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).
Above all, sex each other deeply, because sex covers a multitude of sins.
This idea of a woman who obeys her husband’s every command just reminds me of those guys whining about sexbots. This “perfect christian wife” idea is basicly a sexbot, her continued existance seems to actually be threatened by her own free will.
Alan Robertshaw: Well, obviously, those women simply don’t exist. Otherwise, how could they get all those nifty cash and prizes for divorcing their husbands? Just like love doesn’t exist. It’s only unquestioning obedience on the part of the woman and sex on the part of the man. I’m sorry, “s-x.”
1 John 4:18 – There is no fear in sex; but perfect sex casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in sex.
@katz:
Ha, you called it!
@ibb:
While marriage rates are indeed declining, cohabitation rates are rising. (source)
Men aren’t going their own way. People are just opting to cohabit rather than marry. The marriages that do occur are much more stable (less chance of divorce, longer periods of marriage).
So all these people saying love, love, love, are just liars? I have so much pity for you. What a rotten way to live, never really knowing or loving anyone. What has made you so bitter?
*ding ding ding* Kirby gets a prize!
Honey, a bunch of women told you why we married our husbands and nobody mentioned money. You are ignoring all of us and the honest answers you’re actually getting because you’ve already decided what the answer is, and you’re now drawing conclusions based on the made-up answer you decided beforehand, rather than based on what’s actually happening around you.
Among other conclusions that can be drawn from this, it’s clear that submitting to you and letting you make decisions would be a terrible mistake.
Sex is *an* expression of love. But even the most passionate couples spend a relatively small percentage of their time together gettin’ it on.
Yes, I expect my husband to have loving sex with me. I also expect him to show me love by caring for me if I’m sick. By being present and engaged with our kids. By helping with the housework. By using his words to encourage and edify me.
And so now you claim that this is really all about money, even though that is not an answer that anyone came up with. And you claim that it should be a good thing that women (and kids!) end up destitute if they have to escape a bad man. Welp.
Oh dear. Woe is me. How shall I ever endure if I do not land a guy who will give me orders and sex me and let me have an allowance and think that’s good enough for a marriage to work. /s
Sex your enemies, do them good, and sex them without expecting to be sexed back. Then your reward will be great, and will be the sons and daughters of the Most High, because he has sex for the ungrateful and wicked.
(Luke 6:25…ish)
@IBB
So I guess you’re in favor of marital rape, cause a man wanting to have sex while his wife doesn’t means she should submit to him, right?
The sexual among us would indeed want our spouses to love us in that particular way. It’s just not the only way we wish to be loved.
You just repeated yourself. “Sex is love, and that is the reason why sex is love.”
For some, sure.
What’s difficult to understand is why you think that men, for all the range of emotions we can display, ultimately are only capable of expressing sexual desire to our loved ones.
@katz:
So, if ibb here is basically telling the women here what they should think and expecting they submit to his pronouncement… is he thus demanding marriage-level love from the women here? I guess his obstinate attitude is actually a mass proposal.
I’m going to pretend he’s saying “sax”. The only way men can express love is by playing the saxophone.
I’m freaking dying at the “replace [love] with [sex]” Bible verses, ahahaha, oh man.
But seriously, bystander is being freaking awful, criminy. Here, buddy, I’m sure you’re familiar with this verse:
There you go, the biblical definition of love. I don’t see anything there saying that love is just sex or that love means blindly and utterly submitting to another flawed human being.
Because it’s fucking not. By Christ’s rules, love is something that is kind and patient and selfless. It’s about having respect for one another, about communication and understanding. Hell, it’s a big freaking reason why Jesus had to come down here in the first place, because God handing down commandments from on high WASN’T WORKING. There was a disconnect, we couldn’t communicate properly, we couldn’t understand one another, so God had to become man to open up the dialogue between us again.
And you disgust me, saying things like all love is to men is sex. Fuck you, buddy. Love is one of the most important forces in this world, one of the most precious. Equating it to lust and mindless obedience is like spitting in Christ’s face.
Thank you, innocentbystanderboston, for proving that the biggest misandrists and misogynists are men.
