I've been with my boyfriend for six months, we're both 34 and I am fairly sure he's The One. The other night we ended up having a conversation about how many lovers we'd had. He told me he had slept with eight women and suddenly I felt nervous about confessing the truth - I had a lot of flings at university and in my first job at an ad agency, so my tally is closer to 40. But I found myself saying ten and even then he looked horrified. I hate being untruthful with him, but don't want to be judged either. What should I do?
Rowan Pelling's response? She wants to make this woman's situation normative:
I have to say that if this man is so censorious and delicate that he crumples when faced with a 34-year-old unmarried career woman who confesses to ten lovers, then he'd better take the Tardis back to 1900 ...
To be honest, if your man really loves you he should be able to take the full tally with equanimity. But then that would presume that he's secure in his own skin and, as we all know, a great many people aren't. What you perceive as censure may well be old-fashioned male insecurity.
... Meanwhile, a close female friend is given to describing herself to any new beau as a virgin (she's 36). When the poor man looks at her in utter disbelief, she says: 'I have no recollection of a love life before you. Time starts now.'
This is an attempt to manipulate. Think of what's really going on here. The woman had no time for a family type guy in her 20s. She wasted her youth and fertility on casual sex with players. Now she's in her mid-30s and is finally ready to settle. She's ready (in her mind) to give up on sex and romance and be supported by a family guy.
Should this be considered the new normal? Hardly. The family guy is going to have to make all the sacrifices expected of men in past generations. But he's not getting a woman who can offer him youthful beauty or fertility. He's not getting a woman who will look toward him as the romantic man in her life. He will probably not get the sex he thinks he's going to get once the deal is done.
All the rewards are going to the player. The sacrifices are being made by the family guy. It's a shocking deal. It means too that the men who would make the best fathers aren't likely to have much success in reproducing.
And yet Rowan Pelling, and a fair number of the women in the comments, are trying to browbeat men into thinking they aren't real men or that they are old-fashioned if they object.
The most appropriate response from men is righteous anger and a determination to resist. We have to insist that if women want the support of family men that they have to be ready to settle much younger and reward the men who are to be their husbands - and not a long line of strangers.
It is not insecure for men to ask for these terms, it is a basic defence of healthy family formation.
Rowan Pelling wants to liberate women to waste themselves at the expense of family men and the long-term future of their society. This is her side of the sex war. Let's make sure she gets some intelligent and persevering opposition.
The comments on that article sadden me.
ReplyDeleteRather than look in the mirror at how their own choices have left them undesirable as marriage material, the women prefer to lead other young women down the same path. Law of diminishing returns in action I guess.
Women naturally bond with men after sex. Even if they were not particularly close to or enamored with the man before the act. Over the course of many years of sleeping with men whom they do not stay with, women must deaden themselves emotionally to their natural bonding instinct.
Such lack of bonding ability does not bode well for any man wanting her for a wife. Even if she wants to settle down at 30, she will likely have a hard time developing strong feelings for her husband that came so easily for the string of players who enjoyed her in her youth.
"To be honest, if your man really loves you he should be able to take the full tally with equanimity."
ReplyDeleteI do believe that a "fun" little test would be to wait a couple of weeks, then send in a letter claiming to be from a woman who has just learned that the man she's about to marry has had over 30 other lovers, and of her concern that his having been so promiscuous will make it difficult for him to actually "settle" for just her.
My guess would be that the same advice columnist would be advising this fictitious woman to "run away from that relationship!", making the accurate point that a person who's been used to "spreading it around" is likely to continue to do so - marriage vows not withstanding.
Along the same lines, Amy Alkon ran a piece about a man who proposed to a 26 year-old woman only to learn that she'd had 83 other lovers. (http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/08/11/numbers.html)
ReplyDeleteAs one might expect, most of the female posters made light of the extreme level of promiscuity having been displayed by one so young, with the prevailing attitude amongst them that "as long as she was past her wild-oat sowing phase...".
What seems to happening with some increasing frequency is that woman are seeking to upend the old standards of slut-shaming, arguing that men who are as promiscuous are considered studs (so that it's unfair to call the women sluts).
