Dalrock, a manosphere traditionalist with a great love of charts and statistics and other accoutrements of SCIENCE, has managed to figure out a way to stretch “don’t be so picky, ladies, or you’ll get old and ugly and no man will ever want you” out to 1500 words.
Here are a few of them:
Men foot the searching costs in the marriage and sexual marketplace (MMP & SMP). This means bearing most of the risk of rejection and expending the bulk of the resources to facilitate the process of meeting and getting to know one another.
Oh dear. We’re off to a very unpromising start here.
As the ones who bear the costs of courtship, men have a strong incentive to minimize the number of women they court and the overall duration of time spent in the process. However, as the consumers of courtship, women have an incentive to draw the process out as long as possible and to receive courtship from as many men as possible.
Here’s some surveillance footage of an average American woman being courted by several men.
But now — get this — the ladies are waiting longer to marry!
Just think about what this does to the dude navigating the marriage market hoping to “maximize his Pareto efficiency,” if you know what I mean and I think you do.
He needs to manage risk vs reward. When courting, there are two fundamental risks. These are the risk of wasting resources on the wrong women, and the risk of rejection harming the man’s reputation/MMV.
So watch out, ladies, because if you wait too long, guys are going to decide you’re not much of a bargain!
For a man who is managing the risks of courtship outlined above, the age of a woman is very important. The older a woman is, the more likely it is that she is very picky and/or not seriously looking for a husband.
Exactly! Because women never change their mind because they’re, you know, in a different stage of their life or anything.
Older women also are less attractive from a courtship perspective because they have used up more of their most attractive/fertile years, and while their attractiveness for marriage has declined their expectations for courtship have only increased.
This reminds me of that famous joke, you know, where that woman approaches Winston Churchill at a party and says, “Sir, you are drunk.”
And he replies: “And you, Bessie, have used up your most attractive/fertile years. But I shall be sober in the morning, and you will still have used up your most attractive/fertile years.”
That Churchill, what a card!
Consider the 25% of current early thirties White women who still haven’t married; unless they are terminally unattractive an awful lot of courtship has almost certainly been wasted on them.
Are there really a lot of guys who look back on the women they dated in their twenties and think, “boy, I wasted a lot of courtship on those gals! I mean, I wasted nearly 14 courtship on Jessa alone!” (Also, who knew that the women are always the ones to blame when heterosexual couples in their twenties break up?)
They aren’t just bad bets for courtship today, but (in retrospect) they clearly were bad bets for courtship for the last 15 years. …
Put simply, the extended delay of marriage by women has placed marriage minded men in a dilemma; older women are (generally speaking) known bad bets for courtship, but half of early twenties women are also poor bets for courtship.
Well, you could always marry a dude.
There are only two logical ways men can respond to women’s extension of courtship.
Wait, really? Please, please, please, let one of the ways be “marry a dude.”
The first logical choice is to recognize that these women are debasing marriage, and decide to “court” for sex and not marriage.
Damn. Anyway, sexual relationships are fine, but you are aware that there are other kinds of relationships — sorry, “courting” — besides sex and marriage, right?
Ok, we still have one more. Marry a dude. Marry a dude. Marry a dude.
But while “courting” for sex is a logical choice, it is not a moral choice, and we still do see men courting for marriage. For these men, having a fairly low age cutoff makes a great deal of sense.
That’s your, er, “solution?” Marry a teenager? Or a woman at most in her early twenties?
As Dalrock knows, but doesn’t want to believe, those who marry when they’re very young are much more likely to divorce than those who marry when they’re older. For evidence, see this chart, which I found elsewhere on Dalrock’s own blog:
But hope springs eternal for modern misogynistic manospherian marriage market minded men (MMMMMMM).
But katz, telling dudebros they can’t have their own facts is MISANDRY!
The SPINSTERS stuff is so funny because, hey, what’s the average age here? We have a fair percentage of people who’re 40+ but there seem to be just as many commenters who’re in their 20s, and we even have a handful of teenagers. I’m pretty sure that an 18 year old can’t be described as a spinster by even the most creative misogynist.
@ David Futrelle
“No, Michael is right. I didn’t let through a comment of his that was unnecessarily personal. The gist of it was that some commenter’s husband was a loser. And some other observations of similar value. Perhaps in the interest of FREE SPEECH I should have let it through, but I don’t think the world has lost much in being denied these pearls of wisdom.”
