Marriage strike paradox.

Commenter astrapto asks in response to Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015

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?

Just for the record, I’ve been consistent on this point for the last 7 years, and the data has yet to change my mind. Nearly all women are still able to marry. If we could break this data out for just White women the percentage who marry by 45 would be even higher, around 90%!  Moreover, the change we are seeing is almost entirely a delay in the age of marriage. If men were driving this change, it would mean that men were refusing to marry young hot women, and insisting on marrying clapped out party girls instead. Even if you stipulated that this was indeed what was happening, insisting on an older, less hot, less chaste, more demanding wife doesn’t count as a “strike” in my book.

What we are seeing instead is women continuing to push out the age of marriage. As they are doing this, they are changing the signal young men receive regarding how to be sexually successful. Beta Bucks (BB) used to be a very effective strategy for an 18 year old young man. He might have to wait a few years, but he could see the plan working for his 3-5 year older bother and his friend’s older brother. Now a young man would have to look to men 10-15 years older to see examples of the BB model finally paying off. Meanwhile, they see the Alpha F**** (AF) model working all around them. AF gets rewarded, and BB is not only not rewarded for a decade or more, but our whole society (especially Christians) despises husbands and fathers,  the epitome of the BB model.  This is a very powerful message, and an unmistakable one.

Not surprisingly, we are starting to see fewer men working hard to signal BB status in their late teens and early 20s. When the party girls suddenly decide they aren’t that kind of girl, they still find nearly all of the would be BB men are willing to marry, but many of these men haven’t done the preparation needed to really fulfill the role. They can no more go back and spend their teens and 20s on education and career advancement than the 30 ish career gal can go back and dedicate her most attractive and fertile years to her husband. Many of the men they find have instead been working like women. Also, the men who did well in the AF paradigm and are eventually inclined (and prepared) to marry aren’t going to prefer aging career gals. They are the ones with options, and the prettiest marriage seekers have the best shot with them. This means the women who waited too long to marry are stuck with terrible prospects. Choosing last always sucks, but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriage Strike, Marriage Strike Myth, Nevermarried, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

186 Responses to Marriage strike paradox.

  1. The Question says:

    This is a point that is often overlooked in the entire marriage strike debate. The stats don’t tell that part of the story. Most women will marry even after a decade on the carousal, but how many of them will experience a long-term happy marriage?

  2. Pingback: Marriage strike paradox. | @the_arv

  3. earlthomas786 says:

    Not surprisingly, we are starting to see fewer men working hard to signal BB status in their late teens and early 20s. When the party girls suddenly decide they aren’t that kind of girl, they still find nearly all of the would be BB men are willing to marry, but many of these men haven’t done the preparation needed to really fulfill the role.

    The other thing I didn’t notice but was mentioned before…is how all these programs specifically targeted for the advancement of women in education and career basically make them their own beta. The erosion of the masculine role and transferring it to women has now suddenly hit the marriage market hard.

  4. Frank K says:

    is how all these programs specifically targeted for the advancement of women in education and career basically make them their own beta

    This is especially true in the middle class, where it has become a given that both husbands and wives will have a “career” (i.e. a non menial job). From what I have observed it is mostly in the UMC, where hubby makes enough dough in his upper management/medical/legal job that wifey can be a SAHM, live in a McMansion and drive the kids to soccer practice in her luxury SUV.

    I think another reason why dual incomes are needed in the middle class (beyond the fact the “middle class jobs” don’t pay what they used to) is the ever constant threat of being laid off. Being a single breadwinner these days can be a precarious enterprise, especially if you are an “individual contributor”. It seems these days that there is always a layoff around the corner, even when the company is making money hand over fist.

  5. Gunner Q says:

    “Also, the men who did well in the AF paradigm and are eventually inclined (and prepared) to marry aren’t going to prefer aging career gals. They are the ones with options, and the prettiest marriage seekers have the best shot with them.”

    Which is where the Madonna/Whore paradigm comes from. It’s a strategy that only Alphas can pursue. As unpleasant as choosing last may be for women, Beta men increasingly don’t get to choose at all. Their prospects dwindle to “get married after a decade+ of incel wealth-gathering then lose all the wealth and more in a frivorce a couple years later”.

    The willingness of Beta men to suck up whatever they’re handed is embarrassing for my sex. One would think after 15 years of sexual frustration they’d just quit instead of “lucking out” on a BPD Alpha widow trying for a last-chance child. Some of those guys get married five times or more.

  6. Frank K says:

    As unpleasant as choosing last may be for women, Beta men increasingly don’t get to choose at all. Their prospects dwindle to “get married after a decade+ of incel wealth-gathering then lose all the wealth and more in a frivorce a couple years later”.

    When I talk to younger men, I am seeing that many are becoming aware of the raw deal. They’re still a minority, but their numbers appear to be growing.

    Some of those guys get married five times or more.

    I’ve met guys like that. From what I’ve seen they tend to be older guys like me. They also have bucks, which is why they can keep marrying and paying off the ex-wives. Guys with middle class jobs can’t do that.

  7. earlthomas786 says:

    One would think after 15 years of sexual frustration they’d just quit instead of “lucking out” on a BPD Alpha widow trying for a last-chance child.

    Or pursue younger women. Sure those ladies may still want the alphas…but a higher beta who has made something of himself should have some merit confidence with women.

    The ones that really blow my mind is the younger men marrying older (>2 years) women/single mother.

  8. bnovak1954 says:

    What about the social pressure on men in their 30’s to choose women in their late 20’s or early 30’s?

    Oftentimes men in their 30’s can (and do) sleep with women in their early 20’s, but a) the women in their early 20’s aren’t yet interested in marriage and b) marrying a woman over 7-8 years younger often brings some heavy shaming from female relatives and even the wives of married friends.

    Do you think that is a contributor as well?

    Lastly, many of the women in their 30’s getting married weren’t “carousel riders” so much as very career driven – graduate school can take quite a long time, for example.

  9. feministhater says:

    Or pursue younger women. Sure those ladies may still want the alphas…but a higher beta who has made something of himself should have some merit confidence with women.

    Stop deluding yourself. They simply ain’t interested, not until they’ve hit the wall.

  10. Frank K says:

    marrying a woman over 7-8 years younger often brings some heavy shaming from female relatives and even the wives of married friends.

    Your mileage may vary, I know of more than a few cases where a guy married a woman 10+ years his junior where everyone thought it was great.

  11. Otto says:

    It depends how you view the numbers.

    If you say 85% of women will marry by 45, it doesn’t sound so bad.

    If you say 56% of women who aren’t married at 35 still won’t be married at 45, then it’s a disaster.

    I think the musical chairs analogy still applies. Early in the game it is easy to find a chair; late in the game it’s not.

    Yet, this is the game women are being taught to play. Put off marriage till later in life when the odds are stacked against them.

  12. Dalrock says:

    @bnovak1954

    What about the social pressure on men in their 30’s to choose women in their late 20’s or early 30’s?

    Oftentimes men in their 30’s can (and do) sleep with women in their early 20’s, but a) the women in their early 20’s aren’t yet interested in marriage and b) marrying a woman over 7-8 years younger often brings some heavy shaming from female relatives and even the wives of married friends.

    Do you think that is a contributor as well?

    I think this shows up in the numbers. It isn’t just shaming. The message to men is that if they marry a woman who is too young, they deserve what the state has planned for them in the family courts. The same message (but even more severe) is given to men who marry down in class as well.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @Otto

    It depends how you view the numbers.

    If you say 85% of women will marry by 45, it doesn’t sound so bad.

    If you say 56% of women who aren’t married at 35 still won’t be married at 45, then it’s a disaster.

    I think the musical chairs analogy still applies. Early in the game it is easy to find a chair; late in the game it’s not.

    Even worse, imagine if instead of being forced to stand at the beginning of each new round, you could remain seated in a quite comfortable (albeit not particularly fancy– a mere Lazy Boy) chair. Moreover, each time you passed up the opportunity to remain seated in the initial rounds your thought process was “A better chair will come along”. The longer you played that losing hand, the more invested in it you would be. Until at some point at the last minute the brutal reality finally seeped in, forcing you to balance on what appears to be a discarded milking stool while pretending you are the winner.

    You were robbed!

  14. feministhater says:

    Your mileage may vary, I know of more than a few cases where a guy married a woman 10+ years his junior where everyone thought it was great.

    It’s easy to marry a woman who is above thirty years of age, even if you are 10+ years her senior. It is all but impossible for most men to marry that exact same woman when she was 21 and he was 31+. That makes all the difference in the world.

  15. feministhater says:

    Even worse, imagine if instead of being forced to stand at the beginning of each new round, you could remain seated in a quite comfortable (albeit not particularly fancy– a mere Lazy Boy) chair. Moreover, each time you passed up the opportunity to remain seated in the initial rounds your thought process was “A better chair will come along”. The longer you played that losing hand, the more invested in it you would be. Until at some point at the last minute the brutal reality finally seeped in, forcing you to balance on what appears to be a discarded milking stool while pretending you are the winner.

    You were robbed!

    Would someone please think of the aging whores who couldn’t stick the landing I guess!? They were robbed I tell ya… robbed!

  16. Frank K says:

    It is all but impossible for most men to marry that exact same woman when she was 21 and he was 31+

    Well, yeah; 21 year old women don’t get married, period. But I have seen more than a few women in their mid 20’s marry men 10+ years their senior, usually guys who are loaded. They can quit the rat race, retire and become SAHM, with the McMansion and the Audi SUV.

  17. What is striking to me is that there indeed seems to be an endless supply of men who are willing to marry 30, 35, 40 and 45 year old women.

    I’m not entirely surprised by this though because, well, what are the other options for men who are so inclined to marry? Most American women age 18-28 have all but ruled out marriage entirely in favor of education, advanced degrees, careers, online shopping and serial sexual escapades.

    So I cannot help but wonder what kind of mindset and attitude (and level of gratitude) such older never married women carriage into a late life marriage with such men?

    And yes, specifically I’m thinking about the both sex and money.

    Even if a man succeeds in marrying a 25 year old family-minded woman today, she is very likely going to be bringing in double the amount of both consumer and student debt into the relationship than he is:

    https://www.creditsesame.com/blog/debt/battle-of-the-sexes-why-women-have-more-debt-than-men/

    https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2015/06/26/the-debt-gender-gap-how-women-can-close-it

    Similar high debt levels exist among 30 and 35 and 40 year old women today. And it’s only going to get worse.

    Then we need to consider the new bride’s youth, health, beauty, fertility and sexual generosity at ages of 30, 35, 40 and 45 (onset of menopause), all of which are important attributes to the groom.

    I hope I would be wrong, but I cannot imagine that these newlywed women – aged 30 to 45 years old, likely well educated, highly sexually experienced (an understatement), earning well, who waited and waited and then agreed (however reluctantly) to “settle hard” on these poor leftover bastards – will be the type of kind, loving, feminine, sensible, devoted and sexually generous wives that these men envisioned.

    It is easy to imagine high levels of marriage miserability and disappointment from both husband and wife perspectives. But the low divorce stats among older couples seems to suggest otherwise, right?

  18. Shaka Zulu says:

    Another excellent article, Dal. I, however, spotted an error:
    “the plan working for his 3-5 year older bother and his friend’s older brothers”
    I think you meant “brother”.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

    It’s hard nowadays to marry a woman who hasn’t got past the infatuation of careerism, and that usually takes 3-4 years of working some office job to eliminate. Add to this the years spent in education, and it becomes clear that any man hoping for a stable marriage with a sober woman may have no choice but to pick older gals, a good number of whom may not have been carousel riders, but who would nonetheless have aged.

  19. Shaka Zulu says:

    The infatuation of careerism may take up to 10 years to eliminate in some women, who then look upon their wasted years with regret and sorrow. Such women make grateful wives who consider themselves lucky to have escaped spinsterhood, but still, as constrainedlocus observes, with menopause on the horizon, their poor husbands, having endured starvation for decades, will have to starve some more in the not so distant future.

  20. Knowing older American women as I do, they’re definitely not going to “settle” for a milking stool, and even if so, certainly not for very long.

  21. feministhater says:

    I hope I would be wrong, but I cannot imagine that these newlywed women – aged 30 to 45 years old, likely well educated, highly sexually experienced (an understatement), earning well, who waited and waited and then agreed (however reluctantly) to “settle hard” on these poor leftover bastards – will be the type of kind, loving, feminine, sensible, devoted and sexually generous wives that these men envisioned.

