Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015

Novaseeker found an excellent chart over at Reddit.  It isn’t my chart to share, so I won’t publish it here.  However, you can see it at the link.

Some quick thoughts:

  1. The chart confirms Men’s Sphere conventional wisdom about the changed SMP.
  2. While there has been a large (3 fold?) increase in the number of women at 45 who have never married, today at least most women still marry.
  3. Instead of showing men on a marriage “strike”, it is clear that there are plenty of thirsty men quite happy to wife up nearly all of the 30 something carouselers looking to marry.
  4. The feminist claim that women no longer value the status of wife is put to death by the data.  The women who married in the tail end of the curve will for the most part have settled hard.
  5. The never married women in their 20s and early 30s today should not expect to marry at the same rate as the women who are currently 45 have.  These are very different cohorts, as today’s 45 year old women came of age in the 1980s.

 

Edit:  See Cane Caldo’s take on the data here.

See Also:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Cane Caldo, Data, Marriage Strike, Nevermarried, Status of marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

198 Responses to Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015

  1. earlthomas786 says:

    Here’s your main reason why society will soon collapse. Maybe not today or in 20 years…but it’s sooner than we think.

  2. Novaseeker says:

    I agree with all of those conclusions. It isn’t men who are driving this by avoiding commitment, because women by and large are still marrying, if much later. It’s women who are driving this, by delaying commitment themselves and because there is a shortage of suitable men when they do find themselves ready to commit.

    Some of the changes are staggering, though.

    One is that it’s become taboo to marry at 25 or younger for a woman. In 2015, 70% of 25yo are never married, whereas in 1980 it’s a complete flip, where 70% of 25yo had been married. After that the marriages start to come along, but you don’t pass 50% until you get to 29yo. You don’t hit 70% married until age 34 for 2015, but in 1980 that was hit between ages 24 and 25 — it’s pretty much a decade pushback that has happened over the space of 35 years. That’s a massive change.

    Further the delay seems to widen once the “hot phase” between 28 and 32 is passed, such that the gap is very wide. As pointed out, the 70% married gap is almost ten years. And you don’t get to 80% of women having been married until age 40 (in 1980 this was age 27!!). I think that this means is that if they don’t find the guy when everyone is getting married, the delay can get very protracted because the pool of suitable men is tiny at that stage, and many women wait and wait and wait as a result. 85% do get married by the mid-40s, although it looks like that’s where it is flattening off in 2015, which is a fairly high long-term never married percentage I think.

    It will be interesting to see how this changes in the next 10 years or so — I suspect that the more recent curve will be even further to the right next time.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    The feminist claim that women no longer value the status of wife is put to death by the data.

    Well, it’s obvious that women in their 20’s do not value the status of wife, isn’t it? The data certainly says that quite clearly.

    The women who married in the tail end of the curve will for the most part have settled hard.

    Two points:
    First, AF-BB is real, not some androsphere fiction. The data supports this strongly.

    Second: Sure, but that fact won’t penetrate the diamond-hard solipsism of a 20-something Special Snowflake woman. She just knows that she’s different from the other girls.

  4. Pingback: Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015 | @the_arv

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    One is that it’s become taboo to marry at 25 or younger for a woman.

    Repeating myself from previous thread:
    Yes. It’s the standard narrative pushed in the media (Teen Vogue, now gone), in the high schools, in the larger feminist culture. The girl herd in college tends to police each other to “not settle!” i.e. marry while in college. That’s pretty ironic considering how hard most women outside the UMC must settle once they are north of 30. Churchgoing girls in their 20’s can be as bad, encouraging each other to “go on mission”, or work for some parachurch org rather than marry. Sending a 22 year old in her most fertile years halfway around the planet to live with strangers seems odd when you think on it abstractly.

    Women who self-label as “settling” are surely more likely to cheat after marriage, too.

    It’s common in the andreosphere to observe that feminism is a giant fitness test. Making their 20’s into “party central” years is an IQ test for women, and most fail. “Settling” in the 30’s is not necessarily a dramatic fail, for a lot of women it’s probably a grinding, day-to-day low-level irritation, given the typical Betaized man most likely to catch a carousel rider as she falls off her pony ride.

    The illusions that we all have to pretend are real is astounding. The more you look, the more you see.

  6. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘The illusions that we all have to pretend are real is astounding. The more you look, the more you see.’

    For me I heard it from the horse’s mouth at a young adult get together talking about vocations…all of the single girls were fine being alone, doing their thing, and being childless. I’m sure it’ll change but it wont be while they in their 20s.

  7. thedeti says:

    There will be reasons offered for this, but you wont see any of those offered by the Men’s Sphere in the MSM or the general public. The reasons those outside the Men’s Sphere will offer:

    1) The quality and number of marriageable men have declined sharply. It’s all men’s fault.

    2) (related to (1)): Men are out there sleeping around and don’t want to marry, so women are just doing what the men are doing. Men’s fault. If men weren’t sleeping around, women wouldn’t sleep around.

    3) (also related to 1)): Men aren’t ready to get married in their 20s, so women have no choice but to go to school and get jobs to support themselves. Men’s fault. If men would get ready to take on marriage, women would fall in line and marry them.

    4) Women want to marry later because they want educations, jobs and economic power independent of men, because (a) we can’t count on men to be there for us, live long enough to support us, and not divorce us; and (b) because educations, jobs and economic power are intrinsically good things for women to have. (a) is men’s fault. If men would commit, would take care of themselves and not get killed in accidents/work injuries or die from disease, and would not cheat on us and divorce us, women would get married and stay married.

  8. Novaseeker says:

    Also other than the blaming of men, there’s simply a large contingent that will praise this as a great trend because (1) it empowers women and (2) later marriages have significantly lower divorce rates. So that will be the main spin, I think.

  9. Hose_B says:

    A new acquaintance and I were talking about her 13yo daughter and how she has cut her hair short and starting referring to herself as “pansexual.” The discussion turned into how these kids are told by every media source they hear that gender is fluid, etc. Someone said “well maybe its just a phase of growing up. A lot of young people “think” they are gay/bi etc but then go straight when they actually hit sexual maturity”
    My comment that they will turn straight when the urge to have babies hits them brought astonished looks, surprised laughter, and general agreement once the statement sunk in.

    As for it changing after they get out of their 20’s………yeah. Like all of us, we are pretty naive in our twenties, spend out thirties paying for the mistakes in our twenties (hopefully learning some life lessons) and spend out forties rebuilding after the shellacking we took in our thirties.

  10. Frank K says:

    And these numbers don’t even take into account the number of women who nuke their families with a frivorce.

  11. BillyS says:

    Keep in mind that the “men” covered in Deti’s statements are really the limited number of “hot men” not the vast majority of real men, even for the less attractive women. They can’t all have an above average man (really meaning a top tier man) so it is men’s fault!

    Lake Wobegon once again.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti left out
    “Men in their 20’s are irresponsible Peter Pan manboys gaming or fapping to porn all day and addicted to cheap sex”, or so tradcons like Mark “BetaBoy” Regnarus would say.

    Novaseeker
    (2) later marriages have significantly lower divorce rates.

    That may be an artifact of the 90’s and 00’s related to the decline in marriage rates. In the last few years I’ve seen multiple women north of 30 settle-marry, and it is an open question if they will stay married after children or not. Back when I first started reading here it was amazing to see that 60% of divorces were filed by women in the US – and that there was a “window” in the age 35 – 45 group where women-filed was 65%.

    For the standard model of women, marrying at 32 and having the first child ASAP would put the “youngest child reaches age 3 to 4” danger area right in the 38 -40 age group. That would fit the pessimistic androsphere AF-BB-Child support Model very closely.

    Bear in mind all these “ever married / never married” graphs ignore divorce. A woman who marries her beta at 32 and divorces him at 36 is “ever married” for statistical purposes. Something the tradcons just don’t even see. They can’t, that pedestal obscures their vision.

  13. This never married chart seems to be a function of past national education priority and funding: scholarships, grants, loans, as well as state college admissions policies and the consequential differential in degrees earned by sex. The train of employment opportunities and multiple life choices that follows really started opening up for women, compared to their older sisters in arms.

    Source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_310.asp

    Note that the 1980s marked one of the last years where males and females were roughly at parity in terms of bachelors degrees earned. Shortly before and after 1980 with the help of federal and state grants and admissions policies there was a decisive turn in the number of associates, bachelors, master’s and doctorate degrees earned by women.
    Today there is not one single category of educational degree achievement where women do not earn decisively more degrees than men do. Women dominated the education landscape over men.

    Also, check out the outlook for 2020-2021.

    If education were a football game, then feminism has deliberately been running up the score.
    And yet feminists today have the temerity to cry a river about inequality of opportunity and unequal outcomes.

    Keep in mind, these are the success stories. These are graduates with degrees.
    We know there’s an ocean of misappropriated and wasted funds and scarce resources for all of the drop outs and abject failures, both male and female.

    I agree completely with the assertion that women age 35 to 45 who are finally getting married are definitely settling hard and taking a haircut with that 4 page long Husband Requirements List they jotted down while watching Oprah.

  14. Male chart in the comments, if you’re curious

    https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/AjCBx/1/

    50% married age according to the 2015 data is:

    29.5 for women
    31.5 for men

  15. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    “Men in their 20’s are irresponsible Peter Pan manboys gaming or fapping to porn all day and addicted to cheap sex”, or so tradcons like Mark “BetaBoy” Regnarus would say.

    Good point.

    That reason, and mine, really speak to what women’s view of their own agency is.

    “Oh, woe is us! If men would just do the things we want them to do, if only they would stop trying to screw feminism up, all would be well! This is all their fault! If men would just get ready to get married, stop sleeping around, stop drinking and drugging, grow up and get jobs, and put away those video games, we’d be all about marrying them! But we can’t, because YOU guys won’t clean up your act! Because YOU guys won’t do the stuff we want/need you to do!”

  16. Frank K says:

    It will be interesting to see how this changes in the next 10 years or so — I suspect that the more recent curve will be even further to the right next time.

    It’s definitely moving to the right. As I mentioned in the other thread, the majority of babies are being born to unmarried women, and that having different men sire their children is also becoming more common. Those women are far less likely to snag a beta wallet in their 30’s than a carousel rider who remained childless. And this behavior is increasingly upwardly mobile. Sure, it isn’t common yet with Ivy League educated/UMC women, but it is moving into the lower middle class and even showing up in the middle class.

    Some sociologists speculate that marriage will soon be an artifact of the UMC and religious conservatives, and that for everyone else it will become a historical anachronism, being equivalent to being a member of a country club, something that “other people do.”

    I have actually seen this at my workplace, where I meet divorced folks who cohabitate with the new GF or BF, but do not marry them. These are secular people, of course, and from what I observe in their pairings, their attitude is that “most relationships fail” so they don’t commit. For them if it lasts, then that’s good; but if it fails again it’s easier to split up and try again with another “partner”, which is a word I get to hear a lot of these days. I guess its sounds better than “my boyfriend” or “my girlfriend”. Of course they don’t have new children with the partner du jour (many are in the 40’s), though they bring their own kids into the relationship. Temporary blended families. And I’m talking about college educated people with six figure incomes, not some underachievers stocking shelves at Walmart.

  17. thedeti says:

    @ Frank K:

    It’s definitely moving to the right. *** Those women are far less likely to snag a beta wallet in their 30’s than a carousel rider who remained childless.

    Another factor here is that even the dullest, most uninformed, most ignorant, most blue pilled men are aware of AF-BB. They don’t call it that, but from their discussions it’s clear what they’re talking about. Pretty much all men now know and understand women’s dual mating/sex strategy. That’s one of the very, very few theories from the sphere that has made it into common knowledge.

    And it’s not a preference change; it’s a tactical change. Women aren’t preferring beta bux men as they age. They switch tactics and settle hard. Women would still prefer the sexy, interesting, fun guy. But they change tactics (and lanes), and settle for Mr. Good Enough, as the (as far as I know) still-unmarried Lori Gottlieb would say.

  18. Tarl says:

    I have actually seen this at my workplace, where I meet divorced folks who cohabitate with the new GF or BF, but do not marry them.

    Why the heck would they marry them? No possible benefit. All downside.

  19. Novaseeker says:

    Male chart in the comments, if you’re curious

    Interesting. The men lag a bit, as would be expected due to a number of things like incarceration rates and de facto polygyny (i.e., the same guys marrying 2+ times, while other guys are left out).

    I have actually seen this at my workplace, where I meet divorced folks who cohabitate with the new GF or BF, but do not marry them. These are secular people, of course, and from what I observe in their pairings, their attitude is that “most relationships fail” so they don’t commit. For them if it lasts, then that’s good; but if it fails again it’s easier to split up and try again with another “partner”, which is a word I get to hear a lot of these days. I guess its sounds better than “my boyfriend” or “my girlfriend”. Of course they don’t have new children with the partner du jour (many are in the 40’s), though they bring their own kids into the relationship. Temporary blended families. And I’m talking about college educated people with six figure incomes, not some underachievers stocking shelves at Walmart.

    Yes, remarriage rates are trending down for the reasons you state there, across the board really.

    That may be an artifact of the 90’s and 00’s related to the decline in marriage rates. In the last few years I’ve seen multiple women north of 30 settle-marry, and it is an open question if they will stay married after children or not.

    It’s true — we will have to see if the divorce rate ticks up for later marrieds again.

  20. The Question says:

    “Instead of showing men on a marriage “strike”, it is clear that there are plenty of thirsty men quite happy to wife up nearly all of the 30 something carouselers looking to marry.”

    This matches the observation you made in a previous blog post about the attitude of abundance that permeates the entire discussion around dating and marriage. Even while bewailing the lack of available men, our society talks as though marriage to a good man is there for the taking whenever a woman wants it.

    To borrow from Christmas Vacation, it’s why they keep holding out for a management position.

  21. feministhater says:

    I used to get upset that these men were still getting married. Thinking ‘how stupid they can be to get married’.. Now I thank my lucky stars that they were and still are getting married. Imagine the uproar and whiny and laws and societal changes if men were really on a ‘marriage strike’? It’s only because these men bite the bullet and marry these left over women that other men, like myself, get to live a free and comfortable life unmarried.

    I admit, they serve a very necessary function.

  22. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    Also other than the blaming of men, there’s simply a large contingent that will praise this as a great trend because (1) it empowers women and (2) later marriages have significantly lower divorce rates. So that will be the main spin, I think.

    I agree; though they (the large contingent) are totally wrong. Women with stable husbands are–with incontrovertible regularity–more powerful than single women.

  23. earlthomas786 says:

    It seems more likely women are on the marriage strike until their ovaries start aching…and men are waiting for them to have the light switch change from ‘single, empowered, career focused, traveling, fornicating’ expiditions to wanting to get married and have kids. Even with the ovaries aching they can still become a single mother…but they soon find it’s not easy at all trying to raise a kid as the only parent.

    At least with my previous experience I haven’t met many women who were gung ho to get married in their 20s.

  24. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    @FrankK
    “I have actually seen this at my workplace, where I meet divorced folks who cohabitate with the new GF or BF, but do not marry them. These are secular people, of course, and from what I observe in their pairings, their attitude is that “most relationships fail” so they don’t commit. ”

    This is what most POSSLQ*-style pairings are going to look like in 10 years time. Because most young folk will adopt the Swedish model that marriage is a bad idea, a cohabitation for x years, subject to renewal will be the new coupling and family-raising formula across the board, not just divorced people refusing to be burned again.
    *POSSLQ = People of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters. Clumsy 70’s attempt at a non-judgmental coinage meaning shacking up. Well, I still think it’s funny.

