The Census finally got around to publishing the 2014 Families and Living Arrangements tables. As I’ve done in the past, my focus is on the trend of never married White women. Marriage rates vary widely by race, and looking at composite figures hides these distinctions and also has the problem of introducing the potential of demographic changes driving the trend. Whites are still the largest racial group in the US, and since nearly all of the carping about a husband shortage is coming from White women in the media this is the obvious choice. If you want to see a breakdown by race, I have charts breaking out race for 2000 and 2012 here. Also, if you wish to do your own charts and analysis for another race, let me know and I’ll add a link to your post.
Last year’s data made me wonder if we weren’t seeing a leveling off of never married rates in the 25 and older brackets. This year however it was the 20-25 bracket which stayed roughly the same while the never married rate for all of the 25-39 year old brackets increased.
While no one year shows a dramatic change, the cumulative trend from the last 10 years is astonishing, especially since we are now (officially) well past the recession. Back in 2004 the nevermarried rate for 25-29 year old White women was just under 37%, a number which remained roughly the same from 2002-2005. Now less than half of all White women in their late 20s have ever married.
When I first started charting this the most recent data was from 2009. At the time, I didn’t see compelling data backing up the notion that men were on a marriage strike. I’m still not convinced that a “marriage strike” describes what we are seeing, but with five years of additional data it is obvious that we are undergoing a significant change in marriage patterns.
If we take out the 20-24 year olds, there is more room in the chart to see the changes for the older brackets:
Here is what it looks like if we just include White women 30 and over:
Here is the view for 35 and older. The jump in the late thirties bracket is striking, with 17% of White women in their late 30s having never married:
It is interesting that White women in their 40s have so far escaped much of the change. My guess is this reflects some combination of delayed reaction as the change cascades through the age brackets, and increased willingness to settle. Either way, women marrying after forty means their fertility window is all but closed by the time they walk down the aisle. It still counts as a marriage, but from a societal point of view it is something very different than a woman marrying in her 20s or even early 30s. This is also not what young marriage delaying women are telling us they have in mind. They are hoping to delay marriage as long as possible while still marrying in time to have children. Even the 17% of White women who haven’t married by their late thirties have for the most part missed the mark.
Edit: Thanks Glenn Reynolds for the instalanch.
Pingback: 2014 Never Married Data | Manosphere.com
As always, your delving into these stats is appreciated Dalrock.
Pingback: 2014 Never Married Data | Neoreactive
Right. There may be some men who are consciously on strike, but they’re swamped by the number of men who just can’t seem to get and keep (or get at all) a girlfriend long enough to stumble into marriage, until they’re well into their 30s and fairly successful and the single mommas and wall-approachers start coming around. Most men in this latter group would have married if they’d started dating a girl at 20 and she’d started pushing for marriage at 22, but that never happened.
How you’d ever separate the two groups for statistics purposes, I don’t know.
Plenty of women having children in their late 30’s and even 40’s now (non white though). At the office I work there is a pregnant 39 year old Pinoy. A friend of mine’s sister who is East Indian just had twins at 45!
I’m betting this trend will only increase as more women delay marriage and Tinder gives young women easy access to hawt alpha no strings attached sex on demand.
It’s really continued delay of marriage, really. 30 is now the middle point, which reserves the 20s for CCing.
The whole concept of “girlfriend” is largely foreign to the teenagers of today. I’m not sure that, in itself, this is a bad thing. Unfortunately, what it has been replaced with is largely meaningless sex between dry spells that are full of hobbies, pot smoking and video games. For the vast majority of these kids, a steady relationship (much less marriage) is not only something they don’t want, it’s something they don’t know how to construct.
I’m sure there are exceptions among the very wealthy and the very religious, but I see average kids in my day to day life, most from working-class families or single mom headed non-families. I’m not a statistician, but the experience leaves me doubtful that those figures will be improving any time soon.
all those loser white knight cpt save a hos are gonna need to marry at least 4 women each to make up for all the guys not getting married now.
2) The hubris via which women with good paychecks (often from make-work jobs) think they ‘don’t need a man’ will be exposed once AI/Deep learning starts to displace many female jobs. These women have no idea how shaky of an edifice they are on.
Oh brother, you have no idea. Last week was Start-Up Week in Tampa Bay, of all places. I was networking all over the place for a new site I’ve built. This was more of a “seed” event, with incubators and such. (I have my first product and first client already, but networking is how things are done)
The money is pouring into two things — education (edtech) and healthcare. Just from little incubator/accelerator operation in the Southeast, 50 startups in those two fields have happened in the last two years. They gave $20k seed, but have seen their companies go on to raise over $100 million combined. So far five have failed, one was acquired, and the rest are still going. Met another guy, his startup got $500k, and will displace a significant chunk of those make-work jobs in central administration at public schools. Great guy, father, nicest man you could meet, jokes about being a dark Indian.
Education and healthcare. Guess which two fields women dominate?
And again, this is freaking Tampa, where a couple years ago I didn’t know a single person in IT of any stripe.
“The dog that did not bark” about this trend is the news media.
Why would this be?
1. Because they want to hide it?
2. Because they think it is irrelevant?
3. Something else?
For the vast majority of these kids, a steady relationship (much less marriage) is not only something they don’t want, it’s something they don’t know how to construct.
But where will future well adjusted children come from? Or perhaps it is irrelevant as productivity improvements through automation will compensate.
@Bango Tango
Don’t believe the hype on delayed motherhood. Outliers do exist, but they will always be outliers. Only 2.6% of babies are born to women 40 and over. Only 11.6% are to women in their late 30s. These figures include children born to women who started having children younger, and there is some reason to believe that it is easier for a woman to give birth later in life if she started having children young. At any rate, biology is a stubborn thing, and you won’t see much shift in the peak age of childbirth past about age 31. I shared a number of charts on this a few years ago.
Either way, women marrying after forty means their fertility window is all but closed by the time they walk down the aisle. It still counts as a marriage, but from a societal point of view it is something very different than a woman marrying in her 20s or even early 30s.
Great stuff, D, but I have to quibble somewhat with the implication that marriage and fertility go together in any substantive fashion these days. The opposite is unfortnately true: Marriage is so weakly coupled with fertility that it can no longer be reliably used as a proxy for childbearing.
Looking at the data, the percentage of extramarital birth rate to white* women has more than doubled over the last twenty years, likely approaching 2/5 by now. This means that while white gals may be delaying marriage, they are not really delaying their fertility. At least not non-elite white women, who make up the bulk of the population. Also, if this 10 year old article from the WaPo is to be believed (ht Sailer), women “value marriage so much” as to be quite picky about when to enter into it…but not quite so picky when selecting a man to breed with, apparently.
Anyways, great post, but I contend that society needs to treat marriage and childbirth as two distinct entities.
* White nowadays includes women of Hispanic origin…who undoubtedly skew the extramarital birth data toward the “more extramarital births” tail of the distribution.
White nowadays includes women of Hispanic origin…who undoubtedly skew the extramarital birth data toward the “more extramarital births” tail of the distribution.
Well, that is not very Catholic of them.
As opposed to the non-Hispanic whites and blacks, who go in droves to the abortion clinic, some of them multiple times per year.
It is not so much a ‘strike’, given that truly red-pill men are relatively few…
Actually one can be on strike, but have never read a red pill website. A man could just look at the available women and say to himself, “No. Not really”.
Getting married and staying married are altogether different.
Marital status and household arrangements is an interesting metric.
https://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2011.html
Roughly a 1/3 of white non Hispanic women in a household do not have a marital partner present.
@EW
Good to see you!
What we’re seeing is far worse than a “strike”. It’s a behavioral response to the incentives of the current SMP. A strike can always be resolved quickly, if the price is right. A behavioral shift can only be reversed well, well after the proper incentives have been restored. And we’re still years away from even seeing that happen.
Thanks for the stats, Dalrock. Fascinating indeed, and as always, the trend is indicative of Western decline.
Great stuff, Dalrock. I think the telling stats will be in a few years, when the Millennial-aged women start approaching the wall and getting their Epiphanies. At that point, we’ll see how the Millennial-aged men respond. I’m guessing it won’t be pretty. Not with Tindr and a new crop of girls coming out every year.
And the concern about pink collar jobs being replaced by automaton is well-founded. When we see White Never Married women working 80 hour work weeks to pay taxes so that younger, unmarried women can haphazardly reproduce, the corporate feminist backlash will start. And when Vasalgel and other male contraceptives make reproductive coercion a problem for the poor and stupid, the marriage market and sexual social dynamics are going to get positively interesting.
Do you have a program where you can show this data to an appropriate church superstructure, Dalrock?
The data is undeniable but if chane is to be effected (is it even desired ?) then a bunch of individuals will not be able to do it. An association of some sort would be necessary.
For the feminized church, kicking this trend, which I see as disastrous due to its obvious implications of ageing population, future dystopia, Christian and European genocide will require top-down change, starting with telling the feminized church that it has sinned and needs to leave the whore of feminist Babylon.
What can be done? Getting the fathers of intact families in churches to tell their daughters that yes, one day they will grow up and be adults, so it is better for them to put a priority on early and high quality marriage would be a start.
Hispanics in the US get abortions at double the rate of whites. The conservative/Catholic Hispanic immigrant is simply a myth (but an enduring one), pushed by Republicans on behalf of corporate sponsors that want cheap labor.
Perhaps there are Hispanics that are, as a group, more devoutly Catholic and more committed to “family values” than white/Catholic Americans; but if so, they don’t tend to be the ones coming here.
Spike says:
so it is better for them to put a priority on early and high quality marriage would be a start.
I sound like a guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, I know.
BUT
This is a multi-generational problem that must be attacked starting with TODAY’S pre-marriage age children, on a LARGE scale. Otherwise, it is small potatoes, and too short sided.
I don’t care who does it, my poor marketing skills and marginal Internet saavy has pretty much failed at this with the courtship pledge.
If anyone wants to take the helm, be my guest.
what is really not quite understandable is – Why are the 40+ year old women who were never married able to get married – A woman at that age bracket does not have much to offer for the risks involved – They have definite issues and you may find divorce coming easily.
TFH – I always learn from your comments.
I’d guess the first-marriage-after-40 group breaks down into two main types:
The girl who delayed marriage too long, got too close to the Wall, and suddenly found herself without suitors and panicking at 35; so she got busy and lost a bunch of weight, maybe some plastic surgery, and snagged a guy late. Bad situation, because she’ll probably revert to form after the ceremony.
The girl who’s actually been shacked up with a guy for several years, but finally talked him into marriage. They relationship might have started in her early 30s or even earlier, but making it official was delayed — probably first by her, and then by him when he wondered why it was suddenly so important.
Dear Cail:
That’s a sad, but believable, bunch of statistics. I don’t know or live around many hispanics, so I probably romanticise them a bit. It’s the same with the Latins in Quebec, who are nominally Catholic but also abort their own kids at shocking rates.
Boxer
@l jess
This is one of the bigger problems with the marriage strike hypothesis. We would have to believe that men were unwilling to marry younger, hotter women but all too happy to marry 40+ year olds. But this is where what I’ve called the weakened signal hypothesis does quite well at explaining what we see. As young women postpone marriage, young men aren’t swearing off marriage but they also don’t see the incentive to work hard to signal provider status either. Unlike their counterparts say 20 years ago, 18 year old men don’t see men 5-7 years older than them marrying as a result of being economically successful. So the incentive for young men (as a group) to work hard in their late teens and twenties is much lower. This brings us the growing number of “peter pan men”, who work hard enough to get by but aren’t knocking themselves out to prepare to be a provider.
Then suddenly when the women in their cohort hit their late 20s or early 30s, these forgotten men are the would be grooms the marriage delayers were banking on all along. There is as a result a suddenly noticed shortage of truly eligible men to marry, which creates the kind of competition and hysteria we are hearing about in the media. To the extent that what we are seeing in today’s 40 somethings is due to settling and not merely a delayed reaction, we are talking about some very deep settling.
Good to see you Elusive Wapiti.
Its pretty much the only people under 35 who bother getting legally or religiously married these days are strictly the upper middle class. Everyone else just has small, cheap commitment ceremonies or hand-fasts, if that.
ljess,
Because there are a lot of 50+ year old frivorced men who simply can’t stand to be alone. They refuse to give up on marriage 2.0 and try again. And the 40+ never married white woman “settles” for the 50+ year old washed up divorced guy.
“what is really not quite understandable is – Why are the 40+ year old women who were never married able to get married – A woman at that age bracket does not have much to offer for the risks involved – They have definite issues and you may find divorce coming easily.”
Those women are not getting top tier men. They couple up with middle class and lower divorced dads or never married 40 or 50 something guys. Occasionally you’ll see one with a younger man but there’s usually something off about him.
@Dalrock
“Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent.” -John Maynard Keynes
What is interesting is combining the data in this post showing (white) women delaying marriage with other research showing more of the under-30 crowd moving back in with their parent(s).
Combined, we might conclude that it’s not that these women are content at a certain level of maturity (single and taking care of themselves while living on their own) and refusing to move on to marriage; it’s that these women, since they aren’t moving on to marriage, are actually moving backwards (back into their parents home).
An Account: Our Wounds from Our Spouses–What Happens to Us When We Won’t Forgive
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=945215
Where are all the devout young women at?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=945253
Another outstanding post, Dalrock. Top notch. Since Obama took over during the so called Great Recession, never married Women in the final leg of their fertility- at 35-39 the eggs are damn near their expiration date so if they are not married it is probably to late- Increased from 12% to 17%. That’s a 32% increase in 6 years.
The figure for women marrying for the first time who can be expected to have significant fertility problems (and lots of leotarded babies for daddygov-a-ment to pay for) at ages 30-35 increased from 19% to 27% in the same time- a nearly 30% increase.
If we had a 30-32% increase in cancer deaths that would be bad, right?
Don’t forget that In Vitro now allows for women into eventheir 50s to give birth to multiple children at one time. Where they used to have to marry by 25 to have 2 kids by 30, they now need to just marry by 45 to have 3 kids at once. Or not marry at all since sperm banks are a thing.
Bango Tango says:
February 7, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Plenty of women having children in their late 30’s and even 40’s now (non white though). At the office I work there is a pregnant 39 year old Pinoy. A friend of mine’s sister who is East Indian just had twins at 45!
——————————————————–
The 45 yr old Indian almost certainly had fertility treatments, most likely IVF. Twins are common with IVF because they implant two or three embryos to see if one takes. Also, after age 42 doctors prefer “donor” eggs for IVF and some refuse to use mom’s eggs past age 43 or 44.
So the 45 yr old Indian’s twins probably aren’t even her genetic children. Don’t be fooled – waiting to have children until 40 is a disaster for most women.
” the free ride that manginas got from Marriage 1.0 for so long. ”
When did men ever get a “free ride” from marriage?
[Not sure if my last comment went through]
Shem says:
February 8, 2015 at 12:31 am
Don’t forget that In Vitro now allows for women into eventheir 50s to give birth to multiple children at one time. Where they used to have to marry by 25 to have 2 kids by 30, they now need to just marry by 45 to have 3 kids at once.
———————
No, you’re believing the fertility myths pushed by feminists. Most IVF over 40 fails. Most women over 42 will never be able to have children even using multiple cycles of IVF and donor eggs. As for her own eggs, forget it!
“For a woman over 42, there’s only a 3.9 per cent chance that a live birth will result from an IVF cycle using her own, fresh eggs, according to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). A woman over 44 has just a 1.8 per cent chance of a live birth under the same scenario”
This is from Aeon Magazine’s article “Fertility Fog”, 1/6/2015 by Amy Klein.
@Cail:
I think it’s best understood that Hispanic Catholics are about as “Christian” as much of Catholic Europe has been for the past 200 years: which means they show up to Mass, but it doesn’t filter through the rest of their life.
The American Work Ethic is the result of a bunch of Christians that suddenly had to start acting like it. It plus some basic market economics changed the face of the World. It’s not hard, it just takes some Wisdom & Humility. Both of which are always lacking in Leadership.
@Shem:
IV normally fails in the 40+ crowd. That’s why you get news stories about the ones that do work.
There’s also an extremely expensive market for the eggs of young Women, especially Jewish.
Giving birth at 35 or above is one of the most unnatural “blessings” that modern society has given us.
In years past, a woman who had a kid at 35+ would have had one or two teenage kids when that baby was born, who would have helped her look after the newborn and hit the chores circuit until mom and dad were back in the game. These days, there isn’t often anything like that.
On the other side of the generational bell-curve, the grandparents and great grandparents are often about to take the dirt nap when the mother is 35 (if they’re not kacked already), so there’s no support there either.
Human beings should have their first kid by 25, and they should probably be done in their early 30s. This allows for the best possibility of extended family support.
Stupid bitches who have kids “even into their 50s” will be paying for the same kids’ university tuition when they are 70+. No doubt this cohort will be complaining and begging for social service handouts when the bills come due. Way to plan ahead, grandma. Forward thinking people are just the coolest.
Regards,
Boxer
Scott says:
February 7, 2015 at 8:51 pm
Spike says:
so it is better for them to put a priority on early and high quality marriage would be a start.
I sound like a guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, I know.
BUT
This is a multi-generational problem that must be attacked starting with TODAY’S pre-marriage age children, on a LARGE scale. Otherwise, it is small potatoes, and too short sided.
I don’t care who does it, my poor marketing skills and marginal Internet savvy has pretty much failed at this with the courtship pledge.
If anyone wants to take the helm, be my guest.
-That’s the problem, Scott. We look to our pastors to do this, and they have been failing profoundly. It’s us still-marrieds’ job to run our households, not correct doctrine that should never have been compromised in the first place.
I’ve bee trying to do my bit in church: when I know young men there are starting to see the Law of Diminishing returns for their efforts (Work hard! Study hard! Train hard! Avoid alcohol, drugs and porn! – You’ll be rewarded with a great virtuous girl who’ll be your faithful wife! – NOT) – I start introducing them to the Red Pill, as I did my own son. It’s the least I can do.
Hammer, nail. Yep !
If we had a 30-32% increase in cancer deaths that would be bad, right?
====
Is it? I hate to be crass, because what goes around comes around, but cancer is little more than genetics imposing itself on the gene pool. That’s the trade-off of living longer.
Same with women exiting the gene pool. Most of the examples that are doing just that offer nothing of note in a relationship and it will show. Or not, over time, if you get the jist.
The 45 yr old Indian almost certainly had fertility treatments, most likely IVF.
===
That was my first thought as well. A woman at that age has almost no chance of having healthy eggs of her own (maybe a couple percent chance of that at most), so those are undoutably donors. Odds are this woman wage slaved herself only to end up birthing another couple’s DNA.
Even that 39-year old example has probably had to put some cash into having one kid alone.
There is another forum I post at where a 38-year old ex-model (no doubt a carouseler) claims that women in her age bracket can conceive just fine “up to menopuase” and that marrying younger is no guarantee because either partner may be infertile. Had to take her to task over that load of rationalizing conjecture, because what we already do know for sure that the mid-30s get tedious for women’s fertility and no guy who wants a bigger family is looking seriously at 30+ women. Don’t feel for her, though, because she’s one of those hamsters that truly wants to believe that men are responsible for many of the birth defects found in older women’s children. We know that’s not the case, though.
@ Dalrock, Cane – thanks guys. Great to see you fellas too.
I hope that the feminists, once they defeat the evil pay-tree-archyyy, will be ready to defend their country and themselves against the next phase of islamic terrorism that is coming upon the world.
Note: the link and video may be disturbing for some.
@ElusiveWapiti
Do you still have the archives of your previous posts on your own blog? They are sorely missed.
@Dave
Luckily for us the Muslims were impatient enough to start a jihad now when our demographics were still robust. If they were smarter they could have waited patiently and given western civilizations coming demographic winter they could win.
However their hotheadedness and impatience is leading to a reawakening of nationalism and a reconquest of Europe in the future.
@Dalrock, @Bango Tango A friend of mine’s sister who is East Indian just had twins at 45!
It is, indeed, possible to have children when she is 52, but most of those women at 52 are using her eggs from a decade (or longer) in the past. Or, they are using eggs from someone else. In Los Angeles, especially in the patch that covers an area from Pasadena to Santa Monica, fertility clinics are everywhere.
And yes, @Bango Tango, mixed couples have a much better change at a healthy baby. After age 42, the good egg to unusable egg ratio is not pretty. It’s quite sad.
If you’re a man 35+, considering the statistics above, it might be time to send that email
I wonder how this chart translates into never have children or only have one child.
30-34: 27%
35-39: 17%
Fertility rates drop quickly after 30 and off a cliff after 35. It would be interesting to compare the live birth rates for white married women in these age ranges. My guess is it comes nowhere near the 27% or 17% numbers.
@TFH says:1) While this chart is for never-married, the cash-and-prizes divorced women, while not featured in this statistic, reflect new entrants into the dating pool (i.e. the Jenny Eriksons). While their marriage prospects are lower than never-married women of the same age, they do provide casual sex which affects the marketplace, and lessens the interest a man may have in entering marriage with any woman (whether never-married women in this chart, or divorced women).
A point you left out is divorced women are more likely to understand what it takes to land a husband than a never married women (which accounts for some women being able to marry 3-4 times), because they have successfully done it before.
To use an analogy, I’ve had several friends who were pretty skilled at their jobs, but didn’t have a clue about job hunting. Their resumes were a mess to look at, much less read; they didn’t attempt to contact companies they were interested in, or even make a list of companies to target; and they wouldn’t apply anywhere, they just put their resumes out on job boards and expect the jobs to contact them.
You’re missing the real problem. No girl sits around and runs this logic like it’s a calculus problem to be solved: how long can I ride the carousel AND still have kids? We don’t think like that.
I suspect that most girls follow a pattern similar to mine.
– Told her whole life being a SAHM is a stupid, undesirable choice
– Pushed by family and friends to cement future “career” decisions in high school
– Go to college, focusing on school and future career to the detriment of serious, marriage-minded dating
– Go through a series of jobs, fulfilling or otherwise, with no time or inclination to date men her age
– Find herself in her mid to late twenties, no boyfriend
– Continue going with Important Career, believing it will all just fall together like a rom-com because That’s The Way This Works.
– Realize, possibly too late, that her biology wants her to prioritize family and desperately start scrambling to make something work.
I’m going to say that I was fortunate, in that I caught myself at 25 falling into this, and realized where it ended. (As I’ve said before around here, though, the consequences of this career > personal life schema are a lot more bleak and self-apparent for military women.) I’ll be 29 this year, and in no way did I imagine that I would be at this point in my life, unmarried and without children. My boyfriend is very serious about me and wants children as much as I do, and I’m hoping we’ll be wed before the end of the year, but even at that, this is not the way I expected my life to go.
The problem is not that women are cold, hard schemers when it comes to sexual relations. Quite the opposite. Feminism encouraged us to fuck like men, but it didn’t teach us how to think logically like men, but rather, further indulge our emotional thought processes. If anything, it unleashed the more irrational components of female behavior. So we just know our soul mate is going to bump into us in the grocery store at some point, and crap like that. My boyfriend and I dated in college, before other things happened, and I’ll admit, I always thought we’d just “find each other” again. We did, but it was a hell of a lot of work to get there.
Women aren’t encouraged to think rationally about their marriage options anymore, but go with their feelings and trust the great secular universal power will take care of them. That’s the problem. I’m not saying we’re victims here, but just as feminism has lied to men about what women want, it’s lied to women about what women want, too.
TFH says: The other problem here is that Marriage 2.0 is still treated as ‘marriage’.
I believe the marriage 2.0 cat is out of the bag. Men are not falling for it anymore.
I work around a lot extremely young techie men. The kind that would be the stereotypical blue-pill beta-providers that carousel-riders would look to marry once these men reach their thirties. But, even in their early and mid-twenties, these men have had their eyes opened about married.
* 50% divorce rate–its’ like flipping a coin with your life
* She can divorce you, take half your stuff, and take your kids off to another state, and there’s nothing you can do about it
* There’s no point in getting married, even to have kids; nobody cares anymore
I’ve heard the “coin flip” analogy independently from several young men (of course, these are all techie guys, so they probably are more oriented to statistical analogies than other men).
Farm Boy says: But where will future well adjusted children come from? Or perhaps it is irrelevant as productivity improvements through automation will compensate.
What’s the difference between two never-marrieds raising a child a divorced couple raising a child?
In both cases (1) the parents do not live together, (2) the mother probably has custody and is the primary person raising the child, and (3) the father’s influence on the child’s development is limited.
Marriage 2.0 has already decimated the family structure for raising children.
