potential dissidents into becoming more hostile.

    Their usual enemy was the Christian Right, but since it has almost completely capitulated to feminism, maybe they aren’t a useful bogeyman anymore, so feminism needs new targets. After all, without enemies there’s no tension, without tension there’s no sense of conflict, and how do you justify the culture war without that? Apparently feminists think final victory is in their grasp, and their base needs to be galvanized into storming the last bastions of resistance that are left.

  256. Laura says:

    @Dalrock

    My guess would be that the reason that “less than high school graduation” brides have “surprisingly low divorce rates” is that they are (1) marrying the first guy they had sex with; and (2) marrying someone that they have known for years, possibly since kindergarten, or even before. (The kids you liked a lot in fifth grade will probably be very decent adults.)

    I know of exactly one woman near my age who married at seventeen (a cousin) and she is still married to the same guy 40 +/- later, and from all appearances, they are very happy. She was raised in a very small town, in a very devout family, and her father made the groom agree that the bride would finish high school before having children, and the groom followed through on this. I’ll bet a high percentage of the married before high school graduation girls were raised in small towns.

    @seriously serving

    It has been decades since my divorce, but at the time it really annoyed me when people would pipe up with “it takes two to tango”, “there is always fault on both sides”, “all of us fail to live up to God’s standards.” It’s all true, but these days, more often than not, ONE PERSON makes a unilateral decision to leave the marriage, and the other person can do nothing to prevent this. The person being left does not necessarily “deserve” to be dumped because they were less than perfect. I often see women who are the absolute personification of The Frivolous Wife, and they are still married after 20, 30, 40 years. And I see men who are serial adulterers, unable to manage money for the benefit of the entire family, etc., and they are still married to very decent women after decades of foolishness. The race is not always to the swift, and it really does burn that the divorced are seen as moral failures because they are dumped, while those still married are seen as pillars of the community even if their private lives are a mess.

  257. earl says:

    @ Oscar:

    ‘A Christian man is supposed to place his confidence in God. ‘

    Agree 100%.

  258. earl says:

    Stay in frame gentlemen. Don’t let somebody shame you into thinking marrying a former slut is a noble thing to do. She can save her soul by repenting, but there are temporal consequences to actions which have been pointed out numerous time about her risks as a wife.

    I would think her best option is a convent.

  259. Emily says:

    BradA
    Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.

    MarcusD
    When I clicked on your link I couldn’t believe it. I knew the military was becoming more and more PC but that was off the charts! It’s almost surreal.

  260. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    Don’t let somebody shame you into thinking marrying a former slut is a noble thing to do.

    Could you provide a reference for this position, anywhere in this thread? I ain’t aware of anyone (including Blue Pill Prof) making any such statement.

    As an aside, Earl, aren’t you a bachelor, like I am?

    Best,

    Boxer

  261. Robin Munn says:

    @IBB –

    Since asking you about the “two virgins who marry each other have a 99.7% chance of never divorcing” statistic you quoted, I’ve been able to find an Internet survey with 400 respondents that found that among couples where both were virgins before the wedding night, the divorce rate was only 2%. A 98% success rate is within the range of the 99.7% figure you quoted. I’d still love to know where you got that 99.7%, though, because the source I found (an Internet survey) is self-selected and therefore not necessarily a representative sample. I’d like more sources.

    Or did you just make up the 99.7% figure for rhetorical purposes? If that’s the case, let me know and I’ll stick to quoting the 98% figure when I talk to people.

  262. OKRickety says:

    @Boxer,

    Don’t let somebody shame you into thinking marrying a former slut is a noble thing to do.

    Could you provide a reference for this position, anywhere in this thread? I ain’t aware of anyone (including Blue Pill Prof) making any such statement.

    Here is what BPP said:

    … if Jesus could refrain from condemning the adulteress, why can’t a Christian man look past a truly repentant girl who has had a few previous boyfriends/partners?

    I consider that to be shaming or reproaching Christian men for not being willing to marry non-virgin women. Although BPP does not claim that marrying them is a noble action, it suggests that doing so would make them more like Jesus in their attitude.

  263. Boxer says:

    Dear OKRickety:

    I consider that to be shaming or reproaching Christian men for not being willing to marry non-virgin women. Although BPP does not claim that marrying them is a noble action, it suggests that doing so would make them more like Jesus in their attitude.

    The problem for me is the occlusion of the difference between “former slut” (Earl) and woman with “a few previous boyfriends/partners” (BPP). Those are very different things. If the position is that every woman who may have played grabass at age 16 with her prom date is a “slut”, then truly all women are sluts, and no one should ever marry, and humanity should die out in this generation.

    There’s a more general problem, moreover. In making this claim (which is too extreme to be taken seriously) one is essentially shaming a lot of men on this board, who are likely in happy marriages to women who aren’t perfect. This is precisely what feminists do, when they spread “the whispers” and undermine a marriage among happy women, by comparing a husband to some unattainable ideal. I don’t like divorce, and I think these men should stay with their wives unless the misbehavior mainfests presently.

    It’s especially rude and presumptuous for a bachelor to do this here, on a blog dedicated to married men. We (who aren’t married to anyone) are in no position to pass our insolent judgment upon married bros, who are doing the best they can. It’s a bit like me going out to the VFW hall to deliver an anti-war speech. It serves no purpose, except to insult one’s hosts, and make the speaker look like a clueless ingrate.

    It’s for a husband to judge his wife’s past, and for other men to keep their mouths shut (unless the husband specifically asks for advice).

    Best,

    Boxer

  264. Dragonfly says:

    @Seriously Serving
    “My husband insists on pushing the pram whenever we’re out together. And he loved having our kids in the carrier when they were smaller. I hope people don’t think he’s feminized! It’s not always the wife “making” them do it…”

    Yep… mine does too. I think it’s a way of being in charge and leading – he even does it when we go grocery shopping together. We got married young like you said you and your husband did. I think the dynamics dramatically change when you get married in your early 20’s… most women are just not doing that now because they are trying to maximize their sexual strategy of AFBB.

  265. Dragonfly says:

    @Laura
    “The race is not always to the swift, and it really does burn that the divorced are seen as moral failures because they are dumped, while those still married are seen as pillars of the community even if their private lives are a mess.”

