Why men won’t marry you is still one of the top trending opinion pieces at Fox News ten days after it was first posted. I’ve received loads of emails from readers, both male and female.The battle of the sexes is over. The ALPHA males won. Pretty much everyone else lost.
Ironically, two days after that article was posted, The New York Times published the winning essay of this year’s Modern Love College Essay contest. Its author is Jordana Narin, and the title of her essay is “No Labels, No Drama, Right?” A sophomore at Columbia University, Ms. Narin obviously isn’t looking to get married. But like all women, she is looking for love. For connection. The gist of her very poignant and honest essay is that, among her generation, love is becoming increasingly hard to find....
No, Ms. Narin, you could not be less in control. Your generation is under the erroneous assumption that (a) men and women are “equal” as in the same and can therefore both enjoy commitment-free sex, and that (2) promiscuity is somehow liberating. Both are egregious lies.
I could write about the differences between male and female biology, as I did in this blog post, but I won’t. Instead I’ll let your story be the guide. You insist people today are no longer ‘gendered’ and that women don’t “crave attachment” to just one man. If that is so, why must women “bury their emotions” when they become involved with a guy? Why did Jeremy’s affection “loom like a promise”? And why have you “brooded” over him for the last four years?
Because you’re a woman, not a man.
Women are romantic and relational beings, and men are made to respond to this! But they do not respond to a woman who acts like a man. Once you sleep with a guy who’s not yet in love with you, you’ve eradicated your power to make him stay.
Feminism has a) eliminated any need for ALPHA males to marry, b) significantly reduced the desirability of marriage for all men, and c) reduced the ability of non-ALPHA males to marry women congruent with their socio-sexual rank.
What it has predictably created is a quasi-harem situation where ALPHA males maintain stables of women over time who have sex with them instead of settling down to married life with lesser males until they are too old to be of interest to the ALPHAs.
Any woman who still calls herself a feminist might as well be wearing a sign that declares: "I am stupid, self-destructive, and short-sighted. The milk is free."
78 comments:
The sign should end with a supplicating "Mooooooo"
If you go into the spiritual realm even commitment free sex eventually ruins the top of the line males too. No man gets to the top via monetary wealth and/or hedonism.
The last paragraph is perfect.
They complain, but women would rather be alpha widows. New entitlements that allow middle class women to comfortably be single mothers will decide future elections
'They complain, but women would rather be alpha widows. New entitlements that allow middle class women to comfortably be single mothers will decide future elections.'
In a sane civilization this type of behavior would be stomped out..not encouraged and funded by the government.
"I am stupid, self-destructive, and short-sighted. The milk is free."
My ex. To a tee.
What it has predictably created is a quasi-harem situation where ALPHA males maintain stables of women over time who have sex with them instead of settling down to married life with lesser males until they are too old to be of interest to the ALPHAs
Ride the cock carousel until you find a Beta, and if you're lucky, you get to continue riding it even after getting married. That's a special level of cuckold all it's own.
Vox, you're an optimist.
"I am stupid, self-destructive, and short-sighted. The milk is free." still sounds better than "I'm a feminist" because you left out the crucial ingredient, namely, the adjective militant.
I have no problem with stupid and short-sighted. And self-destructive can be temporary, thank God. But add militant and you'd better run away.
Yes, this. Maybe they're starting to catch on?
As I keep explaining, there's no need to get married when you can get sex, children, and companionship outside of marriage.
Living it up, poolside.
It is funny that women now choose what amounts to harem life but often without the protection or luxury of a traditional harem. How far they have fallen. I guess that makes gamma orbiters the new eunuchs and that that should be reason enough to want to improve yourself.
Feminism worked as promised. "Why men won’t marry you" is explaining the symptoms when the intent of feminism was ignored. Feminism is about working in a career, sleeping around like men, and avoiding marriage and having children. It isn't about having a choice as the feminist advocates keep telling us. (No different than abortion is a choice.) If feminism is a choice, marriage would be in harmony with feminism. Clearly, when women went to work, men have less reason to support a wife and family. Women sleep around, so do men. Yet, this obviousness isn't the only part, feminists are still fighting the patriarchy. They want to destroy all things male.
