But both social conservatives are raging against the tide. We live in a science fiction world, not the least of which is the impact of technology and technology empowered elites to redefine bedrock cultural institutions. Such as marriage. What is not remarkable is the existence of Ashley Madison. There will always be cheap and sleazy uses for technology. What is remarkable is that the ads run, essentially without comment, on television and Youtube.com. Social attitudes have changed, perhaps irrevocably, and what remains is figuring out how the impact of these social attitudes will ripple across American society.
In my post Prop 8 Hate: Our Glorious Multicultural Future, I noted how NRO's Stanley Kurz had predicted, accurately, that cultural elites (many of them gay) would redefine the institution of marriage along gay norms (i.e.) open cheating, seen here at NRO and here at the Weekly Standard. As Kurz notes, there are movements in Sweden from the radical feminists to abolish marriage and legalized polyamory. Polyamory is legal in the Netherlands. Canada and Britain give welfare benefits to polygamists. As Kurz notes in the NRO article:
It isn't just Big Love's co-creators who think of it as something that will influence our cultural, legal, and political battles. Big Love's actors seem to feel the same way. Ginnifer Goodwin, who plays one of the wives of Big Love, says that for many women, polygamy "is the answer to their problems, not a problem in and of itself." Big Love lead, Bill Paxton, says: "This show talks about the freedom in this country. Are we free to choose who with want to live with? Well, yes, but we can't have legal rights together." Paxton seems to be pretty clearly arguing for decriminalization of polygamy, and probably for direct legal recognition as well.
...
We are dealing, not with an election campaign, but with the possible collapse of a social taboo — something television is ideally suited to achieve. Social taboos may erode gradually over the very long haul, but up close, and especially toward the beginning, you get little collapses — the quick and unexpected falling away of opposition. What used to be hidden emerges with startling rapidity, because much of it was there all along. Polygamy, and especially polyamory, are already widespread on the Internet. Both practices are pushing toward a major public taboo-collapsing moment. We can't know when "critical mass" might be reached, but Big Love has got to be getting us there a whole lot quicker than we were.
...
All indications are that Big Love is a product of this radical sensibility. The goal is not to adapt couples to an already existing institution but, in Scheffer's words, to "subversively" transform the institution of marriage from within. So by highlighting the analogy between gay marriage and polygamy, Big Love simultaneously builds support for same-sex marriage, while also deconstructing the very notion of monogamous marriage itself. It's a radical's dream come true.
This means the real challenge we face is not from a huge, nationally based movement of so-called "Mormon fundamentalists." (These renegade polygamists are emphatically not members of the mainstream, Mormon Church.) Instead, as in Canada, the challenge will come from a complex coalition: gay radicals who favor same-sex marriage but who also want to transform and transcend marriage itself, feminists (like Canada's Martha Bailey) who feel the same way, Hollywood liberals like Tom Hanks (an executive producer of Big Love) who want to use the media to transform the culture, civil-rights advocates like the ACLU and ex-Humphrey aide Ed Frimage, libertarian conservatives like John Tierney and an ever-larger number of young people, fundamentalist "Mormon" polygamists, and the ever-growing movement for polyamory (which features both heterosexuals and large numbers of bisexuals), and perhaps someday (as in Canada) Muslim and other non-Western immigrants.
This complex coalition ranging from old-fashioned Humphrey-style liberals to anti-marriage feminist radicals, to libertarian conservatives, is what will power future efforts to radically deconstruct marriage. And we're only at the very beginning of these efforts. For the most part, cultural radicals are holding back, knowing that anything they say may jeopardize the movement for same-sex marriage by validating slippery-slope fears. The remarkable thing is that, at this early stage, the radicals have forced themselves so openly into the cultural argument. That is a sure sign that if same-sex marriage were to be safely legalized nationally, the way would finally be open to a truly concerted campaign to transform marriage by opening it up to polygamy and polyamory, or by replacing it with an infinitely flexible partnership system. Whatever we're seeing now is only the barest hint of what will happen once the coast is clear.
In the Weekly Standard article, Kurz notes:
Yet the larger effects of such unions on the institution of marriage would be devastating. At a stroke, marriage would be severed not only from the complementarity of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity--and even from the hope of permanence. In Hawkins's words, the proliferation of such arrangements "would turn marriage into the moral equivalent of a Social Security benefit." The effect would be to further diminish the sense that a woman ought to be married to the father of her children. In the aggregate, what we now call out-of-wedlock births would increase. And the connection between marriage and sexual fidelity would be nonexistent.
The other Ashley Madison ad, below, suggests that this has already happened.
If there was any doubt, this promotional video for NBC's "Mercy" ought to seal the notion that marriage has been re-defined:
Note the definition of marriage — boring "companionship" where attractive women have what Sandra Tsing Loh in her Atlantic article termed "kitchen bitches," i.e. someone "boring" takes care of the domestic partnership and domestic chores, while women pursue what feminist author termed "passionate and chaotic" relationships. The very idea of fidelity is not something that enters the cultural conversation, and the lead character's workplace friends find nothing wrong with a married woman having an affair with the handsome, powerful doctor (or lusting after a hunky bartender).
Taken together, the NBC "Mercy" series, the Ashley Madison ads actually running on CNN, with the tagline "Life is Short, Have an Affair" and Youtube commenters finding the commercials well, thrilling, all point to a cultural inflection point from which there is no escape. Marriage is redefined. Towards a "French" model of infidelity based on the relative attractiveness of the partners (note the Ashley Madison ads have partners more attractive than their spouses cheating).
The only problem for America is that Americans are not French. Specifically, the "French" model only works when marriage is assumed to be a partnership for conservation of resources that are passed on, fairly bloodlessly, to children. With all the passion and love of a corporate merger. For most Americans, that is simply not the case. The Eliot Spitzers, the John Edwards (both of whom are said to be contemplating a revived political career), are able to conduct "French" style marriages. So too, those with considerable but not massive resources, around the $10-20 million range, where divorce means real economic losses, are probably able to tolerate mutual discreet affairs. "The Nanny Diaries" film and book cover this dynamic. Wives are reluctant to divorce cheating husbands because it means loss of beach houses in the Hamptons. The ultra rich like say, Paul McCartney or Maddona, of course, can afford divorce.
For example, in my post How Many White Men Are Getting Married I noted that there is evidence that a good many more White Men ages 35-40 are never married, as opposed to the past:
[Click Image to Enlarge]
In my post Beyond Gay Marriage I noted the trend below (data from US Census Bureau, check my post for links and data):
[Click Image to Enlarge]
The graph below is my crude attempt to measure women who were ever married, from those cohabitating (again from the US Census Bureau data in the post):
[Click Image to Enlarge]
Clearly, the status in American society as a whole of marriage is colored by the large amounts of older women who certainly won't be patronizing Ashley Madison. But ... the ability or willingness of older women to criticize those who do, and protest Ashley Madison ads, running on CNN, or rebuke NBC for "Mercy" is questionable at best. Older women are not going to redefine their understanding of the institution of marriage, but they don't, in our extreme culture of individualism, consumerism, and "non-judgmentalism" exert cultural pressure to maintain the norms of marriage they themselves hold.
The changes to marriage, by those just entering into it (roughly people in their mid-twenties to mid thirties) are striking, both with the rapidity of which it changed, and how widely it will ripple out to society. As Charles Murray, author of "the Bell Curve," notes, the rates of illegitimacy for WHITES are vastly different from the longitudinal study done of women born from 1957 to 1964. The women of childbearing years now:
Today, the illegitimacy ratio for non-Latino whites is 28 percent. How do the classes break down now? As it happens, I’ve spent the last few weeks exploring that question. I’m not done, and want to save that discussion for a formal presentation in any case, but here are some tentative estimates: The illegitimacy ratio for the white underclass is probably now in the region of 70 percent. I think that the proportion for the white working class may be above 40 percent. The white middle class is approaching 20 percent—a scarily high figure when you think about all the ways that the middle class has been the spine of the nation.
The white overclass? They’re still living in the 1950s—their ratio is probably about 4 or 5 percent tops.
Murray defines the overclass as women who have at least one year post-baccalaureate College, and family incomes of more than $100,000 the year before the birth of the first child (2006 dollars). This is about 10% of the population. Middle Class women (40% of the population) are defined as College graduates, family income $60,000 but not over $100,000. Working Class women (40% of the population) are defined as Women with family incomes less than $60,000 but more than $20,000. Underclass (10% of the population) is defined as no more than High School education and family incomes of less than $20,000.
