Deep Strength offered his own explanation on why young wives in the UK are divorcing in much lower numbers:
However, when you take into context women getting married closer to the wall — 26-27+ range on average — you get the women over the average of 29s and 30s where they’re not blowing up their marriages because they want children. It’s after they get their children that they start to blow up their marriages.
He brings up an excellent point. Women wanting to have it all have a delicate balancing act to perform, and this gets more difficult every year. Much of this comes from the ever increasing age of first marriage combined with the realities of fertility and the wall. A woman who marries in her late twenties or early thirties doesn’t have time on her side if she hopes to divorce and remarry. If she divorces without having children it isn’t a given that she will be able to remarry in time to have children with partner-for-life number two. Also, she may feel that it is classier to have at least two of her children by the same baby daddy, so this would mean remaining married to her starter husband long enough to have two children.
But it isn’t just having children that the woman attempting to have it all needs to consider when deciding how long to stay married to her starter husband. She also wants to maximize the cash and prizes she receives in the process. Having a child, or better yet two is extremely helpful here, but if she wants alimony depending on the state she may have to wait ten years to discover that she is unhappy. If she wants to be eligible for Social Security benefits based on her first husband’s income (should she not be able to remarry) ten years is the cutoff for that as well.
Waiting ten years to divorce her starter husband doesn’t give today’s have-it-aller much time to enjoy her divorce empowerment and then remarry. If she marries in her late twenties and waits ten years to divorce she will be in her late thirties before she can start sampling penises again. By then her chances to remarry have dropped dramatically, and they will continue to drop each year she fails to remarry*. The problem is worse than the remarriage stats would suggest though, because they don’t take into account the quality of her prospects for remarriage. She found her first husband when she was younger and didn’t have the baggage of another man’s children and a history of not keeping her sacred promise. She now has to sell an older baggage laden version of herself to a smaller pool of eligible men. Not only are single men her own age sought after by the newest crop of marriage delayers, but a large percentage of them earn nothing or next to nothing.
Even if a woman marries and divorces by her early twenties, remarriage will be far more difficult today than it would have been in the past. Remarriage rates for women 20-25 today are half of what they were twenty years ago*.
*See Fig 3 in this new NCFMR paper on remarriage rates. This breaks the age categories to much smaller ones than I was able to do here.
Pingback: Getting to the church on time (a second time). | Manosphere.com
Good point on the alimony.
Honestly, I don’t think that women are taking into account themselves being older and it being much harder to remarry. After all, EPL. They also see celebrities doing it all the time in their 30s, 40s, and 50s so why not them… not taking into the account they aren’t wealthy nor look like celebrities.
I don’t see much long term thinking in this type of crowd aside from the fact that maybe they were maybe somewhat attracted to the husband before marriage, but the husband because a doormat and she’d rather be alone rather than with him. He’s cramping her style. Even if she has to work and be a single parent. Also cash and prizes.
Pure class right there, definitely future mother material. “Mommy, tell me again about all the different kinds of penises you met before you met Daddy’s!”
Another related factor is that the incentives given to women by divorce courts have declined. Courts have gradually been reducing alimony support in general, and have been slowly increasing the amount of spousal support given to men. A woman who will receive fewer “cash and prizes” is less likely to divorce, and one who perceives she may have to bestow “cash and prizes” upon her husband is very much less likely to divorce.
A blog at The Economist took a stab at explaining this a few years ago. From the article:
“Far fewer people than before are getting married, as everyone knows and the chart shows vividly. This suggests that the brave remnant who do choose to enter that uncool estate are pretty committed to it.”
Didn’t we go through something like this here in the U.S. a decade or so ago where it became big news that divorce rates were going down, only to find that it was because the marriage rate had also gone down?
Here is that article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/02/divorce_and_marriage
And some others:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriage-rates-uk-data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576110/Young-married-men-thing-past-fewer-58-000-husbands-age-25.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/divorce/10373894/Britains-married-minority.html
But does this get taught in sex ed?
NOOOOOOOO!
Instead we teach proper use of condoms and the mechanics of putting penis in vagina.
Good Catch man… Well done.
Deep Strength is right that long-term forecasting is not exactly a female strength. As a certain commenter here likes to point out, women have trouble with cause and effect. I really don’t see them planning this out in a detailed manner. I mean, even today’s women don’t marry while planning on divorce (except for gold-diggers and a few others). Yeah, divorce is an option, but its plan B if things don’t work out. That they don’t work out so often is because these women are delusional, not because they intended the marriage to not work out.
Sunshine
The best reply to a mother’s advice to her daughter to delay marriage is to openly in front of everybody of how successful a slut piece of ass she is going to be and how her attractiveness will allow her to get a large number of really sexually arousing dick.
Dalrock
It looks like the losers and douche bags and the MGTOW types are the check on frivorce. PS the frivorce is always after they have kids.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/27/young-children-already-buy-into-gender-stereotypes-to-explain-behaviour-in-fairy-tales-study/
Young children already buy into gender stereotypes to explain behaviour in fairy tales: study
Dominant social norms are carved into young minds so early, children subscribe to traditional gender roles even when reading a feminist storybook like Robert Munsch’s The Paper Bag Princess, new research suggests.
Dalrock,
IMHO…
…the priority here is the sampling of the penises, NOT remarriage. What I am seeing (in my neck of the woods) is ride the cock-carousel from 21 to 26, marry the beta provider at age 28 or 29, have the two kids, get the customary frivorce at age 40, keep the house and collect cash and prizes, and move the unemployed, great looking alpha (with the new improved penis) into the house but do not marry him under any circumstances because it would void some of the cash and prizes (no more beta-provider-alimony upon remarriage.) I know of way too many “cougars” who do this very thing because…. they can. The law empowers the “cougars” and there are lots and lots of unemployed, great looking alpha guys (who live in their parents basement even at age 40, don’t work, but DO spend a lot of time working out in the gym.) Demographics tends to make this more the reality, more the rule than the exception.
Donal Graeme
You nailed it and with the church so busy worshipping pussy they can not and will not see the truth.
With women being the up & coming CEO’s and corporate well-to-do’s; it stands to reason that men will finally be able to:
1) sit back and mind the house
2) pay homage to his sugar-momma
3) take care of the kids
4) ………….and, oh yeah..loom the ‘threatpoint’ of divorce over HER now that he is a kept man.
Awwww sweetums. Did you think you could have your cake AND eat it too?
In all seriousness though, what is desperately needed, to bring some balance, is an entire cohort of women who (not of their choice) cannot secure:
1) marriage
2) children
I truly hope that cheque is in the mail.
Casey
Did you just advocate….Involuntary childless spinterhood as a cultural fix? Dalrock you are the man.
Casey,
They can secure one of these, the children. I knew of one woman who (at age 42) wanted desperately to get married. Unfortunately she was both ugly and morbidly obese. She didn’t give up on marriage (still wanted that) but she DID give up on waiting to have children legitimately. She went to the sperm bank, made her purchase, get inseminated, and sure enough, became pregnant. Sure enough, due to her advanced maternal age, her son was born with full blown Downs Syndrome.
I thought what she did was the ultimate in selfishness. It is not that I wasn’t sympathetic to her plight (she did want to get married but never had even one offer in her life) but having that child, that was all to fulfill some desire on her part, never once did she even consider what was in the best interest of the child. I have since moved away from that part of the country and I have not kept in touch with her. I have prayed for her (and her son who will most likely have an impossible life) but I did NOT congratulate her when I heard the news of what she did.
How did you learn our secrets? OK, it’s time to confess everything. Women are TAUGHT to do what you describe. We learn about it in university in the common room, with charts and everything. Who to target for our starter husband, exactly how you should space your children, and how to know when it’s time to bail. We also get the business cards of some heavy-hitting divorce lawyers who can sort it all out for us.
The only crick in our cunning plan is that ‘alimony’ laws are completely different in the UK.
Maybe if you want to cite a UK study for your theories, you should take that into account.
Donal,
I have said that numerous times. I don’t know if you were referring to me with this comment, but I agree, women have terrible trouble with cause and effect.
Neither do I. But that doesn’t mean that today’s women can’t follow a pattern, follow precise instructions in a how-to-have-it-all-and not-be-stuck-living-with-a-man-you-don’t-love-or-even-respect-for-the-rest-of-your-life manual. That is how I see these “cougar moms” playing these things out, particularly the ones who aren’t willing to do any paid work outside the home. More and more, this lifestyle is a learned behavior.
The way I look at it, the second marriage will only happen if (and only if) the provisioning from husband number two exceeds the alimony provisioning from husband number one. For if it doesn’t, there is a financial disincentive for her to marry and (IMHO) money will trump status.
@ Greyghost
Yes……….I most certainly did.
Yes………Dalrock is the ‘man’.
Unfortunately she was both ugly and morbidly obese.
Ugly is innate, although it can generally be mitigated to some degree. For almost any woman, it can be mitigated enough to secure a man. However, “morbidly obese” is a choice… or, perhaps more accurately, a long series of choices.
Other than horrible deformities that are blessedly rare, I cannot think of many women (out of the tens of thousands I’ve seen in my life) who were so physically repulsive that they couldn’t have snagged a man if they were willing to put in the effort to improve their appearance.
Obesity is so common these days that things as simple as sensible eating and moderate activity (not even strenuous exercise), is enough to put a woman above many (most?) of her age-peers. Honestly, gentlemen, can you think of any woman you’ve ever known who couldn’t have made herself presentable with six months of modest effort? I can’t.
@ IBB
Women can only secure #2 because men are stupid enough to sell (or give away) their sperm.
Where can a man go to secure a viable ovum to be a single dad? Why isn’t this a rallying point for equality? Clearly men are being discriminated in this manner.
I would not trust any court to uphold the ‘donor clause’ if a woman needed to get money to support a child after she’d completed said insemination.
Certainly in all other circumstances, how the sperm got there is of no consideration. The man MUST pay.
IBB – agreed, this woman friend of yours was incredibly selfish, short-sighted, and it had long-term consequences.
Sounds like a microcosm of the behaviour of which MRAs speak.
@Donalgraem
Yes and no. To some degree this “just happens”, in the way that any form of promiscuity does (male or female). There is no need for a script when going feral, that is the whole point.
But at the same time young women are more aware of this than you are giving them credit for. My wife was talking to some middle school aged girls at a Christian private school a number of years ago. When she told them how long she had been married, they exclaimed “To the same man!”. These same girls talked openly about what they would look for in a “starter husband”.
@ Casey
The first part of your “plan” wouldn’t work because women generally don’t marry men like that. Its a very rare occurrence, even accounting for “kitchen bitches.” Instead, women will revert to the complaint of “where have all the good men gone?”
@ greyghost
Some see the truth, but choose to ignore it. It is easier that way. Others are so blind they cannot see the truth until you shove it in their faces.
@ IBB
Actually, I meant TFH, but I recall you have said the same as well. And you are right, it is a pattern, not a plan. After all, plans require thinking ahead, which isn’t so common from the subject group. The pattern is predicable, however, because women are responding to similar situations in similar ways, because the overall environment and their own nature directs them to that particular path.
@ Bodycrimes
Thanks for admitting to what we already knew.
Nice rebuilding of the mound by the way.
So we may have gotten the particulars of UK alimony laws incorrect.
SO WHAT?
Is it your position that UK alimony laws are fair and unbiased towards men?
If so, pack up your nonsense and go home.
You are erecting a strawman defense. I’m happy to tear it down for you.
@ Dalrock
Good Lord. I would expect that kind of thinking from NY or LA socialites, where “starter spouses” are known of and part of the socially acceptable climate. But middle school students in a private Christian school? I knew it was bad, but unless that school was a “Christian” school for those kinds of socialites, then the rot has spread too far to be contained.
[D: This was at a Christian school here in the Bible Belt.]
Casey,
Sidebar.
Its just money for the short-sighted, intelligent, and athletically fit hedonistic male. The bank will not take just any sperm, they want the specimens only from the physical specimens. I knew a guy who made $10,000 over 3.5 years for jerking off into a cup, $35 a sample. Just nine masturbations a month, that is over $300 right there. That was all his spending money while at Boston University. But yes his personal actions enabled her selfish behavior.
Donal,
At this point, I would say the pattern is WELL documented now. The path is a WELL beaten one, very easy to follow. They are just adjusting to whatever advantage they can get, gaming the system for all that they can. Shame on them for that (but) I still expect them to do it.