    @deti:
    “Men aren’t ready to get married in their 20s, so women have no choice but to go to school and get jobs to support themselves. Men’s fault.”

    They’re right even though they get the reason slightly wrong. Stopped clocks are right twice a day. Would be more accurate to say “Men don’t have sufficient resources or social standing to even think about marrying, and women still in their party years are more than happy to remind them of that.”

    Plus as other studies are showing, the % of young folk who have managed to get jiggy continues to plummet, thanks to cis-hetero shaming, Yes Means Yes, and #YesAllMenAreHarveyWeinsten.

  25. Casey says:

    I think on one of the best observations is the moving out of the 50th percentile by 7 years.

    In 1980, a full 50% of women had married by age 22.
    In 2015, that 50% has moved out to between age 28 and 29.

    That’s 7 fertile years……….lost like so much ether in a dry summer breeze.

    Too bad, so sad for those women who will (inevitably) miss out on having children.

  26. tsotha says:

    My comment that they will turn straight when the urge to have babies hits them brought astonished looks, surprised laughter, and general agreement once the statement sunk in.

    Sadly, some of these girls are making permanent decisions at a stage in life they have no business making those kinds of decisions. I have a relative who, at 16, is taking male hormones because she thinks she’s a man, biology notwithstanding. I’ve been told one of the effects will be to sterilize her.

    It’s come to this: If she’d wanted to get married at 16 she’d have gotten pressure from school, family, friends, media… you name it. “Don’t get married. You’re too young.” But to start taking hormones, to sterilize herself midway into her teens before she knows anything about adult life? Nada.

    We live in a stupid time.

  27. Crank says:

    To what extent, if any, are the 2015 marriage stats bolstered by women who “married” other women, especially in the 35+ age range?

  28. Frank K says:

    This is what most POSSLQ*-style pairings are going to look like in 10 years time. Because most young folk will adopt the Swedish model that marriage is a bad idea, a cohabitation for x years, subject to renewal will be the new coupling

    Agreed, they understand that it’s better to have a future ex-girlfriend than a future ex-wife. That said, I could see laws changed to make it costlier and more difficult to break up with a live in lover. The state will want to remain a partner in their coupling for many reasons.

    Plus as other studies are showing, the % of young folk who have managed to get jiggy continues to plummet, thanks to cis-hetero shaming, Yes Means Yes, and #YesAllMenAreHarveyWeinsten.

    There are alphas and there are ALPHAS. Weinstein, due to his ability to make aspiring actresses successful (and thus very weakthy) got away with a lot of stuff for a long time. Given that many of these women were A-OK with appearing nude and even simulating sex acts on the big screens shows that they were always willing to do what it takes to “be a star”. As for Weinstein, it appears that for various reasons (perhaps his dealings with the Clintons) that he got thrown under the bus and stopped being the Hollyweird alpha. It’s been no secret for decades that he was banging aspiring starlets.

    On the other hand, the real alphas, the thugs that truly give women the tingles, are never accused of anything. Heck, even when the cops are called in by the neighbors for domestic violence, the little lady will more often than not tell the cops that everything is fine, and that he didn’t give her the black eye she’s sporting.

  29. Casey says:

    I should correct myself.

    Just because women are delaying marriage DOES NOT mean they haven’t had children.
    It does, however, show the slow death-march of the institution of marriage.

    I agree with Dalrock, the current 20 year olds will only further push the graph to the right as they are increasingly unable/unwilling to marry as they age.

  30. Casey says:

    @ Crank

    I haven’t the slightest clue.

    Let’s assume that given the gay demographic is at best 3% of the total populace that it’s statistically insignificant.

  31. Casey says:

    @ Tsotha

    Agreed, we live is stupid times.
    The ‘Agenda’ is laid bare in the scenario you describe.

    Society is not to support women in finding a mate, getting married, having children in wedlock, and being an excellent mother/wife. That is what a stable society looks like.

    However, the second an impressionable teen (or tween) declares themselves transgender (at the youngest of ages), all hands are to come on deck to assist them in this irreversible decision.

    It is now a crime in Canada for a parent not to assist their children (regardless of age) in ‘transitioning’. You will lose your children to the state.

    Now fill the schools full of curriculum steering thoughts in that direction, and expose them to it in single digit grade school before puberty.

    If my 7 year old child decided they should don a cape and jump off the roof and fly like Superman, should I allow that too?

    We live in stupid times, indeed.

    Men and Marriage are to be plowed under to make way for something BIGLY AWESOME to take its place.

  32. stickdude90 says:

    I have actually seen this at my workplace, where I meet divorced folks who cohabitate with the new GF or BF, but do not marry them. These are secular people, of course, and from what I observe in their pairings, their attitude is that “most relationships fail” so they don’t commit.

    Or, they lose out on all sorts of juicy taxpayer-provided benefits the instant they tie the knot. At least, that’s what my wife sees a lot at the hospital where she works.

  33. Frank K says:

    Or, they lose out on all sorts of juicy taxpayer-provided benefits the instant they tie the knot. At least, that’s what my wife sees a lot at the hospital where she works.

    The people I’m talking about are 6 figure income each. I don’t think they’re members of the “free sh*t army”. Of course, for low income folks the fact is that they would lose plenty of taxpayer funded freebies should they marry.

  34. stickdude90 says:

    The people I’m talking about are 6 figure income each. I don’t think they’re members of the “free sh*t army”. Of course, for low income folks the fact is that they would lose plenty of taxpayer funded freebies should they marry.

    The hospital where she works gets a lot of low income folks, so that would be why.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Crank
    To what extent, if any, are the 2015 marriage stats bolstered by women who “married” other women, especially in the 35+ age range?

    Not at all. Lesbian “weddings” are a tiny percentage of all marriages. Statistically they are buried in the “noise”.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fred Flange
    “Men don’t have sufficient resources or social standing to even think about marrying, and women still in their party years are more than happy to remind them of that.”

    No. Women in the party years do not want to marry, so they don’t think of men in terms of resources – because they are their own betas. You’re using an out-of-date mental template.

    Women do not need men for resources. Period. 40 years of female-centric policy has made it so.

    The only exception being some, some of the churchgoing girls who want a more traditional marriage.

  37. feeriker says:

    all of the single girls were fine being alone, doing their thing, and being childless. I’m sure it’ll change but it wont be while they in their 20s.

    Men need to start taking these women at their word and ignoring them – not just in their 20s, but in the years beyond. The ONLY way these narcissistic little dipshits will ever get the message is when it becomes clear to them that they will have a very narrow window of opportunity at marriage and that if they miss it and it closes on them, then it’s gone for good. The chance won’t come again. Cats, dildos, and an endless series of abusive, short-term relationships with the “bad boys” will be their future (the latter not much beyond their turning 40).

    However …

    Too bad, so sad for those women who will (inevitably) miss out on having children.

    The more I look and listen around me today, the more relieved I am –for both the children and the greater society– when these young North American women vocalize their lack of desire to breed. Even most of the ones who want children don’t deserve them.

  38. Otto Lamp says:

    It would be interesting to see a similar chart for women who had never had children.

  39. Otto Lamp says:

    Most shortages are marginal, not total.

    A 10% shortage of a popular Christmas toy will create panic and cause a run on that toy. People will feel as if they toy is impossible to get, even though 90% of the demand is being met.

    Age 35: 8% to 27%
    Age 40: 6% to 20%
    Age 45: 5% to 15%

    Those 19, 14, and 10 percent differences are more than enough to be noticeable and create a shortage mindset.

  40. Hugh Mann says:

    “I have a relative who, at 16, is taking male hormones because she thinks she’s a man, biology notwithstanding. I’ve been told one of the effects will be to sterilize her.”

    Another effect will be facial hair and deepening voice, which won’t vanish when she stops taking the androgens. If she changes her mind (and she will) she’ll have wrecked her life. Do some googling and tell her parents before it’s too late. In ten years it’ll be “why didn’t you stop me?”.

  41. earlthomas786 says:

    Men need to start taking these women at their word and ignoring them – not just in their 20s, but in the years beyond.

    There is a big difference between reading stories like that in the sphere and physically hearing it straight from them. I had an inkling that was their attitude from cryptic saying and reading things but once it was laid bare I went internally into revulsion mode. This is one of the things where we should take them at their word and do the proper thing which is leave them alone. There’s no point in waiting for them to change their mind or convert them…instead find a sane woman who knows her God given role rather than trying to ‘find herself’.

  42. earlthomas786 says:

    No. Women in the party years do not want to marry, so they don’t think of men in terms of resources – because they are their own betas. You’re using an out-of-date mental template.

    I’d agree with Anon, Fred. They do not want to marry. Then when they finally decide to, when men aren’t caving into her demands, she starts blaming men for being ‘Peter Pans’.

  43. Pingback: Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015 | Reaction Times

  44. feeriker says:

    Do some googling and tell her parents before it’s too late. In ten years it’ll be “why didn’t you stop me?”.

    Cold and callous as this might sound, I think this girl’s parents should just let her do what she wants to do. Then, once the change is permanent and she suddenly “changes her mind” (let us hope that it’s after she finds out how heavily shat-upon men are in the real world), break the news to her that it’s too late to go back. Some decisions have permanent consequences, even of you’re a sixteen-year-old, and that he/she has made one. Tell him/her the only option left is to dedicate the rest of his/her life to becoming a modern-day one-person “freak show” for the purpose of serving as a living warning to other young people that choices have permanent consequences and are not to be made lightly.

  45. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Frank K, was Weinstein an Alpha, or more of an Apex Beta? Or even an Apex Delta?

    IMO, a true Alpha is a man who can get women even if he’s dirt poor. Brad Pitt, in his youth, could likely bed lots of women even if he were a grease monkey. Hence, a true Alpha. Being a movie star elevates him to Apex Alpha.

    Whereas lots of women expressed disgust at the thought of touching Weinstein. Take away his money and power, and he might be no more than an old, fat, hairy Omega Creep.

    Women settled for sex with Weinstein. He wasn’t a carousel horse they wanted to ride.

  46. “tsotha says:
    November 6, 2017 at 3:36 pm
    … I have a relative who, at 16, is taking male hormones because she thinks she’s a man, biology notwithstanding. I’ve been told one of the effects will be to sterilize her.

    It’s come to this: If she’d wanted to get married at 16 she’d have gotten pressure from school, family, friends, media… you name it. “Don’t get married. You’re too young.” But to start taking hormones, to sterilize herself midway into her teens before she knows anything about adult life? Nada.”

    She/he will change her/his mind when she/he finds out in person how modern society craps on men, and that the feminists have been colossal liars on the scale of Stalin-era Soviet Union lying. But by then, of course, it will be too late.
    But perhaps it’s better that way — people foolish enough to believe such nonsense shouldn’t be be reproducing in the first place.
    Give her/him a Darwin Award; she/he has earned it. And she/he is the perfect example of being a fitting recipient.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Red Pill Latecomer
    Frank K, was Weinstein an Alpha, or more of an Apex Beta? Or even an Apex Delta?

    I’m not Frank K. Weinstein is an extremely pathetic “Portnoy’s Complaint” level Beta.

    Women settled for sex with Weinstein. He wasn’t a carousel horse they wanted to ride.

    Exactly. His wife is already divorcing him. If all those other actresses from Judd on down could frivorce him they would, because as I think Novaseeker pointed out somewhere all the money gave the illusion of Weinstein as Alpha. They got bait-and-switch. Like a college man taking out a hot 10 only to find out that she’s wearing a wig, has fake boobs, false teeth and is actually a pre-surgery tranny. The anger in both cases is going to be extreme.

  48. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote (November 6, 2017 at 5:18 pm):

    “[…] Women do not need men for resources. Period. 40 years of female-centric policy has made it so. […]”Well, first of all, yes. I agree with Anonymous Reader here, on his narrow point.

    I have an insignificant quibble: 40 years takes us back to only 1977; The State began favoring women like this decades prior — but AR probably chose “40 years”, because it sounds like “a really long time”, and so his basic point stands, except it’s true even more so.

    However … (and, I am going to use a word here in a very stilted way, so don’t think prematurely that you’ve got my point): Women do need men, for violence.

    To wit: as has been discussed here endlessly (not this thread, but on this blog), “Women do not need men for resources”, because of a steady stream of State-mandated transfers of wealth from men to women — be it via the Family Court ass(et)-raping of men; or preferential hiring practices favoring women and other “minorities”; or differentials in who pays the taxes vs. who benefits from all the government ‘free sh*t’; or whatever.

    All these transfers are fully dependent upon the capacity of The State to have a monopoly on the initiation of the use of violence — which, at present, it has, courtesy of the Department of Defense, the National Guard, Homeland Security, and the cops.

    Moreover, women depend on all this capacity for violence in more invisible, and undoubtedly more important ways: keeping both married and single women really rather far, far safer, than than they have the least clue they actually are¹ — …

    … and quite simply, you can’t have 50%+ of the male population under 30 [with both the 50% and the 30 on a rising trend, as graphs such as these show], and have “The State”, including its defining monopoly on the initiation of the use of violence, be self-sustaining.

    These young men (today), have net-net just about zero stake in all this clueless Redistributionism.

    And, so long as The State (as elected by the female swing vote) continues to assure us all that Redistributionism Is The Future, that means that these young men have zero stake in the Future of The State. And, this is becoming more and more widely known, by them — even if only in the “f*ck it, I’m not even going to apply to college, I can get a ‘sufficient’ job at Starbucks’, sense of “known”. So, question: …

    How many male baristas does it take to fully fund — well, as Dalrock calls it, “The Whine Of The Pumps”?

    Trick question: the answer is: “not enough; never, ever enough”.

    Right now, the system is failing slowly, slowly. Gently, by gradual, seemingly innocuous steps.

    But then, one day, it will fail suddenly. Massively. Critically. And with truly bad luck, irretrievably.

    People (i.e., the usual MSM idiots, and so forth) will all express astonishment that trigger event X (whatever it is that it will be) could “cause” the inevitable general societal and economic collapse.

    That is because they are ignoring the cause, now. As has been canvassed here (and elsewhere in the Androsphere), endlessly. [Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”]

    As a French dude called Montesquieu, writing back around 1740, trying to explain how the Battle of Adrianople (fought in AD 324) could be said to have been the “cause” of the disintegration of the Roman Empire, put it this way: “If a particular cause, like the accidental result of a battle, has ruined a state, there was a general cause that made the downfall of this state ensue from a single battle.”

    And of course, we don’t know what the trigger (Montesquieu’s “particular cause”) will be at the moment. We only know that the general cause (the FI, utterly without any restraint, setting both policy and cultural norms in every sphere) is actively at work, corroding every beam and eroding every foundation stone of our civilization. So, as always, timing is a beyotch, — but we know the Big Crash is coming …

    Then, there will be no such thing (as per present understanding of the terms) as “The Courts” and “The Cops” — so, the net-net flow of resources, by State mandate, from men to women, will cease.
    And so, Western women’s dependence on men for “resources” will return. It won’t be doing this tomorrow, but surely within the next 100 years or less. And, women’s dependence on the superior capacity of men to be violent (in the service of women), is not going to go away, either. It’s just, it’s not going to be “The State” (as we know and love it, today), providing that service.