Pingback: NY Times The Divorce Surge is Over but… | Honor Dads
A point you left out is divorced women are more likely to understand what it takes to land a husband than a never married women (which accounts for some women being able to marry 3-4 times), because they have successfully done it before.
True dat, true dat. Not only divorced women. Widows as well. In terms of understanding men, some of the best candidates are women who have been around the block in the past, though their histories often militate against them. I have dated a few virgins before. Truth be told, they were often insufferable.
‘Women aren’t encouraged to think rationally about their marriage options anymore, but go with their feelings and trust the great secular universal power will take care of them. That’s the problem. I’m not saying we’re victims here, but just as feminism has lied to men about what women want, it’s lied to women about what women want, too.’
Quite!
The great secular power doesn’t care about women as much as it doesn’t care about men. We are just cogs in its money machine.
That’s what happens when God is taken out of the picture.
@cynthia
No cynthia its you still missing it. Your description of the emotional primacy is likely better than the language some of us use. We use it illustratively. We dont literally see a woman reasoning it out that she take the carousel ride for x years then secure a beta later, etc. We describe it afer the fact AS IF she did that, because in effect it is as described.
There…I’m helping teach you about how to think logically. You read the comments and allowed their clinical tone to prick your emotions….finding an objection that you could use as a rejoinder.
Instead, imagine men are communicating in blueprints or equations.
For a simple ….”nature abhors a vacuum’. That is used to describe that air or something will attempt to encroach a vacuum. But nature doesnt abhor anything. See how that works
Why I’m having my first baby at 51
I thought the above article would be the typical feminist you-go-grrrrl stuff, but the story is a cautionary tale.
The bolded lines in the last paragraph are the root of the problem. Women have developed this notion that because modern women live longer, they should have a longer window to have children. Modern feminism has encouraged this notion. Which why you see ignorant post like one of the previous ones in this thread talking about women today having kids in the late 30s, 40s, and even 50s.
And ignorant is the right word. The poster wasn’t malicious or deceptive. They simply did not know the truth. They were ignorant of the actual facts.
[D: Removed extended quote of copyrighted content.]
It appears to me that the two sides of this equation are a tad out of kilter.
Boxer: “this cohort will be complaining and begging for social service handouts when the bills come due. Way to plan ahead, grandma.”
D. “the growing number of “peter pan men”, who work hard enough to get by but aren’t knocking themselves out to prepare to be a provider. “
Ow.Tax that.
[It’s bit of a truism Over Here that “tax” on public-sector non-jobbers is no such thing, merely a loss-leader discount on the subsidies being dished out to the busyworkers. Their outraged “Question Time”/radio phone-in howls of “I pay tax! A lot of tax!” can be justifiably dismissed with as much lip-curling and head-shaking as one cares to muster].
So I wonder who’ll be footing the bill for the ponzi, in say twenty years?
Bueller? Bueller??!
True. When we say women delay marriage and “plan” to marry at 30, I think most of us realize that’s not literal, the way a man plans a journey with a map and itinerary. An 18-year-old girl these days is doing well to plan lunch, let alone the next decade of her life. She’s not thinking, “I’ll start looking for a husband the day after my 28th birthday.” She just has a sense that marriage isn’t for Now; it’s for Someday. That’s in the hazy future when she’s older but not too old, but right now everything over 25 seems far away.
Then day follows after day, year follows year, her customer service jobs never turn into a CEO position, she never spends that year in Paris, and her latest boyfriend is clearly not Mr. Right. She starts waking up with the nagging feeling that something’s gone wrong, but it takes a long time for her to figure out what. Some never do figure it out.
Ironically, if she did plan to delay marriage until a certain date, she’d be better off, because she’d see it coming and prepare for it. She’d know when she was getting off-plan and be able to steer back to it. It’s her complete lack of a long-term plan that betrays her and lets her get well past her best sell-by date before she panics and starts trying to catch up.
As much as I’d like to find comfort in the charts, I do not.
These mean nothing in a society that embraces single motherhood and child support as a wealth extraction method.
Just because these women did not marry does not mean they did not have children.
It just means we live in a society that holds husbandhood in low regard. It holds fatherhood in even lower regard, as being out of style and unappreciated.
‘Just because these women did not marry does not mean they did not have children.’
So people are doing the thing reserved in marriage outside of marriage. Which is a lack of responsibility on both parties.
‘It just means we live in a society that holds husbandhood in low regard. It holds fatherhood in even lower regard, as being out of style and unappreciated.’
One of the side effects of doing the thing reserved in marriage outside of marriage.
These mean nothing in a society that embraces single motherhood and child support as a wealth extraction method.
Just because these women did not marry does not mean they did not have children.
It just means we live in a society that holds husbandhood in low regard. It holds fatherhood in even lower regard, as being out of style and unappreciated.
True, but also by men themselves, which is a critical piece. A growing number of men simply don’t want to be bothered, due to a combination of how women are, how perilous marriage is, how much easier it is to focus on beer/porn/ESPN/video games, with occasional sex here and there, and so on. Lots of guys are okay with this, and the number gets bigger every year. That isn’t a group which would make competent fathers or husbands, to be honest.
I’d be really curious to see the data of 20-35 year old women alongside data for those who choose to live with a partner and have children with a partner out of wedlock. I feel like this masks human behavior by showing decreases in marriage and divorce. In actuality, I think marriage and divorce (perhaps defined by breaking off a relationship where individuals lived together) are either equal or on the rise. And if late 20s men are living with late 20s women I’m not sure that would be count as a “strike”.
@ Cail
Point well taken. I do understand that men tend to lay things out differently than we do. It’s hard to gauge people’s feelings from comment sections, but I do see an undercurrent of “she’s doing this on purpose” here and elsewhere at times. Some of the language employed when discussing these trends can be interpreted as there being intention contained within the behaviors. Perhaps that’s just me though.
The most frustrating thing I’ve seen in my own life, in regards to this, is the way my mom and aunt have treated me and my oldest female cousins. When we were girls, it was all about “finding yourself” whereas now, it’s about grandkids and finding the right man. I have to believe that in the past, older female family members kept their daughters focused on those long-term goals. My mom feels as if she missed out on a lot of things in her own life by marrying at 22, where I feel like I’ve missed out on a lot by being single this whole time. We’ve had some bitter arguments about it.
Looking at this from my own perspective, I worry about my own sex. I don’t think we can truly fix anything for men without addressing what’s gone wrong on the female side of things. A single man cannot hope to reign in what a lifetime’s education in selfishness and short-sightedness has done to this generation of girls. How does one get a sixteen year old girl in this culture to start thinking critically about her future?
A growing number of men simply don’t want to be bothered, due to a combination of how women are, how perilous marriage is, how much easier it is to focus on beer/porn/ESPN/video games, with occasional sex here and there, and so on. Lots of guys are okay with this, and the number gets bigger every year. That isn’t a group which would make competent fathers or husbands, to be honest.
In an earlier time, the men might have been molded differently.
Still, if you do not want to be a father, do not have children.
How does one get a sixteen year old girl in this culture to start thinking critically about her future?
This is pretty much impossible. With girls marinated in self-esteem and free to use their youth and beauty for all that it worth, this cannot happen.
Cynthia, why are are you waiting a year to marry if you really believe what you wrote?
@cynthia
I agree to a degree here. But I also see a great deal of after the fact rationalization. Ask a 20 year old woman if she is looking for a husband and she will look at you like you just grew horns. When women are young and in the SMP power position, getting “tied down” is the last thing on their minds. They may not have a fully formed plan, but being the toast of the SMP is fun and exciting, and they aren’t about to give that up for a boring husband. They are as Cane describes in a recent post, choosing what they love. If you truly don’t believe me, gather a group of 20 year old girls and try to talk them into looking for a husband now. For bonus points, find these women in ten years and ask them why they are suddenly anxious to find a husband. They will tell you that they had in fact been looking for a husband all along, but they simply haven’t found their soulmate yet.
My wife has taught at private Christian schools. Her jr. high aged girls were shocked when she told them she had been married for almost 20 years. Their response: “To the same man?” These same girls talked freely about their “starter husbands”. But track down these same girls when they are at or around 30 and ask them what happened, and you will get the same story we get from 30 year old husband hunters today.
One of the hallmarks of female sexuality is deception and deniability. I have no doubt that along the way the person most deceived is the woman herself. But this doesn’t mean she had no idea what her choices were, and that she didn’t choose what she loved.
I have to believe that in the past, older female family members kept their daughters focused on those long-term goals.
And you would be correct
Are these men mistaken in their belief?
My wife has taught at private Christian schools. Her jr. high aged girls were shocked when she told them she had been married for almost 20 years. Their response: “To the same man?” These same girls talked freely about their “starter husbands”
The rot starts early. Is there any hope?
@cynthia (emphasis mine)
I should have read this before replying above. You proved my point. You really did have a plan when you were young. It was to “find yourself”, and do whatever was exciting. Finding yourself means delaying marriage. The plan wasn’t to never marry and have children, it was to find yourself first. But that plan is ugly when exposed to the light. So when it is named, it must be denied. I don’t mean this to be harsh. We all have done ugly things. All you need to do is repent of it. But if you deny it, you can’t do that. If you aren’t honest with yourself, you won’t be able to help young women in the same position.
TFH:
“While this chart is for never-married, the cash-and-prizes divorced women, while not featured in this statistic, reflect new entrants into the dating pool (i.e. the Jenny Eriksons). While their marriage prospects are lower than never-married women of the same age, they do provide casual sex which affects the marketplace, and lessens the interest a man may have in entering marriage with any woman (whether never-married women in this chart, or divorced women).”
Not necessarily so. There are many reason a woman is not married, never underestimate the ability of divorced women to remarry. They can do. Married women were attractive enough to snag a man once they can do it again.
As for women (or feminists) agreeing with MRAs or the manosphere that manginas should bear all the costs, you keep trotting this out as some truism.
It is not.
Women expect men, all men, to bear the costs as they have in the beginning and will til the end of time.
imagine if Neo, once he became aware of the matrix, decided that all the people still plugged in “deserved it.” That is essentially what you are saying.
And second, the matrix isn’t going to have any affinity with the unplugged. You are clearly the enemy.
If you do not serve the feminine imperative, there is no need for your existence from the female side of things. Women are very zero sum in their thinking
The rot starts early. Is there any hope?
The prospect of sammiches is looking bleak.
It’s hard to gauge people’s feelings from comment sections, but I do see an undercurrent of “she’s doing this on purpose” here and elsewhere at times.
That’s because “she” IS doing it on purpose, only for selfish reasons that aren’t very farsighted.
I have to believe that in the past, older female family members kept their daughters focused on those long-term goals.
They helped (if we are talking about generations before our mother’s), but there was a different herd mentality back then. There was pier pressure to be chaste, marry, and remain married. There were little to none incentives to nuke your families, and there were long term rewards to stay faithful.
“I’m going to say that I was fortunate, in that I caught myself at 25 falling into this, and realized where it ended. (As I’ve said before around here, though, the consequences of this career > personal life schema are a lot more bleak and self-apparent for military women.) I’ll be 29 this year, and in no way did I imagine that I would be at this point in my life, unmarried and without children. My boyfriend is very serious about me and wants children as much as I do, and I’m hoping we’ll be wed before the end of the year, but even at that”
25 is the first age of epiphany for women, the desire for a serious boyfriend starts then, the panic for marriage starts at 29, this falls in line with what I’ve observed.
“Ask a 20 year old woman if she is looking for a husband and she will look at you like you just grew horns. When women are young and in the SMP power position, getting “tied down” is the last thing on their minds.”
Gotta love those high rollers, chips stacked in mounds around them and teh sexeh ones hangin’ on their shoulders, spunking the lot on red every single time. “Hey, shut up, losers! Look, I’m winning innit? Because I’m just Better Than You, k?”
Of course the house is not going to dissuade them from borrowing as much as they can against their futures, if it means they incrementally increase their stake every spin of the carousel.
Sometimes I wonder what my mind was thinking. at 12:35 pm the last paragraph should end with:
“There were little to none incentives to nuke your families, and there were long term rewards for staying faithful.”
One last thing to note, older men as a group still play by the old rules, and while this is mainly driven by women, women do react to it.
Just as the alpha/beta attitude is being admitted by women now, women are opely speaking their intentions “Starter husbands” I’ve heard used by women. I heard one calculating how long she would have to stay married to get half a man’s retirement before divorce and they hadn’t gotten married yet . .
If you want the real secret of ‘finding yourself’ it comes from a relationship with God. Which then spreads into how you relate with others.
It’s widespread deception that many think ‘finding yourself’ is doing your own thing or rebelling against the norms.
They did, because for them, an unmarried 29-year-old daughter would still be living at home, eating their seed corn, and quite possibly turning up one day with a fatherless bun in the oven. They needed to get them married off, so they raised them with that as the goal all along.
Many of today’s problems come down to society being wealthy enough that people can get away with satisfying their whims.
With difficulty, and the understanding that there’s a limit on how much it will stick. I know homeschooling traditionalists who are raising their daughters with an eye to marriage (or the convent). The girls assume that they’ll be going from their parents’ home to their husband’s, and they see nothing wrong with the idea. They don’t expect to spend several years roaming around finding themselves. They see marriage as part of becoming an adult, not a new hobby you take on someday. So a lot can be done in that direction, if you put in the effort.
However, those parents will still need to keep a close eye on those girls, because they still live in the world. They may have cousins or neighborhood friends who will tell them about all the exciting things they plan to do before marriage. They’re going to see single women in movies out having fascinating lives, and they’re going to wonder if they’re missing something by not getting with the secular program. That’s just part of growing up, that you start to question your parents’ teachings and wonder what else is out there. So these parents will need to keep a tight rein on their daughters and be proactive in helping them to find good husbands.
It’s pretty much a race: get a girl raised, taught the right things, and safely married off before outside influences and her own urges can get her into trouble.
earl says:
February 8, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Completely agree. I’ve run into this a lot over the years. In the Bible Jesus is quoted as saying:
“Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
The context is of course persecution, but I think it makes sense that the same principle would apply to life choices made outside of persecution.
The apostle Paul writes in the letter to the Philippians:
“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ”
How does one get a sixteen year old girl in this culture to start thinking critically about her
Have her present while counseling and advising a young man on how to see that girl. Let the young man know those girls are at best good for sticking a penis in for pleasure. Make sure you pull out and shoot on her back or wear a condom. Don’t worry about hurting her feelings because she damn sure doesn’t care about you. Don’t believe me? Fall in love with her and try to wife that slut and see what she says.
Things to that nature take the romance off of the carousel. Though not in as a mature asshole way tell my daughter that is how boys today are raised and how I will advise her brother. Far better to raise a son on the truth than to have him figure it out at an emotional level though experience. (this is where the violence and the murder suicides like to hang out)
Dalrock does have it down there is no marriage strike just behavior adjusted to conditions. As long as the people in a position to change the conditions believe it is a strike then this trend will continue. The next step is the male birth control pill. Some of these 5 -6year old girls to day are going to pay a huge price for this. In their 30’s and 40’s with all of her holes worn out and not even able to get pregnant by “accident’ BTW MGTOW/family will be more common especially when the government finds out how cheap and productive those single families are.
Scott @ February 7, 2015 at 8:51 pm:
“I don’t care who does it, my poor marketing skills and marginal Internet saavy has pretty much failed at this with the courtship pledge.”
Don’t be hard on yourself. My Constitution Party advocacy isn’t getting traction, either.
…
l jess @ February 7, 2015 at 8:57 pm:
“what is really not quite understandable is – Why are the 40+ year old women who were never married able to get married – A woman at that age bracket does not have much to offer for the risks involved – They have definite issues and you may find divorce coming easily.”
I was wondering who they’re marrying, too. The proverbial Thirsty Beta also has definite issues starting in his mid-thirties; less emotional damage from being incel than a growing attitude of “why do women want me now after rejecting me for twenty years?”
If I’m right then these women are making their first marriages to divorced men. Stepchildren would certainly be one way of addressing fertility issues and divorced Betas have at least a little preselection. (Do frivorced fathers remarry as a way of convincing female-centric divorce judges to return custody of their kids? That could explain a lot of these incredibly-delayed marriages.)
It’s hard to gauge people’s feelings from comment sections, but I do see an undercurrent of “she’s doing this on purpose” here and elsewhere at times.
Present day men give little benefit of the doubt to women any more with respect to anything that falls under “plausible deniability”. They have been burned too many times.
“My mom feels as if she missed out on a lot of things in her own life by marrying at 22, where I feel like I’ve missed out on a lot by being single this whole time. We’ve had some bitter arguments about it.”
Even as a man I can relate to this. The sweet spot for settling down for both sexes is between the mid and late 20s. Any earlier than mid 20s we feel we’ve missed out, and maybe we have. Any later than 28ish then its entering risky territory.
“On the other side of the generational bell-curve, the grandparents and great grandparents are often about to take the dirt nap when the mother is 35 (if they’re not kacked already), so there’s no support there either.”
Not to mention grandparents and even great grandparents these days “have our own lives” and “need our space” and “I’ve already raised 3 kids, now it’s time for ME.”
“There’s also an extremely expensive market for the eggs of young Women, especially Jewish.”
Because of their high IQs? At any rate it didn’t used to be rare for women to give healthy birth well into their 40s and its still not rare amongst certain populations. If birth has become risky for women even as young as 30s then we have to wonder what’s in the water supply.
I may be wrong, but I think Cynthia’s comment about “finding yourself” was in reference to her mother’s advice rather than what Cynthia was actually thinking or feeling herself. In other words it was her older female relatives who were advising her to put off finding a suitable husband in favor of “finding herself.” Her mother felt she missed out by marrying early, hence her advice to her daughter. Now, however, she wants grandkids.
When a chick sez she needs to ‘find herself’ she means cock.
When a chick sez she doesn’t want to miss out on anything, she means different cock.
Ya, the sweet spot for settling down for Shem happens to be the same time chicks hit that wall. Shem is a troll.
True, but also by men themselves, which is a critical piece. A growing number of men simply don’t want to be bothered, due to a combination of how women are, how perilous marriage is, how much easier it is to focus on beer/porn/ESPN/video games, with occasional sex here and there, and so on. Lots of guys are okay with this, and the number gets bigger every year. That isn’t a group which would make competent fathers or husbands, to be honest.
There’s a big difference in attitudes though.
What does it exactly mean when we say that modern Western society holds husbandhood in low regard, seeing it as out of style and not worthy of appreciation? What it simply means is that the delusional opinion of the average modern Western woman on marriage 2.0, and thus reflected in the mainstream media that panders to her, can roughly be summed up like this:
1. Marriage 2.0 is a fantastic bonanza for the average man, because it enables him to live longer, be healthier, earn more and pretty much have socially sanctioned sex on tap. Plus he gets to have his clothes washed, meals cooked and, of course, have the children he sires incubated and raised. He doesn’t even have to provide for his wife, because nowadays she’s expected to have a career as well. He’s an entitled dipshit who doesn’t even realize how privileged he is. Without marriage he’d just and up as an alcoholic, celibate, impoverished, unhappy bum masturbating to porn who dies an early death.
2. A substantial segment of married men are horrid, sleazy assholes that are impossible to please. They’ll heartlessly cheat on their loyal, pleasant wives with some dirty, tattooed skank, even if they are getting ten blowjobs a day. Plus they watch online porn all the time, and they’re always looking for the opportunity to dump their aging, loyal, hard-working, dutiful wives and trade them in for some young, tight hottie. It happens all the time!
3. Due to these reasons, for women marriage is pretty much a prison, a huge risk and a great burden. They get abused, exploited, ignored and disrespected all the time. Society expects them to have sex with their husbands even if they don’t want to. And, of course, they’re pretty much trapped, because divorce normally means grinding poverty and social disapproval for women, plus horrid emotional turmoil for their children, whom they always put first. So they usually heriocally stay in unhappy marriages due to social pressure.
I’m not making this up. This is what the average Western woman thinks.
So, to sum it up:
The average young single woman holds husbandhood in low regard because she thinks marriage 2.0 is an unfair arrangement which affords men all the unearned patriarchal privileges while putting all the burden and responsibility on women. When a young woman gets married, she pretty much ends up in a prison, she’s expected to live up to impossible and unfair expectations, plus she loses her sexual freedom (because evil patriarchal society expects her to to have fidelity) and personal autonomy. It’s just terribly difficult and there’s not much in it for the poor women.
On the other hand, the average young man delays or forfeits husbandhood because he actually understand that marriage 2.0 is, in fact, an unequal contract which gives him no rights and all of the responsibility. It’s indeed a shit sandwich. For real. He’ll be held to, indeed, impossible expectations. He knows it’s very difficult but the payoff is little and the risks are huge. Nowadays one pretty much has to be a superman in order to be perveiced as a competent father or husband.
Again, it’s a big difference.
@Dalrock
You really did have a plan when you were young.
My apologies for not making my personal situation a little clearer. I’m a service academy grad and former officer. My plan, when I was sixteen, was to pursue a very specific career track. I wanted to serve my country. I believed that was a goal worth sacrificing my personal future for. Wasn’t until later that I realized how misguided that was and eventually, I realized the only way to resolve my dilemma was to resign my commission. I realize what my mistakes were, please understand that.
“Find yourself” is common advice to girls. That’s why I mentioned it. It mostly seems to come from women who have regrets about how “common” their own lives have been, who, in the grand tradition of EPL, think there’s some kind of magical journey they can take that will tell them who they are. I’ve never seen much sense in the theory that a trip to Bali is somehow more informative than caring for a sick kid, or helping your grandma bake bread at Thanksgiving. You learn who you are through living and you find your purpose in other people (and in God, as Earl says). It’s impossible to do that alone, and why we insist we must, I have no idea.
I do agree that it’s very difficult to talk to younger girls about what awaits them in them in the future. I wouldn’t consider myself a good candidate for doing so, because my experience (especially when it comes to college) is far outside the norm. I’d like to, though; it’s an ugly place, this world feminists want us to create for ourselves.
Allowing for the fact that I don’t fully understand the world civilian girls come up in, I do have to assume that many of them are simply reacting to their social environment, as is typical for much of human behavior. Part of dealing with the issue is recognizing that those are factors that have to be addressed. Getting the older generations of women to admit to their ideas were mistaken, rather than perpetuating them in the hopes that this time those ideas will prove true, would be a good start. Us ladies have created this problem for ourselves, and we need to be doing our part to correct it.
Sorry for getting so off-topic with this.
@BradA
We’re both on the same page with where our relationship is going, but the ball’s in his court. When he’s ready to propose, I’m there.
Dear TFH:
I think this is true of the cohort which came of age a few years ago. The trend is less pronounced with late teens today. I don’t have any idea why, but college men look at sex in a completely detranscendentalized way, even compared to men in their mid 20s.
For these people, there is no such thing as romance, in the way we all knew it. Sex is fine and pervasive, and women hold no mysteries.
What do you think? I’m unable to pin the change down to any one factor (low testosterone, unattractive women, video games, etc.). There isn’t one single social trend which has changed appreciably in the last five years.
Dear Cynthia:
A very succinct interpretation. This is enough reason, in my view, for us to fight feminists to the finish.
Ugly people hate the existence of beauty. It reminds them of their own ugliness (which they wear like a cloak, and refuse to shed). Feminists are broken, damaged, sick people, and the rest of us need to quit coddling and enabling them.
Boxer
TFH @ 2:50 pm:
“2% : Extremely few men know enough about the laws to decide that ‘marriage’ itself is too risky.”
That’s way too low. Divorce is everywhere and the rate of fatherless kids is pushing 40%. Young men in particular don’t have even the chance to be ignorant about Marriage 2.0. Those chickens are home to roost.
Men are turning to porn & video games BECAUSE they know how horrible marriage is. It’s a lonely life but also a safe one.
The opposite is unfortnately true: Marriage is so weakly coupled with fertility that it can no longer be reliably used as a proxy for childbearing.
Very true. I ran a quick mental note of the couples I know where both are under 30. We know 6. Several have been married since their early 20’s. Only one of them is black by the way so it’s a relavant anecdote. Of the 6 only one has seen children and the other 5 are purposely postponing children until some yet to be determined perfect time.
So EW is right that in effect many of these young (for now) wives will be in same predicament fertility-wise as the women who waited until their mid-30’s or later to marry.
Because of their high IQs? At any rate it didn’t used to be rare for women to give healthy birth well into their 40s and its still not rare amongst certain populations. If birth has become risky for women even as young as 30s then we have to wonder what’s in the water supply.