Young women say they aren't feminists, but they are still sleeping around. That's a mere opening. There is some good news. It is reported that the newer generation is participating less in hooking up. It might not be enough to matter.
But [men] do not respond to a woman who acts like a man..
Oh, men respond to such women, alright: they run as far away from them as they can.
This is the one thing that modern western women cannot get through their empty, indoctrination-soaked heads. The majority of men are not gay, and have ZERO interest in a relationship with a pale imitation of another man, which is what most women today strive to be.
Women frequently advocate altering laws largely because the way men behave affects them. Yet these same women act truly shocked that their behavior affects how men act.
'Oh, men respond to such women, alright: they run as far away from them as they can.'
Well that's one response...the other is the emasculated men run to them.
I'll put feminism in these parameters:
No matter what a woman does she can't be a man...acting like one doesn't make you one. There are plenty of reasons why this is.
Feminism gives her the option to rid her femininity at the expense of trying to be a man.
So the only choice she has is to give up her strength for nothing...or keep her strength and use it for the construction of civilization.
Bob Wallace rushing in to say that Alpha doesn't exist in 3...2....1...
"So the only choice she has is to give up her strength for nothing."
I made the observation to my husband that you never hear men praise women for their physical strength (re: sports, fighting), education, careers, or credentials.
Every time you hear a man speak in true awe (not gamma pandering) of a woman is either in regards to her beauty or having witnessed her give birth. Very interesting.
The losers aren't only marriage-minded men, but also romantic girls. I was stunned when the hit 19-year old I was banging back in January sadly admitted to me she had never been in a proper date and the guys her own age were immature and had no interest in romance. I'd heard the same complaints from that cute little 20-y.o. blinde a couple of years ago. Something important has been lost.
The milk is free.
Only to the chosen few. The rest will be expected to pay more for the milk then they ever have before in history.
I have a related question for fellow commenters.
We all know how sex lives frequently dry up after marriage. Marriage alters the power structure of the relationship, and with it the sexual dynamic.
Here is my question. Do you believe that women:
A) consciously feign attraction to get a dependable man and his support into the marriage.
B) aren't feigning pre-marriage attraction, but lose it after due to changing incentives, changing structure, changing images, confusion of their desire for the goal with their desire for their man. Or
C) some other explanation.
I've heard it discussed about how women can be very determined to feign attraction for a long time, but sometimes I wonder if they could really fake it as good as they do. I mean, a man getting 2 blow jobs a week while enjoying sex at least once every two nights, over the course of 3 years, it would definitely be more impressive of a sham than I think most women could pull off.
I imagine more twenty-something guys would be even less romantic if they knew they were dating your discards, LBF.
If you happen across a low-mileage car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition, it's true that someone's probably going to take it even if you don't. Still doesn't make you any less of a thief or any less a part of the problem. Who wants to pay full price for a stolen car?
@AmyJ
That's because men like femininity, which is inclusive of beauty, maternity, etc. No man wants a woman that is a competitor. That's another reason men don't respond to grrl power.
Ultimately, feminism is about self-hatred. Masculinity is not. Women are far more susceptible to self-hatred due to the hamster wheel. Men have more immunity due to the nature of competitive allocation of resources from the start of their lives. Self-hatred is difficult when you are working to develop yourself and can see the link between work and reward.
The death of marriage and romance is the price women pay for their carousel riding sexual utopia and the current fem-centric legal regime which always rules in their favor in any dispute involving a man.
You've come a long way baby -- congratulations! Now, you have to deal with the consequences....
@trust
Most recently I observe that option A applies in the younger generations. If a woman is close to 30, this will be her operational motive. AWALT, so avoid the older woman.
In my age cohort I heard the same thing, but based on my own life now that older complaint is about making the time for sex and foreplay, and that means outside the bedroom with a pat on the rump, a kiss on the neck, and sexual innuendo in front of the kids or grandparents. Lots of men quit gaming their wife after marriage, which is a mistake.
If you act alpha and masculine, and enforce femininity in your wife, it is unlikely that sex will dry up without a medical reason.