    It is easy to imagine high levels of marriage miserability and disappointment from both husband and wife perspectives. But the low divorce stats among older couples seems to suggest otherwise, right?

    Nor can I, the men that do this are so thirsty but they’re also stupid and programmed to accept it. I’m glad they do though, oh, I am glad they do. The gnashing of teeth would be unbearable if they were not doing so.. so I thank them for their sacrifice.

    In the end, they must know that they are nothing but a utility and one the woman would rather not have around. Deep down they all know this but they will deny until their dying breath – the male hamster squirms as well it would seem, running in his hamster wheel, trying to rationalise the life he chose, where he works all day, comes home to a sexless wife who despises him and children (no more than two) who cannot stand him and deride him at their pleasure, only to have to do it all again the next day and the next. His dick in a vice, his dreams a pile of mush and worked to death for the crumbs of gratitude that may never come at all.

  22. OKRickety says:

    bnovak1954 said:

    ‘Lastly, many of the women in their 30’s getting married weren’t “carousel riders” so much as very career driven – graduate school can take quite a long time, for example.’

    constrainedlocus said:

    “… these newlywed women – aged 30 to 45 years old, likely well educated, highly sexually experienced (an understatement), earning well ….”

    That’s quite a difference of opinion on the sexual experience of “career-driven” women getting married in their 30’s. I believe the latter is the case, as I’m reasonably certain that their work commitment still allowed plenty of opportunity for sexual activity.

  23. Novaseeker says:

    But I have seen more than a few women in their mid 20’s marry men 10+ years their senior, usually guys who are loaded. They can quit the rat race, retire and become SAHM, with the McMansion and the Audi SUV.

    Yes this does happen. It requires a LOT of money, though, because it’s a kind of gold digger type of arrangement and everyone knows that’s what it is — some women are up for that, and in that kind of income level it’s common enough that it isn’t frowned upon. I think what he was talking about was the level right below that — the “working rich” people who are making a good income (say 250k in a coastal city, maybe 150k in the middle of the country), but aren’t superloaded relative to cost of living and don’t have massive piles of wealth. Here in DC, for example, there are hundreds of thousands of people like that, and it’s very much enforced pressure NOT to marry outside that set (but not just enforced socially by women, men do it too!) — and I think Dalrock’s point about the family law threat point also applies. If, however, you make a LOT more than that (say 7 figures in a coastal city, maybe 500-600k in the middle of the country) and have some wealth piled up, you are in a different category and, yes, they do have young SAHM trophy wives, many of them — it’s done in that class. In the working rich class right below it, not really, at least not around here it isn’t.

  24. Novaseeker says:

    Lastly, many of the women in their 30’s getting married weren’t “carousel riders” so much as very career driven – graduate school can take quite a long time, for example.

    Hmmm. Many of the careerists *are* riding the carousel, though. Riding the carousel doesn’t mean sleeping with 300 guys a year, it means having a mix of a few LTRs, some one-off bar/club/tinder ONSs, some “it just happened”, some “well, I was on vacation with my BFFs!” type of thing. It isn’t all girls who are hanging out in bars and clubs 24/7. There are lots of young women who are working on their careers and grad school who are piling up the sexual experience in various ways in their 20s. Pretty much the only ones who aren’t doing that are the ones who are very religiously committed — I don’t mean the ones who say they are religious, but the ones who are actually religiously committed –> some of them opt out of the bachannal. But everyone else? Almost none do if they are at all attractive.

  25. Pingback: Marriage strike paradox. | Reaction Times

  26. earlthomas786 says:

    Even counting sexual experience as having one man before your husband dramtaically increases the divorce risk.

    Making it a habit before marriage really enhances the risk.

  27. Frank K says:

    Making it a habit before marriage really enhances the risk.

    I just can’t fathom why any man would marry a woman who was thrown off the carousel (or even got off of her own accord). I’ve been turned off by women for much lesser transgressions.

  28. earlthomas786 says:

    I just can’t fathom why any man would marry a woman who was thrown off the carousel (or even got off of her own accord).

    I don’t know but it has got to the point I saw a question on another sphere site where the guy asked if 8 was too high.

    I think 1 is too high and 2 gets revolting. I’m not even a fan of a girl cursing…but I guess different guys have different thought patterns.

  29. earlthomas786 says:

    And since we are talking about careerist women…I just happen to stumble upon this article.

    ‘Why Does the Left Hate Women So Much?’

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/left-hate-women-much#.WgN-FZhVlbs.facebook

    American communist party activist Betty Friedan even plagiarized from Marxist theorist Friedrich Engels when writing The Feminine Mystique. After gaining fame, Friedan interviewed fellow Marxist Simone de Beauvoir who declared: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

    Modern feminism in a nutshell.

  30. Mad_kalak says:

    I read today on the radio that the GOP tax plan does away with the ability to deduct alimony payments. That will put a hurt on, and maybe wake some people up.

  31. OKRickety says:

    “I read today on the radio that the GOP tax plan does away with the ability to deduct alimony payments.”

    If true, it is one more way to make men pay more. Will it also make alimony tax-free income for women? That is, increase the cash and prizes?

  32. feeriker says:

    I just can’t fathom why any man would marry a woman who was thrown off the carousel (or even got off of her own accord). I’ve been turned off by women for much lesser transgressions.

    Multiple generations of American men have been conditioned to view a well-used cum dumpster as wife material. Thoroughly revolting, the self-cucking.

  33. Embracing Reality says:

    The beta cuck that marries twice or thrice, at some point it’s not simply thirst. It can’t be. How long does it take a married man in the average marriage to figure out his thirst may well be ignored? Hell, I’ve never been married and I know that! The guy who’s been through a dry, miserable marriage might hope next time will be different but he can’t be counting on it. No, a lot of these guys are marrying under sorry circumstances because they’ve never learned how to be alone. They fear it, so lonely. One of the things that keeps me single, and there are many, is my apprehension to having someone in my house every single damn day. I’ve lived alone and learned to enjoy it and fear losing it. Some men need to stop obsessing over loneliness and embrace the freedom and tranquility of it.

  34. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    Now a young man would have to look to men 10-15 years older to see examples of the BB model finally paying off. Meanwhile, they see the Alpha F**** (AF) model working all around them. AF gets rewarded, and BB is not only not rewarded for a decade or more, but our whole society (especially Christians) despises husbands and fathers, the epitome of the BB model. This is a very powerful message, and an unmistakable one.

    Unfortunately, cucks like Jim Gay-ratty are working hard to invent the myth that women eventually evolve to be attracted to BB, and that men should ignore a high N and even single motherhood. Apparently a lot of ‘men’ agree, since his ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud’ video has 4 times as many upvotes as downvotes.

    Cuckservatives won’t go down without a hard fight. In fact, it is the only thing they will really fight for.

  35. Anon says:

    An N of 5 is high. Even an N of 1 is substantially worse than zero.

    But many modern women have an N that rivals their age.

  36. Anon says:

    constrainedlocus,

    What is striking to me is that there indeed seems to be an endless supply of men who are willing to marry 30, 35, 40 and 45 year old women.

    You are right. See here :

    Remember that the narrator, Jim Gay-ratty, married a single mother who might even be older than him, AND admits to living under daily threatpoint. Yet, his rationalization hamster rivals that of any woman, as he insists both of these things are good and that HE is a stud.

    But I wouldn’t be this incensed by this, if not for the fact that upvotes outnumber downvotes by 5 to 1.

  37. burner_399 says:

    Many articles lately (last 10 years) on the famous “End of Men” theme, on how men are falling behind in school, dropping out of the work-force. From the article at the link below: “In the wake of the Great Recession, men’s workforce participation has declined from 73.4% in January 2008 to today’s rate of 68.9%, among the lowest since measurement began.” The lack of effort is presented as a big mystery, though I have seen the “lack of BB signal” in marriage literature. The MSM doesn’t like to cite it (I think) because it calls too much attention to the transactional nature of marriage. If men are incentivized to work and provide financial resources, what are they owed exactly (by wives, society)? Also these articles advocate low income men becoming economically dependent househusbands, homecare workers, nurses, pre-school teachers, because, I guess women will soon take over all of the CEO and STEM jobs, or something.

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/putting-men-back-to-work

  38. Here says:

    Be careful comparing stats. Just because the present stats have older people staying together etc. does not mean that this will continue. When the 35 year olds of today are 55, they will NOT act like today’s 55 year olds act.

    Men are being trained to be the wife, and so marriage will continue. In time, the stats might even increase, as most men are unnaturally castrated mentally and emotionally.

    Were men to be men again, women would have to either be women again, or be alone … but I don’t see that happening in this culture.

  39. feministhater says:

    One of the things that keeps me single, and there are many, is my apprehension to having someone in my house every single damn day. I’ve lived alone and learned to enjoy it and fear losing it. Some men need to stop obsessing over loneliness and embrace the freedom and tranquility of it.

    There is truth to this, the longer average men are to remain single before marriage, the more likely they will be to grow up embracing it rather than fearing it. I’m an introvert, I like to have time to myself. The quiet of the night so to speak with no screaming, no shouting and no loud noises. Just a quiet peace.

    The time for getting a man like me married has passed, it would have had to have been when I was younger and not ingrained in my patterns. I couldn’t survive being married at this point, the drain on my person would be too much.

  40. MarcusD says:

  41. MarcusD says:

    @earlthomas786

    Speaking of Betty Friedan, just saw this today:

    Until this woman stood up, English wives had no rights to see their children or even get a divorce
    http://archive.is/9xpNv (https://timeline.com/caroline-norton-divorce-women-c969b30e1324)

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    “I exist and I suffer, but the law denies my existence”.

    Who is that most likely to refer to in the Anglosphere of 2017?

  43. “The ones that really blow my mind is the younger men marrying older (>2 years) women/single mother.”

    I keep seeing this, I want young men to stop regarding aging sluts, but they simply won’t. I went to the wedding of a 30 YO engineer BB who married a 36 YO, 250 pound behemoth three weekends ago. She collects degrees, he works for MIT somewhere doing research of some sort, makes nice money. She works some secretarial at MIT in exchange for tuition, they met there one way or another. Now, this is a hideous chick, severe hairdo-bun, massive jowls, each arm a leg of lamb, major jelly rolls around the middle, no tits, Major-League fat ass, a real bruiser this broad, right down to her mustache and chin hairs. With her sleeveless dress and arm and neck tattoos, she looks like a truck driver and if you told me she was Higher T than the kid she married, I’d believe it. Everyone that said she was a beautiful bride looked like OJ denying the murder. Total lie, but they have to say it. She’s a mess of a specimen, 1 at BEST. His dad flew off somewhere, divorced, wasn’t at the wedding, so there’s part of the problem. I got seated next to the bride’s mother (her father re-married) and both the mothers were divorced-and-single and frumpy and the both of them have full-on slut-eye. Someone had a notion we’d hit it off. We didn’t, she hated me, I saw to it and made sure she knew about my admiration and deep respect for Donald Trump and the pro-life Christian Right, personal factors I usually keep quiet about. His friends were joking with him that HE should be in the wedding dress and they were correct. Beta-to-gamma the kid, he doesn’t stand a chance. Half her weight, a head shorter, his “friends” ought to have talked him out of it.

    If he’s lucky, he’ll never father a child with this hawg, but who knows what his thinking was. And, they had to carry him up to his room, he was too drunk to walk. She’s a feminist neer-do-well who will live off this gamma shrub the rest of her life, another man’s life ruined because the boys simply won’t take stock of themselves and understand they have value beyond a hog like this. And, because feminism has driven them so far down they don’t understand the train wreck the women who are put before them represent. The landscape is remarkable, the men soft, the hard-edged women own the men except there were the AF guys with their thin Asian chicks, smoking dope out back, plotting their blow jobs and sex for the evening. And off goes another future divorce into the sunset..

  44. feministhater says:

    Now, this is a hideous chick, severe hairdo-bun, massive jowls, each arm a leg of lamb, major jelly rolls around the middle, no tits, Major-League fat ass, a real bruiser this broad, right down to her mustache and chin hairs. With her sleeveless dress and arm and neck tattoos, she looks like a truck driver and if you told me she was Higher T than the kid she married, I’d believe it.