    I don’t know what the far future looks like [Outside of John of Patmos, who does (and he doesn’t provide readily understood calendar benchmarks, alas), who does?]. I do know that, before this century is our, here in “The West”, there will be much ugliness.

    Sure, the present basically sucks for Western men (who aren’t wealthy “true Alphas”, etc.). But really, it’s downhill from here: the near future (within 30-40 years at most, I’d guess) is going to be far, far worse, for both Western men and Western women. I can’t say I look forward to it.

    OTOH, as is the case with many of the regulars here, I don’t seek consolation in worldly things.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

    _______
    ¹ Any woman (or man) willing to dispute this, is welcome to walk the streets of Maputo or Caracas or Mumbai, unarmed, two or three hours after sunset, and get back to us on how much safer it was doing that, than it would be doing the equivalent late-evening stroll, in well-policed downtown Melbourne, Auckland, Vancouver, Houston, Dublin or Bristol.

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    Any female human of any age who is considering using surgery and hormones to masquerade as a man should read Norah Vincent’s book Self Made Man.

    Living undercover as a man for a year and a half had an effect on her. She wound up in a mental hospital. This led to her second book.

    One of the many lies that we are all required to believe is in “strong women” who can “do anything a man can do” – except they can’t. I suspect the huge number of anti depression drugs consumed by women in the US is at least a partial result.

  50. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Dalrock: it looks like the close-blockquote HTML tag failed there … 😦

  51. seventiesjason says:

    I was born in late 1970. Finished high school in 1989. Two guys from my class (a boys prep school) were married within a year to their “high school sweethearts” and was surprised to find out on the alumni page, that they both are indeed still married to the same girl. That’s 27 years. They were in college locally, commuting (Albany area of New York), working jobs……..having kids and surprisingly have done well. I recall at the time “smirking” thinking how stupid they were to get married fresh outta high school…because even then in 1990…..that was early and young!

  52. Oscar says:

    @ jason

    These days, people are shocked when couples marry right after college graduation.

  53. seventiesjason says:

    In the period from 1996-1999 (I was 26-29 at that time) just about ALL my circle of friends from college and grad school got married. In 1998….I recall I was a “groomsman” probably in seven weddings that year. I averaged in 1996 and 1997 at least being in attendance as a guest at five weddings…..not including family (cousins and the like).

    Only one of my college friends from that period is still married (Rob and his wife Jackie in June 1998). The rest of the guys were frivorced, yet these same thirsty men lined up for round two…..several now have a “live in girlfriend” or have been frivorced again……yet continue and are able to get dates despite having all their income ripped away for alimony and child support. Boggles the mind.

  54. earlthomas786 says:

    But perhaps it’s better that way — people foolish enough to believe such nonsense shouldn’t be be reproducing in the first place.

    Before I throw the girl under the bus…I’d wonder if there was some sexual assault or abuse in the past. Some traumatic event. Often times these can be manifested in mental illnesses.

    Granted changing your hormones is not the proper way to deal with it.

  55. seventiesjason says:

    Remember the 1990’s? Early 2000’s when everybody was getting tattoos? Sleeve tats. Ink everywhere. That TV show “Miami Ink” was very popular. Remember learning that it was a pretty much “done deal” when you got them. You had to *think* carefully about what you got. Remember telling your one friend you knew not to get one on the neck? Remember her telling you that she “really, really thought about it, really hard and a long time and its the right thing to do.” (she thought about it for a week)

    Well, now in California….health care providers have to provide / offer and pay for removal with the co-pay plans (Kaiser for example). They might as well get a template for the standard “butterfly” or “faerie” for women…because every girl in the late 1990’s was getting that on the nape of their backs (I used to call that a ‘santa cruz license plate’)

    I say “live with it and deal with it” because you know skin grafts and the like will also be necessary, even cosmetic type restoration. Driving the cost up further. Mom once said “What you want at 20 is not what you are going to want at 25, 29, or 35”

    I just cannot imagine the courts, families, and society at large letting CHILDREN make very serious decisions about gender identity

  56. Are you guys insane with your hurt fee-wengz? It’s a simple chart. Come on!

    “3. Instead of showing men on a marriage “strike”, it is clear that there are plenty of thirsty men quite happy to wife up nearly all of the 30 something carouselers looking to marry.”

    Happily wrong because:
    —————————–

    * Women drop off the chart and out of unmarried status most intensely from their ages 24-32. The slope is steepest during that age range, see? Nearly half that reach 32 unmarried (we can project) are not ever finding husbands. What guys left have enough money and success to be better than go-grrl spinsterhood? Not a lot. The almighty brain stem does not compromise on herd status. The hot divorcés (guys) are probably not much relief.

    * Notice the quick turn in ages 30-32 out of the nose dive for year 2015 and the lack of a quick pull-up for year 1980. Men are catching on that if a post-feminism female is not a decent piece of meat, there is no meaningful incentive to sign on the dotted line. That’s good news! Not thirst.

    * Both men and women are waiting longer to get married and are marrying less, but you already knew that. I don’t know what else to read out of the charts. Because of the different scales, it’s hard to intuit more by looking at the relative shapes of the curves we must interpolate visually. Appears to me, uncertainly, that post-wallers are NOT marrying men much older. I don’t see an old man bonanza for relatively young women, in marriage that is.

    And why wife up the desiccated not future mother of your children? Again, I don’t think women will settle for the most part. It embarrasses them more than being alone, I think. We know that lately more adults are single than married (made the news some time back). No, we ain’t wife-ing up deez hoes.

  57. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books For Cucks) says:

    @AR:

    Perhaps we can agree if I describe men’s failure to man up and marry as them deciding to check out of the Motel Hell. Deciding it’s not worth it. Not worth becoming the provisioning beta. Women become their own Betas because more men can’t be bothered. A feedback loop, yes? The louder the gals deride them the more the boys double down and slack off. Why peacock for a shot at derision?

    Remember that more men are not trying to go to college, that is getting worse I believe. They are defying the evangel that they should strive to get nice salaryman jobs with a window seat from which they can defenestrate themselves. I hear them. I would counsel them that their hunch is right. Just as I would advise college boys to approach and date only off campus with non-student women. I mean, you want to get your degree, right? Best not to try to open the wrong student wommon and risk the expulsion Express.

  58. @Fred Flange vs. @AR: I think Fred was originally correct.

    AR said: “No. Women in the party years do not want to marry, so they don’t think of men in terms of resources – because they are their own betas. You’re using an out-of-date mental template.”

    Women don’t think of men in terms of resources? Are you ___ing kidding me? But that is exactly why they delay and abort and avoid marriage: momentary options. The selling point of marriage for the women has not changed–i.e. the “MARRIAGE TEMPLATE” or did you mean some other template?–though the gov. definition of marriage certainly has changed. Causally, it’s the availability of alternative avenues for women to acquire men’s resources that has changed, and greatly. Moreover, with no stigma for bastard spawn by alpha, there is less not more reason to marry alpha fun guy with his coveted sperm resources, as opposed to beta non-sperm resources, which is the go-grrl behavior that we all agree is the problem. Women know they can milk men best by being anything but good wives because their survival is relatively assured by the hypothecation of men, forced to sacrificially become poor first, die first, but pay the bills in real life.

    I suspect government goodies and career opportunities lately are not near enough to satisfy female instincts for high relative rank (each generation doing worse, stealth depression since housing bust, etc.) and that women would, eventually but still, like to marry men who are twice as successful professionally and financially, but that is now mathematically impossible for all but the fortunate few. No parasite would rather work for it. They will still marry for money, though they need not stay married to collect at all or even on the best terms. They have been unnaturally (happens every decline) liberated from their survival needs to chase their reproduction needs, that I doubt turn off mentally like they do physically.

  59. Anon says:

    thedeti,

    Another factor here is that even the dullest, most uninformed, most ignorant, most blue pilled men are aware of AF-BB.

    Do they? I doubt it.

    For example, Jim Gay-ratty married a single mother and admits that he lives under daily threatpoint. In response to this, what does this cuck do?

    He creates a bizarre video about how ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud!’. This cuck actually claims that women tire of AF over time, and become naturally attracted to BB over time. He can’t bear the truth, which is that women are down-settling hard, so this idiot actually insists that womens’ attraction patterns have changed.

    Elsewhere, this same Jim Gay-ratty says that the threatpoint is actually a GOOD thing. The rationalization hamster in this moron is just as bad as in any woman, as he goes to great lengths to avoid facing the fact that by marrying a single mother AND facing a daily threatpoint, he is almost the bottom of the SMP (only Manboobz Futrelle is lower).

    Yet, Jim Gay-ratty’s videos get 4 times as many upvotes as downvotes, which indicates how many cuckservatives there actually are, and how stupid they are even in 2017.

  60. Anon says:

    Dalrock said :

    The feminist claim that women no longer value the status of wife is put to death by the data.

    As others have pointed out, this is only the second choice for women. They only marry because their SMV is rapidly vanishing. If women could stay attractive until 50, they would not marry until 50.

    But riding the carousel is obviously their first choice, otherwise they would give that up to enjoy the ‘higher status’ of being a wife sooner.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fred Flange
    Women become their own Betas because more men can’t be bothered.

    Do you have a college aged daughter or something like that? Because you are rewriting 40 years of history in order to reverse cause and effect. I’ll recap very briefly in a tl;dr way what you are ignoring.

    Title IX way back in the 1970’s started pushing women into college, where they obtained degrees. Affirmative Action way back in the 1970’s gave those women with college degrees priority over men with the same degrees. Women have been becoming their own betas for over 30 years now. Men are now reacting to the last 35 years and you insist that It’s All Their Fault, really?

    Fred. The fish decided they didn’t need a bicycle. Their daddies agreed.

    Don’t whine that now some bicycles choose to glide right past a drying pond with flopping fish. Ok?

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fred Flange
    Remember that more men are not trying to go to college,

    Yeah. Why is that, Fred? Is it because they are all Peter Pan manboys who play computer games and fap to porn in Mom’s basement? Or is there something else going on?

    Do you have a college aged daughter, Fred? In trader / investment speak, are you talking your book?

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    ‘Reality’ Doug
    Women don’t think of men in terms of resources? Are you ___ing kidding me?

    How many women under 40 have you talked with about this topic?
    How many women under 30 have you listened to on this topic?

    My guess: none.

  64. They Call Me Tom says:

    Hmmm… at first glance it looks like twice as many women are unmarried at 45. Am I not reading the chart right?

  65. Embracing Reality says:

    In my mid 40’s and quite comfortably, financially well off, never married, no kids. I’ve never had more opportunities in my life to marry! Yet I have never been less interested. Nope, not too thirsty. Even if I was thirsty why should I expect to quench my thirst in a marriage? The modern (church going) woman is giving out sex, like candy on Halloween, while she’s single. Then wives deny sex from the husbands that are foolish enough to marry them. It’s about reputation… nope, can’t say I’m feeling very thirsty.

  66. There is not a whole lot of change from 35 to 45 for women. If you aren’t married by 35 (looking at that chart) its not at all likely that you will be married by 45 either.

  67. feministhater says:

    Hmmm… at first glance it looks like twice as many women are unmarried at 45. Am I not reading the chart right?

    In 1980 5% of 45 year olds were unmarried. In 2015, the figure is 15%.

  68. earlthomas786 says:

    For example, Jim Gay-ratty married a single mother and admits that he lives under daily threatpoint. In response to this, what does this cuck do?

    I mentioned in the previous thread there’s only two things a man can do with a crazy woman…leave or submit. He’s projecting the choice he made.and I’m sure there’s a sizable segment of the male population who agrees.

  69. earl says:

    Fred. The fish decided they didn’t need a bicycle. Their daddies agreed.

    Agreed…when I finally heard it everything with my own two ears from single women last Friday everything in the manosphere suddenly went from discussing theory to reality.

    Women don’t want to marry and submit to their husbands or be a helpmate…they want to be in control and/or independent. Men can either leave or submit to those demands. Daddies are concerned most men are starting to leave and won’t submit to their princess like they did when they got married so they get upset and call them Peter Pan’s who live in mom’s basement. Your princess is the problem if she stays on the empowered in control path…because she’ll either end up alone or have a loser for a husband she can control.

    For the longest time I thought there was something wrong with me when ladies kept ejecting even after my father told me there wasn’t anything wrong with me. I had to finally tell him he’s right…it’s women and their attitudes that are the problem, because I’m fulfilling my God given masculine role. Women don’t want to fulfill theirs.

  70. evilwhitemalempire says:

    “The women who married in the tail end of the curve will for the most part have settled hard.”
    ——————-
    Not just the women settling hard.
    Think what it means to be a beta that’s paying through the nose for milk just turning sour.
    If the fems are unsuccessful in banning them, I foresee a big future for the sexbot industry.

  71. feministhater says:

    Just to put that in perspective, if all things remain equal, in 35 years, i.e. 2050, the unmarried female 45 cohort will be, ding, ding, ding…. 45%….

    I think it will be higher. Things start off slowly and then gain momentum.

  72. feministhater says:

    For the longest time I thought there was something wrong with me when ladies kept ejecting even after my father told me there wasn’t anything wrong with me. I had to finally tell him he’s right…it’s women and their attitudes that are the problem, because I’m fulfilling my God given masculine role. Women don’t want to fulfill theirs.

    As AR pointed out earlier, when they are in their youthful years, they are not interested in your ‘God given masculine role’ and when they pass thirty and suddenly are ‘interested’, you’re not because you wanted their beauty, youthfulness and fertility, which have been destroyed by them by being the party slut. Oh my, seems we have a problem.. haha!

  73. Scott says:

    Trying to reconcile the argumet between Fred, RD, and AR.

    What I remember about the post–divorce, 2000s dating scene (which had changed dramatically from the late 80s-early 90s version I got married in) was the never-married women around my age (I was in my early 30s) were engaged in double speak.

    That is, to your face, they would say things like “I already have (or am working on) my own career/I just want an equal partner/I don’t care if you are a fast food manager as long as we love each other” and others. But I noticed something very different in the online dating world (the same women, just slightly anonymous/no face to face contact).

    “Must be E-7/O-3 or higher. Prefer special forces/pilot or some other elite profession” and so on.

    (I lived in a military town with an Army and and Air Force base).

    This was shocking to me, I say! Shocking! Women aren’t like that! They want love and commitment and stuff. I quickly adjusted fire and got my PhD and became and officer. I mean, I am tall, in shape, etc but I was a lowly E-5. I thought it was bullshit, but the game appeared to change, so whatever.

    I think this was the beginning of what Rollo describes as “open hypermagmy” for the world to see. It was just starting to get off the ground then.

    Not sure if that adds anything to your discussion. Just thinking out loud.

  74. Scott says:

    In fact to add a wrinkle

    My girlfriend in graduate school— the one right before Mychael—was quite honest about the fact that she was slot of fun with me, but was not going to marry because I was not financially ready.

  75. Scott says:

    “Was having a lot”

  76. feeriker says:

    Women don’t want to marry and submit to their husbands or be a helpmate

    Which is what renders them superfluous and useless and also makes them intolerable burdens. No self-respecting man wants any part of that.

  77. earl says:

    @ Scott

    That’s why the whole equality ethos is bull once you realize they are still hypergamous.