That also means a serious change/differential in life than your schmuck bluepill neighbor guys. That means one income, yours, homeschooling, homemaking, and a serious ban on most social media devices/services like smartphones, tablets, apps, etc. It's hard to get away from facebook, but at least ensure she has access to the kind of groups that support your lifestyle, rather than OMGZ my TINDER AMTCH is SSOOOO HOT.
What you feed your mind, and your wife's mind, will keep her in balance and away from the "bad herd" of the 30 something, wall hittin, bitchy, jealous crabpot.
Women can either have marriage and romance, or lots of sex with random alpha males. Not both.
As I keep explaining, there's no need to get married when you can get sex, children, and companionship outside of marriage.
Not a solution for those of us who believe in hell, unfortunately.
The losers aren't only marriage-minded men, but also romantic girls. I was stunned when the hit 19-year old I was banging back in January sadly admitted to me she had never been in a proper date and the guys her own age were immature and had no interest in romance. I'd heard the same complaints from that cute little 20-y.o. blinde a couple of years ago. Something important has been lost.
Not sure it's possible to have dates and be romantic in the current culture without being tagged as a Gamma, or at least a naive Delta.
'Women can either have marriage and romance, or lots of sex with random alpha males. Not both. '
Yup...the idea they can have it all is just a lie.
'I was stunned when the hit 19-year old I was banging back in January sadly admitted to me she had never been in a proper date and the guys her own age were immature and had no interest in romance. '
If she's giving it away that easily...why should a guy go on a proper date with her?
A married female aquaintance of mine passed around an article explaining that children "overstimulate their mothers with constant physical contact," and this leases to wives not wanting touched and needing space later.
Married female friends were thrilled at the excise.
I called bullshit. This doesn't afflict single mothers, who initiate more late night booty calls than probably any others species on the planet.
the guys her own age were immature and had no interest in romance
Correction: the guys her own age to whom she is attracted. No doubt there would be plenty of "lesser" men her own age lining up to go on a proper date with a hot 19-year-old blonde girl. She wouldn't have them though. LBF, can you explain why an alpha male of the girl's own age would have any need to take her out on a proper date?
they are really ignorant about the current situation. they still think they will find their beta bucks when done riding the cock carousel & are still shocked that no man wants to marry her. because each of them thinks they are a snowflake & they each write a post on xojane or whatever stupid site they visit, complaining about the lack of good men, because that's the only logical explanation for why such an empowered womyn could still be single.
'I called bullshit. This doesn't afflict single mothers, who initiate more late night booty calls than probably any others species on the planet.'
I would call BS on the physical touching excuse too...but single mothers are just plain whores.
@" Correction: the guys her own age to whom she is attracted."
Bingo. Women act like that's all who exist. That's how a woman can turn down a dozen high quality men and say with a straight face there are no good men left.
This is also how woman can say with a straight face that men average more sex partners than women, which is a mathematical impossibility. It's just hypergamy, a handful of men with a stable of women. Its not the trait of most males, just the ones they sleep with.
'Correction: the guys her own age to whom she is attracted. No doubt there would be plenty of "lesser" men her own age lining up to go on a proper date with a hot 19-year-old blonde girl. She wouldn't have them though.'
By 'lesser men' you mean guys that desire her but she doesn't desire them?
"No doubt there would be plenty of "lesser" men her own age lining up to go on a proper date with a hot 19-year-old blonde girl. She wouldn't have them though."
These days, we need to be careful on the use of the word "date". Dating no longer means courtship that leads to marriage. Dating leads to hooking-up then to shacking up then possibly to marriage. There is no straight line to marriage. A 19 year old shouldn't date at all unless she wants to marry. Hooking up makes a woman unmarriageable. The situation is dire. The dating culture is debased.
@Trust
Maybe by "children" they mean their handsy Gamma husbands.
@hank.jim
Dating no longer means courtship that leads to marriage. Dating leads to hooking-up then to shacking up then possibly to marriage.
And then to the woman using sex as a weapon and cutting him off.
@Earl Thomas
By 'lesser men' you mean guys that desire her but she doesn't desire them?
Obviously. After all, Gammas and low Deltas have the notch count of most men back in traditional times, so they still try traditional methods of courtship. With the much more desirable but soul-killed Alphas, Sigmas, and even the Betas, that idea would go over like a lead balloon.
