This is a fascinating tale of Bolsheviks waging a war on the traditional patriarchal family and, in the process, unleashing hypergamy, top-male polygyny, rampant divorce, wide-spread abortion and millions of broken hearts. I love sharing such things since so many blue-pill pushers deny that human nature is capable of such things, (to channel Bill Burr) as if we were talking about Bigfoot, like were saying the Moon is made of cheese or something.
The Elites Set the Tone
Ive often argued that its the elites who have the most influence on the direction a society takes. Usually the very top elites are male but sometimes theyre female and often the female elites serve the purposes of the male elites, putting the apex alpha males at the very top of society most of the time. Generalizing the realpolitik Golden Rulewhoever has the gold makes the ruleswe have: whoever has the power makes the rules. Most of the power lies with the elites, though some of it lies with the masses.
In the case of the early Soviet Union, and in line with Marxist ideology, the traditional family was seen as a pillar of the enemy and had to be destroyed. The Bolshevik leadership set about the rather ironic implementation of a free market wild west for love, removing the old regulations that governed the sexual and marriage market places.
Easy Divorce, Adultery and Abortion Legalized
Quoting from THE DISASTEROUS 1920s ATTACK OF THE COMMUNISTS UPON THE FAMILY UNIT,
the efforts which the Old Bolsheviks made, following the Russian revolution of 1917, to put into practice the teachings of that great would-be emancipator, Karl Marx, and his collaborator, Frederick Engels. In his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State published in 1902 Engels declared that money was just another vestige of the iniquitous capitalist system and would disappear with the transformation of the means of production into collective property.
In traditional marriage, women, he held, are in effect property, and their emancipation would follow as a matter of course with the abolition of private ownership. We are now approaching, he wrote, a social revolution in which the old economic foundation of monogamy will disappear just as surely as those of its complement, prostitution. And his culminating argument for the dissolution of marriage and the conventional type of family was If marriage founded on love is alone moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long as love lasts.
Since Engels book was law with the Bolsheviks, as far as the institution of marriage was concerned, it is not surprising that, with the success of the revolution of 1917 assured, efforts were quickly and systematically made to put his teachings into effect. For detailed documentation of the way in which this was carried out, I refer the reader to Nicholas S. Timasheffs 1946 book, The Great Retreat but the salient facts of the case are these. Divorce, which had previously been difficult to obtain in Russia, became extremely easy; a postal card notifying the other partner that the relationship was ended would suffice. Incest, bigamy, and adultery were dropped from the list of official crimes [and] abortion was explicitly permitted by the decree of November 20 1920. No distinction was made between the status of children born legitimately and illegitimately, nonregistered co-habitation was given the same legal status as registered co-habitation, parental authority over children was systematically weakened, and additional measures were taken to uproot the traditional structure of the family.
From an Atlantic article from 1926 (h/t to Hoellenhund2), we also see the introduction of child support:
When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other bourgeois institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did, declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.
Notice the similarities between what was implemented in the 1920s there and what was eventually implemented in most of the Western World decades later. Notice the similarities between the marxist and feminist view of the traditional family and the suggested remedies.
Hypergamy and Caddish Serial Polygyny Unleashed
Continuing with the Atlantic Article, we see the sweet-in-thy-mouth, bitter-in-thy-belly fruits of the seeds sown. Ill add some commentary in bold brackets. What happened as a result of easy no-fault divorce?
Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka. [note: the author is a woman and guilty of the apex fallacy which well see below]
Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another, asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support! [Given that these men were having children with all of these women, combined with what we know about the vast majority of women not leaping from bed to bed with such frequency and often remaining in love with a dashing rake afterwards, it likely means that a small cadre of cads was impregnating a larger body of women.] (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts.)
Its fascinating how the woman writing the article simply says that men took to changing wives frequently but as well see in the anecdotes she shares, its really attractive men that were leaving a trail of alpha widow tears in their wake:
Peasant boys [Which peasant boys? APBALT?] looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.
What makes women get divorces? I asked him. Just then a girl about eighteen years old entered the room. Here is our latest divorcee, said the president laughingly. Ask her. I turned around, but the girl was no longer there, and from the window I saw her running away as fast as she could. I ran after her and finally caught up with her in the fields outside the village. We sat down on a haystack and I asked the girl to talk to me frankly, as woman to woman. [I couldnt resist including an alpha widow chase scene.]
Tears filled her eyes as she told me that she still loved her nineteen-year-old husband, but that he had forced her to ask for a divorce only two months after they had been married. He now thought he loved another girl in the village and threatened to kill his wife if she did not leave him voluntarily. [As I thought, not all the peasant boys were like this, rather it was the caddish assholes that far too many women love to love. Admittedly, we dont know if he succeeded with the other girl but Im imagining he thought he had a good chance or he wouldnt have abandoned his wife. Also, notice how she was still in love with him and not with another man yet, adding some credence to the idea that it was a smaller body of men able to have multiple women.]
I recall another victim of the breakdown of family ties in the villages, a tall, pale, silent Cossack woman. She was divorced by her husband after their first child was born. He then married another woman, had a child by her, deserted both, and returned to his first wife, by whom he had a second child. [Notice that this man was attractive enough to get the first woman, then leave her and find another, and then be ACCEPTED BACK by the first one (likely an alpha widow) again. This was no mere average male.]
Here was one particularly gruesome tale of a fateful fight between a peasant alpha widow and the replacement,
A peasant left his village wife and began to live with a working woman in the town. The village wife kept coming and making scenes before the second wife, until the latter, irritated beyond endurance, poured benzine over her rival, set her on fire, and burned her to death.
From the Disastrous 1920s article, we again see that it was the more bold and attractive males that gorged on the bounty of booty while the weak and the shy were exiled to a frigid, pussy-less tundra.
Finally, the magnificent slogans of the liberation of sex and the emancipation of women proved to have worked in favor of the strong and reckless, and against the weak and shy. Millions of girls saw their lives ruined by Don Juans in Communist garb, and millions of children had never known parental homes.
Gold Diggers and Labor Pimps
Other nefarious practices arose. From the Atlantic article:
Many women of light behavior [gold-digging whores] found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children.
Other peasants [labor pimps] took advantage of the loose divorce regulations to acquire summer brides. As the hiring of labor in Russia is hedged about with difficulties and restrictions for the private employer, the richer peasants in some districts took to the practice of marrying a strong girl for the harvest season and divorcing her as soon as the work in the fields was over.
Chaos Unleashed, Forces a Retreat to Reality
Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories. In the early stages of the Revolution the Communists held the theory that children should be reared and cared for by the State. But it soon became evident that the State, especially in war-torn and impoverished Russia, was financially quite incapable of assuming such a heavy burden of responsibility.
Faced With Upheaval, The Apex Alpha Males Reverse Course
From the Disastrous 1920s article, we see that the the bold but foolish experiment was ended:
By way of describing the reforms which Soviet leaders eventually instigated, Timasheff reports that freedom of divorce was first curtailed and then almost abolished. Abortion was made illegal, and marriage was once again idealized. Also;
The peculiar parent-child relationship which had obtained under the Communist experiment, and which granted superiority to the children, was reversed to one which is considered normal in the world; once more, children have to recognize the authority of their parents (p. 62).
Connection To Today
OOW birth rates continue to rise and men are working less and less as they have fewer incentives and face a biased educational and employment system that grants AA to women. As Ive often written, the elites like it this way, benefiting in various ways, some from abundant pussy, others from cheap labor, others from votes and others from capricious customers. Only if enough pressure is applied will the apex alphas of society likely make a change. This can happen peacefully, by marshaling the ranks of the discontent and out-of-fashion and by convincing the fair-minded about the imbalances in society (aka giving them the red pill), or by external pressure, by enough people gradually checking out and bringing economic pressure to the welfare state, or by outright rebellion as has been seen in many countries around the world in recent years.
Some more info on the Soviet attempt to create a sexual utopia:
http://russophilia.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/the-limits-of-liberation-the-ideals-and-realities-of-early-soviet-family-policy/
Whats amazing is how rapidly the communist experiment with sexual liberation fizzled out, and the Soviets re-adopted traditional values with great enthusiasim only 15-20 years after the revolution.
In the West, we seem to have been chugging along slowly, only slowly succumbing to feminist wishes and giving them what they want. If instead, we had simply adopted all the feminist ideals overnight, the whole system would have fallen apart and people would be clamoring for a return to traditional values.
Good stuff. It is important to distinguish between the urban behavior and the rural behavior. When the Bolsheviks promised free love, the more desirable young women flocked to the cities to party down. Some of the monarchists mansions were turned into virtual orgy houses, often overseen by the original owner, who had to endure the supposedly humiliating sight of all his good vodka being used to make young women very drunk.
And by cities were being generous, including any town with a railroad. Really rural villages were (and are) remote, and it could have been that there was a drastic (relative) rural shortage of women so that wives there really were shared frequently, or more probably simply earned their living in the beds instead of in the fields.
Anyway despite free, encouraged, and often mandatory abortion, there were over ten million children abandoned during this Soviet free love period.
Nice work Han.
No distinction was made between the status of children born legitimately and illegitimately, nonregistered co-habitation was given the same legal status as registered co-habitation, parental authority over children was systematically weakened, and additional measures were taken “to uproot the traditional structure of the family”.
Two things come to mind: It takes a Village and Think of the children!.
It just might take a village, but only after the Family is essentially destroyed. The current and principal value of the family unit (in the eyes of these kind of marxist/elite/progressives) is in its efficiency in terms of concentrated control and economic exaction.
When (I suppose, IF) the value of marriage deteriorates to the point at which it is no longer the primary marker of status within the female herd, the acceleration into full marxist utopia will be striking. At 40, Im pretty certain it will be on my watch. Then we shall see if what it really takes is a family to make a village.
Think of the children! is the other ironic little nugget that tends to fall in tandem with the subtle undercurrent of devaluing the family unit in favor of all varieties of hopped-up social injustices.
the result was destitution in a liberation disguise.
We have arrived. The fundamental flaws remain, but in our case the State, with its massive makework employment ranks filled with women, will be prove to be a much more formidable infrastructure to unwind should productive men see through the illusion and chose to take action (or inaction).
Which makes me wonder: what white-knight forces were at work in this Soviet example? I see the elite class here, driven by their self-serving ideals of protectionist meritocracy as an integral driver in the propagation of these liberty-in-disguise notions like equality and diversity as a kind of wired-in white-knight mechanism to undermine any real rational, logical, and analytical discourse in the pursuit of truth. But this force differs from the Apex Alpha class. And this force, coupled with the Churchian, family-values man-up brigade seem to be bookends, inching ever closer together, while shouting from quite different mounts, essentially the same rhetoric, all of which seems destined to bleed the fertile middle-class dry while also systematically eliminating the incentives to repopulate this class for future generations. See: The Dust Bowl.
Leveraging and burdening the middle is nothing new, but when the middle is no longer the masses, the majority, and the attrition and withdrawal due to those deteriorating incentives pass the point of no return, the middle starts to look rather bleak. Better to be in the queue of the bread lines than trying to farm wheat in the middle of the desert in the sixth year of a drought.
So we have killed the Father. It just takes a mother and a village. But what is that village look like without any fathers? Nowhere Id care to live.
Han,
Fascinating stuff. This is a history lesson I was COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF. None of this is covered in any history book on the Communist/Bolshevik revolution
I would like to note that, despite the obvious evils of the Soviet state, when situation described became untenable it was addressed and corrected very quickly. Remember this plan was implemented as the civil, and various independence wars were resolving in the west. In some ways introducing such a plan was only possible to that extreme because of the instability of the borders, rather calmer heads had bigger fish to fry at that moment. As well, there still fighting in Siberia and the caucuses well into 1923.
Only after the end of the civil war there politcal opportunity to address the negative effects of these policies, and by 1925 the real issues were growing food. This social policy was a threat to food production and the state. The Soviets were always very adept at identifying and focusing on the biggest problems at hand, even if they were less than completely successful at solving them.
One might suppose that this policy was designed to create the very chaos necessary to justify the existance of the DHS, and NSA, and permit the reign of terror that followed.
Great post, I was also unaware that this sort of thing took place.
@ #2
I think a couple reasons why the Soviet experience was more of a blaze of glory failure as opposed to our current slow burn is the fact that we started from a much better position in terms of being wealthy enough as an economy to indulge Marxist whims. On top of that the abundance of contraception and easy abortion has meant the natural consequences of extreme liberation can be kept at bay far longer.
That said, while we all understand how futile and unworkable this situation is in the long run, we may be frustrated with how long that long run takes to arrive.
In the long run we are all dead
Excellent research.
Very interesting read. The parallels are downright eerie.
@Tasmin 4
Thanks.
As to the children, notice how they trot out the think about the children in terms of welfare for single mothers after the fact, to get more bucks for the product of the promiscuous fucks. But they dont tell the women to think about the children before raw-dogging it doggy style from a bad boy or a guy thats out of her league.
Thats the hypocrisy of feminism: responsibility and concern for others for thee; freedom and concern for myself for me.
As to the Soviet white knights, likely many tales of abusive husbands were trotted out (not denying that such things happen) and then all men and all marriages were painted and tainted, just as has happened in western society about the evil patriarchy, and plucked the protective heart strings of well-intentioned men to basically cut their own throats and give women the keys to the family, to stay and have the man support her or to blow it up and get child support.
The modern multi-prong blitzkrieg from feminists and feminine-imperative tradcons all amounts to the same thing: men have to be the sacrificial scapegoats and pay the price for our daughters.
@Nemesis 2
I agree that since the Soviet Union had more dictatorial powers so they could just rapidly implement things and thus bring on the consequences more quickly and then shift course when the shit hit the fan.
@Steve 7
I agree that the wealth of the west subsidizes much of the matriarchy and thats why it will take longer to go away, if it ever does.
Id venture a guess that one of the reasons the situation was turned around in the old USSR was because that regime was a totalitarian one. Everything, including familial relationships, was regulated from the top down. Not so here, where family law is different from state to state. The feds stay out of it. Legal reforms and government muscle was brought to bear more quickly in the USSR than could ever be done here. Anything done to restrict liberties here would be extremely politically unpopular. Lots of politicians would lose their elected offices over it. That wasnt a problem under a communist regime like the USSR.
Excellent exposition.
It seems that its going to continue to deteriorate for next 40-50 years at least since it is going the slow route, and as deti says were not a regime so I highly doubt much of what we have now will be reversed.
@Deti 13
The feds stay out of it.
This will be something to watch going forward here in the near term. Im not disagreeing or pouncing, just pontificating. Different methods can yield similar results.
While the top-down muscle of the federal government technically lacks uniformity in matters of family law, property law, etc., that is far from being out of the sphere of influence. And the Fed, of course includes the politically appointed judicial branch, which can chose to meddle if it so desires, in all kinds of areas that supersede the state and the individual, if need be. Take the great human right of abortion for example. Or the vesting of personhood on corporations. Or eminent domain. All fraught with slippery slopey unintended outcomes as well as outcomes by design, e.g. corporate personhood and what that affords in terms of political contributions, or the public benefit interpretation of eminent domain to include the construction of a private enterprise.