    Wow dude! Sounds romantic! Lol! These broads are crazy but men are supposed to accept them…

    I had a friend marry about five years ago now. Right bang after my red pill awakening. Chick is exactly like you describe but only a couple years older. I literally tried my hardest to stop him marrying her, showing him all the stats, all the unhappiness and all the misery that will follow. He went ahead anyway. Now, for the sake of the friendship, I did my duty and sucked it up and after he made his decision, I supported him in it. Now…. he’s still married, has one kid, works his guts out from 6 in the morning to 7 or 8 in the evening. Comes home to a fat, frumpy wife and a kid who has to be at kept at daycare the whole day because both of them have to work constantly to afford their home. When I do see him, which is now about once a month, he is unshaven, overweight and tired, all the time.

    Why should a man do that to himself?! It’s frightful to see up close.

  45. earlthomas786 says:

    From Marcus’s story

    ‘As the second oldest daughter, Caroline was pressured to marry early though it was rumored her wit and sarcasm intimidated several suitors.’

    That had to be a rumor…because I bet her wit and sarcasm turned off several suitors.

  46. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘another man’s life ruined because the boys simply won’t take stock of themselves and understand they have value beyond a hog like this.’

    Yeah I honestly don’t know what thought process they do to rationalize that. Is being single that much of a torture that you’ll take any woman who comes along?

  47. “Why should a man do that to himself?! It’s frightful to see up close.”

    I dunno. But they do it. It’s UN-fucking-believable. Mine turned into that fat load, Iwound up divorced 6 years later, fuck me. That was thirty years ago, though divorce courts in Virginia still supported the men absent abuse. Never got close to that marriage flame again! Never will, no thanks. I’m 60 now and they talk about the men needing a nurse or a purse and so the women don’t marry and that’s horseshit. Truth IS, most of these broads are all in hideous debt and are broken down and mostly broke and these are lifetime professional broads at universities, they work for lawyers, like that. Old women( fifty-ish-to-60), man they aren’t anything to date and no one is marrying them. Those hamsters, I tell ya. Don’t ever marry a fat chick, guys. Ever. It’s NOT good.

  48. earlthomas786 says:

    Don’t ever marry a fat chick, guys. Ever. It’s NOT good.

    Women aren’t even discrete about their red flags anymore. Fat women clearly show they aren’t in control of their emotions and it manifests in their gluttony.

    And if they talk about blaming it on meds…I’d ask what meds they are first. Anti-depressents, anxiety medicine, birth control? You got some emotional issues.

  49. “Women aren’t even discrete about their red flags anymore.”

    Yeah, Earl, this. Got right to the old nut and Jesus, fat is only one. Tattoos, ridiculous piercings, blue or red or green dyed hair, gauges in the earlobes, all are a defacing of her body. She’s a fucking mental patient, there are no exceptions. If you find anti-depressants in the med-chest or her purse, she’s a mental patient, no exceptions. If she’s a Hillary supporter, she is a mental patient, she’s anti-family, anti Christianity and at heart, anti-man, even if she needs to cash in and marry for the moment, this one is REALLY going to fuck you up. If you can’t wean her away from the cell phone, if Facebook is important to her, she’s an attention-whoring mental patient and so you can’t trust her and so you oughtn’t marry her. Tinder, Match.com, anything outside of YOUR life together is a betrayal when it comes to social media and so you can’t trust the bitch and so oughtn’t marry her. And fact is, a man considering marriage should consider her education for more clues because college mangles a girl’s mind now. It is better to simply pile up your money and save your life and stay single than to EVER marry a girl like this. Sure as you marry a woman like this, you too will wind up a mental patient, broken, ruined, maybe in jail, things get extreme with mental patient chicks.. Even getting away clean after merely sleeping with them is dicey. The divorce is impossible. Red flags is a kind term for these sorts of new traits of modern women.

    Somewhere though, Earl? A young buck is going to read our words, get into a tux and marry exactly the kinds of broads I’m talking about here. And that right there is the problem. These disgusting women are rewarded, sooner or later.

  50. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This is encouraging: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/more.uk.cathedrals.targeted.for.luther.style.protest.warning.church.in.crisis.over.gay.relationships/117575.htm

    Anglican priests in England are protesting the Church of England’s increasing acceptance of gay marriage.

    A list of ‘declarations’ – reminiscent of Martin Luther’s 95 theses – is being pinned to cathedral doors by a group of priests in protest at what they see as the Church of England’s increasingly liberal approach to same-sex relationships….

    The document warns ‘practice on the ground has already changed’ in reference to allowing Church leaders to be in committed same-sex relationships and warned it was ‘weakening and destroying the Church’.

    This being England, I’m surprised these priests haven’t already been arrested for hate crimes.

  51. Bruce says:

    Tale of two fat girls. I was just around two fat girls a few minutes ago. One was pretty overweight. She has tats and a nasty, bitchy attitude. The other is much fatter but is nice, pleasant, has a nice smile and dresses nice (for her size). If you had to be married to one of them, you’d pick the much fatter girl. Might not be attracted to her but you’d be capable of liking her and caring about her as a person.

    If they have to be fat, they could at least be nice.

  52. Boxer says:

    Earl and Jim Christian:

    Somewhere though, Earl? A young buck is going to read our words, get into a tux and marry exactly the kinds of broads I’m talking about here. And that right there is the problem. These disgusting women are rewarded, sooner or later.

    The fact is, most people (both men and women) enjoy being miserable. I don’t know whether the masochistic preference is inborn or a socially constructed symptom of modernity, and it doesn’t matter.

    Most of them, you just can’t reach. Wish them well and let them go down to destruction.

    Boxer

  53. Oscar says:

    @ Jim Christian says:
    November 9, 2017 at 5:38 am

    “Don’t ever marry a fat chick, guys. Ever. It’s NOT good.”

    I’ll add: don’t marry a fat woman’s daughter.

    Yes, there’s a chance that she won’t take after her mother, but that’s a gamble you don’t want to lose, and the only way to make sure you don’t lose is to not gamble in the first place.

  54. “If you had to be married to one of them, you’d pick the much fatter girl. Might not be attracted to her but you’d be capable of liking her and caring about her as a person. If they have to be fat, they could at least be nice.”

    Bad take, Bruce, see, you’re edging in to where you’re convincing yourself a fat chick is ok. There ARE no nice fat chicks, they’re damaged goods. They’re unhealthy. They have spent their entire lives being pointed out by scourges like me from the first grade onward. A woman like that is inherently unlovable. You can’t be capable of liking her because you aren’t capable of being attracted to her, you’ll resent her lack of discipline, her laziness, her heights of disregard for you that she won’t lose weight. She’s FAT. You won’t be able to have children with her, either because even if you deliver the goods, her ill state will kill the baby. And everything about her fattitude will leak out to everyone and everything you hold dear. There is never a scenario where you marry a chick that’s fat and it works out. And that’s why fat chicks thrive, Bruce. Because a guy like you can spin the hamster wheel and rationalize how it would be acceptable, maybe you can like her, maybe, somehow, it could work. No offense, kiddo, but there is no rationalization that works. None.

  55. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Even getting away clean after merely sleeping with them is dicey.’

    Which is why I say ‘pump and dump’ is dumb advice. Sex isnt just two bodies coming together. Women look at sex much differently than men do.

  56. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘If they have to be fat, they could at least be nice.’

    Make no mistake…there isnt a fat woman out there who is consistently nice. It’s not healthy for her or her fertility and shows a lack of self control and selfishness. Gluttony is a sin for a reason. I mean look how offended they get when you point out any of this. They cant take the truth.

  57. earlthomas786 says:

    Deti mentioned this before about the woman’s motivation for an open relationship. This is one of the few times it backfires on her

    OPEN RELATIONSHIP – BUT HE WASN’T SUPPOSED TO SEE ANYONE!

    http://ihypocrite.net/2016/11/02/open-relationship-but-he-wasnt-supposed-to-see-anyone/

  58. seventiesjason says:

    Boxer said: The fact is, most people (both men and women) enjoy being miserable. I don’t know whether the masochistic preference is inborn or a socially constructed symptom of modernity, and it doesn’t matter.

    LOL! I certainly did for a long time! I still get ‘dem blues now and then….but boy…….did I wallow in my pile o’ woe for an embarrassingly long time.

    Life isn’t perfect now. I have to go to the doctor this morning, get a “stress test” and then……ughhhh my first colonostrophy. REALLY not looking forward to the day. I’m no young buck, but I am slender for my age and I am the best shape I have been in since my college years for sure………

    I agree. I mean, some of the married Christian men I know always talk about “responsibility” and how they have to be “that man God called him to be”

    But I also hear how they get little or no sex. I hear non-stop at men’s fellowship meetings that “I’m trying, stepping up, and she is even more upset with me……” One dude said “he’s been on the couch for six months” (no, he didn’t cheat on her or spend the tax-return on toys)….

    Yet, I am still told that “Just ask women out, be a man, women just want a man who loves Jesus in their lives”

    Sometimes with the married Christian crowd……misery does indeed love company!

  59. thedeti says:

    I just can’t fathom why any man would marry a woman who was thrown off the carousel (or even got off of her own accord). I’ve been turned off by women for much lesser transgressions.

    Sluts are sold to men as being sexually experienced, and the man who marries her is supposedly going to be the beneficiary of all that sexual experience. This was the argument back in college and law school, when hookup was really getting started and “sex positivity” was nascent.

    Sure. The man who marries her might get that benefit. IF AND ONLY IF she believes she didn’t settle, and if and only if she finds him sexually attractive.

    But here’s the rub: the attractive high value men don’t settle for sluts. And the less attractive and lower value men who do marry them don’t get those benefits, because (1) she won’t sleep with him all that much; and (2) when she does, she is in total control of everything that happens and sharply limits what she will do with him. She did a lot more, much more enthusiastically, with the hot men she slept with before marriage, than she is willing to do with the nice beta she settles on (because she can’t get more attractive men for marriage.)

    That, and, well, a lot of sluts aren’t really all that good at sex. They didn’t have to be. They didn’t have to learn any sexual skills, because all they had to do was look good and be sexually available. That was all that was required to ride the carousel – just hop on the horsies. You don’t have to do anything to please the horsies, you just have to hop on and be minimally present.

  60. Dave says:

    “Don’t ever marry a fat chick, guys. Ever. It’s NOT good.”

    Marrying a fat woman actually endangers your life, and the lives of your future kids.
    She is fat because of her unhealthy cooking and eating habits. Whatever she did that made her fat, she will continue to do after you marry her, and before you know it, your kids will get fat too, and, of course, you’ll be struggling everyday not to get fat as you get exposed to her unhealthy dishes.

    Obesity is associated with too many medical conditions, from diabetes to osteoarthritis, to cancer, to infertility, to hypertension, to heart disease, to liver disease (fatty liver), to lung disease (obesity-hypoventilation syndrome).

    Plus, obese people are not very good candidates in emergency situations. It is difficult to perform CPR on them or get an intravenous line into them to administer medication to them. Surgeons generally are not thrilled operating on fat patients, because of the added difficulties that fat poses to the surgical field.

    And, if you plan to have fun with your spouse in the future–like playing tennis, biking, or hiking with her, or carrying her over your shoulders as you run up the hill, forget the fatty girl.

    Lean chick good; fat chick bad.

  61. MrTweell says:

    From what I can see (a small data set) Dalrock is right. My son is 25 and definitely not alpha. His speech impediment and autism put him in the BB category and I’ve explained how it works. He works part time and takes a class or two, mostly he reads or plays video games. My son isn’t amassing cash and prizes to attract a post-wall bride with, he’s simply not interested.

    Women have obviously decided that a husband isn’t worth wasting their youth and fertility on, and more men are responding by deciding that a wife isn’t worth hard work before, during and after marriage.

  62. By their own actions (e.g., the 70% rate of divorces initiated by women), most ‘post wall’ Western women have shown that it’s not really marriage that they’re interested in — what they really want is the divorce which follows the marriage, with all of it’s ‘cash and prizes’ which goes to them in the vast majority of divorces.
    Marriage has become a smokescreen for divorce, being nothing more than a “Get Rich Quick” Scheme for women.

