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’m sorry to have to break it to you so bluntly. Have some virtual smelling salts and a fainting couch.
We married spinsters are delicate, you know.
Note: I’ve deleted a few comments, and edited a few others, that either quoted from Qwerty or referred to specific things she said.
I missed Mikey’s girlfriend? Noooooo! Scientific proof that I can’t have nice things. Oh well, good luck to her.
I can imagine why she’d have to cover this loser’s tracks for him.
The internet never forgets, Michael and we won’t either.
If I were Mikey, I wouldn’t be so quick to kvetch about SPINSTERS anymore. Seems that an unmarried woman who sees all that and can put two and two together, would be more than relieved to tear one and one apart…and one of them, a new one. Which would make things awfully awkward when it comes to his next intended (and undoubtedly FAILED) conquest.
Qwerty, I hope you’re all right. Stay safe.
I doubt Mikey is coming back for awhile. He probably made a “deal”, and he will break it…sooner or later. But given what he is…he needs to refuel and is probably stewing in revenge fantasies by now, hoping to show us all that we are inferior to him.
But Mikey if you are lurking, I saved all of those Yahoo Answer links on my FreezePage, if you are lurking abouts…we still know you are a fuck-headed small little twit and we have it all in those binary digits.
Oi this shits better than TV congrats to mike ha ha ha hey mike dont waste yer time here mate. let em think they can have their cakes and eat em at 40. Noooooone from this site will ever see what it is just is. Sites just a plce for spinsters and dick—-less groveling male gents who love hard leather across the buns and lick boots. women are pure emotions mate. its waaaay too late for these women. save your breath mike just move on mate.lll
“congrats to mike ha ha ha”
congratulating a man who ‘preys on the sympathies of genuinely nice women’ (paraphrasing grumpycatisagirl)
“dick-less groveling male gents who love hard leather across the buns”
attempting to shame men who are into a specific kink by implying that they’re women (Does that count as both misogyny and misandry?)
“women are pure emotions mate”
ridiculous even if taken as a metaphor
I think the necrotroll needs to start calling himself “Man Who Just Can’t Fucking Go His Own Way Already.”
Oh frack, another one. This should be good… >drums fingers<
RE: Aussie
Sites just a plce for spinsters and dick—-less groveling male gents who love hard leather across the buns and lick boots.
Aw, am I supposed to be ashamed of being a dickless male sub who’s enjoying his life and helping his community? Gee, sweetie, you sure seem to be interested in leather and boots. Are you hoping this behavior will allow me to fulfill your fantasy? *shakes head* Sad.
Where’s Kittehs when you need an Aussie-check?
Trolly does sound like he’s doing an OTT impersonation of an Ozite, though there are dipshits here who talk like that. Whether they write like that’s another matter, though troll’s incompetence in the spelling and grammar departments would be right. This is after all the country where writing “dough” for “though” at FUCKING TERTIARY LEVEL still doesn’t even rate a comment from the tutor.
I am so sorry, Kittehs. That you and trolly share a country, I mean.
Eh, I share with worse than that. There’s the entire Liberal-National Coalition, for starters.
Oh, btw, Kittehs, when you hitting Chicago? I want to mark my calendar for it.
Seriously, what’s wrong with a little leather across the backside if all parties are consenting? Not really my thing, but TMI ALERT I volunteered last night to give a riding crop a go, so I really can’t talk about anyone who likes leather!
(I’m not sure how good of an idea that was, but I’m sure the owner of the crop understands consent and safe words, so hey, worst that happens is one whack makes me noptopus and I have a spare bruise)
We’ll be flying there on April 28th and will prolly stay five nights – gf’s found a flight/hotel package. 🙂
RE: Argenti
It’s true! And what’s wrong with being dickless? Associating a lack of genitalhose with worthlessness is kinda questionable, don’tcha think?
RE: Kittehs
Oh, sweet! That happens to fall between two of my cons, so I’ll be free and try to hit Chicago. (If I’m lucky and the waiting list bumps me up, I’ll be at the Chicago Alternative Comics Expo at the end of May!)
Wheeeeeeeeeee!
Do you know/like the Field Museum? It’s gf’s must-see (she’s never been to Chicago).
“Genitalhose” made me think of medieval tights with codpiece (the sensible extra bit of cloth sort, not the WHOA LOOK AT THIS sixteenth-century variety).
I’ve not been to the Field Museum; I’ve only spent like a day or two in Chicago, and it was ALWAYS FUCKING RAINING. The only place I’m familiar with is the freakin’ Art Institute, and I only had time to see a couple rooms of that.
Codpieces are very manly and worthy of hanging your self-esteem on, don’tchaknow.
Hi again, Mikey! Sockpuppeting doesn’t seem to be your strong point, mate.
LBT – good, we might be able to meet up at the Field! Should be me and gf and two other friends (both sometime writers and massively into Star Trek) if they can make it.
IIRC it on one one of my nights in Chicago (I’ve only had two days there as well – one at the Art Institute and one at that big mall outside the city). It was certainly cold, but it was late October.
I just hope it’s coolish in spring – should be after the horrendous winter you’ve just had! – I have KNITWEAR to show off after all.