@ donalgraeme
“Instead, women will revert to the complaint of “where have all the good men gone?””
Yes, they have, are, and will revert to that statement.
When you hear that directionless plea, respond as I do.
Tell her……….”You drove them into extinction!”
Lyn87,
Unfortunately I can, far too many.
Pingback: The Cougar and the Player | Something Fishy
Welcome Bodycrimes.
No need for a secret room; see any form of entertainment aimed at women.
Deep Strength’s comment was in response to another post specific to the UK. With this post my focus was on the US. The trend in delayed marriage and the realities of biology apply to both countries. All of the links in this post reference the US, but I didn’t note that the US was the context. My apologies for any confusion this caused.
@ Casey
Nah. My response is to tell them “As far away from you as they can possibly get.”
bodycrimes says:
May 28, 2014 at 1:02 pm
You are not collectively that intelligent. Most of you are indoctrinated from child hood on up to believe you can do anything and deserve everything. In reality you are led around by your noses and told what to think through your piers, academia and the media.
You have everything handed to you on a silver platter. Standards are lowered and quotas are met, and most of you have the audacity to believe you’ve accomplished something on your own. You go girl.
@ IBB
“But yes, his personal actions enabled her selfish behavior.”
His behaviour was selfish too.
Spanking his seed into a cup for money without a care for HIS future offspring is shortsighted, selfish, and has long-term consequences.
kooky “bodycrimes” has already been deconstructed:
http://mattforney.com/2014/02/09/is-feminist-blogger-cynthia-gockley-a-dangerous-stalker/
Casey,
I told him that. He just justified it in two ways: #1) he said that there were millions and millions of infertile couples who want children but can’t have any without his seed and #2) he said it is male human nature to want to breed with as many different women as humanly possible and this offers him the cheapest way to accomplish this.
@ IBB
I’d hazard a guess that most ‘infertile couples’ are usually due to a girls plumbing, especially with the envogue delay of pregnancy these days.
So I’ll scrap his #1 argument, and say his seed is likely enroute to the nearest lesbian couple or wannabe single mother.
Argumen #2 is just total crap. Part of the problem……….none of the solution.
As I said Casey, he was (at that time) a hedonist. He has since gotten married so I certainly hope for his sake (and also the sake of his wife and his children) that he has re-evaluated his thinking. I fear he hasn’t.
I suppose I am now expected to say exactly what the law of Alimony is in England and Wales: it might be useful to do so because Americans often assume that it is the same as where they are (which for all I know it might be) and then blame me as a Misogynist intent on wrecking men’s lives (whereas my female clients blamed me for not fighting hard enough for their entitlements). Simply, on Divorce, the Court attempts to place the parties in the same position, by way of Lump Sum payments or Annuity, as they would have been in, had the marriage not broken down. Note I said Divorce – there is no such thing as Common Law marriage or Palimony and if you never married you need to try and find something in the Married Woman’s Property Act of 1870 (which does not seem to require marriage) to assist. I am probably not up to date so please don’t rely on this should you be thinking of Divorcing in England and Wales.
Here is a snap shot into the mind of Bodycrimes:
As long time readers of this blog know all too well, I’ve spent the last six or seven months mocking the ‘manosphere’, a collection of pick-up artists, misogynists and hard-right reactionaries, who believe that civilisation has been careening towards hell in a handbasket, ever since women got the vote. While they claim to hate feminism, what truly unites them is their rage against women.
She also blames the manosphere for the shootings in Santa Barbara.
What would make a man believe that women who rejected him deserved to die? Why would he believe that he had to prove himself a “true Alpha Male”? David Futrelle, a longtime watcher of the manosphere, is running updates on the story, but has already discovered that Rodger has been a commenter at at least one misogyny site, while DailyKos.com have discovered he was a subscriber to ‘men’s rights’ channels on YouTube.
http://bodycrimes.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/misogyny-is-a-deadly-game/
I have prayed for her (and her son who will most likely have an impossible life) but I did NOT congratulate her when I heard the news of what she did.
I welcome the day when decent, moral men and women actively shame, scold, and ridicule women who do selfish, careless, thoughtless, shortsighted things like what this woman did, rather than congratulate them. I would be the one to send out a “condolences to the baby for his/her choice of mother” notice rather than a congratulatory card to the mother. In other words, stop subsidizing and encouraging undesirable behavior (by congratulating and encouraging those who engage in it).
(Hatahs, feel free to flame away, but you ain’t gonna change my POV.)
JDG,
The Santa Barbara shooting has gotten a lot of attention from feminists. In responses to the shooter’s so-called misogyny (not really buying it, but just watching the media coverage and the language used), tons of women have been tweeting their experiences with sexual harassment, being objectified, sexual violence using the hashtag #yesallwomen. I believe it’s been tweeted over a million times. So I guess when something tragic happens, it has to be framed as a woman’s issue.
Opus says:
May 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Is fault a factor in the setting of alimony?
Thank you Dalrock (for the post and for fixing my typo).
@hurting
Good Question
In theory, if the behaviour of the other party is so gross and obvious such that it would be unconscionable that the award should not be affected then behaviour may be taken into account, however, no sane lawyer would ever try to run that argument – Judges are not interested – and so in practice the answer is not just No but Never.
The position is just as I described it; to put the parties in exactly the same position as if there has been no Divorce. This, of course, is frequently impossible, because two people can live more cheaply than one. It is also the case that as it is (or was) usually the case that the Man was the more successful bread-winner, transfer of assets would be from man to woman – but that does not have to be the case.
I recall advising one young lady that walking out of her marriage to a wealthy farmer after six months would gain her not one cent! – she told me that I was the fourth lawyer to so advise her! (God she was ugly).
Having said that an acquaintance of mine told me that his female lawyer advised him to get out of his childless marriage (he had found his wife in bed with another man) as cheaply as he could and thus encouraged him to hand the house to the wife. I bit my lip, for that is the very opposite of the advice I would have given – women lawyers seem incapable of supporting a man whether the matter is one of divorce or otherwise unconnected; they are always anti-male – unless they fancy you.
True. The largest part of every interpretation of mixed data is finding apples to compare with apples. The demographics of those getting married HAVE changed, a lot.
Not totally related, but since I am only posting at the pledge like once a month now, thought your readers might be interested.
http://courtshippledge.com/2014/05/the-story-of-jim/
Back to the discussion…
Although, m’learned friend, there has been an almighty hoo!, and in fact an additional ha! these last few days, over the recent “inducements” offered to the “non-resident parent” or whatever by the new Child Maintenance Service (I swear they change the name every other week now).
I realise this has very little to do with yer actual Alimony, but in marriageless Blighty, particularly among us of the lower orders as wot carn’t afford your middle clarss morality (not you yourself sir, I means in gen’r’l, beggin’ y’r onner’s pardin an’ such), it amounts to much the same article.
Twenty quid to the usual omniscient and impartial overlords to consider the case.
Then a fifth (i.e. a double tithe) to “the paying parent” (oh I wonder who that might be?) on top of whatever has been determined a-a-aaaand, here’s the kicker … “the receiving parent” (nobody in particular, obviously) to pay yet another 4%!
To the administrators.
Shows who the system is set up to benefit at the end of the day.
Kids, just fuckoff&die please, you’re obstructing some fine gold-plated public-sector pensions here.
Yet this 4% “loss” has been loudly trumpeted by the usual suspects (**Auntie Beeb kof kof**) for many airtime hours as a hideous misogynistic blow by the evil tory administration. Because “the receiving parent”, as any fule kno, might just happen to be (gasphetti!), ay .. laydee.
From Baggage lady to bag lady.
@ TFH
You might find my latest post interesting, as it makes similar points to what you argued in your most recent comment.
@Boxer
Thanks for the link. She is in a “relationship with a 65 year old transsexual woman”????……Sounds like a real winner!….UGH! She seems obsessed with bashing the Manosphere?….yet,she lists Dalrock on her Blogroll?….WTF? And what does Dalrock have to say when she posts here…..””Welcome Bodycrimes””……This is why Mister ‘D’ is a class act!
Looks like feminists are trying to get the government to declare the MRM a terrorist group no kidding:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/classify-mens-rights-movement-terrorist-group/W5018W63
I’ll let you know when I start caring about what feminists or the government think…
“Bodycrimes”, as a semiotic concept-word thingy, is presumably intended to be counter-re-revolutionary to “thoughtcrimes” in which a supremely fallible authority punishes you for thinking about doing what you know it thinks is wrong for you to do. Hence, she presumably wants us to believe she *bodily* does what she thinks we think is is wrong for her to do, and moreover she wants us to punish her for doing it, so she can think we thereby reveal our fallibility. And she wants us to play like we get three wishes, I mean one guess, at what her bodycrimes comprise. The answer, of course, is “Yes. Duh.” I hope she considers this paragraph punishment enough. But there’s plenty more where this came from.
@Infowarrior
Thanks for the link.I read the petition.The thing that struck me as very odd is that it mentions Marc Lepine who was the “mental case” that headed up the Montreal Massacre.This happened in 1989! Being from Toronto I remember it very well.There was no MRM that I recall in 1989….or the internet…or Manosphere Blogs! This shows you how delusional and psychotic the RadFems are.
Just read this article over lunch. The “sampling penises” article was disgusting . Imagine he furore feminists would cause if some player decide to write an equivalent article about women’s vaginas?
Thomas James Ball did not firebomb a courthouse as the petition claims. He self-immolated himself on the courthouse steps as a protest against the injustice of family court.
The term “starter marriage” traditionally means a short marriage that did not produce children. Maybe now with women postponing marriage and desiring children from their starter husbands, we will see something new: the starter family.
Boxer my reading from the Matt Forney post and comments left me with the impression that Cynthia Gockley and the woman who hosts bodycrimes are not the same person but rather comrads in arms so to speak. Did I miss something?
Dear JDG:
I am unclear on whether Gockley is the hostess of bodycrimes also. Gockley is a regular participant on bodycrimes’ blog, but is may not be the primary kook who usually authors articles there.
The linked article suggests (with evidence) that the “bodycrimes” persyn (who may or may not be Gockley) has a long history of stalking/harassing people who are not public figures (i.e. the family members of people s/h/it disagrees with).
Of course anyone who hosts a blog or comments publicly ought to be fair game for criticism, but this sort of amateur terrorism (stalking and harassing the children of people you don’t like) is out of line, and I thought it was important to share information on this cretin to anyone who may not know who s/h/it is, if only so that we could all properly laugh at and mock s/h/it.
Right after Forney exposed Gockley and “bodycrimes”, all of Gockley’s associated blogs (including bodycrimes) went offline for several days. A couple of these have since returned, with a much less confrontational tone (I’m amused to note that the bodycrimes blog is now pretending to care about fatherhood – lol, and roosh’n me is also no longer posting photographs of family members of people the host disagrees with).
In any event, there’s our opposition: as well-reasoned and stable as their last dose of antidepressant medications can make them.
Regards, Boxer
@JDG
Here is a snapshot into the mind of Bodycrimes:
I think she’s making a hasty generalization (I mean that in the fallacy sense), since her grammar implies that the manosphere* believes it to be universally true. What frequently seems to be the cause is that people read writings of/on the manosphere through others, and rarely read it themselves, in whole and with some variation. I say that in the existential, not universal sense. Beyond that it has been stated (by people on various feminist sites), in a moment of clarity, that this practice is reasonably common – learning about the MRM/Manosphere secondhand or through cursory inspection of a post or two. John Stuart Mill stated:
I think that summarizes why the (e)valuations of the MRM/Manosphere often ring false for those who consider themselves within it. I don’t know if those false statements are due to laziness, or malice, or something else.
*the definition is difficult, though. Is she using the word ‘manosphere’ as those in it use it, or only inclusive of those she thinks it’s a collection of (which isn’t that large – seems like it backfired on her, if she chose that route).
“…the priority here is the sampling of the penises, NOT remarriage. What I am seeing (in my neck of the woods) is ride the cock-carousel from 21 to 26, marry the beta provider at age 28 or 29, have the two kids, get the customary frivorce at age 40, keep the house and collect cash and prizes, and move the unemployed, great looking alpha (with the new improved penis) into the house but do not marry him under any circumstances because it would void some of the cash and prizes (no more beta-provider-alimony upon remarriage.) I know of way too many “cougars” who do this very thing because…. they can.