Even in terms of the hard-stops of federal law (and soft-stops of federal policy), the fed has demonstrated repeatedly that what the Fed wants, the fed gets, even if it takes some time. Relatively innocuous things like highway speed limits and drinking ages have been quite easily manipulated in favor of the Fed, and that doesnt even begin to get into all of the Departmental powers of the Fed that arent even granted enforcement mandates, e.g. education, commerce, transportation, communications (yeah the latest proposal is to put FCC hall monitors in the newsrooms to administer compliance), etc.
Indeed the Soviet system enabled swift and heavy-handed changes, be it coming or going, that our system lacks. Thats a necessity when the unintended consequences show up: to be able to swing the pendulum back by hand. But it doesnt mean our system is not capable of the same thing, just that it will look and feel a bit different because up to now we have always had the benefit of time.
Anything done to restrict liberties here would be extremely politically unpopular.
Again, the context of time and awareness in our system runs parallel to the slow burn of our culture; the values lead and to change those takes time. And the problem of liberty and equality as defined by the elite ruling class is much more difficult to observe over a time-series of small moves.
Small changes make for small problems which are much easier to be manipulated by those who control the narrative, the information, even it seems more and more: the raw data. Big changes are unpopular because (a) the system doesnt have enough time to inform the people what to believe, value, what to think; (b) the system relies on its ability to benefit from the predictability of smaller changes and the political currency of those beliefs/values; and (c) consensus (essentially: sameness) is a higher-order value than individual liberty, despite what all those old papers say. Its one big group project led by the fat HR chick.
The Russian way is to quickly take away something the people never really had; the American way is to inspire people to give away (trade) what they never really had for something they will never really get. Thats how they make it look like Capitalism; there is a transaction and that just takes longer. We trade quite a bit of liberty for security/safety because: Fear. Why are we afraid: we are instructed to be afraid.
Maybe we never really had those liberties, but we sure as shit dont now. Maybe we are safer now, we have greater security, but from what exactly? And why? How did we come to need it? Fear has always been the catalyst. The inability of the elite to wed their daughters into an economic trampoline has them full of fear. Something must be done
Read Young Stalin.
Puts Tucker Max to shame.
Good to see you Desiderius. Hows it going?
Looks like a fascinating read about Stalin:
enough people gradually checking out and bringing economic pressure to the welfare state
looks like the safe money from where I am. And robots/fusion power or the like are not going to charge over the hill to the rescue, any time soon.
Old Fritz Engels was of course preaching his own book on the Family.
I dont know how he carried on as a student, but when he came to England (Dec. 1842, left 1844, back again (officially) Nov. 1850) to learn manage his pas operation he promptly shacked up with a concubine plucked from among the factory minions of the cotton trade he was an overlord of. A common and traditional practice of all mill-owners and overseers at that time (how do I know? My mothers family were cottonmill hands of various sorts on the female side for generations, and all got married in the parish church along the road from Irmin&Engels mill. Just sayin. Ahem hem hem).
When she croaked (possibly alias Crosby?) he did the decent thing and started openly consorting with her sister, who had also been in the secret second house he provided for them all, out of the way of dads factory and moralizing nosey-parkers, methodist prod-noses and I dunno, German spies maybe?
You can find him in the censuses, lodging both as a respectable bachelor of means, on his tod,
e.g. in 1861 :-
6, Thorncliffe Grove, Chorlton-on-Medlock (over by the Uni. His dads factory was a few miles away on the other side of the river, somewhere near Weaste cemetery I think, along past my greatgrandads pub, the Tallow Tub.)
Charles Lee, Head, m(arried), 46, Cordiner (i.e. leather, shoes or something)
Ann Lee (his wife)
And their five kids
Plus
Frederick Engels, lodg. unm(arried), 40, Merchant, Prussian + (absent)
(i.e. out on the lash in That London with Karl, smashing streetlamps again, or busy dogging the Burns girls)
and as a sugar-daddy in nearby but rougher, Irisher, Ardwick with Irish Mary and her sister Lizzie, and the niece.
Under the name of Mr Frederick Boardman (ha ha).
(Fenian active service volunteers endemic in Ardwick at the time; handy eh? No danger of touts dobbing them in to The Authorities).
It would take me a while, if ever, to run down the address from among the chaos of my genealogy files, easier to look it up yourself if curious.
He married Lizzie for some reason when she in turn was on her deathbed, probably some complex Victorian thing to do with the rest of the Burnses being provided for in the will, old Freddy being a man of conscience and all. Not because of fear of blackmail from the niece, for starters. Oh no no, reputation is a bourgeois affectation, dontchaknow.
What with old Uncle Joes career as a young bandit and cocksman, Freds harem, and boozy Karls posh missus, theres a right rollickin movie in all this I reckon. Although Vladimir Ilych and Leon were boring fanatics. Wolf of Wall Street be damned. Who should direct?
Puts Tucker Max to shame.
There are few people even in written history that Stalin doesnt put to shame (perhaps Caligula). He is basically the father of scheduled summary executions. That requires a very colorful upbringing/youth.
Im not sure I agree the author of the article is guilty of apex fallacy, Hans. I know very little about Russian history, but Id cite as evidence that fact that prostitution vanished during this timeframe. If prostitution vanishes the men are likely getting laid often enough. Difference is, during this timeframe in Russia (keep in mind 6 million people starved to death from 1921-1922) the price was probably a piece of bread, or fruit.
Keep in mind, this is the timeframe referred to as the lost generation in Europe as well. Post WWI there were mother/dughter prostitution teams in much of Germany, for instance. Two million German hausfrauen were destitute widows in 1920, so many become prostitutes to survive.
#19 Prostitution didnt vanish, Liz, but prostitution vanished by policy. No woman was allowed to call herself a prostitute, for example. Women NEVER spread it around enough that the average man gets plenty. Never.
Women NEVER spread it around enough that the average man gets plenty. Never.
I guess it would depend on your definition of plenty.
I doubt there has been much of a time in history when women have been giving it out more cheaply. Society certainly didnt benefit from it.
>I doubt there has been much of a time in history when women have been giving it out more cheaply.
price going down doesnt mean that average joe can afford more of it now. in this regard, he is still piss poor.
>In the West, we seem to have been chugging along slowly, only slowly succumbing to feminist wishes and giving them what they want. If instead, we had simply adopted all the feminist ideals overnight, the whole system would have fallen apart and people would be clamoring for a return to traditional values.
And moreoever i dont believe the current generation in power can see that the harm is primariliy caused by feminism. First because they are more ideologically inclined, and second because i hypothetize that the average IQ of western leaders has dropped over time, both due to an average drop in IQ levels of western populations (e.g. studies by woodley et al suggest victorian era ppl were on average 15-20 IQ points higher than today), but also due to the ideological selection of politicans.
the bad news is that by pushing women into academics, the west is unfortunately increasing the opportunity cost for the smart women to procreate, thus leading to a further decrease in western iq.
Well, anonymous, that is true.
At that time the price for the woman was to do whatever she could to get a potato. And the man tried to find potatoes (which were a VERY high price relative to today). The price for the man was to find that potato somehow, and the price for the woman for having sex was to either sit through a disgusting and painful procedure where she might hemorrhage to death to have that piece of tissue thrown down the sinkor give birth (a risk as well) to a child shed probably throw out on the street to die (or throw into a starvation kiddy kennel, or try to feed by enduring more of the above). Either way, sounds like a good place for really nasty humans to cultivate a really nasty and predatorial society.
You will find, too, that the Bolshevik elites at the time share certain similarities with our own elites today.
Some things (and people) never change.
price going down doesn’t mean that average joe can afford more of it now. in this regard, he is still piss poor.
Bastiat has commented on this, but it bears repeating. The price of sex and whether it is expensive or cheap depends on what currency you are using to buy it. Sex is very cheap if you are trading it for Hawtness units, but it is expensive if you are trading it for Provisioning Units. In other words, the same woman (NAWALT) might have a one-night stand with the guy she finds viscerally Hawt but she is going to make the guy she identifies as boyfriend/LT provider work for it. It was once said elsewhere Boyfriends are Ugly. Dissect all that goes behind making such a statement.
Re: the abandoned children. Abortions were considerably easier to acquire in the towns, and conversely its easier for a scrawny child in the country to get a hunk of stale khleb to dip in some shchi. It seems to have been a deliberate policy to encourage the existence of rural children who had no parentage but the state.
#21 I doubt there has been much of a time in history when women have been giving it out more cheaply. True, but STILL women dont give it out to average joes. As someone mentioned, women follow the sexual economic version of the Loan Paradox. Grouchos version was that he wouldnt want to join any club that would accept him as a member. The Loan Paradox is that banks etc are more willing to give money to people who dont need it or even want it, charging less or even charging nothing Take my money, please!
@ Morpheus
i had written the currency argument elsewhere, and my conclusion was that the price for sex in the currency in which beta men pay has not only NOT gone down, but up. average joe (and particularly less than average joe) just cant compete with the welfare state.
I had some inkling of this from my dads stories of his family (Hes from Belarus) but not this much detail. I like the sussing out of the apex fallacy. Two things to keep in mind:
1) Fun as feminist-bashing may be they were NOT the architects of this. It was the apex alphas who did it, the commissars wimminz HELPED but did not dictate. We saw these mistakes repeated in China post-1948 (Maoist tracts still speak of this being the ideal), and of course Cambodia and North Korea.
2) Russia today is not Family Values Picnic and Vlad the Impaler is not the Holy Ayatollah prophesied by Kenneth Copeland and other TV-evangels. The place has no birthrate, children are abandoned all over and now cannot be adopted out of Russia because of the Russian Duma being told by American Churchians that Americans are immoral kid-beaters and all about the gheys. (Check me on this and see for yourself: Those fag-bashing laws Putin is so proud of were all American-sponsored. So much for Russia being the anti-America; theyre doing our Churchians bidding).
Oh and forgot to add the reminder: ol Vlad came up in the Soviet system through the KGB which he eventually ran before succeeding Yeltsin. During which period spy traitors like Aldrich Ames were being run by the KGB here, blowing networks and getting Americans killed. So much for him being Defender of the Faith as Pat Buchanan would have it. Just sayin.
@Frederick
I agree that it was the apex alphas that brought this on in Russia and that generally speaking its the apex alphas (usually male but occasionally female, such as Cleopatra, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary if she becomes president) that are the most influential architects of what happens in society.
So I agree that feminism deserves bashing but that one has to look to the apex alphas of society if you really want to find the prime movers in whats happening.
There is no demographic crisis in Russia.
So when people state that there is a difference between economic Marxism of the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and cultural Marxism spreading around the West today, they are uttering falsehoods. Our ruling elite in the West are following the Gramsci method of instituting Marxism. The late Joseph Sobran was right in that hard Communist economic Marxism of the defunct USSR is essentially no different in goals than the soft Socialist cultural Marxism of the West today. Only their methodoligies about how to bring about a Marxist regime differ in that the hard economic Communism smashes and destroys quickly the former more traditional Capitalist regime while replacing it while the soft cultural Socialism slowly erodes away the more traditional Capitalist regime according to Sobran over ten years ago. Either way death, destruction and tyranny ensue under Marxism by far worse than anything else and that includes not only politically free Capitalist regimes but also Fascist regimes including Nazism under Adolph Hitlers Germany. Nazism is bad but it is amatuerish and limited in its destruction of people and institutions in comparison to Marxism which is the most evil ideology of all yet most people today especially Marxists are either to ignorant, stupid or cowardly to admit this.
LBF
Heres an article showing the US and Russian birth rate. Interesting that the Russian rate dropped a lot after the fall of the Sov. Union and then plateaued at a low level for a decade or so. It started rising around 2000, slightly surpassing the US in 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/07/25/dying-russias-birth-rate-is-now-higher-than-the-united-states/
Well I am all about facts so if the Russian birthrate has recovered somewhat lately then fine (not that the West in general is doing much better, agreed). But I do recall some articles a few years back exhorting Russians to Do Their Duty for the Motherland and drop some sprogs, apparently there were some tractors needed driving and not enough Glorious Workers to drive them or something
doclove@34 makes the important point. Feminism is just one of the 31 flavors of Marxism. In the past I have argued that the most devious tactic of American progressive leftists was to get the people, men in particular, to bargain away their liberty and freedom on the promised opportunity for abundant, stigma free sex.
Trade away your privacy, income, free speech, due process all for, maybe, an extra 5-10 additional notches which is about the very best the average man can hope for. Women in return were promised freedom from domestic life and rewarded with wage/debt slavery and nearly unlimited male sexual attention in early adulthood.
This has the long term effect of pacifying men who can chase tail as much as they want, but no longer can be permitted to form stable families. Also, men being not collectivists by default are economically compromised when faced with a workforce that being half female thrives on consensus building punishes more production focused minds. Women in the long term are made wards of the corporate/socialist state where having slutted and worked their out of the MMP have only their careers, cats, and the state to care for them.
When the time comes Ive added feminists to the proscription list.
Morpheus quotes Keynes @8:
In the long run we are all dead too which I would add; in the short run we may not get laid, but we are certain to get fucked.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/361039
price going down doesn’t mean that average joe can afford more of it now. in this regard, he is still piss poor.
Bastiat has commented on this, but it bears repeating. The “price of sex” and whether it is expensive or cheap depends on what currency you are using to “buy it”. Sex is very cheap if you are trading it for “Hawtness” units, but it is expensive if you are trading it for “Provisioning” Units. In other words, the same woman (NAWALT) might have a one-night stand with the guy she finds viscerally “Hawt” but she is going to make the guy she identifies as boyfriend/LT provider work for it. It was once said elsewhere “Boyfriends are Ugly”. Dissect all that goes behind making such a statement.
Actually, this came out the other day: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565283/Why-wannabe-brides-pick-ugly-husband-Personality-far-important-looks.html
Women choose as boyfriends men who they think are good-looking, its only when they become desperate to lock somebody in that looks go out the window and personality and provisioning capabilities become a serious consideration. So you need to expand a bit further out than one night stand, Morpheus.
This is a fascinating historical case study.
It seems that you get a temporary productivity pop from the flood of new workers into the labor force, but eventually the system recalibrates and you run into the complex social calculation problem of knowing how much professional training to invest in women who may or may not choose to leave the labor force to pursue child-rearing. You also can trigger demographic challenges (see Singapore and Iran for the extreme examples) that are very difficult to reverse, as well as social spending programs which may ultimately risk the fiscal solvency of the state itself.
If the society chooses to go ahead and invest as if these women were going to be full-time household breadwinners or co-breadwinners, then apparently you may lose the nuclear family. There are a number of knock-on effects and unintended consequences, ranging from men starting to re-define masculinity in ways thatto put it mildlydo not prioritize early household formation (with some % reading the market and shifting from investment in provisioning capacity and security/commitment-type resources to investment in hotness and freedom/optionality-type resources) to women wanting some kind of subsidized social safety net to allow them to both have kids and work full-time in the absence of a traditional family structure (because for many/most the SAHM option will not be realistic).
This is a fascinating historical case study.
Yes, seriously major props to Han. This was an innovative, creative, and fresh post giving people a history lesson and applying the lens of sexual dynamics to the actual events. This is a great example of what JFG is about. Educate and provide a venue for interesting discussion. Others can crank out the same content one can find in a million different sites or online magazines.
Jen, in terms of going beyond a dramatic split between ONS and marriage tracks, what do you think of this (its obviously a simplistic model):
Condition 1. If a woman seeks a male partner and she plans on making her own $$$, she will be biased towards Hotness/excitement traits. Male provisioning has less mating value because she wishes to retain an independent, self-provisioning capability.