OT but a good read since guys seem to think that women treat sex like guys do, and women seem to think men treat sex like they do.
http://suzannevenker.com/the-truth-about-the-so-called-rape-culture/
"We all know how sex lives frequently dry up after marriage. Marriage alters the power structure of the relationship, and with it the sexual dynamic.
"Here is my question. Do you believe that women:
A) consciously feign attraction to get a dependable man and his support into the marriage.
B) aren't feigning pre-marriage attraction, but lose it after due to changing incentives, changing structure, changing images, confusion of their desire for the goal with their desire for their man. Or
C) some other explanation. "
I used to think it was A). I think this happens very infrequently, but not as much as it appears to. I think B) happens much more often. But what is going on is that there isn't very much attraction/arousal there to begin with. The small amount of attraction there at the beginning doesn't hold up under the stresses of marriage. A woman can usually get attention from other men, and so when that attention is forthcoming, it can end a marriage.
The way I usually express this is that most women are marrying men to whom they're less attracted than the men they used to sleep with before marriage. We all know why. The average woman cannot extract commitment from a man who truly arouses her. So she goes further down the SMV ladder until she finds one who is willing to offer commitment. That man might be "attractive" and maybe a little "arousing", but not nearly as arousing as the men she used to sleep with before she met her husband.
Another reason is that women confuse "attraction" with "arousal". To a man, "attractive" and "arousing" are synonymous, because by far and away what matters most to us is fuckability. A man will not marry a woman he doesn't want to fuck. He will not date her, he will not offer commitment to her, he will not offer anything to her, if she is not fuckable.
(cont'd next comment)
It's different for most women. To women, attraction and arousal are two distinct and discrete things. Attraction means beta commitment traits. Arousal means tingles; means "I want him to fuck me". Most women separate these out. They will marry men who are attractive (ie have commitment traits) but who don't have lots of arousal traits. A woman will marry a man who doesn't arouse her, but who is a provider, an earner, is kind and nice, has a sense of humor, is smart, etc. He is seen as good "marriage" material and therefore commitment-worthy, but not necessarily good "boyfriend" material. This is quite different from the way men approach commitment.
Women are also not trained for what marriage really is. Most of them have fairy tale expectations of marriage. They expect marriage to be fun, fulfilling, and blissful all the time; and that marriage exists to serve the participants' desires and life goals. To most women, the moment a marriage fails to do any of these things, the marriage has "failed" and needs to be jettisoned. A lot of marriages fail because the women aren't trained and taught that all marriages have severe stresses and strains; and that all marriages are hard, hard work. Most women expect HIM to commit to HER; but it never seems to cross their minds that her reciprocal commitment to him is also required.
So what usually happens is that women spend a few years having sex with and dating seriously a few men who really turn them on. Then after they all flame out, she finds a guy, an average Delta, who is high on beta commitment and low on alpha tingles. She is "attracted" but not very "aroused". They have sex, and it's OK sex. She isn't repulsed, but she isn't really excited either. (But to the average Delta, she appears aroused, because, well, she's fucking him.) She can do this -- she can have sex with him. It's just that she doesn't really, really WANT to have sex with him. She thinks that she should want to; but she just cannot. She thus blames it on him -- "well, I don't want to have sex. There must be something wrong with YOU."
The small amount of attraction/arousal she has for him cannot withstand the strains of marriage. So B) is what usually happens, I think.
Women act like that's all who exist.
Well, yeah, because that is all that exists within their sexual vision field. As de ti is fond of constantly reminding us, 80 percent (and I personally think this figure is waaaaaaay too low) of men are sexually invisible to women (of all socio-sexual ranks). Men to whom they are not attracted --i.e., the overwhelming majority-- simply do not register to them as men at all. Thus the limited number that they do see (the top 5 percent of Alphas), who are usually unavailable to them, constitute the entire population of men, not just a sample.
To a man, "attractive" and "arousing" are synonymous, because by far and away what matters most to us is fuckability. A man will not marry a woman he doesn't want to fuck. He will not date her, he will not offer commitment to her, he will not offer anything to her, if she is not fuckable.