  78. Novaseeker says:

    My girlfriend in graduate school— the one right before Mychael—was quite honest about the fact that she was slot of fun with me, but was not going to marry because I was not financially ready.

    Yep, because when it comes to marriage it’s about kids. Women will have all kinds of fun with sexy men who have no resources, because it’s *fun*, and it isn’t about resources for kids and a home. It’s the party years/ “fun time”. When it comes to marriage, it’s all about kids and a home for them, and therefore resources. Classic AF to BB switch (will take AB if he is available for commitment, but that’s like winning the lottery for women).

  79. earl says:

    Women will have all kinds of fun with sexy men who have no resources, because it’s *fun*, and it isn’t about resources for kids and a home. It’s the party years/ “fun time”. When it comes to marriage, it’s all about kids and a home for them, and therefore resources.

    Which will be multiplied a lot if her fun times with sexy men makes her a single mother.

  80. Novaseeker says:

    I think this was the beginning of what Rollo describes as “open hypergamy” for the world to see. It was just starting to get off the ground then.

    Right. Now it’s gotten to the point of being so open it’s in mainstream advertising aimed at women:

  81. Novaseeker says:

    Women don’t think of men in terms of resources? Are you ___ing kidding me?

    Sure, they do, based on what their goals are.

    In the 20s, mostly they aren’t interested in marriage or kids, yet, so they can provide mostly for themselves in terms of clothes and bar money, trips and so on. The most important thing at this stage is that the guys are fun, sexy and attractive, because she isn’t resource hunting to build a nest for kids.

    When she becomes interested in marriage, resources play a large role, again because at this stage she is interested in securing resources for building a home for her kids. She will take the sexiest man who can do so, but she will also trade down a lot on sexy for resources the more she wants to have children. Some women don’t want children that much, and so don’t trade down much and/or remain single, and a much smaller group of women can, if need be, provide enough for her own nest with children, so she is generally very picky and may just go the rich single mother route. But the switch to caring about resources generally happens in the later 20s and early 30s today — the left side of that marriage curve in the chart isn’t caring much about resources, they are caring about sexy, because as AR says, they can provide enough for themselves at *that* life stage that they don’t care about resources yet, they care about fun and sexy because that is what they want from that stage in their lives.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    What I remember about the post–divorce, 2000s dating scene (which had changed dramatically from the late 80s-early 90s version I got married in) was the never-married women around my age (I was in my early 30s) were engaged in double speak.

    In other words, women over 30 behave differently with regard to men than they did 10 years earlier.
    This is exactly what I wrote. It’s a well known, more or less well documented fact in the androphere, Rollo calls it the “epiphany stage”. It’s when women realize they won’t be marrying their AF’s and they will have to settle for a BB.

    This is not documented outside of the Manosphere. But so what? Most female behavior, especially feral behavior, is not even acknowledged outside of the ‘sphere, because the pretty lies are very important.

    ‘Reality’ Doug seems to be new to the ‘sphere. Fred Flange knows better. There’s no real argument.

  83. seventiesjason says:

    In grad school I worked I very popular “college bar / pub” right down the hill from my polytechnic. It was near the women’s college (Russell Sage) and the local community college and the small Catholic college. The whole neighborhood was labeled a “college ghetto”

    All my friends told me “bro, you have the best job….you get to meet really choice and hot women”

    Aside from being really busy while at work (esp on Friday night) yeah, I did meet tons of hot women my age (1993-1995). Some were genuinely nice I suppose. Many did tip me well despite the fact that college students are notoriously cheap. On many nights, large packs of women would come to my end of the bar because I was “fast” and I had “cool style”. Once on a slower night (Tuesday) I was chatting up a girl at the bar while I was working. She was pretty hot.She was going on about how she “just wanted a really nice guy. She doesn’t give up for sex until she really knows a guy. She was tired of *jerks* and so many guys that *abused* her” (what is up with women??? every one of them has dated countless guys that hit / punched/ locked them in a closet / beat them up). She was going on and on that she just wanted a real boyfriend….

    Suddenly my roommate shows up we share a high five, I go back to work…….he says “hi” to her. Within ten minutes he’s making out with her at the bar. I just had to play the usual “good for you bro” attitude. Yet, inside I was crying.

    When my shift ended, they were still talking at the bar. Kissing, feeling each other up. I went back to the dorm (grad student housing). I just went to bed. I wake up an hour or so later…….noise……….I look into the living room area…..there’s the girl naked, my roommate, naked cracking eggs all over her, she’s gasping “yeah, treat me like a dirty little b*tch. I am” I shut the door to my room quietly, put earpugs in and took a few Halcion to knock me out…….the next morning (early afternoon) when I woke up the mess was cleaned up, and they both were in the shower…..she was SHOCKED to see me in the living room. I mentioned with a smirk “Well, since you spent the night, you could at least make us breakfast.”

    Of course that was sexist and even my roommate said that was “harsh”

    Call it bad luck, bad looks, bad timing…………after decades of seeing this kind of behavior from women……..saying one thing and doing another…..I just don’t understand how any “smart” man would trust one to marry or make children with.

  84. Oscar says:

    @ Novaseeker says:
    November 7, 2017 at 6:38 am

    “Yep, because when it comes to marriage it’s about kids. Women will have all kinds of fun with sexy men who have no resources, because it’s *fun*… ”

    Did you just call Scott a sexy man?

  85. Oscar says:

    This dude has more balls than a brass monkey.

    For reference, this is a brass monkey.

    https://guntherandkara.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/dsc_8389.jpg?w=899&h=562

  86. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    As I seem to be unable to be coherent properly, I shall return henceforth to Trying Not To Be Seen.

    Don’t see how it is possible for anyone to think I’m saying the reaction of men to the past 35 years (and in particular the past 5 or so) is not a valid reaction to what they confront, or is somehow their “fault.” I thought I made clear I see their point, and if I were that age myself now, I too would be refusing to Do What I Am Told. Keep my head down, forge ahead, come out the other side with all body parts still attached, adapt and overcome.

    So yeah according to that Socially Correct construct then that would be All My Fault. As everything is these days.

    Or to quote Rollo from his latest “Riff On This”:
    “… in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic. It ought to be interesting to see how the Village eels its way around men’s biological nature to get to some suitably social constructivist rationale for this shift. The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.”

    My way of saying the same thing: “toxic” in toxic masculinity used to be a modifier, suggesting there might be limits or subsets on the types of masculinity that are “bad.” Now it is a descriptor, connoting the entire set. Or to condense it into the fake hashtag: #YesAllMenAreHarveyWeinstein.

  87. Gaza says:

    @Scot
    “slot of fun” You had it right the first time.

    @SeventiesJason
    LOL to the vixen omelet. Versions of that story peppered my college career – and beyond.

    The density of the aspirational betabux is impressive, however, and it took me a long time to cut through the draft-horse programming to learn that (a) women’s words are orders of magnitude less important than observing their actions in space (the flow, the it just kinda happens) and; (b) AWALT, albeit on a continuum, but definitely AWALT.

    Divesting the ego-protective jimmy of the false dichotomies of the good girl/bad girl and jerk/nice guy was also essential. It took me a while to figure it out but I eventually did. That memory bank of cringe-worthy take-the-high-road, self-cockblocking, niceguy deference, protect them from themselves moments of my youth is now just coal that I shovel in my arsehole jerkboy furnace. I don’t like eggs tho.

    But yeah, at this point I’d rather be their next “mistake” than the guy who manages to catch the falling knife.

    @Feeriker
    The over 35 window does seem to close hard but the pretty ones still have plenty of options. Their problem is one of chasing the market (down) in an SMP that runs cafeteria-style (starting with dessert.) They can relationship a la carte* themselves out of real options pretty quickly.

    Nevertheless, “cats and dildos” sums up the SMP for them pretty well. I’d only add bumbling through bumble and facebook fanboys to the cocktail. I’m amazed at how a few Bumble “encounters” can carry these older women past their sell-by dates. The rest is shit TV, cheap red wine, and the occasional yoga/spiritual/healing retreat for the moneyed ones.

    *The sushi menu of the SIW: Hawt F-buddy, co-worker “husband”, low SMV neighbor guy with a truck, badboy bartender with free drinks (and possible fbuddy), girlfriends’ husbands, facebook/Instagram orbiters, Bumble/Tinder flings, Bumble/Tinder “no players!; I’m ready to settle-down actual “dates”, and the niceguy with sensible sedan and 401k (but they just don’t feel the spark, yet).

    @AnonReader
    “No. Women in the party years do not want to marry, so they don’t think of men in terms of resources – because they are their own betas. ”

    True on the surface. They don’t want to marry because they are eating dessert first and the buffet goes as far as they can see. They may not consciously think of men in terms of resources, but on some level that is instructing their choices. “Resources” are relative and contextual, the currency changes over time and circumstance.

    They may not look at his income (when they are 27), but the other things he gives them access to that they don’t generate on their own is a resource to them. I know a lot of cash-poor guys that live “interesting” lives with access to all kinds of sexyfun things. Those are resources.

    To your point, they indeed don’t value the income portion as much anymore but they do highly value the preservation and optimization of their own options, as RealityDoug points out. And as Earl mentions, the value of their control and independence is also something they heavily weigh in their choices.

    Attempting to merge with them is a clusterF. Who is gonna run the new company? You get liabilities and she gets control? So we either go full hostile-LBO or just play along, underwrite more junk bonds (Fun!), and let the next guy worry about it.

    Their filter for “relationships” becomes a labyrinth of their own making. They are incapable of making decisions to build a homestead. No, just like the culture at-large, they favor the transient, the corn syrup, over the lasting, the corn fields.

    Our nation has been reduced to a roadside motel with free wifi and breakfast. Our economy is just fleeting intersections of opportunistic strip-mining, makework redistribution, and lines of paper-wealth snorted off of the tits third-world hookers. Monetizing everything is virtuous. Rent your extra room to a stranger for a buck. Become a hustling taxi driver with your own car for a buck. Sell your sex on Instagram for some feelz. Become YouTube famous. Or be a sucker and try to build something boring on the liquefaction.

    I’m being a bit cynical, but from my vantage point women are solving for a place on this bleak landscape, not the homestead. They are becoming embodiments of this culture. No wonder 1 in 4 are on psychotropics. And 3 of 4 self medicate in other ways.

    Marriage is just backward when a woman spends 20+ years in varying degrees of “Relationships”. Serial monogamy (repeatedly) culminates in serial cohabitation. Then what? What defines marriage after all of that? For them, the question of marriage is: Control+Resources+Status+Options, or bust.

  88. earl says:

    Of course that was sexist and even my roommate said that was “harsh”

    I guess when they are routinely engaging in degenerate sex acts…they get more easily offended over making sandwiches.

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fred Flange on VHS
    Don’t see how it is possible for anyone to think I’m saying the reaction of men to the past 35 years (and in particular the past 5 or so) is not a valid reaction to what they confront, or is somehow their “fault.”

    This statement right here:
    Women become their own Betas because more men can’t be bothered.

    That’s something I have heard from conservative feminist women, tradcon men, fathers of college aged daughters, mothers of college aged daughters, etc. One thing they all had in common: blue pill.

    Maybe you just had brainfade for a moment and wrote that?

  90. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    Maybe, I’d meant that to be a seen as more forceful statement of outright refusal by men (“cant’ be bothered” meaning “F*ck you? No, f*ck YOU”). as opposed to it being a suggestion it was their Fault

  91. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    And I can’t be bothered with ending sentences with periods. My Fault again. I hate being toxic

  92. Wraithburn says:

    One thing to note about that chart is how it nicely covers the period where women are going to college. College lasts longer these days, and many go through grad school as well. All of which brings them nicely to 29 or 30.

    Everything up to that point is easy! You show up for classes if you feel like it, or didn’t stay out too late. Your room and board are paid for, there’s really no actual work you have to do. And most importantly all of this is covered by “free” money. She doesn’t understand how it works and doesn’t have the gumption to chase it down herself. But when led by the nose to the trough, drinking deeply is the obvious choice. There’s even a stipend to go with it for the clothes/alcohol.

    Until the college system collapses and the spigot closes, it is going to heavily weight the dating market.

  93. Damn Crackers says:

    Sorry Oscar. Where I’m from, this is a Brass Monkey:

  94. Lost Patrol says:

    AF/BB –

    On behalf of any fellow beta buck providers out there, I would just like to point out that under U.S. Navy ship designations a BB is a battleship:

    While an AF is a refrigerated stores ship:

  95. Novaseeker says:

    Heh I thought you couldn’t actually get the pre-mixed brass monkey any longer.

  96. VFM #7916 says:

    This is all good talk, but how does one go about challenging a church leaders position on early marriage? This is an issue that has to be battled on the local church level.

    An alternative is to create a church directly for men. But who will bell the cat? I’m a terrible theologian.

  97. seventiesjason says:

    This is the “brass monkey” I recall so well….from 1987

  98. feministhater says:

    Call it bad luck, bad looks, bad timing…………after decades of seeing this kind of behavior from women……..saying one thing and doing another…..I just don’t understand how any “smart” man would trust one to marry or make children with.

    Women have proven their worth through their actions far louder than with their pleas for men to marry. Don’t be thirsty and don’t get married. Feminism has taken the blinkers off. Be glad you didn’t end up with said woman and just live a contented life helping your fellow man and enjoying your pursuits.

  99. seventiesjason says:

    VFM. Sadly it’s gonna take more of a ‘walkout’ of men from churches. It’s gonna take men asking “tough” questions. It’s gonna take men actually standing up to the put downs from the pulpit. One Sunday the Corps Srgt Major at my church made a comment during announcements of: “Fathers Day is coming up, so boys…….if you were not nice to your wife this past year don’t expect much from her on “your day” and from our church from what I can see……we should be honoring the mom’s who have to be “dad” as well.” Shouts of “amen” from the congregation.

    I was sitting in the band area, and I just said loudly “Hey…hey knock that off!”

    All heads turned to me, and she said “It was just a joke, Jesus likes people with a sense of humor!”
    She was more surprised that I said something. I just said “It’s not funny.”

    At the men’s fellowship I attend on Tuesday nights at a large AG church, the pastor (good looking guy about 30) says “Any man that doesn’t go to bed exhausted every night from serving his wife and children when he gets home isn’t a real man!”

    I yelled “Scripture reference!” The whole place (about 200 men spun their heads to me). The pastor says “True there is no reference for this, but if a man is earnestly following Jesus, this is how he is gonna live……..so continuing…” This pastor told me to save my comments, or to “email” them to him after the service.

    These people in charge or in leadership in Protestant churches for the most part have no idea what to say when someone dares challenge them. I don’t interject, but when I hear straight “put downs” about “the men” I say something now. More need to do this. Most men in church claim how bold they are, but are terrified of women (they won’t date you anyway) and of the frat boy pastor who went to seminary. Big whoop!

  100. Novaseeker says:

    after decades of seeing this kind of behavior from women……..saying one thing and doing another…..I just don’t understand how any “smart” man would trust one to marry or make children with.