If she seeks a male partner but she plans on being an SAHM, however, some of those Hotness traits may in fact present serious risks to her plans (worst one being the guy having qualities which cause a lot of casual sexual opportunity to be thrown at him), and she may seek someone who is a much safer and more secure choice. Given what the self-provisioner women prize and the competition in that space, she may have to go in the opposite direction and select against Hotness.
Condition 2. If the woman seeks a male partner and plans on making her own $$$, marriagewith its attendant legal protectionsis less important to her. If the couple splits up, she may prefer not to have legal entanglements; in fact, a state-run resource distribution could actually favor the man (rare, but possible). This arguably also positions her to be able to have a relationship with an even hotter guy.
If she plans on being an SAHM, she will normally wish to see those legal protections put in place. However, she is competing with women who are more blase on the marriage subject and this can be problematic for herin this environment, the men who actively WANT to be married to an SAHM may have reasons for doing so that are not exactly pro-feminist.
Condition 3. A society which places greater priority on female economic opportunities will be increasingly biased towards male Hotness/excitement trait display in the mating market. Men who wish to be successfully should invest accordingly.
Marriage rates may be a logical casualty because of expansion of Condition 2.
Condition 4: As a result of 1-3, the trade-offs that women are presented with are becoming increasingly stark.
*Caveat: There are elite women who can in fact demand a low-tradeoffs mate selection condition (and have, say, successful marriages with the hot fighter pilot!), but this will not be the typical female experience in the SMP.*
Condition 4: As a result of 1-3, the trade-offs that women are presented with are becoming increasingly stark.
The other part of this Bastiat is that for a woman who is inclined to be a lane changer/track switcher.early to mid 20s professioanal economic indepedence couple with dating hawt guys and then switching to SAHM with the dependable stable beta provider it is in her best interests that an informational asymmetry exist. It is not in her best interests for this dualistic strategy to have a spotlight on this because it is what leads to the beta provider having price discrimination concerns and worries about fuck phantoms. It is in the womans best interest that the future beta provider remain clueless and ignorant which makes her track jumping more seamless when the time comes. You would expect under this regime that the women most likely to have engaged in this will scream the loudest that it does not exist. Always pays to remember, the closer one gets to the truth, the louder a woman will shriek in opposition.
Regarding asymmetrical information
The Market for Lemons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
Ironically, there are probably some similarities with the SMP.
Id like to think that part of what we do here at JFG is obliterate informational asymmetries. I think Obsidian specialize in that!
Great article, thanks for the shoutout. Gorbachev has apparently discussed this phenomenon, or so Ive read on the Spearhead, in his book entitled Perestroika and released in 1987. He viewed it as a case of mistaken social policy with irreversibly damaging long-term effects.
There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts.
In earlier years there were in fact millions of them, not just hundreds of thousands. Id add that the Cheka initiated a great orphanage construction program, and thus many boys orphaned by war, terror or famine were raised by the state. These psychologically damaged louts later formed the building blocks of the secret service and the ruling party. They had no family, no moral integrity, and thus no allegiance but to Stalin, their only father figure, and the regime he created. Later these thugs were unleashed upon an unsuspecting populace during the Great Purge of 1937-38.
Russia wasnt the only example at that time of widespread fatherlessness resulting in social pathology. Hitler was a similar father figure to many German youths whose fathers got either killed or mentally crippled in the World War. They idolized him and the caricature of aggressive ghetto masculinity that he was. These stormtroopers and bootlickers gained him victory. The same can be said about Mussolini.
It was during the First World War that the open demolition of the edifice of Western civilization has begun. Traditional norms were fatally weakened everywhere, not just in Russia.
HH,
Interesting stuff. One could argue that boys growing up without strong fathers have a very destructive impact on society
In the short term, Russia is fine demographically: http://darussophile.com/category/demography/
It remains to be seen whether it can re-increase its fertility rate to replacement level as the economy improves, or it will be stuck below replacement-level like many of the EU countries. Its total fertility rate has been steadily increasing.
Currently, Russia, the UK, France, and the US are the rich countries which have enough fertility and immigration to be experiencing sustainable population growth. None of these countries have a high enough fertility rate to sustain the population if immigration dried up.
#26
Indeed. It may be true that a potato could buy you pussy in the Volga region during the famine of 1921-23. But guess what: potatoes were nowhere to be found. It certainly werent the betas who had them, because whatever wealth they had was already plundered by the state and alpha thugs.
@Liz 19
I say shes guilty of the apex fallacy because she simply says that Men took to changing wives with [great] zeal. But when you look at the anecdotes offered, they are of men having 20 wives and having children with all of them, of the peasant who marries a town wife but the farm wife still longed for the husband and didnt remarry (eventually being murdered by the 2nd wife), the young man who left his wife for another girl and the wife is heart broken and hasnt gotten with another man.
IOW, the anecdotes are about SOME men who have multiple women who didnt have as many (or any more) partners.
Also, see how the Disastrous 1920s piece isnt guilty of the apex fallacy, clearly seeing what was happening, saying it was the Don Juans (i.e. men who have lots of different women) and not the Shy Guys,
@ Jen
One of the comments echoes my thoughts regarding that:
@ Jen
Alpha fucks, beta bucks
@BB
Condition 4: As a result of 1-3, the trade-offs that women are presented with are becoming increasingly stark. [Morpheus 43 +1]
That, and the fact that trade-offs are not really being presented as such to women, though occasionally in hindsight. Trade-offs are too often synonymous with settling or compromise or other governors on the procurement and expansion of their options.
Then there is the focus on immediacy of gratification in real-time decisions that works to derail stated desires in favor of actual behaviors. And the best-laid plans and unintended consequences can make for some stark realities when male preferences vis a vis commitment/marriage are enforced when she is ready to enter the marriage market [The beta bucks awareness as Morpheus points out being just one such thing.]
The very fact that the marriage market is something that is to be entered (and not already within) is indicative of many hidden risks and costs that are not being addressed because that would require a great deal of hard truths about trade-offs, well before a woman decides to sit down at the table and play for keeps.
Ive met a lot of women who desired to make their own money, fully believing in this as a means of increasing her options. Very few have married as a result of this, more so in spite of this. And the longer the timeline, the less likely those women are to exact the kind of enjoyment, satisfaction, or even financial benefits they envisioned from the career path alone. The EPL thing probably gets overplayed, but there is *something* going on that looks a lot like the female version of the midlife crisis within the single population. Or maybe I am spending too much time at the yoga studio and in the artsy community.
Morpheus, #43: Yes, I agree. The sad gig you describe needs to be de-romanticized: its just the standard resource-for-sex-transactional, strip-club bait-and-switch hustle by another name and writ large. The agent wants the target to have more resources than he does opportunities, to have an extreme scarcity mindset and attendant vulnerability to (in hindsight, quite obvious) psychological leverage points, and to lack situational awareness or knowledge of price discrimination in the customer history or any extras girls roaming the premises and undercutting her price points.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
@Anon 29:
Cosign 100% hence my Tyrone series of posts. Have you read them?
O.
@HH2
The dogs of Animal Farm were modeled after these type of boys:
Shortly after the revolution, several pups are stolen from their mothers. Later in the book, these pups (now fully grown and fully trained) protect Napoleon from a second potential revolution, and help to enforce his decrees.
@Nem:
AFBB, indeed.
Ms. Jen, what you are talking about in response to Morpheus and Bastiat is what is known in Econ circles as price discrimination, applied to the SMP in this case, and in other words, a Woman charges a higher price for Tyrone, than for Mr. Big. Cormpletely understandable, as it has its own internal logic to it; however, Tyrone is now an educated consumer and acts accordingly hence the ghosting effect weve been seeing in many Black spaces in American life (to say nothing of the MGTOW phenomenon in White America).
O.
@Han 49:
Excellent point, and it needs to continue being hammered, because our times today, and it is indeed informed by the way Women look at it, presumes that everybodys getting laid and that simply is not true. Hence my fallacy post a little while back in response to you-know-who.
This is a really, really good post, Han excellent work!
O.
@Nem 47:
Very interesting points you make about TFR and immigration in the USA, France and Russia. I take it that you would agree with me that, per what youve laidout, there is a strong incentive in all these countries to keep immigration going, as it is directly tied to national/fiscal growth in these countries and that without it, these countries would be in deep doo-doo?
O.
These psychologically damaged louts later formed the building blocks of the secret service and the ruling party. In Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestlers protagonista loyal Communistis arrested during the Stalin purges on false and preposterous charges. His first interrogator is a man much like himself, with some vestiges of civilized thinking. His next interrogator, though, is someone who grew up under Communism and who he refers to as a Neanderthal.
@Morpheus 41 and Obs 57 and others
Thanks.
Seeing the same patterns in different places and different times lends credence to the foundational red pill ideas that many women are quite hypergamous (and most are at least a little) and that top males will clean up when hypergamy is unleashed while the average males will struggle to some extent (often significant) and the low males will struggle a lot.
@Bastiat:
Your mention of Singapore and its founding father Lee Kuan Yews attempts to socially engineer the society by way of de facto eugenics-mating among its higher IQ sections is something that every Red Pill ought to study and study very, very closely. Why?
Because it didnt work.
Theres an entire Wikipedia entry on the whole thing, fascinating reading, in fact. Highly recommended.
Also: the eugenics history of Romania is something to dig on as well.
O.
@Han 60:
Yes this is the basis of solid research, by collecting evidence and data across cultures and historical periods. In fact, this is what Prof. David Buss has done, and he is considered among if not thee premiere EvoPsych researcher. As you and others here and elsewhere know, I have referenced him many times in my own work, and will continue to do so precisely for reasons you have made clear in this most excellent post of yours.
Malcolm X once famously said, that of all our studies, history is most qualified to reward our research. Given what kind of formidable and completely self-actualized intellect Malcolm was, I think he would be very proud of what we are doing in general here, and what you have done in particular today.
The Truth, needs no defence just a few Brave Souls willing to speak on it.
O.
There is a vivid fictional portrait of immediate post-revolutionary Russia in Ayn Rands We The Living (better-written than her other books, IMO, more fully-developed characters)interesting from a gender-relations viewpoint. The anti-Communist heroine, Kira, falls hard for a former aristocrat named Leo, who is good-looking , arrogant, and very experienced with women. When she starts sleeping with him, her old-line parents throw her out, and her sister goes so far as to say she should be killed for her sins. Meanwhile, also Kira develops a friendship with an idealistic Communist named Andrei, and he falls in love with her, but she has more of an LJBF attitude toward him. But she starts having sex with him anyhow, in oder to get money for Leos health problems
@O. 56
Just to add, I think the educated consumer is not limited to the binary (ghosting or MGTOW) either, which is part of why the awareness in terms of the trade-offs and muddling of tracks/market (marriage or sex) is so problematic. Some men just disappear, but many others will stay in, but in a protracted approach that is poorly aligned with the womans (now) pressing desire for commitment/marriage.
Men in the marriage market who are confronted with price discrimination even in its subtle forms, are going to go into a greater level of price/value discovery than they would have if the inference of track-hopping was not so strong. IOW, now that hookup culture has jumped the ivy walls of academia for good, 15-20 years of dating without wanting/finding a husband is even more reason for men to think re: commitment and marriage, whats the rush? Men have more reason for pause, to consider their place in the market, their desires, and their options relative to the risks (becoming beta bucks or worse).
And taking account for previous discussions re: validation vs transactional, hes going to be testing for where he stands. Meanwhile, she gets negative equity for her experience but expects benefits (e.g. now I know what I want, what I like, the importance of sexual compatibility, etc.) Add in the fertility crush and we get the fish-or-cut-bait intersects that are increasingly common in the over 30 Dating SMP.
The unintended is that a 32-35 y/o never-married woman who appears to have suddenly arrived in the marriage market is going to be viewed in the eyes of an increasing number of men as transactional/opportunistic and have to demonstrate her desire in the validation context probably over a timeline that she might find unappealing or too costly, now that *time* matters.
Hell, online profiles will come out and say it: those days [of hook-up, random, casual, flings, fun, no-strings sex] are behind me. I dont do casual anymore. Serious inquiries only. I am ready for serious/to settle down.
@Tasmin 64
The number of women that Ive either gone on a date with, read their profile or otherwise talked with who say that very thing, of how they used to do hook-ups, casual, flings, or go for bad boys or exciting cads but no more because now theyre looking for something serious, or more positively, that they learned from it, is astounding. No way is it some miniscule minority. I would say its a large % of the over-27 crowd that is still single or divorced, though its probably a large minority of the overall population of women from 25-40 since a large portion will have not done much cad tasting and married someone similar to the type of men they dated.
My guess is about 40% of women are lane changers to a significant degree, dating/sexing a few cads/assholes, a few out-of-their-league men, and then shifting lanes to the appropriate or the realistic.
Han Solo @ 65
I concur. The SMP/MMP post 35 is like a rummage sale.
Now if you add in women that were too picky for several or many years but werent necessarily carousel riders then the percentage would be higher than 40%. These picky ones that dont ride can be called the unicorn trappers, just waiting for that one special unicorn to come along and become ensnared by her unique trap.
Regardless of whether they were carousel riders, watchers or unicorn trappers, the effect on average and lesser men is to wander thirstily in the parched deserts of no pussy, perhaps occasionally drinking from a brackish spring that quenches the thirst for a moment but sickens the stomach.
Ooh the picky ones. You can them right away, its in that facial expression thats a queer mix of horror and disappointment, followed by the question you do what for a living? Makes no difference your income, but if youre blue collar youre out. All despite the lengthy, and interesting conversations about art, music, history, whatever.
@Tas 64:
All good points. Cosign 100%
O.
@David Foster 63:
Yea, Im familar with thaat story. Rand wrote some very interesting stuff
O.
#39 rational explanation: ugly men cant get laid without getting married, but handsome men cat around all the time.
#67 unicorn trappers. My kind of gal! I just wish theyd realize they are surrounded by unicorns.
#65 I think the percentage of young women (late teens early twenties) who already are or will be lane changers is probably more like 80%. The vast majority of women will say that very thing, of how they used to do hook-ups, casual, flings, or go for bad boys or exciting cads but no more because now they’re looking for something serious. And I guarantee 100% of those will believe they shouldnt be judged for their youthful indiscretions.
@72
Depending on what you include then you can get much higher percentages. If you include the young women who hoped for the most popular guys or the hottest ones or even ones that are just out of their league but not the hottest then the % would be much higher. I think that even some of the most supposedly restricted girls will occasionally slip up and have unrestricted kinds of sex (especially with hotter guys) though most may not. But when you get away from the far-left side of restricted then you have more and more of a few slip ups. And then as you get into the middle of the spectrum you have even more, a few flings, a couple of cad/OOHL short-term bfs, so on.
What’s amazing is how rapidly the communist experiment with sexual liberation fizzled out, and the Soviets re-adopted traditional values with great enthusiasim only 15-20 years after the revolution.
The frog jumps out if the water is already hot. Turn up the heat slowly, they dont notice until too late. Sort of like the West repeating all this idiocy, just more slowly.
As to demographic issues in Russia, there most certainly are amongst the white population. Asiatics account for a growing portion of the childbirths. Not a problem if your a Kazakh, huge one if your Russian.
