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).
I live a pretty average life, with a pretty average job, in a pretty average house, in a pretty average suburb of a pretty average American city (though Pittsburgh rocks!). I enjoy my life far more than Mikey enjoys his (imaginary) rock star glamorous DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH in Los Angeles, CA life. Hell, I think kitteh’s imaginary sexy pirates, that she made up on the spot, enjoy their lives a lot more than Mikey enjoys his. At least the sexy pirates have a relaxing tea-time to looks forward too.
That’s really rather sad, but I don’t really feel too bad for Mikey.
And it’s absolutely hilarious that he thinks “copyright references” are equivalent to actual peer reviewed studies.
Mikey’s grammar and ability to spell really deteriorated on this page, which leads me to think he may have been drunk. At 6 pm or so, if he’s really in LA. Drinking at the office, buddy?
I always find it intriguing that MRAs who berate women for being gold-diggers then post wealth assplucks about themselves to show how they’re not losers, but are superior catches for women. Which just proves who is the one that actually has the wealth obsession. And it turns into a self-fulfulling prophecy: if a man goes on (and on, and on, and on…) about his material benefits, then it will attract women who are interested in material things. It will also turn a number of us off, who wonder why the man keeps rabbiting on about material things and not about more important stuff, like their attitudes towards the poor, equity in housing/income/education, and so forth.
People like Donald Trump focus on the material side (and he’s been bankrupt, what, twice?, and inherited his start, so why on earth do people keep investing with him) and look at what a shining example of humanity he is.
That’s not to say that all wealthy people are assholes, I have met some quite well-to-do folks who are very nice, and very philanthropic. But they’re nice people, and they would be nice even if they were less well off.
tl;dr: being wealthy doesn’t make you a nice person.
I’ve been DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH IN LA, and it was kinda grotty. I was very careful not to touch anything, and used my travel-pack of wet-wipes liberally after I left. But then, you know, I’m a SPINSTER (which is apparently a bad thing to be), so what do I know?
There are millions if people more sucessful than me but know your doing better than most of the lemmings when you are called a liar by half of the fools on this website. And to answer the other posters question I live alone and work from home. I do not own a home. I rent. Nobody can afford a home in Los Angeles anymore. The building I live in is scattered full of doctors, lawyers and engineers. To the commenter that said it would not matter if I made 178 million per year correction it doesn’t matter to you becuase you couldn’t get man with money if you tried. It’s a moot point. You couldn’t get a man with money if you tried. Not even one who makes 78k per year let alone my net profit of 178k in 2013. My revenues were over 800k. I do not need to prove anything to you aging SPINSTERS. I’m on here to balance this blog state facts and move on.
To the fool who again claims Dalrock does not back up his statistics all anyone need to do is look at his graphs charts and articles. He routinely acknowledges when statistics show in feminist favor.
And again David the blog owner censored my reposted response to Cassandraskitty becuase he knows the four choices i provided were right on and the truth doesn’t well with him. I will post it once more in another post ad I’m pretty much done here. Dalrock blows this site away. The majority of you ladies have zero factual logic common sense or intelligent responses. This is all mostly low IQ common emotionally based responses. I feel like I’m reading the comments section of a Yahoo answers article.
The shrinking percentage of women who come full circle into their cake and marry after riding a Ferris wheel of sexual partners/encounters during their peak twenties fall into 4 categories/choices:
1) They are extremely attractive.
2) They have misrepresented/omitted their sexual histories to their new husband/deceived him.
3) The husband knows and doesn’t care because he is a loser. Low income, marries a single mother etc, needs a place to dip his wick, a man a few options etc.
4) The husband knows and does not care because he has an extensive sexually promiscuous history which exceeds his wife.
Watch out Manboobz SPINSTER Squadron Alpha, Michael is laying down the law. Michael must be making those big bucks writing for Man Rage Monthly, which has a slack editorial policy and pays by the word.
1) This is from an earlier post.
Hey ladies, if you aren’t good enough for a strip bar, how do you expect to “nail down” a quality guy like Michael?
All this talk about the free market, are you going hit us with a fake F.A. Hayek quote next, Michael?
2) The fact that you are furious at anonymous women (and their loser men) on a comment board and weirdly fixated on Cassandra in a creepy way suggests you aren’t quite the catch you think you are. The fact that you hate women kind of settles it.
3)
Says the 30-something man who calls people (mostly women) party sluts, whores, losers, Alpha Widows (?), and SPINSTERS.
3)
It might be better if you stick to taking 20-something women on vacations and left mothers and children out of the equation then, because yikes.
4)
His photos AND images contain copyright references? That is very exciting, I can see why you used an exclamation point, and it totally proves that Dalrock’s blather isn’t biased pseudo-scientific wankery!
5)
This, I must admit, was hilarious. If Michael is any indication, 2014 could bring us a bumper crop of trolls.
Manboozer Contest Time!
Michael writes SPINSTER in all caps, which means it’s clearly an acronym. What does it stand for?
The ladies’ prize is a loser husband, unless you’re lesbian in which case you win being ignored. Everyone else gets misgendered and/or called a loser, unless they are Dalrock fans. Dalrock fans get the gift of science, male wisdom and copyright references.
I was attacked by the Format Fiend, a distant relative of the Blockquote Monster.
