Pancakeloach describes how she met her husband in a comment at Courtship Pledge:
I needed a ride to the [church singles] retreat, an acquaintance of mine had an older brother who was going – we chatted a lot in the car on the drive to the retreat and discovered we had a lot of interests in common. I think Dalrock’s right when it comes to structuring interactions so that they’re low-stakes. If we hadn’t had anything in common, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world – he was just doing a favor for his sister, and I was only carpooling with a friend’s brother.
At the retreat itself, I wasn’t approached by any of the men – but then, I had super-short hair and no fashion sense, so I was no doubt the least attractive woman there. But the silver lining of lacking the “traditional femininity” training was that I was perfectly willing to initiate conversation with men on my own. It turned out that the one I’d carpooled with was far more suitable than any of the others, so when he invited me to visit the theater with himself and his sister I made sure to say yes and dress in my Sunday-best long dress. 😉
- This probably wasn’t a setup by the the mothers or other married women at the church, but this is exactly the kind of set up a clever mother would arrange. The best setups have either minimal or no fingerprints visible by the married woman doing the setup.
- Note that she describes casting a very wide net in this comment, yet only describes one man asking her on a date. Unless they are using internet dating, dates very often aren’t how young people get to know one another and build initial attraction. Very often the woman has already done her market research and attraction is building with a particular man before she is asked out on the date that matters.
- Being young helps a great deal. There is a common complaint by older husband seekers that they need more time to fall in love with a potential husband than the man is willing to invest before nexting her. Young people don’t suffer from this problem. Falling in love is quite easy when young, which is why our concern with young people is trying to stop them from falling in love when we fear the match is wrong.
Pingback: What a setup looks like. | Manosphere.com
Pingback: What a setup looks like. | Neoreactive
What the Chinese saying ‘The ugly wife is a treasure at home’ actually means
http://www.businessinsider.com/beauty-standards-family-values-china-2015-2
This is also where “internet dating’ has insidiously distorted courtship and expectations, as ably described in other posts.
Dalrock:
Good post. Note a couple of things:
1. Your point 2 is important. In most relationships that actually work, the woman is already attracted to the man before he ever asks her out. Taking an unattracted woman on a date will usually not create attraction. This is why a woman’s IOIs are so important.
2. She was able to talk to guys. She isn’t hanging back, expecting men to do all the work, come up to her, read her mind, and ask her out. Women’s so-called “traditional” expectations are just ridiculous. It’s beyond ludicrous for them to believe that they just have to be there and never talk to anyone, and let all the men come to them, because it’s “immodest” to talk to a man or show interest or call him on the phone. These women are absolutely ruining their own chances to get with men they’re attracted to.
‘In most relationships that actually work, the woman is already attracted to the man before he ever asks her out.’
I knew of a guy who made the statement that when it came to male-female relationships that was the number one thing a guy needed was her interest level to be high to begin with. Otherwise nothing he could do would make a woman who was unattracted to him suddenly become attracted to him.
And a good way a gal can show some interest…talk to the guy. If that’s even too hard look him in the eyes and smile. Show some kind of sign if you are interested.
I’ve been reading the last several posts here, and I cannot see how anyone can even believe in Christian marriage anymore. I now believe Origen had it right all along.
Dear Dalrock,
As an economist you realize that a woman’s sexuality, when given merely to her husband, cannot be commodified on the market.
By giving women full control of their sexuality,one allows them to work for the billion-dollar corporations of facebook and instagram for free, posting endless selfies and photos of their buttehxtxtxtbootieeiiziiz.
A woman who marries young has no use for match.com nor the churchian eharmony nor divorce lawyers nor the welfare state nor the makeup nor lingerie nor college debt nor a 9-5 job slaving away for the corporate state to repay said loans.
A woman who marries young is far less likely to become anti-man and blow up her family and allow the state apparatus to seize her husband’s assets. By seizing her ass in college and buttehxting and desouling her, the women will emerge from college far more loyal to the State than to God or her Husband.
By teaching women that being a wife, mother, and grandmother is slavery, while taking on massive debt and slaving away in a 9-5 job while growing old as a used-up has been is freedom, the central banks and benrrkfiifer State profits for the short term, at the expense of the long-term wealth of the country.
It’s funny you pulled this comment out. I don’t think I noticed it super closely the first time. By bad.
Mychael and I have a little something like this brewing right now for a couple of people we like.
But, but, GBFM, how do we know if those future wives are intelligent wimmenz unless they go off to college and missionary trips to buttsexx their way to future marital bliss? I urge you, think of the UMC!
It seems, from the people I am forced to mingle with on a sort of daily basis, that you only need to be setup when you’re too old, and certainly not when the lady is young, 35-39 at least, that’s a good age. She has more than enough time to find herself and get all that flighty stuff out of the way so that she can be setup with Mr rightnow, last name, nowDivorced, and have one child and maybe sex twice with hubby, if he’s lucky of course.
I have not seen the “matchmaking” going on in any church I’ve been to. There’s an awful lot of “I’ll pray for God to send you a mate.” but not a lot of “Hey, there’s someone you should meet.” When they do want to fix me up its with a fat woman, a single mom, or a carousel rider who hears her clock ticking…or some combination of all three. In my experience, singles are told to not have sex but beyond on that are completely abandoned to their own devices.
gbfm,
Yeah but…. they don’t want to marry young. And do men nowadays? Who did you propose to at age 19 and what did she say?
I made a post last night that disappeared into the æther, but it was related to this topic. I discussed, among other things, plausible deniability and IOI’s.
In the carpooling scenario there was an opportunity to build attraction without anyone having to declare interest. Women have it much easier than men do in this regard. A woman can always signal attraction using IOI’s without having to come right out and declare her attraction. Men, on the other hand, are expected to approach women and ask for dates, which leaves no ambiguity. For him it’s either/or, with the outcomes ranging from “Yes, I’d love to” to “GET AWAY FROM ME YOU CREEP!” and everything in between, which is entirely up to her. As for IOI’s, although some people are “naturals” and some are not, flirting isn’t rocket science. A quick internet search can yield a list of things a woman can do to signal and build attraction without being overly “forward.”
And do men nowadays? Who did you propose to at age 19 and what did she say?
This is an interesting point, deserving of its own post.
Also, I have a related question. At what does it become “creepy” for a young man to show interest in a younger girl? (Like 18, right out of HS). 22? 25?
I have both sons and a daughter and I am trying not to be that dad that everyone in the manosphere complains about. You know, the dad with a daugther who talks a big game but won’t let her anywhere near a guy until after she has her masters degree.
fh,
And there is the rub.
Parents of daughters (generally, not in all cases, just generally) don’t give a d-mn what their future prospective son-in-laws want from their daughters. If he wanted a virginal wife (and can never get that from their buttexxed-desouled daughter) well, that is just too bad, he will have to take her just the way she is and learn to love her and well, thats the end of it! They see their daughters as prizes to be worked for and won in marriage, (the daughter can ALWAYS do BETTER than any man that she eventually marries.) The parents feel he must EARN her and jump through all these hoops to get her. That is the way the feminist imperative marital market economics of this “works” in the MC and UMC. That was even the crap I had to deal with (growing up) from my own folks because (right out of the gate) they thought every gf I had could simply DO BETTER than ME by virtue of the fact that they were female. They were blue-pill brainwashed too.
The man can NEVER-EVER!!!! be the “prize.” In every marriage, someone must ALWAYS be getting the better end of the deal in marriage and the only way feminism works (in marriage) is if the man thinks that his wife could have done better than him BUT there is ZERO CHANCE that he could have ever have done better than her. That is how he “won” the “prize.” She HAD to have “settled.” He MUST love her more than she could ever love him. It can not work the other way. Ever. Because if it is the other way around then…. well…. (given unilateral divorce laws) he’ll just frivorce her (eventually) when he can trade up. And no parent wants that.
Because if it is the other way around then…. well…. (given unilateral divorce laws) he’ll just frivorce her (eventually) when he can trade up. And no parent wants that.
…on edit….
They ONLY want that right for their daughters because, how else can she keep him on his toes and keep him from abusing her? She MUST have the right to trade-up at any moment so that she is ALWAYS his “prize” that he must always work constantly to “earn.”
what do we mean by “young man to show interest in a younger girl”?
As far as I’m concerned, once a girl turns 18 she’s fair game for interested suitors of all ages. Now, if she had her druthers she’ll want a man around +2 or +3 agewise (the age of men which is most sexually attractive to her). So she’ll be most interested in men around ages 20 to 21. Men around age 25 might have more going for them husbandwise, but she won’t be interested in many of them because “Too old”, unless he is very physically attractive. And, most of the men in the early 20s cohort aren’t all that attractive in any way — they aren’t all that physically attractive except for the top 20%. They don’t have any money and can’t support even themselves, much less a wife. They’re either in school or just starting out at a job, so they are low status. The only kind of attractiveness that late teens/early 20s men have going for them is physical; and then only about 20 to 25% of men in that age cohort can muster that.
It’s a problem for sure, because today’s society won’t encourage her to consider the men most suited to her for marriage (men around 23 to 26). Most of these 18 year old women aren’t going to be all that interested in marriage anyway, I’m afraid.
They ONLY want that right for their daughters because, how else can she keep him on his toes and keep him from abusing her? She MUST have the right to trade-up at any moment so that she is ALWAYS his “prize” that he must always work constantly to “earn.”
This is baked into the cake, my friend. Also, the sacred path to marriage, as explained a long time ago on this very website.
My MIL was over Christmas and we (me, wife and her) got into a discussion about college/future plans for our daughter.
We came to the “what if” scenario of “what if she is in the nearby community college, meets a young man, we all like him (courting starts) and they marry. We told her that all things being equal, we would be fine if she drops out of school to start having babies.
She was horrified. I mean, absolutely dumbfounded to the point where she got up and walked out, almost in tears. She thinks I have brainwashed Mychael and that the ultimate cost will be our daugther being sold into slavery.