    It isn’t fair, but life isn’t fair… to expect it to be fair is really psychologically unhealthy. Divorce will always signify a failure, no matter if the wife or husband were innocent parties. In way, it is a failure that they didn’t foresee that the person had such major character flaws. To say anything else is to fall prey into the victim mentality of, “It just happened, I had nothing to do with it.” If a woman married a man who was an adulterer, chances are the signs were there before they got married, and naivety is not an excuse. In order to be a healthy person, she still needs to take responsibility for the failure. For making the wrong choice or for her own naivety.

    Divorce for any means really is the failure to have a working marriage, a marriage that lasted. It will always hold a stigma of failure because of this. There is still failure in a sexless marriage (or marriage to a frivolous wife, etc.), but divorce is more easily spotted as a societal failure. You can’t absolve it by saying that one of the divorcees didn’t have anything to do with it. They ultimately chose that person. And you can’t absolve it by saying that married couples aren’t the perfection that society deems marriage to be.

  266. Robin,

    I’d still love to know where you got that 99.7%, though, because the source I found (an Internet survey) is self-selected and therefore not necessarily a representative sample. I’d like more sources.

    I saw that quote in two places. I wish I could find it but I can’t. Use the 98% figure, that data point is just as effective.

    The thing is Robin, so few virgins marry one another these days, the entire concept of pair bonding is just a rhetorical concept. Neither myself or my wife were virgin when we were married so marital pair-bonding is not something that I have any personal experience with. I pair-bonded with the girl who took my virginity from me. You can’t turn off what God gave to each of us as instinct no matter how sophisiticated we think we are.

  267. feeriker says:

    My husband insists on pushing the pram whenever we’re out together. And he loved having our kids in the carrier when they were smaller. I hope people don’t think he’s feminized! It’s not always the wife “making” them do it…”

    Yep… mine does too. I think it’s a way of being in charge and leading – he even does it when we go grocery shopping together.

    As an OT aside, could both of you kindly assure us that your children in prams/strollers are/were well under the age of two years? One of life’s blood pressure risers for me is seeing parents push children in strollers/prams who are practically elementary school age. Ditto for kids riding in the front of shopping carts…

  268. Red pills! Yes they do work. Sometimes there is a bit of a “delay” in the reaction, but the truth can not be resisted once you hear it. I’ve been banned from We Hunt the Mammoth for almost 20 hours and still they talk about me. But it is changing. One of those feminists (who apparently, ate one of those red pills I was handing out) is starting to think about crossing over to the other side.

    Fibinachi | April 22, 2015 at 8:12 am

    (paraphrase): marital rape? Impossible if the wife submits to the husband at all times

    The kindest possible thing to say to that is that it’s logically valid.

    Yes it is Fibinachi, yes it is. It is logically valid, but that is not the kindest possible thing to say about the point I made regarding “marital rape.” The kindest thing to say is what I said earlier, it makes no sense. But I am glad you are starting to consider my points. Slowly but surely, we are going to get them all…..

  269. Escoffier says:

    Des:

    It so happens that I saw Boyhood on a plane last month. I thought it was overrated (Sailer had praised it, and I usually think his movie judgement is pretty good) but it had its points. Mainly, as you note, the mother was quite a wreck. Not a vicious person, but one bad choice after another. And really not a very attractive personality.

    The father on the other hand is portayed very well. Perhaps a bit of a flake early in life, but it’s clear that she’s the one who got rid of him and he does his best to be a decent father in spite of that.

    Also, the Sheena character was a perfect illustration of red pill teachings.

  270. craig says:

    IBB, don’t get your hopes up. Fibinachi’s comment dismisses your point as if it’s obviously absurd for a wife to submit to her husband, ever. Fibinachi is far from ready to accept the corollary that ‘rape’ cannot genuinely exist within marriage because implicit consent to sexual relations (nb: but not to violent battery, which remains an offense) is inherent in the wedding vows.

  271. Laura says:

    @Dragonfly

    If you walk into a church function with 100 attendees, and a morbidly obese person is piling high-calorie food onto his plate, it is very easy to judge that person as a glutton. But among the 99 other attendees, there may well be many others who are far worse sinners than the glutton.

    Some sinful failure is out in the open, and some is very well hidden.

    I’m not comfortable with the idea of blaming the victims of divorce. Bernie Madoff’s victims were naïve, but Bernie was the crook. The person who marries someone who is secretly bisexual may be naïve, but when the marriage cracks up because the bisexual spouse decides to enter a same-sex relationship, it really doesn’t matter whether the spouse being abandoned left the cap off the toothpaste.

  272. John Nesteutes says:

    Early church fathers debated whether or not it was immoral for non virgins to marry (as opposed to remain celibate for life).

    As far as being like Jesus… Jesus didn’t marry any of the prostitutes he hung out with. He told them to repent, and most of them did.

    Most men would be fine with marrying a non-virgin who displayed true repentance. But true repentance would mean completely abandoning her former lifestyle. Something I’ve seen happen, but it’s not the norm. ( For starters, the expectation a good man should marry her is off the table. The possibility of lifelong celibacy is accepted instead.)

  273. OKRickety says:

    @Boxer,

    It would be nice to have specific definitions for terms such as “slut”, but everyone has their own perspective. It does make communication more difficult on this site.

    Where is the line between a “slut” and a “non-slut”? Due to my analytical nature and training, I want a quantitative definition. I’m not intelligent enough to do that, but I am reasonably certain that it is directly correlated to the number of sexual partners a woman has had. Consequently, the bottom line for me is that the ideal wife is a virgin, and all non-virgins should be evaluated rigorously because, although “past performance does not guarantee future results”, it would be smart to expect future results to be similar to past performance.

    I think Earl’s comment is for the single man who is interested in marriage. Changing tacks (to match yours), I would suppose that any male reader who married a non-virgin and is currently satisfied in that marriage will not be shamed by Earl’s comment. For myself (who married a repentant “slut” unknowingly [I knew she had been sexual with her fiancé, but I was too naïve to ask her N] and is now divorced by her [I know, big surprise]), Earl’s comment would not have shamed me, but, instead, probably only suggested to me that I was blessed to have found an exception. Anecdotal, of course, but perhaps married male readers (less naïve than I was) may also benefit from Earl’s comment.

    Having lurked on this blog for some time, I do not consider it to be “dedicated to married men”. I know the main page uses the phrase “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world”. I might describe this blog as “A Christian man’s thoughts on marriage and all things related” with the target audience being men interested in marriage (past, present, or future).