Marriage and child-rearing are removed and disconnected from each other just like marriage and fidelity are now removed from each other. As Murray notes, the White Overclass, the elites, are still living in the 1950's. With two parent families, perhaps living lives of discreet infidelity, but remaining intact as married partners.
Working class women are moving beyond marriage and "quaint" notions of fidelity and family, to chaotic, short-lived "passionate" romances like that depicted in "Mercy" which certainly allow women (and a few lucky men) the ability to feed a passion for novelty and excitement. Increasingly, middle class (White) women are doing the same. The underclass is functionally the same as Urban Core Blacks, who have illegitimacy rates of 90%. The only reason this collapse excites no commentary is that the White underclass is so small (10%) and "invisible" to media and elites who comprise the media, that their plight excites no comment.
Certainly, part of this redefinition of marriage is due to cultural elites (often gays and feminists as Kurz details) using entertainment to push the redefinition of marriage and family. However, you cannot sell sandboxes to desert nomads, or refrigerators to Eskimos. Modern life in the West offers absolute freedom, unfettered by nearly any constraint, and men and women alike desire this freedom greatly. Family law radicals, feminists, gays, and others seeking to redefine marriage found willing buyers among women and men who wanted no more limits on sexual conduct. Women more than men, since only a few men are attractive (having power, status, physique, and personal dynamism), while most reasonably fit women are attractive.
As the various conservative commentors such as Kay Hymowitz Man Child in the Promised Land lament, young men are not getting married as they did in 1965. The data from the GSS shows a significant uptick of men never married between ages 35-40 over the years.
Unlike the hedonistic, gaming and player caricature that Hymowitz paints, however, most young White Men lack the ability to get married, and stay married, in today's cultural and economic environment. As Murray's data shows, Overclass men and women do not have much problem getting married. Income and status over $100,000 (and it is often well over $100,000) can account for many short-comings in excitement, social dominance, and physicality, as seen in the clip from "Mercy." Overclass men and women marry each other, it seems, and stay married, not having kids out of wedlock, certainly. This is at most 10% of the population, and even with marriage redefined as a boring domestic partnership, the most jaded husbands and wives can find "discreet" partners. Eliot Spitzer was an outlier — neither Gavin Newsome, nor LA Mayor Tony Villaraigosa, nor Mark Sanford, nor John Ensign, nor Bill Clinton, nor Gary Condit, nor John Edwards paid for sex. Their power and charisma made them irresistible, to the interns who worked for them, ambitious news women and reporters who covered them, videographers who documented their campaigns, family friends, and of course the wives of subordinates who found their husbands bosses irresistible. Most wives and husbands of this class will tolerate affairs under a redefined marriage as long as they are discreet and carried on covertly.
But for middle and working class men, marriage is not in the cards. When women select on "passion" (seen most clearly in the Mercy clip) then most men need not apply. Only the most charismatic, dynamic, attractive, and socially dominant men will attract romantic and sexual interest from women on this basis, and these men generally only settle down when they start to age out of attractiveness. Joe Average in his cubicle, so amply demonstrated in Mike Judge's "Office Space" is not going to attract much (if any) female attention, certainly not for a sustained period of time, making marriage moot.
If for middle and working class men (that's about 80% of the male population in Murray's definition) relationships with women are characterized as "hoping to be some girl's mistake" (as the protagonist in the Judd Apatow comedy "Superbad" exhorts), at best short term, and quickly terminated relationships with women are going to characterize this class of men. This just is not a basis for marriage. No wonder X-boxes and male bonding are attractive. In a society that has as it's prize the boob husband of a million ads or the cheated upon "nice guy pal" husband in "Mercy," where cheating is a click away on Ashley Madison's website, the brass ring of marriage and family looks increasingly illusory to these men. Who in any event have mostly fleeting engagements with women, lacking the ability to excite passion and desire by dominance and charisma.
For Underclass men, the answer has been clear. Chav Britain, or as I posted in Paging Dr Dalrymple, this guy:
[Click Image to enlarge]
"Chaving it up" or engaging in the boozy, fighting-dominated life of "Chav" Britain, is the quickest way for Underclass men to get women. They cannot compete on economic grounds. Women have their own earnings, various welfare schemes, and face no social pressure for pursuing passion (and the desire for bad, dangerous men) over sensible and more dependable, but "boring" companions and potential husbands. Only a few men possess, naturally, the charisma, social dominance, physique, early experience with women that builds natural confidence and assurance, and playful teasing mixed with an edge that characterizes the natural ladies man, or "Alpha male" that women of the Underclass (and appropriate to their socio-economic background, women of Working and Middle Class as well) desire and now, with total freedom, can pursue with no barriers. Only a very few men can simply naturally charm girls and women into sex, and perhaps long-term relationships (which now come after, not before, sex for the most part).
But nearly all men can fight. And fighting is an easy way, a short-cut, to social dominance. The most confident and self-assured ladies man will not look winning if given a beating by rivals. Thus the importance not just of fighting, but of fighting in groups, to assure domination over other men, in the very Darwinian competition for women, un-mediated by any social institution or controls. For Chav men who can fight, women are not a problem. Though here, too, marriage has collapsed. Black blogger "the Rawness" has written on the same subject in his post on the "Myth of the Alpha Ghetto Male" where the same dynamics for competition for women, and no mediation or moderation by older men, takes place. Read the whole thing:
So since they don’t have men to teach them how to be a man, this creates an insecurity in their male identity and causes them to create their own hyperexaggerated ideal of what a man should be. Supermacho, obnoxious, fearless to the point of knuckleheaded, overaggressive…basically the parody of manhood we see in gangster rap. It’s overcompensation to the worst degree.
Certainly both Chav Britain and the Black Ghetto have experienced, since 1955, a dramatic turn in violence, and hyper-violence, of drive by shootings, of knifings and killings, unheard of in times with far greater material want (Britain had rationing well into the 1950's) and overt discrimination (Segregation did not materially end until the late 1960's at least). The Black Ghetto family of 1950 had a fraction of the wealth and materials (computers, televisions, game systems, cheap food), yet experienced only a fraction of the violence and intimidation. Single motherhood dominated societies quickly devolved into violent matriarchies, with men competing for women based not on provider status but violent posturing. Seen in any Gangsta Rap video.
With the collapse of provider marriage (and just as critically, the demand for provider marriage among Underclass women), in the US, the UK, and Black Ghetto America, the "Chav route" has been the only proven way for most young men to achieve any sort of relationship with women. We can expect to see this continue as the economy continues to have few options for expansion, certainly not to the point where Underclass men could be credible providers (as opposed to welfare spending) anyway.
What about the Working and Middle Class men, what are their options? Increasingly, contrary to Hymowitz (who makes the usual social conservative error of ignoring female preferences), men are substituting a bad diet of porn, video games, male bonding, and intermittent and generally infrequent sexual encounters for marriage and family formation. Contrary to Hymowitz, their female peers don't want them as monogamous life partners, but rather at best, cheated upon "kitchen bitches" who take care of the household while they pursue "passionate affairs of the heart." [It might just as well be that the young men don't want monogamous relationships either, but most if honest would admit their relative attractiveness puts that option for them out of the question — monogamy is their best deal and they know it.] This is at best, and mostly among Middle Class women, who though are increasingly turning towards the single-mother model of childbearing. At worst, their female peers would rather these young men of Hymowitz's "Child Man" article be fabulously gay co-workers, and thus not express any romantic/sexual interest in them at all, or at-sea clueless idiots upbraided by them in private (see again, the "Mercy" clip).
Working class women have turned even more to the single motherhood model, and for working class men, the only route they have is a modified "Chav" route of casual intimidation and fighting unlikely to lead to lengthy imprisonment, when it comes to winning sexual favors. As the economy continues to roil, and shed blue-collar, working class jobs, creating permanent unemployment among men of this class, the full Chav route looks even more attractive. Given that this class of men is about 40% of the population (according to Murray's definition), this is not an insignificant development.