It pretty much ruined a few days of Christmas vacation.
ibb writes,
“Yeah but…. they don’t want to marry young. And do men nowadays? Who did you propose to at age 19 and what did she say?”
actually i would have been happy getting married earlier and was always dating the “hot girls” at my ivy league college. needless to say, marriage was the LAST thing on their minds. especially a marriage like my European parents’, whence mom had dinner on the table every night.
in grad school when i was 27 i was still dating 19 year old smart pretty women, who still had absolutely no interest in marriage.
they would have never accepted my proposal, and so i chickened out.
the closest i ever got was when i got down on one knee
handed her a box
and said
“will you m m m m m m
mmmmaa
mmm
mmm
m
m
mm
mmmmmm
mmmm
mmm
mmm
mow my lawn?”
i took the box back, she mowed the lawn, and today she is a divorced child psychiatrist in a big city.
just think, instead of her mowing my lawn that day, i could be paying her alimony. 🙂
“feministhater says:But, but, GBFM, how do we know if those future wives are intelligent wimmenz unl ess they go off to college and missionary trips to buttsexx their way to future marital bliss?”
i wish they were just “missionary” trips! and not doggystylelzzzlzllzlllzllozlzzlzlz.
a funny thing is that i have never once heard a woman speak out against today’s religion of hiphop:
now she might lash out at a man listening it, but never the hiphop itself.
same thing with porn. men that watch porn are baaaaaaad. the women performing it and partaking in the *physical* act are just fine as jesus loves them.
Truth.
@Scott, that’s basically the reaction I got from an UMC professional woman friend when I said that I didn’t want my daughter living in the dorms. You’d think I said that I wanted her barefoot and pregnant.
@IBB, the attitudes you’ve described are hardly universal. I’ve never run into that from the working class to the UMC.
Pingback: Your self esteem angers God [Deut 9: John 2] | Dark Brightness
“A woman who marries young has no use for match.com nor the churchian eharmony nor divorce lawyers nor the welfare state nor the makeup nor lingerie ”
Every woman needs makeup and lingerie.
—
It seems to me that “talking” phase is just a means of replacing the low risk matchmaking opportunities that are no longer present either due to decaying social networks, or as Dalrock notes the relative insincerity of the participants.
GBFM:
“ needless to say, marriage was the LAST thing on their minds. especially a marriage like my European parents’, whence mom had dinner on the table every night.”
I’m not sure I would have been happy being married as an undergrad or even as a grad student. But for the women I knew in college and grad school, it was absolutely the case that marriage was the furthest thing from their minds. It was about half and half in college (half looking for husbands; the other half considering “maybe marriage someday”). I would never have asked any of these girls for marriage; they made it very clear they would have declined.
That dichotomy was MUCH more pronounced in grad school, with almost none of the women even thinking about marriage. Only about 75% of the women I knew from grad school ever married. That’s low, considering that group of women is now solidly in their mid-40s; where we know upwards of 90% of this cohort have been married at least once.
This is to be expected though. These women are being told over and over again to have fallback careers. Get established in a job/career because you can’t count on a man. You need something for yourself. You can’t waste your life getting married. And so on. It’s quite toxic for a young single woman who truly wants to marry.
Scott,
Its pure blue-pill. The feminist imperative MUST be served in marriage. The only way that happens in marriage 2.0. That is why whenever anyone gets engaged to the man they say…
“Congratulations!”
…and to her they say….
“best wishes”
…she is not congratulated because she is the woman and by virtue of her being the woman she can ALWAYS do better than him. But the only way marriage 2.0 works is if (in ALL cases) she is the prize that he must constantly work to earn. The minute she is getting the better end of the deal in marriage (he is better looking than her and women are flocking around him to hop up and down on his d-ck on his terms), that is a vapor lock, paradox, that is a non-starter. he must never be “the prize” because then he’ll just frivorce her the instant he can do better because….. she doesn’t have anything to offer him in order to keep him
Unilateral divorce law (the cornerstone to marriage 2.0) was created to keep husbands from hitting their wives. That (with the sword of damocles) morphed into the husband doing all that he can to keep his wife happy, but still, that is the system working as designed. The system does NOT work if….
he is better looking
he makes less/no money
he has less/no assets
he has nothing to lose in frivorce
and he knows he can get laid at any moment from many other women
So the above can never-ever happen. He is not permitted to BE the prize. He can’t be. She always is. Which is why parents don’t give a d-mn what young men want in their wives. They can just take whatever they get and LEARN to LOVE them.
I have three daughters and want them all to marry young. My wife and I have masters degrees and I’m not opposed to those either. But I prioritize marriage over university.
Yup. Par for the course there. I stand by my comment in the previous thread. If a woman is below a certain age threshold, women will refuse to match her up. Flat out refuse. And God help you if you are a man who expresses interest or possible interest, in a woman of that age cohort.
Every woman needs makeup and lingerie.
I was thinking the same thing. If she doesn’t, she will.
He is not permitted to BE the prize. He can’t be. She always is. Which is why parents don’t give a d-mn what young men want in their wives. They can just take whatever they get and LEARN to LOVE them.
Foreign this is to me. A heck of a prize my man is. The short end of the stick he was stuck with for at least the first 5 years of this marriage.
That was my yoda impression.
Deti, you are far too positive about our society. The modern sex pos feminist wants the straight ouf of HS girl to go to college and do women’s studies (becoming, prefereably, ghey until graduation) and then marrying only when she is established in the profession and then for the minimal time required to produce two kids.
Or they want free access to IVF, regardless of what that does to the healthcare budget, because sperm is icky, and submitting to a man more so.
And for those women who are straight and repelled by women, they teach lies: so that men are continually demeaned. Then the wonder why women go full burqua, because they seek, instinctively, to be a belpmeet, and to have a husband, not a doormat.
Locally, if you are a young man in a professional course you better have a good spock game, because the women are becoming the PUAs.
Of course this is foreign to you. You are a red pill woman.
[I have two sons, in their late teens. I’m watching them actively avoid the girls chasing them.]
Yep. That’s what we’ve come to: for a woman to have “wife and mother” as her sole vocation in life is now horrifying.
“This is to be expected though. These women are being told over and over again to have fallback careers. Get established in a job/career because you can’t count on a man. You need something for yourself. You can’t waste your life getting married.”
This is true, but I see it as part of the more general case of society worshipping money.
I wonder how many people given a choice would choose to be part of a happy family in the working class versus divorced in the upper middle class.
Donal,
That was played out on “The Middle” last week when Darrin proposed to Sue Heck. Her dad wanted to kill him (why? I don’t know.) Darrin didn’t give his daughter an unwed pregnancy, he gave her a diamond. Apparently that is reason to kill because his daughter was just 17. But even in the end they did the show respectfully of red pill thinking. When Sue gave back the ring to Darrin and said she was too young, didn’t know what she wanted, and was just dating him and didn’t want to get married yet, you know what Darrin said?
“Well I do know what I want. I want you to be my wife. I am not just dating to date. But if you don’t want to marry me, then we are done.”
And that was it. A pure blue-pill/red-pill culture collision on The Middle.
Yep. That’s what we’ve come to: for a woman to have “wife and mother” as her sole vocation in life is now horrifying.
Not necessarily sole vocation, but certainly her first and foremost. Really, there are several things in combination working together to create that reaction. A few:
1) Marrying young
2) Having babies young
3) Not getting an education young
4) Not starting a career young
5) As a result of the above, being heavily dependent on a man while young
And so on.
The most important part of this story is that SHE talked to the men.
People are snobs, and encouraged to live a hollywood style UMC (bug house, no books) not the real one (smaller house or apartment, and a budget for opera, books and magazines).
What the movies show as struggling is generally UMC people who have had a trust fund buy or rent their hipster pad in the local equivelant of Brooklyn, where the nbbly divorced wimmen finds her secret millioniare handyman.
The short end of the stick he was stuck with for at least the first 5 years of this marriage.
I wonder if a bit of tunnel vision isn’t going on here. Not that you should change your attitude at all (you shouldn’t), but I bet you that for the first five years of the marriage you were still probably than 90% of wives today, if not higher.
The short end of the stick he was stuck with for at least the first 5 years of this marriage.
I wonder if a bit of tunnel vision isn’t going on here. Not that you should change your attitude at all (you shouldn’t), but I bet you that for the first five years of the marriage you were still probably than 90% of wives today, if not higher.
{{Your MIL pretty much ruined a few days of Christmas vacation.}}
Fixed that for you. 🙂
Donal,
You forgot the MOST IMPORTANT REASON why it is “horrifying.”
6) He can frivorce her and marry a new wife at any moment
Because marriage 1.0 is gone forever (lifelong marriage where divorce is NEVER granted by a judge unless there is HUGE fault on someone’s part) and replaced with marriage 2.0 (an “at-will” boyfriend-girlfriend relationship) then her being a “wife and a mother” as her sole vocation is horrifying. She would have no means of financial support (outside of alimony, which is only a percentage of his income) if he frivorces her. In marriage she gets all his money. In frivorce, she only gets some of it and she will never get anymore because it is too later for her (in life) to learn job skilz.
See how that works?
If we all had marriage 1.0 (red pill marriage) then her being a “wife and mother” as her sole vocation is not so bad because he cannot marry another. He gets one for life until God ends their marriage. So she will get ALL his resources. He can’t even abandon her, government WILL find him.
@GBFM
You are in great form today my friend. That was hilarious.
DD:
“I have not seen the “matchmaking” going on in any church I’ve been to. There’s an awful lot of “I’ll pray for God to send you a mate.” but not a lot of “Hey, there’s someone you should meet.” When they do want to fix me up its with a fat woman, a single mom, or a carousel rider who hears her clock ticking…or some combination of all three. In my experience, singles are told to not have sex but beyond on that are completely abandoned to their own devices.”