    Dalrock, who is the desired audience of this blog? Only married men?

  274. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I’m not comfortable with the idea of blaming the victims of divorce.

    I thought on what you wrote earlier while I was out today and had the same sentiments as Dragonfly. There might be a few victims of divorce through no fault of her own but I think for the purposes of discussion we can agree this is very rare. And those women to whom it has happened, have my sympathy. Honestly. The sympathy I would feel for a widow with an even greater sorrow considering what God’s Word has to say about women marrying a second time.

    What is most important as we move through this life is to be sure to take personal responsibility for any and all things we may be responsible for. Your example of the obese woman and the other worse sinners is unfortunate – Are sins ranked? Is she just a little bit of a sinner whose sin just happens to be visible? If you are among those who are civilization minded, you ought to be able to separate that which was perhaps unfair for you and understand the importance of discussions that seek to call divorce what it is.

    You directed your comment toward seriouslyserving indicating that something she said prompted you to write your grievances. Reading back over serioiuslyservings comments, are you trying to convey that divorce could just “happen out of the blue” for her?

  275. Sarah's Daughter says:

    We have read time and time again on this very blog what a woman can and should do prior to marrying – like having assistance from her father in choosing her husband. Of course no one can go back and undo the mistake of not properly vetting a spouse. We can take responsibility for not having done so and instead of making this claim that divorce can just happen to a women, support those who tell women to get proper assistance. This is the most binding contract she will ever enter into, one that should be considered very carefully. Scripture does not support her divorcing for any reason, and doesn’t give much of a do over should her husband divorce her. That’s just scripture. Our culture still reflects these supposed “archaic” judgements of a divorced woman, those judgements being exactly what your are still sensitive to. Even more reason to plead with young women to get help before marrying.

  276. Ser Leon says:

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Feminist mindset is that it perceives certain pressures in reality. These women accurately perceive that they feel;
    1.) a pressure to marry before old age
    2.) Have children
    3.) Be loved and receive the approval of a worthy male
    4.) that they are somehow judged for a long line of sexual partners or sexual infidelity
    5.) a desire to be considered beautiful

    One can hear it when they rise defensively against these often unspoken accusations. They know their sin and their conscience accuses them. They seek desperately for someone to blame for these feelings that they all experience. They find targets, men, magazines, society, the glass ceiling, even other women.

    The reason that the sinner is so often driven into mad incoherence is because divorcing oneself from reality is the only way to deal with the twin burdens of guilt and shame.

  277. I have said to close friends (whose weddings I have attended) before, that should they ever come up to a rough patch in their marriage and consider divorce, I will remind them of the vows they made. And that I would ask them to do the same for us. I wonder how often this happens in reality? How often to the witnesses to a wedding speak up when divorce is announced and say, “Wait a minute, we all heard you promise…”?

  278. BradA says:

    SD,

    My wife would not have benefited from having her father help her choose a husband. He did not like strong Christianity much and would have picked a looser in that area for her.

    Laura,

    I recall you discussing your situation here some time back and it does sound clear cut, but I also know I thought my mom’s situation was clear cut until I went through my own issues several years ago and examined things more clearly.

    My mother did initiate the divorce, but my father was far from the ideal father at the time, but I can see my mother was walking out her emotions, not reality, at the time. She told me shortly before she died that she had left him because he wasn’t spending enough time with my sister and I, something that would ensure she spent even less time with us. He was not the best, nor the worst, but she took action based on emotions.

    I am much more skeptical today of the “innocent wife” argument by many. You may have been, but experience has a way of making people very skeptical. You may want to keep that in mind if you post in places like this. Others are much stronger on the issue.

  279. BradA says:

    seriouslyserving,

    People can justify changing their support for the marriage down the line. People can justify just about anything they want to justify.

    I also wonder how many today are still in relationships with those who witnessed their wedding many decades later or even many years later? I know we are not, so they cannot do that even if they wanted to do so.

    I don’t say this to discourage your commitment. Please keep that up! Just realize it is not quite that easy to maintain and may take serious effort on your part in the future.

    You will at least have my words bouncing around in your head if you ever do walk back on it!

  280. @BradA,

    Yes, that’s a good point about relationships moving on!

    I think it is helpful for me to hear that commitment is not always easy to maintain, and that it may take hard work. A girlfriend gave me that advice about childbirth shortly before my first arrived – “be prepared for the fight” – and it was helpful to have that mindset.

  281. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Brad,
    I didn’t mean to say a marriage can’t work out without a father’s input. But I don’t think you’re suggesting a young woman shouldn’t have her father’s help, are you?

    Seriouslyserving,
    The last few years, if I have the opportunity to talk with a wife who is considering divorce, I do what I can to instill dread within her. It’s been very successful so far. I’ve said, “Your husband is a good looking man/good man, he’s not going to be single for long. Are you ready to have another woman in his life and in your children’s life?” – It’s usually something she hasn’t even considered yet and as uncomfortable as it is to acknowledge, women are much more driven by the fear of loss/loss of control than they are by an appeal to their honor (wedding vows).

  282. Dragonfly says:

    “Seriouslyserving,
    The last few years, if I have the opportunity to talk with a wife who is considering divorce, I do what I can to instill dread within her. It’s been very successful so far. I’ve said, “Your husband is a good looking man/good man, he’s not going to be single for long. Are you ready to have another woman in his life and in your children’s life?” – It’s usually something she hasn’t even considered yet and as uncomfortable as it is to acknowledge, women are much more driven by the fear of loss/loss of control than they are by an appeal to their honor (wedding vows).”

    Very very good… glad to hear it worked, I will try that if any of our friends come to me about it. We’ve seen a lot of friends divorce, but so far they were more distant friends that used to be close, but at the time, weren’t even in our city usually. But this is good to know. It’s so true.

  283. Els says:

    A better explanation is that men are pulling back from marriage to the most risky women. This only makes sense. Black women for example have the highest divorce rates of any race, and they have the most trouble marrying.

    Good grief. Because of fatherless-ness. 2/3 of black women grow up without theirs, and all the anti-man baggage that comes with it. Black men (and few people appreciate a strong resourceful black man more than I do) have a storied history of divorcing their wives as well. Because of fatherless-ness.