So for Working class men, the slide towards the Chav route and Underclass status is likely to be rapid. For Middle Class men, perhaps best idealized by the "Michael Bolton" character in "Office Space" the frustration will grow as the ability to substitute a relationship with a woman fails, particularly given a downwardly spiraling economy, job uncertainty, and social isolation creates massive frustration with mundane issues:
This is particularly true for the effects of the recession: women are poised to become the majority of the workforce. Men accounted for through June, 74% of the 6.4 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007. Three million jobs in construction and manufacturing alone were lost, nearly all of those by men.
The gender transformation is especially remarkable in local government's 14.6 million-person workforce. Cities, schools, water authorities and other local jurisdictions have cut 86,000 men from payrolls during the recession — while adding 167,000 women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
All of this, the redefinition of marriage, by cultural elites (and willing buyers among the people), and large economic changes, threatens to redefine fundamentally how men and women relate to one another.
For the elites, the Overclass, life continues as it did in the 1950's. With the exception that women now comprise significant portions of the workforce and have many more career and leadership opportunities. For lower class men and women, life will be dominated ever more by the Chav model, and chaotic, transient relationships among men and women, often marked by violence. This is increasingly the model for working class women as well. Note Dalrymple's nurses, educated and professional, did not have affairs with glamorous, upper class doctors. They instead chose, time and again, violent and abusive men who abused them (humiliatingly) even in their own workplace, and still went back to them. Abjuring "boring" men who were "decent" and tradesmen, with good earnings but lack of danger and excitement.
For those in the middle, life is a powderkeg. In my post Paging Dr Dalrymple note the competition among attractive women for the few, dominant, charismatic, high status men does not often go well (even for those pretty and advertising the same):
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
There are, after all, only a few socially dominant, desirable men, and any night out, these men will go home with only a fraction of the women available. Even pretty young things end up on the side of the road, consoled by their friends, as a night out ended in failure. No matter how alluring the state of dress, youth, and availability (to the "correct" sort of man) might be for an attractive woman, there is always an even more beautiful woman around.
With downward pressure on earnings, among the "Michael Bolton" types shown in "Office Space" the selection of only the most dominant, "Alpha" type men makes sense for women in the Middle class. The provider types don't have even providing to offer, certainly not a stable income, with outsourcing and H1-B visas providing job insecurity, and economic growth certain to be stagnant for years to come. Meanwhile, the Alpha types offer excitement and thrills, and if a woman is unsuccessful one night, she might well be successful the next. Certainly a better outcome than moving downwards to the Michael Bolton types. At any rate, even the Michael Boltons seem uninterested in being the "kitchen bitches" cheated on by a click on Ashley Madison.
The catch for women in the Middle Class, and there is indeed a catch, is that only the most beautiful will end up with the Alpha Male, and then only when he's on an age-inspired urge to settle down. Call it the Michael Douglas syndrome. The former ladies man settles down with a significantly younger partner, based on his status and charisma. Only a few will become Catherine Zeta-Jones. It's entirely likely that as many as three nights at the club out of four will end like the sad pictures of women distraught, as above, texting, or holding their friends, or sitting alone on the side of the curb. Possibly fewer than that will hit the "jackpot" of marriage to the Alpha Male, and even fewer one who does not stray, even when older.
For Middle Class women, this catch will be considerable. The source, too, of much understandable anger.
But for the "Michael Bolton" types, who toil in the cubicle, awaiting the next round of layoffs, fighting with printers flashing "PC LOAD LETTER" the urge to do something, anything, will prove irresistible. Along with a huge dose of anger and frustration, higher even than their female Middle Class counterparts, who at least periodically "win" far more than the "Bolton" types.
Culturally, we should see a huge amount of nostalgia among the Middle Class cubicle dwellers, for more gender-role settled times, when men could and did form Middle Class families, from the 1940's to the 1950's. While the current crop of creative people, forming a disconnected Overclass that has no clue about the social life of others, is likely to prove incapable of producing that entertainment, the miracle of technology means that 1950's movies and television shows are only a click away on Amazon.com. Or Hulu.
Substitution of real relationships with women by male bonding, X-boxes, and porn was never going to be a realistic outcome for the Middle Class man for long. Now that the recession has serious impacted that ability to spend into oblivion for men, along with great uncertainty, a huge mass of White middle class men is now invested in something, anything, that will both restore their economic security, and allow them to attract and keep women, away from the threat of one bad night of Ashley Madison-enabled cheating.
It is unlikely that female hypergamy (women wanting men of significantly higher status, power, social dominance, etc) will be repealed any time soon. Even more unlikely that restrictions on social and sexual behavior, to the point where a site like Ashley Madison would no more be able to advertise on CNN than an explicit porn site, will happen. Which means that marriage will be redefined for the foreseable future as the union of two people for domestic chores, profit-sharing, and nothing more. Certainly not fidelity or child-raising for most people. Only the latter will apply, to the thin (10%) Overclass of society.
Instead, Americans will co-habitate, in chaotic and short-lived relationships. Sexual freedom will be maximized, with a few winners (Alpha men, Middle Class women optimizing sex with Alpha men) though not without cost. For Alpha men, that cost can be deadly, as the late Steve McNair discovered. For Middle Class women, the cost is spending most of their lives (35-80's) alone and invisible.
Underclass Men already Chav-it-up, and will continue to do so in greater numbers. Increasingly, the "New Girl Order" of Hymowitz, with terribly fashionable young women doing corporate marketing, human resources, and government health, education, and welfare work as it displaces Blue collar Working class men in the economy, will result in the same for Working Class men. Who having little to lose will rapidly embrace the Chav life.
But for the great losers in the sexual reordering, in the "Ashley Madison World," the "Michael Boltons" who struggle with PC LOAD LETTER on their corporate printers, their desires running flat into the demands of the "New Girl Order" promise to shape culture and politics for decades to come, the way the Civil Rights movement or Depression did in decades past.
On the one hand, an ever-declining productive Middle Class workforce, hunkering down to avoid layoffs, angry and resentful, mostly male, and on the other, an "empowered" group of young and youngish women in the bloom of sexual power and attractiveness, wanting not a single check on sexual freedoms and messy romantic compromises, and certainly not on economic measures designed to invest the "Boltons" in the success of their companies or society at large. A pent-up, mostly chaotic, and unformed force of Middle Class men, up against the immovable object of women understandably unwilling to surrender either economic or sexual freedom.
With no compromises possible, because for one to win, the other must lose, and lose terribly.
Ultimately, this will play out on an ever declining quality, productivity, and ability of the American workforce. "Boltons" do not go the extra mile for a system that produces frustration and rage. The ability to extract tax resources from this Middle class will collapse as its productivity and earnings collapse. The "New Girl Order" is not economically sustainable, and a lost decade, characterized by continual economic decline and political infighting over Male and Female Middle Class objectives, either removing or protecting the world of "Ashley Madison" the rule of the day. Women can of course block any move to fix restrictions on the "Ashley Madison" world, either culturally or politically or both. But Middle Class women cannot force the "Boltons" to work extra hard. Casual theft, shirking, slacking, a desire even at the extremes to loot or burn down the company as seen in "Office Space" is far more likely. Men without any reason to provide, generally do the minimum possible. The hidden cost of the "Ashley Madison" world is a slide to say, Romanian work ethic and workforce skill levels.
This will make American society far more fragile than that say, of December 7, 1941. On that day, there was little question that the US would mobilize in massive fashion to defeat the Japanese. The full industrial might (and 500,000 US casualties) would see victory for an enraged and united populace. A similar calamity now, promises different results. At least a good chunk of the populace endorsing surrender or negotiated settlement, as the nuclear family and thus widespread investment in society has collapsed. The flip side of a society that effectively endorses "Life is Short. Have an Affair" is that no one is willing to die for it, and few willing to spend tax money for it either.
It is likely that at this moment, when power swings to those who fire rifles, and those who design and man UAV firing platforms, that the unformed but real anger of the Boltons are likely to show. After disastrous French offensives, the French army largely mutinied and mass arrests and executions were not enough, Petain had to agree to an end to offensives and more frequent, and longer leaves. America, at an inevitable time of great crisis (there is always a crisis in one form or another, human nature being what it is), will not be able to call upon the Boltons unless their demands are met. A man cannot be forced to work harder, and the imposition of the draft is politically unthinkable, even with widespread Middle class female support (itself unlikely), men will be able to veto it.