Not to belabor the obvious, but it should still be pointed out that "non-fuckable" constitutes such a tiny percentage of the whole population of women as to be statistically negligible. Men's attraction floors for women, at least in terms of their physical attributes, are generally FAR lower than the corresponding ones for women. Unless a woman looks and smells like Godzilla (and even then she's not without hope), she will ALWAYS be considered "fuckable" by some man somewhere - but probably not by a man she's sexually attracted to/considers fuckable.
For women as well as men, I think arousal (i.e. "I want to have sex with him/her") is not binary, but exists on a spectrum. A woman can be a little aroused, and this can be enough to get her into a relationship and a marriage to a man who is high on "attraction" beta, and low on "arousal" alpha. That, coupled with women's premarital sexual experience with objectively more attractive men than the ones they can get to commit, is the driving factor behind most marital problems today.
It's slightly different for most men. To men, attractiveness can exist on a sliding scale, but fuckability is binary. A man can find one woman more physically attractive than another woman, but both are "fuckable". To the individual man, a woman is either "fuckable" or "not fuckable". A man will not marry a woman he finds "unfuckable". Ever.
"...generally FAR lower than the corresponding attraction floors women have for men."
Just to be clearer.
... fuckability is binary. A man can find one woman more physically attractive than another woman, but both are "fuckable". To the individual man, a woman is either "fuckable" or "not fuckable". A man will not marry a woman he finds "unfuckable". Ever.
Exactly, and to the average man, nearly ALL women are "fuckable."
IN such marriages, where there's "attraction" but low "arousal", the wife views sex as a checklist item, a chore. It's like eating or doing dishes -- she knows it needs to get done, so it gets on the list of "things to do". Sometimes she might enjoy it a little, like going out for dinner or going to visit his parents.
But most of the time, she doesn't really look forward to it or like doing it. She does it; it gets done; and it's not awful. But it's not fun or enjoyable most of the time, either.
Feminism is already a dead man (woman?) walking.
All feminism has is shaming language and the state (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.
But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn't work. And men are dis-engaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don't get married, you can't be divorced, if you don't co-habit you can't have half your stuff appropriated, if you don't have children, you can't be on the hook for child support, if you don't enter the corporate world you can't be be accused of 'harassment' and if you don't date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.
These are genuine threat-points for men in the modern world that didn't exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that's over now.
So men are doing what they have always done, survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.
As feminism reduces the value of women (in men's eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining 'benefits' modern women now bring to their lives.
But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, firstly born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as 'empowering'.
And yet, women's self reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, they are also now lower than men's.
But you do not need to read 'The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness' to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one - not in a group - to get the REAL story.The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don't give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell ANY decent man, went.
Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.
For the truth is that men don't want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about 'winning' battles that men never turned up for.
And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of 'rape', 'assault', and 'aggression' are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims - even now - men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.
That's how deeply men do not want to fight women.
The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades.
Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.
And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all - indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.
The time has gone to reap the harvest of feminism, and for women the fruit will be bitterest of all.
What Cadders said.
Bravo.
@ Corvinus said... Maybe by "children" they mean their handsy Gamma husbands.
_________
Women have got to learn that if they are unwilling to have a love life with the man, they shouldn't marry him. Even if he's a gamma, she chose to stand in front of God family and friends to pledge her.love and devotion.
Its hard to have sympathy for gammas, but that doesn't mean ass raping is okay
We need a page devoted to best Vox Day quotes. This one would make the top 10.
Any woman who still calls herself a feminist might as well be wearing a sign that declares: "I am stupid, self-destructive, and short-sighted. The milk is free."
@de ti
Looks like you're bringing up the bifurcation between SMV and MMV.
Unfortunately, while men's SMV rank looks like this:
Alpha > Sigma > Beta > Delta > Gamma > Omega
our MMV ranks look more like this:
Beta > Alpha > Delta > Gamma > Sigma > Omega
A man with a high N count or an antisocial nature will have a lowered MMV. Sigmas have two strikes against them in this regard, but Alphas are hurt as well. (For Omegas, crappy MMV is simply beating a dead horse.) Betas, as in many other situations, have the best combination of SMV and MMV, but unfortunately, only about 10-15% of men are Betas.