“Because they can.” Indeed. Only anecdotal, of course, but it always amazes me that the timeline is so precise. My situation (Urban East Coast USA): (1) Ex rode CC from age 17-28; (2) married nice, high-earning beta schlub at age 29; (3) Had four kids; (4) had EPL affair(s) at 39 and filed for divorce at 40; (5) Now lives with her upgrade on and off in the house I paid for. He is much, much richer than I am so hopefully she marries him soon. If not….she still gets the monthly checks (1 for child support and 1 for spousal maintenance) from me….so…. she’s golden.
The seen: No obligation to work. Lots of vacations to nice places and lots of romance with a handsome, wealthy soul mate. Nice life if you can swing it, I guess. Luckily for her and others of her ilk, our entire legal/social apparatus has been established to underwrite and lionize this ‘fabulous’ lifestyle choice.
The unseen: A very, very angry and depressed 12 year old boy in therapy. A once confident and joyous 9 year old boy who wanders around shy and sullen most of the time. A bright 7 year old boy who’s teaches tell me he is having trouble learning because of emotional issues. And a beautiful 4 year old girl who is terminally confused about what happened to her home and mommy and other daddy.
No worries y’all …..the unseen is airbrushed on Facebook and “they are all doing just great.” “Life is good.”
Full democracy is thus an amazingly unsustainable thing that is only seen as normal because our lifetimes are a bit too short to observe the full timeline it takes for a society with full democracy to become a ‘feminist’ police state + goddess cult.
How many democracies fit this? I don’t know of many (1?) before the modern age. Current ones would seem to need to play out much more to ensure our observations are complete.
It also happens similarly even in remarriage situations (which happens when there is no alimony disincentive to marry the new guy). Since CS is alimonyesque in terms of how it is calculated (basically a share of your income goes to your ex), and it isn’t impacted by remarriage regardless of the new couple’s combined income, so in that situation it tends to be a remarriage rather than a cohabitation.
I know of a case where a couple divorced, no alimony (she was a lawyer he was a doctor), but substantial CS from exH to exW for two kids. She, quite an attractive woman (tall, thin, blonde, looked like a model in her 20s) well into her 40s, remarried a couple of years later to a man who was a senior partner of a law firm, making quite a lot of money, who was also recently divorced, never had kids. As someone who never had any interest in having kids, one of his stipulations was that he would have nothing much to do with the kids – as in, come home after work, go to mancave, she deals with kids. After kids go to bed, H and W socialize and so on. Separate vacations without the kids (she takes the kids on vacation by herself, or they go with exH). Of course, exH still pays the same level of CS, even though her disposable income is now through the roof, because the kids aren’t new H’s responsibility, so as a practical matter the CS is now a slush fund more or less. The kids are doing terribly – two sons. The exH is around and sees them often enough, but she’s very careful it doesn’t get to be too much so as to impact the CS. Her former nanny saw how deplorable the situation was and wrote exH a letter about it, and so he tried to change the custody arrangements based on her testimony, but failed, so the kids are stuck in a shit situation with a stepfather who doesn’t give a shit about them so that their mom’s self esteem needs could be sated (she is, in fact, one of the most vain people I have ever met in person). Such is life. Of course, the first marriage was annulled, so her second marriage was also in the church (second hub isn’t a Catholic, but that’s allowed). Them’s the rules these days, folks.
No worries y’all …..the unseen is airbrushed on Facebook and “they are all doing just great.” “Life is good.”
One hopes that a special, particularly ugly part of hell awaits such women.
NovaSeeker, I hope you don’t mind, but I quoted you over on bluepill centre a/k/a Christian Forums
http://www.christianforums.com/t7824842/#post65702240
“Imagine he furore feminists would cause if some player decide to write an equivalent article about women’s vaginas?”
Your wish is Roosh’s command.
http://www.rooshv.com/30-types-of-pussy
That’s fine. It will be read as demonic and misogynistic, I’m sure, buyt that’s the venue.
When I see all these women marrying a guy who is happy to raise another man’s kids, I can’t help to wonder if there is something biological there. Something like the preference of men for young women and the preference of women for alphas.
I completely understand the woman: she is making a rational move if she is divorced and tries to marry another man. More resources for her. Alpha genes, beta bucks and so on and so forth.
But, when I see the men… Boy, that’s depressing! They are eager to marry a woman and raise her kids. They are eager to get pre-cuckolded. They are happy with the kid and the mother. They are the image of happiness. It is not that the single mom has to try hard, the guy is eager to raise her thugspawn.
I reached the conclusion that, it must be this way in the old days (during the prehistoy, the EEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_evolutionary_adaptedness#Environment_of_evolutionary_adaptedness).
Alphas got all women pregnant when the women were in their prime. After that, the only chance that a beta has to have a kid is marrying a woman that has had a kid from an alpha and that the alpha has rejected. So this is why men who are enthusiastic to marry such a woman were selected by evolution.
They get to be the hero. watch a day time talk show and see the proud man of a slut boasting about he was there for the bastard child. And the crowd applause was there approving.
@ imnobody
If evolutionary theory is accurate, then I have to agree that it most likely was just like that. Attractive women dallied with the “Alphas” (a term I dislike, but will use since you brought it up), and when they got older, had kids in tow and were no longer attractive, were cast aside. At this point they were picked up by the “Beta’s”, whose off of lasting material support mattered much more to the women at this point. It was their only real chance to have any opportunity to procreate themselves. Most probably had to take care of the woman’s children by other men as part of the deal. But given their available options, what else could they do if they want access to a woman?
@ greyghost
I believe that Empath calls that “The Lift.”
A FB friend of mine just went on a long diatribe about how much she has accomplished in life, and she should stop being so critical of herself, enjoy the moment, blah blah.
What struck me most about the comment was something like “through it all I have survived with my family intact.”
She is a single mom with two little ones at home. I don’t know if she was ever married to the father. I think maybe she was. So by “intact” family, she is referring to herself and her kids ONLY.
Everyone is making the usual cheering-on comments, about how awesome she is and how proud they are of her…
But I can’t get that one part out of my head. There is no sense in the current culture of this one thing that has always struck me as the most powerful thing about the institution of marriage: It (God, actually) takes two people who are otherwise totally unrelated and MAKES THEM FAMILY. In fact, it makes the next of kin.
To say my “family is intact” without the father is so depressing to me. I wanted to jump onto the party and say these things, but of what use would it be? Those of us who believe these things are so weird now. So out of touch with the norms.
But that’s the thing no one likes to contemplate in these discussions; the fact that many times, if these women are under 40 (actually from what I’ve witnessed under 50, even) they were remarrying without a whole lot of trouble.
Maybe not to the cream of the crop guy, but that’s hardly the point. The point is that even with their advancing age and children in tow, someone found them attractive enough that they were willing to marry them, baggage and all.
Dalrock’s stats were very educational to me, because without them I wouldn’t have believed that such women have as hard a time remarrying as they reveal since I see so many of them do it with my own eyes. Some of them repeatedly.
@Elspeth
… they were remarrying without a whole lot of trouble.
Maybe not to the cream of the crop guy, but that’s hardly the point. The point is that even with their advancing age and children in tow, someone found them attractive enough that they were willing to marry them, baggage and all.
Dalrock’s stats were very educational to me, because without them I wouldn’t have believed that such women have as hard a time remarrying as they reveal since I see so many of them do it with my own eyes. Some of them repeatedly.
Probably a good anecdotal indicator of just how thoroughly “blue pill” most men still are. I wonder if an increasing trend in red pill awareness will match up with the continuing decline in remarriage figures that Dalrock cites.
TFH,
“If a very rich man is seeing a 40 year old woman with 4 kids, then he is a loser (unless he himself is ~60 or so). In fact, he and his money will soon be parted, one way or the other.”
He is in fact — a trust fund douche who has never really held a real job in his entire life. A divorced, clinically depressed addict with two kids of his own from two different women. But even aside from the $$$$$$, he is younger, taller, better looking and more muscular.
Getting traded up for hurts on a lot of levels but I’m over that for the most part. What I will NEVER get over is that this loser gets to spend more time with my kids than I do. It makes me have very bad thoughts.
Yes, such women can remarry if they really want to. The challenge comes from the type of guys they can manage to attract, and that depends on their age, appearance, demeanor — overall level of attractiveness, in other words.
Just like guys will line up for a chance at the hot 20 year old regardless of whether she is a total bitch, guys who are in the market for women 35-50 will line up for the attractive ones, regardless of the rest of the baggage (divorce, kids, etc.). The issue, as always, is what guys are standing in the line, and whether these guys are guys she is interested in marrying. That varies based on how attractive she is — the more attractive she is, the better the guys in line will be, although it does have to be said that the best guys are likely never going to be in the line to begin with, and even in the “good” line, she may still be looking at a downgrade from ex-H. On the other hand, if she overestimates her own attractiveness, she may not even get the guys in the good line at all. But in general women who are rather attractive, even if divorced with kids, have no issues at all remarrying. The ones who struggle with it are ones who bring less to the table, and so the candidates who are in the line are not interesting from the marriage point of view for the most part.
Nova:
Right. Most women who are reasonably attractive can remarry, even as they go into middle age (40 or over). The main reason is that men want sex and will do whatever it takes to get it.
It is not that they can be remarried. It is that there will be guys EAGER AND HAPPY to remarry them.
The manosphere cliché about the divorced women that cannot receive attention from guys and live with their cats is only true in two situations:
a) Fuglies and morbidly obese women.
b) Women who are insanely picky.
@Elspeth
There are several things at play and the stats help us understand them:
1) Remarriage rates are very much influenced by age. Young women are far more able to remarry than older women, and this is true across the age spectrum.
2) While #1 holds true, it is getting harder over time for women of all ages to remarry.
3) While #1 and #2 are both true, many divorcées in the present day, even older divorcées, are still able to remarry.
In 1990 nearly 250 out of every 1,000 early 20s divorcées remarried in any given year. This number is huge, as it represents nearly a quarter of them, and the time frame is a mere year. There is of course churn here as the divorcées moved between divorce and remarriage, and the least interested or desirable ones aged out of the age bracket. Fast forward 20 years, and while the remarriage rate has been cut to roughly half the 1990 rate for this age bracket, it still means that roughly 13% of the divorcées in this age bracket remarry every year. A young divorcée generally still has very little problem remarrying, even though the rate is half what it was 20 years ago.
While it is much harder for a middle aged divorcée to get remarried, and getting harder over time, it still happens fairly often. As Figure 3 in the linked paper shows, a bit over 50 out of 1,000 35-44 year old divorcées remarry every year, and 25 out of 1,000 45-54 year old divorcées remarry every year. Now we are down to roughly 0.25% (per year). Given enough time, pretty much all of the these women who want to remarry, aren’t truly hideous, and are realistic about their own MMV would remarry given this rate, but it would take an incredibly long time especially for the latter bracket; only roughly 2.5% would be able to remarry in a decade. But time is the very thing older divorcées lack. Once that decade is over the pool of men gets even more scarce, her MMV is even lower, and the chances at remarriage cut to roughly half what they were before (it is hard to guess the exact number but something like 10 per 1,000, or 1%).
We saw a wedding a while back ago at a picturesque little place off the beach where we take our kids sometimes. It was a small ceremony, and the bride was wearing red. She was at least 40, maybe 45. I assumed the red dress was a clear indication that she’s done this before. Groom wasn’t too bad looking either.
So I’mnobody00 is on to something. The numbers are certainly worse than they would be for a blushing (ROFL) bride of 23 or 24, but these chicks are getting married.
Actually more like joined in adulterous unions, but you get my point.
Thanks for the stats Dalrock.
I’ve found a couple of things (and this is very anecdotal of course). A lot of women over 50 don’t really WANT to remarry. They are not looking to be re-tethered to the demands of marriage. Or so they say.
Those who do want to get married though, usually want to quite desperately and I suppose those are the remarried ladies represented by your numbers.
Elspeth said:
“But that’s the thing no one likes to contemplate in these discussions; the fact that many times, if these women are under 40 (actually from what I’ve witnessed under 50, even) they were remarrying without a whole lot of trouble.
Maybe not to the cream of the crop guy, but that’s hardly the point. The point is that even with their advancing age and children in tow, someone found them attractive enough that they were willing to marry them, baggage and all.