Men with families are always ready to fight to defend them, and men with a reasonable chance at forming them willing to fight for that privilege. Men with no hope of family, must be paid. Considerably. The need to re-allocate resources away from the New Girl Order and into defense and the military, are likely to be the great political struggle, dominated by the considerable political strength of women (understandably reluctant to cede spending and disconnected from most men), on the one hand, and absolute military and political need on the other.
One thing is for certain: we live in a science-fiction world unimaginable fifty years ago. Dominated by technology, to the point where advanced computer networks available to anyone can enable cheating spouses to help redefine marriage to norms advocated by elites. This in turn has accelerated the collapse of traditional marriage and family even among Whites, towards a new uncertainty characterized by vicious internal gender-political struggles, overlaid by elite disconnection, and providing provocative weakness inviting outside attackers. Whose attacks in turn promise to shape the deadlocked gender wars in unpredictable ways.
Posts
47 comments:
Whiskey, are you single or are you married? If you are single, do you have a girlfriend?
The reason I ask is that you seem to write from the skewed point of view of an "ultra beta male," and that is why I ask.
You really tend to exaggerate the level of cheating by women. I would be willing to bet men cheat more often on their wives than women cheat on their husbands.
I personally have cheated on several girlfriends, and had friends who did the same to their girlfriends. We (my friends and I) are not "alpha males." We are just college-educated regular guys who like to go to bars and clubs and meet girls.
Cheating, at least for men, seems to be accepted behavior as long as it is not too outlandish. Hell, just look at how many hookers are available on the internet (TONS and TONS). A large percentage of the people who visit these hookers are married men want to fuck some young spinner.
I think you exaggerate the situation greatly since you are either A) Not in the dating market (either due to marriage or choice) or B) Are sore that you can't get the type of woman you think you "deserve."
Either way, I don't buy the doomsday prediction you are trying to sell.
If there is a reason to worry about the future, then it is because NAMs will be a majority of the population in the future (due to birth rates and immigration) and thus drag down the standard of living in the USA to Third World status.
That is something to worry about.
K.O.,
Most men are Beta, the vast majority of them. Women cheating is as high as men now, it will eclipse it soon.
Nice post Whiskey.
Great post whiskey.
KO:
Male cheating does not effect the stability of a society. Female cheating does.
All these trends are predicated on the continuation of the welfare state and preferences for women. I have met very few females that can do jobs as well as a man and if the playing field was leveled I doubt women could dominate.
Here's a question: If welfare and preferences where eliminated would these trends reverse themselves?
Indeed, very nice post Whiskey, it seems to sum up a lot of what you've written this past season into a conclusion where all the pieces fit.
k.o. Women cheat more than Men, actually, they're just much much MUCH better at hiding it, lying about it, and feeling no remorse over it. Your few anecdotes can't overwrite the studies posted by Whiskey and others.
And nice use of shaming language, k.o. you really make a point of why your post should, for the most part, be ignored.
I think if the entitlment laws were repealed, eventually some parts of the trends WOULD reverse themselves, however, there is irreparable damage that has been done. Women change quickly, and can think differently in changing times. Men are more likely to be set in their ways. For the wickedness of the "new girl order", I don't think Men will be so willing to come back.
Everyday is another three days it'll take to go back to the way things were, even then, things CAN'T go back to the way they were, only approach it.
-Teal Kite
The only thing that would keep the rate of female infidelity low would be women not *wanting* to engage in it. That's the only reason they would not do it. The law, the culture, and so on, all permit women to commit adultery with relatively little condemnation -- less condemnation than for men, generally, and of course no adverse effect on divorce proceedings should it lead to that. In addition, as we know well, a woman of average attractiveness has *much* easier access to sexuality, regardless of her relationship status, than a man of her attractiveness level. So if a woman *wants* to stray, she can do so more easily than a man can and with (marginally) fewer repercussions socially.
What that leaves us with are people who claim that women simply do not want to cheat as much as men do. This is unfortunately a very outdated view of women in light of the current culture. Men and women *do* differ in that men, if left to their own devices, tend towards polygyny and promiscuity much more than women do. That's still true today. However, while relatively few women are truly promiscuous, neither are they naturally monogamous, either. Rather, it appears that the "natural" tendency, again if left to their own devices, is for women to be serially monogamous, forming several one-at-a-time type pair bonds sequentially over a lifetime.
Thursday yesterday commented over at Ferdinand's that male sexuality is unruly unless restrained by women, citing Blowhard's observations of gay male sexuality. That may be fair enough (as I say above, men seem to be more naturally inclined to promiscuity if they can pull it off), but if it is, then we should also be able to look to the lesbian community to see female sexual patterns, too, when operating outside male/female dynamics. And if we do, we see what we would expect -- serial monogamy. Lesbians tend to pair bond rather than be promiscuous (with exceptions), but they also tend to cheat the pair bonds fairly often based on opportunity, and the pair bonds are generally serial in nature rather than lifelong, in the overwhelming majority of cases. Female Misogynist, a lesbian herself, has openly confirmed these behaviors as being normative in the lesbian community.
What we see, then, is that women tend towards serial pair bonding, with opportunistic cheating during the pair bond, rather than true promiscuity. The case, then, that women will tend to not want to cheat as much as men is probably well made -- because they do not tend towards promiscuity for the most part. But in terms of actual cheating, although they may not think of it as much as men do, most of them do think of it at some point, and if/when they *do* think about doing it, it's much easier for them to do so, both because of the reality that they have easier access to extra-pair sex than men do, on average, and fewer negative repercussions in the current cultural and legal climate. It's for all of those reasons that we see female cheating rising. It would make sense, on balance, for female cheating to surpass male cheating at some stage (if it hasn't already done so -- statistics on this stuff are notoriously unreliable) for these same reasons: easier access and fewer negative repercussions. The idea that "women don't want to cheat as much as men do" is true in the narrow sense that fairly few of them tend to be interested in promiscuity, but not true in the sense that most of them will toy with the idea at some stage in a monogamous relationship, and can more easily execute against the idea, on average, than men can.
I think things are never going back to the way they were -- history marches on.
I do think, however, that the trend in female cheating will continue to increase to a plateau that exceeds male cheating, simply because if/when a woman decides she wants extra-pair stuff, she can get it *much* more easily than her husband can, on average.
As for Ashley Madison and the polygamy lobby and so on, this is all a foregone conclusion. Marriage is changing -- it's becoming more gay, more fluid, less durable and so on. More of a "government certified and benefitted relationship for a certain period of time" than it is anything else. Polygamy can't be logically stopped once gay marriage is normatized through most of the culture. The same logic applies to both, legally. Indeed the polygamy lobby will bring up things like Ashley Madison as indicators of how unhappy people are with monogamy, how outdated it is, and how heterosexist assumptions of monogamy are destroying people, sexually, emotionally, psychologically and so on -- believe me, that kind of argument *will* be made.
I don't think most people will go for it. The pair bonding instinct runs deep, as does the instinct to police the pair bond. But I do think we will see marginally more polygamy and polyamory, and a drive for its social acceptance, just as we have seen regarding gays. And in the process of all of that, the monogamous heterosexual pair bond simply becomes another option on a growing Chinese menu of lifestyle choices -- which is *exactly* what the radicals want.
As usual, you paint a rather frightening picture for the future. I suppose women will be physically protected for a while by police and private security, who are physically and psychologically imposing enough to attract women, but who will be our engineers? What nerds will take low status, non-urban, mentally demanding jobs when a high income won't catch a decent wife? More immigrants, I suppose, but I can only think of two cultures which can provide enough engineering experience to keep power and water flowing: Arabs and Chinese, neither of whom will come except as colonizers. We have an interesting future in store.
this only skews the market more in place of the remaining independent alpha males. women may joke about all the strides they make, but deep down, they rue the day in which they must ever increasingly compete for the services of a few tolerable or *gasp* desirable males. this reminds me of an alpha status post regarding men reaping the rewards throughout history b/c they took more life-threatening risks.
and yes, female cheating calls into question the legitimacy of the family unit, makes men completely unwilling to participate in the marriage thing, but worry not for them b/c the welfare state and universal health/welfare/whatever state will become the new beta provider for all the single women and their rabble of fatherless children most of whom have different sperm donors.
King Obama -- I don't put men on a higher moral plane -- most would cheat if possible. The point is, most men are beta and therefore even if they want to cheat, they are not attractive.
The removing of social controls on cheating affects women more, since most women are attractive and most men are not, to the opposite sex.
