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 don’t know about you, but me and my elementary school friends get together every Saturday to play Pogs.
Kitteh — let me explain…you know what Victorian era asylums were like right? Well, AfWVG is basically all the worst bits of the era rolled into one hell hole run by a murderous sadist. So yes, it’s a bloody revolution, but it was their one shot to save their lives. And in total spoilers (it’s Emilie Autumn’s book) — after taking over they take over the kitchen and use the murderous sadist’s horde to buy all sorts of treats and ensure they have high tea at 4 pm AND 4 am. And there’s the captain. So sexy pirates imagining next sunday’s teatime evening revolution. Though I guess remembering last Sunday’s revolution over tea is closer to being true to the book.
Which I really recommend, it’s a combo of her autobiography, particularly while she was in the psych ward, and AfWVG — the fictional side…it’s, uh, truly scary how many parallels there are between then and now. Which is, I think, why she collapsed things like a very primitive lobotomy and cameras still having head clamps (those are damned near 100 years apart, if we mean the height of the lobotomy, uh…torture period?)
Ah, righto, Argenti.
Don’t think I’ll be reading it, though! 🙂
OMGS my brother was cleaning recently and found our pogs! That was a fun afternoon spent taking over the kitchen floor. Too bad dumbass wanted to “play” (large dumb dogs don’t help with attempts to keep the mess sorta contained)
Though, to be honest, I think I spent most of my time at ten reading my aunt’s old EMS books. I was a weird kid.
@ cloudiah
When I hear “house on the beach” I think “swept away in tsunami”, which is why I prefer to live a safe distance away from the water.
Plus sand is a pain in the ass, gets in everything. It’s nature’s glitter.
Strewth. Just listening to the news and the fires in eastern Gippsland (eastern Victoria), if they join up, will be burning over 500 000 hectares. That’s 1 235 526 acres.
I went on a date with a guy like that once. He talked about all the stuff he had constantly. Other than that one problem of his, he was a pretty nice guy so even though I was not interested in him, we were friends for a while. He would tell me about the girls he’d date (and they were girls. I was close to his age and they were 20ish years younger) and he would complain about how they only seemed to want him for his money, and how he wished he could date an older, more interesting and well-rounded woman. I would say to him regularly, that if he didn’t brag about his money all the time, maybe he’d attract other kinds of women. But it was like a reflex for him – he said he didn’t even realise he was doing it.
But yeah, that kind of behaviour is really a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Plus I worked out Mikey’s problem. He doesn’t understand how love works.
Been to the beach in LA. Not impressed – the sand is a nasty grey colour & full of disgusting sorts of litter. that’s not what I call a beach.
This is a BEACH
http://instagram.com/p/jRFV38F-3C/
Mikey is such a nice guy. I mean, taking all this timeout of his busy and fulfilled day to come and warn us of the perils of SPINSTER-hood. It’s for our own good. After all, Mikey knows we can’t possibly be happy unless we’ve married a rich man. A man like him. Whether we love that man or not, only marriage to and children with a “successful” man can make us happy.
We’re doomed, doomed, I tell you!
So what happens to those “sensible” women who marry in their early 20s – and then discover they’ve hitched themselves to an abusive, drunken wastrel? (I’m presuming Mikeypoos didn’t have his thousands, 100s of thousands, millionaire “lifestyle” when he was in his early 20s.)
What they do is get rid of his idle ass with no intention of hooking up with another man – evah! And shortly thereafter find themselves with a wonderful, wonderful man who turns out to be a fantastic husband and the Best Father Ever to two lovely children ( the youngest being born when mum was 36 and dad was 41.) And have lived happily ever after for 35 married years and counting – but there were a couple of unmarried years living together before that.
And might I point out to shitforbrainsmikey that many/ most people who marry around or after 30 have already been living with their partner for a few or several years. My 30+ daughter just married her partner, and they had already bought their house and a rental property 3 years ago. Other daughter has been living with her partner for a similar length of time.
Is “cake” still code for “vagina”?
I dunno. I don’t care.
But I like cake anyway. It’s still too hot here to do any baking, but I might get busy tomorrow.