    I wonder how much more divorce there is among college degree earning black women who hail from MC intact families as compared to other women from similar backgrounds. I suspect the gap narrows quite a bit.

    -Elspeth

  284. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Hi Elspeth,
    I haven’t had time to read over this whole report but the graph on page 4 of the PDF seems to support what you have said. http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/resource-detail/index.aspx?rid=3986

  285. Hank Flanders says:

    OKRickety

    I consider that to be shaming or reproaching Christian men for not being willing to marry non-virgin women. Although BPP does not claim that marrying them is a noble action, it suggests that doing so would make them more like Jesus in their attitude.

    I don’t really see the big deal about being shamed or judged. If I’m doing wrong, then I need to be shamed or judged. If I’m doing right, and someone is judging me incorrectly, then the judgment’s on them, anyway. That’s between them and God, so feel free to judge me or shame me. I don’t see how I can lose either way if you do.

    Nevertheless, I didn’t feel Bluepillprofessor’s post was shaming. I just didn’t agree with his premise. First, no, marrying someone is not the same as forgiving sins. Second, repentant, promiscuous women (i.e. those who plan to stop having sex until marriage) seem even rarer than virgins and therefore, not particularly relevant to the discussion, but I would certainly consider them if they existed and were possibilities. Third, BPP indicated that a virgin is a bigger risk than a woman’s who’s had just a few partners, but that lady who wrote that book (can’t remember her name or the name of the book) said she’d had four partners and told her husband she wanted to experience more men, so using BPP’s logic, if anything, a woman who has a partner count of 2-4 might actually be a higher risk than a woman who’s had 10 or more partners.

  286. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    A better explanation is that men are pulling back from marriage to the most risky women. This only makes sense. Black women for example have the highest divorce rates of any race, and they have the most trouble marrying.

    Good grief. Because of fatherless-ness. 2/3 of black women grow up without theirs, and all the anti-man baggage that comes with it. Black men (and few people appreciate a strong resourceful black man more than I do) have a storied history of divorcing their wives as well. Because of fatherless-ness.

    But these two reads aren’t mutually exclusive. You are explaining why Black women are (on average) a high risk when considering marriage.

    I wonder how much more divorce there is among college degree earning black women who hail from MC intact families as compared to other women from similar backgrounds. I suspect the gap narrows quite a bit.

    I haven’t had the chance to look at SD’s link on this, but either way we are talking about a small subset of Black women. MC Black women raised in intact families could have very low divorce rates, but they are a small part of the population and wouldn’t change the overall observation. If it turns out (and I suspect it would) that MC Black women from intact families have both high marriage rates and low divorce rates, this would confirm the point I was trying to make. While there is a large degree of social denial about the risks of divorce, culturally we have seen a pullback from marriage where the risks are highest for men. I’m not saying “Don’t marry a Black woman”, and I’m certainly not saying “Don’t marry a young woman.” I’m saying we see the most pullback where the risks of divorce are highest. I’m also saying (as I wrote to Deti above): A family system that only works for the elite is a huge problem for our society.

  287. OKRickety says:

    Regarding encouraging others to fight for their marriage (or discouraging divorce):

    Are they likely to ask for advice while considering or during divorce? If they do, and I think that’s a big “if”, I expect they are only looking for support to divorce, not encouragement to fight for their marriage.

    If they don’t ask for advice, will they be open to you discouraging divorce? I expect they will tell you it’s none of your business, it’s too late, you wouldn’t understand, or similar.

    For Christians, I wish the church (both leaders and other Christians) would strongly and actively fight for marriage and discourage divorce. That certainly did not happen in my divorce, and I believe other commenters have told in past threads of their own similar experiences. Of course, there are likely exceptions (their rarity is why they are called exceptions). It is little wonder that Christian divorce rates are little better, if any, than non-Christian ones.

  288. Elspeth & Dalrock,

    A better explanation is that men are pulling back from marriage to the most risky women. This only makes sense. Black women for example have the highest divorce rates of any race, and they have the most trouble marrying.

    Good grief. Because of fatherless-ness. 2/3 of black women grow up without theirs, and all the anti-man baggage that comes with it. Black men (and few people appreciate a strong resourceful black man more than I do) have a storied history of divorcing their wives as well. Because of fatherless-ness.

    I think this might have been the main reason why David Furtelle gave me the boot at “We Hunted the Mammoth” a couple days ago. Well it was two things: #1) saying there was no such thing as “marital rape” (because there isn’t) and #2) commenting on illegitimacy rates and how that is destroying this country. The minute I brought up the “I” word (illegitimate) with respect to Detroit, Camden, and Ferguson, there were a couple of screams from some of the posters over there because they said they had no idea what illegitimacy meant. So one of their posters had to calmly explain to them (from a purely feminist perspective) that is was some out-dated shaming mechanism created by the Patrirachy to encourage shot-gun weddings and prevent people from having children out of wedlock. As soon as he rang that bell, a few of them started piping up that well okay, I AM a b@stard and it just went downhill from there. But I think their response helps prove my point (and both of your points.)

    The point is this: having children out of wedlock is really BAD! Its bad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is you run the risk of increasing your chances of creating someone like some of the posters over at We Hunnted the Mammoth. Kids who are b@stards, that is awful life for them, and government can’t really undo the damage that was done unto them with money and “legs up” over others. It doesn’t work that way and I think we (who have taken red pills) know this.

  289. BradA says:

    I didn’t feel Bluepillprofessor’s post was shaming.

    It certainly was.

  290. BradA says:

    SD,

    I was just being anal and noting a completely valid exception to that today. I would completely agree that women with even somewhat godly fathers should value their input more than most do.

  291. Hank Flanders says:

    BradA

    It certainly was.

    Who even really cares, though? I’m a single man who would like to marry a virgin, so I should be his target audience, but I don’t feel any shame whatsoever about whom I’d like to marry.

    In any case, I’m more interested in hearing what others think concerning what Bluepillprofessor brought up about a man marrying a repentant, formerly promiscuous woman. Is such a creature even that common? From what I’ve seen women are either virgins and plan to stay that way until marriage, or they’ve been having sex out of wedlock for years and don’t plan to stop. Even if they say they’re done having promiscuous sex, I’m skeptical and think they could easily be persuaded to indulge before marriage again. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

  292. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    @OKRickety…

    Sorry for the delay. I wanted to think more about this topic before I shot my mouth off.