Dalrock’s stats were very educational to me, because without them I wouldn’t have believed that such women have as hard a time remarrying as they reveal since I see so many of them do it with my own eyes. Some of them repeatedly.”
I have seen the same thing. My theory is that attractive women will _always_ be in demand, [no matter how much baggage] because too many guys think with their dicks. This problem continues into the later years, even guys who know better still think with their dicks.
@Elspeth
Yes. Hordes of over 50 women who don’t give a thought to finding a husband come to this old post of mine to express how vehement they are in their apathy. Note that while the post is over three years old, it still consistently is listed in the blog’s current “Top Posts” (even today, see the top posts list to the right).
In other words, BS. Their interest in marriage coincidentally dropped exactly when their opportunity went away. This is corroborated by both Rollo’s curve and the dramatic decline in divorce rates we observe as women hit this age range. It is (as a group) sour grapes, pure and simple.
A lot of women over 50 don’t really WANT to remarry.
It is not that they don’t want to remarry. If it is that they don’t want to remarry the men who would be willing to marry them.. Between the option of marrying a lesser man or stay alone, they choose to stay alone.
This also explains because the remarriage rate decreases when they get older.
Sorry, this should be read: “hey don’t want to MARRY the men who would be willing to marry them”
“Right. Most women who are reasonably attractive can remarry, even as they go into middle age (40 or over). The main reason is that men want sex and will do whatever it takes to get it.”
There are a lot of men who are just ‘coming into their own’ in their early 30s. The attractive divorcee woman has a well burnished, well polished narrative ready to hook him – full of sorrowful declarations of ‘how stupid she was’, and of a heretofore-unseen self-awareness about ‘who she is’ and ‘what she really wants in life’.
So there are men who take well over a decade of adulthood to establish themselves. And they are, in the relative blink of an eye, consigned to slavery as they purchase the pretty little aging liar.
It is not that they don’t want to remarry. If it is that they don’t want to remarry the men who would be willing to marry them.. Between the option of marrying a lesser man or stay alone, they choose to stay alone.
Right. The men who are in line are not interesting for marriage, so they themselves suddenly become uninterested in marriage.
Of course, there are also women who divorce only at 50 or 55 who really are tired of being married and do not want to remarry. They want to get their last chance to EPL a bit, having been weighed down by a spouse and kids for a few decades.
Elspeth is correct. For all my flaws, I know, and have known, very many single postmenopausal women. A huge percentage, I would say a majority for sure, are indeed “through with all that nonsense” about sex and romantic relationships. Although I’m sure they’d be happy to have a boyfriend to squire them around, they are much less interested than they were prior to menopause, and even when younger the vast majority of women were never (never, not once) motivated enough to actually pursue some man.
Women, in the main, want marriage for the status it brings them. It brings her affirmation and validation of her worth as a woman. Some man somewhere thought enough of her, valued her highly enough, to wife her up and bestow on her the title “Mrs”. It’s not really for the money or the source of support, though these are good benefits. It’s about affirming and validating her – telling and showing her that she has value and worth as a woman.
It seems the issues surrounding remarriage are much the same. A woman in her 40s who is attractive enough wants to remarry for much the same reason. She isn’t 22 anymore and she knows it. But she wants to remarry at bottom for the status, though it’s more complicated and far flung. She doesn’t want to be the “divorcee”, the fifth wheel, the odd woman out, in the “herd” or group of friends. She wants to know that she’s still “got it”, that she can still use her feminine wiles and charms to get a man. But most of all, she wants to know that she still has value and worth as a sexual creature, as a woman. She is more than just a housekeeper or a mom or an employee. She is a WOMAN, and she wants to be treated as such by a suitable man.
The worst thing that could happen to her is that she wants to remarry but is unable to do so. She wants to be a “Mrs”, but no man will have her. She lacks validation even from the most undesirable men. Even the bottom of the barrel “omega” men will not marry her. These are the sorts of women who, I submit, write in to Dalrock’s “over 55” post.
Well some women remarry. But many things matter. My sister got remarried, but it was her husband who left her and she was in her early thirties, she’s earning well and her new husband, same age without kids, had a crush on her at university. They had a miscarriage, so she was not averse to having his kids. I have friends who have married late to women only slightly younger. But mostly a woman has to be much younger to have a chance with an older guy. A divorced friend with kids had a relationship with a much younger woman for some years, but she left him when clock started ticking a few years into her thirties and she was able to find a childless guy the same age who wanted children.
If the post-40 women that dating sites keep pushing at me (despite my settings and profile rejecting them) are any indication, not being noticeably overweight would put a woman well ahead of the pack. In fact, I see so few slim, attractive women on there that I assume they get snapped up quickly in their social circle and never make it to the dating sites.
I know some women who remarried late, and some who didn’t. For those other than the most attractive ones, I think it’s mostly a matter of luck. If a dumpy woman spends a few years jumping into bed with every man who shows an interest, she might run across one who’s marriage minded and as desperate as her, and end up married. Or she might have a lot of one-night-stands and a few 3-month relationships that end when she starts to get clingy, and wind up writing at age 42 about how all men are commitment-phobic little boys these days. I think it’s pretty much a crap-shoot.
“It is not that they don’t want to remarry. If it is that they don’t want to remarry the men who would be willing to marry them.. Between the option of marrying a lesser man or stay alone, they choose to stay alone.”
Yep. I live in the Tampa/St. Pete area. It’s a microcosm for the future of America when you add in Sarasota. Age 30, there are literally twice as many single/frivorced women w/ college degrees as there are similarly credentialed single men. At 40, it’s at least 3 times as many. Also, salaries are really low here. Median household income was around $40k for St. Pete, less than half DC Metro where I’m from… pretty sure FL wages have dropped further. Mind, there are a lot of guys at that age who do not work full-time but still meet their own needs quite handsomely, including doing stuff like living off a sailboat, paying $300 a month for a shared apartment, you name it.
Some single professional mom types will, quite openly, become mistresses to still-married men of status, rather than date the ne’er-do-wells.. A guy like me, who used to come off quite beta, it’d be sex on the first date, then they’d try to move in on the second. I just wasn’t used to anything quite that… trailer park when I first arrived, so I didn’t express my objections to their highly inappropriate behavior fast enough. They’d get insane when I explained a few days later why there wouldn’t be a third date, just the most bizarre stuff if they’d thought they’d hooked ya.
I did learn to spot the type a bit faster after a few months, but then I also developed a new skill that let me chat up girls much younger who found me attractive, rather than my AmEx platinum. There are few things in life quite as much fun as seeing the face of a gal, little younger than yourself, who had previously tried to rope you in, now on a Match.com date with a man 15 years her senior, contort as she watches as you jumping off the stage to sing Kings of Leon or Buckcherry and dance with girls 10-15 years her junior.
/One in particular, we call her Cameron Diaz, late 30s, blonde, slim, kid off to college, ringer for that “He’s a French model” gal in the Allstate Commercials. Every time she sees me now, her face goes blank, she stares and is about to sob. I don’t even know her real name, but early on she did explain how I was a coward for not going to salsa lessons with her (my knee was in a brace at that point.) I feel for her dates.
It also helps if she can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch and look like she’s enjoying it as much as he is. The guy in his early 30s, especially if he was married for several years and then frivorced, may have gone through several years of enforced celibacy and/or boring “Don’t touch that, that’s gross” duty sex. A woman whose body is still tight enough to make him hard, and who sexes him up with abandon like it’s her favorite thing to do, can seem like he hit the jackpot.
This is very cynical, but: next to attractiveness, that’s probably the most important factor in which ones are able to remarry.
Personal example. A woman colleague, a geophysicist, is approaching 60 a decade after a gray divorce (no kids). She is affable but shy, very feminine without being either girly or old lady, in sum neat, sweet, petite. She has confided her total lack of interest in “all that”, and she often wonders why men still approach her thinking she might be interested. I don’t know that the divorce was due to her lack of interest, but her ex married a younger girlfriend and had a child.
Most of the divorced women I know under 50 want to remarry. It’s right when they get to around 50 or 55, when the last leeeetle bit of chance she has for remarrying slips away, that they decide they’re no longer interested in marriage or “all that”.
Example: I’ve written about my friend whose wife frivorced him after 17 years of marriage. They have two teenaged sons. He’s now 47. He remarried 18 months after the frivorce because he’s Christian and extramarital sex is out of the question. (He doesn’t do well as a single man; doesn’t do well being alone; which to me was a big reason he had problems in his first marriage.)
But his ex Wife is the real story. She was 42 when she left the marriage and is now 44. She dropped a lot of weight in the last year of the marriage (HUGE red flag indicating W is preparing her exodus) and now looks pretty good. She’s attractive enough to remarry, or at least she should be. She dates plenty, but so far she’s not remarried and no prospects for remarriage are on the horizon. She’s ramped up her hypergamy too – she has made it clear she wants to date a man of means. She’s tired of being poor and isn’t going to marry a man who cannot support her well. But she is clear – she very, very much wants to remarry and is actively looking for a new husband.
Regarding the evolutionary theory idea:
Let’s say a young woman marries Brock McBeefcake and has his children. She blows up the marriage and then seeks out Steady Eddie for her second husband. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Eddie is settling for her and her baggage because it is his only chance to procreate. Brock and Eddie might be the same man, separated by a decade or two.
When he was younger, he married and started a family, but things didn’t work out and he got frivorced. He’s alienated from his children and sad that he didn’t get a chance to raise a family. He wants a second chance. So he marries again. He’s 40-45 by now and not looking for another 20 year old wife. But he can find a 30-35 year old who will marry him and give him one or two children. She has a few kids from her previous marriage but he figures, hey, so do I.
So now he’s heartbroken that he doesn’t know his kids from the first marriage. They spend more time with their stepdad than with him. Years later, he’s doing the same thing to the father of his wife’s children.
And the cycle continues.
“A woman whose body is still tight enough to make him hard, and who sexes him up with abandon like it’s her favorite thing to do, can seem like he hit the jackpot.
This is very cynical, but: next to attractiveness, that’s probably the most important factor in which ones are able to remarry.”
Certainly, great point. I’d say this is even true if the early 30-something guy, just coming into his own, is in fact socially/sexually adept enough to have hit-or-miss sex with mediocre-looking, slightly-older ‘cougars’ and single moms from the local tavern etc…
But a paradox, from what I’ve seen, is that there’s another key component in an attractive aging divorcee woman successfully selling the ‘I’m re-marriageable’ meme to the poor guy…
Which is – not only is she attractive, not only is she sexually eager for him/responsive/enthusiastic, but she also oh-so-earnestly declares, just before sex happens for the 1st time with him: I take sex very seriously, you know….
And what ensues over the next months and years after that honeymoon period of enthusiastic sex – is that proverbial ‘slow torture trickle’ of information revealing the vast extent of her multifarious past sexual partners and sexual escapades…
@TomC.
This can happen but I was talking about never married men without kids that happily marry single moms. Not omegas, but higher betas.
One thing that is never really brought up in the debate about marriage and remarriage is suicide and other destructive behavior and prison. This might be a little off topic, but it would seem to me that these things, especially suicide, would play a role in a woman’s chances to marry and then remarry.
The thing that brought me to the manosphere and red pill was the fact that my buddy and roommate, a good looking guy in his 20s, killed himself after a failed relationship. He never really got any action, but was into a number of sports in HS and was studying premed and he was a John Stamos look-a-like. Not kidding, he couldn’t have been his body double. Anyways, after that I had a few other bad things happen, I was friends with Christian Shannon and her boyfriend who got murdered, google it if you want, and I sat down and counted out to three degrees of separation. That would basically be friends, friends of friends, and friends of friends of friends, respectively.
I realized that in the 25 yrs I had been alive I had known, either as good friends or someone I met a few times marginally speaking, over 10 guys who had ended their lives. Now, the 20s are when guys start dying off to begin with and the sexes start evening out in number (I believe there are anywhere from 102-110(in places like china and India) boys born for every 100 girls, so we have a male surplus to begin with but at the later ages end up with a female surplus) due to accidents and war and recklessness and so on. So that too has to play a role, though probably small.
Anyways, I am sure that my experience is probably a bit atypical but probably not that far off from many peoples. If you study it, the chances of suicide, drug overdose, and incarceration go up based on demographics ranging from race to economics.
So, since we are doing what feminists do and talking about mainly upper-middle and middle classes, lets assume that the average young woman looking to marry and the average older woman looking for remarriage have a rate a third of mine out to 3 degrees.