If you look at Murray's numbers, clearly large sections of the White population are moving towards Black Ghetto/British Chav norms -- illegitimacy. Along with illegitimacy we can expect to see serial Chav type relationships as Novaseeker notes.
Technological decline is likely to be rapid, as the native-born engineers or would be engineers move towards Chav-ism, and foreign imports are not sustainable past one generation. This is likely to pose serious challenges.
Note in South Africa 25% of men surveyed admitted rape, half of those admitted more than one attack, 73% before the age of 20, and so on. I don't expect things to fall so fast to the same level, but a smaller degree? Yes I do.
King Obama:"I personally have cheated on several girlfriends, and had friends who did the same to their girlfriends. We (my friends and I) are not "alpha males." We are just college-educated regular guys who like to go to bars and clubs and meet girls.
Cheating, at least for men, seems to be accepted behavior as long as it is not too outlandish. "
King Obama, you wouldn't happen to have African ancestry, would you? Because I notice that most manwhores who apologize for cheating have superior melanin endowments.
King Obama, you're not a regular guy. You're a manwhore. Live with it. And I say this as a guy who plays the field dating women aged between 19 and 25.
Oh my god, I can't believe I put off watching that "mercy" promo, that is the supreme manifestation of the cultural changes which are making marriage obsolete, and I doubt it was intentional...
"The point is, most men are beta and therefore even if they want to cheat, they are not attractive."
Ever heard of sugar babies and hookers? Any man, even if he is fat and old, could EASILY cheat on his wife by going onto a hooker/sugar-baby website and calling up a hooker/sugar-baby and arranging a "meet up" (for about $300/hr or less for the hooker or an "allowance" of a few hundred bucks a month for the sugar babe).
"The removing of social controls on cheating affects women more, since most women are attractive and most men are not, to the opposite sex."
Bull. Most women are average looking (as are most men). The idea that an average looking women are getting good-looking men is false. Go out one night to a local bar/club and take a look at couples. Most couples tend to be of similar attractiveness.
"If you look at Murray's numbers, clearly large sections of the White population are moving towards Black Ghetto/British Chav norms -- illegitimacy. Along with illegitimacy we can expect to see serial Chav type relationships as Novaseeker notes."
I can see that lower-class whites are, to some extent, moving toward a "chav" norm, but this is caused by the degradation of our culture and the aping of black culture by poor whites. Not women.
"Technological decline is likely to be rapid, as the native-born engineers or would be engineers move towards Chav-ism, and foreign imports are not sustainable past one generation. This is likely to pose serious challenges.
Note in South Africa 25% of men surveyed admitted rape, half of those admitted more than one attack, 73% before the age of 20, and so on. I don't expect things to fall so fast to the same level, but a smaller degree? Yes I do."
The only danger of this happening is if the percentage of NAMs as a portion of the US population increases.
"King Obama, you wouldn't happen to have African ancestry, would you? Because I notice that most manwhores who apologize for cheating have superior melanin endowments."
I am not African American. I am Southern Euro. Greek to be specific. I am a bit tan though.
"King Obama, you're not a regular guy. You're a manwhore. Live with it. And I say this as a guy who plays the field dating women aged between 19 and 25."
I am not a manwhore. I am just a regular guy. Most men could cheat if they wanted to. It is just that most men don't want to do all the work required to do it: get in shape, go out to bars/clubs/lounges after work, deal with crazy girls, etc.
Most men cannot cheat. Hookers are expensive, risky and prone to disease. High profile examples of men using them (and getting caught) deter middle class men who have much to lose. Not all, certainly, but most.
Most average women in the dating market are attractive, but can and will share a few highly attractive men. This skews the dating/mating market, because men and women do not base attraction on the same things. Women base attraction on status, power, charisma, and social dominance even more than physical attributes (which do matter however). For men, it's nearly all physical.
An Alpha man might well have casual sex with various average women, the history of Hollywood A-listers having sex with the nanny, babysitter, etc. (or bigshot politicos and business moguls) suggests that average women DO in fact land these guys for a while anyway.
Moreover, Blacks in the Ghetto DID NOT behave to the same degree of Chav behavior 50 years ago. In the 1960's the Black illegitimacy rate was 24%, high but manageable. The White rate was then 4%, almost non-existent. Today the Black rate is 70% nationwide, 90% urban core (Ghetto) and the White rate is 28%! HIGHER than the Black rate in 1965. For Middle Class Whites it is 20% and Working Class Whites 40%!!!
If genetics were destiny, the White Middle Class rate would remain unchanged from the 1960's. Clearly the issue is the changing ability of women, White, Black, and Hispanic, to have kids without a provider, their DESIRE to do so, and have either the Chaviest Chav as a biological father for their son or the spawn of a big-shot (think Rielle Hunter).
Hungry -- The funny thing is that under current trends, the nurses at Mercy would have "Chav" style boyfriends who abuse them, and Doctors would be romancing other (female) Doctors. Half of all recent Med school grads being Women.
"Most men cannot cheat. Hookers are expensive, risky and prone to disease. High profile examples of men using them (and getting caught) deter middle class men who have much to lose. Not all, certainly, but most."
Wrong. Some hookers give it away at $150 for a quickie. That is not expensive. Also, you wear protection when you have sex with a hooker, obviously.
Further, the chance of getting caught is not very high (just ask a cop: Vice Squad only catches a small % of the Johns out there).
"Most average women in the dating market are attractive, but can and will share a few highly attractive men."
Bull. Most women are AVERAGE. Average women date average guys. Plus, even good-looking women can be sluts. I have met plenty of good-looking, college-age skanks in your neck of the woods (Southern Cali) who gave it away for nothing more that a few drinks and a good time.
"This skews the dating/mating market, because men and women do not base attraction on the same things. Women base attraction on status, power, charisma, and social dominance even more than physical attributes (which do matter however). For men, it's nearly all physical."
I kind of agree with this, but the dating market is not skewed much. It is not like a few guys are banging all the chicks. Only the hottest chicks can succeed with the strategy that they will "only date the most alpha men." Most women, like most men, have to settle for what they can get.
Again, if you would go out to your local bars/clubs, you would see this. Reading Roissy does not count.
"Moreover, Blacks in the Ghetto DID NOT behave to the same degree of Chav behavior 50 years ago. In the 1960's the Black illegitimacy rate was 24%, high but manageable. The White rate was then 4%, almost non-existent. Today the Black rate is 70% nationwide, 90% urban core (Ghetto) and the White rate is 28%! HIGHER than the Black rate in 1965. For Middle Class Whites it is 20% and Working Class Whites 40%!!!
If genetics were destiny, the White Middle Class rate would remain unchanged from the 1960's. Clearly the issue is the changing ability of women, White, Black, and Hispanic, to have kids without a provider, their DESIRE to do so, and have either the Chaviest Chav as a biological father for their son or the spawn of a big-shot (think Rielle Hunter)."
The darkies have always had higher rates of crime and other social pathologies. The fact that things have gotten worse is no surprise.
However, even the chavs who prowl the pubs of England have nothing on the black savages who roam the streets of Brazil or Haiti. Pretending that they do is bull.
It's entirely likely that as many as three nights at the club out of four will end like the sad pictures of women distraught, as above, texting, or holding their friends, or sitting alone on the side of the curb.
Now that I understand what those pictures are, I think it's so amazing those women would end up like that. They aren't in the class of Catherine Zeta-Jones, but they're definitely cute and above average in physical attractiveness. They could attract dozens of men, if they wanted to. If they're alone, that's a self-inflicted wound.
Whiskey, you forgot one destabilizing influence: Islam. Muslims make no bones about wanting to destroy the West, and enticing the hopeless to convert to Islam and help them destroy the West from within is high on their agenda. They already recruit heavily in our prisons, a huge underclass of men who are resentful of their position and inability to attract women would be prime targets for recruitment.
k.o.
I kind of agree with this, but the dating market is not skewed much. It is not like a few guys are banging all the chicks. Only the hottest chicks can succeed with the strategy that they will "only date the most alpha men." Most women, like most men, have to settle for what they can get.
k.o. writes from a viewpoint that is similar to an alpha who is unable to sympathize with or even recognize the sexual life of a non 20% male.
The studies clearly show, in different wordings, the 80 20 principle.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, in sweden the study was done, and it was concluded that in the non-committed sexual arena,
"80% of the sexual encounters are done by 20% of the men"
No attractiveness group defined.
this can mean,
80% of women banging 20% of men,
it can also mean
100% of the women choosing 20% of men 80% of the time.