Ninja’d by everyone on the acronym. In my defense it took forever to slog through Michael’s magnum opus.
@ Kiwi Girl
Science has proven is not 100% in the eye of the beholder. It is. But it’s not. Some people are so generically fit and attractive they are objectively attractive. Although you might not have found Val Kilmer attractive in his physical prime most people did and even people who didn’t can say he looks good but I don’t think find him attractive personally. Few people would say Val Kilmer in his prime was ugly or plain. That my dear is called objective beauty. Someone who is a 9 or a 10. Such a women can get away with being sexually immoral in her youth and marry a quality guy at 30+.
Partner count is important to men. Not to women. 1-2 partners is Mother Teresa in 2014. Most women are having 15-100+ partners and this number typically increases up to age 30. The older a women is the higher her number count. Again common sense and gambling odds. Spare me your intelligence of pointing out the exceptions to the rule. The older a never married women is the more sexual partners she has had period.
Actually a loser can be objectively defined. In many ways. And what I find most offensive is the number of women who sleep with losers and become single mothers and how they are coddled and politically untouchable when in the past (1950s) social shaming was used resulting in a single mother (widows are exempted) percentage of less than 10% as well as a divorce rate of 10%. Today 40% of children are bastards. Many born to “single mothers by choice”. Oh wait. I’m not allowed to say anything. Im not allowed right? Please don’t socially persecute me using twisted new moral norms k?
I live directly in an apartment in Los Angeles. IN AN APARTMENT. (Which actually seems preferable to living directly on the beach, but I’m partial to things like electricity and indoor plumbing.) More importantly, I live close enough to work to walk, which means I have the greatest commute in the city.
TAKE THAT, MIKEY!
I used to live in the West End in London. In the West End! Clearly I am the most alpha alpha widow who ever lived.
No beach though, and I wouldn’t recommend surfing in the Thames unless you really like the idea of catching some kind of cholera-like illness.
I’m sure everyone in LA would take “a block away from work” over “directly on the beach” any day.
I’m assuming he means Venice, which I’ve never really thought of as super snooty and exclusive. Or are there other options for living on the beach in LA?
ooooooo, ooooo, what if he’s meaning MRA Island, which is considered part of LA, and has a beach (being an island and all).
Does this mean I get hopeful again with all the MRAs being physically away from everyone else?
We’re shipping the annoying libertarian contingent of the tech community out there with them, right? Let the construction begin!
Nooooo don’t give them the Catalinas!
The catch is that they have to swim out to the islands if they want to live there, and back to shore every time they need groceries. Watch out for sharks, guys.
Isn’t it nice of Mikey to take time out of his fabulous life with his smokin’ hot but naive babe and his wonderful money to tell us all that we only think we’re happy?
Huh. I thought I was happy. I mean, everybody here is either not married or not married to Mikey and we all seem to be bearing up under this terrible curse. I nominate the readers of this blog for the Academy Award for best acting ever! We even fooled ourselves!
Prat.
Not caught up but…
“Hey, y’know we’ll have our very own Manboobz married spinster soon, don’t you? Pecunium! He spins, ergo he’s a spinster, and he’s getting married.”
“I think pecunium would be a former never married, since never married = man and spinster = woman is the only way that part of Michael’s wall of fail makes any sense.”
His beloved is a spinster by Michael’s standard. Well, for a few more months anyways. Though I kinds doubt she minds any seeing how goddamne cute they are together.
My cousin, who’s about pecunium’s age, is in a long term relationship with a woman about his age. Idk if they intend to marry, having both done that once and produced kids in the process, but they live together. So I’m gonna guess that’s another happy not married woman over
2540. And his mother has been not-married to the same guy since I was a small child, so there’s another over2565~ year old happily not married woman. Could they marry if so inclined? Sure, but she was a hippie and it’s just a piece of paper after all.I assumed he wants us to think he’s Iron Man. (Protip: There isn’t actually a house on Point Dume.)
“A friendship formed at 10 is stronger than at 18 than at 28 than at 65.”
O RLY? Is that why I don’t talk to anyone I knew at 10 but still have friends from HS? I’ll have to get back to you on ones formed at 28 though, seeing how I’ll be 29 over the summer. Certainly closer to people I’ve met the last couple of years than anyone I knew at 10 though.
Sexy Pirates Imagining Next Sunday Teatime’s Evening
RelaxationRevolutionBecause I got as far as tea time and was picturing something out of The Asylum for Wayward Victorian Girls.
Randomly, my fishie offspring, the only sort I intend to have…four of them, which seems to be all the survivors from the first batch of fry, are in the big tank now. And the second batch…So. Many. Fish.
@Cassandra, Maybe he wants us to think he lives DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH in Malibu, which is its own city but is part of Los Angeles County. But in that case he should have said Malibu, so Venice is kind of it.
But really all I can think of when hearing I LIVE DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH is blood-sucking sandflies.
Nononono, revolutions are awkward and messy and that gets in the way of teatime and being sexy (no sorry I don’t care about That Photo of Che).
Maybe Sexy Pirates Imagining Next Sunday Teatime’s Evening Recreation? That leaves room for … all sorts of recreational things. 😉
There’s another reason Pacific beachfront seems like a really bad idea – rising ocean levels. Maybe Mikey should invest in a houseboat instead.
katz, seconding about the Catalinas, keep the MRA crowd out of there!