This is all true. But understand that this is not due to the uselessness of setups, but the paucity of the marriage market. In a good market with honest participants, setups grease the wheel. This actually leads to an unfortunate phenomenon:
1)Attractive people get set up with each other, and marry
2)They ascribe success to the manner of meeting, when it was mostly due to the attractiveness and intention to marry
3)When asked for romantic advice, they say, “Oh, get set up. It worked for me.”
I think setups are a good idea, and probably more important as the actual marriage market becomes more fragmented and has a harder time finding itself (and thus clearing). But a stock exchange has value because of the companies it lists, not the other way around.
[D: Exactly.]
it wasn’t all bad.
i actually met a girl once who was embarrassed of her past (which wasn’t hugely wild) and agreed that the system sucked.
we got engaged, and she passed away in a horseriding accident. but not until we saw this movie in an empty theater one afternoon:
such women are very very very very
very very
very
rare
but they exist 🙂
btw nicole kidman was a prostitute in the film
and the dude was a beta artist writer “captain save a ho”
but it’s still a pretty song
to dance to.
come to think of it, this is a pretty song to dance to too:
NSFW, unless you work at a modern university r church or pretty much any other modern version of what was intended 🙂
🙂
One thing about matchmaking at church: when the single people are in their older 20s or 30s, if they don’t make it obvious that they’re interested in marriage, the matchmakers may assume they’re not interested. After all, if they start pushing dates at a guy only to have him finally say, “Thanks, but I actually don’t like girls,” that could be pretty embarrassing. So if you’re somewhat older, you should expect to have to say something to someone to get the ball rolling; otherwise they may assume you don’t need or want help in that area.
My church just had a few single men and women, but unless you were close friends with them, you wouldn’t know that this woman had a long-term boyfriend in another state, or that this guy wasn’t the marrying type. So people didn’t know enough to know whether their help would be helpful. When someone did say, “Yeah, I want to get married,” the gears went into motion — but still slowly, because they didn’t know for sure who was available.
This is true, but I see it as part of the more general case of society worshipping money.
I wonder how many people given a choice would choose to be part of a happy family in the working class versus divorced in the upper middle class.
True. I suspect that most people, despite what they would actually “say” if asked, really would prefer the latter to the former.
That dichotomy was MUCH more pronounced in grad school, with almost none of the women even thinking about marriage. Only about 75% of the women I knew from grad school ever married. That’s low, considering that group of women is now solidly in their mid-40s; where we know upwards of 90% of this cohort have been married at least once.
It’s a self-selecting group. While most of the female lawyers I have known have gotten married at least once, there is a percentage of them (not a small one — maybe 20, maybe 30%) who are hard cases to marry because they are so self and career focused. It’s not that all of them never wanted to marry, but that this group never wanted to make it a priority, or to reorganize their life focus around being married. Again, the profession attracts some particularly ambitious women who are not just there for a merit badge.
Did I just see a flip flop from IBB?
I find it interesting to be set up by an ex-girlfriend. Their competitive instincts emerge, and their ‘suggestions’ have always been some mix of shorter, fatter, older, dumber, and poorer. This includes the scenarios when the fixer has moved on and ostentatiously “married happily.”
Church-related suggestions are a horror show to be avoided, unless one fancies oneself as a service provider in the romantic charity business.
‘If we all had marriage 1.0 (red pill marriage) then her being a “wife and mother” as her sole vocation is not so bad because he cannot marry another. He gets one for life until God ends their marriage. So she will get ALL his resources. He can’t even abandon her, government WILL find him.’
Then why is it in 2.0 the women initate the divorce most of the time? Basically by them doing this they allow a man to marry another.
Nova,
I have only ever dated three lawyers in my life: #1) bankruptcy #2) ADA and #3) family law. I instantly NEXTed family law attorney the moment I found out the type of law she practiced. The bankruptcy attorney, I think I have spoken about her here at this forum. She treated me like I was her “trophy-boy” so to speak. (At dinners and social events, I had to “sit” with the trophy-girlfriends of all the junior partners while the attorneys went off to drink, socialize, and talked shop.) I think if I had asked her to marry me she would have because I don’t think she had all that many offers for marriage in her life. (She was quite a bit older than I was and was at best, a 3 in looks.) So I don’t know all that much about dating attorney’s (I’ll defer to you on this one.)
That said, aren’t all women who are MC or UMC (regardless of age or occupation) interested in marriage provided all checkboxes are checked? I just don’t think they get proposals from Mr perfect and when they are that much younger, and (at age 19) they are not willing to settle for anything less than Mr Perfect. Afterall, they are not 30 yet and they have all the time in the world to find the perfect man.
When you have a buddy set you up, rather than his girlfriend or wife, you greatly improve the odds of being matched with a reasonably attractive woman.
Women may be more prone to trying to set you up with a friend who exemplifies attractive masculine qualities.
Let me join in (given that I find female lawyers to be hopeless professionally and vile beyond even Cerberus who as you know if you read Milton guards the gates of Hell, and say that I only dated two; the first was a blind date I arranged after talking to her on the phone. I made my excuses after the first half pint and we never spoke again; the second, bastard that I am (she asked me out and it would have been rude to refuse) I stood up, and she is still single. Law – representing some of London’s criminal scum, and giving the odd presentation as she does – is so much more fulfilling than marriage and family.
My theory is that they all want a man but their expectations are stratospheric; and in proof of that I give you the present Mrs Clooney.
earl,
If we all had marriage 1.0 (red pill marriage) then her being a “wife and mother” as her sole vocation is not so bad because he cannot marry another. He gets one for life until God ends their marriage. So she will get ALL his resources. He can’t even abandon her, government WILL find him.
Because they are not happy. They don’t have everythiing in life and they have grown tired of looking at his face. Because of the feminist imperative, she KNOWS she is “the prize” (not him), that she “settled” way back when, and so she KNOWS that she can Eat-Pray-Love her way to a better man, she just needs to dispose of the one she is currently married to (keeping his house and earning power). It works in movies and Holywood….
Or, something happened and he lost his job. Maybe he got hurt or disabled? Maybe he got some kind of disease (like Cancer?) Whatever it is, he lost some significant portion of his income so (of course) divorce him immediately because she never really meant that silly vow about for better or for worse and in sickness and in health (that vow was just for him)….
Or, maybe she fell in love for the first time in her life? She never really loved her husband, she was just too young to know what love was when she married him. Some really cute guy friended her on Facebook and she met him just for coffee and she wound up sleeping with him (in the bed she shares with her husband) and she discovered that this man has a 9 inch p-nis and her husband’s 5 inch p-nis just doesn’t do it. That is because (for the first time in her life) she actually had an org-sm, something her husband never gave her (something she had never discovered before harleymcbadboy.) Problem is harleymcbadboy has no income or house. Fortunately she can keep the house and husband’s income AND get the 9 inch p-nis if she divorces husband….
Or, she was just an admin assistant when she married him and he was a plumber making X. 20 years later she is a Vice President at her firm and he is still a plumber making X. All her friends are married to educated men and well, he is just a plumber so…. time to dump him and marry her own Vice President.
The hamsterization list goes on and on earl. I can’t believe you asked me that.
But your point was that in 1.0 men wouldn’t be able to divorce or abandon her. In 2.0 the percentage of men divorcing or abandoning their wives is still much less than the other way around. 2.0 seemed to give free reign for women to pull the trigger.
In 1.0 I think it keeps the frivorce side of things out of the woman’s mind.
earl,
Exactly!!!!!! This is marriage 2.0 working as designed. Its working for the feminist imperative. The reason why men don’t generally frivorce their wives with marriage 2.0 (even though they could) is because she. is. THE PRIZE! She HAD to “settle” to marry “him.” It can not work the other way, EVER! He MUST love her more than she will ever love him. Or else he WOULD frivorce her.
Since most divorces are initiated by women unilaterally, this proves that the feminist imperative is working as designed (she is the prize in the marriage) and HE didn’t do something (at some point) to keep her happy enough to stay married to him. He stopped working hard enough to “earn” her hand in marriage. This goes on for her entire life.
That is how marriage 2.0 works.
There are two reasons when feminist women hate marriage 1.0 and will vote out any political candidate that ever suggests going back to that:
#1) All feminist women see in men are possible wife beaters. They look at you earl, and you are nothign but a felon ready to put her in the hospital or the grave. That is what her daddy thinks of you the minute you look at his daughter. Only an “at will” marriage contract will allow women to use the power of force from government to keep husbands in line and
#2) the feminist imperative assures women that they are “the prize.” With marriage 1.0 they no longer have the ability to extract resources from their husbands if they fail to “produce” at the level that is worthy of her agreeing to maybe allow his p-nis anywhere near her vagina at (perhaps) a once a month clip. All she can do is leave with the clothes on her back. She gets nothing for sleeping with him all the time she was married.
Dalrock has repeatly stated, the system is worked as designed. What government and feminists and churchianity did NOT predict is this…
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/more-ominous-than-a-strike/
…that is BAD! That means men aren’t manning up and marrying sluts. That meant that POTUS Obama has to step in with Obamacare/ACA to get YOU to pay MORE for your health insurance so that the woman you DIDN’T marry can pay LESS for HER health insurance because she is actually going to put in claims for birth cotnrol, pap smears, breast exams, and abortions. She wants those things covered in her policy and the only way her insurance company will cover those is if YOU are forced to buy the same coverage.
See how this works?
‘ the feminist imperative assures women that they are “the prize.”
Well I suppose this is what happens when a society goes godless.
Of course earl. Don’t you want a wife who will love you the way Elspeth loves and adores her husband, the way SSM loves and adores her HHG? Their husbands are “the prize.” That is what God has commanded of them and those two women listened to God by reading Genesis 3:16 and believing in Him. Take away God, and you pretty much dismantle marriage 1.0 and reduce it to marriage 2.0 (an “at will” arrangement) where the woman is “the prize.” So….