Did you get any cool change at all, mildlymagnificent? It got here about an hour ago, give or take. Nice and cool and wet outside now, though inside’s still hot. I just hope there’s useful rain in the fire areas.
Yep! Got all the doors and windows open.
No rain, but cool swirling gusty wind. Not such a good thing for the poor embattled firefighters.
No indeed. They were very worried about the wind picking up with the Hall’s Gap and Gippsland fires.
Oh, and on Mikey’s whole I LIVE DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH schtick, unless living by the sea includes this view, I’m not interested.
Michael seems to have some generalizing issues. He can’t tell the difference between his preferences and the preferences of all men (“Partner count is important to men,” he says, because partner count is important to him). He has confused the women willing to date his misogynistic ass with all women (“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?” Buddy, I am a woman and let me tell you, you are a textbook example of a dude I want to stay the hell away from me. Also I have literally never said I want to settle down with someone after I’ve had my fun). He also seems to think that the USA is the entire world (see: all the US stats he pulls up without specifying that they are US stats, including “Today 40% of children are bastards.” By the way, referring to children as “bastards” further reinforces my belief that misogynists make the worst parents).
Mikey, are you here over compensating for something?
Not with your alleged money and CA real estate prices. You must have gotten a really nice tent at REI.
I don’t get it.
No the money or the CA beach thing, hell, I’m not knowledgable enough about beaches to know the ecosystem – maybe ectoparasitic lifeforms often nest there.
No, no, what I don’t get is why someone would use money, material, marriage, modern times, SPINSTERS, women, men and losers to cover up a crippling fear about cocks.
Here, let me lay out this thesis of mine.
Observe the following, honored fellow followers of the Furrinati.
A man who is loyal makes a good father, because the number one important trait of fathers is loyalty to the mother! Kids? What kids? What the hell has children got to do with being a father? Oh please, you, dear reader, must be one of the people who insist that stuff like “care for a child”, “Love”, and “family” are the sort of stuff that makes a father. You’re wrong. It’s loyalty to a woman.
And this one thing is being used as a baseless example on the internet when trying to classify women as a large group by using hackneyed trope. The show has been cancelled for a decade now, but people still use it as an example (interestingly, often people who say they are 30-40).
Side note? Want to know an interesting fact about the PuA Perception of Sex and the City?
It starts as a way of establishing commonality (“Just watch some Sex and the City, listen to the way they talk, you’ll understand women better)
It then as a way of breaking the ice and being fun (“Oh, so who’s the Samantha of the group? Haha, your friend? She’s a devilcat then. What’cha all doing here tonight?)
Then it becomes a way of classifying behaviours of women when you pendle your product (“Some females are Samantha’s, and they’re only really interested in sleeping with you. Others are more like…)
Then it becomes a derogatory term (“All those women acting like they’re those sluts on sex and the city pisses me the fuck off!)
And now it’s a putdown for an entire generation (SLUTS AND WHORES! SLUTS AND WHORES!)
The churning pools of bitter wrath produce mad products. It’s fun to see how angry people twist the telling of stories. Anyway, my thesis.
Women dating other people than you is wrong and bad, because other people (WHO ARE ALWAYS MEN), have other cocks than you. If you re ignored, it’s terrible! And other people will “Have had” your product before you,
which lowers its used car value.Sorry, I fertility rate marriage peak.Love, like many ressources, is inherently limited, and must be mined deep in the Earths Crust (That’s why we call it a “Crush”, you have to crush the bits of infatuation, desire, love, attention, empathy and care into the finished product of Love). All women are given a small amount of Love (probably by the state?) and they must parcel this resource out carefully with only a few men, lest they unwholesomely end up interacting with a cock that isn’t yours (You don’t have a cock? Everyone has a cock. Only men exist). You see, COCKS SUCK LOVE. No! Really, they drain the precious few bits of love right out from a person. That’s what all that vigerious back and forth motion is forth, don’t’cha know.