@ Han Solo 60:
“ Seeing the same patterns in different places and different times lends credence to the foundational red pill ideas that many women are quite hypergamous (and most are at least a little) and that top males will clean up when hypergamy is unleashed while the average males will struggle to some extent (often significant) and the low males will struggle a lot.”
Yes. It also is strong evidence for a biological basis, for hard wiring, rather than a cultural basis. Sure, culture can influence things; but the basis is biological, and that’s what this history lesson shows us.
And that’s why other bloggers suggestions that women need to change their attraction triggers are going to be doomed to failure, I think. Women aren’t going to do that; hence the need for restraints on hypergamy.
@Badpainter
I concur. The SMP/MMP post 35 is like a rummage sale.
Which means there are still some hidden gems but by and large the 35+SMP requires the man to work harder to work through the price discrimination, the lane changing, the beta bucks scenarios in order to properly value and bond with what has been set curbside. I wonder whats wrong with this sofa?. But it usually doesnt stop there. It is complicated by the fact that most of these women still see it as one of those Estate sales full of heirlooms and works of art. Long lost Le Jardin by Matisse has been found!
My mom, who is sweet but legit out-of-her-mind 50% of the time, likes to have rummage sales. She spends a ridiculous amount of time and money preparing labels and pricing her treasures and then finds endless frustration with the shoppers who dont buy at 50% of retail. She thinks because she PAID a lot, that it is WORTH a lot, and if it is worth a lot, then 50% of a lot is a good price. Seems eerily familiar to the post 35 SMP. Dear old mum doesnt realize that the rummage sale is the Wall between goodwill (donating to charity) or the rubbish bin. One must know their market and then price to sell.
You can them right away, it’s in that facial expression that’s a queer mix of horror and disappointment, followed by the question “you do what for a living?” Makes no difference your income, but if you’re blue collar you’re out. All despite the lengthy, and interesting conversations about art, music, history, whatever.
Spot on. It doesnt even have to be blue collar, though i know via my brother (who is smart and funny as F*ck) that it is a frontier rarely crossed. In my case it is the undefinable career trajectory. A starving artist thing at 20 has lost its romantic appeal when done at 40. Ive been in situations where the women ask what I do because of my conversational ability and general knowledge of a lot of topics. How do you know about all of this? goes to So what do you do? Even after the impetus of the famed question has been firmly rooted in them being impressed, if the answer fails to match her script, all that knowledge, experience, wit, humor, and worldly experience can fall flat. They cant hide their disappointment. Just one more man not fulfilling her ideal of the husband standing ready as soon as she shows up. I think most just want to be able to quit their job. They found out how awesome most jobs really are and look at those stroller-pushers with envy. Equality can turn traditional mighty fast.
Sure, most of these women are probably not of interest to me anyhow based on their transactional approach on their sleeve (and a host of other tells). I dont know, maybe the equivalent would be me asking their age and then giving them a bitter frown and and verbal stiff-arm when they either gasp that I would dare ask such a thing or actually reveal that they are 35+.
Mutual disinterest isnt so bad, its the ones that have so much potential to find a unicorn but still have no idea what one actually looks like that ruffle me at all. Mostly because I know what they are in for and it seems to quite often be a few more rounds with backwardbaseballhatguy who just cant seem to commit (to her). Bitterness increases, nobody wins.
@ Obsidian #58
Absolutely. Cultural problems notwithstanding, all of these countries need at least some immigration to sustain their future
@deti
I agree that theres a large biological component, most probably the majority.
However, I do think that womens attraction triggers are somewhat dependent on the environmental context. I think that when a provider/protector is actually needed that a woman will feel some attraction for the man that will stick around and provide/protect but that when placed in a safer/richer environment her attraction threshold will rise and shell become more picky so as to motivate her to extract better genes.
I also think that womens attraction triggers are dependent to some extent on what society and the herd deems attractive. I think that if everyone is lauding a certain type of man it will add a bit more attractiveness to him than might be felt otherwise. Also, and especially, if the herd turns on a man then in all but the most love-stricken, women will lose some of their attraction to the man. So I think the herd has a huge power to reduce a mans (or certain type of mans) attractiveness by ridicule or rejection and has a small but not negligible ability to raise a mans attractiveness by approving or liking his type.
Finally, I think that how the girl is raised can have some influence on top of biology. If shes raised in a chaotic situation it will often trigger earlier sex (and this could be a biological contextually-dependent phenomenon), perhaps because in such an environment actually living long isnt guaranteed so you better mate while youre still alive, even if the situation isnt the most ideal. OTOH, girls with strong and kind fathers tend to be less promiscuous on average, IIRC.
So I dont think that girls on their own can do a whole lot to change their attraction triggers, though I still think that them choosing to be less demanding and bitchy and start to look for the good and be more grateful can maybe give the right kind of guys an extra half point of attractiveness and that might just be enough to be the difference between falling for the bad boy and falling for the good guy, or enjoying marriage with an equal vs. hating it and frivorcing.
What do you and others think?
Re: Russian drinking. Apparently its less now (Figure 7).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/10/24/11-things-everyone-should-know-about-russian-demography/2/
I really just wanted this quote the suicide rate can be used as a proxy for a country’s general trajectory.
@HanSolo
or more positively, that they learned from it, is astounding.
Yep, women will consistently attempt to sell their experience as a benefit to the next man, the man who will deliver commitment. They have no idea or refuse to acknowledge that they are peddling snake oil to most men. But then most men are too invested in scarcity and immediacy of potential and maybe lifelong sex to challenge that notion. They know they are coming out of the consolation bracket and will do their own rationalizing of their prize. Thats probably one of the few bugs as features that keeps the marriage business, in business.
In any case, when the learned a lot from the past involves the sexual arts, women will project heavily and retroactively inject value in those meaningless throws along the way by suggesting that a multitude of other cocks is what made her who she is. Somehow men, though they might actually benefit from such advertising, rarely attempt to sell such nonsense.
Ive even had a woman tout that prior experience is why she can achieve multiple orgasms. Lucky me. Glad I didnt have to do any of that work. And boy would I not want to have been there the first time that happened. That guy did me a big favor.
@ Obsidian #61
Good read on social eugenics in Singapore. Very Canary In The Coal Mine ish.
Heres the link for those interested
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control_in_Singapore
@Badpainter
“I concur. The SMP/MMP post 35 is like a rummage sale.”
Which means there are still some hidden gems but by and large the 35+SMP requires the man to work harder to work through the price discrimination, the lane changing, the beta bucks scenarios in order to properly value and bond with what has been set curbside. “I wonder whats wrong with this sofa?”. But it usually doesn’t stop there. It is complicated by the fact that most of these women still see it as one of those Estate sales full of heirlooms and works of art. Long lost Le Jardin by Matisse has been found!
Im assuming you are talking 35+ women and not overall? I think you and I are basically the same age (I actually turn 40 this weekend). 40 is kind of a funny age. It is hard to say this and not sound self-aggrandizing, but I look at some 40 year olds and think my God I do I look younger/better than them. My guess is you have a similar type of look where you dont look like an old man. Despite the howls/protestations/denials of some I think the guy who is 40ish can still shop in the 25-30 market where the quality of the goods both in terms of physical appearance and less emotional and psychological baggage is much better. I think it is mistake to proactively disqualify yourself from that market.
If Ive properly understood your comments, wife and children is still something youd like? The starving artist thing might be more an issue than being 40 even with say a 25-year old who lets hypothesize is serious about being married and being a Mom. As you well know (which many women do not) life is full of trade-offs, and following your passion is sometimes at odds with the sort of stable income necessary to being the family man. I think it is tough for the sovereign man to exist simultaneously with the family man. I think they can be blended somewhat. I dont think one HAS to be married with kids under the drafthorse model.
Even after the impetus of the famed question has been firmly rooted in them being impressed, if the answer fails to match her script, all that knowledge, experience, wit, humor, and worldly experience can fall flat. They can’t hide their disappointment. Just one more man not fulfilling her ideal of the husband standing ready as soon as she shows up.
Its funny. I suspect if you asked those women hypothetically, what is more important, a man you feel chemistry with and have a great conversation, or a stable provide who is uninteresting, they would say the former probably 95%+. But when the rubber hits the road, that revealed preference for provisioning rears its head especially when they have fully switched tracks to potential wife/mother/SAHM mode.
I don’t know, maybe the equivalent would be me asking their age and then giving them a bitter frown and and verbal stiff-arm when they either gasp that I would dare ask such a thing or actually reveal that they are 35+.
Ha. That would be superficial on your part, dont you know? It is a grave sin to indicate you are interested in age-inappropriate dating, or consider her age as part of your calculus. Of course, both your height and income are completely appropriate. When women defend that sort of hypocrisy is when I have to leave the room because I simply cant stand the rotting, filthy stench of all those hamster droppings accumulating.
FWIW, I didnt intend to be presumptuous, but just wanted to offer another perspective on considering other markets beyond the 35+ old rummage sale.
@Tasmin 80
You cynical soul, you! lol Yes, there is that kind of learning from exotic cocks that is marketed with a positive spin.
I was more thinking of repentant learning, realizing that cads dont commit and assholes arent good for relationships short or long, and changing their ways, ideally out of a realization of what is worthwhile as opposed to the falling sands of the hour glass.
Re: lane-changers learning. To what extent does the experience from the fast lane translate into positive *useful* slow-lane practices? I literally cannot think of anything positive, only negative: Dont go so fast. Dont pass. Dont ignore the car behind you. etc
@Tas:
Theres another factor here to consider, particularly where a Brotha like myself would be coming from:
STDs.
In Black America, theyre running rampant. I have a post or three just oon this topic, and how and why it is so very important for Brothas to speak on this point. Go back to my Why Should Black Men Get Married? post, read what I directly quoted out of Promises I Can Keep and you will see what I mean. Black/Latin Philly has an STD infection rate that is just off the chain many of these Womens behinds are glowing in the dark(!) and Tyrones supposed to wife that!?!? Really?
Why???
So, yea, there are some very simple, pragmatic reasons for how and why a Brotha dont want a Woman whos been doing her own little version of Debbie Does Dallas #150, because of all the STD infection risks in Black America. I gotta go put on a HAZMAT suit just thinking about itugh
O.
@Morpheus 82:
LMAO!!! *crying from laughing so much*
You killin em, Man!
LOL
O.
Hans remarks a bit upthread about the relative malleability of female attraction triggers is actually spot-on; Ive been meaning to discuss this more in detail, and hopefully, will be doing just that this coming Spring.
So much to do, so little timewhew!
O.
But then most men are too invested in scarcity and immediacy of potential and maybe lifelong sex to challenge that notion. They know they are coming out of the consolation bracket and will do their own rationalizing of their prize. Thats probably one of the few bugs as features that keeps the marriage business, in business.
No doubt, men have their rationalization hamsters as well. I dont know if Rollo coined it, or took it from elsewhere, but I like his concept of making virtue out of necessity. I think a great number of men are very skilled at that move, particularly those with strong white knight instincts. On another forum, there was a guy who by his own description of his life history was a complete and total loser with women for most of his 20s and didnt sound like he had many male friends either (hey I was a loser with women myself throughout college but I can admit it) but what I found amazing was his ability to make a virtue out of all it. He was better then all of it, above all the typical young man socializing.
The guy who marries the single Mom with 2 kids by 2 different guys who is divorced twice. He tells himself he is going to be the good father to those kids who are not biologically his. Now this could be true, and it could even be a good thing especially for those kids, but lets be real here. It is also a function of the market value that guy is bringing into the table. The truth is he likely cannot do better in terms of a woman with less baggage. If he could, he would, but once the decision is made it is totally reframed not from market realities but altruistic virtue. Perhaps this is necessary to the human condition. To live with our choices, we must make peace with them, and that requires exorcising anything that creates cognitive dissonance.
#88 Perhaps this is necessary to the human condition. To live with our choices, we must make peace with them, and that requires exorcising anything that creates cognitive dissonance. Powerful stuff. Or, maybe just a rationalization of rationalizing. Is it necessary to my sanity that I think I always made the best choices (given the information at the time etc)? I say no.
O.
LOL. Im right there with you. Im one of those risk-averse types when it comes to this stuff. Always have been. Growing up in the AIDS scare kind of set the tone as well. I find a lot of it just viscerally repulsive so milage does become an issue as does mate selection. Those cads can leave a lasting lesson for some women.
Ive actually had two much younger women tell me they acquired such treasures along the way. I just had to pass. Ive made it this far without herpes, Im not going to roll the dice at this point.
The other had one of those HPV strains that turns their cervix inside out. She was one of those good midwestern values kinda gals who followed the herd into hookup land after she broke off an engagement at 21 [table for a different day: the number of good-looking women I know who have had multiple marriage proposals from age 18-25, from their boyfriends, who have declined].
By the time I met her when she was 23, she had already logged too much time riding for my taste. We became good friends, though I suppose she was orbiting me as she always wanted to have more with me. In any case, I was deeply saddened for her. I held her hand while the GYN burned precancerous cells off her babymaker. Some hawt guy one her friends still high-five her over, gave her that treat after a ONS. From what I understand, hes still at it and shes got her questionable fertility as a result. Yeah, Im not particularly interested in being the guy who follows that.
After years out of the market, I find that now the younger subset are often quite risky and the older women are often doing their best to catch up.
@Morpheus:
Boom and hence, why I give anyone singing the praises of assortative mating a serious side eye. Why?
Because, the implication is that like goes with like and therfore, happy! when there is just way too much evidence out there that this just isnt the case.
The guy in your scenario: sure, he could settle out and in so doing, is seeking his own level but, like you said, lets keep it 100 is that guy, *really* happy with what he got? Id argue strongly, that the odds are that he is not.
Which raises a lot of questions in our times today, dont it? I mean, theres even a book that talks about this: Going Solo. Check it out
O.
@Morpheus
Good points. And happy birthday. Im actually logging 41 next week. The 40 mark is when the choices in terms of habit, exercise, diet, etc. start to pay off or demand payment. Genetic lottery can help too. My dad aged well. Fingers crossed. Most of my male friends my age look great. They are the active/adventure types and it shows. Most women my age are not as fortunate. Approaching 40 there is a significant physical divergence in this regard. It is what it is.
I cant help biology. I do prefer the sub-30 cohort. My last two GFs were 7 and 14 years younger. But Im also kind of an eccentric and cerebral and thus place a high value on the intellectual connection as well as the shared cultural markers of women closer to my age. Read: closer, not same.
I dont DQ myself from the younger women but I have neither the interest nor the mental ability to plug into most of what drives the younger lot. Some of my friends enjoy it; they find them to be easier (on many levels). I tend to prefer atypical women out in the tall grass. I dont facebook or any of that, dont watch TV, and texting annoys me. So like a good dinosaur, I roam the tall grass for the young unicorns hoping to catch them pre-carousel.
Met one last weekend. Darling. A geologist. Leagues ahead of her peers. Attached to a nice beta science type guy. I liked him a lot too. Too bad for me, but that guy should lock it down. And vice versa.
Yes to stated vs revealed preferences. Yes to appropriate vs superficial standards. Im the same: I just have to leave.
I would like to be married. Kids possibly but I am realistic about my age and what that means re: provisioning. Im at an interesting crossroads on many levels. I dont make much $, and really dont have a definable career carved out. But thankfully when I sold out for 15 years, I was able to secure a decent financial situation. I could theoretically go MGTOW and never really have a 9-5 career again. But the straight-up provider role changes that.