When you actually look into it, I believe you will find that the majority of women who were successfully having children in their forties had started in their early twenties or even earlier. They bore many children and gave birth fairly regularly. It would seem to me that there is something about starting early and birthing frequently that may increase a woman’s ability to have children later in life.
hey dalrock!
i think i may get my ph.d. in theology like my new mentor:
🙂
Gunner, Spike, et al.
Here is a young person trying to battle the tempest of the MMP with his/her (probably a girl) Christian values intact. The comment at the bottom came in last night. This is why I say, we can’t win this battle without direct intervention with these young people.
http://courtshippledge.com/2013/07/questions-from-a-reader-2/
Cynthia,
I’m glad to see that you’re starting to see the error of your ways. Whether you realize it or not yours is a cautionary tale about what happens when a society foolishly treats men and women as interchangeable. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your life trajectory is a huge net loss for society. You used up a rare service academy slot that should have gone to a man – a man who would have been a better officer than you, and would not have dumped his career mid-track to get married and have babies. As it is, you received preferential treatment in the name of “equality,” were always held to lower standards than your male counterparts, and now the people who paid for all of that will receive absolutely no benefit from either your expensive education nor the experience you gained because of it. I say this as a graduate from a military academy who served an entire career and retires as a field grade officer.
This is the same sort of problem that has resulted in doctor shortages in places like the U.K. (and coming to the U.S.). Rare and expensive medical school slots are increasingly going to women who become GP’s or pediatricians for a few years, then go to part time – or drop out of medicine entirely – when their biological clocks start ticking too loudly.
I would hope that – knowing what you know now – you would strongly advise any girl thinking of taking up a service academy slot (or military scholarship) to choose another path.
This is the same sort of problem that has resulted in doctor shortages in places like the U.K. (and coming to the U.S.). Rare and expensive medical school slots are increasingly going to women who become GP’s or pediatricians for a few years, then go to part time – or drop out of medicine entirely – when their biological clocks start ticking too loudly.
I can vouch that this is happening now.
How is online dating, Tinder, etc. affecting relationships? When 80% of the young women are only interested in the top 20% of guys, and the bottom 80% of young guys being ignored, how do you think this is going to affect the marriage rate? When even average to plain-looking girls are getting attention by the top, well-above average guys, it screws up a young girls’ sense of what kind if guy she can get to commit in a marriage – She won’t accept anyone less than who she got for a brief fling with the hot guy from Tinder when she was in her early 20’s. Young women will only pay attention to and date the top 20% or 10% of the best men. The lesser men will be invisible to her. Most young men most likely are having a much, much rougher time than men before internet dating. More young men will remain single I predict, and there will be many more aging spinster women in the future.
“Data that Dalrock has provided leads us to believe that any woman at age 30 who is even just a 5 in looks, can still marry at that time even if her N count is in double digits.”
If she’s thin she’ll even get to marry a man who’s better looking than she is, like a 7. If she’s overweight she’ll still marry, just a guy closer to her own looks.
“It is weird. They buy the big 3000 square-foot house years before they even have their first kid. The wife often has a good job of her own (earning $150K or more), but nonetheless, they marry at 25, but only reproduce at 33 and often end up with just 1 kid. ”
“Lifestyle quality” probably factors in here.
The whole thing is stupid, hence the marriage strike part. You get a whore 5, who is over 30, who only has one child, who you have to upkeep with the Mcmansion and sheet or she divorces you. Shem can shove it up her asshole, which she’ll probably like since she’s had it many a time, but the trend is clear. Marriage is headed for the trash heap, good riddance to bad rubbish!
@TFH:
Interestingly enough, the couple with a child is NOT the black couple. They’re waiting.
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but your life trajectory is a huge net loss for society. You used up a rare service academy slot that should have gone to a man – a man who would have been a better officer than you, and would not have dumped his career mid-track to get married and have babies. ”
Traditionally people held the opinion that military careerists should be like monks and forego marriage and family altogether. When you put your entire life 100% into something you can’t be there for other parts of life so you should just focus on that one thing entirely instead of trying to half-ass with the other thing.
” Shem can shove it up her asshole, which she’ll probably like since she’s had it many a time, but the trend is clear. ”
Don’t shoot the messenger, I’m a straight guy. Thin 5’s are managing to snag 7 husbands post-30. Obesity stats being what they are, a thin 32 year old 5 is currently considered a 7.5 herself.
Marcus D, you posted this one yet? Seems we have a nice young feminist guy teaching high school, straight guys how to be with girls/women. Such a nice thoughtful young boy.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/07/the_anti_pick_up_artists_guide_a_new_graphic_novel_teaches_teen_boys_how_to_form_healthy_hook_ups/
Just when they thought their sexuality was going to be fully unleashed, our wives and daughters are being reigned in by Big Cinema. Cries of “OPPRESSION!!!” echoed out across the plains.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943158/Theaters-ask-moviegoers-leave-whips-ropes-home-ahead-Fifty-Shades-Grey-world-premiere.html
‘Let the young man know those girls are at best good for sticking a penis in for pleasure. Make sure you pull out and shoot on her back or wear a condom. Don’t worry about hurting her feelings because she damn sure doesn’t care about you. Don’t believe me? Fall in love with her and try to wife that slut and see what she says.’
Well after she’s been turned into nothing more than an object of pleasure from said young man I can imagine she wouldn’t be saying anything remotely loving.
Now this is weird. The highest paid female CEO in the USA used to be a man. She’s on the cutting edge of singularity technology, is attempting immortality and made a robot uploaded with the brain and personality of her ex-wife. I’m assuming the wife divorced her before he became a she anyway. These days you never know.
What does this portend for the future of marriage, reproduction and male-female relationships?
@THF
I have to agree that porn is a big aspect in the growing generation just having absolutely warped brains. Feminism plus easily accessible infinite video porn is probably a society ender. Not right away. Might take a long time.
There is no mystery to sex to the next generation.
“I have to agree that porn is a big aspect in the growing generation just having absolutely warped brains.”
I’ve read that little girls are waxing the first signs of pubic hair off and even some boys as well. Am I wrong in assuming kids become porn literate even before puberty now days?
“I’ve bee trying to do my bit in church: when I know young men there are starting to see the Law of Diminishing returns for their efforts (Work hard! Study hard! Train hard! Avoid alcohol, drugs and porn! – You’ll be rewarded with a great virtuous girl who’ll be your faithful wife! – NOT) ”
This is still good advice, virtuous girl reward or not. Discipline and applying oneself diligently to a skill or life’s mission will take a growing boy far in life. He might become one of the world’s most interesting men, which comes with its own rewards.
Oddly on topic. I thought you bros might get a kick out of this one…
Women don’t want to settle down. They want to be in love with dudes like the winner described here.
Earl
She isn’t turned into anything she arrived that way to the ball. It has been repeated over and over these girls have no intention of marrying at all for 10 to 15 years. I just don’t believe we should be shielding young men from seeing the truth. Even commenter Cynthia is still hanging on to that bullshit. The straight up truth is if the woman isn’t down with commitment/submission to marriage and she still desires male attention then SHE is declaring herself a booty call. And that is how you put it because that is what it is, and it is also most important that she knows that is how the men on the carousel and the Christian betas see it too. For those that want to change attitudes it starts right there. Let her know boys are being taught the same message she is being taught.
Let the wicked selfishness and hypergamy work for you. The stuff here has to stop
(she wasn’t turned into to slut by that guy with the penis in her mouth that was taken care of by her mother, and popular culture with the full blessing from the church)
No more projecting virtue on to self declared sluts no matter how good intentioned or popular. When fathers, preachers, friends, mothers etc. have the courage to speak that way to their daughters, young women Then maybe Scott and his wife will have a more ready audience.
I’ve got to believe that part of the explanation of the anomaly in the 40+ group is that it just takes a while for the impact of changed decision making to percolate through the age brackets. In five years let’s take a look at that trend. People in the 40+ bracket grew up in a very different environment than say a 30 year old.
Given my age, I talk to the late 30s to mid-40s women a lot. I see where the road of focusing on career and fun takes you and it’s not pretty. I know people who were fun and life of the party that are still decent looking for their age who can’t get dates at all. One of them has honestly assessed her situation and realizes she’s probably looking at a guy 10+ years older than her at best. Even the ones who can’t get dates end up in what appear to be pump and dump relationships.
But the amount of sheer denial in these women is stunning. Most of them are still doing the SIW schtick. A lot of them filed for divorce in their late 30s or even 40s with no idea what they were signing up for. (A guy who know whose wife dumped him told me she was reading EPL all through the divorce). And they soak up massive validation for their obviously bad decisions on Facebook. It’s nothing but “You go, girl!” They’ve internalized the idea that they can have it all, but their realistic prospects are tough. They appear to be personally unhappy and unfulfilled but haven’t yet taken the “red pill”. I fear for what will happen when they are 55+ and alone.
This my reasoning for the idea of the MGTOW father. A man with the desire for family that chooses that path continues on without regard for some unicorn that doesn’t exist. All men also must know striving for and carrying those qualities means nothing in family court. That man will be treated no different than a drunk adulterer. In fact he will most likely be treated more harshly by law simply due to his more productive nature. And the fact he is a caring man means he will also endure a heavy emotional toll.
Neguy
Thank you
Shem,
Martine Rothblatt is not someone who “used to be” a man. Martine Rothblatt is a man, and will be until the day he dies. Artificial hormone injections and undergoing a surgical “Lopitoffome” cannot turn a man into a woman.
Shem also wrote,
Traditionally people held the opinion that military careerists should be like monks and forego marriage and family altogether.
And where was that ever a tradition? Except for small groups like the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller (both of whom took vows of celibacy but generally did not observe them), the vast majority of professional soldiers throughout time have had no such expectations placed upon them. To the contrary, one of the most elite fighting units of the ancient world – the 300 Spartans who fought at Thermopylae – was composed entirely of fathers who had living sons. You will search in vain for any society that placed a significant portion of its security into the hands of celibate men. Even groups like the yamabushi and sōhei warrior monks, although powerful for some periods of Japanese history, were never a majority of the troops in the field, and much of their energy was spent fighting each other rather than protecting the surrounding society.
I wouldn’t have taken this tangent except that it’s pertinent to our discussion: sexual incentives matter. Telling a man that he has an obligation to protect a society’s women and children, while being forbidden from having a woman or siring children, will not and cannot work on any militarily-significant scale. We are seeing – right now – what happens when men are given responsibilities without any guarantee that their sacrifices will get them laid – the consequences are right there in the charts at the top of this article.
“I have to agree that porn is a big aspect in the growing generation just having absolutely warped brains.”
I’ve read that little girls are waxing the first signs of pubic hair off and even some boys as well. Am I wrong in assuming kids become porn literate even before puberty now days?
Broadband smartphones have been around now since, what, 2007? 8 years. Basically this means anyone who is 21 or younger has probably had access to internet porn on a smartphone for that period. Obviously the younger, the more impact. The entire generation under 30 is impacted by having grown up with widely available internet porn, but smartphones and tablets made it even that much more portable and private, which further increased the impact.
At this point, we are looking at 2 generations at least whose primary lens on sexuality is porn. When that happens, you get what Boxer describes about the students he sees. How can sex have any mystery when people have been marinating in every different variety of it in full HD for their formative years sexually? This isn’t like Dad’s stack of playboys hidden in the garage. It’s an entirely different thing. And girls are also looking at porn (not as much as boys are, for sure, but they are looking without question). It’s forming girls ideas as well not only about how they should look (the porn star look for pubic hair has now gone cultural mainstream for men and women alike), but how men should look, what kinds of penis size they are looking for, what kind of musculature and the kind of sex, etc.
Porn is now becoming the mainstream for what sex is supposed to be for the youngest generations. That is a dramatic change, and because it’s so recent it hasn’t really been studied that much yet other than poking fingers at young men who have ED. The broader impacts are there, but no-one wants to discuss them because it isn’t PC to do so in a sex-poz culture.
modern society proves
that when women are empowered
porn rises in a drastic manner
for while
most men only watch porn
the women are the ones who physically act it out.
women also drive the “literary” porn:
when women are empowered,
porn augments across all realms.
note how the rabbi blames fifty shades of grey on men:
men just don’t desire women enough, and thus wives have to read porn.
however, when men watch porn, it is also because they do not desire their wives enough.
lzozzolzzl sorry i had to.
About that trip to Bali. The Honeymoon used to take care of the youthful penchant for adventure in our early 20-something demographic. That and the yearly summer vacation. Because early marriage is delayed young men and women take those trips alone or with friends. Does anyone know who came up with that “spring break” idea?
Lyn87 you got thrown by my use of the word monk. I didn’t mean to imply that all such men should remain life long virgins, just that marriage and family building can’t be done correctly when one is already married to a career that takes them away from their family upwards of 80% of the time, as a life long military career does.
GBFM, have you seen this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943158/Theaters-ask-moviegoers-leave-whips-ropes-home-ahead-Fifty-Shades-Grey-world-premiere.html
Not sure if its just pre-opening night propaganda or for realzzz. I’m almost tempted to buy a V-day ticket just to spy.
TFH said
>Aside from that, some men will accept whatever crap is fobbed off onto them (often by the church), but other men, even if unaware of red-pill memes, will simply decide that unless they can get a woman who is both under 30 and at least a 6, they won’t marry. This group of men, who will set an absolute floor for what they will settle for, also matters.
and Farm Boy said
> A man could just look at the available women and say to himself, “No. Not really”.
Yup, that’s me. I had a strong desire to get married, starting about age 22. Currently in mid forties. Ouch. In that time, I can think of 3 Canadian-raised women I knew that I thought would make good wives. Also likely, others that I did not know well enough to assess. I am not trash, and do not accept the notion that I should settle for such. Since I limit my freedom by trying to be the man required by Scripture, why shouldn’t I ask the same? Or at least partly?
@Spike
>What can be done? Getting the fathers of intact families in churches to tell their daughters that yes, one day they will grow up and be adults, so it is better for them to put a priority on early and high quality marriage would be a start.
This would be very wise. Not sure how you would though. See comments to Cail below.
@l jess
>Why are the 40+ year old women who were never married able to get married – A woman at that age bracket does not have much to offer for the risks involved
Great question. I am in mid forties, but I can’t see the value in a “typical” woman of 40, who has a history of selfish spending, none of her prime or even close-to-prime fertile years, and only a fraction of her beauty remaining. Yes, I actually want a young wife, who is still mold-able and able to give me something somewhat close to her best. And am content (not ecstatic) to live alone otherwise.
Yes, there might be a virtuous, generous woman of 40 available. But still, she cannot offer much for a MARRIAGE relationship. Much or all of what she can offer is available in any male to male friendship. So what is the point of a marriage relationship with her?
@Cail
>An 18-year-old girl these days is doing well to plan lunch, let alone the next decade of her life. She’s not thinking, “I’ll start looking for a husband the day after my 28th birthday.”
Actually, some do. One partially feminine woman I know from church informed me that she plans to finish school, then look for a husband at 27. I should have pointed out that she will have lost at least a third of her looks and all of her prime fertility by then. Thus, is she also willing to accept a man who makes no effort to give his best to his wife?
I am sure she would still be able to marry, but would just provide less to her husband. If she chooses to be promiscuous, far less.
@Cynthia
> A single man cannot hope to reign in what a lifetime’s education in selfishness and short-sightedness has done to this generation of girls.
Very wise.
Comment from one of my sons’ friends, ” most girls my age expect you to want to anal sex them nowadays. Blow jobs are just so yesterday.”
Me thinks that younger women watch as much porn as the boys do now.
“but other men, even if unaware of red-pill memes, will simply decide that unless they can get a woman who is both under 30 and at least a 6, they won’t marry.”
Then they won’t marry. The vast majority of women are not 6+ in looks.
Me thinks that younger women watch as much porn as the boys do now.
I’d say not as much (not as visually stimulated — many boys are watching daily, and I doubt very many girls do that), but still much more than anyone thinks. Everyone is focused on the way guys are using porn (which is fine, it’s problematic to say the least) that everyone is also overlooking the fact that girls are watching too, even if less often, and it’s having a huge impact on female sexual expectations, desires, etc. It’s all so new (broadband mobile HD porn), that it isn’t really on the radar yet other than the typical guy shaming fodder. But it’s a mega-influence on the culture right now, and one that is largely under the radar.
“This my reasoning for the idea of the MGTOW father. A man with the desire for family that chooses that path continues on without regard for some unicorn that doesn’t exist. All men also must know striving for and carrying those qualities means nothing in family court. That man will be treated no different than a drunk adulterer. In fact he will most likely be treated more harshly by law simply due to his more productive nature. And the fact he is a caring man means he will also endure a heavy emotional toll.”
Some have argued its not ideal but if more good single men start adopting kids or hiring surrogates to incubate their sperm, it will change both society’s and the law’s view of fatherhood for the better. To some extent gay men adopting is doing that I suppose because it’s considered homophobic and un-pc to oppose it. If straight single men started doing it to the same degree gay couples are I wonder what the reaction would be?
“I’d say not as much (not as visually stimulated — many boys are watching daily, and I doubt very many girls do that), but still much more than anyone thinks. ”
They’re watching it more than they probably admit to. What they do admit to doing though is reading online erotica. A whole helluva lot of it. Its not only shaping their sexuality, its shaping their expectations of men from top to bottom, pillar to post, bedroom to bank account.
Seven Stars
2 months ago
I really really like this guy and I support his decision on not playing Christian Grey. Despite what he says I truly believe that he turned down the film because of the writing and over all story. Although popular, 50 Shades Of Grey just has some very unrealistic moments in it and it has a lot to do with the author being a woman (and a Pisces). Women like her, the author of twilight, Zane and Shonda Rhimes just love to play out these unlikely and unrealistic love story scenarios. Its the same as a man writing up a story about his lead character escaping multiple near death scenarios like shoot outs, car chases and bobm explosions (ahem, Kurt Shutter) without dying.
Anyway, the idea of these rich, powerful, established men seducing, stalking and falling in love with these bland, average, generic and slightly annoying women appeals to the masses but someone like myself…its a total WTF experience and it completely takes advantage of the impressionable women out there wondering where their Christian Grey is.
They find him. The 3,4, or even 5 girl is f-cking the 9 Christian Grey. Once a week. And it can only be once a week because he is busy f-cking six other 3,4, or 5 girls who are bland, average, generic and slightly annoying. These 7 women are (unknowingly) sharing the same man. What he is NOT doing is taking any of them out dinner or spending any money on them (not a dime.) He doesn’t have to.
“They find him. The 3,4, or even 5 girl is f-cking the 9 Christian Grey.”
No they’re not. Christian Grey is a 27 year old self-made billionaire. How many are those out there? What the 3,4, and 5 girls are doing is f-cking the 4,5, and 6 guys from their school or work, respectively. Their lives do not intersect with the lives of highly desirable, high status men.
And its not just his billionaire status that makes this Grey character fantasy worthy. How many girls fantasize about being tied up by Mark Zuckerberg? CG’s got a whole slew of other features like 8 pack abs, a pretty face and a huge shlong, that they will line up around the block to pay money to catch a glimpse of. If we thought we had it bad before, there’s no preparation for what sort of tsunami this stupid movie is going to cause in the battle of the sexes.
Even I don’t f-ck 3,4 or most 5 girls; and I’m a working-class dude of modest means who has a tiny little micro. Why would a well-hung trillionaire gym-junkie waste his time? (Assuming he hasn’t got some sort of weird fetish where ugly, dumpy chicks turn him on somehow).
Shem writes,
Lyn87 you got thrown by my use of the word monk. I didn’t mean to imply that all such men should remain life long virgins, just that marriage and family building can’t be done correctly when one is already married to a career that takes them away from their family upwards of 80% of the time, as a life long military career does.
First, I don’t know how else to take it – you wrote, “Traditionally people held the opinion that military careerists should be like monks and forego marriage and family altogether.” My point is that there is nothing traditional about that at all, and the only groups of men who did that sort of thing were, in fact, religious orders of military men such as the Knights Templar and Hospitaller in medieval Europe and the Yamabushi and Sōhei monks of feudal Japan – literal warrior monks. Such men have never formed the backbone of the military force of any polity of any size. That’s my point – it is impossible to persuade a large enough percentage of men to forgo marriage and family to create a military force large enough to serve its purpose of protecting the society from aggressors, which is why the “tradition” you’re talking about has never existed. It simply cannot be done. And it cannot be done for the same reason that it is increasingly difficult to persuade Millennial men to prepare for marriage by signaling provider status: men will throw themselves into a meat-grinder for a shot at women, but generally will not do so if there are no women to be had, or if they can be had without the extreme sacrifices and risks required for, say, marching against the infidels… or Marriage 2.0.
Second, as for your assertion that a military career takes a man away from his family for “upwards of 80% of the time”… all can say is that you must not have any experience with how the military actually works. As a retired field grade officer, I can assure you that you are off by a very wide margin.
“Comment from one of my sons’ friends, ” most girls my age expect you to want to anal sex them nowadays. Blow jobs are just so yesterday.”
Take heart, Denihilist. I don’t think anal sex is as mainstream as the porn industry would have us believe. There’s no way I’m believing 50% of American heterosexuals engage in this practice.
“But it is stupid on their part. They shrank the number of kids from three down to one (so the poor child has no siblings), for what? Just to have a luxury car, diamonds, and a mortgage on a wooden box with 5 bedrooms (despite, ironically, having just one kid)?
Upside down priorities, clearly driven by the woman’s desire to compete with other women on status, the husband and child being just props and supporting actors in this production.”
What gives you the impression their husbands want more kids, TFH?
Let me unpack Shem’s comment a bit more, because I heard a very silly young woman contend that military men should be forbidden to marry or father children… not because married men have other things to worry about, but because it’s not fair to military women that pregnancy harms their careers by making them non-deployable, while military men are not expected to put family formation on hold. (Which ignores that units with a lot of females typically see a huge spike in pregnancies whenever the unit is about to be sent to war.)
My response to that is that: if the men who protect the country are forbidden to marry until they have finished their careers around the age of 40 (or more), their female age-peers would be too old to marry and bear children once the men would no longer be under that restriction, so it will become necessary for young women to register for a “Marriage Draft,” so that those men can have the young-wife-and-family they would be denied under such a system once they are discharged. Needless to say, divorce and abortion would be illegal for her, abandonment would be treated the same as desertion, and infidelity would be treated the same as defecting to the enemy. All children would be DNA tested to ensure compliance, of course.
Seems fair to me.
Elspeth,
Of the 6 only one has seen children and the other 5 are purposely postponing children until some yet to be determined perfect time.
I would smack them if I could. I now lament even the 3 months my wife was on birth control when we were first married. How stupid couples are today!
Lyn87,
Telling a man that he has an obligation to protect a society’s women and children, while being forbidden from having a woman or siring children, will not and cannot work on any militarily-significant scale.
I would suspect that is a root cause of many of the issues the RCC faces as well.
Shem,
Waiting until your late 20s to marry is idiotic. I did it because I had no viable candidates prior to that and my wife did it out of choice and her own hesitancy. God put us together and we have a good long trip, but one of the huge drawbacks is the lack of our own children. (Adoption is not the same.)
It is definitely not worth waiting, contrary to your claim. I highly doubt you have the life experience to really evaluate that claim, but you are in error even if you have some that seem to point that way.
Putting off sex or having it outside God’s bounds in a prime fertile years is idiotic!
I would not recommend a single man adopt. Too much risk of false accusations, especially since the available children will likely know or learn quickly how to play the system to their own benefit.
Cynthia,
Then I will believe what you write about seeing the need to get going when you do just that. You will be less valuable (sexually) each month your boyfriend delays and your fertility will also drop. I can see why he would be hesitant, but waiting 1 month longer is dangerous at your age. The wall is real.
Shem.
That is not the point I was making.
BradA writes, “Waiting until your late 20s to marry is idiotic.”
I don’t get it, either. I dated in college with marriage in mind, but would probably have waited until I graduated before tying the knot – since it was a military school. I would not have hesitated for a moment to marry at 22 once I graduated and received my commission if I had met the right girl. As it turned out, I met my wife just after my 25th birthday and married her four months later (she had just turned 20 – if we had met under the same circumstances a few months earlier I would have been a First Lieutenant married to a teenager). Even then, I was voluntarily celibate for several incredibly sexually-frustrating years. If I had been told that I couldn’t marry until my military career was over I would have found something else to do with my life. Some guys will sign up for a lifetime of celibacy (taking RC vows, for instance), but nobody is going to volunteer to be celibate until 40 to protect the wives and children of other men, as well as those other men themselves who do not share those restrictions. The only way to make that work would be to make both military service and celibacy mandatory, which would require the “marriage draft” of young women I referred to in my last post. Obviously, that’s a “Modest Proposal” type of thing.