Yet, the fact remains that both historically and genetically there are very sound reasons for men to reject highly promiscuous women as long-term mates.
If women were to be more honest about the seeming disparity, they might come to realize that the true underlying problem is that woman find themselves unable to reject highly promiscuous men - although they too have very reasons to do so as well.
Very well said, Mr. Richardson. This is why beta men in their thirties (this guy is a beta - any 34-year old man with that few partners in this hedonistic era is) should not settle for their same-aged peers.
ReplyDelete"What you perceive as censure may well be old-fashioned male insecurity."
What feminists attack as "insecurity" is a very real concern for men who expect fidelity from their women. A lady who has racked up 40 partners has eliminated her ability to bond with a man and demonstrated that she is flighty and incapable of staying with any one man for very long. Women like the one writing in to the Daily Mail are less likely to stay married and more likely to cheat on their husbands. And Pelling is encouraging her to lie to the man she considers "the One"? That's a great foundation for a relationship! The rot runs deep.
The comments at the Daily Mail site don't bode well at all.
ReplyDeleteThey're mostly from women saying they've had dozens of sex partners and it shouldn't matter to their future husband.
It should matter to all of us. With men the desire for sex and romance doesn't have to be set against the desire for marriage. Yes, men do have an instinct to sleep with a variety of women. But it's not easy for the average man to do this. Nor does it really fit a man's romantic instincts. So it's possible for a man to look for a woman to marry who will be his romantic and sexual partner.
With women it's easy for the link between sex and romance and marriage to be broken. The men who women are likely to have romantic and sexual feelings for are not going to be the same as the ones they think will make good husbands. It's more likely that women will find the bad boy/player types romantically and sexually appealing. Nor is it going to be too difficult for many women to get occasional sex and interest from these men.
Women can find the drama of relationships with the bad boy/player types intoxicating - even as the hurts and heartaches damage them psychologically. Many stick with it for years.
And so you get women in their 30s finally deciding to switch from sex and romance to marriage with a family man. These women are too old to offer much in the way of children; it will take years for them to bond with their husbands (the husbands had better be patient); and they will go into marriage not as a means of being able to express their impulse toward sex and romance but as a means of leaving it behind (this doesn't mean they aim to cheat or that they don't mean to love the men they finally marry - it's just not a sexual or romantic kind of love but what they think of as a wifely one).
So the men who are being told in the comments not to worry, that they are "the one", and that they should forget about the forty other men are most likely being deceived. They are "the one" that a woman would like to support them once they have given up on sex and romance.
As I wrote in my post, it's a shocking deal for family guys. Family guys are the ones making the big sacrifices, but no longer getting much in the way of children, nor of a woman's beauty, youth and passion.
Not all women are doing the modern girl thing. I know traditional women who married much younger (early 20s) and not surprisingly they do give of themselves emotionally to their husbands - as they have started out by directing their romantic and sexual impulses to the man they chose to marry.
This is what ought to be normative and it's especially in the interests of family men to support this.
What seems to happening with some increasing frequency is that woman are seeking to upend the old standards of slut-shaming, arguing that men who are as promiscuous are considered studs (so that it's unfair to call the women sluts).
ReplyDeleteThere is a double-standard here, though not the one women think. It's that women admire men who sleep with a lot of women, while men don't admire women who sleep with a lot of men.
It's not obvious to me that it's men who need to alter their outlook here.
this guy is a beta - any 34-year old man with that few partners in this hedonistic era is
ReplyDeleteWhy do I suspect that all the people babbling about alphas and betas spend most of their time relating to women they see on the computer screen?
We don't actually live in a "hedonistic era", although the media tries hard to give the impression that everyone is doing it like rabbits.
"normative" = good vs. bad / right vs. wrong
ReplyDeleteI think you meant to say "normalized".
Anon -- Men can alter their outlook, but all it will do is make marriage "gay" as I've posted on my blog, that is towards gay norms of lots of cheating and not much faithfulness in marriage. Which given high divorce penalties and other factors, already pushes men towards cohabitation.