  63. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    “Sluts are sold to men as being sexually experienced, and the man who marries her is supposedly going to be the beneficiary of all that sexual experience.”

    This concept is misguided in so many ways it’s hard to know where to start. First of all, if you’re a new couple, it ruins the feeling of discovery when one person is far more experienced than the other. It’s like starting a rock band where one member is a virtuoso jazz player but the rest are fledgling musicians. You can’t find a groove because the people are in different places.

    But that’s not the big problem. The real issue that experienced women see you as “another d*ck,” as one woman so politely put it to me. That means that they’ll be quick to drop you when the going gets rough or when they get bored, since you’re not “the one” to them but “someone.” This is exactly the quality you *don’t* want in a spouse.

    I’m old enough to have witnessed what happened to the high-number-count women I went to college with. All of them have multiple divorces in their past. And while that might seem like a cliched statistic to all of us, it’s a sad reality for their ex-husbands paying child support and alimony and their kids, who have confusing and troubled lives.

    None of this mattered much in college. It matters a lot when you’re an adult, though.

  64. To Mad_Kadalak’s and OKRickety’s comment above on alimony payments and the new house tax law proposal:

    https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T055-C032-S014-house-tax-bill-could-change-how-divorce-works.html

    It makes very little sense, in that there’s marginal to no net benefit for the government, as it would likely offset government tax receipts.

    Further, I seriously doubt removing alimony payments from permissible tax deductions would “wake up!” and prohibit the majority of men out there already seriously considering or on the verge of marriage, because who among such men really delve into the hellish consequences of divorce? Exactly. We know the answer. None.

    For the in-love future husband, it’s an endless chorus of female and male approval, religious approval, rainbows, puppy dogs, lollipops and unicorns.
    What could possibly ever go wrong?

  65. To my earlier comments on this subject of never married women, more articles now coming out on men “marrying up” from an education standpoint:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453500/men-are-increasingly-marrying-better-educated-women

    This “crossing of the chasm of educational status” by women is being pawned off as a “benefit” to the men who marry them, but then the article reads that the demands of never married women have remained largely unchanged – fixed on the attributes of “must have steady job” and ” must provide financial security” for any suitors.

    And despite their superior education achievements, research suggest that husbands are still the benefiting from a wage gap (duh!), and are still majority bread winners and earners. So there is little evidence to demonstrate that men marrying an educated woman relieves him as husband of any of his core earning and providing role and responsibilities. I would posit that the opposite is true, in that such highly educated women are carrying with them enormous educational debt loads with them into the relationship that they never personally and on their own intend to repay.

    In the context of the surplus of willing men who are quite obviously agreeing to marry 30, 35, 40 and 45 year old women in the US, the women they are marrying are indeed likely to be far more educated, with established careers, and gainful earnings.

    So with any question about forming a family and having children together, the first abrasions of these late life marriages will be about whether she will sacrifice her career investments to be a mother and wife, or not. And whether he is going to be in any position “pick up the financial slack” her decision leaves behind. The answer for most will be “no”. For example, if she is earning $100K per year, and he is only earning $50K. Well, the moment she gets pregnant and goes on leave, or quits her job, they are/she is taking a huge haircut in household earnings, not to mention social status and career status. Most modern day women hate the very notion of sacrificing this and perhaps understandably feel a sense of resentment for being asked at all.

    So I must insist that if there were a value assigned to “female resentment level” among such highly educated, late-marrying women for having to “settling hard” on such less educated men at age 35, 40, 45, then that resentment level would be quite high.

    From the get go, such husbands are very likely facing a lack of respect, lack of genuine sexual attraction, sexless marriage and in general high marital conflict and miserability. I think this would lead many such wives to feel anger, and misery as well. In addition, the career and media sisterhood would remind her of her “error” incessantly.

    The contrast could not be more stark from a young dating couple from the 1980s, both with bachelors degrees and entry level jobs, marrying young, not having much savings or resources at all, driving shitty, old, broken cars, eating mac & cheese at candlelight, and collaborating and sacrificing as best they can to build a new life together.

    The 2015 plus elite marriage model presents far more conflict, inequity and emotional baggage that may not ever be entirely unpacked before the wife seeks better options and husband finds himself incredulous before the divorce and family court.

  66. Opus says:

    I read Marcus D’s linked story from Timeline. It is another version of the Men Oppress Women type and shows, of course, absolutely no historical understanding however it cannot hide the fact that even though at the beginning our heroine is presented as coming from fallen circumstances (grand-daughter of Richard Brinsley Sheridan) the very fact that there is a photograph and two portraits of the woman and then at the end following the death of her wealthy husband marriage to Sir Somebody-Terribly-Important reveals that once again we are dealing with one of the most privileged of women crying crocodile tears in true Poor Little Rich Girl fashion.

    I bet she was nye on impossible and certainly in the photo has that Butter-Wouldn’t-Melt-in-my-Mouth I-am-too-good-for-any-of-you look.

  67. javier_mendoza says:

    Well, it’s just an anecdote, but here’s a story for you–

    Girl grows up with a narcissistic mother and weak father. Father has no authority, he can’t set rules or enforce discipline, girl does whatever she wants. In her teens she dates a string of the most cliche’d “bad boyfriends” imaginable; an asshole who hits her, an ex-convict 10 years older than her, a literal homeless bum. Father watches all of this with impotent rage.

    Girl eventually meets a womanizing bartender in her twenties and locks him down with marriage, or so she thinks. Truth is he never stops philandering during their relationship or marriage, which she willfully lives in denial of. Eventually he leaves her an alpha widow with a kid and a pile of debts.

    (Funny thing, even though this is the kind of guy who probably deserves to have the divorce law book thrown at him, girl refuses to take him to court for child support or anything. She keeps holding out hope somehow he will come back to her.)

    Meanwhile girl starts dating more normal guys with stable jobs and money. She strings them along while fucking random losers and hooking up with her ex husband. Girl eventually meets a guy who makes six figures and invites her to live with him and support her fully and her kid. Girl cheats on him with a bohemian wannabe film student and gets knocked up. 6-figures guy is STILL willing to take care of her and her TWO bastard kids, but the girl can’t bring herself to stay with him, she goes on government support instead.

    Now girl has two kids she’s raising alone thanks to our generous tax donations. She finally meets another good guy in her late 30s who makes good money and is willing to take care of her and her kids. He buys a ring and proposes but she refuses because she would lose her government handout money. They live happily ever after for now or until she cheats on him in the future.

    How does she get away with all this? Because she’s always been reasonably pretty and thin. Even at her current age she’s far better looking than the same-aged competition. To any man too cucked out of acting in his own best interests and shamed away from younger girls, she looks like a great catch.

    This is going to keep happening as long as men are unwilling to punish women for their bad behavior.

  68. Otto says:

    “Payers will be less likely to agree to pay alimony because they will not get the tax break that they had previously received and judges will take the tax consequences into consideration as well, and I believe will order less alimony,”

    “Taub just settled a similar case, where the husband was paying $12,000 a month, but it was costing him $6,000 net of taxes. The wife was receiving $8,500 after taxes.

    If he were negotiating the deal after tax reform, Taub said, “I’d tell the husband not to pay more than $6,000,” even though that meant the wife would be receiving $2,500 less per month.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-money-taxes-alimony/is-tax-reform-the-final-straw-for-alimony-idUSKBN1D92J3

    According to this article, the current IRS rules are biased toward higher alimony (and thus toward divorce). Changing this rule would make divorce less attractive for BOTH partners.

    Any changes in the law that make divorce a less attractive option is a good thing.

  69. Novaseeker says:

    The 2015 plus elite marriage model presents far more conflict, inequity and emotional baggage that may not ever be entirely unpacked before the wife seeks better options and husband finds himself incredulous before the divorce and family court.

    It may, but what you’re describing isn’t the elite model. The elite model is two people with graduate degrees marrying around 30 and staying married for the most part. If you’re a woman who is unmarried by 35 you’re not in the elite model any longer. If you’re a woman who has a graduate degree and you marry someone without a college degree, you’re not in the elite model, either.

    I suspect, though, that many of these “more education but less income” type marriages like she is describing in that article involve situations like this: nurse and tradesman, teacher and policeman, social worker and officer worker and so on. Those pairings are commonplace enough, and the woman often has more formal education than the man does but can have less income. They also aren’t elite situations of two business execs, lawyers or docs marrying, though.

  70. Höllenhund says:

    The graph doesn’t tell us anything about anyone’s motivations. Just saying.

  71. thedeti says:

    The real issue that experienced women see you as “another d*ck,” as one woman so politely put it to me. That means that they’ll be quick to drop you when the going gets rough or when they get bored, since you’re not “the one” to them but “someone.” This is exactly the quality you *don’t* want in a spouse.

    That’s the main problem with sluts who marry. You’re just another guy. You’re just the guy she happened to be dating when she decided “it’s time”. You’re just the guy with the best job, you’re the most suitable sucker … ahem, beta bux guy, to pay her way.

    To sluts, men are fungible goods. Sluts don’t learn how to stay with a guy; they learn how to use guys, avoid getting used by guys, and breaking up with guys. If things don’t work out with this guy, it’s ok – another guy will be along soon enough. So if her husband isn’t doing things the way she wants, well, she can just offload him and find someone else. When it comes to earning money and paying her bills, one guy is as good as the next.

    She doesn’t need to learn how to keep a relationship together. She can always get another man. She’s usually hot enough that she never does without a man if she doesn’t want to. And she’s usually hot enough such that she doesnt need to compromise or concede things or work things out with a man. She can be as bitchy as she wants to be, and men put up with it because they want sex with her. She knows this, and she uses this to manipulate them.

    I’m old enough to have witnessed what happened to the high-number-count women I went to college with. All of them have multiple divorces in their past.

    Same here except there’s fewer divorces amongst most of the women I went to school with. Most of the high N women i went to school with are unhappily married to their first husbands. “Stayed together for the kids” or, more likely, she knew the guy she picked was the best she could do.

  72. feeriker says:

    For example, if she is earning $100K per year, and he is only earning $50K. Well, the moment she gets pregnant and goes on leave, or quits her job, they are/she is taking a huge haircut in household earnings, not to mention social status and career status. Most modern day women hate the very notion of sacrificing this and perhaps understandably feel a sense of resentment for being asked at all.

    Of course she’ll feel resentment. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. They ALL do. The economic concept of the tradeoff is as alien to women as is cause and effect.

  73. adam says:

    The fact that the majority of women still marry also shows that women know instinctively that feminism is BS when it comes to getting a husband implying that try know themselves that the two don’t mix.

    Most of these women know instinctively that when they want to attract a man for marriage they had better tone down the career ambition. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/single-women-m-b-a-s-will-downplay-career-ambitions-to-preserve-options-on-the-marriage-market/

    Although the percentage is skewing downward, Pew Research had already demonstrated that the vast majority of married women are not the breadwinner.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-see-men-as-the-financial-providers-even-as-womens-contributions-grow/

    That 40% of breadwinner being female number is single mothers.
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/

    Anecdotally, I know quite a few ball busting bra burning feminists at the all girls college near my school, but by 25 or 26, when they consciously want to attract a husband, these women to a one had suddenly learned how to cook meals and disavowed all of that past rhetoric.

  74. Anon says:

    IBB,

    Since you are here, I wanted to update you about Bill Maher.

    You have often said that Bill Maher is the ideal man to lead a men’s rights uprising.

    Well, maybe 20 years ago, but now, he is all-in for crude misandry :

    This is the crudest ‘women are better than men’ pandering.

  75. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dave: She is fat because of her unhealthy cooking and eating habits.

    Some common talking points from “fat acceptance” females:

    1. A person’s size is determined more by genetics and metabolism than by diet or exercise habits.

    2. Overweight does not mean unhealthy. For some people, it’s their natural, healthy weight. Large women lead active, energetic lives.

    3. Large woman have historically been regarded as the pinnacle of beauty (e.g., Rebens’s paintings).

    Summary: I can’t help being fat. Even so, I’m active, healthy, and beautiful.

  76. earlthomas786 says:

    The fact that the majority of women still marry also shows that women know instinctively that feminism is BS when it comes to getting a husband implying that try know themselves that the two don’t mix.

    I don’t know about that…I think they actively seek men who are easy to control for marriage at least from the serious ones I’ve seen. The men they marry are certainly more on the effeminent side. Some women may see the light about how stupid feminism is, but I’m not sure how many are converting.