Bonus “rampaging troll jerk points” for using religion (a religion that many of our feminist regulars follow as well) as a means to try to keep women in line and “obeying men”, but men “just can’t help their nature!”.
Seriously, fuck you, flounce and stick it.
Love, a heathen pagan.
P.S.:
I think it’s not commutative. A woman who marries a man must submit to everything he says, but not being married to a man doesn’t mean you don’t have to submit to everything he says. Thus why complementarians think women shouldn’t be in a position of authority over men in any situation, ever.
So, rapists are expressing their lovin’ love to their victims? Johns love prostitutes? I find this argument utterly bizarre. I thought the manly male contention was that it was WOMEN who confused sex with love, and men could sex all the live-long day and have no emotional investment at all?
Obviously, for most (not all) people of both genders, romantic love and sexual attraction are deeply linked and we do want to have sex with people we love, and we find loveless sex less meaningful. But that doesn’t mean that the love is sex and nothing but sex. It doesn’t even mean that love is sex + getting to boss someone around, or sex + that sweet sweet cold hard cash.
Men who stay with their terminally ill wives and care for them and grieve for them are presumably not just in it for the sex (or the obedience, since she is not likely to get up out of bed and make you a sandwich when you order her to). Maybe they actually CARE about those women! And maybe women who stay with their husbands though financial destitution and illness and the slings and arrows of outrageous fate actually CARE about those men! Even if the women have money and the men don’t! Could such madness be?
Quoted for good theology.
1 Corinthians 13:13: And now these three remain: faith, hope and sex. But the greatest of these is sex.
O_O
Holy necro troll. I’m just catching up and I have to respond, though I”m sure someone’s already said it:
Because I like him. Very much. Love, even (novel, I know). We’re best friends first and foremost, and even if the relationship didn’t work out for some reason down the line, I would hope we would still be friends. We get along. We enjoy spending time together, doing things together. This past weekend we dug a 24 foot long, 2 foot wide, 1 1/2 foot deep trench along his driveway to install a french drain. Many beers and laughs were had. It was hard work, but it was fun… because I was doing it with him.
Also, the physical intimacy thing ain’t half bad either 😉
In fact, I was so willing to marry him, that two years into dating him, I proposed to him, and he accepted 🙂
But then again, I’m one of those liberal feminist bisexuals your parents warned you about. I’d need to at least like someone as a person (man, woman or gender-non-conforming) before marrying them, regardless.
As our friend points out the legal system is just a plaything of radical feminists. It’s well known that the Legislature is just a front and all statutes are drawn up by Jessica Valenti.
You’ll all remember the heady days when a matriarchy of radfems ran Alabama (or “New Themyscira” as they called it then). They imposed a law, just as our friend says, that discriminated against men; saying only women could receive alimony.
Luckily the Supreme Court stepped in to save the day and ruled the law unconstitutional.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/268/case.html
That was one in the eye for Germaine Greer’s plans for world domination I can tell you. But Germaine retired to her hollowed out volcano and plotted her revenge against the supreme court. Have you noticed you never see her and Sandra Day O’Conner in the same room at the same time eh?
Also, I clicked on one of Katz’s links, and I found a book called Jesus Feminist, where a woman discusses bible passages and how “Jesus made her a feminist”.
For God so sexed the world that he gave his only son. John 3:16
@Paradoxical Intention – I have that on Kindle; it’s a lovely read.
@Kootiepatra: I might have to get it then. I’m a pagan myself, but I enjoy reading about other theologies and religions and how they influence worldviews and the like. ‘Tis fun.
I’m reading a very interesting book right now called Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, and then I’m going to go on to read the Tao of Pooh.
And suppose a woman did find a man so perfect she wanted to submit to him in all matters but he changed? Suppose he was working on a railway and an accident with some dynamite propelled a metal spike through his head and it fundamentally altered his personality? Or he becomes a violent drunk, and when they vote on whether he should drink more whiskey it’s always a tie so he wins? Should she continue to obey him if he becomes a criminal? Help him bury the bodies?