So when a women has wasted her courtship years (She’s wasted her Love resource), it has been used up and the vampiric substrain of the homo sapien sapien will find no more nourishment with the engagement, and would instead be in a bitter, Loveless marriage without any kind of gain. You have to base a marriage on cold, logical resource evaluation in relation to how much Love you can still mine from the
product of your choice. Female. Erh. Cocks are poison that poison products for other people later on.See? Extremely attractive women are given more crushed love rock at the start of their lives (Again, by I assume, the state) and that means they have more to give later on, because promiciousity isn’t about the number of people you sleep with, it’s about how much the current suitor can get from you (ie, it exists in his reality, not yours). Since a wellfed parasite will not need to feed often, a formerly promiscuous man will be able to settle just fine with someone who has often had sex before, because he has “Sowned” his oats and sucke dup a lot of Love from other people’s vaginas. Which means that his partner will just have to accept his past, because she doesn’t get a choice. Promiscuous behavior, after all, is just something women have to worry about maybe doing when judged by a man.
Now, finally ,the reason all men at all times everywhere try to mine Love from other people is because they have to pay the very steep ticket price to the magical Ferris wheel of sexual partners / encounters that goes all the way up to a peak of twenty, which I have been told is VERY HIGH, and thus very fun. It’s a long hard struggle to get there, but once you’re stuck on a slowly rotating sphere with a person you are loyal to but utterly detest because you’re holding on hard to all the Love you managed to earn so far and might consider buying another Ferris ride ticket, so you can’t spare any, and two screaming spawn you don’t really give a shit about but who seem very intent on just sort of being there, living vicariously on a beach, all the years of sucking the love and attention right out of other people will finally have been worth it!
Isn’t that right, Michael?
And that was a fascinating insight into Poison Cock, Ectoparastic Abe theory.
Coincidentally, also the name of my metal cover band.
NO CLUE what 90% of you are talking about…
NO CLUE
This is a place of no reason and insider responses…
This is a place female conjecture and straw man arguments
This is a place where rationality does not exist
Hardly a single issue about anything I raised in response to the topic at hand was directly addressed. Instead I received emotional diatribes with insider type code word reply’s. fibinachis insane response above is just one example.
Enjoy your SPINSTERHOOD ladies. Success is the best revenge and I love the looks I get from women my own age when they see me with my 23 year old girlfriend ( who looks much younger BTW).
To the blonde feminist 26 years old and attractive in her photoshopped Gravatar – you have less than 4 years until you are 30. Many blondes ( in my opinion) do not age well. They are the earliest peakers. You better get cracking now if you ever hope to marry a quality guy. No matter what these DELUDED women on this feminist site think women are NOT more attractive after 30 men do not see them as marriage material. Pair bonding does not occur. Wife Goggles are less likely to work. Most men specifically nice boring guys ( the ones you ignore in favor of the bad boy) will not dump you when you get older or trade you in for a newer model. It’s simply not true. You better invest yourself in the right man NOW at 26 while you still have time. Don’t be a fool. Don’t turn into these BITTER old SPINSTERS who can never get a QUALITY man and would be hard pressed to find anyone to commit to them except the biggest losers out there.
I laugh at every Older women who i see with no wedding ring strutting like she’s “still got it” because of the feminist lies she needs to believe to live with her mistakes. It’s a joke. You ignore biological reality at your own peril. Keep getting in my space and hitting on me at the grocery store ok? Only the lowest kinds of men like “cougars”. But whatever keeps you deluded i suppose. Ignore the biological realities of men. Keep believing Hollywoods lies and feminist propaganda ok?
Fools.
PS I do not live in Venice. And yes, I DO live directly on the beach in Los Angeles. I DO net 178k per year. My revenues WERE over 800k. I AM never married. I have no kids. I AM a good person and a nice guy. You are just seeing one side of me and quite Franky I was made into this. I spent YEARS as a hopeless romantic princess bride movie fantasizer thinking “when will I meet my true love” pedestalizing “nice guy” unaware of the post feminist modern reality of most Western women until I simply had no choice but to accept it. And as the old saying goes: no more Mr nice guy. And look what I have to show for it after only a couple years of MGTOW MRM Manosphere rehab – a hot (8.5+) new girlfriend in my thirties none the less and Im armed with information and protection.