    Jason —

    That’s true enough, but you have to remember, she wasn’t really saying one thing and doing another — she was saying one thing to you, and something else to someone else. Women distinguish between men in this way, and it is natural to them to do so — they neither see nor experience any contradiction in doing so, because you are viewed entirely differently. So, when speaking with you, she really did mean that when she said it, because of the category she placed you in (perhaps not date at all and just talk for support, or perhaps eventual date at some point), whereas your roommate was in the other category (sex, and now!), and so he fell into a different bucket and was treated differently. To women, the different categories of men are almost like different sexes — like two different variants on the male sex: one is the sexual counterpart, and the other is not. Again, they neither feel nor experience any contradiction in this — that is when she was speaking with you, she really did mean that she wanted a BF like that (when she is ready for one), but in the mind of NO woman on earth does that preclude wanting sex with a man who pushes her buttons, without contradiction. This is simply how they are wired. The key is navigating it however you wish, but yes I agree that if you are not the man who pushes her buttons consistently you’re foolish to deal with women because she will always want a man from the part of the male sex who does that for her.

    *The sushi menu of the SIW: Hawt F-buddy, co-worker “husband”, low SMV neighbor guy with a truck, badboy bartender with free drinks (and possible fbuddy), girlfriends’ husbands, facebook/Instagram orbiters, Bumble/Tinder flings, Bumble/Tinder “no players!; I’m ready to settle-down actual “dates”, and the niceguy with sensible sedan and 401k (but they just don’t feel the spark, yet).

    Gaza —

    Yes, more or less, but the technological aspect plays a big role. The provision of virtually endless attention from men aged 20-60 online for a woman who is in that age range and still presentable (as a good many are) is new and substantial and different from any previous time. A woman can subsist on this, together with the other things you list there, for quite some time, really, especially if there are other women who are in more or less the same boat and she isn’t isolated (which increasingly isn’t the case).

    I think also that there are women, as you suggest towards the end of your comment, who just make the decision that because they can’t get the man they want to marry to marry them, they will opt for the sushi menu you described — not as an optimal (optimal would be marrying the lumberjack millionaire), but as a “better than marrying Billy Beta” option. The question is how much does she want children and how willing is she to be a single mother — and many women are opting for that now, too, so they also have a lot of herd company if they choose that (if they don’t want children very much, it’s a much easier thing to decide to avoid Billy Beta entirely).

  101. seventiesjason says:

    Nova

    Can I just say “thank you” to you?

    After all my decades. No one explained it as clear and concise as you and to the point with zero razzle dazzle. You didn’t throw in confidence, attraction, some PUA type of thing or steps. You gave no “they just can’t help it” answers. You broke it down to me in a way no one has done before. Thanks.

  102. earlthomas786 says:

    To women, the different categories of men are almost like different sexes — like two different variants on the male sex: one is the sexual counterpart, and the other is not.

    Sounds similar to the thought that a man can seperate women into two different categories…those you hook up with and wife material. Unlike women though seeming to regard their BB husbands as the men they don’t want to have sex with…I think most men still want to have sex with their wife.

  103. MarcusD says:

    In the comments at Reddit:

    Man Seeking Woman – You’re not married scene

  104. Gunner Q says:

    seventiesjason @ 1:33 pm
    “This pastor told me to save my comments, or to “email” them to him after the service.”

    Their standard procedure. Isolate the dissident and either reeducate or remove. How Progressive.

  105. anonymous_ng says:

    @MarcusD, OUTSTANDING!!!! Thank you sir. I needed a laugh today.

  106. feeriker says:

    seventiesjason @ 1:33 pm
    “This pastor told me to save my comments, or to “email” them to him after the service.”

    Their standard procedure. Isolate the dissident and either reeducate or remove. How Progressive.

    Most of those pussy-begging knuckleheads are biblically illiterate. Jason’s calling the pastor out publicly would have laid that fact bare for everyone to see. Not, of course, that the congregation is any better…

  107. astrapto says:

    3. Instead of showing men on a marriage “strike”, it is clear that there are plenty of thirsty men quite happy to wife up nearly all of the 30 something carouselers looking to marry.

    Dalrock, doesn’t this undermine your conclusion that women delaying marriage won’t be able to find anyone?

  108. Otto Lamp says:

    Dalrock, doesn’t this undermine your conclusion that women delaying marriage won’t be able to find anyone?

    It makes them more likely to be the person who doesn’t find a chair in marriage musical chairs.

    Think of how the odds of NOT finding a chair in musical chairs increases as the game is played. For the sake of argument, we’ll start the game with 10 people.

    10 people = 10% chance of losing
    9 = 11%
    8 = 13%
    7 = 14%
    6 = 17%
    5 = 20%
    4 = 25%
    3 = 33%
    2 = 50%

    If you’ve ever played the game, then you know early in the game it’s just fun. But, there comes to a point in the game that you realize there is a point in the game where it becomes super competitive, because the players suddenly realize the odds, while not stacked against them, are perilous.

    Apply this mindset to women who put off marriage. They are in the latter half of marriage musical chairs. The odds aren’t stacked agains them at any point, but the longer they stay in game and don’t marry, the higher the odds are they will end up as a contestant without a chair.

  109. Gunner Q says:

    “Not, of course, that the congregation is any better…”

    Yeah, that’s why I don’t troll the churches in my area. Everybody who might listen has already left. No point in going back until the situation changes.

  110. Pingback: Unhappy Wives, Unhappy Husbands | Spawny's Space

  111. Novaseeker says:

    Dalrock, doesn’t this undermine your conclusion that women delaying marriage won’t be able to find anyone?

    He doesn’t actually say that — he admits most women marry, still (even though it now looks like 85% or so and not 95%), but rather that the women who marry later are really, really settling and reaching very suboptimal pairings.

  112. earlthomas786 says:

    Dalrock, doesn’t this undermine your conclusion that women delaying marriage won’t be able to find anyone?

    I think this particular statement will become more true over time.

    Remember that 15% of women not getting married at 45 were born in 1970.

    Wait 20 years and see what that percentage is when that majority of women putting off marriage who were born in 1990 get to 45.

  113. earlthomas786 says:

    @Marcus

    That video…

  114. As competition rises and more women find themselves in the same unsavory boat, I expect we will witness more female assertiveness.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finding-a-good-man-in-the-post-weinstein-dating-world_us_5a0215a4e4b0b422a3c5cd1e

    “Players are not hard to miss. They are bold. They are flashy. They push boundaries for sport. Good guys have always been more difficult to spot. They are more likely to stand in the background vs. trying to be the center of attention. They are more subtle by nature. They may not have game and might be more prone to land in the friend zone.

    The good guys are going to be harder to see than ever before right now because they are the ones asking themselves the important questions and they are way more likely to err on the side of caution. This is making dating even more challenging than it was before because the man you should be looking for might be even harder find.”

    Let’s all hope these virtuous girls open their eyes and find their “good guys”, amirite?

  115. earlthomas786 says:

    Let’s all hope these virtuous girls open their eyes and find their “good guys”, amirite?

    Women are going to have to be more assertive and ask out good guys. We talk about blue pill creating some false reality…that’s blue pill on steriods.

    It’s a laughable statement. The only assertive women that ask out guys are the ones you see in tv and cinema or they are on some mind altering drug when they do it…they aren’t going to do it because they are deathly afraid of rejection. In my grand total of around 35 years on this planet, no woman has ever asked me out on the inital date…I’ve always done it.

  116. PokeSalad says:

    In the continuing series of amazing (not in a good way) commentary that only reinforces every truth here – I was just told the following:

    My wife did it at our Wedding. Our 2nd one. Long story short…married in 2001, divorced (her idea) in 2008, and in 2011 she sends me an email saying she wished she could do it all over again. I called her and told her to come home. We re-married in 2012 in C***** C***. Beautiful spot about halfway to C**** M*** where the road turns left, and you’re looking at this beautiful valley with the mountains in the background. Our spot.

    She finds this Baptist Minister up there (online) who turns out to be as “fire & brimstone” as they come. This guy was straight from the ’50’s. He goes through the routine, and when he gets to the part about “Love, Honor, and Obey”, she looks at him and says “Obey? Excuse me?”

    Priceless. She backs this walrus of a preacher down; he changes it to “cherish”, and the ceremony proceeded without further interruption.

    Gotta love that woman.

    You.Gotta.Be.Shitting.Me.

  117. Jeff Strand says:

    “Women don’t want to marry and submit to their husbands or be a helpmate”

    Well, some do…and those are the ones you marry. The other ones should be left on the shelf, or just used for pump and dump. It’s not rocket science, I’m not sure why most guys can’t figure this out.

  118. MarcusD says:

    Bitter Pill
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/bitter-pill

    In short, women (and, by implication, children) would be better off had there been no separation of the mating market into separate sex and marriage markets. Contraceptive technology sets up a prisoner’s dilemma, under which all women have an incentive to use contraception and enter the sex market in their early adult years. Given the dynamics described in this essay, this shifts welfare away from women and toward men in the marriage market, and also intertemporally shifts women’s welfare from their later, childbearing years toward their earlier, nonchildbearing years.

  119. seventiesjason says:

    Ummm Jeff. Many of us actually are practicing Christians. No pumping and dumping allowed.

    There is this book called The Bible that many of us actually strive to read, study and obey.

  120. Oscar says:

    That’s just crazy talk!

  121. CSI says:

    @Marcus, re. “Bitter Pill”. Without artificial contraception, how will women regulate their fertility? Pre modern times, women had to have an average of 5-6 children each to maintain population stability. In Western countries at least this is now a little over 2.

  122. Embracing Reality says:

    Jeff Strand is so helpful.. I don’t know why he’s wasting his rocket science on us! He needs to write his own blog, which I’m sure would be wildly popular. As for the blogs title if I might make a humble suggestion. ‘ Pumpin and dumpin em’ with Jeff Strand’. Catchy eh?

  123. feeriker says:

    The good guys are going to be harder to see than ever before right now because they are the ones asking themselves the important questions and they are way more likely to err on the side of caution. This is making dating even more challenging than it was before because the man you should be looking for might be even harder to find.”

    The whole article was obviously written by a clueless, deluded woman. As for the quoted portion above:

    Okay, toots, here’s the deal: your “good guys” are going to be even more elusive than ever in the coming years. Those sentences I bolded in the quote above? You got that shit right (my only question to you is, who was the MAN who gave you the clue? I know damned good and well that you, as a woman, did NOT arrive at that logical conclusion by yourself).

    Your “good guys,” unlike the thugs whom you’ve been allowing to fuck your brains out since your teen years, have been carefully assessing risks, performing CBAs, and considering ROI where relationships with you and your beyond-expiration-date sisters are concerned. And do you know what, toots?

    They’ve decided that they want NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any of you.

    All those years that you wouldn’t give them the time of day? Well, they moved on and found other persuits to focus on, things that benefitted them. They also watched their pals who were foolish enough to put a ring on your sisters get utterly destroyed when your sisters “didn’t feel it anymore.” They realized what a bullet they had dodged and they thank whatever God they worship for letting them dodge it.

    But really, the bottom line is this: No self-respecting man wants a well-used cun dumpster for a wife. If a woman has that little respect for herself, how can she respect anyone else, especially a husband?

    If no other man wanted you for a husband, why on earth would your “good guy” want you? “Good guys” have more self-respect than to settle for rejects and damaged goods. That’s what makes them GOOD GUYS.

    Carry on, toots. And good luck in finding that “elusive good guy.” You’re going to need all of it that you can get.

  124. Jeff Strand says:

    “Ummm Jeff. Many of us actually are practicing Christians. No pumping and dumping allowed.”

    I get that. I’ve been happily married for almost 20 years to a NAWALT who does believe very much in submitting to her husband, so I don’t pump and dump either.

    I guess the point I was making was along the lines of “pumping and dumping is all they’re good for”.

    P.S. A lot of guys on here are totally against marriage, so is it the case that there’s a lot of lifetime celibates who read this blog? Color me skeptical.

  125. Embracing Reality says:

    I know there’s a lot of married men who live damn near celibate lives. Considering the physical condition of some of their wives a sexless marriage would be a blessing.

  126. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    That pastor would almost certainly ignore your emails as well. They don’t want to hear it whatever the method. It is easier to ignore email however.

  127. rachel says:

    Ok, so I get the AF/BB analysis and agree that AWALT. Do you think that women have just been spoilt by getting a taste of an AF that is above their MMV and are therefore unhappy with their BB or is it that we have lost the art of submission and that that is what fuels female sexual desire. I think that the alpha provokes/demand submission but a woman can choose to give it and create a similar effect. Or is it that the way society was ordered in the past made all men appear more alpha because they had the automatic social standing of being a man among men rather than a good guy in a feminine centric society?

  128. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    earlthomas786: In my grand total of around 35 years on this planet, no woman has ever asked me out on the inital date.

    I’ve been propositioned a few times by women. One time was at a genre convention, held at a hotel. She invited me to spend the night in her room. I declined. She was extremely humiliated.

    But I was never propositioned during my first 35 years on this planet. Only after turning 40. They do get desperate after 40. But they have so much wear & tear on them, they’re not really worth it.

    Before propositioning me, the above woman (who was a little drunk) told me about her life. She was a single mom, raising a teenage daughter. She complained about how wild and disrespectful her daughter was. She was considering kicking her daughter out of the house.

    She was also a self-professed pagan high priestess.

    Such are the sort of leftovers who proposition men after 40.

  129. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Huff Post article wasn’t proofread very carefully.

    The good guy is going to be very weary of being too aggressive or crossing any boundaries.

    I think she meant to say wary, not weary.

  130. Scott says:

    Ok, so I get the AF/BB analysis and agree that AWALT. Do you think that women have just been spoilt by getting a taste of an AF that is above their MMV and are therefore unhappy with their BB or is it that we have lost the art of submission and that that is what fuels female sexual desire. I think that the alpha provokes/demand submission but a woman can choose to give it and create a similar effect. Or is it that the way society was ordered in the past made all men appear more alpha because they had the automatic social standing of being a man among men rather than a good guy in a feminine centric society?

    This is a question that I can only remember being asked once before (on the old Sunshine Mary blog) and it has to be sufficiently answered. (Disclaimer: I have not read every word of every manosphere/red pill blog since the beginning of time, so its probably bee addressed elsewhere).

    If, as you write, willful submission to a husband who otherwise does not generate attraction on his own merits, (because he is not a natural super hot alpha rockstar drummer dude) then snarky obnoxious ball busting wives of the current era are sitting on an untouched goldmine of marital satisfaction. Just try submission for a week and see what happens! One argument for this a faith-based one. That is, submission is a commandment, and it takes a tremendous amount of faith (especially for women) to submit to a man. This is because of their tendency to always have anxiety driven questions in the backs of their minds. “Why should submit to some man?” “What if he makes a mistake and it costs us our livelihood/security/house/etc?” “What if he tells me to rob a bank?” In that context. she must suspend those fears and submit anyway. And what if, on the other side of that submission she finds herself more attracted to her husband, the leader. (I write that this is a bigger problem for women, because men find it infitinetly easier to obey orders from proper authorities even when they personally disagree with the orders. This is what my life in the military for 17 years has taught me.) I do not recall this being a promise of God (submit and you will find him a hell of a lot more sexy. This is probably because “finding your husband sexy” was not a part of marital success prior to the advent of the gospel of personal fulfillment in all things).

    If, on the other hand, the problem is a naturally occurring one that is extremely amplified by the fem-centric order and societies caving in to female sexual strategy, the problem was created by a systemic rebellion against God and His created order. At this point, it is impossible to know.