    We seem to agree that Earl was building a strawman, and most of your riposte is in line with my own thoughts on the matter. They only thing we seem to disagree on is etiquette.

    Where is the line between a “slut” and a “non-slut”? Due to my analytical nature and training, I want a quantitative definition. I’m not intelligent enough to do that, but I am reasonably certain that it is directly correlated to the number of sexual partners a woman has had.

    I’m surprised Opus hasn’t pointed out the definition. The word is used in Chaucer to refer to a male character in one of his tales. It originally meant someone who was untidy or kept a cluttered and disorganized life.

    Admittedly, I’m inclined to err on the side of discretion when discussing the quality of another man’s wife. That is what we’re talking about here. Misspeaking in meatspace in this regard is possibly grounds for a punch in the nose, or a broad social shunning.

    I would suppose that any male reader who married a non-virgin and is currently satisfied in that marriage will not be shamed by Earl’s comment.

    I guess it doesn’t matter much to me whether someone else is offended. The fact that no one would care if I ripped a fart at dinner doesn’t mean I’m inclined to let go this evening.

    I think its offensive, in polite society, to allude to someone’s non-virgin-at-marriage wife as a “slut”. I also don’t think it’s accurate in many cases.

    @Hank Flanders…

    Second, repentant, promiscuous women (i.e. those who plan to stop having sex until marriage) seem even rarer than virgins and therefore, not particularly relevant to the discussion

    I’m curious as to where you live.

    On the bell curve corresponding to my single acquaintances, most people (men and women alike) hover around the middle. They’ve had sex, certainly, and have been in a long term relationship or two, but they aren’t tattooed skanks or playas who are “on the make” every Friday night.

    Aside from myself (I went through a pretty wild phase for a couple of years, thanks to Roissy, lol) and a couple of people I know, there are very few people with a history of promiscuity in my social circles. There aren’t many virgins either.

    Best,

    Boxer

  293. Boxer says:

    Dear Hank:

    From what I’ve seen women are either virgins and plan to stay that way until marriage, or they’ve been having sex out of wedlock for years and don’t plan to stop. Even if they say they’re done having promiscuous sex, I’m skeptical and think they could easily be persuaded to indulge before marriage again. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

    I’m skeptical of everyone, regardless of their stated position. I guess life has made me jaded.

    I do agree with BPP on a few things, though. I have known more than a few religious Mormon women who were certainly virgins at marriage, who later blew up their families because they were bored, not “haaaaapy”, etc. The stats suggest that marrying one’s first love is a slightly better risk than marrying a woman with two or three previous partners, but it’s not enough to make me ever consider buying a ring.

    There are also many, many women who claim to be virgins, but who have banged dozens of dudes. These previous sexual encounters “didn’t count” according to our princess, cuz they were (in the ass, handjob, mouthjob, while drunk, etc. etc.) I think it’s almost impossible to get an accurate answer to this question from any woman.

    If you are going to get married, I think you should minimize your risks of divorce. You owe this to your future children, if not to yourself. This is one factor you need to consider, but it isn’t the only factor. It might not even be the most important one. There are probably a few virgins out there who dream about a career as a stripper or escort, once they get out of daddy’s house.

    Best,

    Boxer

  294. Laura says:

    Boxer:

    I always advise people to try to marry someone from their own hometown if possible. It is MUCH easier for a person to lie to a potential spouse, or withhold information about all sorts of things if they are from “out of town”. Also, if the prospective spouse is local, you will end up spending time with his/her family much earlier in the relationship, and you may well be able to discern family attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, money, etc., before you have made an irrevocable commitment.

    @BradA, Sarah’s Daughter, Dragonfly:

    My ex-husband made the unilateral decision to divorce me. By the time he informed me of his decision, he had already hired an attorney, removed all the money from the joint bank accounts, etc.

    I have never claimed to have been a perfect wife, and certainly every wife and every husband fails every single day, but I never cheated on my husband (even though he cheated on me) and I used money from my earnings, and from my family to bail him out of endless financial problems caused by his wild overspending, as well as to pay off legal fees and court fines that he incurred multiple times.

    My parents both approved of my ex-husband prior to the marriage, so his “issues” were not glaringly obvious prior to the marriage. People often put their trust in someone who later turns out to be completely untrustworthy. They are already experiencing the consequences of their poor decision, so I don’t think it helps for other people to pile on.

    I actually DO agree that the stigma of divorce does confer some benefits on society in general, I am just irritated by the point of view that in a divorce, both parties are equally at fault. Many people who have had lifetime marriages were only able to manage that by being fortunate enough to be married to a spouse who tolerated their dreadful behavior for decades.

  295. Els says:

    While there is a large degree of social denial about the risks of divorce, culturally we have seen a pullback from marriage where the risks are highest for men. I’m not saying “Don’t marry a Black woman”, and I’m certainly not saying “Don’t marry a young woman.” I’m saying we see the most pullback where the risks of divorce are highest. I’m also saying (as I wrote to Deti above): A family system that only works for the elite is a huge problem for our society.

    Understood, and agree. Thanks for the reply.

    I always advise people to try to marry someone from their own hometown if possible. It is MUCH easier for a person to lie to a potential spouse, or withhold information about all sorts of things if they are from “out of town”.

    Very true. It was a great help with my own marriage that we both were lifelong residents of the place we met and married. There were certainly down sides, but out of the blue revelations about past behavior were not among them.

    That said, it’s much harder in our current migratory culture to make that a non negotiable. Even things like a person having traveled away for college shrouds some things from potential mates, and given the decline in marriage and the decline in the numbers of people with Biblical values surrounding sex and marriage, it may require casting a net outside of your immediate home town.

    My .02

  296. OKRickety says:

    @Hank Flanders

    Shaming is intended to cause a change in behavior of the target. Of course, the target only changes if they feel shame. For example, slut-shaming is only fully effective if the “slut” cares what others think. That is, if the target of the shaming doesn’t care, so they are not ashamed.

    I’m more interested in hearing what others think concerning what Bluepillprofessor brought up about a man marrying a repentant, formerly promiscuous woman. Is such a creature even that common?

    I think my ex-wife fits that definition well. When she finally (10 years into our marriage) told me about her sexual past, she “didn’t know” her N-count. (Via Deti, “consider the N she confesses to; then multiply it by 2 or 3, and now you have a better idea of her true N.”. What do you suppose is the true N when she says doesn’t know her N-count?). As far as I can tell, she was truly repentant. So, I think they exist.