This is one nice guy you will not be victimizing and as the manosphere continues to spread young women are going to see allot more unmarried thirty something’s single mothers and Spinsters until they are forced to realize the truth – they cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Here is a prime example of the propaganda you believe and how the feminists media and gay author tell you that 55 is “fabulous”. There are literally thousands of other articles like this mostly focusing on rich/well off celebrities:
http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/music-news/bangles-susanna-hoffs-55-still-fabulous-190038133.html
1) A 9-10 women is cherry picked who looks amazing at 50+ and is the dire exception to the rule. In this case we have the brunette version of Goldie Hawn.
2) The women in question is in fact pathologically committed and disciplined to maintaining her physical appearance like a martial arts master. Her routine is so dedicated she puts a Kung Fu Monk to shame.
3) The women celebrity (Goldie Hawn, Cher etc.) is VERY RICH, RICH or very well off. She can afford routine plastic surgery monthly Spa upkeep, personal trainers, the very best most expensive organic diets, the latest in scientific advances such as HGH and astraulagus injections at $500-$1000 per injection – for the purest HGH astraulagus etc. It takes something like 2000 pounds of refined astraulagus for ONE injection. Her schedule is booked from week to week. She receives constant visits to the dermatologists and Health Spas.
4) The photos are then cherry picked from the red carpet or other public appearance venues. The aging celebrity female is wearing the most expensive latest designer dresses and makeup by the top models and designers in world. She is literally looking better than she could ever possibly look for the camera.
5) Professional make up artists are hired (and I know people like this in Los Angeles) to confidentially make sure she is the hottest she could ever look. Hours are spent on the aging celebrities hair and makeup.
6) And if that was not enough – the seller/publisher of the photos will use PHOTOSHOP as far as they can get away with it (Again I know this for a fact) without you knowing.
7) On top off all this: Back in the 1980’s photography technology was NOTHING compared to how advanced it is now. Talk to ANY old photographer. National Geographic covers notwithstanding “fabulous” photos can be taken today on your I-PHONE which are of higher quality than those of the 1980’s.
8) Finally this article is sold to you (hook line and sinker) about how “fabulous” YOU will look at 55. LOL! I mean take a look. She doesn’t look a day over 35!
See? Look at the message they are sending. They are showing and telling you EXACTLY what you want to hear. Age is just a number! Men can age well and so can women and both are equal. Furthermore – Men don’t care about age! Especially those boring responsible nice guys you can have any time you want – waiting for you to finish partying and humping your youth away on “better men” so they can finally commit to you when you are old and PAY YOUR BILLS. You are fabulous! You go girl! You can ride your cock Ferris wheels until your 55 years old and STILL find a plethora of QUALITY men to COMMIT to you in marriage!
Right? 🙂
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Sigh. Shoulda taken my advice, bro, and just quit. Your becoming more and more ridiculous with every post you make.
1. You keep making claims without citations to back them up. If Dalrock has so much overwhelming proof, and you regularly read his blog, then you should have mountains of citations at your fingertips. Produce them. Because without evidence to back up your claims you are talking out your ass. Now, I find hilarious that you keep doing this, as you keep showing your own ignorance here, but at some point the joke’s gonna wear real thin.
2. Val Kilmer is your example of the totally scientific objective standard of beauty? Val Kilmer? The suckiest Batman? He hasn’t been “hot” for a good 20 years! You could at least have picked a more recent celebrity. But anyway, no, citation needed. Peer reviewed research. Val Kilmer is not the equivalent of peer reviewed research.
3. Everyone of these sentences needs a citation. Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass:
By the way, “exceptions to the rule” (which you have not established as a rule, as you have not provided any peer reviewed research) is very relevant; you posited a “rule,” exceptions were pointed out, which disproves the “rule.” Again, this is how debates work and this is pretty basic 101 stuff.
4.
And those ways are…? Citation, please! Now see, this is already starting to get wearisome. I beginning to feel like a tutor to a particularly dense student.
5.