Today we have online dating but from what I understand people are still more likely to meet either at school or work, I believe school be the most likely and work being a close second, with things like social clubs/activities and travel coming after but I don’t know where internet dating ranks.
So, if a young woman is more likely to meet her marriage prospects through friends and friends of friends and at school functions and school parties, then just taking 3 young premed guys like my buddy out of the equation puts a serious dent in her potential marriage prospects. Also, having a future doctor kill himself after being frivorced and falling into a depressive spiral means that Ms. frivorce looking to get remarried has 3 or more, suicide goes up and peaks in men right around the age of 40 if I remember correctly, fewer frivorced doctors to meet at church or a work related event or hell even on a EPL vacation. Now, I guess if your social circle is the size of a Hollywood elites social circle this may not be a problem for her but most people don’t have hundreds and hundreds of friends. Also, in my experience after college peoples social networks start getting smaller year by year as peer move and start families and so on.
Maybe I am over thinking this, but from what I remember there are something like 25,000 male suicides every year and that is a conservative estimate that could easily double. Basically they only counted the guys who left notes, not the guy who crashed his car into a brick wall going 120 while wearing no seatbelt or the drug overdoses by people who have been using long enough to have a really good idea of their tolerance level.
At the State Uni I went to we had about 25k students each year….to put that into perspective. Each year enough men kill themselves to fill the roster at the University of Tennessee!!!
How can that not have a huge impact on marriage and remarriage rates among many women. Next time you hear some woman talk and say “where are all of the good men” or “why hasn’t my husband showed up yet” tell her it’s probably because he killed himself years ago.
Now, I could go on in the same vein about incarceration but that is a bit different due to not being permanent in most cases. There is also more of a demographic element there. Plenty has been said about the lack of marriage opportunities for black women due to incarceration of black men but I think it expands beyond the obvious race issue. Even if our hypothetical marriage minded woman is in a high ranking demographic she can still be vulnerable to the effect. Plenty of high status white guys go to jail for growing pot or embezzlement or cheating the IRS or they end up with an addiction and do a inpatient thing for a few months. It may not be as permanent but a few months or a few years off the marriage market is still one fewer man on the market.
Anyways, just some thoughts. What do you guys think?
Here we go.
https://catalystconference.com/read/everything-we-think-we-know-about-marriage-and-divorce-is-wrong/
We’re going to be stuck with Christians proclaiming the divorce rate to actually be 26% and that church attendance lowers divorce risk by “up to” 50% for a while now.
I’m glad places like Dalrock exist, or I would feel as if I’m privately going insane.
Yes, this is why I say the things I do about maternal custody:
Maternal custody is not the worst thing that can happen to a child But, it is the worst thing that does happen to most children.
I wrote several months ago that early in my marriage my wife was acting strange. And, after considerable thought,it came over me that it might, or might not, correlate with her having an affair. I well understood that anything I did had a large chance of putting my kids in maternal custody. I cared more for my kids than my widdle boy ego. So, I concluded at that time to see no evil; hear no evil; etc.
When I posted this, one man went completely ape-sh*t, and a couple more reacted in a rather hostile manner. The fact that I was not sure; did not catch her; or anything didn’t seem to phase these critics. It was strictly a possibility. I have never regretted putting my children first. If my wife sinned, it is her sin, not mine.
I would do the same thing again if it came right down to it. If you care for your kids, and if you can, (the fact I had the choice and she didn’t simply pull the trigger constituted a gift from God) you will do the same exact thing. Clearly the hostile men do not care for their kids that much.
The word cuckold is still used on men’s boards. When the average first time bride has had an N of 11, then in Marriage 2.0, all men are cuckolds, which means no men are cuckolds. The term is obsolete and thinking men will remove it from their vocabulary.
My own approach was to participate in the DON’T GET MARRIED boards for years until Lee graduated to gardening in China. It did bother me in the long term (I told no one for over 30 years) such that I do not believe any man should marry in any society where he might be forced to ignore something as serious as adultery to protect his own kids from the worst thing that happens to most kids.
Advancing from that stage, I soon began to preach GTHO. I do think marriage, whether by the law, or private marriage which is so common in Mexico, is a very good thing. So, go some place where you won’t be forced into such decisions.
She dates plenty, but so far she’s not remarried and no prospects for remarriage are on the horizon. She’s ramped up her hypergamy too – she has made it clear she wants to date a man of means. She’s tired of being poor and isn’t going to marry a man who cannot support her well. But she is clear – she very, very much wants to remarry and is actively looking for a new husband.
And to all but the most desperate gamma castrato, that clearly spells G-O-L-D–D-I-G-G-E-R. That said, there are still plenty of desperate, gullible incel gammas out there, so odds are she’ll still get wifed up at some point. It won’t last and it won’t end well for either of them (especially for the sucker whom she cons into putting a ring on her), but who ever said that most humans are capable of learning from their surroundings or from even their own history?
If all men became bald, would we at that point deny that they were bald?
If all women became whores, should we no longer consider them to be whores? Isn’t this exactly what feminists are trying to do?
cuck·old
ˈkəkəld,-ōld/Submit
nounarchaic
1.
the husband of an adulteress, often regarded as an object of derision.
verb
1.
(of a man) make (another man) a cuckold by having a sexual relationship with his wife.
It is what it is.
If all men were to become cuckolds then all men would still be cuckolds. They wouldn’t stop being cuckolds even if every married woman on the planet were to become an adulterous wife.
@anon72
U mentioned EFT a while back. Did that mean emotionally focused therapy?
Men if you don’t want to become a cuckold, then consider very carefully the things you have read on this site and others like it. If you are a Christian, read carefully what the Bible says about loose and immoral women and the men who become their victims. Proverbs is a good place to start.
Not marrying in 2.0 conditions is not only prudent, it is critical. If you must marry, proceed with extreme caution. Keep in mind that the US government is not your friend. Also, know that there are still sane women in other parts of the world, but remember feminism can be contagious. Do not marry a loose woman unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt God has called you to it (read Hosea for more on this).
Just my $.02
>> Kate’ was 34 and a single mother. Probably decent looking. She still married Mark Minter, 24 years older than her, and with only some money (6 digits), not very wealthy or anything.
Incorrect. Mark Minter was dead broke….. and Kate’s father agreed to pay off Minter’s debts if he assumed step-dad-ship of the little girl.
TFH,
I wasn’t saying the modern experiments in democracy were having wonderful results, I was noting that you cannot speak about how things end before they end. We may or may not be really near the end, but we aren’t there yet. Only the Athenian democracy ended that I know of.
I no longer have any faith in democracy as a practice, even as “the best of all bad systems.” You just cannot say how something ends until it has hit the wall. We are building up speed toward our own crash, but the car is still running.
JDG,
That could even be an argument to not marry the hottest wife you possibly could. It would be interesting to see what impact that really would have on marriage.
Dalrock,
Did you note that 50 out of 1000 was common? That rate of remarriage would almost indicate it is highly unlikely for all but a few. 5% is very low. Am I missing something?
Brad IMHO hotness really should not be the top priority when your future is at stake.
Pingback: The Dalrock hypothesis [Quotage for any female readers: do not follow the narrative of this age.] | Dark Brightness
@Brad A
TFH is a futurist and thus he has to know when Feminism will implode. I take no view and merely observe that the Devil you know might not be as bad as the Devil you don’t. The Athenian Democracy ended (at least by 146B.C. – which is when the Romans took over); it was not subjected to Feminism as it was a Democracy of Aristocratic men, but even so, it frequently had bouts of Oligarchy – the rule of the The Thirty, that sort of thing.
Freedom and Democracy are not necessarily the same thing, and as your second President observed, freedom does not mean an absence of the Rule of Law or of Taxation.
Whether re-marriage is a triumph of hope over experience or not, is it even possible, in a Church, to marry on a second occasion (other than after being widowed)?
If she becomes more attractive again by losing weight, the man is ruined.
False.
@Troll King
I think that fatal single vehicle traffic accidents are used by men to kill themselves quietly while leaving any life insurance valid.
Elspeth:
What’s being discussed with regard to married women losing weight and then bailing on their marriages is a pretty well known meme. This can work both ways – weight loss then decide to go; or decide to leave then lose weight to prepare to go.
1. Married mom starts working on losing baby weight. She quickly discovers she’s garnering sexual attention from men other than hubby – men better looking and richer than hubby. She suddenly discovers she is “unhaaaaappy” and bails.
Or,
2. wife has been unhaaaappy for years. She realizes she’s put on a lot of weight over the years. She also knows she married “beneath” her because of her “issues” as a younger woman. She decides enough is enough, YOLO, the rest of it. She goes on an aggressive weight loss regimen. It’s successful. Hubby is happy with it, as are many other men, including the principal at the school where she teaches, and with whom she starts her first extramarital affair.
Both women have rediscovered their sexual agency. They’ve found out they’ve still “got it”. They leave their marriages hoping that the better more attractive men they are now dating and sleeping with will marry them. If she’s attractive enough, she’ll probably remarry. Many are not attractive enough, though, or have too much baggage.
I would advise any married man to be on the strictest lookout for affairs or divorce plans when a wife undertakes a very aggressive weight loss or physical improvement/workout plan. Most of the time, she’s doing so because she’s planning to leave and is literally preparing her body for the next man she plans to admit.
I would advise any married man to be on the strictest lookout for affairs or divorce plans when a wife undertakes a very aggressive weight loss or physical improvement/workout plan. Most of the time, she’s doing so because she’s planning to leave and is literally preparing her body for the next man she plans to admit.
Seriously, Deti? This astounds me really. Not only because I personally have gotten fit crazy the past two years (with no intention of going anywhere) but because a few ladies I interact with (IRL and online) are doing the same for the express purpose of being more healthy and attractive for their husbands.
It sounds like you’re basically saying to men that if their wives decide it’s time to get in shape that the men need to automatically assume that their wives are trying to bail on them.
The other reason this leaves me cold is because fat wives bail on their husbands all the time.
Deti, you forgot to say NAWALT.
Seriously, Deti? This astounds me really. Not only because I personally have gotten fit crazy the past two years (with no intention of going anywhere) but because a few ladies I interact with (IRL and online) are doing the same for the express purpose of being more healthy and attractive for their husbands.
It sounds like you’re basically saying to men that if their wives decide it’s time to get in shape that the men need to automatically assume that their wives are trying to bail on them.
The other reason this leaves me cold is because fat wives bail on their husbands all the time.
It’s a tell, unfortunately. The context is relevant. If it is sudden, unilateral and undiscussed, it’s a huge blinking red flag — just is so. It is extremely common for a woman who is interested in having an affair and/or to get an exit visa from the marriage, to up her appearance and wardrobe. So a related tell in this area is wardrobe upgrades to more flattering clothing that she only wears when she is out at work or out with her friends, and not with H. Obviously, if she is working on a weight loss or fitness program in coordination with H, that isn’t an issue — it’s the unilateral, undiscussed aspect of it that is a tell.
Also, in general, it is best/safest for each spouse to retain their relative SMV to their spouse in roughly the same relationship as it was when they married. So, for example, if a 5 marries a 5, and then the wife loses weight or gets made over or changes her appearance in other ways and becomes a 6, that’s trouble for the marriage unless the H can also up himself to a 6 — the reason is that people begin to think that they can do better than their current spouse, and regret marrying them when they were not at their best themselves. Obviously the best policy is to be at your personal best when spouse selecting, and then to maintain that. Significant changes up or down that are not in tandem with the spouse in the same direction are often going to lead to marital problems.
Elspeth, women who work hard to get/stay fit for their husbands are wonderful and should be praised to the heavens. They’re also very rare. If a man notices his wife getting in shape all of a sudden and he wonders why, it’s probably not for him. If it was for him, he’d probably know about it. If he didn’t demand it, or if she’s not making it clear that it’s about him — by sharing the benefits with him in increased trips to the bedroom — then it’s for someone else. Maybe someone specific, maybe not, but not him.
No Cail, I wasn’t trying to say NAWALT. Not at all. I’m saying that plenty of women bail on their husbands while weighing 250 pounds, and go through the drive-thru at McDonald’s on their way out of town.
I’m saying that there are far better indicators that a wife has one foot out the door than whether or not she’s decided to lose some weight. Shall a list a few?