Im tired of feeling like I need to find the new yoke to wear, but I also understand that I am a disciplined producer and will only be happy when I am making, creating, leading, working. I understand that I dont fit a particular mold. But I also have no desire to, nor do I desire an off-the-line millennial model who will be looking for the plastic guy on top of the cake.
He was better then all of it, above all the typical young man socializing.
Hes a classic Nice Guy as laid out in No More Mr. Nice Guy. Our culture has cast many a mold of him, only to then shatter them mercilessly in the various grinders awaiting such men around every corner.
Tasmin says:
A starving artist thing at 20 has lost its romantic appeal when done at 40. I’ve been in situations where the women ask what I do because of my conversational ability and general knowledge of a lot of topics. “How do you know about all of this?” goes to “So what do you do?”
Sounds like were in the same boat. The last time that happened to me Id had my best year ever, made near 6 figures and only worked 7 months. A nice arrangement except that 7 months was lengthy tour of the some worst of the places in the USA. Poor gal could not understand how the blue color artist wannabee had such a solid grasp of energy policy, renaissance history, and yet could claim to be huge fan of The Ramones. Maybe if Id been drinking Dos Equis it would have made more sense to her.
And what you said about rummage sales is exactly why I used that term. I think all single people over 35 are bit scratched up, perhaps like new but not new. Some are serviceable, some arent. Just more work to filter, and some harder compromises, less margin for error if looking for the long term.
Im not so sure social policy as much as sex ratios had to do with the social upheaval in the early Soviet. Remember the civil war, Great war and communist executions took many young lives, not to mention the exodus of the cream of the society in the White Russians.
The manosphere tends to gloss over male excesses and puts all the blame at the feet of cads and women rather than introspect and consider the broad male participation.
The sexual licentiousness of the Roaring 20s and Swinging 60s was created by men exploiting low sex ratios (caused by the wars) not female infidelity, while a lot of men locked down wives early a lot of men also exploited the circumstances not necessarily just a minority of cads.
A lot of social policy change was caused by men simply being dicks (remember in the Soviet it was men doing the divorcing, abandoning and necessitating abortions). Anyone who lived behind the Iron Curtain will tell you how women often had to sleep with apparatchiks just to get jobs to survive.
The problem we have today is that the social policies have gone too far one way and will invariably eventually have the opposite effects.
Men need as much social restraint as women, the problem policy makers have is that they dont understand men must be restrained through women not independently of them.
A lot of really interesting stuff here.
Re: informational asymmetry: I do wonder if even if there isnt widespread knowledge of the terminology used here, nonetheless this kind of thinking is widepread and intuitive. I mean, my boyfriend is not even remotely red pill I dont think and hes made a passing remark several months ago about how people single in their 30s are weird. I presume he meant women but who knows? It could speak to his own desire to exit the SMP before then.
Regarding lane changers, I just find it so difficult to believe that these women can be experiencing genuine romantic attraction for the men they are settling for. Love map theory posits that our earliest sexual experiencing become cognitively entrenched so that we begin to associate those traits personality or specifical physical traits with sexual reward. It explains how fetishism arises and why Tommy Lee always had girlfriends and wives who looked alike (lol). I understand priorities and trade-offs but to me, genuine respect for and attraction to ones mate seems to big a sacrifice to make. Then again, I dont know what it is to have the overwhelming desire for children and hear that biological clock ticking. Who knows what crazy things that leads women to do.
Bastiat, I agree with all your points in #42 with one caveat: from what I have seen, those women who are higher-earning in condition 2 tend to seek out marriage more robustly than lower- or average-earning women who intend to continue working. For them, it is a marker of success rather than a necessity; its become a status symbol of sorts that says Ive arrived. They are aware of the attendant risks; I know of 2 such women who are higher-earning than their partners (albeit, both men still have high-status jobs, they just dont earn as much money), and for them they both had to have the beautiful wedding ceremony.
Han Solo Really interesting food for thought in #78, Ive pondered those very things myself; how much of our attraction triggers are environmental? Ive read that women who have a good relationship with their fathers are more inclined to seek out men who resemble him (!!). I largely agree with much of what is said here. I think socialization both in the home, in their local community, and the greater society at large plays a huge role in what women find attractive.
@Obsidian I dont think those trumpeting assortative mating as a solution are doing so with questionable motives. I think it is genuine optimism and a desire to reassure, as well as a bit of projection. If you yourself are happily mated with someone within 1 or 2 points of you in the SMP/MMP, then youre naturally going to think that others can easily pair up with their equal and be happy, as well.
Men need as much social restraint as women, the problem policy makers have is that they don’t understand men must be restrained ‘through’ women not independently of them.
Actually, I think that is exactly what policy makers think; that men are socialized through women and that is why there is a latent bias that mothers should have custody. The belief is that only their mothers can truly make them behave. Well, that, and the fact that most men do not contest primary custody going to the woman simply because they know that they work too many hours to supervise the kid properly and someone has to do it.
Actually, I think that is exactly what policy makers think; that men are socialized through women and that is why there is a latent bias that mothers should have custody. The belief is that only their mothers can truly make them behave.
The problem is the empirical data doesnt support this. Men raised by single Moms do worse in school, have higher juvenile delinquency rates, are more prone to crime and ending up in jail. Now maybe this would also be true of single Dads, but we dont have that to compare against because they dont get full custody so our only comparison is the 2 parent household.
Regarding lane changers, I just find it so difficult to believe that these women can be experiencing genuine romantic attraction for the men they are “settling” for. “Love map” theory posits that our earliest sexual experiencing become cognitively entrenched so that we begin to associate those traits – personality or specifical physical traits – with sexual reward.
I think there is a lot going on here, and not all cases are identical. I think in some cases you have a woman who manages to convince herself, and then down the road experiences buyers remorse. We know women initiate most divorces. We know the Im not haaapyy phenonemon exists. How prevalent is another question, but I believe firmly that a decent amount of female initiated divorce is from women who were reluctant brides/wives to the man, and one day they just decide it isnt for them anymore. Google Jenny Erikson. She essentially married her beta orbiter and had to be dragged down the aisle by her father I think to go through with it. Again, how common that is I do not know.
I think there are also women who decide I want to be a Mom and have kids and at that point the next acceptable provider/drafthorse who comes her way will do. Speaking bluntly, my own mother fits this description. Two of us siblings often wonder how in the hell did these two people decide to marry. Ive had conversations with her where basically she says at point X in time she wanted to be a Mom. She never said she just grabbed the next random guy, but it doesnt take much to leap to the conclusion that deep romantic love and attraction took a backseat to pragmatism and wanting kids. To be clear, I love my Mom. In many ways, she was an awesome Mom (except for preparing me for the opposite sex) but she was not a good wife, and in all fairness my Dad was not a good husband so from my perspective it was a wash. Again, I dont know how prevalent this is, but anyone who tells me it simply doesnt exist is so full of shit.
A few years back, I was having a conversation with my sister, and this conversation really stuck with me. She is pretty picky when it comes to physical looks and baseline physical attraction. She was telling me what some of her college friends who were married with children were telling her which was stop being so picky on physical attraction and just find a decent guy who can be a good Dad like they did. Youve got to read in between the lines here a bit, but it was clear these women hadnt married men who make their pussies drip.
FWIW, I dont judge women who make these trade-offs harshly. If I were a woman with competing interests such as go for the guy who gets me soaking wet versus the guy who will be a good Dad, Im not sure what I would do. What I do judge harshly is the deception and obfuscation. The decent provider guy has a right to know exactly what he is signing up for. Maybe hell take the honest deal on offer with full transparency. But is BS to repackage the deal and try to sell it for what it isnt.
@johny
J: I’m not so sure social policy as much as sex ratios had to do with the social upheaval in the early Soviet. Remember the civil war, Great war and communist executions took many young lives, not to mention the exodus of the cream of the society in the White Russians.
Han: Well, we know that before divorce was easily allowed that virtually no one was divorcing so the social policy had a big effect. No doubt more young men than young women die during most wars but we know that boys outnumber girls so wed need to know what the numbers were before and after. Here it says that 1.7MM Russians died during WWI http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html
This link shows the Russian population at 112MM in 1912 and falling to 101.5MM by 1920. Not sure how much of those were due to war, famine or other things. But after that the population rises. I imagine many of the deaths were the old and the very young, along with many young and perhaps not-so-young (middle-aged) men as soldiers.
But the famine of 1921 likely took more lives and there it could be more women that died than men. Estimates of the deaths during the famine range from 1-6 million.
J: The manosphere tends to gloss over male excesses and puts all the blame at the feet of ‘cads’ and women rather than introspect and consider the broad male participation.
Han: Cant speak to every instance of the sphere but here at JFG we have talked about m/f ratios quite a bit, focusing more on WWII and its aftermath but also talking about other eras.
J: The sexual licentiousness of the Roaring 20s and Swinging 60s was created by men exploiting low sex ratios (caused by the wars) not female infidelity, while a lot of men locked down wives early a lot of men also exploited the circumstances not necessarily just a minority of cads.
Han: In the link above, only 117k Americans were killed (plus more wounded) during WWI so although that would have some effect I believe that the economic prosperity of the Roaring 20s was a much greater factor than having a slightly lower number of men. Somewhat of a tangent but a lot of the licentiousness was more petting as opposed to intercourse. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
During the 60s, Im not sure how many non-cad men were sleeping around with multiple women, though I dont doubt it was increasing but I bet a lot of the average type guys were sleeping with their gf and maybe theyd break up and then marry their next gf. If you have some more specific info on this it would be interesting to see. Admittedly UK data but we saw how women of the 2000s had 3x as many partners (5.65) as grandma in the 60s (1.67) and 2x as many as mom in the 80s (3.72).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7450868/Young-women-have-three-times-as-many-sexual-partners-as-grandmothers-did.html
I think it was more the changes in women than men that caused the sexual revolution in the late 60s and 70s, though men in general had some influence and the most attractive men had a lot of influence and the apex males in charge were sufficiently supportive of the changes to allow them to happen.
J: A lot of social policy change was caused by men simply being dicks (remember in the Soviet it was men doing the divorcing, abandoning and necessitating abortions). Anyone who lived behind the Iron Curtain will tell you how women often had to sleep with apparatchiks just to get jobs to survive.
Han: I wouldnt say it was necessarily men as in all or most men but as the Disastrous 1920′s article said it was the bold and the strong, not the shy and the weak, that were acting like Don Juans.
So, overall, I think that having more young men than women dying during the wars would have some effect but I think that it would be more the social policies that allowed polygynous-attractive cads and hypergamous women to run wild. However, I think that there could have been many cases where older men would divorce their wife to search for a younger woman and in cases where a lot of young men were not around then the younger women might accept to marry the older man. But this still doesnt mean that it wasnt cads that were doing it. Men who would frivorce their wives to then take advantage of whatever man shortage existed would be cads and thus it would have been cads.
Also, the Atlantic Article had a fairly femcentric POV so we dont know how many women frivorced their boring-beta husbands for the hope or promise of something more exciting.
J: The problem we have today is that the social policies have gone too far one way and will invariably eventually have the opposite effects.
Men need as much social restraint as women, the problem policy makers have is that they don’t understand men must be restrained ‘through’ women not independently of them.
Han: I agree. Feel free to point out where you think Im wrong.
Here you go Jen
http://www.jennyerikson.com/2011/07/12/my-wedding-day/
On July 13, 2002, my dad dragged me down the aisle. (EDIT-Reluctant Bride)
He was my shoulder to cry on when I went on bad dates. (EDIT He was the emotional tampon)
And then, this man that I loved more than life itself, but only in a platonic fashion just the hour before, asked me to marry him. (EDIT He was her buddy)
We made the rounds and laughed and talked and had a heck of a good time. It was ok. I knew I’d picked a good one. (EDIT OK? Rationalization of no attraction picked a good one)
Im told by some women NEVER marry men they are not really strongly attracted to. Clearly, that is complete horseshit. It happens. The material question is with what frequency. I dont really know.
@johny
Another thought is I dont know what % of men are cads. Perhaps Im coloring things by the West where it seems more like 75% of men probably arent really cads but maybe in Russia a higher % are. In my travels through Latin America and in talking with people there and latina gfs Ive had, it does seem like theres a higher % of cheaters and cads and players or would-be players there than among American men.
Good points. And happy birthday. Im actually logging 41 next week. The 40 mark is when the choices in terms of habit, exercise, diet, etc. start to pay off or demand payment.
Thank you. Fellow Pisces.
Overall, Ive done well on that front. I had about a year stretch a decade ago around my first marriage where I let myself go (hard to stay focused on clean eating and regular workouts when the rest of your life is crumbling) and about a 2-year stretch in 2010-2011 where I let things get bad because I had prioritized work, my side business, and personal trading over workouts, but Im feeling really good where I am now and know by the end of my 40th year Ill be back to where I was. Im like youI lucked out with the genes. My family trees are filled with people who lived to their 80s and 90s and my Dad at 74 sometimes passes for late 50s. Ive never smoked in my life outside of a cigar here or there, and always drank in moderation.
I cant prove it, but for 20 years Ive been taking a ton of Essential Fatty Acids. Right now, every day, I have two tablespoons of Udos 3-6-9 Oil Blend. Here is an excellent book if you have never read it
http://www.amazon.com/Fats-That-Heal-Kill-Cholesterol/dp/0920470386
Turning 40 is interestingI suspect turning 40 for a man is similar to turning 30 for most women. At 30, I still had the feeling of limitless possibilities. All options were still on the table. At 40, I realize the trajectory of the last decade has taken certain option offs the table. For some of the younger guys like ADBG, Ill note if you want to climb the corporate hierarcy you have to do so at a reasonable pace. If you havent made appreciable career progress by 40 (reached some management level) it is unlikely you ever will because you will be viewed with skepticism. Why isnt the guy already higher up the ladder? It is kind of like a never married person by 40. There is some presumption of damaged goods.
So I feel like 40 is kind of like a reassessment of what is still on the table. I still have the crazy dream of being the next George Soros. Haha. But you have to aim high.
A few weeks ago I went on to the basketball court for the first time in a long time. Just wanted to see if I could touch the rim. I couldnt. Now Im 63 with long arms and at 25 I could dunk easily and now I couldnt even touch the rim. Father Time is undefeated. There is a guy who work outs at my gym about 10 years older than me, he worked out there when I first joined at 21 so he was in his early 30s. The guy routinely did 405 on the bench for clean reps. Approaching 50 he is down to 225. Every time I see him we commiserate over the loss of strength as we age. I was pushing and pulling some crazy weight about 7-8 years agocant do it anymore. Ive also noticed my mental processing isnt as fast. I cant do math in my head like I used to be able to do. So Ive been coming to terms with all that. Im going to fight it all the way to the grave though. I cant beat the downslope of the mountain but I can slow it down.
@Morpheus 98:
Boom! 100% cosign. My sentiments on the matter of lane switching fall exactly in line with yours I have no problem with the fact Women, like Men, are hardwired for both short and long(er) term mating; what I DO have a problem with, is precisely what you laidout in your response to Ms, Jen that Women often deceive and lie about it, all the while cajoling Men about ethics and integrity. Let the truth about your sexual past be known and let the chips fall where they may. Who knows, that guy may still want you for his wedded bride.
Or then, maybe not
O.