Keep in mind that the MMV ranks are for women's choices to marry. When they're young and hot, they'll aim for a Beta, but are very open to an Alpha. Then, as she gets older and plumps up, or if she's plain, she'll try to get a Delta. Then, as she hits the Wall or his horribly obese, she may let a Gamma put a ring on it.
Sigmas and Omegas won't be considered serious choices for marriage for the most part. A Sigma might have a shot at marriage if he happens to not only end up in the same social circle as his future wife, but she also finds his quirks endearing rather than too weird for her. But, he would be very much "getting lucky" socially in the same sense a Gamma would "get lucky" sexually. The upside is that if the Sigma ever does get married, it will probably be to a hot, desirable woman, due to his apathy to women's opinions.
@Retrenched.
Women can either have marriage and romance, or lots of sex with random alpha males. Not both
Right. The last decades have shown that they prefer the second option. Throughout history, women have had to be forced to marry "yucky betas". All these cultural artifacts (women not working, women having to remain virgins until marriage, shotgun marriages, shaming of the loose woman and so on and so forth) were aimed to force women to marry men they were not attracted to. Then women neglected their husbands or made them miserable (I am old enough to have seen the so-called patriarchy in my country) but kids were raised by two parents and society worked. On the backs of men, as usual.
Once women were free to do whatever they wanted with their sex life, they voted with their vaginas. Five minutes of alpha trump fifty years of beta. This system we have now is exactly what women want.
Don't pay attention to the complaining, whining, etc. Women are addicted to complaining because they think they deserve a perfect life.
When women say "I want romance and marriage", they mean "I want romance and marriage with ONE OF THE ALPHAS I AM ATTRACTED TO". Women can marry a man any time they want. If they don't marry, it's because they prefer being single than to marry a beta.
By the way, I use "beta" as a "Roissy beta". I gues this is a delta or a gamma in Vox's terminology.
"Here is my question. Do you believe that women:
A) consciously feign attraction to get a dependable man and his support into the marriage.
B) aren't feigning pre-marriage attraction, but lose it after due to changing incentives, changing structure, changing images, confusion of their desire for the goal with their desire for their man. Or
C) some other explanation."
I'd say a modified version of B. Most women nowadays, as I understand it, spend large amounts of their prime taking birth control. Studies have indicated that being on the pill makes a woman's system behave largely like it's pregnant. She tends to have similar attraction triggers to what pregnant women are attracted to, primarily provider status and protection. These triggers are far different than those that the same woman will have when in her fertile state.
Thus, a woman can spend the vast majority of the time between sexual maturity and the birth of all her children in pregnancy or artificial pregnancy. The sort of man a pregnant woman would choose is significantly different than the type that a non-pregnant woman would choose, and when a woman has finished having kids she may enter the non-pregnant state for the first time or nearly so. She may then discover that, when not pregnant, the man she selected while in an artificial pregnancy state and stayed with through actual pregnancy is not attractive to her in her normal, fertile state. He may have all the provider/protector qualities her pregnant self responded to, but none of the exciting qualities her fertile self responds to.
I think this accounts for a significant portion of the divorces after the kids are born. Not that better morals and values in society wouldn't help, but if women are on birth control throughout sexual maturity then they don't really know whether they find their spouse attractive when they're fertile or not. On the other hand I would imagine that a man selected by a fertile woman will still be attractive to her once she's pregnant, as he will have demonstrated provider and protector qualities during their relationship.
@eidolon1109
That is another interesting, and excellent, point.
In my post above showing relative SMV and MMV ranks for men, I strongly suspect the MMV ranks are actually what women on the Pill respond to; and the SMV ranks, what those who aren't on the Pill respond to. Or to put it another way, women on birth control prefer social status in men over sexual status.
What this also means is that Sigmas are most likely to have sex with, and marry, women who aren't on the Pill, but will have absolutely no luck whatsoever if they are. And anecdotally, I'd have to say that this does indeed appear to be the case.
The inverse would be true for Gammas and low Deltas, who are boosted relative to the Alphas, Sigmas, and high Betas if most women use the Pill.