Now that unattractive women are included in the study, it is safe to assume that the lower 80% of men are almost fully getting the 20% of unattractive encounters, with stray events included, while 20% of men (due to attractiveness, but also preselection, and hypergamy) are getting the big majority of the better encounters.
So, ignoring the stray encounters of a "jackpot" or "dive", it is safe to state that the top 20% of men are enjoying the fun with top 80% of women while lower 80% of men are left off to rare encounters with the fuglies.
And this is what I see in the bars clubs and streets.
good looking women texting some guy at the end of the night (after having shot down 8s, 9s) (who is also getting texts from a number of other girls), the attractive man (minority) having a babe in tow, and other babes eyeing him, and the average dude going home with a warpig. The lowest ranks of male standing there and looking like a chimp who got run over by a truck.
I have had women, women who are at most 5's, tell me that there is nothing special in picking up men from bars, it is so easy. Btw, they are not talking about men who are 5s or 6s. Maybe not even 7s are visible to these women.
No, k.o., I disagree.
Randian
If they're alone, that's a self-inflicted wound.
Back in my mid to late 20's I found myself in the following situation:
Working in a male dominated field
No money for bars / clubs (I was saving like a mad man to buy property when it was dirt cheap on a modest salary).
Non-religious / Church going.
So basically, I little opportunity to meet women. For the hell of it, I tried Match.com and other sites when they first came into being. As a male who wasn't 6'2" tall with a perfect body making $100k+ a year (how many 25 - 28 year old's make that?) my chances of getting a date were pretty low. It was not like I was shooting for super models.. Some of these women were 5'1" and a bit chunky insisting on these standards.
The women that didn't have unattainable physical / monetary demands listed a surreal set of emotional / interest demands. After reading through the laundry list of 'required' emotional traits, the women had basically described an immature (if not neurotic) woman as their desired partner. No mature, heterosexual man will act naturally in the way they desired. I started to wonder if this was the result of the very high divorce rate of parents of my generation. Did all these women grow up in homes without a father / mature male at the helm? It seemed to me that they had no experience as to how (mature) men in general act, think, and behave.
I ended up writing to women overseas. I had plans of at some point traveling to a number of different countries. A co-worker years earlier suggested I pick up pen-pals in the countries I planned to visit (he had done the same) in order to have a date / translator / tour guide when I arrived.
I finally traveled in 1999 and ended up liking this one girl so much I kept going back to the same country four more times. Been married 5 years now.
I found a world a difference in attitude from the women were raised in intact families that were free from 'afluenza'.
Where to start....
King Barry:You really tend to exaggerate the level of cheating by women. I would be willing to bet men cheat more often on their wives than women cheat on their husbands.
Wrong. Women cheat as much as if not more than men. I have been gobsmacked at close friends who comment on their infidelities. Especially women I've known for decades. I guess we've known each other so long that they forget that I hadn't been aware of their actions.
One (former) friend stuck her tongue down my partner's throat at a girl's night in after he dropped by with more alcohol. The next morning she apologised and tried to explain it away as being too drunk. I replied that it was okay, because now I knew she really did consider me a friend - she'd already shagged the husband of one friend, and the fiance of another. She was also married at the time.
She's no longer married, and needless to say, I'm no longer with that particular fellow.
King Barry again:
Bull. Most women are average looking (as are most men). The idea that an average looking women are getting good-looking men is false. Go out one night to a local bar/club and take a look at couples. Most couples tend to be of similar attractiveness.
Hahahahahahaha! Wrong again. We women have something you men don't. It's called a pussy. An average looking woman can get a good-looking man to come home with her if she works it. Men aren't the only ones who use game or a form of it.
It also depends on what your goals for the night are. If you're looking for Mr.Right, you're not going to find him. Mr. RightNow, however, is a different matter.
The young women of today are too full of themselves, which is why they end up drunk at the side of the road. If they played it differently they'd be taking home men.
Unfortunately for them, they'll wake up too late and end up living alone with a posse of cats.
Oh, and King Barry... ditch the racist references, please. All they do is expose your ignorance and lower your credibility. There is no need for derogatory names for people of different skin colour.
It's refreshing when women are simply honest about these things. It puts paid to the tired old stereotypes about female sexuality and sexual behavior. I don't think women are any worse than men in this regard, but I also don't think they're any better.
The reason why guys like k.o. seem to think that women don't cheat as much as men is simple, I think: women are very, very, very good at hiding this behavior from men. I don't mean that in a bad way -- it's just the reality. There was a longish article in The Daily Mail a few weeks ago about that reality, and why it's led to the mistaken belief that female infidelity rates are low. They're not low, it's just that women are very good about keeping that aspect of themselves and each other largely hidden from men.
"k.o. writes from a viewpoint that is similar to an alpha who is unable to sympathize with or even recognize the sexual life of a non 20% male."
I never have had a problem finding a girlfriend, so maybe this is true. This is despite the fact that I don't consider myself even all that good looking.
I also don't study game at all. I once tried to read a book on game and only got to chapter 2 before I was bored out of my mind. It all seemed like common sense.
I am no PUA, but I tend to do ok with women. That's why I call myself a "regular guy."
"The studies clearly show, in different wordings, the 80 20 principle."
Do you have links to these studies? I have never heard of them.
"So, ignoring the stray encounters of a "jackpot" or "dive", it is safe to state that the top 20% of men are enjoying the fun with top 80% of women while lower 80% of men are left off to rare encounters with the fuglies.
And this is what I see in the bars clubs and streets."
Where in the country do you live?
Bars and clubs can sometimes be tough pickings if there are only a few hotties or if the chicks are especially picky/bitchy at the spot you are at.
"good looking women texting some guy at the end of the night (after having shot down 8s, 9s) (who is also getting texts from a number of other girls), the attractive man (minority) having a babe in tow, and other babes eyeing him, and the average dude going home with a warpig. The lowest ranks of male standing there and looking like a chimp who got run over by a truck."
How hot are the chicks you normally hit on?
I have a friend who is horrible with women, yet he always tries to hit on the best looking chicks at the spots we go to...and he fails miserably. I keep trying to tell him that he needs to learn to "walk before he can run," but he never listens.
My big gripe with your description is it sounds like his description of the situation: "oh, only the good-looking guys get any action."
That is not entirely true. Being able to talk to women and being good at reading their signals helps a lot.
I try to give my friend pointers, but I never seem to be able to help him. He just seems geeky whenever he hits on chicks, and that is what I tell him. I tell him to act more "natural" but he doesn't seem to get it.
"I have had women, women who are at most 5's, tell me that there is nothing special in picking up men from bars, it is so easy. Btw, they are not talking about men who are 5s or 6s. Maybe not even 7s are visible to these women."
Well, that is because men tend to hit on women (although, I have been hit on by women before). If all you have to do is sit back and wait for someone to hit on you, then it will seem "easy."
"No, k.o., I disagree."
Well, then we disagree.
"Wrong. Women cheat as much as if not more than men. I have been gobsmacked at close friends who comment on their infidelities. Especially women I've known for decades. I guess we've known each other so long that they forget that I hadn't been aware of their actions."
You say women cheat more...I say men cheat more. Who knows? Maybe the cheating rates are similar.
"Hahahahahahaha! Wrong again. We women have something you men don't. It's called a pussy. An average looking woman can get a good-looking man to come home with her if she works it. Men aren't the only ones who use game or a form of it."
A pussy is not that special. Give me $150 (hell, give me just $100) and a phone, and I guarantee I could find a good-looking hooker on www.sfredbook.com who would let me do EVERYTHING to her pussy for about 30 min.
Also, what is that average-looking woman going to do when the good-looking guy she went home with leaves the next morning and never calls her again?
Plus, if there are a lot of good looking women at the bar/club/etc., then there will be a lot of competition. I have seen the girls who do the best with good-looking guys and they have one thing in common: they all are beautiful. Just because some average-looking girl can occasionally snag a drunk looker, doesn't mean it is the norm.
"The young women of today are too full of themselves, which is why they end up drunk at the side of the road. If they played it differently they'd be taking home men.
Unfortunately for them, they'll wake up too late and end up living alone with a posse of cats."
Maybe they are full of themselves or maybe some of them just want to go out and get drunk? Who knows, who cares.