  77. Novaseeker says:

    That 40% of breadwinner being female number is single mothers.
    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/

    Yup, exactly, so it’s actually 15% of married women who are the breadwinners. That about matches my observations over the last few decades as well. I’d also bet that quite a few of that 15% is “involuntary” due to the husband being laid off or incapacitated as well. Simply put — there is only a tiny number of women who are willing to voluntarily take on the breadwinner role in a marriage — a tiny number. I have known a few of them — almost all of them involve situations where the husband is one of the following: (1) artist type (either painter or photographer or musician) who is attractive and hasn’t “made it yet” (maybe never will), (2) guy who is running his own business on the side with the idea of ramping up once kids get a little older, or (3) boy toy eye candy types (this happens, but very rarely, with some senior female execs who don’t want/have kids, but it’s *very* rare — I have only met 1-2 of these situations in 20 years of being around very high earning women). Overall these situations are very uncommon. What is more common is that husband gets laid off or injured and she is the breadwinner for a temporary time ( at least in her mind ) until another solution is found — which as often as not is a divorce.

    Simply put: women don’t like supporting adult men financially. They prefer to be single moms, generally, than to do this.

  78. earlthomas786 says:

    Simply put: women don’t like supporting adult men financially. They prefer to be single moms, generally, than to do this.

    They may desire to treat their husband like their child…but that’s not how marriage is setup and they will eventually hate doing it.

  79. tree boy says:

    These chicks think they are gonna b an alpha female like on tv and men will b attracted yeah right. Alpha men bring something of value an alpha female can just complain until things get done. Car broke house broke she aint fixing it. Oh shes got some money but it aint for you and your money aint for you either sounds like fun!

    Men in their 30s are gonna want younger chicks and younger chicks want them. If you think younger chicks are gold diggers and not the older ones think again. How much cash on hand do you think it takes to please or impress a career gal? A lot! Making 6 figures to these chicks makes you NOT a scrub. And nothing more than NOT a scrub.

  80. Oscar says:

    @ Red Pill Latecomer

    Fat chicks pretend that standards of beauty are cultural constructs, but they’re not. The reason we know that is that – with few exceptions and outliers – standards of beauty are very similar across cultures. For example, behold Nefertiti’s Bust.

    It dates from 1345 BC, which makes it 3362 years old. It’s from a vastly different culture (ancient Egypt) on a vastly different continent (Africa), yet if Nefertiti was alive today, we’d recognize her as a beauty. So, if Nefertiti’s beauty wasn’t a cultural construct, maybe it was based on something more universal, like biology.

    By the way, Nefertiti means “the beautiful one has come forth”.

  81. Novaseeker says:

    Yep.

    Rubens was just trying to flatter the rich fat people who were his patrons, honestly. It’s stupid to look at fat Dutch patricians as beauty figures outside of a very narrow context which saw fat as a sign of prosperity and status — for a brief period of time.

  82. Frank K says:

    2. Overweight does not mean unhealthy. For some people, it’s their natural, healthy weight. Large women lead active, energetic lives.

    Funny, how 99% of people I see riding electric scooters at stores and other places are morbidly obese. Sure, you occasionally see a thin person, but they are the exception.

    I’ve lost weight in the past two years (~25 lbs) . Guess what? My blood pressure and cholesterol levels also came down. I’m sure that was pure coincidence.

  83. earlthomas786 says:

    Is there anything more prevelant about being oppressed than morbid obesity? Oppressed by your own body weight.

  84. Otto says:

    ” I’d also bet that quite a few of that 15% is “involuntary” due to the husband being laid off or incapacitated as well.”

    Hence the opioid epidemic. It’s not a coincidence this is mostly mrn and centered in th NE and rust-belt states where blue collar jobs have been steadily disappearing.

    Lose the only good job you’ve had when the factory closes.

    Can’t find another good job.

    Lose your house.

    Lose your wife (because how many women will remain married to a guy who can’t find work?).

    Lose your kids.

    Lose hope.

    Turn to drugs to ease the pain.

    I don’t hear anyone discussing the opioid epidemic as an economic problem, but it obviously is.

  85. Otto says:

    We live in a country where being obese is a sign of poverty.

  86. Casey says:

    @ Otto

    Actually, we live in a country where being obese is a sign of ‘F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S-N-E-S-S’

    That fat guy who headed up NAAFA dropped dead of a heat attack.
    Poetic justice really.

    But let’s blame it on his genetic predispositions instead.

  87. Casey says:

    Re: NAAFA guy

    Sad for his family, if he had one.

    We live in a country of liberals who scream and cry whenever they hear something they don’t like. No different than children really.

    We can no longer have adult conversations, about real topics, with critical thinking people.

    We have no adults.
    We ignore real topics.
    We have few critical thinkers.

    Get on board with the liberal agenda, or get your ass fired for offending someone’s ‘delicate sensibilities’.

    Communism has essentially won the day. Feminism = Communism.

    ‘Safe spaces’ on school campuses (puke)

    This is spilling into the work place rapidly……and the person at fault is always the person who caused someone else to feel an uncomfortable feeling.

    The en vogue topic this quarter is the unravelling of Hollywood stars. Anyone who has EVER had a sexual encounter with a woman is a target.

    The rapidity of how they are taking all accusations as truths and firing all those accused without so much as a day in court is of real concern.

    One of Weinstein’s accusers has claimed that he raped her twice: on two separate occasions. To the critical thinker……….what is the hole in that story?

    If you were raped by someone ONCE, and you immediately considered it to be rape…….would you EVER allow yourself to be ALONE with that person for a 2nd time?

    Her story is certainly one that I don’t believe.

    There are going to be several false claims in these accusations; because no meaningful challenge is allowed the men accused.

    This is Maoist policy in action.
    And it’s getting worse.

    I have little faith that societies will pull out of this nose-dive.

    More likely our fate is the same as the Roman Empire, where excess, sloth, and corruption also ended that society.

    There will also be a ‘crossing the Rubicon’ moment for our society as well.
    And it will highly likely result in bloodshed.

  88. feeriker says:

    I know a guy who chases morbidly obese women, but only because, in his (crude) words, “they’re easy pieces of pussy.” He does NOT find them in any way attractive and it would be a frosty day in Hell before he established a relationship with one. For him, obese women are, essentially, masturbation tools with pulses.

    I don’t doubt for a second that abandoning standards for the sake of easy sex would get a man a nearly continuous supply of it, but most men have attraction floors that are made of stone and cannot be lowered. This guy is a (fortunately) very rare beast.

  89. earlthomas786 says:

    One of Weinstein’s accusers has claimed that he raped her twice: on two separate occasions. To the critical thinker……….what is the hole in that story?

    If you were raped by someone ONCE, and you immediately considered it to be rape…….would you EVER allow yourself to be ALONE with that person for a 2nd time?

    Rape is now having sex with someone and then feeling bad/uncomfortable about it afterward. That’s how nutty our society has become.

    It’s why our current sex ed is dumb. You can consent to sex and then feel uncomfortable afterward because you aren’t doing it in the way God designed it…in marriage. I highly suspect a lot of rape accusations are actually fornication accusations.

  90. Frank K says:

    I know a guy who chases morbidly obese women, but only because, in his (crude) words, “they’re easy pieces of pussy.”

    How many viagras does he have to gulp down before hopping into bed with a land whale?

  91. Boxer says:

    I know a guy who chases morbidly obese women, but only because, in his (crude) words, “they’re easy pieces of pussy.” He does NOT find them in any way attractive and it would be a frosty day in Hell before he established a relationship with one. For him, obese women are, essentially, masturbation tools with pulses.

    This is totally inappropriate, not safe for work, but completely relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QcxGf54bBw
    Get an ugly chick!

  92. Frank K says:

    The rapidity of how they are taking all accusations as truths and firing all those accused without so much as a day in court is of real concern.

    Agreed, which is why many men will resort to ghosting.

    Due to a recent reorg at work (when most of my local team was let go) I am now technically, though not officially (I still have an office, not a cubicle, at work) a “remote worker”, which is good, as if I have to interact with women, it is usually via email), and as we all know, all it takes is a fake accusation to get you fired in Corporate America.

  93. earlthomas786 says:

    The en vogue topic this quarter is the unravelling of Hollywood stars. Anyone who has EVER had a sexual encounter with a woman is a target.

    The rapidity of how they are taking all accusations as truths and firing all those accused without so much as a day in court is of real concern.

    Considering all the sexually degenerate filth that comes out of Hollywood…I’m not giving that industry much sympathy in this arena. The casting couch mentality and all the open secrets couldn’t be covered up and last forever. Add on that how they acted like they were so much more moral than us because of their pet SJW causes. If people have negative connontations of places such as the Catholic church and Penn State because of a few sexual degenerates and their cover ups…then Hollywood should have the same stigma.

  94. Opus says:

    @Oscar

    I was just wondering whether it is right to refer to ancient Egypt as being Africa. Certainly the Romans used the term but by it they did not mean the whole continent as we know it today and neither did they mean Egypt. Egypt later became one of the many Greek enclaves scattered around the Mediterranean and its rulers like Cleo and the Ptolemys were Greek (just as I believe Herod the Greek who gets such a bad write-up in Josephus was Greek or if not Greek certainly Greekophile).

    From a Greek perspective there is just the sea – the Mare Nostrum (Our Sea) and its shores.

  95. Opus says:

    Herod the Great …., duh

  96. Boxer says:

    Add on that how they acted like they were so much more moral than us because of their pet SJW causes.

    That’s how I see it. It’s the feminist’s circular firing-squad in action, and I’m enjoying the show.

    Furthermore, as Hollywood types tend to be outspoken male-feminists themselves, it doesn’t surprise me at all that a trash-person like Harvey Weinstein behaved exactly like Hugo Schwyzer and many others before him. Male feminists are always driven to their lunacy by ego-defensive displacement and projection. They condemn other, innocent, normal men, for doing what they do themselves (i.e. raping and beating women).

    Boxer

  97. Otto says:

    I think it is fair to divide it into nothern Africa and sub-saharan Africa.

    Historically, there has been a lot of interaction between northern Africa, the middle East, and southern Europe.

    Other than down the East coast of Africa, there has been little interaction between North and sub-saharan Africa.

  98. earlthomas786 says:

    Agree with Boxer…I have no sympathy for male feminists for many reasons and this just adds to it. They are covering up their own perverted ways by attacking masculinity.

  99. feeriker says:

    I have no sympathy for male feminists for many reasons and this just adds to it. They are covering up their own perverted ways by attacking masculinity.

    It would be the ultimate dream come true to see this as the catalyst that leads all of the major Hollyweird studios to completely implode.

  100. The Hollywood stuff has a deep Feminine Imperative aspect to it. Notice that most of the targets are producers? It’s because the Women had to do the nasty with the skilled low-value Men. Actresses will light up at the chance to talk about sexcapades with actual Stars, but having sex with a slimy producers or director is an affront to them.

    The deeper issues are a degenerate culture in Hollywood and raping children. That’s really what this is covering up. It started with Weinstein acting as something like the most stereotypical greedy & abusive Jewish producer we’ve seen publicly acknowledged. But where are most of the attacks coming from? Jewish actresses, in the beginning. It’s bridging out, now, as the general feminists are seeing a chance for power.

    Low SMV Men with money & power being overrun by the Feminists they used to pay off. Funny, that. Though in many ways the first run was an inter-subculture issue that just happened to make headline news. Going forward, the abuse and assaults on children will start to come out. That’s what they’re most afraid of. Harvey dealt with adults.

  101. CSI says:

    I think most male feminists are sincere. However you’d have to be a fool to be a male feminist. If you read feminist articles, you’ll see they despise all male feminists, even the sincere, well meaning ones. My favorite is “Beware These 10 Types of Feminist Men” at Everyday Feminism (the 10 points are broad enough that they cover all feminist men).

  102. seventiesjason says:

    And we all know, many run o’ the mill Christian women absolutely “love” TV and movies. Even the G rated movies on the “Hallmark channels” are pure fantasy, full of good looking male leads (and I still have no idea how every woman in these movies can afford a house, a new car by working in a bakery / front desk at the ski resort / or works with children part time in the local church).