As I alluded to earlier, the flip side of men not wanted to sacrifice and face risk for no reward is that men will also dodge sacrifice and risk if women can be had without those things. That’s where we are now in some ways – sex just isn’t that hard to get. Before anyone accuses me of falling for the Apex Fallacy, I can say that girls were pretty slutty in my day – although decorum required them to hide it better – and although I’m an average guy in the looks department and not particularly “player material” – I could easily have had sex with about a dozen women even though I was actively celibate. If I had been trying, I imagine I could have slept with scores of women.
So the risks involved in marriage (and guys nowadays have all seen good men go through the ringer), and a glut of sex on the “supply side” of the ledger provide a one-two punch that is reflected in the Census Bureau charts.
An interesting, purple pill view on the declining value of children:
http://qz.com/231313/children-arent-worth-very-much-thats-why-we-no-longer-make-many/
“There is another, related shift in the direction of resource flow during this time: resources (including labor) stop flowing from wives to husbands, and instead flow from husbands to wives, as a result of Western-style female liberation. This trend is also a result of education, and amplifies the trend toward low fertility. Since the emancipation of women frequently lags the child-parent economic transformation, it does not seem to be the first cause; Japan’s fertility decline occurred in the post-war 1940s, tracking the forced implementation of Western-style mass education, but women’s opportunities for education, professional employment, and political participation continue to be limited and were much more so in the 1940s, despite American-imposed female suffrage. Few would describe Japan in the 1940s as a hotbed of feminism and licentiousness, yet its fertility declined steeply and has not recovered since.”
“Industrialization negatively affected women’s productivity earlier than men’s productivity, usurping traditional female work from spinning and weaving to food production. The declining economic value of both women and children necessitated that they be granted symbolic value instead. The “cult of motherhood” beginning in the 1820s in England was a response to this – granting motherhood special status as a full-time occupation, and as a fulfilling life’s work. Similarly, as the economic value of children fell, their sacred value increased. Both of these value transformations are not spontaneously occurring, but culturally transmitted; and the vector for their transmission is mass Western-style education. Literature for the masses, from pamphlets of the 1820s to television, also plays a major role.”
Repeated several times in this thread:
“what is really not quite understandable is – Why are the 40+ year old women who were never married able to get married – A woman at that age bracket does not have much to offer for the risks involved – They have definite issues and you may find divorce coming easily.”
As a man who dates these women and ones a few years younger I might offer some insight. First these women can be broken into two basic groups in my considerable experience. Hopeless fatties or otherwise undesirables like single moms with rotten spawn(s), I’ve never once dated any of these, I date the other group. An effective search of most any online dating site adjusted for preference will yield a fairly large number of 36-43ish slender, accomplished over-achievers who have held out longer than they should have if they wanted a family. I’ve dated quite a few women like these. Some with doctorates, businesses who pay cash for new cars, even houses. I’m not holding out for a woman with “Christie Brinkley” genetics who appears to be a 10 at 61yo but many of these women are quite fit. A slender woman who has never had a child at 40 is in most cases miles ahead in appearance of anybodies married Mommy at 40, no offense intended. What these women offer me is physical attractiveness, sophistication, behavioral maturity (to a degree) and in some cases considerable net worth. There’s quite a few of these career/over achieving women in circulation and my favorite part is that negotiating a Child-Free lifestyle with a pre-nup isn’t so far fetched. For me this is the only way to fly. Regarding dating these women I should point out a suitor has to offer them quite a lot as well. Net worth, height (sorry), good appearance, dominant game, damn nice shoes etc. After all they got where they are partly by being too picky. They will settle for good since they finally realize fantastic is not available but these honeys won’t settle for average, ever. In the case of Christian-single-never-married-no-kids some of them have low N’s and a few of them are rare virgin’s that I could never meet in my 20’s. All this being on the table I still expect MGHOW is a better than a 50% chance in my case.
I’m still curious as to what “free ride” TFH thinks betas of yore got from marriage.
On the topic of ugliness:
“Feminist Aborts Her Male Baby Because Patriarchy”
http://patterico.com/2015/02/08/two-baby-boys-and-two-choices-made-one-for-life-one-for-death/
I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male.
I don’t hate men, I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable.
If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.
Pingback: 2014 Never Married Data | Truth and contradicti...
MarcusD
That was one evil woman. How would you like to be the loser in love with her.
“but other men, even if unaware of red-pill memes, will simply decide that unless they can get a woman who is both under 30 and at least a 6, they won’t marry.
Then they won’t marry. The vast majority of women are not 6+ in looks.”
Agreed.
Most American women, even young women, just aren’t that attractive or even try to be attractive. There is an epidemic of obesity and just bad taste among young women today. The next time that you go out to the mall, or Walmart, take a mental note of the women you see, how many are actually decently attractive and nice looking? Do they minimally pass your boner test? If they look bad when they are young, it only gets worse as they age. How many women these days actually make an effort to be feminine and nice looking? Maybe they don’t have to because they are still getting attention from men who don’t expect much perhaps?
“(Assuming he hasn’t got some sort of weird fetish where ugly, dumpy chicks turn him on somehow)”
And clingy. You forgot clingy.
I was not aware that Japan’s fertility rate collapsed as early as the 1940’s and has never recovered, as Artoo noted. That would indicate that the most damaging consequence of Pearl Harbor was not the island-hopping campaign, firebombing of their cities, or even two atomic bombs… It was the imposition of western ideas of the role of women by the government we imposed on them after we won the shooting part of the war. It’s much easier to convince women not to bear future soldiers than to have to kill them later, I suppose… Although I’m sure that was not the intent: the American-led government thought that they were doing the Japanese people a favor by forcing them to abandon the barbaric tribal mindset that led to their disastrous policies of 1937 and after.
Maybe they don’t have to because they are still getting attention from men who don’t expect much perhaps?
Yes.
One of the interesting things about the sphere is that, here, men are all only interested in women who are quite attractive, and all prefer to go it alone otherwise.
In the real world, it is not that way at all. In the real world, many guys will opt for what is available to them, woman-wise, over being alone. Many, many men. Not the men in the manosphere, but the rest of the guys.
I live in the eastern megalopolis, where appearance is increasingly becoming a class issue and marker — that is, people who are wealthier and more educated tend (not universally, but strongly tend) to take better care of themselves and therefore tend to be more attractive as they age (not necessarily when younger, but rather as they age, which is how the “taking care of yourself” plays out). So you tend to be surrounded by people in that social class who are mostly slightly above average in terms of attractiveness well into their 40s and 50s. However, when you go down the social ladder, you see that people are less good often about taking care of themselves and often don’t age as well — so they don’t look as good at those ages. However, they are still mating and getting together. Marriage is dropping off among them for economic reasons, but they are still mating with each other.
That is, being a fat girl is much more of a liability among the highly educated UMCs than it is among the middle/middles and lower, when it comes to people in the middle aged range (let’s say 40s). That’s because the standard is different. But when you go to WalMart or hang out at the Jersey Shore or Atlantic City, or what have you — places which are dominated by the lower echelons class-wise — you see plenty of overweight men and women paired up. Plenty of them. The women are not going without because they are fat — far from it. The reason is because these guys have decided that they would rather be with a woman they can have than be alone. Most guys still make that decision — whether they marry the woman or not. You see these people literally everywhere, if you step outside the bubble a bit.
It may be the case that we are undergoing a bit of a generational shift, in terms of men beginning to prefer porn/games/beer/bros to women they can actually attain, and that segment is genuinely growing, but it will be interesting to see how these guys are behaving in their 30s. If they stick to bro culture and gaming, or if they pair up with the women they can attain having wasted their 20s like that (i.e., they won’t be the hotties). It will be interesting to see how many of them choose to actually be alone over being with a woman they can obtain — I’m not sure how it will play out.
In the sphere, it seems like we have a lot of guys who — regardless of their own actual socio-economic class — have similar standards in appearance expectations from middle aged women as men in the UMC do. It’s interesting, because this is outlierish when it comes to the behavior of most men from these social classes, when you actually look at who is paired up with whom (it’s plenty of average or unattractive people paired up with other average or unattractive people rather than being alone).
The Japanese issue is one unto itself, but the issue started well below WW2. The islands require the importation of nearly 50% of their calories. It can’t sustain itself. That’s got a lot to do with how the culture adapted.
I don’t know if Dalrock’s data supports it, but it’s true. Of course, some will say that anyone can get married anytime, as long as he’s willing to lower his standards enough. A 30-year-old male 5 could get married, if he’s willing to marry a 350-pounder who never shaves and has her shrink’s personal cell number (although even some of those would reject him). But a 30-year-old female 5 who wants to marry can get a male 5 — which means that after several years, she’ll probably be a 4 married to a 6, age-adjusted.
As we’ve talked about so many times, though, the 30-year-old 5 is rarely willing to settle for a 5, because she was bedded by some 7s and 8s when she was younger.
but a lot of women in $100K bullshit make-work jobs really believe that a man making $90K in the private sector is not good enough for her.
I don’t think that’s exactly right.
However, this is from my personal experience.
I think a woman making any amount is very likely living paycheck to paycheck, as many, many Americans are. So, a man making less is a risk of losing even the comfort of paycheck-to-paycheck, because if one person making $XX,XXX is barely making due, adding one more person making sub $XX,XXX is almost certainly to lead to a drop in status.
My ex made more than me during our marriage. There were reasons, the leading reason being that my job had excellent retirement and healthcare at no cost. So, my paycheck was less, but the benefits more than made up for it. However, it wasn’t “tangible” to her.
We lived paycheck-to-paycheck for a decade, despite living in a very modest house and making well above $100,000.
We divorced. I was hit with a ridiculous support order. Even at the reduced income and her at the higher income, I started to enjoy a higher quality of life because my actual expenses were very small. Conversely, her budget simply expanded to the new amount and she found herself behind in bills again (I receive automated calls from the utility companies because my number was the main number on the account).
So, I don’t think they feel they’re too good for a guy making less. I think they fear it will reduce their quality of life. Therefore, they will only consider men with more resources than they have.
To be clear, I don’t “buy” the line of reasoning. I did witness it though.
I think most men will continue to take what they can get, but that will increasingly not involve marriage. Men will settle with ugly/fat women for the sake of sex, but they’ll be less willing to marry them as long as there’s no social pressure to do so. A 5 man might pair off with a 2 woman if he hasn’t been able to get a date in three years and she makes it easy, but he’s still going to be hoping to get a 5 someday, so why would he marry the 2? And the women will be okay with that most of the time, because it means they can have a man around the house and have kids, but keep all their own options open — serial monogamy.
We’ve been hearing for a long time that porn damages men for marriage because seeing 10s with airbrushing ruins them for a real woman with blemishes. But I’ve been wondering if it doesn’t explain women’s sexual dissatisfaction in marriage as well. Sex in porn is so mechanical, because they’re performing for a camera: get in this position and go at that speed until it’s time to move to the next position. Mainstream movies don’t help either, with their slow, soft-focus sex scenes. You rarely see a guy in either one just grab a woman by the hair and plunder her with abandon, unless it’s to show something evil is going on.
So if guys are trying to have good sex the way they’ve been taught by movies and porn, maybe it’s no surprise that so many wives lose interest in it.
Which is basically just saying they think they’re too good for a guy making less.
Wow, it’s almost as if what you describe makes life a inordinate waste of time. The life you describe is better spent dead, for both sexes. There’s no reason or purpose to such an existence.
Telling your daughter that she is a little princess that is entitled to have it all should be considered child abuse. We wonder why American women can never be satisfied with any man.
This is how it starts (although if your rich):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2944446/The-200-000-playrooms-world-s-wealthy-building-little-princesses-Inside-Frozen-inspired-imagination-suites-designed-children-world-s-multi-millionaires-cost-home.html
Which is basically just saying they think they’re too good for a guy making less.
Ha. Fair enough. Let’s chalk it up to “Distinction without a difference.”
I think everything Novaseeker says above about looks is spot on. Personally I think this is a little weirdness of the manosphere because looks are fleeting so prioritizing it for a lifelong commitment is the female equivalent of mindlessly banging the bad boy alpha. Sure, my hormones tell me hotness is number one but my brain knows better.
Regarding looks and wealth that Novaseeker commented on I find this striking. My faith designates your congregation based on geography (LDS). When I finally finished my training and jumped from a middle class congregation to an upper middle class one I was shocked. In my generation if the husband is a decent provider few women work (up and coming generations differ) and the wife’s of the strong providers tended on average to maintain their looks despite 3-5 kids. The wealthy congregation was much better looking. I detected no difference in devotion to God, faithfulness, kindness, divorce rate. All of that was the same but in the middle and low class congregation the women had a few kids and gave up on looks. In the UMC the women in their 30s and 40s had a few kids and still looked great and thin. Very interesting.
embracing reality,
a fairly large number of 36-43ish slender, accomplished over-achievers
And they would come with almost certainly come with a boatload of internal strong-independent-woman feelings and actions.
They will settle for good since they finally realize fantastic is not available but these honeys won’t settle for average, ever.
Or just a bit above average either. Remember that most men, by definition, are not above average, especially enough above average for these women.
You may be a special snowflake, but this is not a viable path for most and would not really explain the relatively high marriage rates in the 40 plus range.
Note that you started with:
“what is really not quite understandable is – Why are the 40+ year old women who were never married able to get married – A woman at that age bracket does not have much to offer for the risks involved – They have definite issues and you may find divorce coming easily.”
This indicates that you are addressing the normal case, which could not be the case as it wouldn’t fit “most men” or likely even “most women.”
I don’t think the stats exist, but it would be interesting to know the attractiveness of those in these marriages.
TFH,
Manginas got paired up with a wife in Marriage 1.0, despite being utterly revolting to women. Manginas, who should not be reproducing, got to reproduce.
Bah. We could not survive in a society where most people were not somewhat compliant. Too much rebellion breeds anarchy and that is not good for a civilization. The problem is not that these people exist, it is that they have bought a lie that their behavior is justified and proper. They are easily led as the useful idiots referred to by many.
We need to change core societal ideas, not purge some vague “mangina gene” out of the gene pool.
Beeker,
The next time that you go out to the mall, or Walmart, take a mental note of the women you see, how many are actually decently attractive and nice looking?
You find women snagging men who I would not expect at all. My wife works in a Walmart for a few more days and I have seen quite a bit in there. A few of the men are just as bad as the women, but my own feeling is that the trending is for the woman to be the worst of the pair.
That and the puppy men toting the children around like a slave….
“So if guys are trying to have good sex the way they’ve been taught by movies and porn, maybe it’s no surprise that so many wives lose interest in it.”
It never occurs to people, especially adolescent boys whose brains are clouded by testosterone, that an adult movie is, exactly that, a movie. If you try to do things to the girl next door that the guys in those movies do to their partners, bad things will happen.
We met a woman last night in her late 50’s perhaps who is engaged to be married. Her fiancee doesn’t look much older than her, (perhaps even younger) and she was wearing quite a rock on her hand. I assumed she was widowed before because even though the fiance lived in the house, there were pictures on the wall of an entire family. A diorcee wouldn’t have that with a new man in the house.
So hubs and I discussed what he would want for me should he meet an untimely demise. “You shouldn’t be alone” was his conclusion. And I reminded him that I am 43 years old- now. No one is going to be beating a path to my door and I wouldn’t want to remarry anyway. I truly wouldn’t.
He reminded me of how many women we run into like the one we had just met, who haven’t held up (physically speaking) nearly as well as I have. “Did you see that woman?”, he said.
I’m wondering if we’re just in a weird social dynamic at present because while I know full that the older you get the less desireable you are as a woman, we keep seeing 45+ women tying the knot.
You’re bound to get over-representation of the extremes in any self-selected group, especially one as far outside the mainstream as the manosphere is. The man who settled for a less attractive woman but considers himself reasonably happy isn’t showing up on the manosphere — not until she frivorces him, anyway. He doesn’t need it, or doesn’t think he does. But you’re going to get plenty of men who are bitter from being frivorced; men who want a higher-value woman than they’ve been able to attract, and want to know how to make that happen; men who have discovered that unattractive women aren’t any easier to deal with and keep loyal than hot chicks, so why not shoot for a hot one; etc.
You’ll also see a certain amount of bragging and exaggeration. We haven’t seen the last manosphere guy to declare himself anti-marriage or MGTOW or whatever, and then turn up married one day. He may even have meant it, until he met that one girl. Also, a lot of guys who declare they’re holding out for a 9 may just never have had a willing 7.
Note: I’m not saying we’re a bunch of liars here; but across the manosphere in general, there’s a lot of bull to wade through.
Do you have a coherent definition for “mangina”? I think I know what you’re saying, and I think I agree, but the word gets bandied about so often, in so many different contexts, I’m not really sure.
In any event, it’s an interesting and compelling thought. The shapeless, pudgy, neotenous male feminist is probably the equivalent of the pink-and-purple-haired, tattooed, roly-polies that I see waddling around, fat rolls bursting from their blouses.
Manginas got paired up with a wife in Marriage 1.0, despite being utterly revolting to women. Manginas, who should not be reproducing, got to reproduce.
I dare say it is inhumane to make a woman marry a mangina. That is just as bad as a man having to marry a woman who is a 1 or 2 in looks.
There was nothing inhumane about it. The bygone patriarchy enforced and regulated assortative mating. This meant that the women that were made to marry utterly revolting men were, in fact, mostly 1, 2 or 3 in looks – in other words, they were rather revolting themselves. It wasn’t a bonanza for the man either.
Moreover, there was no other option back then. I’m sure you know that well. Since there was not yet enough excess wealth to squander on single mothers and careerist women, women were either going to be protected and financially supported by men in the context of marriage, or to be left to fend for themselves in a society without affirmative action and welfare programs. In other words, for women the choices were 1. starve to death 2. become a nun 3. become a prostitute 4. assortative marrying. Today other options exist, because Western society still has a lot of excess wealth to squander on women who either can’t or won’t become net contributors to society.
Everyone is focused on the way guys are using porn (which is fine, it’s problematic to say the least)
No, it’s not fine. Focusing on male porn use in order to pander to the misandrist impulses of the audience while remaining quiet about its real causes and completely ignoring the widespread female consumption of emotional pornography and its consequences, is anything but fine.
Hoellen,
Yeah but no one in any authority is doing that. That is because there is no one IN enough authority to police the internet such that anything could be done about it. And even if they COULD do something about it, I’m not sure they would (free speech and all.) So all we get is inane ramblings from frustrated unmarried women who blame everyone but themselves for their circumstances.
I have a little bit of personal experience. My (at that time) manic, unmarried sister-in-law came over for dinner one evening (this was a few years ago) and she was complaining about all the young single males that she worked with who just work all day, go home, warm up their computers, and spend the next 6 hours masturbating to free HD-pron. That brought a chuckle out of everyone at the table, including myself. But this was my house and if she was going to bring that up then I figured she would have welcomed some debate on that point, so I just tried it. I replied with the following question:
You could hear a pin drop when I asked her that. She refused to look me in the eye and instead looked at my wife/her sister, stood up from the dinner table, and said “I think I should go.” That is code word for I-just-made-her-uncomfortable-by-agreeing-with-her-screed-but-then-taking-her-commentary-to-the-point-where-she-starts-to-really-think-about-what-she-said-and-that-is-not-right. It challenged her, and lonely women who have been enabled their whole life do not deal with challenges well.
After she bolted with tears in her eyes everyone else starting giving me a hard time for me giving her a hard time. Of course, I can debate and fight back. I simply said that I agreed with her comment but if she was going to talk about it then I figured she wanted to talk about it. Well no she didn’t want to talk about it at all. She just wanted to VENT! You see that was all that was, her “venting” about pron, blaming the pron on her loneliness, and I should have just been sympathetic instead of leading her down the path where liberalism steps in and says that there is nothing wrong with pron. Pron is the ultimate conflict between typical allies in liberals and feminists, the battle ground for which there is no win-win.
Really hoellen, its just venting. When you hear someone (anyone) railing against men using free online pron, they are just venting. They have no authority to change anything, no authority to penalize men who use pron as their only s-xual outlet, no authority to do anything about men who opt for pron instead of marriage 2.0. And the people who DO have the power to stop it (ISPs, federal government, etc), would never do so because they don’t really want to stop it. So….
…don’t even worry about it.
@Elspeth
You very well could be. Our social circles tend not to be random. A woman’s chances of remarriage in her 40s are lower than when she is younger, but still much better than if she is older. I suspect it is easier for widows than it is for divorcées because they don’t have a bad decision to paper over. A divorcée who tossed out a perfectly good man has a strong need to show that she traded up when she remarries. The longer it takes her to adjust her expectations to reality, the worse her reality gets.
I would also point out that very often the man a woman remarries looks good on paper, but there is something off about him. We know a widow (friend of a friend) who blew through her deceased husband’s life insurance before seeking out a new husband. She found an eager beta provider via online dating surprisingly quickly, and they were married within 6 months. We met him while they were dating and he was a pretty cool guy. Great job, lots of cool stuff, etc. But he was in his 60s and had never been married (one woman had in the past either broken an engagement with him or divorced him within a few months of marriage, I don’t recall which), despite wanting to marry. She divorced him in under a year because he became incredibly clingy. Not a valid reason to divorce, but it does illustrate an important aspect she initially overlooked. If the man had possessed all of the above qualities (nice guy, not bad looking, good job, wanted to marry) and had a minimum degree of game, he would have already been married. I suspect if you look closely at the situation you describe you will fairly quickly spot why this seemingly attractive man was marrying a fairly unattractive woman.
As for your specific situation, I would say that you are exceptional. Most people think they are and are not. In your case though I would guess that you really are and don’t think it.
Really hoellen, its just venting. When you hear someone (anyone) railing against men using free online pron, they are just venting. They have no authority to change anything, no authority to penalize men who use pron as their only s-xual outlet, no authority to do anything about men who opt for pron instead of marriage 2.0. And the people who DO have the power to stop it (ISPs, federal government, etc), would never do so because they don’t really want to stop it.
This is actually packed with some pretty powerful truth. The bottom line is, there is no moral authority held by pretty much anyone to make any demands on the personal sexual proclivities of anyone else. They have sceded that authority in the name of sex-positivism. Even “conservatives” are lost in this mire.
Novaseeker, I tend to see what you do also. I think this is borne out in some of Dal’s posts on re-marriage, where men tend to re-marry in far higher numbers then women. Men after all are the dreamers, where woman tend to be pragmatic, which follows on to Rollo’s theory of men being the true romantics.
“I would also point out that very often the man a woman remarries looks good on paper, but there is something off about him.”
I told my wife that a while back that a woman who wants to get married and doesn’t have anything seriously wrong with her will, the vast majority of the time, be married by 30. She didn’t believe me at first; she was very shy and had gotten no interest for most of her life (as far as she knew, she didn’t know how to recognize it).
Then again we married at 27, despite her being very bad at attracting men. She later said that when she looked at the women around her that I was right — for the women who were unmarried after 30, either there was some serious character flaw, or they had not been serious about getting married (focused on career or hung up on an ex).
Scott,
They HAD to scede that authority (in particular, conservative pastors in churchianity) because far too many wives are frivorcing their husbands to sleep with their facebook AMOGs. In government, there is no law against this, she still gets cash and prizes. In church, you are not going to find any pastors who are going to remove her from church or even a call her out for her behavior, he’ll just rail against the “abuse” of her former husband who drove this woman into the arms of another man. So if we are at that point on personal s-xual proclivities, there is essencially nothing that will be done about the ever increasing percentage of men who remain single, refuse to date, refuse to interact with women at all, and run home after work to spend hours surfing free on-line pron. They are free to do this. I pray for everyone’s souls, that is all I can do.
Something else just occurred to me about this never-married data of Dalrock’s….
….at one time (maybe not so long ago, less than 50 years ago even) a bachelor was thought LESS OF in society than a married man. There was enormous shame associated with being a bachelor at (say) age 35 or (gasp) 40. It was assumed that OF COURSE there simply HAD TO BE something wrong with you (either that or you are gay.) People would assume the worst about you.
Single men today do NOT feel that shame. Society has largely releaved men of the shame attached to their bachelor’s taste for freedom. This is a byproduct of our “do as you will” philosophy on life.
If these never-married-data numbers don’t improve (and they in-fact get worse) I expect the next step to curtail this problem (and re-encourage men to sign up for marriage 2.0) is the re-discovery of past shame. Society will start to shame bachelors again, the Bill Maher’s of the world will start to be condemned. Society must use the stick, never the carrot, to get men to man-up, because there are no carrots with marriage 2.0. Its only a question of when this will eventually happen.