….MGTOW.
Their husbands are “the prize.”
Yep. I married ‘up.’ Not only is Scott taller. 🙂 He is a giant in the areas of moral reasoning, intellectual curiosity, spiritual discipline, work ethic, strength, patience and justice.
Once I realized that, and started treating him that way, my life became so much easier.
And none of it is compatible with modern you go grrrrlism. I have alienated many grrrrrl friends over it.
You may have over shot there a bit, but I will take the compliment.
Todays females would rather have a career than commitment to family for the feminine Imperative. First it fits in with rebellion as in she doesn’t need him. There fore no reason to respect him. She knows the law ,the church, and culture will hold her to know real consequence to honoring her wedding vows so she is in it for the happiness. Nothing could be more pure than marrying for the tingle of happiness the stink hole knows.
She can’t cook, she can’t clean , doesn’t think she has to contribute a damn thing and for damn sure is not in any way obligated to even if it is out of practical necessity . (that is where that horrified look comes from Scott) Submission for a modern woman is not in the cards and besides that it will interfere with the hypergamy.
That career is not to bring something to the marriage it is to remove any and all need to even have to be nice or even consider her husband human if she doesn’t “feel” it. If getting married advances the cause a young woman may marry to get the student loan paid off, the car cosigned and house and child but can bet your ass she in no way feels the slightest obligation to her husband or marriage. Everything from the law, culture and especially the church makes sure of that. The career is just to make sure reality is on board with the feminine imperative. This is the world we live in.
gg,
So is this.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/more-ominous-than-a-strike/
Marriage 2.0 does not work with a marriage rate of 49.2% of adults. And that number is ever shrinking. Marriage (today) as it is constructed is really just another benefit for UMC women. Women with an IQ less than 90 or women who are “ugly” need not apply for marriage. They are not getting it. That is most certainly not what God wanted. God (in His infinate wisdom) saw this future for us. But He gave us “free will” to hang ourselves by our own legal rope and destroy that which he created (marriage 1.0).
Did anyone claim that the excuses offered by all of society about why the poor women suffering under the no-fault divorce laws needed to have her “own” money weren’t a bunch of horse apples?
You may have over shot there a bit, but I will take the compliment.
Now that’s love. I enjoy reading the interaction between you and Mychael. It’s sweet.
Ha. I told my husband over our anniversary dinner last week that I appreciated him deigning to give a girl like me a chance. Complete with an -almost- tear filled run down of how great he is. I held it together.
He thought I was nuts and has no idea why I think I he is the one who got a bargain deal.
That said, aren’t all women who are MC or UMC (regardless of age or occupation) interested in marriage provided all checkboxes are checked? I just don’t think they get proposals from Mr perfect and when they are that much younger, and (at age 19) they are not willing to settle for anything less than Mr Perfect. Afterall, they are not 30 yet and they have all the time in the world to find the perfect man.
A certain percentage won’t prioritize it, and expect it “just to happen”. That’s the segment that gets frozen out, and ends up writing hand-wringing articles in The Atlantic about it.
IBB
Don’t forget the basics of female nature. No matter what those never change. UMC women have status as a huge part of their identity related to other UMC women. Being married is a marker of their desirability. Hypergamy is a powerful motivator for all women what separates women is the path they take to satisfy the insatiable hypergamy. The only reason UMC have a lower divorce rate is that it is a marker for UMC status. They sure as hell aren’t fucking and loving their husbands like good helpers as seen in the good book.
Another dynamic is I wouldn’t marry a woman that didn’t make at least 60k or had an easily replacable job. Men and teenage boys will tell you in conversation she “better have money” to be a girl friend. I wouldn’t and would never advise any young man to marry some female that only had a pussy and a pretty face even if she did oral and anal. a 20 year old bride is a worthless burden, in fact an act of irresponsibility on the guy that married her. All she can do is get knocked up and get bored and have an affair due to the distance from the wall. (she will still get attention from simps) She can’t cook, she can’t clean, can’t get a good paying job, And based on societal pressures including from the church she s not gong to do a damn thing to make herself a helper and a source of soothing comfort for her family. One thing for sure she will make sure all know if she is not happy. And bet your butt anything from abortion, DV, cuckolding, withholding affection, drugs, alcohol, to just plain old frivorce with the accusations needed to rid herself of him and any consideration of him fully supported by law and the church. He is going pay because she has no education and as given so much to the relationship.
This is where being UMC comes in because that status marker trumps most of that above crap going on in todays marriages.
A comment on the other thread bemoaned the fate of a woman who had “eligible” bachelors sent to them non-stop from well-meaning women. It would be stressful to turn away so many, so often, if the men she was being sent were subpar.
Fair enough, but they were forgetting one important, beneficial feature. The girl’s father. It should be assumed that the old women should sent suitors first to the girl’s father to meet him. He can then “next” ones that are obviously not good enough, saving his daughter the effort and stress of constantly turning down guys. Then he can offer names and see if she is interested. This is one of the greatest gifts a father can give to her daughter.
Of course, this means the father has garnered a lifetime of trust from his daughter, and has raised her right, and she knows that he has her best interests at heart.
TFH that self sabotage is cultural and expected and has been incorporated into the hypergamy path of women today.
Geez… get a room, will ya’?
In theory, yes, but they have a LOT of checkboxes and can always invent more. A man would have to be something really special to convince them to give up the “career, fun, and experiences” part of the life script. He has to be so perfect that she’s convinced she’ll never have a chance at anyone like him again, so she can’t afford to miss it. It won’t be enough for him to be acceptable; he’ll have to check every box on her list and then some: big income, tall, handsome, makes her tingle like she never has, a leader in the community, check, check, check, check. And she’d still probably prefer to date him for a few years, if he doesn’t absolutely insist on marrying right away.
And why would such a man, a one in a million catch, insist on marriage? He’s exactly the kind of guy who doesn’t need to push for anything; he has plenty of women trying to give themselves to him.
So the theory breaks down in reality, where the typical girl could only be talked into marriage before 28 by Mr. Perfect, and he’s the one guy who has no reason to try.
Greyghost,
On a practical basis, Marriage 1.0 is not worth it unless we really are serious about returning to an era of marriage at age 19-22, and then 4-8 kids per family.
What is wrong with that? Are you saying it is bad or that most people have a problem with it today? I would agree with the latter, but not the former.
Michael,
My wife has been going through some mind shifts of her own as my thinking through these things have challenged her to realize how much feminism had impacted even her anti-feminist brain. Many solid Christians have bought a great many lies, much to our detriment as a society and in our churches.
Something that I think is being generally overlooked is the effect of chastity. I realize that it’s out of style, even among church-goers, but it really makes a difference for those who adhere to it. The puberty-to-30 years are when the sex drive is strongest, and knowing that the ONLY way you’re going to “get any” is within marriage adds a level of urgency to the spousal search that is not present for the promiscuous. The other side of that coin is that the same sort of people who practice chastity also tend to look at marriage as one-and-done, which mitigates against being hasty, since there are no “do-overs.” There’s an old saying, “Marry in haste, repent at leisure.” Like most things in life, there’s a balance, and it works well when we play our designated roles. The worldly paradigm allows sex before marriage, so there’s no urgency to find someone, and divorce for trivial reasons if if doesn’t “work out” (in other words, if it’s hard at all).
We can all look around and see how well that’s working out.
The relevant concern isn’t how much more likely a man is to get frivorced. It is that there is risk to the woman. Men are far more risk tolerant than women. The majority of women are irrationally risk adverse (ie. see any discussion on car seats, bike helmets, etc). Which is all well and good for taking care of infants and children, but is crippling in other areas (which is why most of them aren’t great at the whole headship thing). So you can dispense with the “marriage 2.0 is better for women because it is more risky to men” logic.
If 40% of marriage end in divorce, and women are responsible for 3/4ths of them. That still means a woman has a 10% of being hosed over by an abusive or adulterous husband. Of course, they could choose wiser and dramatically lower the risk to themselves, but it is this risk irrespective of the male condition that is relevant for understanding the female position.
That is why it becomes a bridge too far for any woman who is interested in the mommy track to forgo some career skills. The marriage 2.0 system is entirely to risky for the SAHM without some sort of failsafe. At least when it was marriage 1.0, they didn’t have to worry about getting completely hosed over by the mistress because nobody recognized the bastard children. Under marriage 2.0, the mistress not only gets the child support, her children are socially accepted, and the mistress can even make a legitimate play for the role of wife.
Marriage for men has always been slavery. Society shamed men into providing for and protecting women and her children. In days past, a man that didn’t have a wife had difficulty finding employment and one that didn’t provide for a woman’s children was deemed defective. Men were also sent to war to fight and die for their rights – rights that were given to women without any cost. Men that didn’t go to war were branded cowards – by both men and women. These things are still somewhat true today, but more and more, men are standing up to this misandry and male disposability. Marriage, for all intensive purposes, has always been about the exchange of sex by women for provision and protection by men. To a large extent, society still enforces these roles.
In the past 40+ years, tens upon tens of millions of men have been destroyed through marriage. As a result, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of those men have committed suicide. This is the real reason for the decline in marriage.
Feminism inadvertently freed men from their traditional male roles. Now, men aren’t forced to provide for and protect women. As more and more women enter the military – fewer and fewer men’s lives will have to be sacrificed for women’s rights. Women cast off their traditional roles and now men have done the same.
Because of the above, we are moving toward a more equal society in which one gender isn’t forced to sacrifice themselves for the other. To continue this trend, white knights and chivalrous men must be removed from the male ranks. These are the men that will gladly throw other men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy. These men are relics of dark days past (for men) and need to be called out and removed from any gender equalized society.
BradA
That is not mine. Also, I don’t see anything wrong with a civilization like that.