David,
There was nothing wrong with the comment I wrote. It was within the rules of your censorship. It provided 4 answers to Cassandraskitty in regards to her admission of “having it all” AKA being promiscuous and landing a “quality” man which you deleted. These choices apply to any women with a promiscious past who lands a quality man as defined by objective (not subjective) criteria.
To simplify it:
1) She is extremely attractive
2) Her husband is unaware of her admitted sexual history by her omission or (in the majority of cases) deception
3) Her husband is a loser as defined by myself and other men (low income, unattractive, marries a single mother, need a place to stick, best he can do etc)
4) Her husband was more promiscuous than she was and does not care.
This applies to any women who has landed a quality husband after intentionally engaging in a promiscuous past. Far out exceptions to the bell curve not withstanding (i.e. Jenna Jameson getting married etc).
Oh Michael, every time I think you can’t possibly come back with more stupidity, you do.
Followed by, not criteria at all, but apparently the only four categories that she/her husband could fall into
Addressing your points, one by one:
1. Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. What is attractive to one person, is not attractive to others. For example, when I was in my 20s I had a friend who thought Val Kilmer was incredibly attractive. I’ve never thought of that actor as attractive at all. Ergo, attractiveness is subjective. Assuming that love was a key part in the marriage decision, then one partner finding the other attractive is a given. Your “point” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
2. For those of us who have had a few partners before we got into our current relationships, I think you will find that a number of us don’t actually talk about every single person we have ever had sex with in the past. Because that’s crass, and actually completely irrelevant to the current relationship. Also, the older one is when one gets into one’s current relationship (and assuming the other person is about one’s age and wasn’t in one relationship since school), then one can assume that probably there was more than 1 or 2 sexual partners. There is the presupposition here that women being sexually active is a negative – this is what you believe, but here is no ethical position that supports your view. No harm = no problem. So this second “point” of yours is also subjective.
3. Her husband is a loser as defined by myself and other men. This is completely subjective, as no-one made you the arbiter of defining “loserness”. You’ve listed some “reasons” but all they do is show how bigoted your position is. So what if you find the woman unattractive, her husband didn’t. So why should your opinion on the woman’s attractiveness trump that of the husband? Answer: it shouldn’t and doesn’t, and see my point 1. Your “single mother” reason is one of your more morally offensive “points”, and that is saying something.
4. So you seriously think that couples sit down and do some sex algebra before they decide to get married? I was going to say that you’re an idiot if you think this, but all the rest of what you have typed has already shown me that.
LOL and look, now it tries to science.
Michael, if I were you, I would stop making prognostications about other people. Because you’re always wrong.
katz, he can’t possibly be wrong. He used the phrase, “It’s just a fact” — which we all know is second only to “And that’s real” as a way of certifying the truthiness of what a person is saying.
Also, clearly SPINSTER is an acronym for something. Anyone know what it is? Society for the Protection of Intentionally Not-married (to Michael) Spinsters That Exist and Rejoice?
Ooh, a numbered list! Numbers are science!
I like #3:
So, is there like this, Secret Man Guild that meets and hammers out all the criteria of loserdom, and all men have to abide by it? Is loserdom like DSM critreria, where you have to have a certain number of loserish qualities before being diagnosed as a loser, or are you automatically a loser if you meet any of the qualifications? Like, what if a billionaire brain surgeon, who’s a professional snowboarder in his spare time, marries a single mother with several kids? Is he automatically a loser? What if he’s “ugly” and she’s “hot?” What if he’s “hot” and she’s “ugly?” There’s so many different possibilities, figuring out before hand which men automatically qualify as “losers” must be a tough job!
Mikey, there’s no such thing as objective standards in attraction. Donald Trump is rolling in money but plenty of people find him repulsive. Ditto plenty of other rich men. Not all men are as quakingly insecure as you about a woman having had other sexual partners. (Are you really so terrified women will point and laugh, or just dismiss you as sexually selfish and inadequate, if they have anyone to compare you with?)
Plus – nobody gives a flying fuck what you, an anonymous internet misogynist, thinks of our partners. Frankly you aren’t worth being spat* on by my man (though in his day, he might just have done that, manners being what they were). And yeah, he’s had more partners than I have. Not that many, and I don’t care two hoots; I’d like to meet them eventually, his past loves.
Oops, I said that dirty word. The word Michael and his kind cringe from, because these rusted-out tin men haven’t got it in them to love.