And this is where you tip your hand. You’re miserable. You can’t believe that women will sleep with those you deem “losers” and not you. You’re miserable that society doesn’t punish the “sl–ts” and “wh—s” who dare to have children out of wedlock (with men who aren’t you!). All these women that you want to control are running around, living their own lies as they see fit, and it makes you angry that you can’t control them. So, instead of growing the fuck up and just living your life, you let all this fester to the point that you’re spewing large walls of text on the blog of someone you don’t even agree with. You keep saying you’re trying to balance all our “wrongness” with “facts” and then move on, but you’ve provided no facts and you’ve yet to move on. You are really pathetic. What you really need to do is some soul-searching to figure out why you are so miserable, but you won’t do that because that would mean facing some uncomfortable truths about yourself, and it’s so much easier to just blame women for your misery. In short, you are a fool. A miserable, pathetic, willfully-ignorant fool.
And each one of those random stats? Citation needed.
The more I read the crap that comes from MRA keyboards, the more I think they want to live in a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
Attractiveness is *not* objective, for example it has a large amount of cultural bias. You can keep typing away with what you believe, but it disagrees with observational and experimental studies (science!). For example, what is attractive in English women (let alone wider European) has changed over the centuries with respect to skin colour (Coco Chanel was the one who popularised a tan, prior to that a tan was associated with the lower classes and therefore wealthy women stayed pale, even to the point of using lead-based cosmetics which deformed their skin), beauty marks, dimples (devices were invented to create temporary dimples in the face), and weight. If something is objective, then we wouldn’t see changes like this in one culture, let alone the fact that different cultures have different views on attractiveness. Which comes back to: you’re not the arbiter of attractiveness. So you can STFU on this point, because all you do with your “replies” is keep showing how completely uninformed you are.
What you meant to type is “Partner count is important to me.” Stop generalising your beliefs to everyone else, it’s a dumb thing to do. Being “educated”, you should realise this, it’s a pretty simple concept.
I’m not going to spare you my intelligence as you’re *my* chew toy now. Mother Theresa is irrelevant. Citations needed for the “most women” having 15 and upwards partners. Your beliefs on the number of partners is not the same as “common sense” (you don’t have any in this area) and “gambling odds”. You actually need to know proper probabilities and work in a Bayesian likelihood framework to do gambling odds accurately, in particular if you’re doing them live during some type of card game such as poker or blackjack, and you don’t even have the knowledge to understand what I’ve just typed. You’ve pulled numbers out of your arse, and you can’t back them up.
As I pointed out earlier, the number of sexual partners a woman has had (or a man, or anyone for that matter) before they met their current partner is completely irrelevant. People aren’t born with some level of worth which is then decremented with each sexual partner, this isn’t Starcraft and worth isn’t minerals or vespene gas.
Well, you fit my definition of whiney loser: MRA who hates the fact that he doesn’t live in some type of mythical perfect 1950s decade where women “knew their place”. I don’t have “twisted new moral norms”, I have moral norms based on philosophical, ethical reasoning.
You, on the other hand, are a hateful POS. How dare you call 40% of children “bastards”, what moral right do you assert to subject a large proportion of innocent people to a grouping that you see as inferior? Why do you hate single mothers so much – are they hogging all the best spaces ON THE BEACH? You also clearly have an issue with no-fault divorce, which was a huge improvement, or do you think that people who don’t love each other any more should just be forced to live together until one of them dies? What is morally superior about that? Oh, except I guess that if the man doesn’t want to be with the woman any more, you think he should just be able to say “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.”
You don’t bring anything new to this blog, you’re just another MRA with the same (yawn) “talking points”. And assplucks. And morally repugnant beliefs. You can keep thumping the keyboard all you like, basically repeating yourself with each post, but all you’re doing is showing how much of an idiot you are, because you can’t seem to grasp the basic difference between “objective” and “subjective”. It’s not that hard.
I live a walk’s distance away from the beach. Real, paradisiac tropical beach, not American subtropical crap. I know my beach has to be at least 68.294% objectively better than any LA beach. Fear my knowledge of Asstatistics!