Han,
Have you looked at the changes in sexual behavior in France post WWI? That would be an interesting comparison to the Early USSR. French casualties being quite a bit more significant (about double Russias as percentage of population, and mostly men), and the lack of a civil war in the aftermath would provide a cleaner set of demographics when accounting for sex ratios vs behavior. Might help suss out some additional understanding of how the Soviets policies exacerbated any SMP/MMP dysfunctions.
@Ms, Jen 95:
Actually, wrt assortative mating, I think the people who big it p the most are those who are in their UMC and usually White, or failing that, honorary White, kinda like yourself, and either have no clue or simply dont care as to how their neat little notions of assortative mating actually play themselves out for everyone else in society. For example, those who tout assortative mating the most always do so within the context of the college educated and White Collar working; they NEVER discuss it for anyone else, and that is NOT by accident as far as I can tell. It almost comes accross as self-congratulatory navel gazing than anything substantive and that has any real applicability outside of their bubbles.
So, in light of those facats, I maintain what I said that assortative mating is hardly a panacea, at least once you get beyond the demos who it is most is talked about. Hence my bringing up Tyrone and which Ill be returning in my ongoing series of posts looking at mating and related issues from his POV. Which leads me to the next few questions, for you
The other day, you said that you would ignore me, specifically as aBlack Man, and which got me to thinking I am wondering why you hold such a viiew of Black Men in general, given the fact that, by your own admission, you know precious little about them in the USA, and encounter them rarely if at all in yor native, what, Toronto? I see that youre very quick to give White guys the benefit of the doubt.and I notice that on more than one occasion here you have gone out of your way to promote Swirling, with your recent reference to Ms. Evia Moore being a case in point. I am just wondering why you have such animus toward Black Men. Is it personal, or what?
O.
@johny
One more thought. I do agree that men will usually have more power when there are more women and then how that power is used will depend on what those men want within the confines of what the culture of the day allows. In more promiscuous and cadlike societies, I imagine that men would use that power more for caddish ends, though even there, the more attractive ones will have more success than the less attractive ones. Perhaps this was the case in Russia.
In the US, during and right after WWII, it seems that most of the men and the culture were not cadlike players and they used the power of the favorable ratio and economic prospects to marry earlier.
Han Solo says:
In the US, during and right after WWII, it seems that most of the men and the culture were not cadlike players and they used the power of the favorable ratio and economic prospects to marry earlier.
Two things unique to that time:
1. Scarcity mentality; the entire generation had grown up in the Great Depression and then straight to war.
2. George Marshalls management of the economy during the war; in particular beginning the conversion to a post war consumer economy in the summer of 44 avoiding the sudden chaos of peace and demobilization.
Nothing else like it in US history.
Just tagging. ..
Google Jenny Erikson. She essentially married her beta orbiter and had to be dragged down the aisle by her father I think to go through with it. Again, how common that is I do not know.
I read The Stir and I know who she is. She was a teen bride. That alone says it all. The reason Christians are more likely to divorce is because they marry too young just so they can have sex. Its parental stupidity that causes it.
FWIW, I don’t judge women who make these trade-offs harshly. If I were a woman with competing interests such as go for the guy who gets me soaking wet versus the guy who will be a good Dad, I’m not sure what I would do. What I do judge harshly is the deception and obfuscation. The “decent provider” guy has a right to know exactly what he is signing up for. Maybe he’ll take the honest deal on offer with full transparency. But is BS to repackage the deal and try to sell it for what it isn’t.
And thats fair enough. If I were a man I would want to know if my partner was making a rational decision to be with me or if it were based more on genuine attraction above all else.
No disagreements Han, completely agree with your analysis, just playing devils advocate to fully flesh out the underlying mechanism behind the Soviet disaster and how it will manifest in the West as we seem to be going down the same path.
Was it hyperagamy, cads, sex ratios, disenfranchised males, economic bustI dunno.
Though I do have a sneaking suspicion that the involuntarily celibate beta male was peculiar to the West post baby boom marriage squeeze generation, anyone born prior to 1980 will have experienced more males than females in the mating market.
This trend has been going since 1900 (apart from the post war periods) but in the 80s the birth rate has leveled out and we will soon see whether the beta male is the default position.
#94 Re: effect of Civil War. In mean ours. Approximately 6% of all U.S. males were killed or wounded in 4 years, and of young single men 18-30 over 25% of the North were killed or severely wounded and about 50% in the South.
No rampant licentious of young women followed.
However, I think that there could have been many cases where older men would divorce their wife to search for a younger woman and in cases where a lot of young men were not around then the younger women might accept to marry the older man. But this still doesn’t mean that it wasn’t cads that were doing it. Men who would frivorce their wives to then take advantage of whatever man shortage existed would be cads and thus it would have been cads.
So you concede, then, that many cads are married?
From a female standpoint then feminism makes a lot of sense, doesnt it? I mean, if you marry into an era when everyone does it and few divorce then how do you know who youre marrying (if hes a cad or not), and whether he would divorce you to pursue someone younger given the chance and if sex ratios allowed it? If those women had been raised in a climate that allowed for them to support themselves or at the very least have alimony, they wouldnt have been so bad off during the famine/after the war. This sounds to me like literally a life or death situation.
#110 Jen, the problem is women think men should be pleased to be providers.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/winter-olympics/torah-bright-says-she-wants-a-big-man-in-bizarre-esquire-interview-20140221-337ty.html
Tru wuv to women means a man is happy to please her while she cares nothing for him.
For example, those who tout assortative mating the most always do so within the context of the college educated and White Collar working; they NEVER discuss it for anyone else, and that is NOT by accident as far as I can tell. It almost comes accross as self-congratulatory navel gazing than anything substantive and that has any real applicability outside of their bubbles.
All I can say is that this isnt relevant to me. My boyfriend is college-educated, yes, but hes working in a very blue collar job. We make about the same salary actually, I make a little bit more than he does at present but I still feel like I got a very good deal and have not had to settle. So to reiterate, when people sing the praises of assortive mating they may be doing so because they dont understand why others cant just be happy with their equal (for instance, I dont understand for some women why its so important that their mate work a certain kind of job.)
The other day, you said that you would “ignore” me, specifically as aBlack Man, and which got me to thinking – I am wondering why you hold such a viiew of Black Men in general, given the fact that, by your own admission, you know precious little about them in the USA, and encounter them rarely if at all in yor native, what, Toronto? My experience with you in online discussion pretty much mirrors my experiences in online debating with other black-culture-identified black men; completely fruitless. Its not so much that Im giving the white guys here the benefit of the doubt as you are the only admin who has deleted whole posts of mine instead of editing out the parts you didnt like. Quite simply, from past experience, I dont like their style and rather than workaround it or continue putting effort into posts that will just deleted for annoying you (per your own statement), Id rather just skip them and go on to other posts; its easier. IRL I dont have animosity towards black guys, I just dont really know any. I have had one really good guy friend whos a black guy nice guy, but our friendship hit the rails when he started dating a girl who is demon hellspawn.
@O I should probably add that all the black men in my family live in the US and I dont see them very often. In Canada, all the women have married white men so there is nothing but white men on the Canadian side of my family. There are huge differences in culture between the Canadian and American sides of my family so the contrasts to me are pretty obvious and stark.
“Tru wuv” to women means a man is happy to please her while she cares nothing for him.
Stop projecting. If true love to women means that because youve offered one example, then true love to a man means being able to deepthroat a 22-year-old whenever he wants and hiring hookers behind his wifes back while she makes him sandwiches and he sits scratching his ass. And he thinks hes entitled to that because he pays most of the bills.
My statement makes more sense than yours does because misogyny is more rampant than misandry, so there are actually more men who hate women and think that way than women who hate men and think theyre only good for their wallets. Any doubts? See comments at Jezebel. Theyre supposedly feminist extremists and yet dont spout the vitriol about all men that you people do about all women, which proves my point.
@O I guess worth noting as well is that on the American side of my family, the men may be hardworking, but they are ALL cheaters, without exception. On the Canadian side, some of the men have been cheaters, but more have not been. The reason for divorce has always been the same in my family; the men were cheaters. I have one cousin (Canadian side) who was with a man from 18-34 who she wanted to marry and have children with but he was diagnosed bipolar in his late 20s and she hung on for far too long and wasted far too much time. So here she was, 34 and back in the SMP (my aunt, her mother, finally pushed her to leave him by forbidding him from family gatherings). Later that same year, she met a man 8 years her senior and they are now married with one daughter. She was never a carousel-rider. Anyway, some of the comments about women older than 30 in the SMP seem really unnecessarily harsh and judgmental to me, and just sound like rationalizing because men feel like they need an excuse to do what they want to do, which is chase after significantly younger women. Sometimes I feel like saying, Theres no need, guys. We know its biological. No need to pathologize women your own age. I mean, men dont like it when women do it to them (man up.)
@HanSolo 83
I was more thinking of repentant learning, realizing that cads don’t commit and assholes aren’t good for relationships short or long, and changing their ways, ideally out of a realization of what is worthwhile as opposed to the falling sands of the hour glass.
I know, building empathy is on my to-do list. Id like to believe Im more of a skeptic than a cynic, but I also dont see a whole lot of realization as you suggest. I see more like recasting past choices as learning experiences in order to rationalize some new-order priorities as relationship preferences.
Rollo spells it out better than I could.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/19/the-epiphany-phase/
This turning point, changing lanes
a woman facing the Wall and attempting to reconcile a past of eschewing offers of genuine intimacy with (albeit probably beta) guys and her own hypergamous impulses during her 20′s.
Her realization
Better late than never right? Unfortunately no. While I’m sure this realization will seem ennobling to the more moralistically predisposed mindset, what you see now is the expectation of a new appreciation for her insight which was prompted by her need, not a genuine introspective.
Why her past sexual choices are inextricably linked to her relationship preference going forward:
When a pre-Wall Anderson makes a conscious effort to remove sex from the equation in order to bring her more “clarity” about a man’s long term value what she’s doing is attempting to dissociate hypergamy from that process. In doing so she devalues the important sexual aspect of a relationship and turns off the men she’d probably fit well with because she believes that sex is the foil in her past failures, not herself, not her ego-investments, not the delusions the feminine imperative has saddled her with. Sex isn’t her problem, her innate hypergamy will eventually reveal this to her, but it’s how she’s been doing it and the late hour at which she’s come to her “new” epiphany with all of its urgency.
The sell job men must navigate, the reframe, and shaming/controlling of how men perceive and value the present stated desires in light of past choices
A woman in the Epiphany Phase is looking for a “fresh start” for a much more visceral reason than some newly inspired sense of self. This motivation prompts all kinds of behavioral and social conventions to facilitate a man’s commitment to forgiving her past indiscretions. As Roosh has pointed out more than once, it’s women in this phase of life (or the mothers of women in this phase) who most vocally complain about men’s lack of interest in committing to them. As Hephzibah is painfully aware of, women in their peak SMV years don’t complain about a dearth of marriageable men– “Man Up” is the anthem of women in the Epiphany Phase.
The past is the past, all that. But repackaging those past choices into something that the next man should not only be precluded from judging how he sees fit (and often shamed for doing so), but also something he should actually value as accretive to the relationship (potential or existing) is just not a premise Im buying into.
The vacillations between pride/shame, meaningless/meaningful, agency/victimhood, fun experience/learning experience, and indulgence/restraint WRT her past sexual/relationship choices does not make it any easier to work through the actual motives, values, desires of women in the epiphany phase either. The past can be crafted with such polarity that those choices can be empowered decisions she is proud of or stupid mistakes she was thrust into by forces beyond her reach, depending on the (next) man in question. The only unifying force is that the entirety is essentially exempt from (negative) male judgement.
@Ms, Jen:
Ah. Thanks for the very interesting response. It gives me a unique insight into your worldview. OK, so let me get this straight:
Your worldview about Black Men, particularly American ones, is based on your interactions with an unspecified number of them on the Internet, and another unspecified number of them in your own family. Perhaps no more than 100 if that? Oh, and the lone Black guy friend you had. Very erudite!
You still havent answered my question as to you you think it proper to refer to Swirling issues topics and writers, especially when the topic has nothing in the least with such things? Please explain?
Thanks
O.
#94
Sex ratios are vastly overrated:
heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/sausage-fest/
@Johny 111
As interesting and tragic cases studies about huge M:F ratios we can turn to China and India to see what is and, more importantly, will happen. In China, By 2030, projections suggest that more than a quarter of Chinese men in their late 30s will never have married. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/04/inside-china-s-mistress-industrial-complex.html
Interestingly, the women in China have tremendous sexual and marriage power. Some will use it to marry well but others love their independence and become mistresses. This is a female version of the player/dad potential options when men have more power.
I may do a post on China at some point.
@Tasmin 119
I definitely agree that many womens changing lanes isnt due to some deep introspection about themselves but simply a response to the diminishing option and the passing of time. Men should be wary of such women and make sure that if they are going to LTR/marry them that she is sufficiently into HIM and not just trying to get one of the last musical chairs.
I was simply trying to point out that there are some women who do try a jerk or twos cock and then realize that such men are only in it for sex or arent good for relationships and they really do change who they go for. Those are the kind of women that I think in todays Fempire of raunch and entitlement should not be judged as harshly, similar to how the unguided or misguided beta male can be forgiven for not just getting it at first.
@Jen 113
Of course some cads marry. Cads come in all levels, alpha, greater beta, beta, omega. Of course, the more attractive they are the more ability theyll have to cad it up.
No doubt, throughout history there have been many cases where women are mistreated or cheated on by their cad husbands but I also strongly believe that feminists and marxists exaggerate such historical misdeeds in order to rile up women and trigger mens protective instincts in order to usurp more power.
In the West today, women dont need to marry cads or jerks. And the men in womens life no longer have the ability to really intervene beyond perhaps trying to convince her not to marry the jerk.
So in todays West, the bulk of the responsibility lies with women and too many of them are marrying the jerks instead of the guys that would love to treat her well. And by doing so (or by just having casual sex or STRs with them) these women are rewarding jerks and disincentivizing men who would/do treat women well.
“I just want to have fun for now. I want a guy so hot that I can’t help but rip his shirt off and make out. But in the future I want a guy who knows what he wants and who can take care of me. I want a big man.”
AFBB.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/torah-bright-tough?click=feedsrc=spr-TWITTERspr-id=1456-44702797
HH2
Good post from Heartiste on sex ratios. As I said above, I do think that sex ratios give some power to the smaller number but how they use it is dependent on their innate leanings, cad/dad for men, slut/wife for women, and the cultural limits on those leanings.
I think that the men of the northern part of the West tend to be more dad-like in their innate leanings while Latin, Latino and African men lean a bit more to the player side of the spectrum. Indians and Chinese? Most of them seem pretty beta and tend to have pretty bad game. The high-up Chinese men with mistresses? Statistically, theyre total outliers but are they representative of the desires of the average Chinese man? Perhaps but I think the average Chinese man would simply be happy with one woman.
The changes in the late 60s happened as the Boomers came of age. The men who had survived World War II got married and did not cad around. Thats why the 50s is stereotyped the way it is
#117 its not my fault that women are so bad. For the contempt that most females exhibit towards the beta males who show long term love towards them, there is no male parallel.
I read The Stir and I know who she is. She was a teen bride. That alone says it all. The reason Christians are more likely to divorce is because they marry too young just so they can have sex. It’s parental stupidity that causes it.