ReplyDeleteCohabitation in America does not last long, tending towards breakups rapidly. Thus, more single mothers. The Sandra Tsing Loh and "Happily Married, Dreaming of Divorce" articles tend to paint a picture of women not excited by what Loh terms "Kitchen Bitch" husbands who are domestic and "beta" and seeking excitement and passion they had when they were young. Echoing Barbara Ehrenreich's comments.
We also live in a VERY hedonistic age. See the Kay Hymnowitz article on City-Journal.org about "the New Girl Order" or my latest post -- female consumer spending is accounted to be 80% or more of all spending. Women eat up stories about Sex and the City, and single motherhood for Working Class White women is accounted to be 40%, and 20% for Middle Class White women, according to "Bell Curve" Author Charles Murray's latest research. Cheap and easy contraception, anonymous urban living, and rising incomes allow women to pursue passion and excitement without penalty.
What you will see, on average, is cohabitation instead of marriage, single motherhood, and most men just not caring or committing to women. How can any man compete with 40-80 lovers? He can't. A woman with that many partners is as suitable as a porn star. Which acceptance of, along with constant Viagra/Cialis/Her Pleasure Trojan ads, does suggest a VERY hedonistic lifestyle. The Durex survey had the national average for all women all ages at 4 sex partners for life, but NYC at 9. Among young professional women I have no doubt it is much higher.
I have to weigh in with Whiskey here.
ReplyDeleteA woman with 40 partners is useless as a mate. She cannot bond. She also will be judging her husband sexually against 40 other guys in a culture that tells women if they are not perfectly sexually satisfied, they should divorce, with all the nasty ramifications for the husband.
Rowan Jackass is simply another defender of the status quo, shaming men for being skeptical of women with high sexual odometers as being "insecure". Well, fine. An odd man here or there is "secure" enough to compete with 40 other men in terms of sexual pleasure, I'll give him that. But the rest? Not.
This guy should definitely not marry this woman. She should marry a man with 40+ sexual partners himself, who can also judge her on her performance in the same way. That would be "equality", wouldn't it?
But no, women want their endless flings and "just happened" encounters while they are young, sexy and have high mate value. AND they want to then "catch up" with the blokes they passed over while they were doing the same, once they reach the age of 30+ and want to marry.
Men need to resist this, and not marry them. Let them become single mothers. Let them live with their cats. Let them eat dust. If they did not want us when we were both 25, why on earth would we, having any self respect at all, cave in to them and their 40 partners when we are in our 30s? Get some self respect, men, and opt out from used up floozies like this. And whatever you do, don't pay any mind to what manginas like Rowan have to say about FA.
Hey men, don't get mad, don't get even, get ahead, just say no to these party girls who want it both ways. Just say no to them when they are past their expiration date and are looking for a beta "The One" to pay their bills for life. If they are over 30 and still not married forget it. You can't turn a whore into a house wife.
ReplyDeleteWhat you perceive as censure may well be old-fashioned male insecurity.
ReplyDeleteBut why would anyone not feel a bit insecure knowing that their prospective spouse has had lots of previous sexual relationships?
And seriously, one woman had 83 lovers? Who would keep count!? LOL!
I don't think having lots of lovers (or indeed any) before marriage is a good thing for either sex.
Mark Richardson says:
ReplyDeleteit's a shocking deal for family guys. Family guys are the ones making the big sacrifices, but no longer getting much in the way of children, nor of a woman's beauty, youth and passion.
I had never thought of it that way but yes, you are quite right. No one thinks of "family guys" anymore except as figures of fun eg Homer Simpson, Family Guy, American Dad.
Indeed the evolution of fathers in television series from the affable patriarch of My Three Sons to the ludicrous buffoon of Family Guy gives an indication of the falling respect this fundamental role is given in our debauched po-mo liberal culture.
Whats happening here is that the "players", those with the aptitude and attitude to develop a good "game", are in indulging in an endless round of defacto polygamous relationships and using up the stock of fertile women. Who, upon reaching age ~ 35 are dumped for a version 10 years younger.
I am no angel in this department, having had many serial monogamous relationships through my twenties & thirties. Living in Bondi allowed me the luxury of indefinitely extending my arrested adolescence, around 10 years past its use-by date.