– Sexual denial
– blatant disobedience and disrespect (even in front of other people; most women tend to behave then)
– disloyalty (there’s an ongoing convo about that on my blog right now)
– Spending more time with friends than with her husband/family
My comment wasn’t NAWALT but rather that husbands need to be encouraging when/if their wives take proactive steps to be healthier instead of borrowing trouble. So few women even bother that I don’t know how discouraging it helps.
So a related tell in this area is wardrobe upgrades to more flattering clothing that she only wears when she is out at work or out with her friends, and not with H.
Yes Nova, I agree.
Elspeth:
Seen it happen five different times with five different women.
Three times while I was in High school with moms of kids I knew.
The fourth time was with my friend married 17 years, and then frivorced. In the last year or so she lost a lot of weight.
The fifth time was with a guy and gal I go to church with. She was in the second scenario: Unhaaappy for years, decided “f*ck it” and started losing weight; she was out the door a short time later after running her first marathon. Talk around the church was that she “just wasn’t happy”. Incidentally she also found that her new and improved body was attracting male attention.
Yes, it’s a tell. If she’s undertaking drastic changes in her physical appearance, a husband needs to question if she’s doing it because she’s looking for an exit strategy.
“I personally have gotten fit crazy the past two years (with no intention of going anywhere)”
Every time we get into these discussions, you make me say it.
You’re not going anywhere because you married a man you’re extremely sexually attracted to. Most women are not married to men they are extremely sexually attracted to. Most women are married to men they feel “meh” about sexually.
But it’s not just me, Deti.
I know a few women like this. And yeah their husbands are attractive too, but so are they.
I think Cail’s point about the husband being engaged in the process and the wife making it clear her intentions satisfies my objections well enough.
You all can carry on now, 🙂 .
I appreciate the caustic and uncompromising cynicism in this latest post of Dalrock’s. Are you thinking of joining us over here on the dark side? I promise it is nice and cold. The air is a little bitter at first but you’ll get used to it. It sure beats the futility of trying to lead a Christian life in a Marxist state. I do still feel something like pity for those, the same way I would for a gaggle of well-dressed Upstanding Gentlemen frantically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Where’s my pills?
We’re not saying it’s the only tell or the best one, but it is one. And unlike the ones you listed, it’s one that can turn up when the husband thinks everything is fine. If the wife is withholding sex or being disloyal, the husband probably isn’t very happy and realizes the marriage isn’t going well. But with sudden weight loss, the un-savvy husband might be happy enough with his wife’s somewhat plump figure (he didn’t expect her to stay slim forever), and think the marriage is going great. Then she loses some weight, and he thinks, “Bonus!” Then one day she drops the divorce hammer on him and he finds out she’s been banging her personal trainer.
It’s an important tell for that reason: it can be a sign of looming problems that otherwise aren’t visible.
Elspeth is most rightest again. “The other reason this leaves me cold is because fat wives bail on their husbands all the time.” Yes, they do.
Elspeth:
I’m really not trying to twist the knife here. There is no knife.
You, and your attractive friends, are outliers. Most women are not attracted to their husbands. They’re just not. I’ve seen it. I’m still seeing it.
@Elspeth
I’m saying that there are far better indicators that a wife has one foot out the door than whether or not she’s decided to lose some weight.
Of course, it’s a tell. Things that you said are a tell too. You forgot one:
Sudden disappearance of complaints and quarrels. The woman has thrown the towel and does not want to fix things anymore. She has checked out from the relationship.
re: “Sudden disappearance of complaints and quarrels.” I live for these moments, which happen every blue moon. She finally does everything right, for a while, and is nice and interested in my pleasure etc. It means nothing; signifies absolutely nothing, and never lasts.
Elspeth has been out of circulation for a while.
re: women blowing up marriages post-childbearing
As a father of four, I was told early on that my children weren’t mine to raise as I saw fit. Mama Bear will kick me out rather than let me have influence over my children, for her little darlings might be harmed by that.
It is past time that men understand that they only have two purposes for women in life: provide the DNA necesssary to make babies, and provide the financial support for them until she no longer needs him. These two puposes do not necessarily mean that the same man provides both services.
Learn from my mistake, Young Men, and forget about marriage. It’s your freedom that you surrender when you say “I do”.
JDG, I was almost thinking anti-hotness potentially having value. Don’t go for a 1 (unless you are a 1 to 3), but do go below what you might be able to pull otherwise. I am not sure that would really help, but it is an idea.
Opus,
I guess being a futurist means you already assume your future has happened.
I realized that I left out the fact that the Athenian change away from democracy was for different reasons.
There may be something to what Troll King is saying about male suicides. With that many reported per year and possibly more by other means, the losses will add up over time and could well be large enough to become noticed. Like the suicide rates of armed forces personnel that have been making the news in recent years.
A possible parallel might be deaths from drunk driver-caused accidents. In spite of these, drunk driving was essentially tolerated for decades until the early 80’s. Since then, as awareness of drunk driving deaths rose, society pressured for greater punishment. Now it’s routine for drunk drivers to be charged with vehicular manslaughter or something similar when someone dies in an accident they caused. Hence we haven’t seen the level of drinking at Christmas parties that there used to be up to the early 80’s.
Just maybe we might see something similar for male suicides though the remedies may be far more politically difficult to apply.
An anecdote is in order: I dance salsa once in awhile and am good at it, not great. Recently there is a woman definitely older than me who’s been hitting on me on a regular basis whenever I go to a particular salsa social that she attends too. I’m guessing at least 8 to 10 years older. She’s very thin, definitely within my acceptable weight range. But in her face and hair, she reminds me too much of my mother who is not that much older than this woman and is in very good physical condition herself.
Little brother just brought home a gf definitely younger than him, I’m thinking at least 12 years. Can’t let him one-up me, haha …
Random Angeleno, a suggestion on how to handle this woman. If you never acknowledge her hitting on you as that, it doesn’t exist socially.Ask her politely and smilingly if she has a (implied unattached and presentable) daughter, that you figured she must be interested in setting you up with someone. This would deal with the situation, and hey, she might have one.
JDG, I was almost thinking anti-hotness potentially having value. Don’t go for a 1 (unless you are a 1 to 3), but do go below what you might be able to pull otherwise. I am not sure that would really help, but it is an idea.
I tend to agree. I think in a society like ours, an extremely attractive wife may have a lot more temptation to deal with as hypergamy kicks in unless her husband is also a high level man. However, lots of over weight princesses are nuking their marriages too.
If I’ve been understanding things correctly, the not so attractive women tend to see themselves more attractive than they really are and make decisions accordingly. This idea fits with what I have seen and still see. There are others here who can explain this far better than I can.
The choices women are making these days brings to mind their character. I think character plays a big part in the scheme of things. If one absolutely must marry under 2.0 conditions, never marry a woman who does not possess strong moral character. Test and verify. Disagree with her and observe how she reacts. Don’t marry her until you’ve had a heated fight and you see first hand how she treats you when she is really angry.
When the mask comes off you should have a better understanding of how she will whether the storms of life. It’s still not a guarantee, but I think it is one more helpful perspective when trying to navigate in this upside down disaster of a septic tank we call society.
If one absolutely must marry under 2.0 conditions, never marry a woman who does not possess strong moral character. Test and verify. Disagree with her and observe how she reacts. Don’t marry her until you’ve had a heated fight and you see first hand how she treats you when she is really angry.
When the mask comes off you should have a better understanding of how she will whether the storms of life. It’s still not a guarantee, but I think it is one more helpful perspective when trying to navigate in this upside down disaster of a septic tank we call society.
PLATINUM advice, JDG. I wish I had had someone offer this to me twenty-five years ago.
@BradA – JDG, I was almost thinking anti-hotness potentially having value. Don’t go for a 1 (unless you are a 1 to 3), but do go below what you might be able to pull otherwise. I am not sure that would really help, but it is an idea.
Going for a 5 or a 6 is a good idea but women will continually drag down those standards so the 1-3s can be successful and have power. That’s the problem. That’s why obese women start screaming about their desirability and want to control male standards so it includes them as well. That’s why “curvy” is now an euphemism for fat to obese. It’s all about dragging down and a slippery slope for female sexual power.
Women start thinking that being obese is alright since they can get dates and this starts feeding into entitlement attitudes. That’s why Elspeth was correct in seeing all of these horrendous ugly, obese women bailing on their marriages and going to fast food McDonald’s.
BradA is applying male psychology to women and it doesn’t work. Women are different from men.
I’ve been called a bitch before for voicing those concerns, but it’s technically true. And it does vibe with what I’ve seen in the USA where so-called BBW (Big, Beautiful Women = Big Bloated Landwhale) and the Fat Acceptance movement tries to destroy healthiness, beauty, virtue and other practical and moral values.
Heck, those low-level women can even get brainwashed men with fetishes to marry them and these same low-level women practice excessive double-standards when it comes to men where men have to possess high SMV/MMV value but they don’t.
Female psychology is different. The problem is that the most disgusting and despicable women will take advantage of such men since men naturally have “low level attraction” floors where most are content with a 5 or a 6. That’s a good thing about guys, but women aren’t like that.
Because men don’t have such high standards like women (women tend to have high standards and are picky), men don’t tend to watch out for these horrors in the making. Next thing you know they’re manipulating you into their horrors.
It’s best to be both a little bit negative and a little bit positive, but mostly indifferent to such travesties.
Anti-hotness doesn’t have much social value in the USA. It might be “good” in theory, but in practice it’s an abomination. Obese women with entitlement Princess attitudes.
Good grief, this.
“JDG, I was almost thinking anti-hotness potentially having value. Don’t go for a 1 (unless you are a 1 to 3), but do go below what you might be able to pull otherwise. I am not sure that would really help, but it is an idea.”
So after realizing that marriage/family as a legally binding contract no longer exist for a man in the west and that all of it can be taken away from me at the whim of an unhappy wife a new strategy to counter this emerges. This “go below what you might be able to pull otherwise”, wife up a woman that a man of my particular status wouldn’t want so she might not be tempted. Do you hear’ yourselves right now?
Um’ Im not lonely and if I was I can always find somebody to talk to. Why would I need to marry up a frumpy, unmotivated woman below my league that I’m not particularly sexually attracted to, especially since I’ll **always know** I could do better? Just to have somebody around? If it’s come to this it’s simply time to stop. Recommend men stay single indefinitely. Just exactly how bad does the female quality in the US have to be before rational men stop buying marriage and recommending marriage?
Too many lemons to risk looking for a cherry… MGTOW and surrogacy… Its a sick world when a man has to deny a child a mother to ensure that the child is not denied a father and the father is not enslaved to his child’s kidnapper.
-college valedictorian
-multi million dollar inheritance
-healthy parents
-business owner
-young (27)
-high IQ (140)
-tall (6’4″)
-honest
-athletic (ice hockey/tennis)
-fit and healthy
-own beach condo filled with fine furniture
-Good luck digging through the rubbish ladies, those of us that have seen the world understand what is going on.
In theory you’re right, of course; but there is a strange correlation between the arrogant snottiness of an 8, and the down-to-earth niceness of a 6.
I went out with a chick recently. She’s an immigrant from West Africa (I like black chicks… probably a strange rebellion against my Mormon upbringing, but that’s neither here nor there).
She’s in her mid 20s. Not too smart, but smart enough (studying nursing and doing well) to make a good wife to someone. Not a great beauty either, but slim and fairly cute (6.5 tops). She’s not very tactful (West African chicks tend to laugh a lot and say the first thing that comes to mind).
She’s very religious, and I’m fairly sure she’s a virgin, and I went out with her knowing that I wasn’t going to have sex with her (that was apparent within an hour after asking her out). She talks about wanting to get married and immediately go on a Christian mission someplace. It’s charming and sorta cute, but I’ll never join her on such an adventure.
Guess what? I had a lot more fun just hanging out with her than I do on my f&c adventures, listening to blonde bombshell yammering about herself for an hour, checking her iphone every five minutes, taking endless numbers of selfies of herself with me, and etc., before I finally get her back to my place and halfheartedly pump and dump such a narcissist. I was glad to buy African chickie her dinner (white knighting perhaps, but she’s a student and an immigrant and she was entertaining) and have a few chuckles in such a woman’s company. I think she liked me a lot more than I liked her, so I probably won’t lead her on for a second outing, but there it is.