*look, I’m being topical! 😛
People speculating on this site that I’m this or that are free to say whatever they wish however you’re simply wrong. I first “came out” on Dalrock after years of observations. The article I “came out” is directly related to this thread:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
Screen name: Michael
The facts:
I’ve never been married
I have no kids
I’m educated
I run my own practice and business (hence the fake email address provided to David on this blog)
I’m not sexually promiscuous
I’m monogamous and have always wanted to get married to one person for the rest of my life until modern women and taking the red pill ruined the fantasy for me.
I am a nice person (regardless of what you think). I’m not a pussy. If you need a pussy look elsewere
I made $178,000.00 net profit after taxes in 2013. I can physically point to what I have and what I’ve accomplished. I do not need to prove anything to any 30+ or SPINSTER on this website.
I live directly on the beach in Los Angeles, CA. DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH. Did you hear me? Let me repeat that for you in care you missed it: DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH. I can easily afford this.
I will not allow myself to be victimized by entitled women who sees me as “just another penis” or an Alpha Widow who will emotional destroy me and legally steal half my assets because she feels entitled simply because she has a Vagina.
My mistake was putting women up on pedestals, or perhaps not taking an ultra religious no sex before marriage route of marriage and children to achieve what I went to college for.
Most of the women responding on this site: All you can do is name call and talk trash.And for those of you questioning the statistics on Dalrock sound like a child screaming “prove it! prove it!” after proof has already been provided to the child and the child does not like what she sees. All the statistics on Dalrock contain links to the studies and websites. Even his photos and images contain copyright references!
All of you have to be INSANE to think guys are oblivious to what is going on and the charade will continue unnoticed. On paper I am a textbook example of the type of man women claim they want to nail down after they have “had their fun”. A man who is loyal monogamous make sa good husband father etc and who can pay off all their years of student loan debts and credit card debts (NEVER GONNA HAPPEN). I’m the man they want to have kids with if for no other reason than to extort child support payments, assets and alimony when they decide they are no longer haaaaaapy and “deserve better”.
When a guy like me becomes aware of this – you have problems. Again this the above ASSUMES women want a quality man which I do consider myself to be. Yes many women on this site are happy with “Mr. Good enough” and they don’t mind settling for less. But most want their equal or more and my point is that if you continue to follow this path of lilly padding from one Alpha cock to another you will end up an OLDER WOMEN lowering your standards for “Mr. Good enough” and if you are not willing to lower your standards you WILL end up alone. In the recent past this was not the case. We all know someone who was a party slut back in the day who pulled of the con and is now a Soccar Mom or divorcee. However that was then. Today we live in a post Sex in the City Era where information is available at your fingertips and NO MAN wants Samantha’s hand in marriage. Samantha and her friends are SLUTS and WHORES. They are good for only one thing. Here’s a clue: it’s NOT marriage. Ladies the cake game is up. Every con game comes to an end and your cake game is up. Honestly!
There is a reason your grandparents/great grandparents were happily married for 60+ years. And it isn’t because your Grandfather/Grandmother “had their fun first’.
Women are the GATEKEEPERS of sex. And when you are young, assuming you want a marriage and family which lasts forever you are in charge and you have the ability to chose a good husband and father. Additionally researchers have proven relationships formed early are stronger than those who form late. A friendship formed at 10 is stronger than at 18 than at 28 than at 65. There is something called “pair bonding” that results.
That being said I’m happy there are girls who are in their teens and twenties on this site (although I cannot imagine why). If they are aware of what’s going on they might think twice about following in the footsteps of women on this site – who are mostly 30+ unmarried high partner count SPINSTERS.
These women are worthless to guys like me as marriage partners (or even for sex- yuck!) I do not look twice at them and see their advances as an annoyance. I make polite small talk with and book out before the conversation further wastes my time.
My purpose for writing this on this blog is to hopefully prevent you from becoming one of them in the future. To every women on this website: Please learn from other peoples mistakes. Do NOT end up like this women. They are SPINSTERS.
But katz, being wrong all the time is the only way MRAs are consistent. Would you rob them even of this? Misandry!
@ kittehserf
STFU. Here that sound? I’m spinning the roulette wheel and placing my bets on red: You are an OLD SPINSTER.
(Waives hand in dismissive gesture)
Go Away.
Special People In Nice Small Towns Enjoying Reading
My favorite part of Mikey’s latest rant is “intentionally engaging in a promiscuous past”. Even putting aside the tense confusion, is there some way of unintentionally engaging in promiscuity that would be acceptable and not make men like him feel insecure?
Sexy Pirates Imagining Next Sunday Teatime’s Evening Relaxation
@Michael:
Yes, I actually do believe those two points.
It would depend on the meaning of “educated”.