Marriage 2.0 didn’t come about to prevent domestic violence. It came about as a way to allow people to get divorced without having to litigate the details of what happened in the marriage in court. That was the motive. The idea was this: “some percentage of marriages are going to break down no matter what, and so it’s compassionate to allow people in those hard situations to end them and move on without having to go through another wringer in court, often with children in tow”. That was the idea — that’s what Reagan had in mind when he was the first state Governor to sign no-fault/2.0 into law. He didn’t expect (and most of the people who supported it also didn’t expect) that it would be used to crater a huge number of marriages, as happened in the 70s. It turned out that there were a lot of people (i.e., women) who wanted out of their marriages, but didn’t want to have to prove a “reason”, other than that they just wanted out. The alimony rules were not simultaneously reformed, so for a number of years (said number still continuing in a limited number of states), it became a boondoggle for any woman who was looking for a change. That wasn’t why the legislators enacted it — it was how *women* used it. Yes, men and women are to blame here — male legislators and women who cratered their marriages — but the intentions of each were completely different.
What is wrong with that? Are you saying it is bad or that most people have a problem with it today? I would agree with the latter, but not the former.
The argument is that it depends on more people being poor and having fewer opportunities. More opportunities make the shackles of marriage less attractive on an enduring basis. This may very well be true, of course, but the issue is — ok, then what? If 1.0 requires poverty and 2.0 is inherently unstable and increasingly inaccessible to people, what is the new model (even leaving aside religious considerations)? The idea of “everyone is an eternal free agent” does not seem to work in the context of raising children. Maybe raise children on child farms, so everyone can work their asses off and get their freak on as and when they wish?
I’m famous! haha
I think the women involved in the setup were single; my MIL has never confessed to being involved in the setup part at the beginning, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she had been, either. I’ve always chalked up my success in finding a husband nearly instantly upon deciding to look for one to Divine Intervention, especially after my SIL had some trouble finding a match herself. But if additional details would help populate y’all’s data sets – he’s four years older than me, graduated with two bachelor’s degrees (to my one), had a good-paying tech job, and still lived with his parents to save money. And I have to hat-tip the Game concept of preselection – my residents gave him The Eye when he came to pick me up (they knew I’d never met him before and that I was about to go driving off to the mountains in his car) at the dorm, and apparently he passed – they told me he was cute.
Some of the guys at the retreat seemed kind of awkward when I approached them, like they didn’t know how to handle a girl initiating conversation. I don’t know if that was because they found me unattractive or because they thought being talked to by a girl was weird, though. I was talking to my husband about how reading Dalrock’s posts makes me more and more grateful that he was willing to take a chance on me as I looked at that time and he said, “Yeah, you looked like you dressed out of the boy’s bargain bin section of the store and you had the haircut to match, but I thought you’d clean up well.” I just about died laughing. The first makeup purchase I ever made happened a month after we met, but even so I have to say that makeup probably shouldn’t be considered optional. I got real “lucky.” 😉
Mychael, I think we should start a club for wives called My Husband Is The Most Awesome Person In The Universe. We can go around in public wearing shirts with that slogan printed on them and talking about how our husbands are better than ourselves. 🙂
Pancakeloach–
I would wear that shirt. Not even kidding.
Surrogacy is the commodization of children. It is evil. One would hope even the ultrawealthy grasp that at an unconscious level. But beyond that the process is not without its risks. You cannot earnestly control the behavior, diet, stress level of the surrogate. There is substantial fluid transfer and interactions between surrogate and baby, the depths of which have not been fully explored. Lastly, it requires chemical treatments the effects of which on the baby have also not been fully explored.
That being said, I fully expect the wealthy to get more involved in such processes as designer baby technology becomes better developed, as the desire to give their children a competitive edge overwhelms all sense of morality in the race to the bottom.
I would use a surrogate just to get around the threat point of some cunt. MGTOW/ Family man.
@Scott says:
February 23, 2015 at 12:43 pm
“Also, I have a related question. At what does it become ‘creepy’ for a young man to show interest in a younger girl? (Like 18, right out of HS). 22? 25?”
I don’t have an absolute answer to this, but I can offer a couple examples. I’m seven years older than my wife. She was 19 when we met, and although we didn’t date right away, that would’ve made me 26. We were 22 and 28 when we married.
Another couple we were friends with in college met when the girl was 18. The young man was in grad school after having worked as an engineer for a few years, so he was 26 or 27 (I don’t remember exactly). They married the summer after her sophomore year.
I don’t know of anyone who thought either relationship was “creepy”.
“I have both sons and a daughter and I am trying not to be that dad that everyone in the manosphere complains about. You know, the dad with a daugther who talks a big game but won’t let her anywhere near a guy until after she has her masters degree.”
I doubt you’ll ever be that guy, brother.
No. The children is still the biological child of both the married mother and father.
How is that relevant to the act of exchanging money for the service of incubating a baby?
And of course there are never any legal issues where the surrogate or the parents change their mind about the status of the children.
Sorry Greyghost, I think it was TFH. Thanks for the answer TFH.
Though I am not convinced things couldn’t change just as radically in another direction. Who would have thought we would be at this point 30 years ago?
Re: age differences.
When I met my wife I had just turned 25 (I was an O-2), and she had just turned 20 (our birthdays are two days apart). Nobody gave me any grief about it. FWIW, we were only a few months from being exactly at half-your-age-plus-seven years. But we can roll it back and see…
When I was 24 (O-1/O-2), she was 19… still a teenager. Maybe we would have gotten a few looks of consternation.
The year I was 23 (O-1) she was 18: the year she was graduating high school. Okay, that’s a little weird. Me, a college-educated military officer and her, a high school senior.
The year I was 22 (O-1) she was 17, and a junior in high school. Definitely would have gotten some grief over that.
As it was, a couple of years after we married we were in Fitzsimons Army Medical Center and the nurse checking us in asked me, “What number child is she?” I had no idea how to answer the question (she’s her father’s eighth child – that we know of – and her mother’s third), nor could I think of any reason why it would be relevant… then it dawned on me that she thought she was my daughter rather than my wife. She was mortified when I told her that, but, hey, that’s the kind of problem a guy doesn’t mind having. 😉
A minor point, but the word is commodification. As the forum’s resident Marxist philosopher, I just had to throw that out.
And yes, a good case can be made that surrogacy is evil, inasmuch as “evil” is defined as something unnatural or unhealthy. It’s particularly evil in the sense that one is robbing an innocent human being of a relationship with one of its parents, probably crippling him or her in ways we really can’t predict. Unless a bro is independently wealthy, and can hire out for all the jobs that a mother can do, it’s materially harmful also.
Not something I’d want on my conscience, frankly.
Regards,
Boxer
I know a guy like that. All for Obama (indeed, all for anything that any liberal says, even if he was dead-set against the exact same thing ten seconds ago because a conservative said it. No kidding, I’ve seen him do it: not all hamsters are female). I don’t know about this chick, but he would blame the Republicans for whatever it was that he didn’t like about Obamacare… even though not a single Republican voted for it and the bill contained no Republican content.
The comments are priceless, though. There’s nothing like the epiphany when they figure out that they are “the other guy” when their “screw-the-other-guy policies” are implemented.
I have little hope, though. Feminism has always been about “screw-over-the-men.” The fact that screwing over the more-productive half of the population would eventually adversely affect the less-productive half didn’t occur to them, although it was as predictable as the sunrise. But instead of saying, “Hey, maybe we should stop screwing them over,” they double down and write articles wondering. “Where Have All the Good Men Have Gone?”
Feminism would work great if men didn’t screw it up!
Communism would work great if capitalists didn’t screw it up!
Liberalism would work great if conservatives didn’t screw it up!
I think I sense a pattern.
Scott said:
>We told her that all things being equal, we would be fine if she drops out of school to start having babies.
>She was horrified.
Someone was talking about priorities recently. Your MIL is showing hers. And very poor ones too. A man and woman seeking to focus on building their family and deliberately neglecting any goals that are of little to no benefit to the family, are worthy of encouragement. Funny thing is that if the pastor’s wife focused on the pastor’s family, she would not get criticised.
greyghost:
>a 20 year old bride is a worthless burden
Nope! for the right 20 year old (or 25 year old), I would be very pleased to take that burden… but she’d better CHOOSE to be worth it. If a woman chooses, she can give great pleasure as as a helpmate. God appears to have chosen to make men with very strong desires, so that a wife can (fairly) easily please them.
Only question is if they will choose to serve one another or not.
@Lyn87
>effect of chastity… The puberty-to-30 years are when the sex drive is strongest, and knowing that the ONLY way you’re going to “get any” is within marriage adds a level of urgency to the spousal search that is not present for the promiscuous.
I’ll disagree, at least for my experience. I _did_ want to get married in my early 20s. And mid. And late. Very much. Just could not find anyone. And I wasn’t even kissing anyone, so there certainly was no decline in desire due to having it inappropriately fulfilled.
Same for now (40s). Last time I kissed a girl was close to 6 years ago. Desires are still very strong, but I do not know any unicorns that are for sale, so… Well, ok, I know one. But she would be seen as too young for me.
But you are bang-on about the results of divorce for trivial reasons.
Dear TFH:
You and I will never agree on this, but here you have it…
The person who gave birth to the child is also a parent, in the physical sense. The child has the experience of birth, followed immediately by the trauma of being pulled away from the individual who bore him, and put into the arms of a stranger. What is this going to do to the child? Nobody really knows, because there haven’t been long term studies, but I’d wager it can’t be good for that person.
This is aside from the original complaint about commodity fetishism. When a child becomes merchandise, the entire relationship changes, and I doubt it’s for the better. There are certainly ways to minimize the potential for damage, but I’d call it evil all the same.
Best,
Boxer
The child still spent 9 months living in the surrogate. That time matters. It is a time a mother normally bonds with her children. Genetics is not everything, even though it is certainly important.
I would agree with Boxer and others on this one. Surrogacy is far from the ideal being presented here. Using the Romney name likely only helps for IBB (perhaps), not most of us who just see them as a bunch of rich people who likely think they know better for the rest of us.