"Oh, and King Barry... ditch the racist references, please. All they do is expose your ignorance and lower your credibility. There is no need for derogatory names for people of different skin colour."
What if I am ignorant and don't care about my credibility?
"Male cheating does not effect the stability of a society. Female cheating does."
Yeah, but WHO are these men cheating WITH, Grim???
"An Alpha man might well have casual sex with various average women, the history of Hollywood A-listers having sex with the nanny, babysitter, etc. (or bigshot politicos and business moguls) suggests that average women DO in fact land these guys for a while anyway."
So, these 'beta girls' are just being used. Big deal.
Doesn't negate the reality of their unattractiveness, since so many men will have a short-term 'fling'/liason with just about ANY woman with a pulse.
Keep it real dude.
"A pussy is not that special. Give me $150 (hell, give me just $100) and a phone, and I guarantee I could find a good-looking hooker on www.sfredbook.com who would let me do EVERYTHING to her pussy for about 30 min."
Yes, but that proves the point. YOU have to pay HER for it, not the other way around.
"Yes, but that proves the point. YOU have to pay HER for it, not the other way around."
I could get a woman to pay for it (at least, effectively pay for it). It wouldn't be that easy, but it can be done.
I am 28 and had a date with a 36-year-old milf a few months ago. We split the cost of the dinner, she paid for the hotel, and she drove (so she paid for the gas).
I am sure I could have had her pay for the entire dinner if I had just pushed it.
In fact, if I had kept seeing her, I could have gotten her to pay for a lot of stuff (She could have become my sugar mama).
So, a man could get a woman to effectively "pay" for it.
"For Alpha men, that cost can be deadly, as the late Steve McNair discovered."
I'm starting to sour on the whole HBD/"Game" vibe, as it is reminding me increasingly of feminism in that what gets reported as trend and fact seems like wish fulfillment, which raises a lot of warning flags.
Is there more than anecdotal evidence that alpha men are becoming the targets of violent attacks from scorned lovers? Assuming mating patterns are bestowing a higher percentage of female attention on a smaller number of alpha men, it would be safe to assume the number of partners for alpha men is increasing, right? With more partners for the same in demand men would come more scorned lovers and more female violence directed at alphas as a result?
But this isn't a large trend I've seen much evidence of, specifically that these type of female-on-male jealousy killings (or violence in general) are increasing in frequency. The implication that those living atop the grand sexual pyramid scheme concocted by feminists would often befall some horrible violent fate after receiving all the riches bestowed by womanity's base nature unleashed is obviously a comforting one for those beta males left with porn and video games. But does it have any grounding in fact?
You guys, especially you Whiskey, are going to love this article -
--
“The ego epidemic and how more and more of us have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness” | Mail Online
--
[...] Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.
More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them. We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.
We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves. [...]
[...] Of course, I joke, but researchers say there is growing evidence of an epidemic of ego-itis everywhere.
Once a traditionally male syndrome, narcissism generally begins at home and in schools, where children are praised excessively, often spoiled rotten and given the relentless message that they are ’special’. [...]
[...] But the sphere in which the signs of self-obsession are perhaps most obvious, and the consequences most immediately felt, is the dating one. [...]
[...] ‘They tend to be in their 30s, and there is a wide discrepancy between how they perceive themselves and how others see them.
‘They are often very plain, but see themselves as being absolutely fabulous, exceptional people.
‘They invariably reject every guy’s profile I send them. But if a guy rejects their profile, there is all hell to pay. There is disbelief. They are really saying: “I’m so fabulous. How dare he turn me down?”
‘In the past few years, I’ve noticed a real sense of entitlement among this small group of women. The idea that a guy might not find them as amazing as they find themselves doesn’t enter their head. [...]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213212/The-ego-epidemic-more-inflated-sense-fabulousness.html
KO: A 36-year old MILF. Yeah, right. That's real impressive. Come back when you can report the same about and 18-year old HB10.
"KO: A 36-year old MILF. Yeah, right. That's real impressive. Come back when you can report the same about and 18-year old HB10."
It would be hard to get an 18-year-old hottie to do the same thing (pay for it) since most 18-year-olds don't have much money.
I don't pay much when I go on dates, though. I always try to find a way to keep the date as cheap as possible.
Interesting article there beta bubba. I find some of their examples a bit hard to believe though. Surely, the ladies could only get away with such narcissism until the early thirties? As the biological clock and departing youth takes hold they would have to be really deluded to maintain such an unrealistic view of themselves.
It's easy to delude yourself when you're living in an echo changer, Chrisj.
Misery loves company and a lot of women will sit around and commiserate about how wonderful we are and why don't men get with the program.
Women don't tell each other that they (we) need to consider things like biological clocks, and what they (we) have to offer a man - wash and iron clothes? Sod that, go for wash and wear.
Cooking dinner? Nah, eat out, take away or he can help.
And look at the advertising. Talk about misandrist! Men are buffoons,they should be grateful to take on women.
I'm slightly exaggerating here, but I'm over 40, and I reckon by this time I know how women's minds work. (LOL yes, they do work. Just not the way men's do)
(And just for fun: word verification is "plotable")
"It would be hard to get an 18-year-old hottie to do the same thing (pay for it) since most 18-year-olds don't have much money."
BWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!
comment of the year!
Damn.
HHHAAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!
Yo, King Obama,
Come on.
King? Queen? Troll?
Show me an 18 year old girl that would (or would need to) pay for a male prostitute, I will show you 10.000 boys that need to pay for one.
Thank you man, you just made my day.
Where the fuck you living at?
Nilk - "The young women of today are too full of themselves, which is why they end up drunk at the side of the road. If they played it differently they'd be taking home men."
One thing to point out here is that women judge each other by the quality of men they attract/bed. Their sexual market value tends to be based more on the quality of lovers, rather than quantity – as it is for men (of course, a woman’s “quantity” tends to be a negative in men’s evaluation of women).
Men who have had more sexual partners gain an advantage with many women, who will then see them as “proven” quality lovers (the “stamp of approval” placed on them by those many women).
If a woman were to have sex with a man of lesser sexual market place value (say, a female 8 with a male 6), then HER sexual market value can be seen as being decreased to HIS level. She now has two problems: lower quality men are now going to be encouraged to “hit” on her, believing she is likely to be interested in them (and, we all know how women enjoy the unwanted attentions of beta males, now don’t we); and, her female competition WILL take full advantage of her poor choice to seek to diminish her within female circles.
Personally, I believe that this sort of consideration is why it is often the case with he-said/she-said date rape cases that the women does not come to realize that she has been raped until AFTER she’s had a chance to speak to her friends and find out that the guy she was with wasn’t up to their imagined standards for her (remember that study about a year ago demonstrating that women are more effected by “beer goggles” than men?). It seems to me that a significant portion of such “rape” cases come down to a woman trying to “save face” and salvage her “reputation”.
Yet, the same considerations do not hold true for men. A man who is a 10 can have all the sex he wants with more-than-willing 6’s and 7’s, and yet his sexual marketplace value will not be damaged. Unlike for a woman, who value tends to be “set” by her lowest quality lover, a man’s will remain based on the highest quality he can attract (again, quantity of lovers serves to enhance, not degrade, a man’s valuation). Thus, he may bang 6’s, but as long as he still attracts the attentions of 10’s, that will be his valuation.
So, as you say, women could be taking men home (quite easily, as a matter of fact) if they played it differently – settling for a man in their own range, rather than unsuccessfully competing for higher status men – there remains the underlying reasoning for NOT settling for lesser men – it will tend to define their valuation as equal to those men they might settle for. And, I should add that women today are often not particularly honest with themselves about where they “fall” on the valuation curve. Most tend to see themselves much higher than they really are.
In my own observations, some of the truly happiest long-term couples are those who are evenly matched (especially where neither is particularly attractive). But, these tend to be older couples, who got together in an era where both men and women were more honest about their own attractiveness, and sought out comparable mates. I just don’t see this happening as much today – especially on the woman’s part. She can all too easily “put out” and get a higher quality male (if only for short-term sex), thus she comes to believe that such a man IS her ideal mate; and, men at her own true level are seen as a drag on her effort to enhance her valuation by selectively seeking only higher-status men.
It is often pointed out that men also aim high wrt women. Yet, when they find that they cannot get higher status women the way women can with men (being easy), they seem more prone to accept their status, and become more willing to select comparable women.