    However, and this part may get me in trouble with Christian game types, if there is a solution to it–that is–if the question can be answered–only women can do it under the current laws (crushing DV and divorce court) and mores. The risk of employing “game,” even under “your own” roof is just off the charts high for most men to even consider. (And we return to the chicken and egg conundrum. Are men with a low appetite for risk just too pussy and beta to try it? Some Christian game pushers come across that way to me sometimes).

    Basically, wives, on an individual basis have to wake up tomorrow and try it, voluntarily. They have to arise in the morning and resolve “I am married and living under the authority of my husband. I am going to behave that way on faith.” This is very unlikely. But its why I regularly implore the women of the Christian red-pill (the Elspeths and so on of the world) to network together and plead with younger Christian wives before its too late. To get together and speak of these things — no catty shit talking about their husbands — just building each other up in Christian love and desire to fill the role laid out for them as wives. Maybe they already do, and that is all that can be asked. The basis for this could be as easy as “hows snarky #hesnotthebossofme working for us? Maybe, just maybe, we could try something else. It certainly couldn’t be worse.”

    Otherwise, I am afraid the “enjoy the decline” types are right. The correction will come after a collapse. It will be a dystopian world where order is restored through much pain and suffering. I do not want that. There is enough of that in this world already.

  131. Jakius says:

    Re point 3 that this shows there are no men on strike – strictly speaking this isn’t proof. In fact some men might be going on strike while others are marrying a second third or 4th woman to make up for the lost men.

  132. earlthomas786 says:

    From the bitter pill article:

    The immediate implication of the separation of the mating market into sex and marriage markets is that women generally will have a strong bargaining position relative to men when coupling in the sex market, because of their relative scarcity, but later will have a weak relative bargaining position in the marriage market, because of the relative scarcity of men in this market.

    Basically saying sex is cheap, ladies…because you make it that way by taking the pill. The men who constantly have to thrown in fapping and porn to lessen the offense they may cause women by telling it like it is are cowards.

    If I ever became dictator of anything…I’d outlaw those pills immediately. It’s probably one of the most direct things that oppress women.

  133. Pingback: The impasse, as I understand it | American Dad

  134. earlthomas786 says:

    Before propositioning me, the above woman (who was a little drunk) told me about her life.

    I did throw in mind altering chemicals in my previous comment to help to give her the courage to do it. But I doubt few women would ever do that sober.

  135. earlthomas786 says:

    She was also a self-professed pagan high priestess.

    Such are the sort of leftovers who proposition men after 40.

    Consider yourself lucky that you didn’t let your lusts control you and you became one with her. She most likely would have put some sort of curse on you living in that nonsense way of life. Women who make any claim they are a priestess or goddess are most likely involved in covens or occults. They are actively seeking men to destroy. Men need to listen and discern…it’s their best defense to stop these women.

  136. earlthomas786 says:

    If no other man wanted you for a husband, why on earth would your “good guy” want you? “Good guys” have more self-respect than to settle for rejects and damaged goods. That’s what makes them GOOD GUYS.

    @feeriker

    I wouldn’t worry about a sudden explosion in women actively seeking and asking guys out. If there’s one thing in the equality realm that women aren’t going to enter into is directly initiating dates or relationships. At least in my experience (drunken courage doesn’t count to me) it has yet to happen.

    Besides if he’s truly a ‘good guy’…he has some respect, discipline and self-control. He’s not asking her out because he’s cautious or shy…he’s not asking her out because he has something she doesn’t, diginity.

  137. freebird says:

    Had to laugh about the post where the guy yells “scripture reference” in response to misandry in the church.(es)
    After I studied The Bible hard for near a decade I could not longer tolerate sitting through a church service because some blasphemy always came from the pulpit.
    The word “Christian” has it’s origins in “Christ-Man.”
    Christ whilst being persecuted ALWAYS said; “Is it not written?”
    Scripture has no place in the Churchian Temple.
    It’s personal jeebus and buffet style theology,take what pleases you,abort,divorce,god loves you.
    I’m atheist now.Will be kind and say no more. Enjoy the delusions.

  138. earlthomas786 says:

    Do you think that women have just been spoilt by getting a taste of an AF that is above their MMV and are therefore unhappy with their BB or is it that we have lost the art of submission and that that is what fuels female sexual desire.

    They’ve lost the art of submission…combine that with the pill and that torpedos her desire.

    The alpha has some short term tactics to provoke submission in her mostly in the sexual arena…but I don’t think being a charmer or a lothario suddenly converts her into a sweet submissive woman. In fact the more she’s on the carousel, the more rebellious she becomes.

  139. freebird says:

    It was so offense to feel the hate bristling off the lesbian “pastor” of the Lutheran church during my father’s funeral.
    Her and her wife sub pastor made their claim to fame by opening up the church to gay marriages.
    The spirit of anti-christ is alive and well, it’s roots are in the church.
    I’m so made these days I could spit nails.
    Let the muzzies have it,let it burn.

  140. Hose_B says:

    @RPL
    The good guy is going to be very weary of being too aggressive or crossing any boundaries.

    I think she meant to say wary, not weary.

    Weary works as well. As a good husband, you get very weary of being told you are or might be too aggressive or that you’ve crossed some sort of boundary. Boundaries are hammered into women by the media AND THE CHURCH. The church will also scare women into thinking their husbands are “too aggressive” and therefore dangerous. Some women will play games with this as well. Playing aggressor/victim to wield power. Its terrifying until you see the duality of the game. Then its just frustratingly dangerous and definitely makes a body weary.

    @Scott
    only women can do it under the current laws (crushing DV and divorce court) and mores. The risk of employing “game,” even under “your own” roof is just off the charts high for most men to even consider.
    This is correct. But the bigger concept that escapes people is that Christian couples shouldn’t have to play “games.” They have supposedly accepted that their lives are not theirs and belong to God.
    Basically, wives, on an individual basis have to wake up tomorrow and try it, voluntarily. They have to arise in the morning and resolve “I am married and living under the authority of my husband. I am going to behave that way on faith.” This is very unlikely.
    This is unlikely for several reasons. 1) Natural inclination via Eve at the fall 2) Churches don’t teach that husbands have any authority to live under. They are more apt to teach women to live under the authority of the church or themselves.

    I personally believe that women have immense power within marriage, but the key to that power is submission to their husband. Regardless of whether he is a good man or not, if she is his willing helpmeet, then he will see her as an ally, a coheir in his inheritance. If she is constantly challenging him, he will just see her as an adversary or a burden

  141. earlthomas786 says:

    I guess the point I was making was along the lines of “pumping and dumping is all they’re good for”.

    My argument is they aren’t even good for that. If St. Paul points out doing it with a prostitute makes you one with her…why would you want to become one with that type of woman. Pump and dump is lustful rationalization and terrible advice because there’s more than just the physical with sex. Chastity is not about repressing your sexual desires but giving you the meaning about sex while at the same time protecting you from those who abuse it.

  142. Hose_B says:

    @EarlThomas786
    If there’s one thing in the equality realm that women aren’t going to enter into is directly initiating dates or relationships.
    I actually see the opposite. With or without substances, women are quite forward. Alcohol helps get over the fear of course (as it does with men), but I have met many women who will “make the first move.” This is a culture of empowerment. They don’t like to be rejected though, and generally take the rejection worse than men (maybe because men expect a fair level of rejection)

    The alpha has some short term tactics to provoke submission in her mostly in the sexual arena…but I don’t think being a charmer or a lothario suddenly converts her into a sweet submissive woman. In fact the more she’s on the carousel, the more rebellious she becomes.

    This is completely true. Women will do things for Alphas because of tingles. Same thing goes for rock stars, rich schlubs, etc. This is very different from being a sweet submissive woman because God told her she should be. As soon as the tingles fade, she will be her own alpha again.

  143. feeriker says:

    She was a single mom, raising a teenage daughter. She complained about how wild and disrespectful her daughter was. She was considering kicking her daughter out of the house.

    Raising what is no doubt a mirror image of herself at that same age. Once again, that confounded ol’ “cause and effect” thing. It’s also invisible; right in front of her own nose and she can’t see it.

  144. feeriker says:

    They don’t like to be rejected though, and generally take the rejection worse than men (maybe because men expect a fair level of rejection)

    Good. Let “equality” include equally nuclear rejections of women by men.

  145. earlthomas786 says:

    They don’t like to be rejected though, and generally take the rejection worse than men (maybe because men expect a fair level of rejection)

    That’s the reason why I don’t think we are going to suddenly see a spike in ’empowered’ women asking men out. If they were truly into the equality ethos (which deep down we know they’re not)…they’d take rejection like a man. It hurts for a short time and then you go back out there and try, try again.

  146. feeriker says:

    Hose_B posted this on the previous thread. I think it needs to be engraved on a giant monument and placed in front of every church, as well as inscribed in giant letters inside every church sanctuary. It sums up perfectly why the corporate “church” today is such a failed institution:

    ”Pay attention to who is sending what messages. If the world is sending the same message as the church, look out. It is usually the church who is being worldly and not the world being biblical.”

  147. Lost Patrol says:

    The Huffpo finding a good man article is fair warning for any young man today, and really adds additional understanding to the OP chart.

    The author posts her qualifications:

    The Love Whisperer, Relationship Coach and Strategist

    She states her world view:

    For women, the power dynamic is shifting, because we are shifting it. That is a very good thing.

    She lays out the qualifications good man must meet:

    a man who’s going to treat you like a partner and an equal

    She provides a real life example of the expectations for good man:

    He’s a good guy. He’s a good friend. He’s a good enough friend that I’ve called him on very short notice to join me for meetings with men who are on the list of men I don’t meet with alone.

    He’s shown up for that duty more than once without asking questions, knowing full well why he was invited.

    Do such women not understand what they write? For us it paints a picture that could not be more clear. Avoid a woman like me at all costs.

  148. PokeSalad says:

    She was a single mom, raising a teenage daughter. She complained about how wild and disrespectful her daughter was. She was considering kicking her daughter out of the house.

    She was also a self-professed pagan high priestess.

    Wow, you let that gem get away?! 😉

  149. earlthomas786 says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Those articles just reinforce the cognitive dissonance women have when it comes to labeling men.

    ‘Good guys’ treat her as an equal…(meaning they treat her like a man). ‘Evil sexist men’ treat her like a woman. Tingle inducing men treat her like a sexual object.

  150. Hmm says:

    Some info on marriage and the effect on financial (and other) well-being:
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/03/research-proves-no-1-social-justice-imperative-marriage/

    Social justice imperative? Maybe. But more likely an excuse for more pumping…

  151. seventiesjason says:

    @LP

    I KNOW that guy…..it was ME! Hey, how did she know?! So everyone, let’s show what that guy gets and wins for being this type of man. Our announcer on this game show Johnny Olsen will now show this man his prize!

  152. seventiesjason says:

    @Jeff

    Plenty of men here are celibate as well. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic or Protestant. If you are not married. You are to be celibate.

  153. rachel says:

    @Scott. Yeah, I don’t think the ‘try submission for a week’ thing will accomplish much! But in all seriousness I do think that submission is an untapped gold mine. For context, I am a Christian and have been married nearly 20 years. Therefore I am thinking about this from the angle that 1 – God made us and made the marriage relationship. 2 – we have sinned so have to guard against our worst impulses and choose to love and obey God’s commands 3 – obedience to God’s design ‘works’ in a general sense. With that in mind, I think that a couple should be able to generate sexual attraction even if they began badly. You don’t need the perfect guy, you just need to obey God. The comments on Debi Pearl’s website for her marriage book would suggest that women do indeed enjoy their husbands a lot more when they start putting him first – and I would concur. I think there is a push/pull thing at work. Man leads, wife submits and both contribute to general attraction. Can the wife do enough by herself to reboot sexual attraction – possibly – especially factoring in that God’s blessings tend to follow obedience.
    I do think you are right that in this climate it is risky for men to lead, especially in relationships that need a lot of work. Overall, guys have lost the structural benefit of men running society, the legal benefit of marriage actually being marriage and the submission of their wives. Talk about a triple whammy. As a woman, I can only control what I do, whether or not it is enough to change things. Still, the bible does have some amazing example of God working when women remain submissive eg. Sarah, Abigail and Esther. and it does tell us not to be amazed with any astonishment – clearly we needed to hear that. I will look up Elspeth – does she have a blog?
    Interesting comment about men being more willing to follow orders. Do you think that the ‘frame’ of the military organisation encourages this behaviour in men. Men, as born leaders,(as opposed to women) perhaps understand better than women what leaders need in their followers..I never understood Jesus saying that, if we were his friends we would obey him, until I had children. Then I realised that if you don’t have cheerful obedience, you don’t have their hearts. Same with women I guess.

  154. Scott says:

    LP-

    Your analysis there is top notch. Love it.

    Men: If you have a female friend who you never got the feeling was interested in you sexually, but who calls on you to come babysit her while she meets with men that she is interested in sexually:

    You are never going to be in a sexual relationship with her

  155. Scott says:

    Rachel:

    Not to steal away commenters from Dalrock, but because I have readers who don’t come over here, I restated this question, at my place:

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/the-impasse-as-i-understand-it/

  156. rachel says:

    @earl & Hose_B Yes, I was merely thinking of the immediate sexual attraction that alphas seem to capitalise on rather than long term submission. It did make me wonder about the role of submission in women’s sexual response though. Submission is no longer taught, and whilst innate, it does need developing, like leadership in men I suppose.

  157. rachel says:

    @Scott Thanks, I will take a look. I have read some of your posts already so you aren’t stealing 🙂

  158. earlthomas786 says:

    Submission is no longer taught, and whilst innate, it does need developing, like leadership in men I suppose.

    Easiest way is to start praying to God for a submissive heart and God given feminity. God will give you plenty of chances to practice it.

  159. Boxer says:

    Hose B sez, and Feeriker agrees and amplifies:

    ”Pay attention to who is sending what messages. If the world is sending the same message as the church, look out. It is usually the church who is being worldly and not the world being biblical.”

    This is exactly the question I ask my Protestant (and occasionally Jewish) bros who invite me to get involved in their communities. Why would I? It offers nothing that the trashy tee-vee shows and feature films don’t. If I go to your services, I’ll inevitably find it full of single moms with bastards in tow (beautiful * 3), older divorced hoes, and uncontrollable pre-teens ready to re-start the cycle of mom and grandma.

    If all I’m being given is the same message that comes out of the pop-culture sewer, 24/7, then why would I bother?

  160. earlthomas786 says:

    It did make me wonder about the role of submission in women’s sexual response though.

    For your husband…outside of that it’s a temptation to sin and rebel. It a false sense of submission outside of marriage.

  161. thedeti says:

    @seventiesJason:

    regarding this, which Nova laid on you:

    To women, the different categories of men are almost like different sexes — like two different variants on the male sex: one is the sexual counterpart, and the other is not. Again, they neither feel nor experience any contradiction in this — that is when she was speaking with you, she really did mean that she wanted a BF like that (when she is ready for one), but in the mind of NO woman on earth does that preclude wanting sex with a man who pushes her buttons, without contradiction.

    I’d just add: And she presumes you know and understand this. She assumes you knew what she meant when she said she wanted a BF like that. She also assumes you know that in her mind, as in the minds of all women, there are (at least) two categories of men: The men who are sexually attractive, for sex right now; and all other men, who are for whatever she decides they should be for. Because to her mind it couldn’t be any different, and everyone “just knows” these things. To her, it’s just the way the world works, and everyone knows this, and everyone “gets it” or “figured it out”. So she can engage in this cryptic doublespeak, and, well, you know what she meant, right?