Jen,
Seriously? Seriously? GTFO with that shit. Teen bride?
I tried to do some Googling to establish her exact age at marriage, but I highly doubt she was 19 or below when she married that chump Leif.
Even if she did, that is a crock of shit. From her own words, it is clear she married/settled for a beta orbiter that she had friendzoned and then went through mental gymnastics/contortions to convince herself she did the right thing. Im sure she may have had some external influence, but the primary driver there was marrying a man she never really felt romantic love/attraction for. Her chronological age at marriage is a non-factor in the eventual outcome. Seriously, that is some straight up stupid fucking shit. Ill respect you and engage respectfully if you bring thoughtful comments. Ill have harsh contempt for stupidity. We dont do stupidity here.
Seriously? Seriously? GTFO with that shit. Teen bride?
She said this two days ago: http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/168696/what_the_promarriage_culture_gets
If true, the stats on teen brides are abysmal, this is nothing new.
@O #120 I dont see the point in the back and forth. I tried to tactfully disengage with you, but I can see that you prefer the direct approach.
My opinion is based on my experiences AND hard data. Black American men have the highest marital infidelity rate (estimates range from 33-44%, and yes I can produce the data), the highest domestic violence rates, and black women who marry them have a divorce rate more than 60% higher than those who marry interracially (hence why I said that those whose MMP is high enough to appeal cross-racially should at least consider swirling). In addition, years ago I encountered research suggests that black women are less likely to tolerate infidelity than their white counterparts, and more likely to initiate divorce when confronted with it. All the evidence suggests that theyre just not compatible as mates.
Beyond that, I have been to the States 20-30 times. The black American men who approached me were often, for lack of a better term, ghetto. I have had the uncomfortable experience of having them call out to me Hey lightskin! Yo, lightskin one! from a moving vehicle, and that was here where the black men are generally way more civilized than in America. I am a risk-averse person and given that black male/black female interactions are fraught with more risk than literally any other combination (at least in America), from where I am standing, it just seems like common sense.
You may disagree, and thats fine. I see no point in arguing it.
She was married at 19 1/2. That is really pushing the limit on teen bride. And it is a dodge in terms of the fundamental flaw of her marriage.
To be clear:
1. Im not a Churchian
2. I dont believe in super young marriage. In my mind 19 year olds should NOT be getting married
3. I dont have any issues or moral qualms about premarital sex
It was stupid for her to marry at 19 1/2 and shame on the people who advised for it. That said, the fundamental flaw of settling for her beta orbiting chump she already put in the friendzone is something older women do as well with the same eventual outcome of the woman initiating divorce. To be clear, the guy who goes along with this is also to blame for being a moron. Based on what Ive heard about this situation for example, this dipshit Leif seems to have learned nothing from what happened. He wouldnt get any sympathy for a second time.
Yes she was a teen bride19. But the bigger story is that she chose to marry someone she didnt love. Notice how she wanted to marry her bf she was in love with but he dumped her and so then she settled for her beta orbiter, perhaps because she thought she was used goods. Notice how she says she strongly wanted to marry bf #1 but never mentioned that about bf #2 who she ended up marrying. Though much younger than the typical lane changer that does so in their late 20s or 30s, she changed lanes when she was 18/19 because she felt like she was washed up. Most women dont feel washed up at 19lolbut many that remain single to 30+ will start to feel like they better find someone.
http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/165776/how_purity_culture_pressured_me
Excerpts:
Ok, let’s work back a few years to my first very serious boyfriend. I was 17. I was in head-over-heels, infatuated teenager love this dude. I wanted to marry him someday. I’d had boyfriends before, but this was the first one I had ever really loved.
After almost a year of dating, we did the deed.
I thought it was all good, because even though he didn’t know it yet, we were totally going to get married someday. I was sure.
That guy ended up breaking my heart, and all of a sudden, I had this shameful, awful secret I wasn’t a virgin anymore.
Fast-forward a few months after the terrible breakup, and I started spending some time with a guy acquaintance. I even tried to hook him up with some of my girl friends! He was a bit awkward, but confessed to me that he wanted a wife. At his request, I taught him how to talk to girls, took him shopping for new clothes, and before I knew it, he was my closest confidante.
One night over Mexican food, I confessed to him that I wasn’t a virgin. He didn’t care. I’m skipping over a lot of the in-betweens here, but two months later we were engaged. I was a month shy of my 19th birthday. We were married seven months later.
I had wanted to wait another year before getting married, but I was so grateful that someone wanted to marry me that I didn’t insist.
He didn’t want to wait, you know because ZOMG SEX AND WE MUST BE MARRIED ASAP!
Han Solo, with all due respect, the girl was under intense pressure from a church/cult community and her own father who believed that if you did not get married by college forget ring by spring insanity youre pretty much washed-up. I dont think either one of us can really understand what its like to be in that situation. I have spoken to dozens of men who think its crazy that teenagers are being asked to decide their whole future career at 17 years of age. If those same men turned around and said, But its totally fine for women to decide who theyre going to spend the rest of their life with at that age, I would laugh in their faces at the idiocy.
No way in heck teenagers should be saddled with that kind of responsibility and yes, we should expect these outcomes when they are. She was a full 6 years away from her frontal lobe even being officially set which would render her the most capable of making rational decisions. Is it any coincidence that that is the exact time when the divorce rate falls off (lowest after 30 though)?
It was stupid for her to marry at 19 1/2 and shame on the people who advised for it. That said, the fundamental flaw of settling for her beta orbiting chump she already put in the friendzone is something older women do as well with the same eventual outcome of the woman initiating divorce. To be clear, the guy who goes along with this is also to blame for being a moron. Based on what I’ve heard about this situation for example, this dipshit Leif seems to have learned nothing from what happened. He wouldn’t get any sympathy for a second time.
Well, I dont disagree here. Women who marry men they dont really know or love at any age are setting themselves up for future failure. But the divorce rates indicate that they are either more in love, more committed, or both when they are allowed to at least reach adulthood before making a lifelong commitment to another person.
Jen, in the article I linked to and the one you linked to she makes it clear it was the sex outside of marriage is bad idea that caused her to feel like her value was lost once she wasnt a virgin and so she settled for Lief. She didnt say that it was primarily the pressure to marry young (though provide the link and quotes if she has said that elsewhere).
Actually, I can understand what it is like to be in a marry-young culture since I grew up in one. Both my mom and my sister married at 20 and are married to this day and have had good or very good (though not perfect, who does?) marriages.
Back to Jenny, the problem was MUCH more in marrying someone she wasnt in love with than the age at which she married.
Also, I think the whole frontal lobe thing is overratedsure, no doubt it has some effectbut I think a much larger influence is the culture that enables an extended adolescence into the mid-20s or so.
I think the whole frontal lobe thing is overrated me too. It does nothing but get me in trouble.
Jen:
To pile on, the Jenny Erikson saga is a result of her marriage to a man she didn’t love and wasn’t attracted to. It has almost nothing to do with her age, nor does it have much of anything to do with her religion. It’s the fact that she didn’t love Leif nor want to jump his bones when she married him.
BTW, your comments at 117 and 118 are quite illuminating. They tell me pretty much everything I’d need to know to understand your worldview.
I still think that the cultural expectation and economic necessity to grow up, or the lack thereof, play a greater role than frontal lobe development but what if the frontal lobe development is one part of AFBB. As teens, girls are more likely to follow their tingles and be more impulsive and get the AF as opposed to think longer term and feel a bit more actual attraction (yes attraction, though settling and coming nearer to the wall play a large role as well) to provider-status kinds of things.
So at 17 the charismatic jock/jerk who isnt the best student is the most attractive but at 27 he no longer is but the guy who has a decent job and isnt boring but isnt as exciting as the jock/jerk is seen and felt to be a better match.
To whatever extent the frontal lobe does mediate such a change, perhaps its natures way of encouraging the lane-changing version of AFBBget pregnant with the AF when younger and then find a BB guy later to help care for the AF children and also have a couple kids with the BB guy.
Anyone care to guess the ratio of the number of heartbreaker alpha cads who leave a slew of alpha widows in their wake to the number of harping termagants who make their beta husbands lives miserable deliberately? Is it as high as 10:50, or is it closer to 5:75?
@deti 139
Jen is typical of women who will say theyre NOT feminists and yet believe much of what feminists say, for example that theres more misogyny than misandry. At least in the West, thats just not true.
But its a sign of HOW successful feminism is when its inculcated its views into the majority of women and men so much that even though most wouldnt say theyre feminist, in fact, they are to some significant extent.
Actually, I can understand what it is like to be in a marry-young culture since I grew up in one. Back to Jenny, the problem was MUCH more in marrying someone she wasn’t in love with than the age at which she married.
To pile on, the Jenny Erikson saga is a result of her marriage to a man she didn’t love and wasn’t attracted to. It has almost nothing to do with her age, nor does it have much of anything to do with her religion. It’s the fact that she didn’t love Leif nor want to jump his bones when she married him.
Theyre unavoidably linked. If she wasnt raised in a culture that made her feel like she had no value for having had a whopping one prior sexual partner Im sure she wouldnt have married the first man who paid her any attention. And you guys cant cite and value data only when it suits you; the majority (upwards of 60%) of marriages occurring at her age end in divorce. Most people in love at 19 are actually just in lust and dont know enough about themselves and their partner to know what true love is. Im glad you guys know a few exceptions, though.
Jen is typical of women who will say they’re NOT feminists and yet believe much of what feminists say, for example that there’s more misogyny than misandry. At least in the West, that’s just not true.
Unfortunately, my impression isnt based on anything feminists have said, but just based on reading comments sections of gender-related articles on mainstream sites. Also, Jezebel is supposed to be the #1 rabid feminist but I never see anyone there making sweeping statements about how all men are evil, but MRA sites like RoK routinely make comments and even whole articles about how ALL women are cheaters and sluts.
So my impression (that there are more misogynists) is based on the words of men themselves and the manosphere, not what feminists say.
I still think that the cultural expectation and economic necessity to grow up, or the lack thereof, play a greater role than frontal lobe development but what if the frontal lobe development is one part of AFBB. As teens, girls are more likely to follow their tingles and be more impulsive and get the AF as opposed to think longer term and feel a bit more actual attraction (yes attraction, though settling and coming nearer to the “wall” play a large role as well) to provider-status kinds of things.
So at 17 the charismatic jock/jerk who isn’t the best student is the most attractive but at 27 he no longer is but the guy who has a decent job and isn’t boring but isn’t as exciting as the jock/jerk is seen and felt to be a better match.
To whatever extent the frontal lobe does mediate such a change, perhaps it’s “nature’s way” of “encouraging” the lane-changing version of AFBB–get pregnant with the AF when younger and then find a BB guy later to help care for the AF children and also have a couple kids with the BB guy.
This is all a very interesting theory. I have no idea what the evolutionary significance is. But it affects boys too, so maybe thats why historically both violence and innovation were more common in under 25s (although recently innovation has begun peaking in the late 30s).
Im entirely different from the majority of women who lose interest in their sexual partner within a few years for no real reason despite what those women say is the real reason. Because I really did have a real reason: I simply couldnt stand the sight or sound or smell of him anymore.
#143 And you guys can’t cite and value data only when it suits you; the majority (upwards of 60%) of marriages occurring at her age end in divorce. but we arent claiming that her marrying relatively early was a cause, we are claiming that her sleeping with at least one prior boyfriend was the cause. What are the rates of early divorces for virgins compared to nonvirgins?
[] appears to be an attempt to make up for a persons unattractiveness. That is, boyfriends are ugly and never make a pretty woman your []
I dont know how this is connected, or even if it is. But I remember reading in the early to mid 90s that after the Fall of Wall and the breakup of the USSR, the divorce rate in Russia was the highest in the (nominally) advanced world. This was a minor theme of Le Carres Russia House.
Jen 145
The higher violence and rebelliousness of young males (or some young males) could be an attempt to take the high-risk strategy of coming out on top as an alpha male and reap the sexual rewards of getting young, hot pussy. Most men dont become the alpha of the gang or the high school quarterback but those that do get a lot of women or can choose one hotter woman.
So that would be the flipside for males, engaging in competition and dangerous activities to rise in popularity to be one of the few young men that clean up with a number of the young women that are following their hypergamous tingles that perhaps tingle more strongly at a younger age.
Also, Jen, I think that the fact that you didnt directly get your views from feminists is consistent with what I said, that feminism has so permeated the culture that people get it directly from the culture and parents as opposed to from activist feminists themselves.
As to ROK, I do think that some of their articles are somewhat or even outright misogynistic, like the article that says that all women have no loyalty.
At JFG, we tend to be of the view that women and men exist on a spectrum for whatever attribute is being examined.
@ jf12
http://www.justfourguys.com/female-divorce-risk-calculator/
According to the calculator the increased divorce hazard going from virginity compared to nonvirginity changes for strict moral Prots under 21 from 15% up to 30%, for 21-25 from 7% to 17%, and over 25 from 4% to 10%. So nonvirginity multiplies the hazard by 200%-250%.
O @ 105: The other day, you said that you would ignore me, specifically as a Black Man, and which got me to thinking – I am wondering why you hold such a view of Black Men in general, given the fact that, by your own admission, you know precious little about them in the USA, and encounter them rarely if at all in your native, what, Toronto? I see that you’re very quick to give White guys the benefit of the doubt.
Now youre clowningas if the general answer isnt obvious. LOL!
(Was the boyfriend she kept years after determining that he was a loserfaulting her history of family traumaof African ancestry? Either way.)
@Ms. Jen:
Several things.
1. Wrt assortative mating: this may come as a shock, but the discussion isnt about YOU it is about those in the media, and academia, the opinion makers and thought leaders, that we are talking about along these lines. That being said, what I have said stands: that it is erroneous to imply, that because like attracts like=happily ever after. It is contingent on factors that in some circles is known as the Scale and the higher one is on it, in my view, the more likely they are to achieve happiness being equally yoked. It is my view that one of the reasons as to why there are so many singles, of both sexes, in our time today, is precisely due to the fact that a lot of people simply do not wish to pair off with someone who reminds them of their own relative low SMV. In a time when the sexes simply do not need each other as much as they once did, this would make perfect sense.
2. As to your comments and stances regarding Black Men in particular again, you didnt answer my question, which you have a penchant for doing. I didnt ask if you had data, I asked HOW MANY BLACK MEN DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW, SPECIFICALLY FROM AMERICA??? Give me a number: is it 50? 100? 1000? 10K? 100K? You say youve visited the USA some 20-30 times fair enough. Exactly WHERE in America, and Black America specifically, have you gone? Have you traveled throughout the South? The Northeast? The Midwest? Have you been to Morehouse? Howard? Hampton? Have you been to Prince Georges County? Have you spent any time among the Divine Nine? Or has all your time been spent among ghetto Blacks?
You see, I think a big part of your problem is that of confirmation bias, and you said as much in your earlier response to me upthread. By your own admission, you already come to the table with a number of preconceived biases against Black Men, rooted in an extraordinarily small dataset. So, sure, you can rattle off some data that supports your point, but I can just as easily point to quite a few Black Men who are happily married, who dont cheat on their ladies, etc. In fact, I know a Brotha who just became a widower after his wife died of breast cancer. They had been married shortly after coming out of highschool (there goes your theory about people getting married young; recall my own parents doing something very similar; my mom was 19 at the time, and remained married till my dad died).