    This blow back from Hollywood, will filter back into the church and cause even more ghosting by men

  103. seventiesjason says:

    CSI

    Sincere? Hollywood male feminists are about as sincere and sensitive as a toilet seat. I mean crying tears over crack addicts and quoting the “Koran” as if its teurg. Virtue signaling at its finest

  104. Boxer says:

    If you read feminist articles, you’ll see they despise all male feminists, even the sincere, well meaning ones.

    There really aren’t any sincere, well-meaning male feminists. It’s a contradiction in terms, like “Jewish Nazi” or “White BLM member”. People who fall into such categories are reliably assumed to be driven by extreme personal problems or psychological defects. Anon (a poster here) continues to amply support this thesis with countless examples.

    I think many of the more outspoken male feminists have a masochism fetish originating in childhood. Many were probably abused by their mothers, with no father present, and this became their new normal. Thus: they love being spat upon and crave abuse by “strong and empowered” wimminz. Sick, no?

    Best,

    Boxer

  105. earlthomas786 says:

    I think most male feminists are sincere. However you’d have to be a fool to be a male feminist.

    Yes they are sincere fools. They are what happens when you dont have a strong father figure and an oppressive mother.

  106. Scott says:

    For Dalrock readers in particular, and manosphere/red-pill guys in general. I am still working toward a masculine/red-pill oriented psychological theoretical orientation. I have written a short post that I would like to get feedback on, as “rites of passage” will be one of the topics I try to tackle.

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/11/10/rites-of-passage/

    Carry on.

  107. Anon,

    You have often said that Bill Maher is the ideal man to lead a men’s rights uprising.

    No.

    I have said Bill Maher is the perfect example what MGTOW should be. He is the perfect MGTOW. The only rights he cares about, are his own.

  108. Dalrock, could you please edit my blockquote above? Thank you

  109. Boxer says:

    For Dalrock readers in particular, and manosphere/red-pill guys in general. I am still working toward a masculine/red-pill oriented psychological theoretical orientation. I have written a short post that I would like to get feedback on, as “rites of passage” will be one of the topics I try to tackle.

    Men cannot be men—much less good or heroic men—unless their actions have meaningful consequences to people they truly care about. Strength requires an opposing force, courage requires risk, mastery requires hard work, honor requires accountability to other men. Without these things, we are little more than boys playing at being men, and there is no weekend retreat or mantra or half-assed rite of passage that can change that.

    Jack Donovan The Way of Men Portland: Dissonant Hum, 2012. p. 140-141

  110. Scott says:

    Boxer-

    I guess I don’t really disagree with that passage but since I have not read the book it is decontextualized for me.

    Does Donovan make a distinction between “half ass” rites if passage and legitimate ones?

  111. Scott says:

    Boxer-

    I guess I don’t really disagree with that passage but since I have not read the book it is decontextualized for me.

    Does Donovan make a distinction between “half ass” rites if passage and legitimate ones?

  112. Boxer says:

    Does Donovan make a distinction between “half ass” rites if passage and legitimate ones?

    The author’s critique resembles yours, at least superficially. What rites of passage exist today tend not to be authentic — as in, they aren’t administered by a community of capable men to a younger man — they are usually centered around women. One “becomes a man” in our deracinated culture when he first has sex with a woman, or at least first gets her phone number. The “men” in our society concentrate on these matriarchal rites, as they’re the only ones allowed. Basically Donovan takes issue with any society where one can only feel like a man by serving women (buying them stuff, having sex with them, etc.).

  113. CSI says:

    Joining the military would be the closest thing to a traditional rite of passage. I think the Mormon expectation that all capable young men go on a 2 year missions also has many similarities to traditional rites of passage (personally I’d rather stick my hand in bullet ant gloves than be a Mormon missionary).

  114. info says:

    @LG
    I saw the “open secret” documentary about the hollywood abuse. And I notice that alot of the kids that were abused were boy child stars by gay older men.

  115. Boxer says:

    Joining the military would be the closest thing to a traditional rite of passage. I think the Mormon expectation that all capable young men go on a 2 year missions also has many similarities to traditional rites of passage (personally I’d rather stick my hand in bullet ant gloves than be a Mormon missionary).

    That was true until recently. A few years ago, the rules were changed. Mormon girls are now allowed to serve a mission at 19 (the same age Mormon boys have always been commanded to go). Prior to this, a girl went on a mission someplace in her early to mid 20s, and it was an admission of total failure in her primary goal, which used to be finding a returned missionary to marry in the temple and start cranking out kids.

    Thus Mormondom is following the pattern noted by Claude Levi-Strauss’ in Structures of Kinship. When various tribes interact, their rites are simplified into oblivion.

    Boxer
    (As a Secular Mormon, I never went on a mission, unlike nearly all my male relatives)

  116. CSI says:

    That was true until recently. A few years ago, the rules were changed. Mormon girls are now allowed to serve a mission at 19

    Its still true. Even if the rules for girls going on missions has been relaxed, there is still great pressure on young mormon men to go on missions if at all possible. And they certainly aren’t a holiday, even if they aren’t quite as gruelling as they might once have been.

    I don’t know much here, but I get the impression that lowering the age for Mormon girls to go on missions from 21 to 19 was something the authorities felt reluctantly forced to do. What happened were girls were putting pressure on each other to prove their piety by going on missions. So if large number of girls were going on missions, the thinking was that they might as well get it over and done and ready to marry by age 21 rather than 23 or 24.

  117. Mark says:

    @Looking Glass

    “”But where are most of the attacks coming from? Jewish actresses,……. “”

    Thank you for pointing that out to everyone here.I was waiting for someone to say something before I did.

  118. Hose_B says:

    More likely our fate is the same as the Roman Empire, where excess, sloth, and corruption also ended that society.

    The United States IS Rome. Plain and simple. This actually makes the Bible even more relatable, as we can see how Jesus behaved and where his priorities were under a system of government much like our own. One of the biggest differences is that while the romans treated non-citizens like dirt, the US is beginning to value them above its own citizens.

  119. Hose_B says:

    @CSI
    I think the Mormon expectation that all capable young men go on a 2 year missions also has many similarities to traditional rites of passage (personally I’d rather stick my hand in bullet ant gloves than be a Mormon missionary).

    Don’t forget that the Mormons were at the forfront of the Women’s Sufferage movement. I suppose they thought that giving the vote to women would increase a man with seven wives eight votes instead of one because Mormon women are submissive to their husbands and would never use their votes against his wishes. Don’t think it turned out like they thought.

  120. Boxer says:

    Its still true.

    No.

    Even if the rules for girls going on missions has been relaxed, there is still great pressure on young mormon men to go on missions if at all possible. And they certainly aren’t a holiday, even if they aren’t quite as gruelling as they might once have been.

    A rite of passage is something that is administered by men, to a man, and is only open to men. If women can perform it, then it’s not a rite of passage into manhood.

  121. earl says:

    The deeper issues are a degenerate culture in Hollywood and raping children. That’s really what this is covering up.

    If that lid ever gets blown off (along with the rumors around DC)…it’s going to make the Catholic church scandal looks like nothing.

  122. Lost Patrol says:

    Joining the military would be the closest thing to a traditional rite of passage.

    As Boxer points out for Mormon missions, so this traditional rite of passage has also been feminized to the point it no longer really counts. Women are now officially integrated into every aspect of military service, on paper if not yet fully in the ranks; and that is only a matter of time and quotas that will be imposed.

  123. seventiesjason says:

    Today is Veterans Day. I thank all veterans who served their country. I never served. My father did four years in the USAF 1955-1959. Stationed at Yokuda Air Force Base in Japan, and Nah Trang Air Force base in South Vietnam (The USA had forces there in the 1950’s, history books are wrong). My British grandfather served in the British Army, and was captured in the “Battle of Malay” in 1942, spent the rest of the war in a Japanese POW camp, he hated the Japanese until they day he died in 2001. He was lucky to walk out alive. My Uncle Thomas served in the Royal Navy from 1970-1972.

    It’s a day to reflect upon war, past conflicts and hopefully future peace.

    I am not pleased with the more “political” stance of Veterans Day of late…….you know “No veteran should have to pay a mortgage, pay back student loans, should have 100% free medical care because they put their ‘ass’ on the line”

    After the guns of Europe silenced in 1918……..so many were dead. So many were dead! The war to end ALL wars! A day of “rememberance” was set up, and this is Veterans Day. All veterans please have a day of peace, quiet, and reflection in your own way.

  124. Jack Russell says:

    earl says:
    November 11, 2017 at 7:37 am

    The deeper issues are a degenerate culture in Hollywood and raping children. That’s really what this is covering up.

    If that lid ever gets blown off (along with the rumors around DC)…it’s going to make the Catholic church scandal looks like nothing.

    This is one of the main reasons the swamp parties don’t want Trump in there. If it wasn’t for Trump you wouldn’t hear of the Weinstein scandal, child trafficking etc.. Trump for all his faults is doing a better job than our progressive liberal goofball, Justine Troodough.

  125. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Santa Monica, CA, celebrates Veteran’s Day by honoring “female military pilots” : http://smdp.com/intergenerational-discussion-by-female-military-pilots-lands-at-the-museum-of-flying/163244

  126. seventiesjason says:

    The total and costs of human life will “never be known” but for actual combat deaths in our nations short history has been astounding……..this isn’t including all other ‘police actions’ over the decades……..yet on Veterans Day we “have to” honor “female military pilots” and recognize all they have had to “stand up TO” but not FOR…………Millions of men who gave their lives are dead frankly and I am a little tired of the “women have it worse” attitude I see and hear DAILY on all mediums. Including church. The numbers are casualties.

    The American Revolutionary War 1776-1781: 28,467
    The War of 1812, 1812-1815 (you tried England….but we were not going back): 15,322
    The American Civil War 1861-1865: 775,4046
    World War I 1917-1918: 116,526
    World War II 1941-1945: 405,399
    The Korean War 1950-1953: 36,516
    The Vietnam War 1965-1975: 58,209
    Iraq-Afghanistan: 2001 / 2003 present: 8,320

  127. Anon says:

    Boxer said :

    Anon (a poster here) continues to amply support this thesis with countless examples.

    That is correct. From Hugo Schwyzer to Gian Ghomeshi to Harvey Weinstein, a ‘male feminist’ is usually a creepy predator in disguise. It is the ideal cover, really.

    But the worst of all is Manboobz Futrelle. Don’t take my word for it, though. JudgyBitch has documented his darkness in great detail. Be forewarned – pedophilia isn’t even the worst thing about Manboobz Futrelle, if you can believe it :

    http://judgybitch.com/2015/03/27/david-futrelle-redefines-the-words-sick-motherfucker/
    http://judgybitch.com/2015/02/19/what-do-david-futrelle-and-the-gay-cannibal-killer-have-in-common-more-than-you-think-we-dont-produce-a-whole-of-murderers-up-here-in-canada-but-when-we-do-we-go-all-out-i-real/

  128. V. Taunton says:

    seventiesjason – you need to read up more about the War of 1812 if you think it had anything to do with reconquering the United States. Moreover, England had ceased to exist as a political entity in 1707 with the Act of Union. The United Kingdom had rather bigger fish to fry in those years but was still kind enough to show the Americans who had strayed into Canada the way back home. What’s not to like?

  129. seventiesjason says:

    Lol! Pardon my mistake. From the American perspective it is viewed that way….and to our Canadian brothers….we Americans who do study history……we know that most of you thought the USA would *again* try to attack you and this didn’t really dispell until WWI.

  130. Opus says:

    Firstly let me add my support for the message from V. Taunton although my failure to correct Jason (a common mistake) was out of recognition that every country needs its myths and it was your Veterans Day and so… V.Taunton eludes to the fact that at the same time we were beating America we were also destroying with Prussian help (of course) one Napoleon Bonaparte.

  131. earl says:

    It is the ideal cover, really.

    I’ve long suspected any of the major SJW causes are just a cover for sexual perversion and the means to try and normalize it…and/or to get money. Either way I don’t trust any of them especially when they get on a moral high horse.

  132. seventiesjason says:

    A common mistake?????? Come on Opus! This is so much fun! Hey, when I do visit the UK. I do plan to meet up with you. You know that right? I am planning for a month in 2019.

    As for Napoleon….that Russian winter also took a toll……..we in the USA view 1812 as a “success” the Canadian front was the loss, but the rest of that “war” for the USA went quite well.