@ Cail, Nova:
Agree re men accepting women who will have them instead of being alone.
For men it’s about the sex. What these men want is a regular sex partner – reasonable “return” on sexual frequency and quality for minimum effort. Oh, they know they are “in a relationship” and they’re willing to do all that that entails. But they want to be able to have sex and not work too hard for it. They’re not players, don’t want to be players and don’t have what it takes to be players. Lines up with what I’ve observed of men in and out of the manosphere – most of them just want a reasonably physically attractive woman who doesn’t make their lives a living hell.
If current trends are to be believed, then an increasing number of men will go the beer, bros and Xbox route, but it will take quite a long time for this to have any real impact. All we’re seeing now is that 40 is the new 30 – you’ve still got women getting married for the first time at 35, 38, 40, even early 40s. As Dalrock notes, most of these women won’t be able to have kids.
The expectations on these marriages will be high. We’ve talked much about how marriage is now hedonic in nature; that it exists for the happiness, fulfillment and self-actualization of its participants. There will be even more expectations from these late-marrying women that marriage will make them happy, fulfill them, and serve as a capstone to their lives. I don’t see how they could be anything but disappointed, since there will be a lot of very, very deep settling, reaching way down toward the bottom of the male barrel, as Dalrock said. Most of these marriages will be childfree, mostly by circumstance. Most will be too old to have children, and will be bitterly disappointed at their barrenness. Most will end up divorced, since at that point the marriage will merely be a merit badge, an accomplishment—just one more thing she needs to do in order to “have a full life”. Once the “marriage” box is checked off, she’ll jettison the man as soon as she’s satisfied she “gave it the old college try” and “did all she could do” to “make it work”.
Dalrock, do you have data from before 1999? I think seeing those graphs/data further backwards would be very interesting.
Single men today do NOT feel that shame. Society has largely releaved men of the shame attached to their bachelor’s taste for freedom. This is a byproduct of our “do as you will” philosophy on life.
Not quite.
Society removed the shame of single-motherhood. Society praises the world traveling woman.
Men who don’t marry are still “living in mom’s basement,” game-obsessed manboys, and porn-eaters.
The stigma wasn’t removed as much as some married men (and divorced) recognized it as a valid and rational lifestyle. Women will still try to shame men and call them names if they don’t surrender their lives to be a woman’s resource. Social Conservatives want to shame them. “Society” still wants to punish them.
The big shift is that those single guys can now talk with each other more openly and can live content outside the social circles so critical to financial or professional success in the past.
Nova, Denihilist:
Me 3. In real life I’m seeing the same things. If a woman, any woman, is alone, it’s because she wants to be. I can go to the mall, the Wal-Mart, any public place, really, and see many, many frankly hideous, incredibly overweight women, all with men in tow. There are a lot of younger women with crappy haircuts, stupid hair dye jobs, piercings, tatted up, and grossly obese — all with men. Most have at least one kid with them. And it’s clear the women run the show — the men are pack mules, pushing the baby stroller, carrying the shopping bags, holding everything while the shambling mass gets out the EBT card and the medicaid card.
tl;dr
Single men would feel the shame if they played the game society wants them to play.
Anchor,
Yes if… IF, they actually live in their mom’s basement and don’t have a job. Then yes, shame. If they have their own place (or have roommates) and they have a job, then no… no shame.
50-60 years ago, these hardworking single men would have received some level of shame. Their behavior might have been construed as selfishness (hoarding all their resources they accumulate for themselves.) In order for marriage 2.0 to work, that shame MUST return… somehow. Women who want marriage 2.0 but aren’t getting any offers gain nothing by shaming the manboys living in their mom’s basement. How many financial resources could they provide?
50-60 years ago, these hardworking single men would have received some level of shame.
50-60 years ago, businesses had office parties and people would go out to eat with their bosses and men belonged to men’s organizations (Elks, Eagles, Legion, VFW).
You made your network there and used it to gain professional and personal status.
Now, those institutions and traditions are gone, broken on the rocks of feminism so that women didn’t feel excluded.
The shame you describe exists. Feminists, SoCons, etc. still apply it (Driscoll, the subject of a week of posts here last week). It’s just that those men who used to be subject to it no longer need to operate in the circles in which the shame is present.
It exists. The single guys exist in spheres outside the shame zones.
Me 3. In real life I’m seeing the same things. If a woman, any woman, is alone, it’s because she wants to be. I can go to the mall, the Wal-Mart, any public place, really, and see many, many frankly hideous, incredibly overweight women, all with men in tow. There are a lot of younger women with crappy haircuts, stupid hair dye jobs, piercings, tatted up, and grossly obese — all with men. Most have at least one kid with them. And it’s clear the women run the show — the men are pack mules, pushing the baby stroller, carrying the shopping bags, holding everything while the shambling mass gets out the EBT card and the medicaid card.
Deti, you make me laugh. On the rare occasion that Scott and I find ourselves shopping somewhere together, I am usually in a modest dress or skirt, and he is wearing nice jeans, cowboy boots and a collared shirt. We feel like pretentious over-dressed snobs.
The obnoxious, overweight, tatted-up nags treating their fairly average looking husbands (who could look much better by just standing up straight and dressing a little nicer) like stupid slaves make us very uncomfortable.
I made a game of it with my sons.
I have my sons look for tell-tale signs women have “given up.”
First, flip-flops.
Next, the winter version of flip-flops: pajama bottoms worn to a store.
Third, the calf tattoo.
It’s funny to hear my sons rattle them off if they see them, typically at Walmart.
To her credit, my ex never wore either and never had a tattoo.
Yes if… IF, they actually live in their mom’s basement and don’t have a job. Then yes, shame. If they have their own place (or have roommates) and they have a job, then no… no shame.
Nah, they still shame them.
The men whom women are dissing for being commitment-phobic manboy Peter Pans are not living in Mom’s basement. In many cases, they’re living in Manhattan and earning 6 figures. They just aren’t marrying these women. They do get shamed. They don’t care, though. They’re doing what they want.
What’s happened is that increased degrees of personal and professional freedom have taken the teeth out of social shaming — for both sexes. Men are still shamed, but it has much less impact unless they really care to belong to XYZ social circle — and if they do, then they’ve likely already decided to go along with the mores of said social circle. The men who opt out and do their own thing — whether interacting with women on their own terms or not — are shamed to high heaven, but it doesn’t have social teeth, so it has no impact.
In government, there is no law against this, she still gets cash and prizes. In church, you are not going to find any pastors who are going to remove her from church or even a call her out for her behavior,
This is kind of what I was getting at. I know tradcon/neocons don’t get much respect around here, but one that I still like is Dennis Prager. He said (even though I am quoting, its really a paraphrase)
“In my parents day, they could send me off into the world knowing that the values they were teaching me at home would be more or less reinforced by the society at large. Nowadays, parents have to deprogram their children everyday when they get home from the crap they learn at school, pop-culture, etc.”
This is exactly how I feel with my kids.
I have been forthright about this before, but during the “dating” years between marriages (2000-2007) I did the serial monogamy thing. If I intoduced someone as “my girlfriend” or “we are dating” it meant “we are having sex.” This was true, even if I was introducing them to the pastor at church. No problem! Not even a stern look.
We are doomed.
Question for the frivorced dads with sons…
…have your ex-wives or (perhaps) your ex-fathers-in-law ever given you a hard time/hassle for giving your sons red pills and telling your sons to look at the world for what it is and looking at women for what they are? I have never been divorced so I don’t know how much pressure the frivorced red-pill-dad gets from his ex and her blue-pill-dad/mom for giving the sons/grandsons good advice.
IBB, I like your outlook today for some reason.. obviously it’s the man of the house typing and not the wife.
Anyway, single men who work and do all the stuff expected of them but who don’t marry are still producing the required resources to keep the ship of society afloat, that’s why they’re not shamed as much as ‘basement dwellers’.
I recently, well, about a year ago, cut down my work hours drastically, to the point I only have to drive away from home to work once or twice a week, if that. My personal reason is that I don’t need the extra money and prefer to spend the rest of the time pursuing hobbies and leisure activities. I am now shamed more than ever before because people always ask why I stopped working so hard. Don’t I want the career, that new car, the big house and family; and the status that comes with all that, are now the questions I hear…
All of that dwindled and became meaningless to me once I figured out that marriage to a Biblical young woman was not going to happen. Now I no longer make enough to be taxed heavily. I now pull more from the system via using roads and other things for public use than I pay in taxes.
That is what is truly feared by fathers, pastors and politicians, not the unmarried men… but instead, the men who don’t work for the benefit of others.
…make us very uncomfortable.
Yes, awkward. But it is kind of fun.
I think the question is, what will all these guys do when they hit 30ish and the women start sniffing around with marriage in mind? If a guy is 30 and has spent the last decade “hanging out” and killing time with porn and partying, maybe getting a girlfriend or ONS every few years, will that become a life-long habit? Will he be happy with that for the rest of his life? Or will he be looking around for something more in his 30s, making him perfect target for the girl looking to dismount from the carousel? If the beer/bros thing is just a temporary replacement, then it won’t have any impact on the stats at all, because women are the delaying factor.
My thinking is that most guys will go along with the delayed marriage script and marry a carousel rider in their 30s — if they can afford it. If the job market and economy are tight, these guys won’t necessarily be able to boost their income at 30 just because they got a chance to have a family after all. They might want to wife-up the marriage-delayer, even the single mom, but be unable to do so.
…have your ex-wives or (perhaps) your ex-fathers-in-law ever given you a hard time/hassle for giving your sons red pills and telling your sons to look at the world for what it is and looking at women for what they are? I have never been divorced so I don’t know how much pressure the frivorced red-pill-dad gets from his ex and her blue-pill-dad/mom for giving the sons/grandsons good advice.
Why discuss that with her? It’s not like the son is going to his mother for advice on girls, or that he listens to her advice on girls. That stuff is communicated father to son directly — no need to share with mother at all.
@ Cail —
Yes, that’s the unknown. What will happen to the bro folks in their 30s. Remains to be seen. I’m guessing that they will marry, but at tailing rates, just as the marriage rate overall continues to decline … but that it won’t fall off a cliff because all of these guys are still living in broland until they’re 50.
TFH sez: (70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from men to women), that not only do women not need a provider (not necessarily a bad thing),…
The above just isn’t true, unless you have some very contorted definitions of what constitutes “transfer from men to women”. Come on, you do not have the numbers to back up such a claim. One way such a claim COULD be true, numerically, would be if men’s labor paid 85% of taxes, and then 85% of government spending benefitted women only. That would make for 0.85*0.85=0.73=73% of government spending being a transfer from men to women. Another way would be if men’s labor paid 90% of all taxes and 80% of goverment spending benefited only women (0.90*0.80=0.72=72%).
Here is some reference material that readers in general might find interesting, and may be a source for coming up with some more correct numbers.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in01gender.pdf
The IRS publication from 2009 shows that men earn 3436/(3436+2168)=0.61=61% of the wages.
It is hence mathematical impossibility for “70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from men to women”.
But let us get back to the real issue: I completely understand the frustration that young women make foolish choices because they think they can get a man when they are 35, or else moosch off welfare. But let us not back the assertion up with faulty data. In contrast, Dalrock’s marriage data is real data, good stuff. But the TFH “70-80% transfer” claim is just bunk, no better than when feminists claim the also thoroughly debunked “gender pay gap” of “73c on the dollar”. Let’s be better than them.
By that time, VR will be so immersive, the bros can stay in their fantasy worlds forever.
I think TFH is including cubical work (quite a bit of it is for the government) that does not actually produce anything, and is performed mostly by women.
As a DOD employee, I see this in every building, accross every installation I have ever been to. And that’s just one service. Imagine all the low-level, bureaucratic government jobs, accross all departments, all levels (state and local). Those are “jobs” in the sense that a person goes there and receives a paycheck, but not really part of the economy.
I AM curious as to how that figure is worked out, though.
Now add in divorce alimony and child support and all the money men make that their wives spend and you will end up with your 70-80%.
Nova,
No reason to discuss it with her. But sometimes things “slip out” like….
…and the instinct might be for mom to blame her ex-husband for planting seeds in her son’s head about what women are really like…. and she will take vengence out on ex-husband in someway. I don’t know Nova, I don’t know what the rules are (and hopefully will never know) this is not familiar territory with me.
Never mind that wages earned doesn’t seem to limit money spent. The IRS can collect as much from taxes as it can and then borrow, i.e. print, to cover the rest.
…have your ex-wives or (perhaps) your ex-fathers-in-law ever given you a hard time/hassle for giving your sons red pills and telling your sons to look at the world for what it is and looking at women for what they are?
Think of your own experience.
Let’s use mine. I was raised, “Be yourself, good guys are rewarded, girls are just confused right now.”
And I lived that for decades. Whenever there was a setback, I heard the same feedback. I was a good Churchian. I would’ve sat in Driscoll’s church and eaten that up, because if I was just godly enough, of course she’d stop rebelling.
Despite all that, I was frivorced. At the same time, I knew three other good men who had wives who detonated their marriages. The same advice rang so stinking hollow. I found sites, like this. It made A LOT more sense. My world shifted permanently.
My gameplan is to live as Christ lived, as best I can. I model the behavior. I can’t stop their mother from dripping feminism into their ears.
I can be prepared for the heartache and other setbacks. That is when they won’t hear all the propaganda from feminism. That’s when I will pull out the Bible and say, “Here’s the lesson I think you should take from this experience.” I will put it in practical terms and give practical tips. I can’t make anyone accept Christ. I can’t make anyone break free from feminism or this feminized paradigm. I can be prepared and use the most powerful book known to man.
So, the key is preparation for the time when someone is receptive. I was resistant before I was broken. I don’t want my children to be that broken before they see the world for what it is. So, they will receive wisdom when they’re most confused. Then, I’ll pray they heed the wisdom.
It’s not like the son is going to his mother for advice on girls, or that he listens to her advice on girls. That stuff is communicated father to son directly — no need to share with mother at all.
+1
My sons don’t ask their mother for dating advice. They don’t really “ask” me, as much as plant bits in conversation, hoping I pick up on the topic and offer indirect advice.
Cail, Nova:
Yeah, my guess is that bros over 30 will continue getting with ex-carousel riders who throw themselves out there, hoping to land husbands. I suspect the numbers will decrease and that it will less and less involve legal marriage. I suspect it will involve cohabitation and LTRs while living separately, until the law catches up with what men are doing to avoid losing property when these relationships end. I suspect that a growing number of these transient unions will be childless. If they have any kids, they will limit themselves to one kid. And I suspect a lot more guys will be upfront about all this — no marriage, no kids, I’ll keep my own place and you can keep yours, finances kept separate. Under that scenario, currently, a man’s only obligation is child support (in the likely event he doesn’t get custody in the breakup).
And I think it will continue because men want the regular, relatively hassle-free sex; and the women want social respectability and kids.
Anchor,
My parents never divorced, I was never told in church about how men in women should relate to one another, and I just assumed (incorrectly) that I was never going to get married. So it never really bothered me (when I was 15 or 16) that I didn’t have a gf, virginal or otherwise. I didn’t even have my first gf until I was 17. And I never really loved her and I went off college and we never saw each other again so it was like… whatever. By the time I was 19 I was working full time putting myself through college and had NO TIME for women. By the time I was 22, I had women beating down the door to be around me (I became the AMOG) so….
… I guess I don’t have any experience here.
Cail Corishev @ 12:23 pm:
“I think the question is, what will all these guys do when they hit 30ish and the women start sniffing around with marriage in mind? If a guy is 30 and has spent the last decade “hanging out” and killing time with porn and partying, maybe getting a girlfriend or ONS every few years, will that become a life-long habit?”
Lurking on PUA-type sites, the sense I get is these guys will party with women until it gets old then use their sexual skills/experiences to grab a young, not-yet-ruined girl to settle down with. Not a bad plan for the Godless.
Me being a late-30s Christian, the nagging thoughts in my head re marriage are “Why do women want me now after shunning me for 20 years? How much longer will sexual desire even be a problem for me? Can I make a one-and-done marriage work in the face of so much opposition?” That’s why I think a lot of these older grooms must be divorced; the PUAs have good Game and the deltas/omegas have trouble staying plugged into the Matrix so long.
…and the instinct might be for mom to blame her ex-husband for planting seeds in her son’s head about what women are really like…. and she will take vengence out on ex-husband in someway. I don’t know Nova, I don’t know what the rules are (and hopefully will never know) this is not familiar territory with me.
Well it doesn’t come up in my situation, because if she is up to stuff like that it’s done very discreetly and not in his face like that. In any case, my son is quite RP, which is a combo of me and his own cohort just being more naturally RP in general.
Obviously if there is a conflicted situation like you describe, then discretion is required. But the first rule about fight club is that you don’t talk about fight club. One thing I have stressed to my son about these things is that you don’t discuss them with women or girls — it gets you nowhere, and causes problems. You learn them and apply them, and don’t discuss them. Seems to work for him.
Yeah but no one in any authority is doing that. That is because there is no one IN enough authority to police the internet such that anything could be done about it. And even if they COULD do something about it, I’m not sure they would (free speech and all.)
They have no authority to change anything, no authority to penalize men who use pron as their only s-xual outlet, no authority to do anything about men who opt for pron instead of marriage 2.0. And the people who DO have the power to stop it (ISPs, federal government, etc), would never do so because they don’t really want to stop it.
This is indeed the situation – for now. We can assume this will last, but I have my doubts. Keep in mind the porn industry isn’t what it used to be. There was a time when it was rather lucrative and thus provided many women with well-paying careers, which is mainly why feminists were reluctant to attack it, but this is no longer the case. Moreover, a lot of the free porn available online is pirated stuff, and online piracy is an easy target.
Plus we’ll have more and more angry, bitter women as the SMP becomes more dysfunctional. And they’ll be pretty angry at porn.
I can imagine all and any of the following taking place in the near future:
– official categorization of male porn use as a type of mental illness
– colleges and universities banning male porn use on campuses
– some federal law passed against “online content promoting the objectification and degradation of women”, or some bullshit like that
– a crackdown on porn sites that offer pirated porn for free
Whether this will come to pass or not, I’m not sure. But I’m sure that tradcons, feminists and the majority of female voters would all support it.
Speaking of tatted-up, trashy, screwed-up women, check out Bonnie Rotten, one of the new hyped starlets of the porn industry (SFW):
If they can pull it off. Some women are able to pull of the career-til-35 then snag a handsome six-figure husband just before everything really sags, too; but an awful lot of them don’t, so they either sail on into their 40s single and desperate or marry a guy they wouldn’t have looked at 10 years earlier.
Some alphas, like female 10s, will be able to pull off what you describe, but they’re not numerous enough to force societal change. What matters is what the normal guy does — the guy who had a girlfriend or two through his 20s, but increasingly resorted to porn and got used to the idea that girls didn’t seem to want him. He won’t be grabbing a young piece when he’s older, because he won’t know that’s even an option. I think he’ll be snapped up by a woman his age, probably one more experienced than him.
hh,
In what world is that SFW? Just because no nuduty?
Dear IBB:
An understatement. Ask a historian (of 19th century North America) and he’ll tell you how it was…
Single men had no prospects for loans. Single men were not welcome in the clubs (Lions, Masons, etc.) where networking took place. Bachelors were shut out of homeownership in most neighborhoods (all of the good ones). As late as the 1960s, job postings were prominently labelled “Married Men Only”.
Interesting literary artifacts are illustrative. The character Boo Radley comes to mind, as does Martin Eden, and the unmarried Hamilton boy in East of Eden, and on, and on… An unmarried man was, until very recently, not considered a man, and unless he was very wealthy, he was shunted off to the attic bedroom in his father’s house, to be used as an example of poor planning and defective genes.
Boxer
Single men had no prospects for loans. Single men were not welcome in the clubs (Lions, Masons, etc.) where networking took place. Bachelors were shut out of homeownership in most neighborhoods (all of the good ones). As late as the 1960s, job postings were prominently labelled “Married Men Only”.
I’m pretty sure things haven’t changed that much.
Looking Glass: “There’s also an extremely expensive market for the eggs of young Women, especially Jewish.”
Shem: Because of their high IQs?
No. I think because of several factors.
* Modern (non-ultra-orthodox) Jews are more likely to marry late than are Gentiles, because they’re more likely to pursue professional careers.
* But even modern Jews see Jewishness as not entirely religious, but something tribal-racial-genetic. That is, they’d prefer to have Jewish-by-blood children over Gentile-by-blood children.
* Young mothers who give up their babies for adoption are disproportionately Gentile. So while Jews are only 2% of the population, Jewish-by-blood babies available for adoption are even fewer than 2%.
Thus, older parents seeking to adopt, or use donor eggs, are disproportionately Jewish. But Jewish-by-blood babies and eggs are in shorter supply to meet the greater demand. So, I suppose, Jewish eggs command a greater price.
“Lurking on PUA-type sites, the sense I get is these guys will party with women until it gets old then use their sexual skills/experiences to grab a young, not-yet-ruined girl to settle down with. Not a bad plan for the Godless.”
There’s a lot of hyperbole and false bravado on those sites. Don’t believe half of it. Hardcore players end up marrying other hardcore players. They just can’t quit the game so they go in together. That’s the field on which a lot of your “alternative lifestyles” play out.
“I can imagine all and any of the following taking place in the near future:
– official categorization of male porn use as a type of mental illness
– colleges and universities banning male porn use on campuses
– some federal law passed against “online content promoting the objectification and degradation of women”, or some bullshit like that
– a crackdown on porn sites that offer pirated porn for free”
No chance of any of that. Yale Sex Week has been in full swing for the past several years and spread to other universities. Its a week where porn stars are invited on campus to “share their wisdom” and they are treated like royalty.
“Manginas got paired up with a wife in Marriage 1.0, despite being utterly revolting to women. Manginas, who should not be reproducing, got to reproduce.
I dare say it is inhumane to make a woman marry a mangina. That is just as bad as a man having to marry a woman who is a 1 or 2 in looks.
There was nothing inhumane about it. The bygone patriarchy enforced and regulated assortative mating. This meant that the women that were made to marry utterly revolting men were, in fact, mostly 1, 2 or 3 in looks – in other words, they were rather revolting themselves. It wasn’t a bonanza for the man either.”
While most people are not bombshells and sex gods, most are not utterly revolting either. The vast majority of the human race falls within the ordinary, average spectrum. This is also the spectrum where love, commitment, family and an ordinary but satisfying life with simple joys has historically been carved out by couples.
No chance of any of that.
On what are you basing this faith in humanity?
Your wife is pregnant. Do you have any actual right to determine if the child should or should not be born? Can she trump your belief at almost any point, up until the law says, “No?”
If you do not apply for Selective Service, are you eligible for government employment? Student Aid?
Those are a couple of the black-and-white examples. More are found in the gray (sentences for different sexes for same crime, for example).
The modern man should have no expectation of equality and must fight and resist every effort. We cannot take things for granted anymore.
Middle-aged, single men are STILL thought of as LESS THAN married men.
While feminists have convinced Hollywood to portray single, middle-aged women as smart, strong, independent, empowered, self-actualized, well-rounded — single, middle-aged men are portrayed as broken. As losers who live alone in basements. As stalkers, porn-addicts, pedophiles, serial killers, political extremists, misanthropes, and conspiracy theorists.
I was an X-Files fan in the 1990s. Those above villains were usually portrayed as “angry white men” who were over-30 and unmarried. Even the heroes were broken if unmarried at middle age.
One episode featured the Lone Gunmen, one of whom almost found a potential wife. She left him at the end. It was intimated that her leaving him was the reason he became a conspiracy nut.
Even hero Fox Mulder was portrayed as broken, haunted by unhealthy obsessions, as evidenced by his inability to marry. The also-single Dana Scully (a woman), after the X-Files was disbanded, returned to a healthy and successful career in medical research.
In the last X-Files movie, Fox Mulder, without a wife, was a filthy hermit, the walls of his decrepit rural house covered with crazy conspiracy articles. Whereas Dana Scully, without a husband, lived a productive, socially-connected life, healing sick children.
Hollywood teaches us to beware and fear middle-aged, never-married men, but to respect and admire middle-aged, never-married women.
‘She isn’t turned into anything she arrived that way to the ball. It has been repeated over and over these girls have no intention of marrying at all for 10 to 15 years. I just don’t believe we should be shielding young men from seeing the truth.’
If that’s the case it’s not about shielding young men from seeing the truth…it’s about attacking the lie that is being presented to women. In your world the lie is already there so we might as well have young men follow that lie. And nothing will change with that mindset.