As a late 20s Christian male, I agree set ups tend to occur like this. However, it gets considerably different in the later 20s. Many singles stop going to church as much, many people pair up. I think its probably best for men to start looking younger. There also is matches but I kind of would caution against it being a completed marriage match. My uncle was matched with a terrible divorcee before he was matched with my aunt.
Also, I’d bet Ericas mentality/actions/sentiments is all a farce. The amount of times I’ve started “relationship talking” thinking it would be best to not pressure a girl only leads her to think “marriage” and pressure herself. Its far better to just let girls remain emotional and demanding you hurry up and take action and then calling that bluff. Call the bluff and the girl has to start asking “Am I settle down material?” And of course, any complaining about not enough good men is a logical argument for polygamy.
I concur with what Nova and TFH about Marriage 2.0. (why did not I think of it). I would merely like to underline that and presumably by reason of technology we are all far better off than we were, say, fifty years ago (and Americans even more so). When I look at my parents (who scrimped and saved and became angry were I to so much as fail to switch the electric light in the hall off as I entered the living room) yet theynregarded themselves as being very UMC, the levels of material goods that they possessed would be dismissed as worthless even by any of today’s adolescents. For my parents, making a telephone call to (say) Australia was seen as ruinously expensive, to purchase a gramophone record was seen as extravagant; they would never buy a book – why would you do that when one could borrow a distressed copy from the public library, and travel beyond the shores of southern England was regarded as exotic (and thus up-market) even though one was only going to France. Cars always broke down and were frequently death-traps, clothes (and toys) were to be recycled and under-the-counter Porn were topless shots, and extreme porn meant a copy of the Penguin edition Of Lady Chatterley (the rude bits are on page 221 – that at least is where my father’s – who never otherwise read a book in his life – copy falls open).
We did not have a Governor Reagan but exactly the same arguments were used to introduce our version of Marriage 2.0 – the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 – for it was argued that it was not good that people should be unhappy nor could one ever say where the rights and wrongs in a marriage either began or ended (an attitude which was not applied to other areas of law). The rules as to ancillary relief were not amended to take account of growing female financial independence, and custody by default went to the woman (with men regarding that as perfectly natural). By the mid-seventies there was an avalanche of women seeking divorce – and not women who had been married for ever but youngsters who had only married a year or so earlier.
Men have been very slow to catch up.
Dalrock, and Scott, since the comment I would like to make crosses into both blogs.
First comment, and I hope I will make sense, as what’s in my head doesn’t always come out my fingers.
Short backround. Two boys, started homeschooling when the first one was in 5th grade, and the spare was in second.
For various reasons the second decided on his own that he was not going to be distracted by dating while in high school. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have interest, or had anyone interested in him. His “entourage” was often a subject of good natured teasing by his brother, parents and various relatives.
There was one girl that he spent a lot of time in her company, two years his junior, and two grade levels below. Very mature, good with children, pretty, modest dresser, and interestingly enough, a crack shot, national level in air rifle, 22 and shotgun. He asked permission of her father to take her to the senior formal, permission was granted, and they had a good time. After graduation he asked her father for permission to take her out on a more intimate level, still nothing serious, but this time was refused. Not flatly, just not yet. My spare heir accepted this, and shortly before leaving for college (two states and 12 hours away) sent this girl a letter in which he expressed admiration and a desire to continue the relationship with the end result of marriage upon her graduation from college, 7 years later. We never heard exactly what was replied, but the upshot is that she was in no way agreeable to this.
Now parallel to all this going on is another girl, whom he met at the organizational meetings of the aforementioned formal, as we were to find out later, decided that he was “all that”. What followed was a testament to patience and persistence. This girl could sing (and how) and asked my son to play the piano for her, despite her being very capable herself, as we were to learn. She put herself in his presence at every opportunity, including riding roller coasters that made her ill, inviting him to events where she was singing, and after he left for school, staying in touch, via Facebook, Skype and email.
His first semester at school was a bit of an eye opener for him. We live in a bit of a bubble, where the old ways and mores still hold a strong sway, and the females he met at this bigger city school, despite its “Christian” label really turned him off with their penchant for drama and pettyness. So there’s this girl from back home, constantly popping up in his vision, very pretty, happy (almost to a fault), and because of distance, they talk, alot, about anything, and everything, and the crack shot fades into the rear view mirror.
This is way too long, but the story of his asking her father for permission to ask her out, the story of his and her response are all very interesting, and relevant to today’s discussion.
The relationship between my wife and I and the girls parents would make a fascinating conversation about inlaws on Scot’s blog.
Thanks for letting me post.
DoHS
@ Dale –
But would you see her as too young for you, or are you just reporting on social norms?
I know a couple that are 20 years apart (he’s older than her): he was a math professor and she was a grad student (not in mathematics, I think) when they started dating. They’ve lasted for decades and are still going strong as far as I know. Their son, now in his 30’s, is a good friend of mine.
If you’re in your 40’s and this woman you’re talking about is in her early 20’s, she is not too young for you to consider. Those who would tell you otherwise are wrong.
Now, if she’s 18, she might be too young. Few eighteen-year-olds are mature enough for marriage these days. But it’s maturity, not age, that counts, and it’s certainly not a judgment you should be letting other people make for you. Would you yourself say that she’s too young for you?
@Opus
Wouldn’t your parents’ extreme thrift have been necessitated by the fact that they were paying for boarding school fees by the time you were an adolescent? Unless the family is absolutely loaded, or the grandparents are helping out in a major way, even day school tuition is the road to financial ruin.
But the biological mother provided the egg, and the child will live with the biological mother and father.
The womb was a subcontracted third-party, but the genetic mother and father still raise the child. Again, the example here are Mr. and Mrs. Tagg Romney.
But Mrs. Romney no longer has the physical and emotional bond associated with growing her own child. How can you make any such assertion that this major change will not fundamentally alter the relationship between mother and child? What is more the only reason it was undertaken at was due to the selfishness of the Romneys and it came at the expense of the innocent child. How is that not excessive greed or pride? Even in its most benign form it is evil, and we haven’t even gotten to the slippery slope yet.
Lastly, you might say it all worked out fine for the Romenys but that isn’t always the case. There are cases where the surrogate wants to keep a baby that isn’t even biologically theirs as well as situations where the biological parents divorce/change their mind during the pregnancy of the surrogate and no longer want the child and either ask to have it terminated or don’t want to take possession of the child after it is born.
@Laura
To answer your question, the answer is no, as my mother was independently wealthy. She never spent a penny on herself, but was (tragically) of the view that somehow enduring ones schooling in a boarding school was both good for the moral welfare of the scholar and the only means to retain middle class respectability. I hated it, cannot think it improved my morals and have never noticed that it impressed prospective employers.
@Opus
But boarding school gave you your Received Pronunciation and air of effortless superiority, didn’t it? That is what impressed prospective employers.
Brad,
Basically, what this is, is women renting out their bodies (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for nine months) for a price. $$$$. Ladies, welcome to the free market.
What I think we are going to see here Brad (in the next 10 years) are college aged girls (who don’t have tuition money, scholarships, and don’t want to take loans) that are willing to “host” another woman’s fertilized egg in her body for money, big money. If it is enough money it might even cover a year or two of tuition. This will be the avenue more and more MC and UMC couples will take if they get married later and later in life.
I mean seriously, if she is an executive vice president of ‘something’ and is 43 years old, and he is 40 to 50 (or whatever) and they have no children because they just got married, they are going to seriously consider this. Money will not be an object for these people, only time and her health will be the objects. They create time and don’t risk her health going the surrogacy route.
Now having said that, let me say this: I have not said whether or not I think this is a good idea. I am only saying that this will happen. The political will is there. The people (who want children but are too old to have them) have largely voted that they want science and medicine to play God.
I would agree it will happen IBB, I just don’t think it is a good thing.
I was half joking about your support for it solely based on the Romney name.
I know.
Pingback: Avoid the progressive endgame [Hebrews 3] | Dark Brightness
@IBB
The women who are surrogates these days are NEVER childless themselves. The typical surrogate would be in her late 20s to mid to late 30s, have two or more children, married, socially conservative in many ways, and would be planning to use the money ($25 to $30,000) to pay college tuition for her own children. NOBODY wants a childless, drunken co-ed gestating their child, and the first birth is more likely to go wrong than a third or fourth birth, so an older “experienced” mother is actually a better bet than a younger one..
However, the treatment required to produce eggs can trigger premature menopause and even cause death in some cases. It is not at all equivalent to a man donating sperm. Eggs cost a lot more than sperm, but I’m surprised that high-IQ women can be found to give their informed consent to the procedure for the relatively modest amount that they receive. I think they get $10,000 to $20,000, although I’ll bet a tall blond & blue Ivy League girl with athletic or musical ability can hold out for a lot more. In general though, the financial circumstances of a girl doing this must be somewhat desperate, which gives the whole process an exploitative feel..
@IBB
Also, the legal issues have largely been sorted by now. A few states, such as Arkansas, have very progressive surrogacy laws, and contracts are often written in such a way that Arkansas law will be used to settle disputes, even if the biological parents and surrogate mother live elsewhere. Most of the horror stories were from the early days when the surrogate mother was using her own egg, and the child she gave birth to was her biological child. Judges did NOT want to remove the child in such a situation, no matter what sort of contract the surrogate had signed.
These days, if the mother-to-be cannot use her own eggs, then eggs are purchased, fertilized with the husband’s sperm or donor sperm, and the resulting embryo is implanted into the womb of a third party with no biological connection to the child. About ten years ago, I know that attorneys doing surrogacy work were requiring psych exams and extensive counseling for potential surrogates, but they may not do as much of that anymore, now that the law is more settled.
Laura,
Yes. That is the way it is “now” because these women (who opt to rent our their wombs) truly believe they are doing another woman a “favor.” It is not putting them out (that much) as they are already at home caring for their own kids.