The Pill may also therefore be indirectly blamed for many of society's ills that you wouldn't expect, in large part by giving Gammas and other such men extra status and even leadership positions they wouldn't normally ever have been given. Therefore, we get men trying to emulate what women on the Pill want, which discourages Alpha and Sigma behavior. From this follows an unconscious resentment among women for their new-found leaders -- and feminism, crappy dictatorial bureaucratic leadership from Gammas, rampant SJWism, Delta leaders who absolutely won't or can't take a stand against the SJWs, and so forth and so on.
In fact, here is a Heartiste blog post which does indeed suggest that men stopped being Alpha and Sigma when the Pill came on the scene.
Bravo, @Cadders; that's one of the best summaries of the current situation I've seen anywhere.
It's a shame it's hidden deeply among the comments of a blog; I hope you can at least promote it to a blog post of its own somewhere.
Great comments here. I would put that this feminist crap is mostly the imaginations of crackpot white and jewish women. I really doubt it has all that much penetration into the colored women's heads. I could be wrong but libtardism is mainly the last redoubt of White Supremacy, "Them colored folk wanna be just like us."
The pill would be the linchpin of describing the modern mess the sexes are going through. It has weakened both men and women to a sad state of affairs.
Cadders, et. al.,
As the mother of a son in his 20s, and currently in a relationship, I would sincerely like to know how men go about having sex and not get on the hook for the "unplanned" pregnancy/child/child support? It seems a huge risk to trust a woman with birth control, yet it's clear, many men successfully do. Is it selecting women you sense do not want a child, and therefore, would abort rather than deliver?
Re: wife loosing interest in sex after marriage. All good points made already and I think the answer of the options offered is close to B. Expectations of marriage/sex has been wrong for a long time in the west, and exponentially so since the widespread use of reliable birth control, which has led to a disconnection between sex and its consequences for a female (add to that disconnect abortion on demand). There is an element of the "touched-out" reality that does lead to less interest, but not one that can't be overridden by a husband who takes control and reminds his wife (wordlessly) that the point of the union is his needs. Period. As someone upstream mentioned, when the husband's advances are received as yet another needy child, momma isn't turned on. Also, stresses of marriage and unresolved conflict is definitely a buzz kill. Maybe the elephant in the room, again, is that sex is far different for women than it is for men. Women are aroused mostly to attract. We like sex and of course need it and are better off for having it, but we don't desire or physically crave it as consistently as men do, bottom line. So, if other things get in the way, and/or when the bab(ies) come (which is what drives us), sex falls low on the list.
Feminism/equalitarianism has led to the erroneous belief that male and female sexual needs are fundamentally the same, when they are fundamentally different.
Recent research suggests that women on the Pill favour less masculine features and traits in their mate. It could be, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that Pill use has had a dysgenic effect on the White American population over the last few decades. This would, perhaps, account for what I've noticed is the physical decline and spiritual pussification of younger generations of men.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/study-women-on-birth-control-pills-prefer-less-masculine-men/274464/
...Pill use has had a dysgenic effect on the White American population over the last few decades
Yes, and you'll have an extremely difficult time convincing me that this is purely accidental. Disgenesis of the majority has long been a goal of the reigning class.
' It could be, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that Pill use has had a dysgenic effect on the White American population over the last few decades.'
Well if you look back into the intentions of the pill...the first target was minorities, specifically the blacks. With eugenics being the nasty brain child.
Margaret Sanger (who was one evil lady):
'Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.'
'Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.'
'We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'
As the mother of a son in his 20s, and currently in a relationship, I would sincerely like to know how men go about having sex and not get on the hook for the "unplanned" pregnancy/child/child support?
If he's in a relationship with a girl who wants a career, she'll have an amazing ability not to get pregnant if she's on the pill (because she actually is) She's in her early 20's so he's probably safe unless you guys come from money or he's a star athlete. I can't think of anyone in a relationship while young who accidentally got pregnant and had a child. I see a lot more 'oops' at 30. Purely coincidental I assume...
everybodyhatesscott - thanks. Those things you've noted are, in fact, the case regarding my son's gf. He's not an athlete and while he's in a band, I don't think she's hitching her wagon to "that star." But, I've experienced more than a few seemingly level-headed ladies who suddenly got a little less responsible at the critical juncture of graduating college and "starting" real life (we attended one wedding in our family in the past year because of one such female, who also speaks openly of being on several medications these days, including her two "crazy pills"). I also know a few young women who are on the pill and just plain crazy and female and erratic and not to be trusted. So, I sincerely wonder how men - such as LBF - negotiates this territory. I advised my son to always use a condom, but I'm pretty sure now that he's experienced the "benefits" of a gf on the pill, he's not.