A lawn mowing business is a business, so is cold calling people for insurance. I notice you don’t say what business you’re in.
So what? Irrelevant.
You can be monogamous and be promiscuous. If your fantasy to marry one person for the rest of your life was ruined by “modern woman”, how old are you?
You’re Judge McJudgeyson about women. That means you’re *not a nice person*. The use of a gendered slur also means you’re *not a nice person*.
Nice round figure there dude. I can grab an asspluck too and call it my net profit (which is not the same as income) too for my fantasy business. If you don’t need to prove anything to us, why do you keep coming back and writing more walls of text?
I live directly on the beach in Los Angeles, CA. DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH. Did you hear me? Let me repeat that for you in care you missed it: DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH. I can easily afford this.
I could pitch a tent on the beach and live DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH. I notice you don’t say that (1) you live by yourself and (2) that you own your own home.
None of us on this website fall into those categories, so why are you here?
This is quite true. So I do not know why he continues to brag about himself to us.
Michael, have fun with all your money and your property on the beach. You have still failed to make me feel like I’m missing out on anything.
…Yeah, that’s better.
I think anyone can afford to sit directly on the beach.
Mikey, you are fucking priceless, man. I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. So a little but of friendly advice. Quit. Quit now. No one’s buying it, and you’re just making yourself look really really pathetic and stupid and whiny. But I know you’re not going to stop, so:
1. You make $178,000 a year and live DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH in Los Angeles, CA. You’re a rich, single dude with a great view in one of America’s most exciting cities. So what the hell are you doing, raging all over some blog on the Internet? Now, I don’t believe any of the above for a second, but if I was in the position you describe, I’d be out enjoying a night on the town followed by a nice walk on the beach. But whatever.
2.
Which is why you’re here, typing out long walls of text with all your qualifications. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
3.
Dalrock hasn’t provided a single statistic that backs up his claims, and neither have you. This is how debates work. Unless you have actual evidence to back up your claims, you’re just talking out your ass. Just because you say something is true, doesn’t make it true, no matter how much you want it to be. This is basic 101 stuff, painfully obvious to anyone who has ever taken a college level (or, even, high school level) course on Composition, Public Speaking, or any of the science. All these require you to back up your arguments with evidence. Which is what makes me doubt that you’ve ever been to college, or got a degree that allowed you to get a job that makes $178,000 a year.
4. So your dreams of marriage have been shattered because you learned that -gasp- women, too, like to have sex and that many women aren’t virgins up until the point they met you and actually have past sexual partners and this totally grosses you out? That’s your problem, not women’s, and not anybody’s on this site. Grow the fuck up. I suspect the reason you’re not happily married is that you tend say things like, “women aren’t equal to men” and “any woman who is over the age of 30 and not married is a SPINSTER.” In short, it’s not them, it’s you.
5. “INSANE.” Sure, lets throw some ableism on top of this shit cake.
“My mistake was putting women up on pedestals…”
Step one of recovery is recognizing your problem! Good job! Keep up the good work Mikey!
Next you should try asking yourself why all of your descriptions of women sound like tv and movie tropes of women and not like very many real women at all… hmmmmm.
To everyone else on this blog – please learn from Mikey’s mistakes. Knowing the difference between singular and plural is important.
Nice that he finally admitted what his issue is, though. Aw, all the women your age have more sexual experience than you? Which means that they’ll know if you’re bad in bed and won’t put up with being bossed around in HYSTERICAL BLOCK CAPS OF DOOM? Shame.
Wait, it all finally makes sense! All this time we’ve been trying to figure out what a SPINSTER is, and then he went off about ALPHA WIDOWS.
So basically he thinks we’re spiders. Arachnapobia is awful, dude, we feel your pain, but have you considered therapy?
I live in a gorgeous mansion in the Hollywood hills with an infinity pool and a fantastic view of all of Los Angel … wait. In the Vinewood Hills. With a view of Los Santos.
In Grand Theft Auto 5.
Crap. so close.
But I enjoy my part-time, wholly imaginary life in Los Santos a lot more than Michael seems to enjoy his full-time, quite possibly imaginary life in Los Angeles.
Hey Mikey, what’s so great about living on the beach in LA? I’ve been there. It’s just another beach. Beaches don’t do anything for me. Why do you assume livnig on a beach (allegedly) makes you special? Or that having lots of cash (allegedly) makes you special? You could have $178 million and your attitudes would still make you worthless.
You’d think he’d at least claim to live in Beverly Hills if he wanted to show off.