My advice: You should look for someone who is *cute enough* and not worry about her physical appearance after that. Sure, you might end up being able to pull an 8, right before she hits the wall, and then you’ll have a 50-year sentence of putting up with someone who is entirely wrapped up in herself, and who, in ten years, will probably be a lot fatter and uglier than the plain jane you could have had. If you put more stock in women who are non-tedious, serious about life, and have some semblance of good values, you’re going to end up having a better chance at a happy marriage.
Best, Boxer
@Boxer – I’m not sub-Saharan Black African. That’s like saying that Barack Hussein Obama is black. He isn’t black and neither am I, he just choose the “blackness” because he wanted to score political points, whereas I’m happier in being more correct in my background.
I’m a biracial mulatta girl. My father is Angolan (slighter lower-class) and my mother is Caucasoid white (more upper-class), which isn’t common in the Portuguese cultural world. My socio-cultural affiliations include Angola, Brazil, Portugal, U.S.A. and Russia among others.
Angola is in Southwestern Africa, but the genetics here are somewhat different since East Africans from Mozambique were probably brought here to Angola (which is why some Angolans seem Eastern Africa in appearance).
Boxer, you should check my website to get a clearer idea of what biracial mulatta women look like.
Apologies, it’s not my blog. I gave it to the user Nikcrit. You should ask him though. The lazy thing he was.
you should check my website to get a clearer idea of what biracial mulatta women look like.
“Beautiful” is a good generic description, but then again, like Boxer, I’m also partial to black/mulatta women.
I’ve been called a bitch before for voicing those concerns, but it’s technically true. And it does vibe with what I’ve seen in the USA where so-called BBW (Big, Beautiful Women = Big Bloated Landwhale) and the Fat Acceptance movement tries to destroy healthiness, beauty, virtue and other practical and moral values.
You mean like this:
Yeah call me heartless too:
http://9gag.com/gag/aYbEQYm/for-anyone-who-thinks-that-being-fat-is-beautiful
Opus,
“is it even possible, in a Church, to marry on a second occasion (other than after being widowed)?”
Sadly, way too possible! (I’m speaking of the US here.)
Good Lord!
One of the advantages of having an established church – something that your Founding Father’s thought better of – is that as in England almost everyone is nominally, or at least de facto Anglican, and that includes disbelievers, there are not endless breakaway Protestant Denominations, with their own interpretation of Scripture: the Anglicans – not being Protestant but reformed Roman Catholic – will not marry you twice, nor will they marry you should neither one of you be of a different sex, at least I think that is the position.
There are pluses and minuses to marrying attractive women. On the negative side, they tend to act more entitled, in my experience. On the positive side, as they age, they stay hotter longer. If you can find an attractive woman who doesn’t act entitled, you have found a gem.
Opus, how is one corrupt group of people inherently better than multiple corrupt groups of people? I would prefer the multiple groups as they allow for some competition in ideas. Having a single corrupt group reduces the possibility or likelihood of reform. What works in politics works in religion.
theadsgamer,
My wife has stayed relatively thin her whole life (and likely will since her mother is as well). That is worth quite a bit.
We all know the stats and consequences of divorce. I think more importantly and less often discussed is the rate of disfunction, unhappiness, sexlessness in marriages that actually manage to go till death they do part. Churchian women available for marriage are;
Promiscuous
Un-submissive/rebellious
Sexless (in marriage, sooner or later)
Overweight (sooner or later)
Contentious
entitled
Etc (you know only too well)
My apologies, I know I’m one of the broken records around here, however…
However,
Just exactly how bad does the female quality in the US have to be before rational men stop marrying and stop recommending marriage?
Why do I ask? Because until this happens en masse nothing will change for the masses. It’s just to convenient for women the way it is for them to ever give up their pedestal of privilege unless something they want more is taken away (marriage, babies, financial provision). Yes, I know the world is more likely to end than for men en masse to stop thinking with their genitals.
From JDG’s post:
cuck·old
ˈkəkəld,-ōld/Submit
noun archaic
1.
the husband of an adulteress, often regarded as an object of derision.
verb
1.
(of a man) make (another man) a cuckold by having a sexual relationship with his wife.
“Archaic”, really? This word is used routinely. I wonder what feminist decided that it was suddenly an archaic word.
Pingback: Fit Friday: For All the Right Reasons | Loving in the Ruins
“the not so attractive women tend to see themselves more attractive than they really are and make decisions accordingly”
This.
Can we stop hating on the most attractive women for long enough to admit that they are relatively rare, and that the reason our society sucks is because mediocre lookers are completely delusional about their appearance because of the absolutely enormous amount of male attention they receive? Most men who are frivorced were married to a 7-or-below, by dint of sheer statistical probability. And the men most able to hook an 8+, are the ones least likely to end up divorced because they have high incomes and can afford to be picky about such a woman’s personality or sexual history.
Sheesh. Good looks are not automatically evidence of a character flaw, as long as you’re not trying to buy champagne on a beer budget. Most of the truly beautiful women I know are really pleasant and happily married. They also tend to marry the man other women can only dream about the first time around, which greatly reduces their interest in bailing and rejoining the sexual ratrace.
THis is UK marriage trends – Many people who get married in the UK have been together for a considerable number of years and very often have already had children together before they are married. Many, many couples in this country co-habit and raise children without ever legally getting married. Women who divorce are much more likely to favour co-habiting over marriage on their subsequent relationships. Its just how it is in the United Kingdom. Its a different country to America.
theasdgamer says:
June 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm
”There are pluses and minuses to marrying attractive women. On the negative side, they tend to act more entitled, in my experience. On the positive side, as they age, they stay hotter longer. If you can find an attractive woman who doesn’t act entitled, you have found a gem.”
Well according to the posters on here the good the bad and the ugly have self entitlement issues so you might as well marry a 10 – if ya can catch her of course. 😉
I simply do not understand your hateful blog and the points you are trying to make. Instead of focusing on yourselves you are focused on analyzing whether or not women will marry or remarry and so on. Why does this concern you so much? I come from a country where the laws are not in favor of the woman and there is no equality. This country is also quite poor and a woman cannot leave her husband because she would never be able to raise her kids alone. Or it will be done in extreme hardship. This caused me to be raised in a very abusive environment. My father abused and beat my mother very often. He did not allow her to have friends, and was even jealous by our veterinary doctor. He was jealous by men who stared at my mom. And this is not an unique case. My mom even had her inner ear damaged by the beatings. My father was and is an honorable man in most respects, he was a good provider for our family in heavy times, me and my sister were raised lacking nothing. And I respect and am very grateful to my father for that. I do love my father as a person, but a part of me will always hate him and despise him for what he put my mother through. I know it sounds confusing, but this is the best way I can explain it.
And I know it in my heart that men have the inner need the inner instinct to control their women. This obsessive need to control my mother, to keep her for himself, his obsessive jealousy is something that is within every man. Whether or not it actually turns to physical abuse is another thing, but the instinct is there and I have felt it with most men I have had relationships with. Even the most loving ones.
That is why I am very happy that feminism exists, I do believe that women need protection by the law. Because what men lose is material – some financial settlement, but women lose their lives or spend their lives in abuse due to the need of the man to control the woman. My mom could simply not leave my dad, because she had nowhere to go, and he threatened her many times. Women are extremely vulnerable when they are mothers to young children –economically as well, so they do need this protection.
Please acknowledge that also when her children were raised, my mom’s career took off and she is now wealthier than my father, so it is not like she was leeching off of him, but really was very dedicated to her children and that is what made her severely dependent financially on him. Even when we were babies my mom was still working, but very little compared to now.
So try and think about it, put yourself in the shoes of an abused woman and imagine what it feels like. What you complain about is your wife not having sex with you or offending you, but imagine her severely beating you and wanting sex as well. Forbidding you to go anywhere alone, total control.
Also you had way out — you paid some money and were out. My mother did not have this luxury. I know that you will not understand, because you are bitter people, who have come to hate women, but the truth is that what you complain about is very very very minor compared to what happens if God forbid feminism is reversed in the developed nations.
Most of your issues and problems seem to be about being able to fuck young women, and making sure that women your age are not able to fuck younger men. I mean get a grip. Women in developing or poor nations where there is no such protection as in the USA have much more serious problems than that. Yet you feel no compassion, only bitterness.
In conclusion, I want to say that my parents have been separated for 12 years. Both have had other partners and are in relationships. Both are very liked by the opposite sex, even though my father is fat and has a beard. I would say that my mom is more”liked”, but that is partially because my father is more serious and pessimistic person, and my mother was breathtakingly beautiful as young and is to this day quite attractive also is more light-hearted, positive person. Both do not want to remarry and do not have very positive opinions on marriage. I have extremely close and loving soul mate relationship with my mom, but also have very close relationship with my dad, but to this day I cannot come to terms with what he did to my mom.
But the problems are very different. The problem is not what happens to a woman or a man at 55 and who can fuck more people (both can fuck and date if they are attractive and/or rich). But what happens in the period of 20-40, when people are supposed to be having children and raising them. In nature this is a situation potentially dangerous for the woman as she needs to secure her offspring in the best way possible and this puts her in a very vulnerable situation and whoever does not acknowledge it is a hypocritical bastard.
There’s a catapult in Mordor that has been left untrolled, vio.
Also due to my childhood experiences I do not believe in marriage and live together with my beloved boyfriend for several years now. He however wants to get married since he comes from a very positive family. So in a way what we see as children forms us, which is all the more reason for people to think things through when they choose a partner, start a family and become parents.
thasdgamer, ah thanks for letting me know. Forgive me, keep on complaining how horrible are women and how miserable are your lives, because they offend you and are fat:D
vio needs to read more and write less. “You paid some money and were out…” Yeah, about that…
Every day, in the U.S., men – good husbands, fathers, and providers – are kicked to the curb by women who are nothing more than bored with their marriages.
Many of those men are stripped of the assets of their entire working lives. Many lose access to their children, sometimes for years. Many have their children turned against them by their ex-wives through Parental Alienation Syndrome. Many have to watch their ex-wives bring a string of lovers into the homes they must continue to pay for – homes they are forbidden to enter under threat of deadly force – and sleep with them in front of their own children. Many are forced into poverty because some judge decided that they “ought” to make a ton of money, and set their child support obligations at more than they makes – and failure to make those impossible payments lands them in debtor’s prison. Many are forced to pay child support for children that are not even theirs, but rather the result of their wife’s adultery. Those men must watch as their children are placed in dangerous situations, but are forbidden – under threat of deadly force – from intervening. Underage male victims of rape are required to pay child support to their own rapists, under threat of imprisonment. Many jurisdictions have “primary aggressor laws” and “mandatory arrest laws” that mean that whenever the police are called for a domestic situation, they are required to arrest the man – regardless of who is guilty, even though most domestic violence is initiated by women.
Let’s not forget that it is actually illegal to discriminate against any groups except whites and males, and mandatory that other groups be given preference in such things as government contracts and college admissions. And let’s not forget that women gain all the rights of citizenship automatically on their 18th birthday, while men don’t gain them until they reach their 18th birthday AND register for the military draft.
But sure, vio, this blog is really just a bunch of whiny middle-aged white guys bemoaning the fact that we can’t screw 16-year-old hotties. That must be it. /sarc
Vio:
“This obsessive need to control my mother, to keep her for himself,”
What would make him feel this way about her? Isn’t that part of the “forsaking all others” in marriage? Did she give him reason to be suspicious of other men?
Anyone, who in the first sentence of their first comment on a blog, contrives to accuse its host of being hateful and then expects sympathy as to their plight is surely the equivalent of someone who punches a stranger in the guts and then expects thereafter a reasoned conversation. 😦
@Opus
Excellent observation. There is a sort of compliment here as well. While she claims we/I am hateful, she shows an expectation of kindness. It is similar in that regard to the gays here in the US who go to known Christian bakers and order a wedding cake (or Christian photographers for gay wedding photography, etc), under threat of lawsuit. It shows a faith that hatefulness will be returned with kindness.
This country is also quite poor and a woman cannot leave her husband because she would never be able to raise her kids alone. Or it will be done in extreme hardship.
And this ladies and gentlemen is one way (one that worked for thousands of years) to minimize the chance of the woman nuking her family.
And I respect and am very grateful to my father for that. I do love my father as a person, but a part of me will always hate him and despise him for what he put my mother through. I know it sounds confusing, but this is the best way I can explain it.
After the feminists were done with your indoctrination, you were going to hate and despise him no matter what kind of man he was/is. You will do the same to any man that is unfortunate enough to marry you unless you can unlearn all that garbage they put in your head.