I think this will change the more “mainstream” it is to rent out wombs.
Drunken co-ed, no. But I think the younger girls (18, 19, and 20) are going to drive the womb rental price down to a year’s worth of tuition (or so) with the understanding that she live in the home of the parents who “contracted” with her. So there will be no “drunken” co-ed nights out, not with their property in her womb. She hosts their baby, takes classes (that they pay for) and when it is time to deliver, the parents pay the doctor. I think this will be the route that more and more couples will take as the young girl might be willing to rent her womb for less.
I don’t think that is what we are talking about here. The “egg production” is (the way I understand it) still one of the eggs of the women who is paying for this process. She is 40, 45, 48 (whatever) and too old to gestate her own fertilized eggs. So she had an OBGYN “harvest one” (for $1000 or whatever) and her husband jacks off in a cup (for free) and the OBGYN plays God and injects one of her husband’s swimmies into her egg (in a petri dish) and the 19 year old girl surrogate is then “impregnated” with the zygote (the product of the 48 year old egg and the 50 year old sperm.) That will be $25K or whatever. It is basically Invitro where someone else is gestating the eggs that are harvested.
If the couple wants to harvest an egg from “a tall blond & blue Ivy League girl with athletic or musical ability” she gets paid about $2000, the OBGYN gets $1000 or so to harvest it, and you still need another $25K for a surrogate.
@Laura
I see it impresses you.
It does seem like her living with them has the making for some really awkward things. Can you stay with people for that long and not have both good and bad feelings come up? How do you prevent such a “womb” from violating the agreement in some manner, whatever the arrangements say.
It is likely to happen, but I suspect it won’t all be roses as we are told.
@IBB
There is no way that an Ivy League girl would sell eggs for $2000. The whole process requires multiple doctor visits, endless paperwork (filling out lengthy applications detailing EVERYTHING about the girl’s background and the background of her parents, etc.) taking drugs that are experimental in nature and are known to produce very adverse results in some cases, etc. And the medical part has to be done on a strict schedule which may conflict with the college schedule AND it involves gynecological examinations and procedures that are uncomfortable and somewhat mortifying. (It’s one thing to be undergoing these exams when you are in your mid-20s and having a baby of your own — it would be something else to be 18/19/20 and being primed to produce eggs for a stranger. A meth-head slut might do it for $2000, but not a serious university student.
And BradA is correct that having the surrogate live with the parents-to-be would be problematic. My impression is that at present, the people who can come up with the money for this process are willing to pay top dollar to maintain their privacy. They do NOT want to meet the surrogate, they do NOT want the surrogate to know where they live, they do NOT want an on-going relationship with the surrogate.
@Opus
Everybody loves an upper-crust British accent, and where would Hollywood be without Englishmen to portray Nazis and Satan, although I freely admit that the subtle gradations of accent are lost on me. I remember reading one time that the true upper class Brits thought that Princess Diana had “atrocious vowels for the daughter of an earl.” And yet, she sounded just like other wealthy Brits to me. How would she have ended up with a non-standard accent when she went to a boarding school for half her life? Do the different boarding schools produce different accents? I’ve heard that over here, the only boarding school that produces a distinctive accent is Groton.
Must be like Canadians who think that they don’t have accents distinguishable from those of Americans. Yet, their “ooot” and “abuuut” are so obvious. (“out” and “about”)
No I understand exactly what you are saying. It doesn’t change that the process is evil.
I find it odd that you would list a number of supposed disadvantages which cannot be helped (ie. somebody has to be the first or last) But then wave your hand and say whelp, the kid will have a trust fund so no big deal about the psychological damage associated with being 6 months apart from their sibling and realizing mommy cared enough about that one to grow him herself.
Incidentally, there is a growing understanding of microbiome and how the mother transfers it to the child during child birth, and how c-section short circuits this whole process. So while it might be the parents DNA its going to be somebody else’s microbiome.
I’m leaning toward TFH’s take on the biology. I dated a pair of sister (not at the same time), who had a third sister as well. They were born one right after the other… three girls in three years. Let’s say their parents had been rich and wanted three boys in the same time period. They could have hired a surrogate to carry those fetuses on the same “schedule” as the girls… effectively getting three sets of “twins” as far as their ages. By the time the oldest ones were old enough to understand any of that, all six would have been born. Since they would all be full biological siblings, I see little reason why there would be any problems associated with different wombs.
But…
I don’t see this as anything more than a fringe market that very few people will use. First, it is prohibitively expensive for all but the very rich, and there aren’t that many of them to begin with. Second, rich women are barely having babies at replacement rate as it is (if that), so something major would have to happen to make “child rearing” an attractive option to a lot of couples for it to have any appreciable effect on population patterns. Tens of thousands of couples would have to have dozens of children per couple to have a noticeable demographic effect. What might happen instead is that rich couples may opt for surrogacy in lieu of natural pregnancy so that the couple gets bio-kids without the woman loosing her svelte, nulligravida body… but that has no effect on the population – it just changes which uterus the child occupies while gestating. Frankly, with all the money the rich spend on preserving their youthful appearances, I’m a little surprised that isn’t a “thing” already.
@innocentbystanderboston
When I was 19 and I was with my 19 year old girlfriend, we both wanted nothing more than to get married. We were married in all but name anyway.
Her parents, of course, were completely against it. We were “too young” to actually tie the knot. Her mother made sure she was on birth control so we wouldn’t have children.
You can’t blame young people for being young and foolish. What I’d like to know is why parents are so dead set against their daughters marrying young. They certainly have no problems with their daughters having lots of casual sex. But actually marrying the boy they are having sex with is some great tragedy for some reason.
@Scott
It’s only “creepy” to older divorced or single women that are jealous. I dated a slew of 21 year old women when I was in my mid-30s. The only people that complained were older women.
@thedeti
That certainly was no my experience when I was dating women a decade younger than me. Are you kidding? Young women *love* to “snag” an older, established man.
If I had a daughter I’d marry her off on her 18th birthday to a 28 year old. If you don’t do that, she’s just going to have sex with men not her husband.
All of these problems people complain about come from postponing marriage, and that is facilitated by birth control.
@Scott
I’ve noted this on my blog many, many times. The enemies of marriage are *older women* – especially the 2nd/3rd wave feminist cohort. They are absolute *poison* and they purposefully try to ruin young women out of sheer jealousy. They are some of the nastiest, most hateful people I have ever encountered.
@Robin Munn
>But would you see her as too young for you, or are you just reporting on social norms?
No, I would not see her as too young for me. When I was in Ukraine last summer I was pursuing a woman aged 22, and I didn’t have a problem with that woman’s age. Well, that’s not quite true. I was concerned with whether she would have an issue with it. She was Ukrainian, so her culture is not as hard against age gaps as mine. In fact, some 18-20 year old Ukrainian women will seek out a guy at least age 30, just to get someone mature. Anyway, I asked her about our age difference, she had no problem, therefore there was no problem.
A woman needs to be able to accept and respect her husband however. And the man prior to attaining that status.
I assume, given your name and avatar picture, that you are a woman. I am also assuming you are first-world, as most posters here are. As such, I am surprised you suggest the age gap of 20s to 40s is not a problem. I thought it was pretty universal that North American / first-world women think a man is a “dirty old man” if he pursues someone even 10 years younger than him, nevermind 20. So thank you for the challenge to my stereo-types 🙂 Always good to be reminded I do not know everyone or everything. Nevertheless, you are the first (presumably) North American person I recall with this attitude.
The unicorn I mentioned is likely about 23-24. I’ll consider your words re me being wrong. Thank you.
@Laura
I understand that all English accents sounds identical to Americans (as of course yours do to us). You may rest easy that I sound like a Satanically motivated Nazi – someone, I trust, like the late Eric Portman.
‘The enemies of marriage are *older women* – especially the 2nd/3rd wave feminist cohort.’
Misery loves company.
‘What I’d like to know is why parents are so dead set against their daughters marrying young.’
Could be another side effect of the helicopter parent generation combined with feminism ingrained in many people’s heads. Young women have it just as bad as young men (but for different reasons).
Dale,
Add me to the list of first-world people who has no problem with you chasing a much younger woman. The main problem you might have is if she thinks the age gap is an issue. Otherwise…
Men might make a comment of two, but they’ll mostly be jealous.
Women might be snide, but who cares?
I don’t know where you’re from, but we have a saying here: “Living well is the best revenge.”
@Dale
I don’t think an age gap of 10 years is a problem, and in fact, I would have preferred that my daughters, in early adulthood, date a man capable of immediate marriage than one who was still in college. But most older women see the slightly older guys as “too experienced, too slick” etc. The only young women that I have come across who would have been willing to consider a 20-year gap were those who grew up in very distressed circumstances. Nearly all of these women would have brought some serious daddy issues to the marriage, and the ones that I can think of were very materialistic. Be careful.
In our current economic mess, a woman who is abandoned with one or more children and without a job/career that pays “a man’s income” will boomerang back onto her family of origin. It ruins the girl’s life and it has a serious negative impact on the golden years of her parents. So an 18 y.o. girl with a 20 y.o. serious boyfriend has a terrifying aspect to it for the middle classes.
Lat me amend my last comment in light of what Laura just wrote.
I was starting from the assumption that she was otherwise normal. If she has severe “Daddy Issues,” or is a gold-digger, you’re courting trouble.
@Opus
English accents do NOT sound alike to me at all. I have a general idea of the social ranking of various accents, but the finer gradations are completely beyond me. The difference between an accent like Margaret Thatcher’s (who took elocution lessons to lower her voice) and someone like “just call me Dave” Cameron (who may have deliberately toned his accent down in order to be a man of the people) is just too subtle for me to hear. They both sound excellent to me. The Received Pronunciation of British actors in films in the 1930s/40s also does not sound the same as what I assume is the Received Pronunciation of today (Boris Johnson?) so I guess the perfect British accent is something of a moving target.