  133. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: V.Taunton eludes to the fact that at the same time we were beating America we were also destroying with Prussian help (of course) one Napoleon Bonaparte.

    It’s allude, not elude.

    Allude — to make an indirect reference to.

    Elude — to avoid or escape.

  134. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The last time I visited Canada, some Canadians jokingly reminded me that they’d burned the White House in the War of 1812.

    I told them that in school, we were taught it was the British who did the burning.

    These Canadians insisted that it was Canadians fighting in the British army who burned the White House.

  135. Boxer says:

    As for Napoleon….that Russian winter also took a toll……..we in the USA view 1812 as a “success” the Canadian front was the loss, but the rest of that “war” for the USA went quite well.

    We sacked your capital, Washington D.C., and burned the White House. You guys all ran away. We still laugh about your president’s wife begging for mercy (we gave it to her).

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dolley-madison-saves-portrait-from-british

  136. Boxer says:

    Red Pill Latecomer:

    These Canadians insisted that it was Canadians fighting in the British army who burned the White House.

    What a total historical ignoramus. It’s embarrassing.

    Canada was, in 1812, British North America. Every British soldier who burned the White House was from what is now Canada, as Canada didn’t exist as a separate political entity until 1848. The idea that a special contingent of soldiers were specially sailed over from the islands to burn the white house is funny, though.

  137. seventiesjason says:

    Hey, we wouldn’t want to “fire up” any real red blooded Canadians in here now would we? Look, in the USA……it is viewed as a “victory” in the UK, it was a “another front” in a complex war of tangled alliances and the focus was on Napoleon in Europe.

    The war in actuality was really a draw, though as an American………and I do hate to admit this…our young republic “did” have more to lose. The roots of that war go back to Jefferson, he did state “Greater Canada, and Catholic Quebec is a revolver ‘cocked’ at the head of New England.” (love the colorful language of that period)

    Look, Canada has not been fired up since John Lennon showed up in Montreal in 1969 for a “bed in” for peace……..and Canada to its credit has been one of the few solid friends the USA has had over the post-war period, and its something we Yanks don’t recognize enough 😉

  138. seventiesjason says:

    Let me remind everyone………the USA’s national anthem “came” out of The War of 1812.

  139. feministhater says:

    I would just like everyone to know that I did not insult Scott’s wife. He is free to post my comment here if he thinks I really did.

  140. feministhater says:

    Ah, okay, that’s cowardly Scott. You delete my comment at your blog, stating that the reason for doing so is that I personally insulted your wife, which I did not do, then you go and delete your comment stating why to cover your tracks. At least own up to your mistake..

  141. Boxer says:

    Ah, okay, that’s cowardly Scott. You delete my comment at your blog, stating that the reason for doing so is that I personally insulted your wife, which I did not do, then you go and delete your comment stating why to cover your tracks. At least own up to your mistake..

    Scott’s part of the Caldosphere, so it’s safe to assume he hates me for some reason unknown to me; but he still let my comment stay up on his blog, last I checked. With this in mind, I’m skeptical. Are you sure you didn’t violate his comment policy?

    Either way, bringing such stuff to Dalrock is in bad form (not that I haven’t been guilty of this in the past.) The best place to air such dirty laundry is on your own blog. If you don’t have one, you should start one.

    All of us should have blogs, even if most of us can only post occasionally. The internet should be filled with antifeminism. Let a bajillion flowers bloom, etc.

  142. Embracing Reality says:

    It’s so true that many young men, are “working like women”. It’s true of a lot of betas but it’s also true for a lot of Alphas too. Alpha doesn’t need to qualify himself with income to get sex from sluts and beta isn’t going to get much sex no matter what he does. These guys are totally missing the big picture in my view. Too many guys are squandering their prime working years on getting high, pointless hobbies, useless sluts. I live in the same disrupted society and sex was never my underlying motivator for making money. I made it for me! A far better reason in my view, in this day and age.

    Still, some young single men are out there hustling and making bank. Even in this economy there are opportunities if you want to hustle. Live cheap and earn as much as you can, save, invest carefully. Keep moving forward. Blowing money on expensive cars or toys is stupid. Wasting it on sluts is the worst choice of all. Marrying a slut? You’ve got to be kidding me? Experiment cautiously with small business opportunities. A small business owner living cheap can save, invest a million or two in a decade. Then you can just coast and live on easy street.

    When you’re in your 40s or beyond sex isn’t going to seem so magical. The prospect of working a sorry job you hate until you drop dead there sure as hell isn’t going to feel like magic. Waking up in the morning and remembering you don’t really have to care, then Going back to sleep if you want? It’s like magic, promise you! I do that almost everyday because I hustled, saved and invested. Instead of being lazy, wasting my time and money on junk or throwing it between some sluts legs.

    Don’t be foolish young men. You’re only cheating yourself.

  143. feministhater says:

    Boxer, I posted a comment about my belief that his wife didn’t settle for him but the other way around. And that most of the women who comment about how wonderful their husbands are, are the ones whose husbands settled for them. Now.. I knew it was taboo to say so, I even stated so in the comment itself, but what the comment was not, was a personal insult of his wife.

    I wouldn’t have even minded if he just deleted the comment and went on his way but to say that the reason so was me personally insulting his wife… no, I do have the right to defend myself.

  144. feministhater says:

    Either way, bringing such stuff to Dalrock is in bad form (not that I haven’t been guilty of this in the past.) The best place to air such dirty laundry is on your own blog. If you don’t have one, you should start one.

    The best place for it was on his blog, I gave him my defense and he simply deleted it. I don’t even think I can post there any longer.

  145. Boxer says:

    The best place for it was on his blog, I gave him my defense and he simply deleted it. I don’t even think I can post there any longer.

    He disagreed, clearly; and, he pays the bills and does the work there. That’s that. You wouldn’t let Scott come into your house and piss on your rug, would you?

    Anyway, a few of us are discussing it on my blog. You are welcome to post there (link in my name). Bear in mind that my only strict prohibition is the posting of anyone’s legal name or other identifying information. If you can keep your critique general, I’d be glad to host it.

    Still think you should have your own blog, though. Commenting on other people’s sites is good, but hosting your own is better, and it’s totally possible to do both. If you decide to start one, I’ll promote it.

    Boxer

  146. earl says:

    And that most of the women who comment about how wonderful their husbands are, are the ones whose husbands settled for them. Now.. I knew it was taboo to say so, I even stated so in the comment itself, but what the comment was not, was a personal insult of his wife.

    I can spell it out for you….you were making assumptions about the husband’s motivation for his choice of wife. It is entirely possible they didn’t settle for that woman, but actively decided he wanted her to be his wife.

  147. feministhater says:

    In that context, I cannot have a situation where I am forced to respond to comments that, by their very existence can cause an enormous amount of conflict in my home.

    And hey, I’m fine with that. However, what my comment was not, was an personal insult of your wife. That was a lie, own it.

  148. feministhater says:

    I can spell it out for you….you were making assumptions about the husband’s motivation for his choice of wife. It is entirely possible they didn’t settle for that woman, but actively decided he wanted her to be his wife.

    Was there an insult earl? No. If he found the comment not to his liking, he could have simply deleted it. However, he accused me of insulting his wife, personally, which I did not do. His act was a cowardly one.

  149. feministhater says:

    Scott will always know what he did. He could have owned up, stated he didn’t like my comment and then deleted it. That would have been fair but his excuse left the matter as if I had directly insulted his wife. I didn’t do that. At least I can defend myself from that.

  150. seventiesjason says:

    FH

    Really likes mate…..in the end it is his blog. I won’t touch the topic or the blurred lines of it was an insult or not……but he made the choice. Just go on, and I am sure you both will be fine with each other sooner than later.

    I’ve been banned from two “single-christian-blogs” because I dared called out situations and of course had women “tattle” to the man in charge to “stop my seething hatred of women” (as if)

    I am currently in a tense situation with a another blog. I respect the guy who writes it. A lot. We disagree on the context of attraction and confidence. He had to “lovingly” put me in line the best he could. It’s his blog. Not mine. I want to press further and harder…..but there is a time to just stop. Don’t read into it more than you have to.

  151. Pingback: Operational Security – v5k2c2

  152. earlthomas786 says:

    I’ve been banned from two “single-christian-blogs” because I dared called out situations and of course had women “tattle” to the man in charge to “stop my seething hatred of women” (as if)

    Was the situation the woman was being rebellious? If so, I have this sneaking suspension they take it pretty personally if you call them out on it and take it as ‘hatred’ rather than correction.

  153. Boxer says:

    Seventies Jason:

    I’ve been banned from two “single-christian-blogs” because I dared called out situations and of course had women “tattle” to the man in charge to “stop my seething hatred of women” (as if)

    Why is it that you don’t have your own blog? You write well. You clearly have something to contribute. Start one. I’ll read it.

  154. seventiesjason says:

    Me writing well could be debated. I had one in Welsh for about a year, but the militants over there (Aberystwyth in particular) spent more time “correcting” my Welsh grammar, telling me that my Christianity was a myth, and dissing my mother because she “left” for the USA, and therefore “betrayed” her heritage. I also didn’t have a Welsh surname, so I wasn’t legit.

    They were disregarding the fact that I am probably one of the 2,000 or so Americans that can speak it fluently.

    But thanks yo! I may consider it again…but what to write about….most of the topics I like or have interest in do have very established blogs…..and besides…….I am just “weekend desk clerk / janitor” for The Salvation Army, no one would take anything I have to say seriously

  155. seventiesjason says:

    earlthomas:

    Oh, it was the usual “men can’t handle a Christian woman who runs her own business” and the usual nonsense “we tell guys who visit our church to be careful because the women here are gonna be all over them” and “guys are supposed to fix things, and not one here can even attract men to come, nor bring them, nor fix the men here who REALLY need fixing”

    I told them to “knock it off” and they told the one “moderator” and he corrected me that I he was receiving complaints “all day” about me and I had “unrestrained” hostility to women…..how I was a “legalist”

    It’s the same I saw in the “secular world”. A woman doesn’t like the way a man speaks? She runs to a MAN in charge and DEMANDS this man put a stop to it. It was funny looking back. Tough Christian guy on a blog calling me “buck-o”

    Must be a Texas thing because everyone on the blog was a Texan. Maybe it had something to do with me being a Californian. Maybe he channeling “Happy Days”

    It became a back and fourth discussion, and of course I was silenced because I “didn’t go to a theological school / college” and “have not been a Christian as long as they all have” and the WHAMMY…………………..”Jesus said we can’t judge people”

    So it got worse and I was banned. The place is called “single roots” and they are some of the worst people to be giving singles advice. Especially men.

  156. earlthomas786 says:

    Jesus said we can’t judge people”

    That’s always the go-to when they are having trouble refuting things. Fair enough, if they want it that way…just give them what St. Paul says.

    ‘Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.’
    1 Cor 4:5

    Remind them that there is A judge out there. Whatever misguided or stupid judgements we may make will pale to what true judgement is about.

  157. seventiesjason says:

    Doesn’t matter. I was banned over a year ago, and on the other blog I was banned from, I disagreed on some doctrinal stuff. Fair enough. It was Calvinistic in nature, and my Protestantism is not in the Calvin school.

    Even in my own Corps, I am viewed in general with suspicion at times…….one lady did complain to the former Officers about me. The wife, Captain Debbie told her “He’s devout to God, it would be fitting if more ladies in this Corps actually tried that!”

    I’m viewed as a “legalist” and I tend to strive for an old-school styled “Victorian” Salvation Army. Wear your uniform, do not fear the wicked streets, show intense compassion, love, and confront Satan’s Kingdom on the streets of a broken world. This is do, and I at times I am “alone” in this mentality. It’s easier to come to Holiness Meetings and just talk about God instead of worshiping Him!

  158. Opus says:

    Second… I never got around to second, knew as soon as I had posted that I had elude for allude and decided that today wasn’t my day.

    The good news from the point of view of Americans is that no one in England knows anything about the war of 1812 and buys into your rhetoric about the war of 1776.

    I have now twice been told – by females – that I and the POTUS are the only two people on the planet who are not believers in man-made Global Warming and that as The President is a dunce I can be no better – so you can see how poorly I am thought of.