Condoms. Magnums, to be exact. Also, raw with the right ones. I like taking risks, and I've been lucky. As I've mentioned before, I'm not completely averse to having kids. It's the idea of modern marriage that I detest.
@: " but I'm pretty sure now that he's experienced the "benefits" of a gf on the pill, he's not"
______
When a woman says don't pull out, it means you better pull the hell out now. It isn't because she can't get pregnant, it means she's fine with taking your money.
Best to already have it wrapped though.
Even using a condom has risks. A couple of years ago I was banging a hot little 20-year old blonde. The first time she saw me putting the used item into the toilet, she got pissed and accused me of doing that so she wouldn't take it and empty it inside her (and thus, get pregnant). Crazy.
LBF, do you ever get with girls who are on the Pill, or are they usually not on it?
Margaret Sanger thought birth control would make a cleaner race when it most clearly has not, as those who read the Heartiste and Atlantic links above can see. It's almost like there's this natural, uh, law, written into the workings of the human body that detests the manipulation of fertility for solely pleasurable ends.
@ iowahine:
"As the mother of a son in his 20s, and currently in a relationship, I would sincerely like to know how men go about having sex and not get on the hook for the "unplanned" pregnancy/child/child support? It seems a huge risk to trust a woman with birth control, yet it's clear, many men successfully do. Is it selecting women you sense do not want a child, and therefore, would abort rather than deliver?"
Pretty much what everybodyhatesscott said. If she wants a career or is into sportfucking or is dating a guy she doesn't really want to marry, she'll show an amazing ability to avoid pregnancy and will take responsibility for that herself. The pill is almost 100% effective if taken correctly. If the guy is someone she really wants commitment from, then it gets dicey.
The best rule of thumb is for him always to wrap it and then flush the condoms.
@ Trust:
"Sex lives dry up after marriage?"
Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah! More junk science, pal. Almost everything you think you know about sex is a product of a "science" subset that is anything but. Small sample sizes, elephant-sized sample biases and every other junk attribute pollutes every so-called study on sexual activity.
You need know nothing at all to grasp that 1) many women probably like sex, in some cases as much as some men, and 2) at a certain point there is no risk of unintentionally expanding the family. Add those two together. There's a conclusion you can stick in your pipe and smoke to your heart's content.
@Corv ~ My most recent serious gf's (including a gorgeous blonde who wanted kids with me) and ex-wife were not on it. For flings, I've no idea, the topic is never broached. For the occasional cougar, I assume no.
Arr you married, dc.sunsets?
I'm not a regular reader here, but I am curious, does anyone have a link were I can find the definitions that you are using for:
SMV
MMV
Alpha
Sigma
Beta
Delta
Gamma
Omega
Thanks.
@Corv ~ My most recent serious gf's (including a gorgeous blonde who wanted kids with me) and ex-wife were not on it. For flings, I've no idea, the topic is never broached. For the occasional cougar, I assume no.
@LBF
Thanks. Completely in line with my prediction that a Sigma gets with women who aren't on the Pill, and is ignored by those who are.
@J Van Stry
For the Greek alphabet, go here.
SMV is "sexual market value", MMV is "marriage market value".
@eidolon1109
Here's an interesting article:
"But even odder, women in the study who got together with their future husbands while taking hormonal birth control and who later stop using the medication also become less satisfied with their marriages — but only if their husbands were less attractive than average. If hubby was a hottie, women became more satisfied after stopping the hormones, the study showed."
Cadders, well said.
@lowahine
Unfortunately getting a girl pregnant is no longer the biggest danger your son faces. FYI the ongoing and increasingly vicious "False Rape Epidemic"
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.