IBB,
They HAD to scede that authority
No they did not. Standing on principles has great merit. Few practice it today, but that doesn’t reduce the merit. This does explain your infatuation with Romney though.
I have been forthright about this before, but during the “dating” years between marriages (2000-2007) I did the serial monogamy thing. If I intoduced someone as “my girlfriend” or “we are dating” it meant “we are having sex.” This was true, even if I was introducing them to the pastor at church. No problem! Not even a stern look.
Have you had some form of conversion since this time? Your courtshippledge site would seem to not allow for that at all.
I wouldn’t call it a conversion. The biblical word for it is repentance.
Something else I think will happen is that the disparity and difference between sexually attractive men and sexually unattractive men will widen considerably. IOW, there will be an even greater chasm between the men women want to have sex with, and all other men, than there is now. The hot men will get hotter and the rest of the men will get “less hot”. This is already happening. It is roughly tracking society’s current stratification into the small number of life “winners” and life “losers”.
Anchorman, it has nothing to do with faith in humanity, quite the opposite in fact. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry that is increasingly becoming driven by women. There are probably some old conservative women who still oppose it but young women are into it full throttle. That’s why Yale Sex Week is such a hit and why “stripper” and “porn actor” are practically respectable career options amongst Gen Z. Selfies are just practice for web cams and web cams are just practice until one can get signed.
Thanks for the clarification Scott. I had not realized it was that recent for you.
Of course, the larger context was my agreement with IBB on the matter of institutional moral authority. There are none. Zero.
I grew up in the mainline Church of Christ, and I was on the deacon board in my mid 20s (when I was married to my first wife).
That was in the mid 90s and that is a very “conservative” denomination. It was the last time I ever saw the leadership of a church tell a couple who were living together they had to stop it or risk church discipline. I can’t i magine a church–any church–doing that now.
Yale Sex Week has been in full swing for the past several years and spread to other universities.
Except that this event, if I’m not mistaken, is mainly marketed to gays, lesbians, BDSM practitioners and women in general. It’s entirely possible to support Yale Sex Week while at the same time supporting resctrictions on freely available and mostly pirated online porn designed for heterosexual betas and omegas.
Again, keep in mind the porn industry is in decline. It’s more and more difficult for women to enter it and earn a profit.
Elspeth, I used to work in retirement communities and there are all kinds of relationships being formed there, from casual hook ups to dating to shacking up to getting married, you name it, old folks are doing it. Its not uncommon at all.
Brad,
Heh. My infatuation with Romney was based on my desire to have the GOP #1) win (because none of the other candidates stood a chance against the POTUS and #2) because he could debate. Not only was Romney the only electable candidate, he was also the best debater and the best speaker. It wasn’t even close. I mean seriously, was there any other GOP candidate that was better? Look at Newt’s trophy-gold-digger third wife and then look at Ann-married-at-age-19-Romney, which one is a first lady? This was not rocket science.
Boxer,
I agree with all that, all of it, but I’m not sure that all of it was specifically because society frowned on men who were bachelors late in life. I think in some cases, it was because they didn’t have sufficent data and couldn’t measure risk or (possibly) because many aspects of ordinary society were of no interest to the bachelor. So a single man not have qualified for a loan because there might not have been much data (for banks to look at) on single men repaying loans OR (perhaps more likely) single men had no reason to go to a bank and borrow money?!?!?!
Pingback: Some Comments About 2014 Never-Married Data | Red Pill Newbie
I just made my first blog post on this topic here: https://redpillnewbie.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/some-comments-about-2014-never-married-data/
TL/DR:When isolating for each cohort, the chances of converting from a “never-married” to a “non-never-married” have gotten lower over the past 10 years. This finding includes every age group.
Granny porn usage is up obviously..
And Rome also had huge sexual deviancy problems. Their debauchery, lack of purpose, lack of morals and lack of maintaining their traditions were what led to their being overrun by barbarians. There was no reason to protect the Empire, it stood for nothing..
This is nothing new. If you are a moral man, you don’t marry a whore. You either marry a woman who has waited for marriage and respects the institution and her husband to be, or you don’t marry. What immoral men do is of no concern as they are not capable of building or maintaining Civilisation anyway.
IBB @ 3:34 pm:
“I think in some cases, it was because they didn’t have sufficent data and couldn’t measure risk…”
It was because bachelors were seen as not responsible, not part of the community. Back in the old day, employers wanted to hire apprentices they were confident would stick around for 20 years, not job-hop at the drop of a hat. Banks didn’t trust the un-anchored bachelor to stick around. Most banks were local, not national and didn’t want to risk him moving away. Meanwhile, priests wondered suspiciously what he was doing for sex… with good reason. Nobody in Christian America wanted to do business with an obvious cad or pervert.
Today, that scene is more alien than the entire SyFy channel.
@IBB – Question for the frivorced dads with sons…
I spent time in the pickup world and not here on Dalrock. I talk to my son straight up about the reality of the world. He knows better than to tell his mom. Now, my ex threw something of a fit when I was telling our oldest daughter red-pill truths…
“Except that this event, if I’m not mistaken, is mainly marketed to gays, lesbians, BDSM practitioners and women in general.”
You’d be mistaken. And the anti-porn brigade has always been largely composed of old conservative right wing Christians. Some younger ones continue to carry the torch.
Shem – “Elspeth, I used to work in retirement communities and there are all kinds of relationships being formed there, from casual hook ups to dating to shacking up to getting married, you name it, old folks are doing it. Its not uncommon at all.”
As Mohammed Ali said years ago, ” if at 70 you are still thinking doing, acting like when you were 20, you have wasted your life.”
Are any of you actually fucking? All this useless chit-chat…
@earl
Looking for another excuse not to tell young men the truth, eh? Even the Catholic in me is revolted by that idea. We may not be of the world, but unlike you, most of us have to live in it.
anon,
Its unfortunate that feminsim has come along and #1) turned so many husbands into ex-husbands and #2) forced those now ex-husbands to have frank conversations with their daughters that their ex-wives would never have for the feminist imperative would prevent that level of discourse. Of course she threw something of a fit when you told your lovely daughter red-pill-truth. Fortunately (for you AND your daughter) your wife is now an ex-wife (she has already followed through on threat point) which means she no longer has a “threat” to invoke if you don’t keep her happy. You can tell daughter all the red pill truth you want and (well) there is not much that ex-wife can do about that…
…in that sense, and maybe that sense only, you have an advantage over married men who must still carefully straddle that threat-point-line with their wives who are immersed in the feminist imperative.
“As Mohammed Ali said years ago, ” if at 70 you are still thinking doing, acting like when you were 20, you have wasted your life.”
Most people would think if you are 70 and still doing what you were at 20 you’re a damn healthy individual.
By the way, that ex-porn photographer turned born again preacher/anti-porn crusader Donny Pauling in the video above? He’s been arrested for burglary and raping a minor.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/christian-anti-prn-crusader-arrested-again-for-slly-assaulting-a-minor/
And the Sutter County sheriff’s captain is up on charges for inviting Pauling to rape his teenage relative.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/12/18/sutter-county-sheriffs-captain-indicted-on-additional-charges/
“McElfresh was originally supposed to be transported to the Colusa County Jail because he is the commander of the Sutter County Jail. Instead, he was booked into the Yolo County Jail because Pauling is at the Colusa County Jail.”
Pingback: A LOOK AT who’s never been married…. | CRAGIN MEDIA
@IBB, Rome also thought that lead acetate was a wine preservative and artificial sweetener. Now of course we know better and use chlorinated sucralose and aspartame instead. We also like to drink waters bottled in BPA leeching plastic so we can all question if we are really women born in men’s bodies and drink deeply from our estrogen/progesterone laced rivers.
The more things change the more they stay the same. I’m coming to believe that civilization is very bad for masculinity.
Shem passes along the following rumor/innuendo:
By the way, that ex-porn photographer turned born again preacher/anti-porn crusader Donny Pauling in the video above? He’s been arrested for burglary and raping a minor.
And the Sutter County sheriff’s captain is up on charges for inviting Pauling to rape his teenage relative.
Need I remind everyone here that an accusation of sexual assault is not the same as a conviction for sexual assault? In fact, even convictions are frequently wrong. Have we learned nothing from watching one feminist after another slime men by playing the “Rape Card,” only to have it come out later that it was all a ploy. Credible sources put the percentage of false rape claims at upwards of 40%. ANY allegation of a sexual crime has a very strong likelihood of being false, and that is doubly true if the accused is well-known as a conservative, a Christian, or an anti-feminist.
Frankly, I have no idea if those two guys are guilty of anything, but I’m not much more inclined to believe it now than I was before Shem linked those two stories.
http://www.cotwa.info/
Green little squares. Last comment was directed to FeministHater.
@Denihilist
“Marcus D, you posted this one yet? Seems we have a nice young feminist guy teaching high school, straight guys how to be with girls/women. Such a nice thoughtful young boy.”
I haven’t posted it – this is the first I’ve heard of it. It’s rather unsurprising that a male SJW would write something like that. I half expected an xkcd style to the comic. I suppose male feminists will fail to reproduce in larger numbers.
First a nitpick … “White’s are still the largest racial group …” That should be “Whites” (no apostrophe).
[D: Welcome. Thank you. Fixed.]
OK, I’m wondering how long the data has to run before you become convinced that many men are on strike? Wedlock for men is now high risk. If I get stuck on stupid and want to wed a woman, I’ll be sure to hav a thick prenup!
[D: It isn’t that I don’t see a trend, but that I believe something else better explains it.]
What’s happened is that increased degrees of personal and professional freedom have taken the teeth out of social shaming — for both sexes.
This is insightful, and it dovetails with Putnam’s Bowling Alone theme. For numerous reasons – public benefits, technology, wealth – people are simply more independent than they used to be. For a group of people to be able to shame me effectively, I have to need them for something.
IBB,
I can go on about my accomplishments as an Alpha with strong Beta characteristics.
I have been subtly teaching my son game, however he has so much game at the age of 16 he has girls asking him out. In fact he started at a christian school last April, hasn’t been there a year yet and was asked by the principle to be on student counsel and was selected by the principle and staff to be the interviewee for the national accredidation of christian H.S.s.
He plays tennis (not my choice, but likes it because he says it’s like being at the plate constantly) at a private tennis club and has girls asking him to hang out. He does see the feminism in his school and abhors it. My wife absolutely hates that I teach him this, but even she is smitten by his traits along with my 19 year old daughter who my wife gives horrible advice to. I try like crazy to set her straight as she is gorgeous runs, exercises, reads the bible daily, is a leader for youth group, lifeguard and great cook and cleans.
My dad was an alpha, me? I don’t consider myself one striclty, but hey!
There are two reasons that almost half of the women who are in their late twenties haven’t married. One is a lot of them are bi or gay and the second reason they’re not getting married is because a lot of the guys are living in their parents basementsand can’t afford marriage
But where were you last week when this was a raging debate here? Oh, at the conference in Tampa. Perhaps you should elaborate even more….
Sorry for the late reply. I just completed a graduate program online from Johns Hopkins in Data Analysis, with a focus on Machine Learning. There were also a couple classes from Stanford that I audited on the same subject. For me, it has to do with a book-related project that–essentially, the algorithms have been around since the ’80s, but with cloud and clustering advances, things are possible that weren’t a few years ago. I went to school rather than screw around, ‘cuz a basic server cluster used to be 64 nodes–not completely unfeasible, but not exactly cheap if you’re just practicing.
Now I’m launching something, and slow but steady, however I am networking as much as possible. What I’ve seen, education, healthcare and government account for half of all jobs held by women. They make up 77% of education and healthcare employees, government it’s more like 58%, but once you exclude police, fire, sanitation, corrections and infrastructure, I suspect you’ll get similar numbers.
Those jobs are starting to go away as a result of technology. Obama “saved” a bunch of them with his six-year stimulus, which is essentially a slush fund for make-work jobs. That won’t continue. Something like 900,000 women dropped out of the labor force in December alone. Guys may take a hit in the next few months until oil prices stabilize again, but the men who remain are fine, comparatively speaking.
Low-end service jobs (waitresses) are also going away as tablets replace servers at the major chains. As for what happens to women when the jobs go away? Well, gals who have lived a lower-middle-class existence seem to kind of be shacking up with a beta. Gals who were in a mid- to- upper? Incredibly small sample size, but a lot them come on very strong to guys like me who are in the same age group, and one, former auto exec or something, just killed herself over New Year’s.
/I only knew her ’cause she was my Uber driver Sundays after my classes finished. She lived in my complex, discussed her money problems, came on hard to me one time, was stunned when, at the bar she took me to, it turns out I had a following among wee lasses at the local breastaurant. Interesting times.
Cynthia:
I second Cynthia’s comment but from a different perspective. This describes my neighbor’s son’s and daughter’s life choices. They helicopter parented their children into perfect lives and there wasn’t room in that formula for mates until the kids got out of school and started their careers. It was hard to find someone at that point.
innocentbystanderboston says:
February 9, 2015 at 3:34 pm
“Not only was Romney the only electable candidate, he was also the best debater and the best speaker. It wasn’t even close. I mean seriously, was there any other GOP candidate that was better?”
Ron Paul. Unlike Romney, he was a Christian (as opposed to a Mormon, a type of polytheist), Constitutionalist, against socialism (such as in medical care), you name it. Romney was disqualified by his socialism (means he lied before even finished taking an oath of office) from being elected to any office at all IMO, given his issues.
anonymous_ng
The red pill truth is for daughters too. My oldest (female) is 14 and she has some interesting peers at her school.
garfunkle and oats have a good song about how women change between 29 and 31 years old
One is a lot of them are bi or gay
CDC says otherwise — less than 5% are gay or bi among women, less than among men.
I do think that women are more sexually fluid, even if they don’t consider themselves lesbian or bi, but I don’t think this is a significant factor in marriage rates. I have seen no evidence of that, either academic or anecdotal.
I’m thinking there’s another driving force behind the ‘never married’ demographic, likely more significant than the 29/31 cliff (Garfunkel and Oates):
First, she doesn’t get married, but she gets knocked up, likely by two different guys. That nets her 20% of sucker #1’s paycheck, and 20% of sucker #2’s paycheck, or 40% of their earnings, tax free. Then, she finds a beta in her 30’s, and suckers him into marriage, a frivorce and another 20%. She gets the house that his income helped to qualify a mortgage, and he’s on the hook if she defaults, and likely the same for a car note, and she’s fat, dumb and happy with 60% of a man’s salary as tax free income and a pretty decent insulation from any market disruption. Regardless of whether or not she works and socks money away for her retirement, Julia can count on uncle sugar to take care of her in old age, and coerce the duped-dads into paying for the kids college education. If need be, she can move back in with her parents and sponge off them, too. If she’s bored, there’s always some government job that will insulate her from any serious responsibility.
Really, aside from some (to her perspective) laughable fables about the value of fathers to her children, (how good is one of these ‘peter-pans’ going to be, anyway?) her self-centered nature says “what the hell is he bringing to the table, long term, that I can’t get anyway by kicking him to the curb and having the court order him to give me, whether he can afford it or not?
The antidote for that scenario is male contraception. Likely, that’s why there isn’t any available, aside from laughably ineffective condoms or permanent sterilization. There’s no way that women or the government could maintain the status quo without children whose best interest can be hijacked for their purposes.
‘If these never-married-data numbers don’t improve (and they in-fact get worse) I expect the next step to curtail this problem (and re-encourage men to sign up for marriage 2.0) is the re-discovery of past shame. Society will start to shame bachelors again, the Bill Maher’s of the world will start to be condemned. Society must use the stick, never the carrot, to get men to man-up, because there are no carrots with marriage 2.0. Its only a question of when this will eventually happen.’
—
I fail to see what they can do, because shaming simply will not cut it. Married men used to get preferances for jobs. Fine, still less hassle to accept that and move on to the next job, or better yet, work for yourself. Gun to the back of the head? Sure, marry me up, but I’ll make a lousy husband. Just leave the country would be my choice, but barring that I’d quit my job and make her support me, stay out all night with friends, cheat, basically do anything and everything to make my assigned mate squeel and beg for a divorce.
Forced to work, forced to go home at gunpoint? No problem. Just ignore she exists – women try to make the silent treatment work, but they don’t have the discipline to make it last more than a day or two. A man can do it for the rest of his life.
There’s no easy fix for the declining marriage rate, other than incentives for men. And at this point it would take lots and lots of incentives.
I like this guy
Single men had no prospects for loans. Single men were not welcome in the clubs (Lions, Masons, etc.) where networking took place. Bachelors were shut out of homeownership in most neighborhoods (all of the good ones). As late as the 1960s, job postings were prominently labelled “Married Men Only”. I’m pretty sure things haven’t changed that much.
—
Actually, they have. Many bosses have been divorce raped and will likely sympathize, or at least understand, a single man who says he’s not married because the laws and family courts are patently biased against men.
The anti-discrimination laws could be an effective club for you to use if you’re denied housing, loans or a job. Consult a good attorney, as many businesses will roll over and give you a loan/apartment/mortgage rather than waste money fighting in courts.
Or you can just take a shortcut for work functions. Get a wedding band, say you’re married and trot out a family member or friend a couple of times, then afterwards say that she’s taking care of her elderly parent with Parkinson’s.
” I second Cynthia’s comment but from a different perspective. This describes my neighbor’s son’s and daughter’s life choices.They helicopter parented their children into perfect lives and there wasn’t room in that formula for mates until the kids got out of school and started their careers. It was hard to find someone at that point.”
Why hard? Should be easier for the son- older, educated, career established. Those things usually work in favor for men as our peak desirable years are not early 20s but mid-20s to early 3os when we have some work experience and money under belts to impress women with.
As for the daughter and Cynthia, what ever happened to youthful rebellion? What are kids these days, obedient sheep? They both could have subverted the advice of their families and looked for potential husbands while still in college.
The effect of the 2008-9 crisis and recession is striking in the time series, at least among 30-somethings and 40-somethings.
“As Mohammed Ali said years ago, ” if at 70 you are still thinking doing, acting like when you were 20, you have wasted your life.”
I tend to agree with that with a caveat. At 22, I was married and engaged in the life of my family and I hope to be doing the same thing a 70.
I wasn’t really talking about the kind of swinging seniors stuff that takes place down here in Florida in the world famous senior meat market, The Villages.
And those people are a select group.I was simply making a reference to the fact that I seem to see what looks like an unusual number of women over 45 actually getting married. Not just dating.Perhaps the grooms are damaged good so to speak, but I wouldn’t know that.
“I wasn’t really talking about the kind of swinging seniors stuff”
Neither was I. I included dating and marriage.
” I seem to see what looks like an unusual number of women over 45 actually getting married. Not just dating.Perhaps the grooms are damaged good so to speak, but I wouldn’t know that”
Not damaged per se, just their male equivalents. I saw someone use the term “assortive mating”.
@Dalrock
>If the man had possessed all of the above qualities (nice guy, not bad looking, good job, wanted to marry) and had a minimum degree of game, he would have already been married.
Well, I guess I do not have game. Actually, I know that. Too honest to play head games. I do wish that the churches I went to had been honest about what attracts a woman. I heard about how being religious/Godly would do the trick, but nothing about signalling provider status or coming across as bold/confident/cocky/alpha. I was making pretty good money by 25, and very good money by 26, but I deliberately avoiding showing that wealth. I knew I needed to be able to provide, so I worked for that and I am very blessed by God. But I thought that I should be able to attract a girl based on my character and commitment to God, without the need to buy her with a wasteful display of wealth. And……… in almost 40 years of attending church, I remember three times possibly being shown interest. (2 overweight/obese; 1 was great but I was unfortunately seriously unprepared for and confused by what she did, so I did not pursue it.) So either I am not religious enough, or the bit of “be religious and you’ll get one” is a flat out lie. And yes, we know it is the latter. Too bad, as I (arrogantly?) think I would have been a committed, dedicated husband.
@Novaseeker
> [re single men] They do get shamed. They don’t care, though. They’re doing what they want.
This is it for me. I want more, but am not about to settle for a rebellious, masculine woman. I am content to be alone, if that is the better choice. So far, it is.
@feministhater
>[don’t I want various stuff…] All of that dwindled and became meaningless to me once I figured out that marriage to a Biblical young woman was not going to happen.
Wish I could say you are wrong. But that is my story also. I currently plan to work long enough to pay off my debts and become able to provide my monthly expenses without working. Then I can spend my full time serving God, instead of serving money.
@Mychael
>The obnoxious … nags treating their fairly average looking husbands … like stupid slaves make us very uncomfortable.
I think this is a great perspective, as I suspect it shows you live out a higher level of respect to your husband, and thus are surprised when others do not act similarly. I wish you both a committed, content, life-long marriage together.
@Gunner Q
>Me being a late-30s Christian, the nagging thoughts in my head re marriage are “Why do women want me now after shunning me for 20 years? ”
Well, you must be doing something right to get interest in your late 30s. In my 30s, I fail to recall ANY woman in church receiving and responding to my attention, nevermind her initiating any indications of interest. Hmm… ok, maybe that is inaccurate. There was a single mother who I think was interested. That was in a volunteer thing at a different church than the one I attended however.
“The antidote for that scenario is male contraception. Likely, that’s why there isn’t any available, aside from laughably ineffective condoms or permanent sterilization. ”
The male pill was in the works from the on start when the female pill was. But it came with serious permanent complications, and still does. They are trying to fix that.
http://www.refinery29.com/2013/10/55725/birth-control-men
“50-60 years ago, businesses had office parties and people would go out to eat with their bosses and men belonged to men’s organizations (Elks, Eagles, Legion, VFW).
You made your network there and used it to gain professional and personal status.
Now, those institutions and traditions are gone, broken on the rocks of feminism so that women didn’t feel excluded.”
They’re not gone. I’ve got an uncle in each one.
Who would want to marry a gal with a degree in east Africa art and a student debt of $60,000.
Society will start to shame bachelors again, the Bill Maher’s of the world will start to be condemned.
I doubt it. Lots of parents are willing to put pressure on their own children to procreate, but nobody really cares if Bill Maher passes his genes on. I suspect a whole lot of people would rather their descendants be a little less wealthy and have a little more elbow room.
One of my sisters-in-law divorced her hard-working and long-suffering husband a few years ago for some stupid reason (he would have been justified in divorcing her, since she committed adultery with his brother – he took her back: showing either a greater capacity for forgiveness or gullibility than I would have). Anyway, she was post-wall and the guys weren’t lining up for a shot at her like a few did when she was 20. My wife tells me she was cute back then… personally, I wouldn’t do her with a barge pole if she was the last women on Earth now. She got married last year – at the age of 48 – to a guy with no job, no money, a gambling fetish, a whole slew of medical issues he largely brought on himself, and incurable impotence.
She tells people she traded up. She’s even convinced herself that it’s true. Make of that what you will.
A surprisingly small number of men might have a big effect on the marriage market. For example, if only 2% of shoppers are price-sensitive and free to shop around then grocery stores are driven by the free market toward keeping their prices down and in a competitive range.
The number of men and females of marriageable age is close enough that a couple of percentage point drop in the number of men willing to marry will have a big effect on female perceptions of her marriage prospects. Of course, the females have an option men don’t–they can marry the State. (So many think polygyny is illegal in America ’cause that’s what the gubmint skools taught ’em. Ain’t illegal for the State! So, gentlemen, it’s long past time to smash the State down to its proper size, which is real small and outta the substitute-husband racket.)
“So, gentlemen, it’s long past time to smash the State down to its proper size, which is real small and outta the substitute-husband racket.”
Seconded, but sadly, both major political parties (and most of the minor ones) in the U.S. are committed to making the government bigger, more powerful, more expensive, and more intrusive… the only differences are the methods by which they seek to go about doing so.
TFH is right – democracy (and we have strayed far from our roots as a republic) has a life-cycle. The body blow was the passage of the 19th Amendment. We would have eventually gone under anyway, but that ensured that it would be sooner rather than later.
A direct democracy might work. That presumably takes out the middle man.
GBFM Lolzzz out loud at Joaquin Phoenix dressed as a rabbi discussing 50 Shades of Cray Cray. Here he is offering kosher sex tips.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrhYLjoQXGo
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Where has democracy ever worked? Except for the fact that the unconstitutional institution of slavery was allowed to exist, the best system anyone has ever come up with was the one that existed in the United States in the decades after 1787 – a federal republic.
“Except for the fact that the unconstitutional institution of slavery was allowed to exist”
You oppose democracy but are pro slavery?