    She assumes you know and understand all of this, without her saying so explicitly. Hell, if you ASKED her to say it explicitly she probably couldn’t, because she’s never had to before and because having to say it would mean she’d have to face up to it, and her facing it would cause her head to explode. Because her DOING it is OK, but someone actually putting it into words would cause everyone to recoil and it would make her look bad and subject her to judgment and rejection. And you have to understand: Except for being raped, the absolute worst things that can happen to a woman are negative judgment, and rejection.

  162. earlthomas786 says:

    If all I’m being given is the same message that comes out of the pop-culture sewer, 24/7, then why would I bother?

    That’s a good question to ask, Boxer.

    That’s why I dont want priests in the Catholic church taking it down the more worldly route. I go to church because it is supposed to oppose what the world says.

  163. Embracing Reality says:

    Rachel,

    Maybe you can tell us how it works out. You’re only one but the female opinion about the man she could get a lifetime of commitment from versus the most sexually attractive men she could sleep with before she married is the only opinion that matters. There’s a lot of guess work in the sphere about what women actually think and believe, feel. In this day an age women have the power to choose. We’ll set aside the reality that many women don’t know what they want and even if they do they’ll likely change their mind once they get it anyway. This is mostly theoretical here.

    My guess is that when women are young, flush with hormones and generally ignorant (or stupid) they are slaves to their base impulses, filtered through their emotions. Lust, desire, influenced even more so in the wrong direction by media and culture, they behave like baboons. Later in life many do start to see the light, the ignorance has been replaced with hard lessons. Problem for women in their late 30’s, 40’s is that they’ve squandered all or most of their sex appeal away and they can’t even get the average guy they coul have landed a decade before. Women do get desperate, seriously desperate. Even the ones who don’t have a lot of baggage.

    The other problem for these women is that the men they want are wise to them. I date these women, the attractive ones. Frankly I’m acting like the 20 something’s I dated in my 20’s, aloof, indifferent and flighty. It’s not an act. I don’t care that much. While I have plenty of options with women marriage to most of them seems foolish to me. I don’t date single Moms or women who want kids. I date the career set who have waited a little to long or just don’t want kids. Right now I’m holding out for a good one who has some money of her own because I do. It’s ok if I don’t find one, I’m still winning. A society built out of people like me though would be a dead end. Oh well..

  164. earlthomas786 says:

    Hell, if you ASKED her to say it explicitly she probably couldn’t, because she’s never had to before and because having to say it would mean she’d have to face up to it, and her facing it would cause her head to explode.

    You’d be asking her to explain her emotions…and as we know they can be VERY contradictory.

  165. earlthomas786 says:

    My guess is that when women are young, flush with hormones and generally ignorant (or stupid) they are slaves to their base impulses, filtered through their emotions.

    The other wild card is the pill. Which flushes them with tons of artificial hormones and gives them the false sense of security they wont get pregnant from sex. The AF/BB lifestyle is only this prevelant because of it…(I think women have always had this desire but there were natural things that kept it at bay).

  166. thedeti says:

    You’d be asking her to explain her emotions…and as we know they can be VERY contradictory.

    Not really; you’d be asking her to explain her thought processes and her motivations and her attraction triggers. And these are all subconscious, hindbrain, lizardbrain things. Even she herself doesn’t understand them. And she can’t face what she does.

    this is often said when talking about why a wife gets so disgusted by a husband who doubles down on nice and kind. The nicer and kinder he is to her, the more disgusted, contemptuous, and bitchy she gets. And to compound it, she feels bad when doing this – she knows she shouldn’t feel this way about a man who is so kind to her and breaking his ass for her. She feels exceedingly guilty about treating an unattractive simp husband like this. But she just cannot help it – the kinder and nicer he is, the more crap he takes from her, the madder it makes her.

    All hindbrain stuff.

  167. Embracing Reality says:

    @ Earl Thomas,
    Yes, technology has greatly contributed to the present disaster represented by the western female. Im convinced that in biblical times, though still a rebellious time, the average single woman of today would be considered completely unsuitable for marriage. Not for spiritual reasons but for practical, logical reasons. I’m also convinced that men en masse refusing to commit to women as they are is the only thing that will pressure women to change their behavior. This is happening on the margins but very slowly so far. A societal wide collapse or a slow death is of course much more likely than a healthy adjustment of women keeping their knees together until marriage.

  168. Novaseeker says:

    Bitter Pill
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/bitter-pill

    An interesting article, Marcus. In my view, some things are right and some things are wrong, which is normally the case in economics articles because they totally discount other motives for human behavior, of which there are many, especially when it comes to sex and relationships.

    First, he doesn’t have a very convincing case that men are doing well in the marriage market, because his case rests on assumption that there is a scarcity of men in the marriage market because they are all in the sex market. This is a gross misunderstanding of how the sex market works. As he points out himself, women own the sex market, but he fails to glean from this that men are therefore not all able to participate in the sex market, at least not in ways that interest them (ie, with women whom they find attractive). This means that this relatively large pool of men is actually not absent from the marriage market due to spending extensive periods in the sex market — they are largely excluded from sex market participation that is satisfying to them, so they are actually available for the marriage market. Further, he seems to think that there is a significant “welfare accretive” aspect to men marrying women in their mid 30s as compared to women in their 20s — this is a ridiculous claim, backed up by empty space. Men are not better off because they have more leverage in the marriage market with 35 year old women — which is apparently what he is saying — when most of them have no leverage at all with 25 year old women. It’s a huge problem with his entire analysis, really. And that’s not even mentioning the reality that, in spite of what he writes, attractive women in their 30s, and even in their 40s, have plenty of power in the marriage market because they remain in high demand due to so many female marriage market participants being relatively unattractive at such ages –> something that is entirely in women’s individual power (and the smart ones know this quite well, in fact).

    Second, his contention that contraception raises male infidelity more than female infidelity — which is based on the idea that older men are more attractive to younger women than older women are to younger men — is based, again, on false assumptions and simply empty space*. A woman who maintains herself has no trouble at all engaging in extra-curricular sex — there are tons of takers everywhere, of all ages, if she passes the boner test for sex. Ask the guys whose wives — 35, 40, 45 — readily had affairs how hard it was for them to do it. Uhhuh. Uh no. To the extent that contraception has increased infidelity (and it may have done so), it’s not all accruing to the men – -not in the least.

    Third, in his entire analysis he never considers that the fact that women are using contraception, and abortion, to have sex when they want to while stockpiling career gains isn’t something that is “benefiting” them in the narrow economic sense. I have seen many cases where it precisely *is* this for specific women I have known — they do not have any sense at all that the benefits are accruing to men in comparison, because they are not. Women are using these tools to have sex with sexier men than they would otherwise be doing, and amass more independently-generated income and wealth than they have ever done before in history. Are they depressed? Yes, but that likely has to do with dealing with all of this new stress more than it has to do with women actually being rationally unhappy (in an economic sense) with their post-sex-rev situation.

    Finally his prisoner’s dilemma analysis would be more interesting if it didn’t overlook this: young women want to have sex with sexy men, and they know that most men are not sexy, and they like the fact that they can now do this without the biological or financial pressure to avoid it — at least for the “party years”. That has at least as much to do with women’s choice to mass-deploy contraception and ride the carousel as any prisoner’s dilemma does.

    Nevertheless the article serves as a good example of how you can get some things basically right but, because you have the wrong overall frame, reach gross misunderstandings of what is actually happening.

  169. Embracing Reality says:

    Deti is right about the hind brain driving women. Most will never be smart enough to recognize it even if you point it out to them. Few if any women have that depth of intellect and only a subset of men do. It’s why men were in charge of women for millennia. When women are allowed complete freedom the present state of society is inevitable, as is that societies ultimate end.

  170. Oscar says:

    On the subject of “submission”:

    The word translated “submit” in Ephesians 5:21 is hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). Its definition is:
    to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey — be under obedience (obedient)

    Now let’s look at the root words: hupo and tasso.

    hupo (ὑπό): properly, under, often meaning “under authority” of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else).

    tassó (τάσσω): properly, arrange (put in order); to place in a particular order, appoint. Commonly used in ancient military language for “designating” (“appointing, commissioning”) a specific status, i.e. arranging (placing) in a deliberate, fixed order.

    Got that? To submit is to obey, to be under obedience, to work directly as a subordinate to someone else after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order, analogous to a military unit.

    Consequently, one can ONLY rightly submit to a person in authority over the subordinate IN THE SAME CHAIN OF COMMAND.

    In the Army, I owed submission to MY commander, NOT to someone else’s commander. I did owe other commanders respect, but NOT submission. They’re not the same thing.

    My wife owes me submission. Why? Because I’m in her chain of command. My wife does not owe some other woman’s husband submission. Why not? Because he’s not in her chain of command. Nor does any other man’s wife owe me submission. Why not? Because I’m not in her chain of command.

    None of this is rocket science. It’s not complicated. Women, pastors, and Christians in general over-complicate this issue because the thought of wives submitting to their own husbands as unto the Lord violates their feminist sensibilities, NOT because it’s difficult to understand.

    Besides, there are plenty of theological subjects I don’t understand. God expects me to obey Him anyway. And if I never understand in this life (which is a reflection of my own shortcomings), surely I’ll understand after the resurrection. In the mean time, my place is to obey.

  171. Novaseeker says:

    OT for the post but not the blog:

    http://nypost.com/2017/11/07/sleeping-with-other-people-keeps-our-marriage-strong/

    Money quotes from the short article:

    Since getting married in 2015, the Leonards have practiced polyamory, or having multiple romantic partners. ….

    Laura, a customer service adviser, currently splits her attention among her husband, boyfriend and girlfriend. Mike is not currently dating anyone else.

    Of course, he isn’t, lol. Some men are just so stupid, it amazes me. Folks, unless you’re a total player, she will always have more sex partners than you if you open it up. Hope you have a cuckold fantasy, I guess.

  172. earlthomas786 says:

    The nicer and kinder he is to her, the more disgusted, contemptuous, and bitchy she gets. And to compound it, she feels bad when doing this – she knows she shouldn’t feel this way about a man who is so kind to her and breaking his ass for her. She feels exceedingly guilty about treating an unattractive simp husband like this. But she just cannot help it – the kinder and nicer he is, the more crap he takes from her, the madder it makes her.

    That’s emotion, they equate being a pushover as weakness. However I don’t get why a person treating them right would revolt them…I know I like people who are generally kind to me. I suppose if he never stands up to her unrighetous bitchiness, she might see him as a pushover.

  173. Boxer says:

    Dear Novaseeker:

    Of course, he isn’t, lol. Some men are just so stupid, it amazes me. Folks, unless you’re a total player, she will always have more sex partners than you if you open it up. Hope you have a cuckold fantasy, I guess.

    Over the years, I’ve met a number of these “polyamorous” types. Not a single person, male or female, in any of these weird clusterfucks was anything other than revoltingly unattractive. I doubt that’s coincidence.

    Boxer

  174. earlthomas786 says:

    Im convinced that in biblical times, though still a rebellious time, the average single woman of today would be considered completely unsuitable for marriage.

    Case in point the woman at the well Jesus met who had 5 husbands and one who wasn’t…she was getting that water at noon, alone. That would be considered odd because people got water when it wasn’t the heat of the day and women would do it in groups. Going the rebellious route had physical consequences like that.

  175. Pingback: Marriage strike paradox. | Dalrock

  176. earlthomas786 says:

    Of course, he isn’t, lol. Some men are just so stupid, it amazes me. Folks, unless you’re a total player, she will always have more sex partners than you if you open it up.

    I don’t know why people like that even marry…it sounds as dumb as two people who marry that willingly don’t want children. What’s the point?

  177. AnonS says:

    Female brains require hard imposed limits to be happier. This is proven in studies https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy and prevents the Peacock effect of wasted resources on larger and larger feathers because no decides the cut off point.

    Maybe Protestantism lost this ability once people moved to cities and we weren’t in “One Church towns”.

    So does the presence of a Catholic Latin mass signal that actual traditionalists attend or is the majority just people that like a fancy service? Do traditionalist parishes only do Latin mass or is one out of four every Sunday a red flag?

  178. earlthomas786 says:

    So does the presence of a Catholic Latin mass signal that actual traditionalists attend or is the majority just people that like a fancy service?

    I’ve wondered that myself…if they prefer the fancy service or they are attracted to the essence of the Mass. I went to a Latin Mass one time and other than really liking listening to the choir sing in Latin…it was like going to Mass at my regular parish. I go because it’s the only place where ordinary bread and wine is consecrated by the priest into the body and blood of Jesus. Sure there are outside elements I like and dispise (guitar Mass)…but they aren’t the reason why I go.

    Before I get accused of going off the rails with the OT…this is the only post where I’ll explain my reasoning.

  179. thedeti says:

    Of course, he isn’t, lol. Some men are just so stupid, it amazes me. Folks, unless you’re a total player, she will always have more sex partners than you if you open it up. Hope you have a cuckold fantasy, I guess.

    Folks if your wife even hints to you that she’s thinking about maybe suggesting to you that she might like to try opening up the marriage, the following is happening:

    1) She already has a potential sex partner in mind, confirmed his sexual interest, and a plan to meet.

    2) She probably has already opened up the marriage without you knowing about it.

    she’s floating it as a trial balloon in the hopes you’ll say “OK” and give her permission to cheat.

    And if you say “no”, then one of the following will happen:

    1) She’ll tell you she’s doing it anyway.

    2) She’ll divorce you.

    3) She’ll say “OK”, and then do it anyway on the downlow.

    If she suggests opening it up or even hinting about it, just file for divorce, because she’s 75% out the door anyway.

  180. AnonS says:

    I’ve wondered that myself…if they prefer the fancy service or they are attracted to the essence of the Mass. I went to a Latin Mass one time and other than really liking listening to the choir sing in Latin…it was like going to Mass at my regular parish.

    So any statistical differences in number of quality trad girls between Catholic and Protestant churches?

  181. earlthomas786 says:

    So any statistical differences in number of quality trad girls between Catholic and Protestant churches?

    I wouldn’t know. Most Catholic and Prot women I’ve met are pretty wordly…but there have been a few I’ve met who know the evils of birth control and feminism and strive to follow God’s will. It’s probably more of a matter of their heart when it comes to their devoutness of faith.

  182. Oscar says:

    @ earlthomas786 says:
    November 8, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    “I don’t know why people like that even marry…it sounds as dumb as two people who marry that willingly don’t want children. What’s the point?”

    For the same reason homosexuals want to “marry”. Their sinful nature desires to make a mockery of marriage, because marriage is an earthly picture of Christ and the Church. The World, the Flesh and the Devil are Christ’s enemies, and therefore love everything that damages that image.

  183. Pingback: Marriage strike paradox. | Dalrock - Top

  184. rachel says:

    @ Earl
    ‘That’s emotion, they equate being a pushover as weakness. However I don’t get why a person treating them right would revolt them…I know I like people who are generally kind to me. I suppose if he never stands up to her unrighetous bitchiness, she might see him as a pushover.’

    I think that I pretty much it. I think it is a hind brain thing – we are designed to follow so if you allow us to lead, it fries the hind brain and we get irrational. (More irrational?) I don’t think that treating women right revolts them per se; it is doing so in the context of giving over leadership to her that is off putting.