The accents that I can’t understand at all would be Leeds and Glasgow, for a start. Undoubtedly, there are others just as incomprehensible. Although I am sure that Tam the Bam’s accent is very, very nice, and a model of linguistic clarity.
I finally looked up who Tagg Romney was and I am very disgusted that he is pursuing a family this way. Perhaps he wants the Mormon “large family” without all the trouble, but it is rather disgusting. My reaction is not entirely fact-based, but it does seem like an indulgence of the rich rather than a huge trend that is likely to sweep society. This is especially true since the trend is toward 1 child rather than a batch.
Blech.
(I had thought he was an older patriarch of the family, although that was not logical in retrospect due to the technology being available now, not in the past.)
@BradA
My assumption would be that Tagg Romney and his wife had some serious infertility issues necessitating the use of IVF, which produced a large number of embryos, and that rather than disposing of the surplus, they used their wealth to hire surrogates to allow them to live. I know that a lot of people won’t participate in IVF for religious or philosophical reasons, but if the embryos are created, you should either allow them to be born into your own family, or place the embryos for adoption. (There are law firms that handle this.)
I used to have that conviction, but I am no longer as certain that a fertilized embryo is truly a life. Perhaps my own experience has jaded me and it is the only clear line, but it still seems a bit early, likely before any “quickening”.
Lyn87
>If she has severe “Daddy Issues,” or is a gold-digger, you’re courting trouble.
I think that is right… for a woman of any age 🙂 Thanks for the comments.
‘What I’d like to know is why parents are so dead set against their daughters marrying young.’
I know a young woman who has been with her boyfriend from age 18 to nearly 23, and she lives with him. She recently posted something to Facebook that said “All my friends are either getting married or having kids and I’m not” in a cheerful, not bitter way (hard to explain). Her parents immediately said “just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean you should!!”. I can’t understand why one would want one’s daughter in such a situation, unmarried.
I was recently married and my own parents are horrified at the thought of my husband and I having children, even though I’m already in my late 20s.
There are women like me who have woken up to all of this and hate the feminist programming our parents and schools shoehorned into our natures. I don’t even want my potential daughters around my parents for fear of what serpentine lies they might use as poison against my own and my husband’s teaching.
For starters, they probably don’t think much of the guy. He’s shacked up with his girlfriend, after all; and he not only gets his responsibility for that, but Princess’s responsibility too, since they can’t blame her directly. They probably didn’t think he deserved Princess in the first place (few parents do these days), so they’ve been waiting five years for her to grow up and move on to a better man. As long as she’s gonna keep sleeping with him, they’d rather she do it unmarried than married, because (they think) that increases the chance that they’ll break up.
Laura says:
February 24, 2015 at 1:47 pm
@IBB
“The women who are surrogates these days are NEVER childless themselves. The typical surrogate would be in her late 20s to mid to late 30s, have two or more children, married, socially conservative in many ways, and would be planning to use the money ($25 to $30,000) to pay college tuition for her own children. NOBODY wants a childless, drunken co-ed gestating their child, and the first birth is more likely to go wrong than a third or fourth birth, so an older “experienced” mother is actually a better bet than a younger one.”
True except for the age of the surrogates. (My wife and I have two children by egg donors/gestational surrogacy, and I researched this area to no small degree before we did it, so I know a bit about the subject.) The vast, vast majority of nonfriend/nonrelated gestational surrogates are in their twenties, and usually not past about 27 or so. The miscarriage rate roughly doubles going from mid-20s to early 30s (5% or so to over 10%), and those embryos are expensive and hard to come by, let me tell you. We did not even look at potential surros past age 27 for our first, and this makes perfect sense. Not only is there no price break for older surros, the odds of them being overweight (makes many short-term and long-term health problems for the child more likely). go up considerably.
Re the 43-YO newlywed women wanting to use their own ova for a GS pregnancy, I’m having a hard time not laughing out loud. That’s a good way to spend a lot of money and waste a lot of time for either no kid or a special needs one (and what UMC couple had an LD kid with poor eyesight/hearing and dysplasia as their ideal offspring?). Women using their own ova should stop by age 34, preferably before 30, given the biology of their reproductively aging so fast compared with men.
nnocentbystanderboston says:
February 24, 2015 at 2:13 pm
“Eggs cost a lot more than sperm, but I’m surprised that high-IQ women can be found to give their informed consent to the procedure for the relatively modest amount that they receive. I think they get $10,000 to $20,000, although I’ll bet a tall blond & blue Ivy League girl with athletic or musical ability can hold out for a lot more. In general though, the financial circumstances of a girl doing this must be somewhat desperate, which gives the whole process an exploitative feel.”
In extreme cases, yes, that price is correct. However, more than a few egg donors are engineering/science majors who don’t command significantly higher fees.
“The “egg production” is (the way I understand it) still one of the eggs of the women who is paying for this process. She is 40, 45, 48 (whatever) and too old to gestate her own fertilized eggs. So she had an OBGYN “harvest one” (for $1000 or whatever) and her husband jacks off in a cup (for free) and the OBGYN plays God and injects one of her husband’s swimmies into her egg (in a petri dish) and the 19 year old girl surrogate is then “impregnated” with the zygote (the product of the 48 year old egg and the 50 year old sperm.) That will be $25K or whatever. It is basically Invitro where someone else is gestating the eggs that are harvested.
If the couple wants to harvest an egg from “a tall blond & blue Ivy League girl with athletic or musical ability” she gets paid about $2000, the OBGYN gets $1000 or so to harvest it, and you still need another $25K for a surrogate.”
Uh, wrong a couple of ways. It’s rare for a woman of age 44 or older to successfully use her own ova for an IVF pregnancy. The clinics know this, and largely shun such older women if they’re dead set on using their own ova, as they’d destroy the clinic’s success rate statistics.
Second, while you’re about right on the GS typical pay (typically surro contracts add bonuses for bed rest, multiples, C-sections, complications, etc.), the others are much higher. Try more like 4-7 grand for the egg donor (less if you split a cycle with another couple), 8-10 grand plus for the fertility clinic just to get the GS to the first positive pregnancy test, and then 20+ grand for all the subsequent medical care (that fortunately you can probably have done by a regular GYN/OB back in your home city). We spent over 80 grand on ONE pregnancy (gave us twins), and they were healthy fullterms who never set foot in the neonatal ICU 50′ away (home 49 hours after delivery).
Laura says:
February 24, 2015 at 6:40 pm
@IBB
“There is no way that an Ivy League girl would sell eggs for $2000. The whole process requires multiple doctor visits, endless paperwork (filling out lengthy applications detailing EVERYTHING about the girl’s background and the background of her parents, etc.) taking drugs that are experimental in nature and are known to produce very adverse results in some cases, etc. And the medical part has to be done on a strict schedule which may conflict with the college schedule AND it involves gynecological examinations and procedures that are uncomfortable and somewhat mortifying. (It’s one thing to be undergoing these exams when you are in your mid-20s and having a baby of your own — it would be something else to be 18/19/20 and being primed to produce eggs for a stranger. A meth-head slut might do it for $2000, but not a serious university student.
And BradA is correct that having the surrogate live with the parents-to-be would be problematic. My impression is that at present, the people who can come up with the money for this process are willing to pay top dollar to maintain their privacy. They do NOT want to meet the surrogate, they do NOT want the surrogate to know where they live, they do NOT want an on-going relationship with the surrogate.”
Right on the pay for an Ivy-league egg donor; >$10K is what they get.
Wrong on surros commonly being anonymous to IPs (“intended parents”, or the couple paying for everything and who get the baby post-delivery). Rarely would this be acceptable to IPs, who want to personally vet nutritional habits, cleanliness, drugfreeness, etc. Ours lived in our house (had her own room, her own bathroom, with high-speed Internet, and high-end cable) for the last 6 weeks of the pregnancy, with her husband often visiting her overnight on weekends. My wife took her to 95% of her medical appointments through the pregnancy, including seeing all the sonograms in real time. My wife and I each held one hand of our GS during embryo transfer. Likewise, my wife was in there for the full delivery, and I was allowed in 5 minutes after, when the GS still looked like an accident victim (she had a C-section), while her husband was an hour late getting there for the delivery. No, I don’t think you have it right when you think GSs are often anonymous to IPs. (Nonrelated egg donors, yes, that’s usual.)
Well I have nowhere else to put this so I’ll put it here:
I had an older christian woman talk to me about setting me up with a girl. I said sure, go ahead. It never happened. Later I found out that she set up this girl, 24 years old, very attractive, and supposedly looking to marry with a guy I know. They went out three times and had sex the second and third time. Oh and he secretly recorded it and tried to show me the recording. Oh yeah and he has an out of wedlock child. This was shortly before I started dating multiple women at a time. Oh and my income is four times what his is. But he does have those dark triad traits. Later she asked me if I still wanted to meet this girl. LOL.
Anyway I joined a church a month ago and in that time my neighbor has attempted to set me up with his daughter. She is a 35 year old single mother, unmarried, with a 1 year old half-mexican baby. The father is now in prison for selling meth. She is not religious either and my neighbors believed that they could use me as leverage to get their chubby mediocre-looking 35 year old single mother daughter back into the church. I politely declined.
Just made me think I had a 21 year old girl straight up tell me all about what a good wife she would make a few months ago. Basically she spent a few months begging me to marry her. I wouldn’t even let her be my girlfriend. She can’t cook, doesn’t clean, is carrying $35k in debt (I am debt free), and she was meeting and having sexual relationships with several other men. So, yes, I am not going to marry these women. I did have sex with her a bunch of times.
They have no understanding that they have to bring anything other then their vagina to the table.
I would ask where have all the good girls gone? Though I strongly suspect that there simply are no good girls. The ones who appear to be good are just the sluts who have learned to lie.
Pingback: The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude. | Dalrock
Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | Dalrock