    Judging by the comments on this blog, many believe that it is quite common for women to hit the wall, “repent” of their promiscuity, and look for “beta bucks” to man up and provide for her and her children. I don’t know of any numbers to quantify how many women fit this description.

    As to the likelihood of relapse to sex before marriage, I said earlier that it would be smart to expect future results to be similar to past performance. In my case, I didn’t push for it, so I don’t know if my ex-wife would have or not.

  297. Gunner Q says:

    Hank Flanders @ 1:24 pm:
    “In any case, I’m more interested in hearing what others think concerning what Bluepillprofessor brought up about a man marrying a repentant, formerly promiscuous woman.”

    Two burning questions: why did she choose to repent and what changes has she made in her life as part of that repentance? There’s a big difference between a 19y.o. who did it once, felt ashamed and now refuses to drink socially and a 30y.o. flying off the carousel towards the Wall.

    Nobody wakes up one morning and decides it’s a wonderful day for that repentance he’s been thinking about. True repentance is, by definition, a life-changing event. Those don’t happen without causes and consequences.

    Perhaps a third question: are you comfortable with not being the sexiest guy she’s ever had?

  298. Sarah's Daughter says:

    @OKRickety
    Regarding encouraging others to fight for their marriage (or discouraging divorce):

    Are they likely to ask for advice while considering or during divorce? If they do, and I think that’s a big “if”, I expect they are only looking for support to divorce, not encouragement to fight for their marriage.

    If they don’t ask for advice, will they be open to you discouraging divorce? I expect they will tell you it’s none of your business, it’s too late, you wouldn’t understand, or similar.

    In one case yes, she was asking if she should consider divorce, she had just learned of his infidelity and didn’t know what she should do. I said what I explained above and remained an encourager to her while she went through the process of forgiving him. They are still married today with two additional children.

    In two different instances, I was not asked for advice. The wives were looking for support to divorce (via facebook) I messaged them privately and again said what I explained above. Both were offended and indignant. Both are still married today. Neither are still FB friends with me. If someone on my FB page is going to nuke her marriage, I’ll gladly be the wake up call they never want to talk to again. I rather enjoy the reputation of being the bitch that saved a few children from having broken homes.

  299. OKRickety says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    I note that your experiences seem to have had the responses I would expect. However, rather than doing nothing (as I probably would), you did as God would desire. Awesome!

    I admire your willingness to promote marriage and avoid divorce. God bless you! I wish there were thousands of other Christian women (and men, too) who would do the same. I suspect that would make a huge difference to the Christian divorce rate.

    P.S. I think you know you’re not a bitch, no matter what those women might think.

  300. Sarah's Daughter says:

    God bless you!

    Thank you.
    I remember feeling so helpless as I’d watch women destroy their marriages. I remember trying to appeal to their Christian faith, their honor, their emotions regarding their own children. There was just nothing I could say then that wouldn’t generate a condescending “That’s sweet, but I’ve made up my mind” remark.

    Then I learned game.🙂

    Women can use game with other women just as easily as men can. I have no moral qualms about it either. My other favorite outside of instilling dread is “agree and amplify”.

    One woman, after reading a comment of mine on FB regarding not disrespecting husbands publicly, wrote “Oh, that’s right, you like your husband.” I knew their marriage was on shaky ground, she had gone from a crazy in love wife to a bitter shrew obsessed with their daughter (pageant mom). I watched as she belittled him, made sarcastic comments about him…just vile crap. Then finally I saw she posted a picture of him in a Tough Mudder event with a complimentary caption. I commented: “No way, watch yourself, you just said something good about your husband!!!” This led to a heated FB message. I was able to display to her from her very own comments how disgusting she had been in her disrespect toward her husband. I reminded her of the “oh, that’s right, you like your husband” comment and admonished her to check herself and hit her knees for the man she has in her life. I coupled it with dread – “he’s quite a catch and you’re a fool to continue treating him this way, there are a lot of women who wouldn’t” – Again, she unfriended me but taking a quick peak at her public FB pictures, she’s lost about 100 pounds and looks fantastic posed in a very sultry picture with her husband.

  301. @Sarah’s Daughter
    You might be losing friends now, but I daresay your reward in heaven will be great!

  302. feeriker says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter
    You might be losing friends now, but I daresay your reward in heaven will be great!

    Seconded.

    Àlso, I wouldn’t say that it’s a given that she’s permanently lost those friends. With any measure of grace, these women will come to eventually recognize that she’s done for them the most selfless, sincere, and loving thing any REAL friend can do.

  303. OKRickety says:

    @Boxer,

    Here’s my attempt to define “slut”. Slut had an early usage (in 1486) in describing a man. Especially in British usage, it usually referred to a woman being dirty, slovenly, or untidy from the 1500s until the 1900s. But even oxforddictionaries.com considers this definition to be “dated”. It states the current definition is “A woman who has many casual sexual partners” and considers this to be derogatory in usage. I believe this last definition is the common understanding today, and most readers of this blog would agree, although they likely differ on their interpretations of “many” and “casual”.

    I think “slut” may be overused on this blog, but its meaning is generally understood. My preference would be “promiscuous” as it is probably less inflammatory.

    As to etiquette, I believe that it’s important to be courteous, but if I state truth, it may unintentionally hurt others. That is unfortunate, but too much concern easily becomes political correctness.

    Earl said:

    “Don’t let somebody shame you into thinking marrying a former slut is a noble thing to do.”

    Boxer, we definitely disagree that we are “discussing the quality of another man’s wife”. You seem to believe Earl’s comment did that. I do not. Certainly, it could be construed to be a slap in the face to readers who have married a woman who is a “former slut”. However, I think you are the only one who seems to have that concern.

    Earl, did you intend this to be a reference to currently married women who were “former sluts”? Or was it a warning to men considering marriage to avoid unwise counsel regarding marrying former “sluts”?

