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).
Yanno, Mikey’s the first troll in ages who’s worthy of a Pierre. I’d love to see Pierre’s expression if he encountered this twit screaming about SPINSTERS!!!!!!!1!!eleventy!
He could be at the grocery store and there’s a woman trying to get something off the shelf and Mikey’s sure she’s hitting on him.
@ Sparky
Most of the Statistics taken from Dalrock come from the sources you mentioned as well as University Studies undertaken by Professors and research teams. But it doesn’t MATTER. Do you know why? Because your a women. That means any study that lends proof to something you EMOTIONALLY disagree with – you will automatically fight it.
Match.com and other dating sites are AMAZINGLY credible sources of information in what people are looking for and what they prefer.
Match.com statics prove things like: white men have the highest dating advantage over all races. That white women prefer white men something like 80-90% of the time (I’m not sure which). That black men are at the greatest disadvantage in terms of response and Asian men have a low response from white women. That older men want YOUNGER WOMEN. That younger women are open to dating OLDER MEN. That OLDER WOMEN OVER 30 prefer a partner around their own age. That women ages 18-27 not only receive the highest interest but something like 4 times the emails their 30+ women receive. Again – do not hold my feet to the fire on this. I’m going off memory. Go see the studies. There were several. Match.com, OK Cupid, and some other one. You could not ask for better statistics than these. The control environment is perfect because it’s non existent!
I can her you and your brainwashed Feminist ilk going ape-shit right now screeching like howler monkeys.
So if it upsets you then you can claim bias, racism, sexism and that people are making up fake profiles.
To quote Howard Stern (who’s wife divorced HIM) ending from his movie “Private Parts” regarding the constant pussy thrust in his lap everyday which always comes with fame and fortune:
“”You know, I could get this girl. I know I could get her. And this is the hell that’s my life. I mean, think about it. What would it be like to have sex with her? It would be amazing. But Im not going to act on it. You know why? Because Id be a schmuck. No, because I love Alison. She stuck with me through the whole thing, you know? You gotta respect that. I think you have to respect that. You have to respect that.””
In 2001, Howard Stern and Alison divorced. He’s now married to an ex-model 20 years younger than himself. You might not want to hold him up as a model of lasting marital fidelity. (And really, this leering, sexist creep is the kind of “nice guy” we girls should dream of yoking ourselves to? Ugh.)
You realize your story of Young Michael throwing a tantrum at a group of women because they wouldn’t have sex with him (and dated guys! And went on SPRING BREAK! The slatterns!) doesn’t jibe with your story of Young Michael as a really nice guy who treated women great, right? You can’t have been a nice guy and a screamy brat. You have to pick one or the other.
Um, Mikey? Dalrock’s a misogynist, and SO ARE YOU.
And you poor widdle fing, finding your pwecious Christianity infected by feminism! HERESY! I bet you were “educated” at Bob Jones “university”, weren’t you.
But really, Michael, my hat goes off. You are the most entertaining asshole to come by here in a long time. I can’t believe I read this whole thread, but there were too many amazing moments to stop!
— “Go walk your dog SPINSTER”
— “Stop asking questions about my sushi.”
— Whisking your HB8.35321 away to a penthouse suite in Charlotte, North Carolina.
— The tragic tale of how you were so poor in college you had to live in the DORMS! Like a peasant! And drink TAP WATER! And you had a car but it was KIND OF OLD!
— Pining after Buttercup from “The Princess Bride.” I mean, why? Don’t get me wrong, I love “The Princess Bride,” but what little character Buttercup has is kind of awful. The only thing she really has going for her is being the Most Beautiful Woman in the World. What actual personality traits does she have that you admire?
— All the essays on how every woman at the grocery store secretly wants to do you. High marks.
I think THAT we all SHOULD randomly all-cap SOME words in HONOR of mikey throughout this this thread.
Who is WITH me?
Yes! Want! 😀
I was 24 before I could afford a car and it was a 15-year-old $1,000 POS. How the fuck is the issue of car ownership a gendered matter? If anything, men make more money and therefore do much better in that department than women do.
Sorry, I’m not really working on Pierre right now. Meant to get in a comic for the 1-year anniversary but didn’t get around to it, and right now I’ve been absorbed by another project that’s altogether too fascinating. But when that’s done I’ll get back to Pierre.
Whenever! 🙂
Honestly I’m not sure he would pass the experiment where they pour liquid from one container to another of a different size/shape to see if kids realize that you still end up with the same amount of liquid. So small children have a better understanding of reality than he does.
(And, much like SPINSTERS, they’re usually happier too.)
Hi, Michael! I have more questions. Why did you think North Carolina was the place to take a hot young babe? Didn’t you think she might get a bit bored? Also! I’ve noticed you’ve stopped hitting on cupisnique ever since we started pointing out what a creeper you were being. Does this work irl, or do you have even less self-awareness offline?
@ cassandra
I think it’s just harder for him to argue with me ’cause he tried and failed to make me fear my inevitable aging, and he can’t simply yell SPINSTER at me. Maybe he needs a new word for spinster-in-training.
He seems to have given up on using me as a negative example too. Funny how easily he crumbles in the face of an opponent who won’t back down.
The 18 year old spinster thing was definitely the highlight of this thread (so far, he may be like Meller and be a lolcow of endless potential.)
Not to mention the various married spinsters.
New acronym suggestion: Self-Propelled Intelligent Night Surveillance and Terrain Exploration Robot.
Now we just need a married, 19 year old spinster to complete the set.
Or an adorable baby dyke. I bet he thinks that lesbians are all SPINSTERS, logic not being a strong point.
Or catbot, for short.
The furrinati are SPINSTERS! 😯
See, all this talk about feeemales over 30 and the horrors of SPINSTERhood just makes me think of Gytha Ogg.
When I am an old woman I shall wear purple AND do everything Nanny Ogg did. 🙂
So fellow old hag/SPINSTER/feminist/witches, altogether now:
::strums on air guitar::
“A wizard’s staff has a knob on the end…”
Just don’t sing in a tin bathtub, that’s all! 😀
Furrinati SPINSTERS, yay, I must inform Fribs and Mads of this!
I already have a granny who’s a lot like Nanny Ogg, and I fully intend to take after her.
Oh! Don’t forget the Val Kilmer thing!
Val Kilmer is proof that there is an objective standard of beauty that can be scientifically measured.
It also somehow proves that women turn hideous at 30 and men don’t, because blah blah SPINSTERS.
Mr C and I actually had a conversation about this last week, people who’re more attractive in middle age than when they were younger. For dudes we were only able to come up with one. Which doesn’t mean that people become ugly and unfuckable after 30, it just means that Mikey’s theory of men’s immunity to aging is funny.