“I fail to see what they can do, because shaming simply will not cut it. Married men used to get preferances for jobs. Fine, still less hassle to accept that and move on to the next job, or better yet, work for yourself. Gun to the back of the head? Sure, marry me up, but I’ll make a lousy husband. Just leave the country would be my choice, but barring that I’d quit my job and make her support me, stay out all night with friends, cheat, basically do anything and everything to make my assigned mate squeel and beg for a divorce.
Forced to work, forced to go home at gunpoint? No problem. Just ignore she exists – women try to make the silent treatment work, but they don’t have the discipline to make it last more than a day or two. A man can do it for the rest of his life. ”
Alex I wouldn’t worry about it.
Dale @ 10:57 pm:
“Well, you must be doing something right to get interest in your late 30s.”
Honesty compels me to admit the question was rhetorical. I have never, not once had a girl show interest in me… this despite me being a legit 6’3″ & fit. You are hardly alone in getting burned on the dating scene for being a decent, devout, responsible guy.
If it’s any comfort, I probably make much less money than you.
…
Lyn87 @ 5:32 pm,
“Need I remind everyone here that an accusation of sexual assault is not the same as a conviction for sexual assault?”
California porn photographers don’t get that consideration from me even after they change jobs… and to a “preacher”, hah. A repentant sex worker would’ve quit the whole industry.
“A surprisingly small number of men might have a big effect on the marriage market. For example, if only 2% of shoppers are price-sensitive and free to shop around then grocery stores are driven by the free market toward keeping their prices down and in a competitive range.”
Of course it would be the surprisingly small number of upper echelon 2% most desirable men that would make a dent in the marriage market. Those are the men women are watching like a hawk. The rest of us go unnoticed and nobody gives a rat’s ass whether we marry or not, live or die.
Micha Elyi says:
February 9, 2015 at 11:47 pm
So, gentlemen, it’s long past time to smash the State down to its proper size, which is real small and outta the substitute-husband racket.
Exactly. If we could get rid of the market distortions and perverse incentives that the government provides, marriage would be a good investment. Those include the use of government force to perpetuate a one-way, non-reciprocal extension of marital obligations, in the form of alimony and child support, and other ways we make men and taxpayers support women’s unilateral reproductive decisions, while allowing them to dump any obligations or consequences of their own. Further, that crucial information concerning her history of bad decision making is hidden from potential marriage partners.
It’s entirely sexist to let women abandon their obligations through adoption and safe-havens, while hypocritically demanding men face up to a two decade obligation that they never consented to in the first place, if that’s what her whim decides, and frequently with a sham of due process, at that. That says that the state considers that significant numbers of women are too incompetent to be parents. Maybe women shouldn’t be trusted with such decisions on their own, if we have to enable them to the tune of Billions of dollars a year, collected at gunpoint and with the threat of incarceration.
We have a problem with single moms (Never married AND divorced), because we pay women to BE single moms.
Dear Lyn:
You’ve told this story before, and I don’t generally comment on such stuff (I wasn’t there, don’t know what happened, etc.) but this is a new and interesting twist…
From her perspective she has traded up. She was saddled with a striver before. He was a man who was always working, providing, paying the bills, busting his ass… so boring. It was his fault she had to lay down with his brother, too. And wouldn’t you know it, after the truth came out, he didn’t even have the balls to kick her ass out. It’s just more proof he wasn’t worthy of her.
Now she has a man who has no prospects, and is home all the time. He satisfies her need for drama. More importantly, she can control him. She could never control her ex. Even when she fucked his own brother, she couldn’t make him dump her ass. Now she has a pet, a plaything, and someone who is dependent upon her. It’s like a permanent kid.
On a more serious note, this is exactly what many damaged women want. You fellas see these ho’s go chasing after thugs and playas. It’s not that they want to reform them, its that they know they can’t reform them.
My big lightbulb realization moment came a few years ago, when I dragged my buddy out to the night club. He’s African-American. The race-fetishist chicks who only date black dudes liked him, until he opened his mouth and started talking, at which point they disappeared immediately. They liked him at first because he was a kneeee-grow, and someone who triggered their desire to piss off daddy. Problem was, he’s an associate professor at one of the local universities. Not a thug, and more importantly, not a damaged fuckup that they could control or put down. The minute they realized this, they beat their little feet to the other end of the joint and never looked back.
That’s what these women really want. It’s not a strong alpha male, like so many of you guys think. These whacked out sluts just want a weak man, that they can control and manipulate. They want someone who is, perhaps, even worse than they are.
Perhaps already mentioned as I didn’t read all the comments, but if I’m looking at it right only 17% of women are marrying by age 25, correct? This is really saddening as a male. Would this pretty much be the 80/20 rule in effect? Something like 15% of women marrying the top 15% of men, and then maybe another 1% being occasionally a religious girl marrying someone close to top 20%, and 1% to a girl getting knocked up and marrying for religious reasons?
Also just want to say I’m a huge fan. Been lurking for around 1 1/2 years, and have now decided to start my own blog as well. Thanks Dalrock.
[D: Welcome.]
I am struck by the fact that the 25-34 year olds have since 2007 – a mere seven years – suffered an increase in singledom of about thirty-three per cent for the older ones and twenty-five per cent for the younger. That is a considerable change and I was wondering what was causing it. Could it be that the 20-25 year olds who have not suffered so badly are – simply – marrying the excess of eligible males?
I was just looking at (and repairing) a self-timer photo I took of myself aged thirty-one and my then benefit friend – I look handsome mean and hungry and she aged twenty-seven not unattractive – yet I was still not good enough. Some things one never really gets over – thus are players born.
What would the graphs look like if you included divorced women?
More re porn influence.
This year’s Sports Illustrated cover is a particularly interesting example of the mainstreaming of porn’s influence over the culture. It can be seen in an article at the WaPo here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/10/hannah-davis-says-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-cover-isnt-that-naughty/?tid=trending_strip_6
Now, of course the image itself is not technically pornographic, but it’s quite obvious that Hannah Davis’s, ahem, regions are groomed like a porn actress. 20 years ago that would have been very uncommon — there were bikini waxes, of course, but not full-on porn star ones. But now, the norm is to groom like your privates are on camera. Yes, Davis *is* a model, but she isn’t a porn star — the kind of grooming she gleefully displays here (and defends here as well) is now mainstream and it comes directly from porn. It isn’t the only thing from porn that is being mainstreamed either, as we know.
This is an article from 1960:
Women Without Men
[D: Removed text but retaining the link.]
Source: Eleanor Harris, “Women Without Men,” Look, 5 July 1960, 43–46.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6271/
What I bolded there is brilliant, and critical. That was the epiphany I finally had too, while watching yet another woman run away from offers of marriage — even from men she was very attracted to –and intentionally find a man she thought needed her more than she needed him, whom she’d never consider marrying. I used to think it was a form of self-abuse, but that doesn’t make sense when she’s a narcissist. It’s really that she fears marrying a man she looks up to, because he may control her (and she kinda wants him to, which scares her further); but a loser who needs her — for bail money, spiritual advice, a place to crash, whatever — she thinks she can control. In some cases, even his “need” to slap her around gets reframed in her mind as a handle she can use to steer him.
This doesn’t apply to healthy women, who don’t have that extreme need to control everything. Their numbers seem to be growing, though, and of course modern society encourages all women to think that way as much as possible.
Shem asks me, “You oppose democracy but are pro slavery?”
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I said that the only problem with the post-1787 system was that it allowed slavery (which clearly violated the Constitution, but was allowed to continue because of political expediency). That you could construe that as an endorsement of slavery doesn’t speak well for your reading comprehension skills.
As for democracy… No, I’m not a fan. I’ll give you this quote from a time when the Army taught citizenship to soldiers. An Army Training Manual from 1929 contains the following definitions under the title of Citizenship:
Democracy has never worked and it never will. The only stable forms of government are oligarchies and republics, and I’m too fond of liberty and the rule of law to advocate oligarchy. In fact, the more we have strayed from Republican principles (such as extending the franchise to women who bear few or no responsibilities of citizenship), the worse off we have become.
Edit:
The phrase that reads, “…the more we have strayed from Republican principles…”
should say, “…the more we have strayed from republican principles…”
I inadvertently capitalized the word “Republican.” Capital-R Republicans are members of the Republican Party, and I was referring to small-r republican principles – which the Republican Party abandoned a long time ago.
Re: Hannah Davis’s “hoo-hah.”
What’s up with that anyway? Shouldn’t women look like, well… women, rather than pre-pubescent girls? Pre-pubescent girls are NOT sexy; they’re children (and usually annoying, but that’s a different subject).
Boxer & Cail, that was pure gold. I’ve been suspicious about women wanting damaged men–why else do they not even try to find dates at church and who else could they attract with all those tattoos and piercings?–but never had the experience to confirm it with.
What’s up with that anyway? Shouldn’t women look like, well… women, rather than pre-pubescent girls? Pre-pubescent girls are NOT sexy; they’re children (and usually annoying, but that’s a different subject).
Not anymore, no. Not men, either (men are expected to “groom” like the men in porn, too). Porn is now setting expectations in the sex area.
“Grooming” is simply a countermeasure against pubic lice. Such measures are necessary if one is promiscuous in a society where STDs are rampant. Plus it panders to men attracted to pre-teen girls, whom are probably a significant segment of the people who still bother to buy porn. Again, such trends are to be expected from an industry that is decline and is thus prone to pander to its base.
Men do it, too? Yikes. I didn’t know (and would prefer not to know now). There’s no way on Earth I’m going to take a razor to that part of my body unless it’s medically necessary.
“That’s what these women really want. It’s not a strong alpha male, like so many of you guys think. These whacked out sluts just want a weak man, that they can control and manipulate. They want someone who is, perhaps, even worse than they are.”
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Are you sure it’s this, or is it that they could immediately tell from his venacular that your friend would be too respectful and deferential to them (iow, still in the ‘matrix’)?
Women can instantly tell when a man ‘doesn’t give s sh*t about the system’ and when he’s too invested in the system to really make waves. A highly-educated man is one who’s invested heavily in the system. Women trying to get their sloot on in a nightclub aren’t there to find ‘system’ guys.
It isn’t just the grooming. Porn is setting expectations in sex in all facets. For women it’s the heavy makeup, the fake breasts, the pouty “duckface”, the total sexual availability, and the vocal sexual enthusiasm. For men it’s the chiseled, shredded body, the large penis, sexual skill, and sexual endurance. For both it’s the sexual positions and practices, some of which are gymnastically inspired; others of which are clear public health hazards.
Pingback: The epidemic of frivorce. | Dark Brightness
@Lyn87
you ought to check out the shavers at the local CVS or Walgreens; the stock includes “body grooming” kits as well as haircut kits. also for the brave, there is Nair, the hair removal cream. yikes is all I can say
Boxer – “That’s what these women really want. It’s not a strong alpha male, like so many of you guys think. These whacked out sluts just want a weak man, that they can control and manipulate. They want someone who is, perhaps, even worse than they are.”
+1
They can’t BECAUSE they are men and they want women to continue to listen to them when they discuss other issues. If they properly define the problem with the law, they put themselves in jeapordy of being marginalized by liberals calling them misogynists (the very thing that happened to Paul Elam.) Dr Helen has no fear of this happening to her (for obvious reasons) as she is a woman.
Re: comments by Boxer, Cail, PokeSalad, and DeNihilist:
Thanks. This is starting to make more sense given the back story, which I will share now. My SIL was never particularly attractive, but she grew up in a very small town where she was probably better looking than most of the girls. At 20, she got knocked up by a local alpha, who also knocked up several other local girls (her daughter – my niece-in-law(?) – has several half-siblings because of that.) She turned out VERY well, unlike the rest of that clan.
Anyway, my SIL was courted by a nice, hard-working guy who was willing to be a father to the then-infant girl. He was a far better parent than she was, but that’s another story. They had two more kids – both train wrecks – and eventually she divorced him a few years ago. He wasn’t perfect by any means, but he put up with a lot more than I would have, especially since she screwed around, had ZERO domestic skills, and her looks cratered BAD.
One of the things she whined to my wife about after her divorce was that – as a member of a strict Christian denomination – she couldn’t remarry, and was thus doomed to a life with no sex. She needn’t have worried – the church went churchian and looked the other way. Anyway, I find it supremely ironic that the man she married has incurable impotence. She’s married, but she’s not getting laid anyway – not even on her wedding night.
But he is certainly not capable of making it on his own. He was living with his elderly mother when they met, and now he has two women to support him, his mother and my SIL. Maybe that’s what she wanted all along: a pathetic weasel who needed a mommy. She got her wedding (in a bar…), she got the status of being a wife rather than a women who divorced an overweight mechanic, and she gets to pretend that her life is going just great, which helps her in her “competition” with her sisters, especially my wife, of whom she has always been jealous.
Although shes not in the “never married” category, I imagine she’s like a lot of the women who marry late: they scraped the bottom of the barrel and convinced themselves they made the right choice, because the truth is too painful.
Deti, one of your comments reminded me of a long ago discussion at the old hangout. IIRC, our hostess said that one of her close friends was an ER doctor, or at any rate a doctor, and this doctor reported a startling rise in young women with anal tears and also cancers and other ailments associated with anal sex. The increase was, if not confined to, then at least overwhelmingly prevalent in women. Also, she said (IIRC) that over time, repeated indulgence will weaken the organ to the point that some kind of adult diaper is required, at least for some.
What this suggests of course is the porn-driven “mainstreaming” of anal sex. The dangers can’t be talked about for two related reasons: 1) to do so is considered to be anti-homosexual; and 2) it violates the “sex positive” doctrine of our age.
I am far from an expert on this. But it sounds plausible. Try to find more reliable data, and you can’t. At least I couldn’t. Though I did find an old Slate column by Will Saletan, who said more or less the same thing: this is really dangerous and nobody tells young women the truth.
So, it would seem that we have two related trends. First is the “sex positive” propaganda on campus, and really everywhere from Cosmo to the prevalence of porn, which both encourages demand for anal sex by men and reduces women’s inhibitions against it. The second is a conspiracy of silence not to talk about the dangers and risks.
Is part of raising girls now going to have to be having the “anal sex” talk? Oh, joy.
TFH – thanx for the PJ video. Very good. Whittle nails it. @ 22:17
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2015/02/10/is-dating-a-pain-in-the-ass/
Escofier, to carry on your point, A LOT of the top pua’s push anal sex as the ultimate seduction. If she aint down with the brown, thenyou’re just a clown.
“I am far from an expert on this. But it sounds plausible. Try to find more reliable data, and you can’t. At least I couldn’t. ”
Neither could I. Strange because about 10 years ago I read an article by a doctor outlining the dangers and offering tips to gay men, mostly recommending engaging more in oral sex and limiting anal to special occasions. A whole slew of gay men showed up in the comments to accusing him of homophobia. Recently I looked for medical opinions online and found a few articles by female doctors reassuring readers that its safe as long as you go slow and use lube.
I guess anal is the new oral. Our grandparents generation thought of it as dirty and disgusting but now its totally mainstream and considered healthy, even though its not, not entirely. Our parents generation experimented with it and now oral is normal to us. So I guess this is the trajectory for anal as well and probably any sexual act. 2 generations and its like kissing. I predict BDSM will be the first kiss for grade school kids by 2030, if it isn’t already?
“Escofier, to carry on your point, A LOT of the top pua’s push anal sex as the ultimate seduction.”
They’re closeted homosexuals.
Couldn’t read the last half of comments yet, so if someone’s pointed this out then forgive me, but …
@EARL & Greyghost… Earl is on to something. It’s not that he’s painting promiscuous women as saints, but there is definitely a lot of truth in that the more men that use them, the more they get tarnished and hardened… embittered against men… and more likely to believe feminist lies.
A lot of my friends and women I’ve talked to, even the teens I mentor, just don’t understand the downsides of promiscuity. Their moms sometimes didn’t even have the correct knowledge to explain to them the dynamics of how much they self destruct in this way. I just literally wrote a post about it Sunday… http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/single/
“Now, of course the image itself is not technically pornographic, but it’s quite obvious that Hannah Davis’s, ahem, regions are groomed like a porn actress. 20 years ago that would have been very uncommon — there were bikini waxes, of course, but not full-on porn star ones. But now, the norm is to groom like your privates are on camera. Yes, Davis *is* a model, but she isn’t a porn star — the kind of grooming she gleefully displays here (and defends here as well) is now mainstream and it comes directly from porn. It isn’t the only thing from porn that is being mainstreamed either, as we know.”
Porn was mainstreamed in the 80s when that crazy reality show about playboy bunnies was put on regular TV. Now it shows those same women well into middle age, old age actually, going to the salon for something called anus bleaching.
This doesn’t apply to healthy women, who don’t have that extreme need to control everything.
Seriously, how many of these are left in the US?
“An Army Training Manual from 1929 contains the following definitions under the title of Citizenship:
Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in mobocracy; attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights; attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences; its result is dem-o-gogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.
Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles that establish evidence with a strict regard for consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass, it avoids the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice contentment and progress, is a standard for government around the world.”
Propaganda. That’s what we do now, elect public officials to “represent” us and they vote on the issues WE should be directly deciding for ourselves. I don’t need a “representative” to decide for me what I think about various issues. I can decide for myself.
It seems that your knowledge of poli-sci is on par with your knowledge of military careers. Anyway, you haven’t answered my question. People have been experimenting with direct democracy at least since the time of the ancient Greeks: where has that ever worked?
“People have been experimenting with direct democracy at least since the time of the ancient Greeks: where has that ever worked?”
I’ve no experience with experimenting with direct democracy. I’d love it if my own country would experiment with it right now. There’s a lot of issues that I should be able to vote directly on because they directly effect me and my tax dollars.
People have been experimenting with direct democracy at least since the time of the ancient Greeks: where has that ever worked?
What’s your definition of “worked”? Athens reached the zenith of its cultural, political, military and economic power under the direct democratic regime of the 5th century BC. Granted, there was more to it than that. You can’t say that “democracy” was the 100% cause. But, then again, they had a lot of very hyper-democratic institutions that we would consider idiotic, such as the selection of government officials by lot, and the lack of rule of law in favor of civil AND criminal trials that could be brought by private citizens and tried in front of mass juries. It was way more democratic than the US or any modern western country has ever been.
And, there really haven’t been all that many other such experiments. Athens stands out as almost unique in the annals of direct democracy.
Porn was mainstreamed in the 80s when that crazy reality show about playboy bunnies was put on regular TV. Now it shows those same women well into middle age, old age actually, going to the salon for something called anus bleaching.
Yeah, but again, Dad’s stack of Playboys in the garage is a completely different thing than an endless variety of free HD video porn streamed to everyone’s cell phones. It’s such a difference in degree that it becomes a difference in kind.
“Earl is on to something. It’s not that he’s painting promiscuous women as saints, but there is definitely a lot of truth in that the more men that use them, the more they get tarnished and hardened… embittered against men… and more likely to believe feminist lies. ”
Women need to have their bitch shields up all the way to the altar. This is the only way to prevent themselves from getting used. Don’t trust players. Don’t even trust the non-players until you know for sure they are not playing you. The only way is if he put a ring on it. That’s the only way to weed out dads from cads.
Joaquin Phoenix says women want to be lusted, not loved, and the lack of lust is why “they don’t find marriage compelling”. If that’s true it will only make it harder to weed out the players since they are expert at lusting.
“an endless variety of free HD video porn streamed to everyone’s cell phones. ” Ron Jeremy argued in his debate with the XXXChurch pastor at Yale Sex Week that porn cannot be streamed to cell phones. There’s a law against it? How does he figure?
He said that? Interesting misinformation campaign there.
IBB,
Not only was Romney the only electable candidate
Um, he lost. I keep reading about “the most electable candidate” even when they lose.
We will never know if someone else could have won though, since the game is quite rigged.
“He said that?”
In this debate.
@Shem! Oh I think you just hit it with that Rabbi. That explains the enitrety of hypergamy, alpha/beta relations, and the manosphere rolled into one.
Jewish 🙂
Not going to watch the whole video, but it’s just interesting that he can say that with a straight face, really.
Escoffier,
The Athenian “democracy” only allowed about 10 – 20% of adult residents (around 20 – 40% of adult males) to vote in the Ekklesia [1], and the matters they discussed were those that were forwarded to them by the real governing body, the Boule, which was comprised of 500 “randomly” selected men. But it seems that the membership of the Boule were probably not all that random, as certain powerful families were very disproportionately “randomly” selected.[2] So even at its most democratic, Athenian politics were not very democratic based on numbers, and were heavily influenced by the Athenian aristocracy as a practical matter. And the Boule itself had an executive committee comprised of only 50 men.[ibid] Bottom line: Democratic Athens was certainly more democratic than what came before or after, but it was a very far cry from a true working democracy the way we use the term today. Its history included all sorts of waffling as the ineffective government stumbled from one “popular” mistake to the next. For an idea of what something similar would produce today, imagine that a country that not only elected Obama, but actually re-elected him, made important decisions by daily popular votes… on the fly with virtually no legal check on their authority. We would collapse into anarchy within a week, and civil war within a month or two.
About the only thing they did really well was restricting the vote to male citizens who had completed military training. No skin in the game – no say in the assembly.[3] A good idea perhaps, but hardly democratic.
[1] Thorley, J., Athenian Democracy, Routledge, 2005, p.74.
[2] http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/ancient-greece-democracy
[3] Rothchild, JA., Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE.
” Porn is setting expectations in sex in all facets……For both it’s the sexual positions and practices, some of which are gymnastically inspired; others of which are clear public health hazards.”
Deti – Seinfield of the Manosphere.
Lyn87,
That is why I question any assertion that we know what happens after democracy, full or what we have now. I don’t think it has really happened before.
Are deti and thedeti the same person?
An what does being of your uncle have to do with anything? (Or is that detio?)
What this suggests of course is the porn-driven “mainstreaming” of anal sex.
A more likely explanation is that anal sex is being mainstreamed due to the ever fiercer competition among average women to out-slut each other while pandering to the sexual impulses of the top men. The top men are likely to ask for anal sex due to the dominance factor, the kink factor and the plain fact that they can afford to make such requirements (it’s a DHV to ask for it), and the women are more likely to give in to them because they’re all determined to chase the same few men. I doubt porn has much to do with it. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the average blue pill guy will ask his girlfriend to do anal just because that’s what he saw on Pornhub? Or that the average woman will offer anal sex to a similarly average man? Nonsense.
And, of course, it isn’t necessarily the top alpha that asks for anal sex. It’s actually more likely that his female orbiters offer him anal sex in order to outdo the competition and snag the alpha.
I’m going to tell you with a straight face that, yes, I do believe it’s at least plausible that porn forms and changes sexual tastes over time. Such tastes are not entirely static. They have a foundation of intrinsic, biological desire, but can be altered around the margins–and probably more than just the margins–by the culture. I’ve seen studies which argue that whatever sort of material an adolescent libido / mind is exposed to in its formative years will influence or even set that person’s sexual tastes for life. So seeing a lot of porn, starting at age 13 or whenever, in which anal sex is the norm can create a mass taste / expectation for that kind of sex. And that, apparently, is what we have now: an entire generation, maybe two, that has grown up with constant easy access to this stuff.
The rest of what you say doesn’t necessarily contradict any of the above, leaving the straw-man aspects aside. Yes, I am sure that for many alphas, part of the appeal is the dominance display. But was that always an intrinsic, biological desire? For a few kinksters, maybe, but for the vast mass of “typical” alphas? I don’t think so.
As for betas, I think you vastly underestimate just how mainstream this has become. Not every beta may ask–perhaps not even a majority–but for a great many, the taste has been formed. It’s been a while since I read (e.g.) Athol Kay’s forum, but there used to be thread after thread with ordinary married guys asking “How can I get my wife to do anal?” I am pretty sure that was not common 20-30 years ago. So where did that taste come from? Porn is the most logical answer.
As for women offering it, I have no doubt that happens too, but to suggest it’s the primary driver strikes me as absurd. The minority who do so are responding to what they believe to be male desire, and are trying to “one-up” the competition–real or imagined.
By all accounts, this is not a pleasant thing to have done to oneself. Sure, there are some women who really like it. Several years ago a former NYC Ballet company dancer wrote a whole book about how much she loves it. But again, she’s an extreme outlier. There’s a reason why there’s so much discussion online–from PUA sites to sites pitched to married betas–with men asking “How can I get my ____ to do it?” The reason is that women by and large, and probably by natural instinct, don’t want to do it. At least, that’s their default setting. But that setting can be changed by cultural influences, of which porn is a big driver. It changes the tastes and expectations of their men, and it changes what they internalize as “normal,” “acceptable,” and even “expected.” Can’t be a prude! Must submit to this!