  304. Boxer says:

    Sarah’s Daughter reported…

    One woman, after reading a comment of mine on FB regarding not disrespecting husbands publicly, wrote “Oh, that’s right, you like your husband.” I knew their marriage was on shaky ground, she had gone from a crazy in love wife to a bitter shrew obsessed with their daughter (pageant mom). I watched as she belittled him, made sarcastic comments about him…just vile crap. Then finally I saw she posted a picture of him in a Tough Mudder event with a complimentary caption. I commented: “No way, watch yourself, you just said something good about your husband!!!” This led to a heated FB message. I was able to display to her from her very own comments how disgusting she had been in her disrespect toward her husband. I reminded her of the “oh, that’s right, you like your husband” comment and admonished her to check herself and hit her knees for the man she has in her life. I coupled it with dread – “he’s quite a catch and you’re a fool to continue treating him this way, there are a lot of women who wouldn’t” – Again, she unfriended me but taking a quick peak at her public FB pictures, she’s lost about 100 pounds and looks fantastic posed in a very sultry picture with her husband.

    Hilarious! Two thumbs way up. Troll on!

  305. Boxer says:

    Dear OK Rickety:

    As to etiquette, I believe that it’s important to be courteous, but if I state truth, it may unintentionally hurt others. That is unfortunate, but too much concern easily becomes political correctness.

    Problem is, you’re not stating “truth”. You just described the use of a word with such a wide lexical range that it’s completely meaningless, except as an insult.

    Boxer, we definitely disagree that we are “discussing the quality of another man’s wife”. You seem to believe Earl’s comment did that. I do not. Certainly, it could be construed to be a slap in the face to readers who have married a woman who is a “former slut”. However, I think you are the only one who seems to have that concern.

    You’re right, and, I’ll continue to express it, whenever single dudes start spreading “the whispers” in an attempt to make the men here feel dissatisfied or ashamed with their wives.

    Hope this helps,

    Boxer

  306. Hank Flanders says:

    Boxer

    On the bell curve corresponding to my single acquaintances, most people (men and women alike) hover around the middle. They’ve had sex, certainly, and have been in a long term relationship or two, but they aren’t tattooed skanks or playas who are “on the make” every Friday night.

    Aside from myself (I went through a pretty wild phase for a couple of years, thanks to Roissy, lol) and a couple of people I know, there are very few people with a history of promiscuity in my social circles. There aren’t many virgins either.

    I live in the Southeast, and serial monogamy is the norm here, as it is most places. Most people simply date (have sex with) a boyfriend or girlfriend for a while before moving onto the next one. The prevailing attitude seems to be that waiting until marriage to have sex (or have sex again) is too “old fashioned.” The rare ones who do value waiting until marriage are strong in those beliefs and have been living up to it all along. Rarely am I aware of women who have had sex in the past but plan to wait until marriage going forward.

    What attitudes do your single acquaintances who have had sex in the past display? Do they plan to wait until marriage going forward?

  307. Hank Flanders says:

    Gunner Q

    Two burning questions: why did she choose to repent and what changes has she made in her life as part of that repentance? There’s a big difference between a 19y.o. who did it once, felt ashamed and now refuses to drink socially and a 30y.o. flying off the carousel towards the Wall.

    Exactly, and I don’t find the first woman that common, as people are so shameless and accepting of sex outside of marriage (and other sexually immoral practices). For that matter, the second woman may not even show any shame either, since people are pretty well expected to have had sex with multiple partners by that age.

    Perhaps a third question: are you comfortable with not being the sexiest guy she’s ever had?

    No!🙂

  308. Boxer says:

    Dear Hank:

    I’m at the opposite end of North America. I think people here are much more alienated from each other than they are in a warmer clime, and I guess that’s both good and bad. The culture here is somewhat standoffish, and I know dudes and chicks who have gone without (not just sex, but any sort of friendly contact) for a year or more, before finding someone new to start banging/dating.

    The culture here makes it very lonely for a new arrival, but I think it might also serve to inhibit the branch-swinging that is common elsewhere. I’ve never thought about this before. Some smart dude oughta write a paper on it.

    What attitudes do your single acquaintances who have had sex in the past display? Do they plan to wait until marriage going forward?

    I don’t really know the details, but I know they’re not the type of tattooed skanks and easy lays that make them readily approachable (a/k/a sluts). That might also be a class thing. I generally hang out with the people I work with, and it’s sort of a stuffy environment.

    Best,

    Boxer

  309. BradA says:

    I’m skeptical of everyone, regardless of their stated position. I guess life has made me jaded.

    I am married and I am extremely jaded today due to many experiences, most of which I have touched on here at times.

    Hank,

    I would be very skeptical of how serious anyone’s claimed repentance was, especially when that repentance is needed to get something they want (marriage). It may be genuine, but the incentive to fake things is great.

    Also keep in mind that someone can be truly repentant and still be pulled to a besetting sin. The fact that her ability to pair bond with you is almost certainly messed up is a huge downside. God can work miracles, but I find that we still often have to walk through some rough consequences, and they are horrible in this case.

    The reverse challenge is having a great intimate sexual relationship with a women who has remained a virgin for 25+ years. That may be more of a challenge, especially as she gets older. I think this is why God’s general plan is to marry young and stay married, not to wait a long time.

    I also wonder how many who claim that God hasn’t sent the right man along are just ignoring the many men who were available in the past.

  310. Pingback: The Society of Phineas – Three Years | The Society of Phineas

  311. Celibacy has always been an acceptable option for the Christian, and this is the truest path of repentance for a woman who has found herself succumbing to the sin of fornication. A lifestyle of repentance includes accepting the consequences of past sin, and not expecting others to try to compensate for those consequences.

    If some worthy Christian guy wants to marry her, and understands the risks, then fine. Let him. He is not forbidden.

    My experience with people who truly convert to Christianity and repent is that their new life looks so different from their old life that godly people will readily overlook the sins of their old life.

    But things are different if this were a young woman who, baptised into the church, runs off and lives a life of rampant sin, and then expects to make a return. The bar for showing true repentance is much higher in that case.

    (At the risk of repeating myself, let’s go over some basic logic: previously married and divorced women don’t count. They should be reunited with their former husband. If he is an unrepentant unbeliever, let her pray for his eventual repentance and reconciliation. If she is a widow, it is proper for her to remarry. If she is an old widow, it is acceptable for her not to remarry.)

  312. @BradA

    In my past, much-less-sanctified life, I hung out with or went on dates with girls who alleged very few guys ever asked them out. (These are nice, mid-20s, Christian, traditional-conservative sort of girls.)