  185. rachel says:

    @ Anon

    ‘Female brains require hard imposed limits to be happier. This is proven in studies https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy

    Thanks, that’s interesting.

  186. rachel says:

    @Earl
    addendum – I think it is the equivalent – in terms of attraction – to a man being turned of a wife who lets herself go. He might be shamed and told that she is still the same person, he should love her anyway, etc. and he can choose to stay with her and love her but he can’t force himself to have the same level of attraction to her. Women can’t help that they are attracted to the man in the relationship, if you give up leadership you are acting like the woman. She does want to be treated right, but by the man. (by leadership I don’t mean an all singing all dancing millionaire rock star alpha, I just mean that you can’t let her control the relationship. I know, easier said than done in present society. I’m sorry.

  187. Mr. Roboto says:

    @seventiesjason
    Novaseeker´s explanation about how women categorize men is quite good, but also Rollo has a good article about it. Hope it helps you.

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/02/24/the-invisibles/

  188. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fred Flange
    Maybe, I’d meant that to be a seen as more forceful statement of outright refusal by men (“cant’ be bothered” meaning “F*ck you? No, f*ck YOU”). as opposed to it being a suggestion it was their Fault

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    rachel
    Ok, so I get the AF/BB analysis and agree that AWALT.

    Really? That would make you close toa unicorn.

    Do you think that women have just been spoilt by getting a taste of an AF that is above their MMV and are therefore unhappy with their BB

    Yes.

    or is it that we have lost the art of submission and that that is what fuels female sexual desire.

    Yes.

    I think that the alpha provokes/demand submission but a woman can choose to give it and create a similar effect.

    It’s not that simple.

    Or is it that the way society was ordered in the past made all men appear more alpha because they had the automatic social standing of being a man among men rather than a good guy in a feminine centric society?

    There is some truth in this also.

    rachel again
    I think that I pretty much it. I think it is a hind brain thing – we are designed to follow so if you allow us to lead, it fries the hind brain and we get irrational. (More irrational?)

    This has been demonstrated in both the PUA world and the red-pill married world. Most men and women can’t accept it because we swim in a sea of feminism that teaches “men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies” with a heaping helping of late Marxist thought such as Shulamit Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex on top.

    To make it even more incendiary, while women are a lot like cats in many ways, when it comes to hierarchy they tend to be more like dogs. Many dog trainers have to explain patiently to dog owners that the dog doesn’t speak human, it speaks dog. The dog expects to be part of a pack, and if there is no pack leader the dog will attempt to be that leader. This is how people wind up with unbearable canines, because they try to be pals with the dog – which looks like adbication of pack leader. So the dog tries to “lead” the human in a doglike way. Sooner or later someone gets bit. Then the dog becomes a “problem animal”.

    The same can be seen in marriages or other relationships: a man who believes all that garbage about “mah better half”, “mah equal”, etc. doesn’t lead her, and winds up following her.

    When men allow women to lead in any relationship, she will develop contempt for him, and “contempt of husband” is one of the 4 marriage killers. The problem in modern life not only comes from the equalitarian / egalitarian teachings of school, and state, and entertainment / culture but also most churches. The other problem that will only grow with time: women who work for money and have a supervisory role. Women don’t separate work / home very well, so the work attitude is likely to come home.

    I don’t think that treating women right revolts them per se; it is doing so in the context of giving over leadership to her that is off putting.

    Treating women “right” is not the same thing as treating men “right”. Most men extend a tremendous amount of goodwill to women, and never get any reciprocation – because women aren’t men. But for the last 40+ years everyone has been trained to pretend otherwise.

  190. rachel says:

    @Embracing Reality
    ‘female opinion about the man she could get a lifetime of commitment from versus the most sexually attractive men she could sleep with before she married is the only opinion that matters’

    I think that one big problem is that women just do not know that there even is a difference between ‘the man who will sleep with her and the man who will marry her’. I didn’t. She thinks that one thing will lead to another and it will work out in the end, or at least she hopes so. She thinks that if a man wants to sleep with her, he must be interested in her as a person at some level. We honestly do not comprehend that a man will want us for sex, just sex and nothing else but sex because that is not how our attraction mechanisms operate.
    We don’t understand that we are damaged by sexual relationships and that good men won’t want us after that. We don’t understand the visceral reaction men have to women who have slept around because we don’t feel quite the same way about men. Men don’t have the visceral reaction to a ‘weak’ woman that women do to a man they perceive as weak.
    The visceral reactions are interesting though, because they reveal motives. Women hate PUAs. We hate to be rated on a scale of 1 – 10 on physical attractiveness. We resent that we only have worth when we are young and beautiful. I guess that is because that is what actually counts, what men are really looking for. Women want to be loved for who they are, not what they look like. Men hate that women are gold-diggers, that they are weighing up status and income, confidence, leadership and ambition. I guess that is because that is what counts, what women are really looking for. Men want to be loved for who they are not what they bring to the table.
    Of course in the real world we are not all number 10 babes or millionaire men. Honest men and women do not look for just those things, though they still form the basis of attraction at some level, Women’s behaviour is out of control in the west because they hold too much power. I’ve lived in non western communities where men have all the power and that isn’t pretty either.

    I did not consider marriage when I was young (16 – 25) because my science studies had led me to become an atheist. I did not see the point of marriage. I though it was just a piece of paper. I thought that sex was just a physical thing therefore what was the harm. I had a rebellious attitude and yet I conformed to society’s career path for women and I didn’t really know what I believed. What a fool. Fortunately I met my husband at 18, he was a Christian and got me straightened out otherwise I expect I would have ended up as one of Dalrock’s statistics.

    Girls have very few incentives to go the traditional route and every encouragement to put off marriage and do other ‘worthy’ things. Why would the average young immature woman up and think differently? Most men become blue pill and it takes them a while to pop out of it too, many never do, but you expect young women to just get it. We don’t. For sure we are selfish and not considering the future but we are not trying to deliberately torture young men or mess up our lives. We just think that young people don’t get married. The under 25 guys I knew didn’t appear to want to settle down either so why would I notice there was a problem? I was very much influenced by family, peer pressure and general societal expectations even though most of them were unspoken. I didn’t have the guts to even think I could make different choices until I was older.

    We learn what we are told, experience or logically deduce. Nobody is telling young women that what everybody else is doing is a bad idea, experience is obviously teaching women but by then it is too late and I’m not going to get into women and logic with you!

    I hope you find someone who genuinely makes you happy.

    tl:dr it doesn’t really matter!

  191. rachel says:

    @Anonymous reader

    ‘rachel
    Ok, so I get the AF/BB analysis and agree that AWALT.
    Really? That would make you close toa unicorn.’

    No unicorns here, but I did learn to read in school. The Rational Male had me feeling like slitting my wrists for a while but there ain’t no good going to come from that attitude!

    The dog pack analogy works. We are hierarchical creatures – which is why hierarchy is ‘bad’ now.
    Did you see Jak’s post on wolves at ‘akingscastle’ – He commented on how the re-introduction of wolves into Yellowstone caused a massive increase in wildlife by keeping the deer population under control. Wolves are usually seen as the bad guys but actually it is their strength that keep the whole ecosystem running. Knock the top dogs out and you have a problem throughout the land. Sounds familiar.

    ‘Treating women “right” is not the same thing as treating men “right”. Most men extend a tremendous amount of goodwill to women, and never get any reciprocation – because women aren’t men. But for the last 40+ years everyone has been trained to pretend otherwise.’

    Yes, though Earl, to whom I was responding, was talking about treating women right. Anyway, women think they are reciprocating but they are giving things that men don’t necessarily want and not giving what they do want. Honestly, as a woman reading the manosphere, I obviously had to wade through a lot of ill feeling towards women but in amongst that would be the odd comment showed that guys really do have a huge depth of goodwill toward women that we are generally unaware of and therefore unappreciative of. A guy busts a gut working for his family but the woman is working too so she just figures its the same, but its not because the guy is doing it out of a desire to provide for his family whereas she is doing it because money is a bit tight or because she wants a career. He feels unappreciated and she wonders why. Been trying to explain this to young friends of mine but was told that men and women want basically the same things. sigh.

  192. seventiesjason says:

    Rachael,

    You gave a pretty good take without the usual “everyone has somebody out there for them” nonsense that is always tagged when women attempt to, or give advice, or their account to men on situations like we are discussing.

    My parents were not religious, nor church folk. They met at the end of the summer of 1964, and by June 1965 they were married. My mother was an LV Nurse and nineteen. My dad was in “journeyman” school, working as a farm-hand and pumping gas at a full service station, goofing around and racing his 1962 hopped-up Dodge Coronet, skiing and camping / hiking. He was twenty-eight. Dad was an average looking guy. Mom, had the “looks” in their pairing.

    My dad was “shocked” when my mom said “sure” to his request for her telephone number. My mom (RIP) said “Yeah he was a bit older I just never thought of it. I had no idea at that time in less than a year I would be married to him. If I went by first impressions, or how girls decide to date or marry today (she said this in 2007 to me, a few months before she died) I would have never even gave him my telephone number! What an unfortunate thing that would have been! I married a wonderful man! I was truly lucky!”

    Was it common sense she had? Was it at that moment my mom thought “what the heck, go on a date with a man who pumps gas, is older, and average looks”. Was it just the *times* culturally they both were in (mid-sixties upstate New York)? Was it God? Was it just right place and right time? Was it fate?

    Personally, no one is ever ready for marriage. Even that guy with the great job and career. Factories close. The company gets bought out and merged, and he gets let go. The county / state has a layoff and people lose their jobs. Sure, a woman may love children, but still that doesn’t mean she is going to be a perfect mother, who makes the right decisions with her child or children in every situation. No one is ready for what may be thrown at them…….and in Christian culture……we make it out that a person *must* be perfect. Chosen by God. Blessed by Him and Him alone. He wants the best for us! He gives us the *desires of our heart* and if something bad happens…….so many are indeed unprepared and I think that is why Christian divorce is as high as it is.

    Anyway, I liked your take and input.

  193. Dale says:

    Novaseeker said To women, the different categories of men are almost like different sexes — like two different variants on the male sex: one is the sexual counterpart, and the other is not.

    to which Earl replied Sounds similar to the thought that a man can seperate women into two different categories…those you hook up with and wife material.

    Earl missed an obvious third category: Women who are valuable for neither of the first two categories.
    I have a significant desire for marriage. When I interact with the women I see in my city however, I normally have no marital or sexual desire for them. They choose to be undesirable, and are very effective at becoming so.
    On the plus side, this lack of attractiveness makes my celibacy easier to handle.

    Earl said In my grand total of around 35 years on this planet, no woman has ever asked me out on the inital date…I’ve always done it.

    Twice I have had this occur (that I recall). In both cases, the woman was over 30; that may be a relevant issue.
    I also had lunch with a woman, that likely was supposed to end in a hook-up. I was clueless at the time, and would not have been interested anyway.

    Jeff Strand asked so is it the case that there’s a lot of lifetime celibates who read this blog? Color me skeptical.

    I have been celibate for over a decade. There would have been opportunity, but I was not willing to lead in that direction.
    I am sure many of the men here have similar stories.

    I unfortunately allowed myself to be treated with disrespect before that time however.

    Oscar: Besides, there are plenty of theological subjects I don’t understand. God expects me to obey Him anyway. And if I never understand in this life (which is a reflection of my own shortcomings), surely I’ll understand after the resurrection. In the mean time, my place is to obey.

    This is an incredibly important attitude Oscar. I am pleased to see another express this same attitude. Well done.

  194. rachel says:

    @ Jason. Obviously I’m just speculating, but in the sixties people did still mostly get married young, most people had grown up in a two parent home and assumed that they would get married. Young people were experimenting with the pill etc. but the effects of that hadn’t hit. As an older guy your dad would have been attractive just by virtue of being older and having some clue what he was all about. At 19 having a ‘real man’ interested in you is pretty heady stuff. You think you have more value than if only your peers are interested in you. That would have turned her head, though she probably wasn’t thinking it in so many words. It is more likely that she just thought, ‘Wow!’ whilst he is scratching his head wondering what he’s got!

    I think when people assume that they will get married and have children they get on with it and don’t make too much of a big deal of it. Even my generation (marrying in the mid 90s) of Christian friends who had grown up in Christian homes all paired up at 19- 20 and got married straight after graduation at 21. Those of us who were more infected with worldly thinking delayed things – through confusion as much as anything else.
    I think that the indecisiveness and insecurity of young girls in general is a big factor. People in general follow the herd, women are designed to follow so perhaps that is what makes them even more conscious of fitting in. Factor in that the father builds security and a sense of self and that more and more modern women are growing up without a father figure and you have generations of young women who really do not know how to make good decisions and do not have confidence in them when they do make them.
    Add to that the modern exaltation of ‘the One’, which is exacerbated even further in Christian circles by the fear that if you miss ‘the One’ you have messed up ‘God’s perfect plan for your life TM’ and the effect can be pretty paralysing. I was really scared of marrying the wrong guy and delayed marriage in part because of that.
    I think you see the same effect with couples delaying starting a family. People want everything to be perfect first and are scared of getting it wrong. In doing so they waste fertile years. I think having a choice about it is part of the problem. When people had no choice about babies coming a long they assumed that they would get married and have kids. No one blinked that couples got married young and started having babies – how else were you going to have a love life? Now that we have to make an active choice about whether to marry young and whether to have babies so we load the question with all sorts of ‘what ifs and become paralysed.’

  195. rachel says:

    @ Jason – I waffled there but the tl:dr is, yes I agree with you, people make it too complicated.

  196. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Been trying to explain this to young friends of mine but was told that men and women want basically the same things. sigh.’

    This equality nonsense has to stop.

  197. Hose_B says:

    @Oscar
    In the Army, I owed submission to MY commander, NOT to someone else’s commander.

    Before I joined the Corps, I was in the delayed entry program. Our recruiting office ran PT and held events with other offices with the goal of hammering in some of these principles BEFORE going to Parris Island. We were told that if anyone besides our recruiter told us to do something, we were to stand at attention and say “Sir, my recruiter is Sgt. __________. You must refer to him.”
    During one of our exercises, one of the other recruiters jumped on me about something trivial. He kinda went ballistic when I responded as above. The next five minutes were spent with him screaming Drill Instructor style in my face while I repeated the above response. My recruiter came over, addressed the one screaming at me. Then dismissed me with a smirk and a “Good Job”

    It was very difficult for a me as a 17yo to adhere to those instructions in the moment. I have no clue if it was coincidental or planned by the recruiters, but I never forgot the lesson. And it held true for the six years I spent serving my beloved Corps.

  198. AnonS says:

    Jordan Peterson is right, people see the world not as objects but as tools.

    It a tragedy of the commons situation when everyone goes to cut down trees the idea of replanting is invisible to the mind. It is only when a fence goes up that the idea of replanting appears.

    The Church and other religions was a social authority that created the mating fence around cock forest. Its only when the fence is present that “boring success” betas even appear in women’s minds. Protestantism didn’t acknowledge the existence and need for the fence (authority) and was able to get by on inferred authority when there was only one church in a town. But that became multiple churches with no one repairing the fence and with the incentive for each one to break the fence to get more people in.

    Sovereignty is a constant, it doesn’t go away.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s