Also: that sent troops to a faraway, little-understood land at the behest of some influential people in both countries who hoped to get rich on the deal; that considered itself the protector and disseminator of civilization to the rest of the world, by force if necessary; that went deeply into debt to maintain military superiority and hold on to its empire; that attacked foreign countries and told the residents it was for their own good; that ignored the warnings of its greatest statesmen and followed those who made the biggest promises; that made homosexuality part of the code of the aristocracy….
And this democracy, such as it was, when the threat of losing the war became too great to ignore, abandoned democracy and put a small cadre of soon-to-be tyrants in charge. The American equivalent would be something like the Congress getting together and abolishing national elections and the Constitution, then turning power over to a consortium made up of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CEOs of the hundred largest companies. That’s probably the optimistic end of democracy, with anarchy being the other option.
The lesson of Athens vs. America seems to be that you don’t have to give women (or all men) the vote for democracy to go bad, but it speeds up the process.
It’s been a while since I read (e.g.) Athol Kay’s forum, but there used to be thread after thread with ordinary married guys asking “How can I get my wife to do anal?” I am pretty sure that was not common 20-30 years ago. So where did that taste come from? Porn is the most logical answer.
In my view, the most logical answer is that a) the SMP has changed fundamentally, giving sexually attractive men much more options and b) the married men asking that question aren’t ordinary, but slightly more alpha than average, and the reason they asked that question is because they believe anal married sex is something they can get away with. Unlike ordinary husbands.
The minority who do so are responding to what they believe to be male desire, and are trying to “one-up” the competition–real or imagined.
Which is exactly the point I made, except the “minority” part. The notion that sexually attractive men get anal sex by asking for it strikes me as unrealistic in the current SMP.
The rest of what you say doesn’t necessarily contradict any of the above, leaving the straw-man aspects aside. Yes, I am sure that for many alphas, part of the appeal is the dominance display. But was that always an intrinsic, biological desire? For a few kinksters, maybe, but for the vast mass of “typical” alphas? I don’t think so.
I believe average men have an intrinsic, biological desire to a) compete with one another b) assume the active, dominant role as a sex partner. Seeking DHVs is an obvious part of the competition. Getting your female partner to do things that women don’t normally do with their male sex partners is an obvious DHV. ’nuff said.
And that, apparently, is what we have now: an entire generation, maybe two, that has grown up with constant easy access to this stuff.
It depends on what we consider to be “constant easy access”. Getting some adult to rent/buy porn movies for you has been an option for decades, but that’s hardly constant easy access. Free online porn has only been around since 2007-8 or so. (Youtube started in 2005, and free porn came around by providers pretty much copying the format of YT.) That means the generation that had access to that stuff in its sexually formative years is 18-22 yrs old today. I’d say it’s a bit early to make generalized observations on their sexual tastes. (It’s not like there’s much reliable scientific evidence on this issue anyway.)
And let’s not forget that the overwhelming majority of free online porn is just like porn from other historical eras: it features average vanilla-ish sex between one man and one woman, without anal sex, hair-pulling, slapping, spanking, bondage or any of the abusive stuff anti-porn pundits like to complain about. The simple reason is that it’s made for average betas, and this is their primary sexual fantasy: average heterosexual sex, with the one big difference that the woman is enthusiastic.
Shem @ February 10, 2015 at 8:04 pm:
“Women need to have their bitch shields up all the way to the altar. This is the only way to prevent themselves from getting used. Don’t trust players. Don’t even trust the non-players until you know for sure they are not playing you. The only way is if he put a ring on it. That’s the only way to weed out dads from cads. ”
You do know the purpose of a bitch shield, right? It weeds out the dads. Kindness and respect are the way women secure marriage material. They know this and it’s why they put up bitch shields in the first place.
…
hoellenhund2 @ 1:59 am:
“A more likely explanation is that anal sex is being mainstreamed due to the ever fiercer competition among average women to out-slut each other while pandering to the sexual impulses of the top men.”
I think you’re right.
When we want to assess if there has been a change in the performance of a credit scoring system we look at vintage analysis. This removes the potentially confounding factors such as changes in the distribution of the ages of accounts. What this does is take accounts booked over a specific period, called a tranche, and then chart the performance over the life cycle of the account. This is then compared to tranches from other periods to see if the performance is the same at the same points in the accounts’ lifecycles.
In this case what I would like to see is a breakdown of the never married data by taking tranches of women by birth year and then charting each tranche as it ages through to the end of life. For example, by charting the never married rates for women born between 1960 and 1965 to those born between 1990 and 1995 we could see if there are significant changes to the never married trajectory over that period. Ideally, we would put all women in tranches and plot the 20-25, 25-30, 30-35, etc. never married rates and superimpose all the trajectories on one chart. Then it would be simple to say whether the never married rates are getting worse over time. It would show women in their 20s whether they should trust that the experience that women 20 years older than them is what they can expect.
If you all haven’t noticed by now, Shem is a troll.
No, all they need to do is not to have sex with a man who is not their husband. In other words, wait for marriage before having any sort of sex. To stay pure, to give her husband the gift and not an embittered heart and worn out vajayjay.
“Are deti and thedeti the same person?”
Yes. WordPress account issue. For reasons unknown and irrelevant to me, I had to select a different handle besides “deti” to sign in.
Thanks for the clarification deti. The other post about it was an attempt of a joke on my part. I think ti or tio is uncle in Spanish.
@mikediver
When you are mentioning ‘trenches’, doesn’t it seem to be a specific subtype of cohort?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_(statistics)
I don’t know where that cut-and-paste came from, but it’s not consistent with Plutarch (life of Solon in particular, but see also the Themistocles, Aristides, Cimon and Pericles), Thucydides, and other sources, above all Aristotle’s Constitution of the Athenians.
The Athens of this period had only one elected office, strategos, or “general,” and there were ten of them to dilute their power and authority. All other officers were chosen by lot (i.e., randomly)
The Areopagus was the aristocratic, appointed governing body (sort of like the Roman senate), but starting with the reforms of Solon (~600 BC) it was continually weakened in favor of more popular institutions.
The court system was radically democratic. Anyone could charge anyone with anything—there was no distinction between civil and criminal offenses, and you didn’t even have to be a party to the dispute to bring a claim. Once charged, the case was tried in the full assembly, or, sometimes for convenience sake in front of a smaller “jury” which was still made up of hundreds of people, nearly all of whom from the demos or masses. Here is Aristotle on this point:
thirdly, the institution of the appeal to the jurycourts; and it is to this last, they say, that the masses have owed their strength most of all, since, when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution. Moreover, since the laws were not drawn up in simple and explicit terms (but like the one concerning inheritances and wards of state), disputes inevitably occurred, and the courts had to decide in every matter, whether public or private. Some persons in fact believe that Solon deliberately made the laws indefinite, in order that the final decision might be in the hands of the people.
Then comes the reorganization of the “tribes” by Cleisthenes, in order to weaken the power of the old families, and the expansion of the demes, and of the governing council to 500 (elected by lot). And much more besides.
Then you have the whole issue of “ostracism” by which the assembly of the people could vote to expel a leading citizen for ten years, for any reason, but the main one being that they feared a tyranny. By this process the people expelled Themistocles, Aristides and Cimon in succession—all men who had one way or another saved Athens from disaster. This is to say the least a highly democratic institution.
In any event, 5th century Athens was, quite simply, the most democratic regime that has ever existed in the West, and probably anywhere. If it doesn’t count, then there never have been any democracies anywhere, so the whole subject is abstract and moot.
That’s not to say that democracy was “good”. Socrates, Xenophon and Plato—three of the greatest Athenians—argue that democracy is the worst of the non-tyrannical regimes. Aristotle, who was not born there but came there voluntarily and lived there for at least 20 years, argued much the same in much greater detail. Democracy is problematic, to say the least, but has its virtues as well. This is hardly a new insight, but if we were forced to choose, how many of us would choose Sparta over Athens?
Tl; dr: if Athens wasn’t a democracy, then no polity ever has been. Therefore there is no historical proof that “democracy doesn’t work.” There is however ample evidence that democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction, but then again every regime similarly contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Re: Porn and anal sex:
Everyone’s correct here, to a degree. There’s lots and lots of evidence that porn is doing something to its users and it appears to be something of a Pavlovian response.
What’s driving anal sex is pretty much everything – its increasing depiction in porn, and women offering it to outslut each other for the top men.
Esco, I remember that discussion at the old place about the medical implications of women engaging in anal sex. I also remember in that same discussion and at that same place one of the past and current female commenters discussing, in quite vivid detail, how to have anal sex. This commenter was quite the size queen as well. The place was something like “The View” with a male audience.
HH, your initial point seemed to be that porn has played no role in the mainstreaming of anal sex, or in forming men’s taste so that they want it. Are you backtracking from that? Seems so. E.g.:
they believe anal married sex is something they can get away with.
Which means they [the married men] want it, right? It’s something THEY want. It’s not driven by the women.
The notion that sexually attractive men get anal sex by asking for it strikes me as unrealistic in the current SMP
How else would they get it, short of outright forcible rape? Maybe they don’t always “ask” but they mix that with pressure, cajoling, badgering, whining, threats to leave, and so on, until she just wears down and submits.
Regarding men wanting to compete and dominate, fine, I don’t disagree. But why would this, all of a sudden, manifest itself in a sex act that until a very short time ago was considered the ultimate taboo, unsanitary, dangerous, and gross? And now all of the sudden it’s very nearly mainstream? Where did this desire suddenly come from? Or are you saying the majority of men throughout history have always wanted it? If so, then we simply disagree. Neither of us can prove it either way, but the balance of evidence I think supports my case.
The studies I referenced earlier are more comprehensive than you suggest. They go back well before the emergence of online porn. They trace the development of sexual tastes from the pin-up era, through Playboy, and then the harder mags, through cinematic porn, to videotape, and so on. And what they found is, men who consumed a specific type of porn in adolescence had their sexual tastes formed by that porn. In the past, given the availability issues that you cite, that was not 100% of men. Though I would bet that it was a rare boy who never saw a Playboy in the 1970s. Nowadays, there is no question that 100% of boys have seen it all. And to them anal is something they want. Is porn the only reason? Maybe not. But I think it’s the biggest reason.
It’s certainly not driven by women.
Escoffier,
That was not a cut-and-paste. If I have done that I would have cited the source. The point is that even a place as “democratic” as Ancient Athens had some VERY undemocratic things about it to make it work… and only a small fraction of the population was allowed any say at all… and it didn’t work very well anyway. It didn’t work because democracy CANNOT work, as the Athenians figured out on Day 1 when they built all sorts of anti-democratic features into their system… all the way until they finally scrapped the entire project as being not feasible.
For us to have a “direct democracy” as was advocated earlier, we’d have to put everything up to a vote on the internet every day (there’s no way you can get several hundred million people into the same room), place no limits on the outcomes of the votes, and let the chips fall where they may. Good idea? Hmmm… Consider the results of this National Geographic survey:
(only) 17 percent of young adults in the United States could find Afghanistan on a map…
And we had just gone to war there when this survey was taken, so Afghanistan was in the news all the time! But it gets even worse…
About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn’t even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean’s location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent.
Direct democracy in the U.S. today? We’d be better off hiring somebody to make decisions by look at chicken entrails.
Are you backtracking from that?
No.
How else would they get it, short of outright forcible rape?
Women who compete for their attention openly or covertly make the offer to have anal sex. That’s how these men get to do anal, in most cases. That’s my theory, based in the assumption that the current SMP incentivizes women to fiercely compete for the attention of the few remaining men that are sexually desired.
Which means they [the married men] want it, right? It’s something THEY want. It’s not driven by the women.
The male impulse to engage in it is present in these men, and the women drive the phenomenon by consenting to it. By and large, women control the supply of heterosexual sex, so any trend in heterosexual sex is driven by them.
But why would this, all of a sudden, manifest itself in a sex act that until a very short time ago was considered the ultimate taboo, unsanitary, dangerous, and gross?
Was it? I’m sure alpha males regularly engaged in anal sex with women throughout the ages.
And now all of the sudden it’s very nearly mainstream?
“Very nearly” mainstream? How do we know? And what does that even mean? Does scientific evidence even exist on this issue?
Nowadays, there is no question that 100% of boys have seen it all. And to them anal is something they want. Is porn the only reason? Maybe not. But I think it’s the biggest reason.
These are pretty serious generalizations. Just saying.
hoellen,
There are a LOT of reasons why women want to do ‘anal’ with men (and some of them are even good reasons.) I’m not going to get into it now, but I will later tonite.
only a small fraction of the population was allowed any say at all
No, the reforms of Solon designated four classes, based on property holdings, three of which were eligible to serve as officers, and all four of which could vote in the assemblies, bring cases in court, and serve on juries. This did not include women and children (who were citizens), nor slaves, and foreign residents–“metics”–who were not citizens. But all male citizens of age had some say and only the one class was excluded from one part; and not from everything.
as the Athenians figured out on Day 1 when they built all sorts of anti-democratic features into their system
Not true, from Solon to the 30 Tyrants (around 200 years) Athens not progressively MORE democratic. The anti-democratic features were progressively weakened during this time. They were reinstated, sort of, after the loss to Sparta, but from that point (404 BC) to the final Roman conquest of Greece (!150 BC) Athens lurched back and forth from various tyrannies, hegemony by foriegn powers, short-lived republics, and so on.
Yes, democracy has its problems–the classics are clear on this–but we also have to contend with the fact that when Athens was at its most democratic, it achieved its greatest political, economic, cultural and millitary success. It’s just a lot more complicated than Democracy-is-bad-and-Athens-is-proof.
Beyond this, you seem to have raised the bar to the point where any instance in which the whole citizenry was not voting on the issue at hand, that shows that the state was not a democracy. Well, then, there never were any democracies. Anywhere, ever. Nonetheless, if there is a continuum, then 5th century Athens was the most democratic state the West–and probably the world–has ever known.
No one seems to have anything to say in favour of Porn. Whether Porn drives behaviour or whether ordinary behaviour drives porn I would not care to speculate, but I will say that when (and purely for the sake of educative purposes) I look at old porn films from the 1970s – especially the European – I wonder how such amateurish, unkempt, unattractive people could ever have got a job selling their bodies. Truth to tell, women in general have a sexual recipe that can best be described as vanilla, even when they think that they are very very bad. This is not a problem for men as men can happily avoid a detour to some of these other behaviours for all that matters to them is PinV. It is women who are happy to indulge (once men have instigated it) in things like Cunnilingus, Pegging, or Water Sports, because none of these affect their N.
Escoffier,
You insist on mis-reading what I’m clearly saying. Ancient Athens was fairly democratic by own standards (and by the standards of the day), but even they had to limit it by adding all sorts of undemocratic aspects to make it work at all. Any polity that deliberately excludes a fraction of its citizens (even male ones) to vote in a general assembly – which was itself controlled by a much smaller assembly that was supposed to be randomly chosen, but was in fact heavily influenced by the aristocracy – is not a “democracy” in the way that was being advocated up-thread.
Some systems are more democratic than others, but no system that governs more than a small homogenous group can be very democratic for very long, if at all. Ancient Athens was a lot more homogeneous than a lot of places that had stable government for much longer that Athens did.
Lyn, what you initially said was that democracy has never “worked” anywhere. I pointed out that it worked in Athens if you define “worked” for a state as being militarily, culturally, politically and economically successful.
Then you denied that Athens was democratic. Now we seem to agree that it was democratic, just not perfectly democratic. Not that we have defined perfectly or purely democratic. But in any case—sure, Athens wasn’t it. But then there has never been a perfectly democratic state anywhere. Athens was as democratic as it gets, and much more so than any democratic state today. To the best of my knowledge, there is no regime today which has anything like Athens’ numerous hyper-democratic institutions. For one thing, you couldn’t possibly in a state of any size. At its peak, Athens was probably about 300,000 (city and countryside), only half of whom, or slightly less, were citizens.
If the point is to say that hyper-democracy carries problems, then yes it does. Something, as I pointed out, that three brilliant sons of Athens, plus one by adoption, all argued at length. It is, as I also noted, described by all four of these thinkers as being the very worst of the non-tyrannical regimes.
Beyond this, you have the chronology wrong. Athens did not add aristocratic elements to a democratic regime because the Athenians recognized that democracy needed some fixes. The opposite happened. The reforms of Solon instituted democratic institutions, which became progressively more democratic over time. The exceptions were the interludes of tyranny, but even these were popular tyrannies, meant to aid the demos, not to restore lost aristocratic power. After Athens lost the Peloponnesian War, she was never again really “on her own” but always under the sway of some tyrant or foreign power.
You can say that democracy is why Athens lost that war, and a partial case can be made, but I would refer to Thucydides for the longer answer, which is much more complicated. In any case, even if an excess of democracy is what caused Athens to lose in the end, it was also a driving force in establishing prior Athenian greatness.
What you recommend—tempering democratic institutions with elite or aristocratic elements—is exactly what Aristotle recommends in the Politics. This is the essence of his best or “mixed” regime. It was a major influence on certain modern philosophers and on the American Founders. Unfortunately, the Athenians themselves didn’t listen to him. AFAIK, nobody in the ancient world followed this advice.
So it appears, I am not the only one on this board who reads books written by a PhD, raisin farmer, from Selma California.
Lyn87 has it right. It is a representative republic that works. It is based on a clearly defined laws that apply to everybody. The people in government are only there to administer the law. It is the most effective government that allows it governed to be the most efficient and productive. It also allows a sense of strength and well being and personal confidence of it’s governed.
Democracy is mob rule. People ignorantly confuse voting for a representative as democracy. Even in a representative republic the ones voting should only be ones that have a civic duty to the society as a whole.
I like Hanson but do try to go back to the originals if you can.
Pingback: Marriage != Children | askblog
Escoffier,
You said that I said, “You can say that democracy is why Athens lost that war, and a partial case can be made.”
Well… I never said that, and although I would agree with the “partial case” aspect of it, it is utterly tangential to my point. My point all along is that democracy doesn’t work because democracy cannot work. It was not I who brought up Athens or the Peloponnesian War anyway: I just responded to the idea that Athens disproved my thesis that democracy (as Shem defined it) doesn’t work… a thesis that still stands. Athens was not a democracy in the way that Shem was advocating here… that’s it. I readily agreed that Athens was more democratic than what came before or after, but it still was riddled with anti-democratic features to make it workable from Day 1: they couldn’t very well have foreign diplomats meeting with a different group of randomly-selected people every day, so they selected officials to represent Athenian interests as government officials for terms of service, as just one example among many.
Athenian partial democracy lighted the way for what was to become the best system of all: a representative republic, so I’m not knocking them at all. They did pretty well with what they had to work with, but the Athenians themselves understood that letting everyone vote on everything all the time wouldn’t work, and they knew better than to even attempt that.
Edit,
the first paragraph of my last post should read as follows:
You said, “You can say that democracy is why Athens lost that war, and a partial case can be made.”
Athenian partial democracy lighted the way for what was to become the best system of all: a representative republic, so I’m not knocking them at all.
Nope. Best system is a kingdom, that’s why we get one in heaven. 🙂
I’m a fan of the republic, but I think we’re seeing the unreliability of a virtuous citizenry. (though perhaps less extreme than an evil king)
Then, as noted, there are no democracies. So you are making a case against a regime that never has, and apparently cannot, exist.
However, even the ancient critics of democracy argued that in some respects Athens’ hyper-democratic institutions produced some good and even great effects. Your analysis of democracy-as-always-bad is much too simplistic.
” I just responded to the idea that Athens disproved my thesis that democracy (as Shem defined it) doesn’t work”
My vision is nothing be against the law accept that which harms others. Harming oneself doesn’t count so if someone wants to snort coke all day, every day, the doing of such, including the buying and selling, should be legal. There wouldn’t be too much to vote on if society were run this way. I have pretty simplistic vision of how society should run in that we should just let people do whatever they want, as long as harm is not done to others that, is no one is forcing themselves on me or my property.
Escoffier,
Yes… you finally have gotten my point – there is no such thing as a functioning democracy, because “radical” democracy cannot work. People have fiddled with making things more or less subject to popular opinion over the years, and the Athenians got closer than most, but even they knew that an actual democracy (putting every issue up for popular vote by everybody every time) was utterly unrealistic, which is why they never even tried it.
Shem,
It seems that what you are advocating is something much closer to libertarianism than democracy. That’s cool: I’ve been a fairly hard-core libertarian for many years, but libertarianism can exist under almost any form of government…except a democracy, because in a democracy there are no rules, and people are too stupid to be free without those rules. Even a dictatorship could be libertarian in theory, although it would live a precarious existence because the dictator could change his mind about it. It just so happens that the greatest liberty for the greatest number is best secured in a constitutional republic: at least so far.
“Athenians got closer than most, but even they knew that an actual democracy (putting every issue up for popular vote by everybody every time) was utterly unrealistic, which is why they never even tried it.”
The problem isn’t with the vote, its with the issues. People think they have to make big deals over every little thing and hence all these laws. Religious issues like marriage are also nothing to vote in or out and make laws over. If someone’s religion forbids them from marrying someone, they simply don’t have to. Really most laws in this country are ridiculous. Basically its moral policing and its not the government’s place to do that or anyone else’s place to do that for me but me.
“because in a democracy there are no rules”
There arent?
No, your points seems to be to define “democracy” as something impossible and then say “See, it’s impossible!” That’s just a tautology, nothing more.
Democracy literally means “rule by the demos,” the many, the common people. By that definition, there have been many democracies throughout history and many of them have “worked.”
You apparently want to rule out as a “democracy” any regime in which every single issue is not voted on by full plebiscite every single time. Well, OK, but in that case it’s a meaningless category. That’s never been proposed or tried anywhere, yet for 2,500 years philosophers and statesmen have been speaking of “democracy.” I take it they were all deluded, misguided, terminologically confused, or just wrong somehow?
Of porn and masturbation, masturbation is the lesser of two evils. Way lesser. The porn industry chews up and spits out victims while masturbation is a victimless habit.
Having only fat and/or ugly people perform in porn is not going to direct boys and men to other hobbies. Their brains will only rewire fat and ugly to their sexuality, which has already happened with BBW and deformity porn. BBW porn is supposedly one of the most searched. Sexuality is such that whatever one’s exposure to it pre or neo-puberty, that sticks for life. Now that pre and neo-pubescent girls are reading BDSM fanfiction and watching films like 50, you can expect the entire population to be in the “lifestyle” by 2025. Vanilla will then become the new kink. Full circle.
It wasn’t I who defined democracy. Here’s the definition of the thing Shem advocated here and here:
Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly.
That has never been tried. And it never will, because it can never work on any scale. Even the Athenians in all their zeal weren’t crazy enough to even approach anything like that. If you want to keep arguing against that obvious historical fact, go right ahead. I’m done.
Pingback: Weekend Miscellany | Race 4 2016
Pingback: A week of links | EVOLVING ECONOMICS
Pingback: Rabble rousers | Dalrock
Pingback: GamerGate and How Radical Feminism (Inadvertently) Broke the Left’s Grasp on Young Men « threedonia.com
Seems the drive bye media are just a little late on the draw.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/more-twenty-something-americans-are-staying-single-gallup-report-says/ar-BBkRiWE
Pingback: Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable. | Dalrock
Pingback: Our slow drift away from marriage. | Dalrock
Dal can you update for the 2015 info?
Thanks
[D: They changed the table format so I can’t extend this series any further. I might go back and create a new series with all races combined.]
Dalrock, will you be doing a 2015 update on those figures..?
oh sorry, just read your comment above.
Oh yeah man, that would be Uber research and I think would get you incredible exposure…I say this with the provision that those figures will show an Armageddon type situation in the marriage market…
I bet those figures would get clicks in many areas now that Reddit is here…
love your blog man,
Cheers,
Pingback: Why doesn’t this 28 year old manboy want to become respectable? | Dalrock
How about that 2015 Never Married Data?
Pingback: The rational response to high divorce rates. | Dalrock
Pingback: Marrying in the Current Year | Finance and Morality
Pingback: A very long season (part 1). | Dalrock
Pingback: Percentage of U.S. women never married, by age, 1980 & 2015 | Dalrock
Pingback: Marriage strike paradox. | Dalrock
Pingback: An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism
Pingback: Obesity and marriage rates and spinsterhood predictions | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: US Marital Status Data Through 2017 | Dalrock
Pingback: America begins its post-marriage experiment - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: America begins its post-marriage experiment - W Contest
Pingback: 2017 Never Married Data | Dalrock
Pingback: A week of links | Jason Collins blog
Pingback: The Evolution of Feminism as a Series of Cultural Movements | Σ Frame