    Trouble is, we had some friends in common, and I found out through the grapevine that one of my friends had indeed asked almost every one of these girls out. He didn’t count. It was like he was invisible.

    When a woman says “no guy wanted to marry me”, what she means is “no guy I was attracted to wanted to marry me”. Which is acceptable. We wouldn’t shame a man for not wanting to mary a girl who weighs 700 lbs.

    The difference is, the man will be upfront and say “the only girl who wanted to marry me weighed 700 lbs”.

  313. Hank Flanders says:

    I said, “It would be one thing if women were actually ashamed of their promiscuous past and intended to turn from it, but from what I’ve seen, the culture has now shifted so much that the women who have sex outside of marriage don’t intend to stop. Marriage for them is (maybe) just the next step in their already sexual relationships.”

    This article pretty well exemplifies what I was talking about:
    http://news.yahoo.com/first-comes-love-then-comes-marriage-years-later-133220162.html

    With our high divorce rate, do people really not see a cause-and-effect relationship here? That is, if marriage is just another step, then what’s so special about it, and why even do it? Why would anyone risk a divorce situation later on with a woman who already treats sex and marriage as nothing special? Although I’m not MGTOW myself (at least voluntarily), I can somewhat understand the MGTOW proponents’ arguments there. Apparently, others can, too:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/01/why-men-wont-marry/

  314. @Hank Flanders

    I really don’t know why non-Christian men bother marrying at all.

    I don’t know why Christian couples who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage bother, either. 94% of unmarried “Christian” people have had sex by age 27. I have serious questions about how strong such a Christianity it is.

    I had one episode of fornication after I became a Christian. It was followed by much weeping, repentance, and prayer, including confession to three of my Christian brothers. It was followed by making radical, painful changes to my lifestyle to get me farther away from the source of the temptation.

    If a church doesn’t take fornication in its women seriously enough to create a lifestyle and boundaries to prevent fornication from happening in the first place, it doesn’t care much about sin, and it spits on the cross where Jesus died to set us free from sin in the first place.

  315. Hank Flanders says:

    John Nesteutes

    94% of unmarried “Christian” people have had sex by age 27. I have serious questions about how strong such a Christianity it is.

    I guess the part that surprises me most isn’t that most people have sex outside of marriage but how shameless they are about it, including Christians. The young woman I mentioned earlier stated that she is a Christian and that God is “extremely important” in her life, but she expects sex to happen within three to five dates. I know another young woman who works at my family’s business who recently went through a breakup with her live-in boyfriend (who is also not the father of her child, apparently) who wears Jesus t-shirts but thinks “marriage is just a piece of paper.” Both of these women are single moms in their mid-20s, not high school or college students who are simply going through wild streaks.

    People have been having sex outside of marriage for a very long time, but have people, at least women, always been so shamelessly transparent about it and for such indefinite periods of time in their lives? The fact that they are so shameless is the part about the current generation that was such a shock to me when I first noticed it a couple of years ago.

  316. John Nesteutes says:

    People have been having sex outside of marriage for a very long time, but have people, at least women, always been so shamelessly transparent about it and for such indefinite periods of time in their lives? The fact that they are so shameless is the part about the current generation that was such a shock to me when I first noticed it a couple of years ago.

    As the church goes more apostate and tolerates sin, yeah, people tend to become more shamelessly transparent about their sexual sins. Around the time of the Reformation, the clergy from the lowest priest all the way up to the Pope were infamous for fathering bastards left and right. All sins were forgiven if one made confession (and many rich people had their own personal private confessor) and didn’t forget to take the Eucharist.

    Sin was so rampant that the church monetised atonement for it into indulgences. I feel we are at a similar crossroads today.

    The Great Awakenings and other revivals–Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, and so forth–were always accompanied by sharp upticks in personal morality. Taverns closed, dance halls fell silent, cohabiting couples either married their partners or moved out. Oftentimes established church members and leaders were the most annoyed with revivals, as they might well be the tavern owner experiencing a drop in business. (Read any book about one of the Great Awakenings, or about Wesley.)

    Regarding those girls you referred to, they aren’t followers of Jesus, and if they think they have hope or assurance of salvation, it is false. They need the gospel and repentance. I hope they hear it from someone and accept it.

  317. Katerina says:

    I had sex with a few long-term boyfriends, and then repented. In fact my misery with the whole situation – pre-marital sex with men who didn’t believe in God or marriage – was what led to the conversion and repentance because I knew in my heart something was seriously wrong with my life, even though the world seemed to be saying otherwise. I married in my late 20’s, which was actually young compared to the types of feminist intellectuals I hung out with, most of whom waited until their mid to late 30s or just cohabited for years on end without ever considering formal marriage.

    I wish I could go back and undo it all. I wish I had known and understood then what I know now.

    However I’m confused by the whole Alpha and Beta business. I honestly don’t know if I could categorize most men one way or the other. All I know is that when I realized I needed a husband who believed in God, God gave me one, and he is 100 times sexier than anyone I’ve ever been with. His faith is either the source of, or else the result of his real masculinity – he’s much more masculine than the liberal types I dated before. I feel more fulfilled with him than I did with anyone else because the male-female dynamic is stronger, and because we are in better harmony with what God wants, and because he is just a really great catch whom I don’t deserve…it seems he has lots of great Alpha qualities (manly, sexy, decisive, knows his own mind) as well as Beta (good provider, loyal). And my previous boyfriends must have been fairly Beta – They weren’t “players” they were nice loyal guys who were just too liberal to believe that marriage meant anything. I didn’t choose them for lust and casual fun, I chose them for intellect and shared interests. Of course there was physical attraction and infatuation, but certainly not more so than with my husband. As far as I am concerned husband is the best I’ve had.

    The whole pair bonding has truth to it, and I don’t like to dwell on my husband’s own history with other women, but I think the grace of God can undo or at least lessen the effects. I certainly feel more bonded to my husband now than I do to anyone else. I went through intense grief and heartbreak when my first serious relationship ended, but all of that has become quite a pale memory – not completely undone but certainly not as intense or meaningful as what I have now.

    I offer this up as a reassurance to those who are reading these comments and freaking out that their own or their spouse’s sexual history necessarily means that their spouse is less attracted to them than to whomever the spouse initially “pair bonded” with.

    Regardless though, I would advise all those just started out not to make the mistakes I made, and to marry young and stay chaste before marriage.

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