    I was however put out today when I saw the headline in a local paper that – and this in a country where the Head of State is also Head of the Church and God’s anointed rep – that some parents at a girl’s school had complained that in Religious Education class – perhaps that subject is not taught in American schools – the girls had been told that abortion was very wrong. The paper blamed this intolerant attack on women’s freedom to slut-it-up on Christians! – Christians being perceived as nutters in fact more or less Nazis. Clearly only Christians (and Nazis) could have such an intolerant view.

  159. seventiesjason says:

    Unless you go to a private Christian school you don’t have religion classes…..unless it is to extoll the myth that “Islam is the religion of peace”

    You might get some historical aspects of Christianity in public schools today.

    We have a separation of church and state but that now means to liberals “but they didn’t say mosque!”

    Children sent home from school because they prayed the Lord’s Prayer. However, Muslims in public schools given “time” and a “room” to go pray in.

    Make that three. I don’t believe this global warming / climate change is man made. Nutters us all.

  160. V. Taunton says:

    seventiesjason – no worries old chap, just needling you 😉

  161. V. Taunton says:

    Boxer – I imagine that Major General Robert Ross (of the 25th of foot) and the forces that had arrived from the Peninsular War, were they alive today, would take some umbrage at the claim that they were not the British isles.

  162. seventiesjason says:

    V Taunton. No worries. Kind of fun actually. I am American and yes proud…..but I do have such a deep love for Britain. At home, made a pot of tea (Typhoo) spinning “The Who” on my deck….ironing my shirts (Ben Sherman) and gonna make a bowl of mash in a bit. I’m game yo! Nettle away!

  163. Boxer says:

    Dear V. Taunton:

    Boxer – I imagine that Major General Robert Ross (of the 25th of foot) and the forces that had arrived from the Peninsular War, were they alive today, would take some umbrage at the claim that they were not the British isles.

    1. This doesn’t make any sense, unless you’re telling me that “the British isles” were individual soldiers, rather than geographic territory. Take your time when writing. Your readers will thank you.

    2. Major General Robert Ross is buried in the place he considered his home, as he apparently ordered in his will — which would be Halifax, Nova Scotia. That used to be Britain. Now it’s Canada. It’s reasonable to say that he’s at least as Canadian as I am.

    Hope this helps…

    Boxer

  164. Luke says:

    “Jesus said we can’t judge people”

    Sigh. That is perhaps the worst-understood commandment in the Bible.
    It means not to carry out sentence of a court (in that time, commonly executions for the worst offenses).
    It does NOT mean not to assess people of questionable behavior and morals. In fact, we are commanded not to so much as EAT with such people (unless, I gather, it’s part of witnessing Christ to them).
    Going on, when Jesus saw the adulteress about to get stoned, and Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone”, here is what I wish had happened: whoever was nearest Him should have said “If you wanted to go first, Jesus, all you had to do was SAY so”, and hand him a BIG rock.

  165. V. Taunton says:

    Boxer – no need to be so brusque. Your devoted readers will thank YOU for that. Robert Ross was born in, brought up in, and fought for the United Kingdom. That makes him as British as Admiral Cockburn who, incidentally, meets your seemingly stringent criteria for Britishness as he’s buried in the UK. The troops with them that day included the 4th of Foot (now Lancashire Fusiliers), the 21st of Foot (Royal Scots), 44th of Foot (Essex), the Royal Marines and of course detachments from the Royal Navy. Three guesses where these chaps hailed from… cheers.

  166. Anon says:

    The sugar-daddy economy, funding the student loans of some twat, is apparently in full swing :

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/280679/

    Apparently, some old BB fools are willing to give women tens of thousands of dollars, expecting nothing more than platonic appearances in some social function, in return.

    I can’t say I have any sympathy for these men.

  167. Boxer says:

    Boxer – no need to be so brusque. Your devoted readers will thank YOU for that.

    I was originally suspicious that my primary school in Alberta had fed me revisionist history, but now I’m certain you’re wrong. On to the point.

    Robert Ross was born in, brought up in, and fought for the United Kingdom.

    You’re wrong yet again. I just looked him up. He was born in County Down, Ireland. When did the United Kingdom include Ireland, or any part thereof? I have a source that says the Act of Union was voted into law in 1799 or 1800. General Ross was born three decades before this, in 1766.

    Here’s a neat bio of the man.
    https://uschs.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/major-general-robert-ross-and-the-war-of-1812/

    <blockquoteMajor General Robert Ross was an Irish Major General in the British Army who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. Born in 1766 and graduating from Trinity College in Dublin, Ross joined the British Army and rose steadily through the ranks, seeing action in Italy, Spain, Egypt, and the Netherlands. His early campaigns would show him to be an effective leader and earn him commendations for gallantry and the thanks of the British Parliament. Ross served under the Duke of Wellington and was promoted to the rank of Major General in 1812.

    This might seem pedantic, but it annoys me to see history rewritten, which is part of the reason I hate feminists.

    That makes him as British as Admiral Cockburn who, incidentally, meets your seemingly stringent criteria for Britishness as he’s buried in the UK.

    Your argument is senseless. Every Canadian was British, in name and fact, before 1931. Like hundreds of thousands of other people, your hero emigrated (not from the UK, but from Ireland) to what’s now Canada. He’s still buried there today.

  168. Boxer says:

    I can’t say I have any sympathy for these men.

    Nor should you. A fool and his money, and all that…

  169. Mark says:

    @RPL

    “”These Canadians insisted that it was Canadians fighting in the British army who burned the White House.””

    That seems to be a thing that Canadians are very proud of when speaking to Americans.They get it wrong all the time.Boxer is correct.At the time it was British North America.They were British living in “Upper Canada” as it was called.I have to correct Canadians constantly of this fact.We did not even get our Canadian Maple Leaf Flag until 1967.We flew the Union Jack….and still do around government buildings.Personally,I admire the US for the Revolution of 1776.They did it correctly and threw the bastards out! If I had it my way I would throw the British out of Canada tomorrow and declare Canada a Republic.Nothing pisses me off more than looking at our money and seeing a picture of the f*****g Queen on it!

    @Opus

    “”were also destroying with Prussian help (of course) one Napoleon Bonaparte.””

    Viva L’Emperor!!!!………….Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the men that I admire most in history.

    @FemHater

    Met one of your countrymen a few days ago here in Toronto.Had a coffee with him and had a great conversation about South Africa.He is considering moving to Canada as he was telling me about all the violence.In fact,he said that there is more gun violence than the US?….I don’t know if that is true but,I have been there twice and loved SA.I always wanted to ask you…..do you speak Afrikaner?

  170. CSI says:

    Apparently, some old BB fools are willing to give women tens of thousands of dollars, expecting nothing more than platonic appearances in some social function, in return.

    Don’t worry, these sugarbabies who can get paid for platonic companionship are very few. If you read sugar lifestyle forums, you’ll see girls who think they can get away with not providing “intimacy” are commonly dismissed as naive and deluded “snowflakes”.

  171. earl says:

    Apparently, some old BB fools are willing to give women tens of thousands of dollars, expecting nothing more than platonic appearances in some social function, in return.

    So now it looks like even the BB want all the benefits of marriage without getting married to them.

  172. feministhater says:

    So now it looks like even the BB want all the benefits of marriage without getting married to them.

    The only difference is that marriage allows her to divorce rape you too. At least this way, he might pay and get no sex, just like in marriage, but he doesn’t get divorced raped when she monkey branches.

    No doubt that sex is playing a role. It’s just on the hush-hush. Don’t play coy with me sweetheart, you’re giving up the V if you want the (D)ollar.

  173. earl says:

    There’s no doubt there’s that transaction going down. But instead of calling it prostitution, sugar daddy sounds much more pleasant.

  174. feministhater says:

    Well, it also allows them to skirt the legal system. The money changed hands, not for sex, but for pleasant company no doubt, any sex that was had was purely consensual with no money changing hands at all, no siree!

  175. Novaseeker says:

    Sugar babies are providing sex for money, no question. The only difference from hookers is that they are not a volume business — so they have their sugar daddy who floats them financially, and they basically see that guy a few times a month or something. They aren’t seeing other clients along the way, generally, so I suppose that’s the main difference. Hookers never did anything for me, really, but if someone wants a hooker I wouldn’t see the point of being a sugar daddy because it seems much more expensive than renting a hooker, and it’s basically the same thing (sex/intimacy for money), just dressed up in a less obviously transactional way.

  176. seventiesjason says:

    In the American Revolution……I think the one underestimation the British did have of the colonies was their vast topography and size. When Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga Springs in 1777….he was moving a HUGE army from Quebec / Canada down. Look, I grew up in that region. Down the Champlain Valley and the eastern edge of the Adirondacks with no roads, a few Indian trails……and the Hudson River is all rapids in that region…….a convoy of that size would be slow to move. the undergrowth is thick. The mountains are not like the Sierra’s in California in height, but they are craggy, rugged….and it rains. Man does it rain in the Northeast.

    I think the colonists and partisans defeated Burgoyne at Saratoga for the fact that the large convey itself was TIRED. They were trying to get downstate (New York City area) before winter set in. It was October and they still had well over 150 miles to go. Burgoyne made a raid into Vermont for supplies and were made to turn back at Bennington when about a 1,000 Welshmen (Green Mountain Boys) came out of the woods and repelled them.

    In most of the large troop movements of the British…this was constantly the problem throughout the war for them.

  177. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Sugar babies are providing sex for money, no question. The only difference from hookers is that they are not a volume business — so they have their sugar daddy who floats them financially, and they basically see that guy a few times a month or something.

    I believe that used to be called a “mistress”. Not a new idea.

  178. Novaseeker says:

    I believe that used to be called a “mistress”. Not a new idea.

    Yep, basically it’s a “kept woman”. I think some of these guys aren’t single, so maybe not the classic “Mistress on the side” scenario from the past, but certainly it’s a “kept woman” scenario without question. The only things new are the name and the means of meeting which is now through specialized websites like everything else with relationships today.

  179. Frank K says:

    I believe that used to be called a “mistress”. Not a new idea.

    This reminds me of a scene in one of the old Pink Panther movies. Inspector Dreyfus is on the phone, having what sounds like a tender conversation with his wife, Before hanging up he tells her “kiss the children for me”. His assistant asks him if that was his wife, to which he responds that it was his mistress.

  180. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    CSI: If you read sugar lifestyle forums, you’ll see girls who think they can get away with not providing “intimacy” are commonly dismissed as naive and deluded “snowflakes”.

    I don’t think most women “think they can get away with not providing intimacy.”

    Women know when they’re selling sex. But they often pretend not to know, partially as a lie to themselves. “Oh, I only came up to his hotel room to see his sketches. I had no intention of its leading to sex. I’m a good girl.”

  181. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Yep, basically it’s a “kept woman”. I think some of these guys aren’t single, so maybe not the classic “Mistress on the side” scenario from the past, but certainly it’s a “kept woman” scenario without question.

    Pretty sure you either meant to write “I think some of these guys aren’t married” or “I think some of these guys are single” and you fingers got ahead of your brain.

    Sugarbaby isn’t something I really want to learn much more about. However, you surely left out a third category: frivorced men. Unfortunately, an arms-length “kept woman” arrangement would look pretty good to at least some men who are paying child support, want a woman in their life, and still have the burn marks from anti-family court. This could also be something that the not-so-hard-core MGTOW would be willing to participate in.

    It’s another social development that could be studied, but won’t, because it is not at all congruent with the standard FI narrative. Just like sexbots. Nobody outside of the androsphere wants to consider the possibility that wesern women have become so toxic that men are creating workarounds like these.

  182. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/11/12) - Social Matter

  183. ACThinker says:

    You analysis seems sound that the market signals for BB v AF are happening. What is missed as how long those can take to get through to the ‘consumer’ (men looking for wives).

    As more an more of the market favors AF over BB, it will be harder for advertisers (media, magazines, actual averts, books, music, etc) to keep the myth of BB alive. But there are still a lot of 20 to 40 year old men who are BB thinking that is the way of it. It is because it takes a while for the change to get through to the consumer. It has to do with the rate of information flow to the consumer.

    Just because one of us doesn’t see it doesn’t mean you haven’t forecasted the result in 5 to 10 years, when it goes from to nearly all AF. and the sellers(women looking to get married) can’t find a buyer.

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