And I know it in my heart that men have the inner need the inner instinct to control their women.
Have you ever met Dave Futrelle? Seriously though, I think you have mistaken an instinct to protect with an instinct to control. I think it is you who wants to control, and thus resent your father’s God given authority.
That is why I am very happy that feminism exists, I do believe that women need protection by the law. Because what men lose is material – some financial settlement, but women lose their lives or spend their lives in abuse due to the need of the man to control the woman.
Do you know what happens to children after their mother’s yank them out of their father’s lives? No, how could you. You had a father who provided and protected you your whole life. Please follow the link and educate yourself:
http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
I’m sure your feminist educators didn’t share those bits of info with you.
As far as men only losing money goes, you are either ignorant or deceitful. Men lose a great deal of their children’s lives, their dignity, respect, sometimes their freedom, and sometimes their very lives due to suicide, all at the behest of an unhappy woman.
Yeah, feminism is grand. You can tell by all the kids who run away from home, get pregnant out of wed lock, do drugs, join gangs, become criminals, become prostitutes, go to prison, and commit suicide because there was no father around.
In nature this is a situation potentially dangerous for the woman as she needs to secure her offspring in the best way possible and this puts her in a very vulnerable situation and whoever does not acknowledge it is a hypocritical bastard.
1st – They are not her offspring, they are his. She bore them for him.
2nd – Making it difficult for the woman to nuke her family protects children.
3rd – I’ve never met a feminist that wasn’t a lying hypocrite.
4th – Go make me a sammich!
vio
“And I know it in my heart that men have the inner need the inner instinct to control their women. This obsessive need to control my mother, to keep her for himself, his obsessive jealousy is something that is within every man. Whether or not it actually turns to physical abuse is another thing, but the instinct is there and I have felt it with most men I have had relationships with. Even the most loving ones.”
We demand loyalty and fidelity. It’s women who try to control men. Feminism is a cancer, a disease that will kill slowly from the inside out.
You contradict yourself. You said “your mother makes more money” so why is she still with him? She can leave anytime. You exaggerate your situation because feminism is rotting your brain.
Younger men don’t want to fuck old women. They are often gross and unpleasant too be around.
“4th – Go make me a sammich!”
BLT for me
loollzlzlzolz
@monkeywerks –
She said later on that her parents have been separated for 12 years. No particular contradiction in this specific instance.
However, I want to draw attention to the following:
And I know it in my heart that men have the inner need the inner instinct to control their women. This obsessive need to control my mother, to keep her for himself, his obsessive jealousy is something that is within every man. Whether or not it actually turns to physical abuse is another thing, but the instinct is there and I have felt it with most men I have had relationships with. Even the most loving ones.
@vio –
In all those relationships of yours where you say you felt your boyfriends’ “inner instinct to control their women,” did you ever see evidence of this that didn’t come solely from your heart / your feelings / your imagination?
Then you should rightly blame your mother, for choosing such a lout to be your father.
Regards, Boxer
Either way, she was still able to leave her husband and she makes more money. She didn’t need feminism. See we can kill off all of the feminists.
In all those relationships of yours where you say you felt your boyfriends’ “inner instinct to control their women,” did you ever see evidence of this that didn’t come solely from your heart / your feelings / your imagination?
You bet she did. Every time he didn’t comply with her whims or agree with her opinions. If he raised his voice, or didn’t give her money when she asked for it, he was ‘abusing’ her. When the definition of a word can be changed to mean anything, then people can be accused of the most heinous crimes while merely conducting themselves as normal human beings.
vio – If you don’t already live in England, you may want to consider moving there. It may soon be a crime for a man to not hand over his money to, or even argue with, a woman over there.
Lyn87, yes but most of the discussion here is not about how to fight about more rights for men as parents. The majority of topics are simply raging against women and are on sexual topics.
Also yes it is horrible for women to not value what they have and these are consequences of having it too easy. And yes there are indeed a lot of primitive instincts at play both from male and from female side, but I come from a society which is a mirror image of what you are describing here and it is also not fair to have it the other way. Nor is it better for the children,to be honest. Many children are raised by single mothers left by their fathers without or with minimal child support , their fathers long having other families and do not give a shit about their children from previous marriages.Men bond with the children much later than women, and if the husband has left the woman for another, before the child is a bit grown up, the man is not at all bonded with this child and does not give a shit to protect her/him or provide for her/him. Or people like me, raised by parents who loved them dearly, but very bad relationship between themselves.
Accusing someone to be hateful and expecting sympathy is equivalent to kicking someone in the guts?? A bit dramatic, no? No it is not equivalent. Nothing I say to you in some blog is equivalent to me kicking you in the guts. Your ego is not equal to your physical well being. The offense you experience by me being fat or ugly, or old and horny or hairy or rejecting you or being entitled is not equivalent to me beating you up. And yes sorry but verbal abuse is not equivalent to physical one. I was verbally abused on a regular basis and bullied at work due to being an immigrant and people having prejudices, I put up a wall and did not give a shit. Now if they were kicking me in the guts and not just calling me names, it would be kind of hard to put up a wall against that.
Furthermore, I was not calling for sympathy towards myself, as I do not have these problems that my mother and other women are experiencing. I was calling for awareness and sympathy for the problems women in other societies are experiencing and I just want you to be aware that there are big social problems in non-feminist societies as well. And those are also not just or fair societies.
As for what made my father behave like this he is in general a very controlling and domineering person, and is used to people bowing to him, but I am sure that this would not have happened if there were potential consequences for him of any kind.
monkeywerks –
I like this picture:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4792909824/h62140837/
Ode to the feminist:
@monkeywerks, she could not make more money. that is the whole point — it is a socio-economical issue. A woman with young kids is in financial difficulty it is a risky business for a woman to have children and be a young mom. Much more risky than for the man, because of the role she has to take. That is why it is in my opinion fair that the state has to assure her and take her side if she ends up alone raising the child/children.
@Boxer, when my mom was choosing him they were both madly in love and while there was some jealousy there was not a hint of abuse. This came way later in the marriage and progressed with time. So no I do not blame her.
@ Robin Munn, I can give you many examples, but am not sure this is interesting for you. For example, my previous boyfriend came up every evening to check on me while I was writing my master thesis. He also wanted me to write my master thesis at his place and not in the library. Also did not want me to start a job. My first boyfriend also did not want me to work, and tried to convince me that not only do i not need a job, but it is impossible for me to get one and when I did get a job (the first one i tried) he was proud, but he insisted that he drives me to work and comes to pick me up from work every day and made sure everyone at work has seen he is my boyfriend.
And a different approach: a colleague of mine has a very beautiful girlfriend. He himself is between average and below average. He told me that she is very jealous of him all the time. So I was surprised “but are you not jealous that she is alone as well, after all she is so stunningly beautiful” and he said “oh i never tell her that, do not want her to get too high opinion of herself. Plus she needs to lose a few kilos”. She does noot need to lose any kilos, he on the other hand is kinda chubby. If this is not the desire to control I do not know what is.
@vio –
Your bad experience with your father is leading you to assume the worst of men. When someone like me, who has not had a bad experience like the one you’ve told us about, looks at your examples, you know what I see? A protective instinct at work. Let me highlight a few parts for you, and mention what they look like through the eyes of someone who’s assuming the best, rather than the worst, from each scenario:
For example, my previous boyfriend came up every evening to check on me while I was writing my master thesis…
What I would assume is going through his mind, based on what you’ve told me: “A woman by herself in a public place is in a vulnerable situation, especially if she’s absorbed in a book and oblivious to her surroundings. I’d better stop by and check that she’s okay.”
He also wanted me to write my master thesis at his place and not in the library.
My guess at his thoughts, given what you said about him wanting to check on you: “The library’s in a dangerous part of town. I’d really rather she spent most of her time at home where I can protect her. If something happened at the library, I wouldn’t know about it until it was too late.”
Also [he] did not want me to start a job.
My guess at his thoughts: “I make enough money for both of us; why should she have to work?” (This is especially plausible if, like many men, he works at a job he doesn’t particularly enjoy, because he feels it’s his duty to provide for the family. In more feminist societies, fewer men have this attitude — but in more traditional societies like you’ve said you come from, most men think this way. It’s my job to work and make money, why should she have to?)
My first boyfriend also did not want me to work, and tried to convince me that not only do i not need a job, but it is impossible for me to get one and when I did get a job (the first one i tried) he was proud …
That doesn’t sound like someone controlling to me. Think about it. Would someone with a controlling attitude have been proud of you for getting a job? No, he would have chewed you out for doing something he didn’t want. That he was proud instead STRONGLY suggests that your perception of him as “controlling” was hugely mistaken.
… but he insisted that he drives me to work and comes to pick me up from work every day …
You think maybe he was doing you a favor, making sure you didn’t have to rely on the bus? Or walk through possibly-dangerous parts of town? Because that’s what it sounds like to me: protecting, not controlling.
… and made sure everyone at work has seen he is my boyfriend.
Sounds like he’s proud of you and wants to show off his beautiful girlfriend. What’s controlling about that? Again, it looks like you’re seeing negativity where it just isn’t there.
… a colleague of mine has a very beautiful girlfriend. He himself is between average and below average. He told me that she is very jealous of him all the time. So I was surprised “but are you not jealous that she is alone as well, after all she is so stunningly beautiful” and he said “oh i never tell her that, do not want her to get too high opinion of herself. Plus she needs to lose a few kilos”. She does noot need to lose any kilos, he on the other hand is kinda chubby. If this is not the desire to control I do not know what is.
You may not know what that is, but I do. It’s called the subtle art of seduction. Because women have the hypergamous instinct to get the best man they can, if a man praises his girlfriend too highly the back of her brain starts wondering “If I’m really as hot as he says, is this guy the best I can do, or can I do better?” But if he gives her subtle indications that he’s a man who knows his own worth (like not tripping all over himself trying to flatter her — a man who knows his own worth will only pay compliments when they’re deserved, and the woman he’s complimenting will value his compliments all the more highly when she receives them), then the result is a woman whose back-brain thinks her man is VERY high-status (translation: smokin’ hot), and she’ll want to keep him. And you’ve just told us that was the case, though you may not have realized it yourself as you were writing the comment:
He told me that she is very jealous of him all the time.
A woman who sees her boyfriend as a loser won’t be jealous of him, because if another woman “steals” him away from her it will simply free her to go find a better man. But a woman who sees her boyfriend as smokin’ hot is going to be constantly on the lookout for other women trying to steal him away — and that’s what you’ve just told us is happening here. It sounds like this guy knows how to establish a good long-term relationship; good for him.
As I implied before, the “inner instinct to control” that you think you’re seeing is really coming from your own imagination, and other people see the same incidents very differently. Because your bad experience with your father has made you a poor judge of how most men think, you might be wise to find someone to advise you. Pick out an older woman who’s had a long, happy marriage, and tell your stories to her. See whether she sees them in the same light as you. If she says, “Yes, that man is being controlling” — because it’s true that some men are; men are no more angels than women are — then in that particular case, you can probably trust your instincts. But if she says, “No, honey, you’re getting it all wrong: this is what’s going on here,” then you’d be smart to listen to her rather than to your own feelings.
I hope this helps you sort things out in your life a little better.
JDG
LLOLLOOZLZLZOZLZOZOLLLOZLZL
Vio- @2:39
“Please acknowledge that also when her children were raised, my mom’s career took off and she is now wealthier than my father”
vio@8:10
she could not make more money. that is the whole point — it is a socio-economical issue. A woman with young kids is in financial difficulty it is a risky business for a woman to have children and be a young mom
You’re lying. The rest is boilerplate feminist BS. Continuing…….
“The majority of topics are simply raging against women and are on sexual topics.”
Because the modern American or feminist woman anywhere sucks and men like sex, and you have a vagina and as a man I want to know how it feels to be in your vagina, because I like sex. So, make us some sammiches or email me pictures.
Jealousy does not happen in a vacuum.
Your BF had the right idea. You should have been making him sammiches and letting him feel your vagina all the time, not working.
Your colleague has game FTW! With that he can replace her with another hot chick.
You are screwed up in the head because of feminism. Get therapy, forgive your father, get married, make sammiches and make babies.
What country are you from? I just made an awesome BLT from stuff from my garden. Maybe you should come here and make me sammiches.
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.