In fact Ms. Jen, my family stands in direct contradiction to your supposed thesis of the five of us kids, three of us have married, and the only one who isnt is also no longer alive like my parents and grandparents, this sibling also didnt separate till death did they part. The two surviving siblings remain married to this day, well over a decade in both cases, to Black Men (they happen to be my sisters; my other sibling who is deceased was my older brother). ALL of my elders, remained married, without incident, unto death. Indeed, unlike YOU, Ive never known divorce or family disruption never saw it, never experienced it, dont know anyone in my immediate or even extended family who has either.
Now, lets make it personal: Ive been single all my life, turned down two marriage proposals from Women, and have never once never lied to a Woman to get in her pants, nor have I cheated on a Woman either. And Im not alone I know easily a dozen or so Brothas personally, who dont get down like that either. One of them is by bestie, of some 15 years; another of more than two decades.
So, while, yea, I wouldnt deny what your data says, I can also point to quite a few Brothas who dont get down like that, and because you dont know them but I do, I think Ill lean to my own understanding on matters pertaining to Black America, over yours.
And while were on the topic, let me hit you with this:
Has it ever occurred to you, that it might be something about YOU, that keeps bringing certain kinds of Black Men into your life? I mean, if ALL you attract are ghetto Brothas, what, ultimately, does that say, about YOU?
Similarly if you keep encountering Brothas online who resond to you in much the same manner I have and keep in mind please, chances are very high I do not know them could it be possible that it is something about YOU, that keeps eliciting this level of response from Brothas?
Hmm?
See, let me hit you with something else: it is not your disagreement that I have a problem with; it is your utter disregard for a Brothas boundaries. If I am discussing water buffalo, and you come into the room discussing buzzards, what is wrong with this picture? The polite thing to do is to at least pretend like youre going to discuss the topic water buffao and THEN, introduce the buzzard convo.
But you see, you dont do that. You just barge in, trample over a Brothas boundaries, and commence to discussing what you want to discuss, without any regard for the topic on the table. You dont answer direct questions. You bring in things that were never part of the discussion to begin with. And so on. And this explains how and why I have, and will likely continue, delete in whole, your offending comments. If you were to just address the topics AS PRESENTED, your post-to-deletion ratio would be a lot lower.
Finally, on Swirling: it is my view, that we do not yet have enough data and information to say, for certaiin, and as it pertains to America, how such marriages turn out. Indeed, the past few years have offered some anecdotal evidence that Black Women in such pairings are MORE likely to put up with all manner of abuse from a White hubbie, than a Black one (much of the abuse centers on racist/racial themes). On some levels, this would make perfect sense; in that White Men are at the top of the SMV food chain, and Black Women at the bottom (above only Asian males), it would make sense for the lesser valued mate to tolerate more abuse from the higher valued one.
At any rate Ms. Jen, by all means are you entitled to your opinions.
Too bad they arent more informed by actual life experience.
O.
123 Han Solo says: February 26, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Those are the kind of women that I think in today’s Fempire of raunch and entitlement should not be judged as harshly, similar to how the unguided or misguided beta male can be “forgiven” for not just getting it at first.
You had me going for a minute there. These women dont get forgiven until betas get for given for not getting it. So Not going to happen.
As to your comments and stances regarding Black Men in particular – again, you didn’t answer my question, which you have a penchant for doing. I didn’t ask if you had data, I asked, I didn’t ask if you had data, I asked HOW MANY BLACK MEN DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW, SPECIFICALLY FROM AMERICA??? Firstly, you didnt ask that question directly, you said, Your worldview about Black Men, particularly American ones, is based on your interactions with an unspecified number of them on the Internet, and another unspecified number of them in your own family. Perhaps no more than 100 – if that? Oh, and the lone Black guy friend you had which is not actually a question at all, and thus there is no question to evade or to directly answer. Secondly, its actually irrelevant. All opinions discussed here on topics ranging from female hypergamy to government policy are based on a combination of anecdote and data. You may not agree with the data nor like the anecdotes, but that doesnt immediately discredit them. Just like you are entitled to your own anecdotes and opinions, no matter how absurd, about interracial marriages which YOU do not partake in, others are entitled to their own views about African-American marital dysfunction and general incompatibility. O, hypocrisy doesnt become you. Tell you what: instead of throwing a hissy fit on threads where you cant just delete my comments, you just ignore them? Would that not be more efficient?
@Ms. Jen 157:
LOL OK, so let me get this straight when all else fails, you resort to namecalling? Such a move always implies desparation; a tacit admission, that one is losing the argument and the debate.
You say that my question is irrelevant; I beg to differ because it drives right to the heart of the matter, that being, your strong anti-Brotha bias. Do you have the right to be ignorant? In America, YES, you do. But the problem, is that you tout yourself as something other than ignorant. You tout yourself as someone who is thoughtful and intelligent, and informed. So, how is it possible that you can hold two such wildly divergent ideas in your head at the same time? You do know what they call such a thing, right?
Whos being the hypocrite now?
All youve proved is how much in common you have with Internet Bigots, who basically ape all the things you say about Black folks all the way down to you/them having a bestie whos Black. Now, again, here in American, they have every right to be a bigot, mis-informed and ignorant as the Hatfields and McCoys but I also have the right to call them on it. Not by lowbrow namecalling, but by asking pointed questions and presenting countervailing evidence that directly contradicts their own.
In no way do I disregard the data you present, Jen I only offer another side to the story that, by your own admission, you are wholly ignorant of. You cannot possibly know Black Men like the ones Ive known and in many cases, are related to; to you,a Brotha like me, whos never lied to a Woman, is an alien concept. While that is most unfortunate, it does not represent all Black Men. Ms. Eslpeth and Ms. V&S, two Sistaas whove posted here regularly, are additional cases in point. Both are married to Black Men without incident. I highly doubt you have met either.
I once heard something that I think youll find interesting:
When the facts are on your side, but not the law, you pound the facts.
When the law is on your side but not the facts, you pound the law.
When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, you pound the table.
Take a wild guess which one you would be.
Oh, and please get therapy. Seriously.
O.
Did Jen actually say that all the black men in Canaday are man-whores who do nothing but have sex with lotsa women all day, and so Canadian black men all move to the US to do that because American women are sluttier? Or was that just me?
Good to see you Desiderius. How’s it going?
Bought a new house and took a week off for the move and rehab, so been hooping online for a break here and there.
Youre doing good work here.
Thats great you bought a house. Congrats on your marriage which was a while back I think.
Thanks. I hope were helping people understand the reality of human nature and society a bit more so they can know how to best navigate their way.
Desi,
Congrats on the new house, and thank you. That means something coming from you.
Thanks. I hope we’re helping people understand the reality of human nature and society a bit more so they can know how to best navigate their way.
Heh, that used to be the churchs job. Thx for picking up the slack while we get our heads pulled out of our collective asses.
And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
I don’t know a lot about Russian history, but I do know that incentives vary depending on the nature of a society. People in societies on the pointy edge of survival are going to behave differently from those in societies with vast material wealth…because they have a completely different set of incentives/disincentives. Societies that are functionally inefficient and very corrupt and predatorial are going to cultivate disproportionately far more predators; a result of the incentive/disincentive equation…with will in turn create a different set of circumstances for everyone else.
Let’s jump to China for example, after the collapse of the monarchy, during the same timeframe (1920s). Violence was given full reign and by 1928 there were eighty-four separate armies roaming around China, plus eighteen independent divisions and twenty-one brigades. Millions died as warlords fought back and forth looting and pillaging. In one 5-month period the city of Iyang changed hands 72 times among various bandit armies. From an official report: “When they capture a person for ransom they first pierce his legs with iron wire and bind them together as fish are hung on a string. When they return to their bandit dens the captives are interrogated and cut with sickles to make them disclose hidden property. Any who hesitate are immediately cut in two at the waist, as a warning to the others.” Think Game of Thrones. “Assholes” (caddish or otherwise) are far more the norm than the exception in those types of environments, because violence is a day-to-day part of existence and life becomes very cheap.
So, respectfully, it seems to me that applying principles like the “gina tingles” and “alpha/beta” paradigm to an atmosphere where everyone is literally starving is a bit like applying the standards of the Special Olympics to the “real” one. There are far more violent and evil people in societies like that…it cultivates them, parentless, starving and without a value system that places any respect on the lives of others. It’s simply a matter of historical (and present for that matter) fact that people behave differently in such environments.
The few people at the pinnacle of existence in Russia during that timeframe COULD behave that way (satisfying every gina tingle), but the millions and millions of schleps in steerage (basically the vast majority of the entire population) won’t because it’s a luxury they couldn’t afford…unlike today, there were massive disincentives for it (starvation, disease, creating starving children and/or abortification under primative medical conditions). Disease is a big one, consider it is believed that Lenin likely died of syphilis. It was just a bad time, and I think the main thing to take away from the information is that dissolution of the family is bad, absent parenting is bad, and perverse incentives lead to violence and mass starvation.
Just to add, Id recommend the book Doctor Zhivago if youre interested in a truly sobering historical depiction of what life was like then in Russia. Truly inconceivably bad. And that word inconceivable in this case, means exactly what I think it means. (Couldnt resist the Princess-bride reference)
Liz, a few facts about Russia. The population did decline by 1920 but then began to rise after, so even though things were bad it was still not that bad in terms of population growth and within a few years (by 1926) the population surpassed its former levels. The Atlantic article was in 1926. http://www.populstat.info/Europe/russiac.htm
I agree that chaotic situations will often unleash predatory behavior. I have no doubt that caddish behavior increased so that a larger % of men were acting like cads but I dont think I said otherwise. But even in a society with a greater cad influence, and especially one where the population was growing from 1921 on, the women could still fall in love and had some choice in who they married. Look at the anecdotes. The first wife that was burned to death by the second one kept trying to get him back. If it were purely about survival she could have gone with some other man (even some other cad). Plus she had enough free time and energy to harass the ex and the new wife. People on the brink of starvation dont have that kind of energy.
The young girl who ran off from the interview and was finally chased down was still in love with her former husband. If it were purely cads lapping up every woman available she wouldnt have been single while the other guy had gone off to get the other woman (we dont know the outcome of that).
The men mentioned in the Atlantic, who have as many as 20 wives and children by all of them, were more than likely getting around much more than the women they were with and got pregnant.
The other article talks about how the whole situation worked in the favor of the bold and the strong Don Juans and against the shy and the weak.
So female hypergamy was one factor in why such men were being chosen and not the shy guys. Also, the unleashed caddishness was a big factor in men (some men, not all) abandoning their wives and going for a new one.
[i]I agree that chaotic situations will often unleash predatory behavior. I have no doubt that caddish behavior increased so that a larger % of men were acting like cads but I don’t think I said otherwise. [/i]
The following statement:
“It’s fascinating how the woman writing the article simply says that men took to changing wives frequently but as we’ll see in the anecdotes she shares, it’s really attractive men that were leaving a trail of alpha widow tears in their wake”
Implies an assumption that a minority of men were the “cads”. But how can we assume that the majority of men didnt behave this way?
[i]”But even in a society with a greater cad influence, and especially one where the population was growing from 1921 on, the women could still fall in love and had some choice in who they married. Look at the anecdotes. The first wife that was burned to death by the second one kept trying to get him back. If it were purely about survival she could have gone with some other man (even some other cad). [/i]
Thankyou for the population informationI tried to find it and could not. I was looking for gender demographics too and couldnt find that. I do agree that if people are having babies its a sign that disincentives for children arent quite as bad as I had envisioned. But then, I have seen photos of starving children during this timeframe, and they made quite an impression. And still do.
My perception of the above anecdotal information differs.
Setting a person on fire is a really drastic action. This is the sort of thing that happens when morality and empathy as we know it are anathema.
There’s truly little in this anecdotal information to offer on the “big picture”. Was it a love interest or self-preservation interest? Was this particular man truly so attractive shed risk it, or did he hold more potatoes than others? (Or, more likely) Did he have more political influence and therefore offer a better chance of survival for the ignited woman if she could just “re-win” him over?
[i]Plus she had enough free time and energy to harass the ex and the new wife. People on the brink of starvation don’t have that kind of energy.[/i]
They do if such “harassment” is the primary way they expect to be able to survive (for whatever reasonmany things could get one killed in the USSR during this timeframe).
oh boo! I messed up with the italics.
#167 But how can we assume that the majority of men didn’t behave this way? because the majority of women only let a minority of men act that way.
#169: Under the prosperity paradigm, thats true.
Thinking outside the box when perverse incentives exist all-around, that isnt necessarily true.
In ancient times before Christ, the Pharisees (lawmakers) of the time had invented debt-based currency and a code of laws for all to follow. Christ was the first real competition they had and the first real political revolutionary. So this ‘Synagogue of Satan’ killed him. In time, they had poisoned all religions, including Christianity, with truth mixed in with lies. They could not hide Christ’s existence, so they sought to sully his teachings, and deceive others’.
By the 330AD, Constantinople was founded, alongside ‘Roman Catholicism’, which became a proxy for a new re-imagined Roman Empire. This new Christianity had false teachings mixed in with truth. The capitol was moved from Rome to its new site, with a further 1/3 move left to put the capitol where it was really wanted by the ‘elite’ of that time. In Jerusalem. But all roads lead to Rome, and the Roman empire collapsed as the trade routes to Constantinople were not favourable.
Over the next century and a bit, many wars were fought in the subverted Christianity’s name. The Muslim religion was founded by the elite as an antidote to Christianity.
By the late 1700s, the House of Rothschilds had beaten Napoleon and gained control of all of Britain through financial manipulation. They established a mighty empire, with the Satanic aim of re-establishing the third temple at Jerusalem, where Constantine had failed. They financed both sides of all wars and continue to do this in the present day, having staged the Ukraine anti-government ‘revolution’.
The UK is the financial power. The Vatican is the political seat, where the last Pope (Petrus Romanus = Peter of the Roman/US empire) is bringing in ecumenical teachings, into the Church, which arguably goes against Christianity. Lastly, the US is the military arm, and has been used in the last few decades to establish dictatorships in various nations, with the excuse being given to the general public that ‘a world police’ is needed.
We are now in the end-game. We all know the bankers are the hidden hand that controls society, for none of the big names were prosecuted following the financial crisis. We can see/feel something is wrong. Kissinger had recently suggested that ‘Israel will cease to exist in 10 years’. The Iraelis are actually Edomites from the Caucausus, and are being used to establish the third temple from which the fabled Antichrist will rule. The real Israelites are spread all over the world, with only a handful in Israel. In any case, we will see scripture be fulfilled at some point in the next few decades, but the cost in terms of human suffering will be immense. People of all races and creeds will suffer and fight, at the beckoning of the Satanists, who see themselves as the true rulers of the human race and as benevolent people.
Truth is hard to find in the modern era, but this researched account is as close to the truth as we will get.
[] full of freely acting rakes is ultimately doomed and will suffer a lot of heartache along the path to destruction. These facts lead me, and I would argue any true neoreactionary, to whole-heatedly endorse []
[] the other hand is quite rare, at least in the wake of leftoid destruction of society. A madonna is a chaste and loyal women who a man can be reasonably sure bore his children. Men []
[] the other hand is quite rare, at least in the wake of leftoid destruction of society. A madonna is a chaste and loyal woman who a man can be reasonably sure bore his children. Men []