Thanks z.g. You saved me the trouble.
In my own observations, some of the truly happiest long-term couples are those who are evenly matched (especially where neither is particularly attractive). But, these tend to be older couples, who got together in an era where both men and women were more honest about their own attractiveness, and sought out comparable mates. I just don’t see this happening as much today – especially on the woman’s part. She can all too easily “put out” and get a higher quality male (if only for short-term sex), thus she comes to believe that such a man IS her ideal mate; and, men at her own true level are seen as a drag on her effort to enhance her valuation by selectively seeking only higher-status men.
It is often pointed out that men also aim high wrt women. Yet, when they find that they cannot get higher status women the way women can with men (being easy), they seem more prone to accept their status, and become more willing to select comparable women.
This dynamic is essentially true, I think, slw.
The reason is that men do not suffer mate status loss by adjusting standards downwards, while women do. Men *gain* mate status by having experience (within limits ... "manwhore" types are avoided by many women, but the sweet spot of experienced without being a manwhore is much more desirable to most women than a man who is light on experience), while women *lose * it. So a woman is incented to make every mating status positive, and in the current free market that's quite possible because the top dog guys are more than willing to adjust down to take advantage of sexual availability of women who are "below" them in mate value terms, both because they enjoy the couplings, as well as because such couplings only gain them mate value, on the margin. But for the women involved, they can become accustomed to punching above their weight.
That's not a problem in itself -- women *can* punch above their weight in the sex market, simply because men in that market find sexual availability attractive *in itself*. The hangover comes when a woman comes to think that she can actually snag one of these guys into a committed LTR where he will be faithful to her. What happens is her sense of mate value for LTRs/marriages becomes tied to her sense of mate value for the sex market, and inflated by the latter. This leads to the chronic "fear of settling" and so on that we see in a good number of young women. It's a combination of a high sex ratio giving young women a surfeit of choice, economic independence that removes the pressure to marry until the bio clock starts ringing in their ears, and enhanced expectations from some of the "access" some of them have had to rather quite high status men. Put all three together and you have the main explanation for the trend in later marrying ages, as opposed to the nonsense spouted by man-haters like Regnerus.
Great comment, slwerner.
KO -
"Some hookers give it away at $150 for a quickie. That is not expensive."
Not expensive????
Do you have any idea how much video game time I could get for that?!?
"Show me an 18 year old girl that would (or would need to) pay for a male prostitute, I will show you 10.000 boys that need to pay for one."
Very good point.
Another thing that the opposing side fails to factor in is the explosion of sex fetishes thanks to the internet - in particular, online forums and video sharing sites. Males' propensity for fetishes skews the sexual market place even further in females' direction. Women who rate 4.5 or less due to major physical issues (obesity, deformity, even acne) can easily partner up with a man who is infatuated with her defect. Try playing Sherlock Holmes for a night and spend a couple hours on Youtube, looking at the kinds of videos certain men favorite. All too often a seemingly well-adjusted man (who does not at all seem nerdy) will have hundreds of "favorites" that are interesting, to say the least. For crying out loud, I just discovered users with burqua fetishes and snoring fetishes (granted, the latter was female, but I'd bet she represents an extremely rare demographic). Fetishes for BBW's, women with pimples, large feet, amputees, etc ensure that, while a 2 or 3 with a "condition" can't find love she can at least find easy sex & financial support as long as she markets her sexual value to these fetishist subsets. In many cases the fetishists seem to be alphas or "upper level" betas who have easy access to women but are too ashamed to reveal their proclivities to the "primary" wife/girlfriend. Thus we have fetishists (who already have access to women) satiating themselves on the side with 2's and 3's while leaving an even smaller pool of lower-end females for typical beta males to draw from.
k.o., you consider yourself a "normal guy" and say "I never have had a problem finding a girlfriend." Maybe that's "normal" among the guys you know. Among the guys I know (computer guys), they're either married or perpetually single. Very few are playing the field the way you describe. Some have gotten so frustrated that they have completely given up on the entire idea of dating.
You are clearly well above average among guys if you are able to go to bars/clubs and sleep with attractive girls on a regular basis.
Hell, I myself am doing well above average these days in terms of pure numbers. Although, I still haven't been able to find myself a quality girl who will stick around as a girlfriend. The only ones who have been willing to date me have had some pretty serious deficiencies.
I would expect that for a good chunk of the single male population, 6-month dry spells are fairly common.
Anyway, on to Whiskey's post. There's one thing that doesn't sit well with me: the comments about how guys making $100K and up are still doing OK, but guys with more modest means are getting screwed over.
Well, I'm 27, I'm a millionaire, and I've been making $100K and up since I was about 20 years old. And yet, I was still a virgin at 24. The money didn't help.
I think things will change somewhat when I get older, but I see no evidence that my current level of wealth helps me significantly with the age group of women I go for.
Why do they need a rich guy when the cost of living is low here (TX is much cheaper than, say, CA or NY) and they're probably being supported by their parents? They certainly aren't saving for their retirements (low future time orientation), but they probably think it's weird that someone like me *is* saving for my retirement rather than blowing my cash on BMWs, fancy restuarants, and bottle service.
I've told girls I was unemployed previously (as a joke) and they didn't seem to even notice. Pretending to be unemployed didn't seem to hurt. Indeed, having a stable job may actually hurt you in some respects, because your job sucks down time that you could spend partying and picking up girls. It doesn't help that software engineers are basically all men, and that many of them don't have very "happening" social circles -- so it's hard to branch out socially through your job.
Additionally, girls have a very hard time relating to a job like mine. Even among computer folk, I'm not doing the fluffy stuff like web design. I do device drivers, assembly code, and that sort of thing. I don't bother describing it in any detail. They've heard of the company I work for, but their eyes don't light up the way they do when my friend tells them he's a math professor. Every girl can relate to the idea of a math professor.
Now, I think they may also not really *know* how lucrative my job is -- I do well, but there are a lot of software engineers who make shitty pay. Their idea of a "computer guy" may be the guy with a low-level job at Dell who maybe makes $50K. Several years ago I was already making triple that even before stock options. But without directly *saying* that I'm rich (which is classless), they may never know the difference.
It's a bit of a dilemma to me: how to signal wealth without being obnoxious about it. I wish I had a good answer to that problem.
Now, extreme levels of wealth (let's say $100M and up) are clearly going to be quite helpful. And European girls may not look down so much on nerdy professions. But wealth alone -- without the fame and status that comes from certain professions like rock star, pro sports, CEO, bigshot lawyer, hedge fund manager -- I say it's overrated in attracting girls. Even in the Game community, I think it's *still* overrated. I think I've seen Roissy rank wealth in importance above looks, for instance. I'd disagree. 20something girls mostly aren't looking for providers, or even sugar daddies. They're looking to have fun.
"It is not like a few guys are banging all the chicks."
Dumbass comment of the year.
In fact, perhaps the most dumbass comment of all the time that the internet has existed.
A few males monopolizing all female gametes has been the default primate mating strategy for millions of years. It has been the primary stategy for humans in almost all cultures since the advent of agriculture. Throughout the entire Bronze and early Iron Age, it was the default mode of human existence.
In the last 2000 years, nearly every culture on the planet lived this way (think Islam or Imperial China) with the exception of the Christian West after the time of the Viking conversion to Christianity. Now, with the secularization and de-Westernizing influence of the PC left, the ability for women to get resources for themselves and their children without needing a specific man to do so, and the substitution of the state for the family, even Westerners are sliding back into the default primate mating program.
Which is a few guys banging all the women.
All this is happening in plain view before everyone's face, no excuse for missing the facts.
Posting your above comment either a. irreversibly invalidates your intellect or b. denotes you as utterly incapable of simple observation.
So, did anyone watch the Mercy premiere last night?
Who was that idiot that said Muslim societies was a proof of "a few guys banging all the chicks"?
Are you retarded?
A Muslim man could, at best, have 4 wives. Not many could, but some did.
A Muslim man is also under religious compulsion to get married. They predominantly did so.
Fix the divorce laws, get rid of no fault, tar and feather the scum that run the media, and teach your sons how to be a bit let, well, effeminate.
And all will be well.
Did you know that you can make cash by locking selected areas of your blog / site?
Simply join AdWorkMedia and use their Content Locking tool.
Post a Comment