I certainly regret not settling down 10 years earlier. Fortunately I got lucky and found a woman with the trifecta - beauty, intelligence and kindness - who wants a family.
But there are many many men and women out there in their thirties and forties facing lives of "permanent temporariness", to use the chilling phrase from Bauman. Anne Manne digs up the grim stats, which show that the real victims of the culture war are men who want a family home:
An American Sociological Review article reported last year that Americans have fewer close friends than they did two decades ago, and that the number of people who said they have no one with which to discuss important things had more than doubled. "The evidence," said the researcher, Lynn Smith-Lovin, a professor of sociology at Duke University, "shows that Americans have fewer confidants and those ties are also more family-based than they used to be."
In our nation, Australian Bureau of Statistics data published in 2006 forecasts that the number of people living alone will rise from 1.8 million in 2001 to between 2.8 and 3.7 million people in 2026. If the latter projection bears up, it is an increase of 105%. The reasons are manifold: relationships are more fragile, occur later, or never form at all. Cohabiting unions are on the rise, and have an even higher break-up rate than marriages.
Falling fertility means that demographers estimate around one-quarter of women currently of reproductive age are unlikely to have children. The number of couples with children is expected to increase slowly, or even decline. Childless couples, on the other hand, are likely to increase rapidly, from 1.9 million in 2001 to between 2.9 million and 3.3 million in 2026. When one spouse dies, there will be no adult child to care for the one remaining.
But while men are slightly less likely to be alone, their plight is often bleaker. All the clichés about women's friendship networks are true: far fewer women alone report isolation and the absence of someone to call on in times of need.
Truly, the great post-modern liberal death wish has been the dream come true of our cultural elites and their camp followers.
Kenshi, you're right that the word "normative" used in a technical sense refers to something being prescriptive rather than descriptive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in common usage it has the sense of "normalising". See here.
The phenomenon being discussed here is not specific to the English speaking world, but it is MUCH worse in Anglo-Saxony than elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI have the good fortune of being tied to continental Europe through blood and immediate family ties, even having dual citizenship with Italy and the US (call me a traitor, that's fine). And I'm sorry to say that the level of rampant slutdome, of sheer vulgarity, casualness and detachment in Britain and the US, especially the NY-LA-London axis, is much more pronounced than in Italy, Germany, France or the smaller European nations.
Yes, there has been a shift in the whole of the West, but in my experience working and traveling across Western nations, the Brits, Aussie and Americans really are the worst. Romanticism always had a tenuous hold on these mostly mercantile, uber-practical societies, and it appears the women there have dealt with feminism in a peculiarly ugly way. Reductionist materialism, which is in the blood of these societies going back to the Enlightenment, coupled with a democratic metaphysics that makes distinction taboo and puts a huge premium on equality, have contributed to creating a kind of woman who equates promiscuity with easy virtue.
Indeed, I would argue that promiscuity is the sexual analog of democracy, and that any society that has a lingering ancien regime still produces women with a latent sense of hierarchy lacking in the thoroughly modern souls of Americans and Aussies, who have a visceral hatred of all things that smack of class or distinction.
Recall the old song: "If her daddy's rich, take her out for a meal / If her daddy's poor, you can do as you feel / In the Summertime..."
Exhibit C: the acceptance of tattoos on women in the US compare to continental Europe.
Exhibit D: the behavior of Brits and Aussies at Mediterrenean resorts compared to the locals; the behavior of Americans on Spring Break in Mexico - a phenomenon so grotesque it can turn anyone off to sex for a lifetime.
Anyway, there is much more to this story and I may be off base a bit - but not entirely.
Enjoy the site.
This post was like a blow to the gut, for me. This is my number-one "peeve" about society today.
ReplyDeleteThe answer has to be for men to marry only women under the age of 25, preferably even younger, when the man has reached an age when he, as a beta with a good career, is now attractive to women as a life partner.
The problem, Anonymous, is that that is increasingly difficult, as women that age have become increasingly unavailable for marriage. I've commented elsewhere on how, even in conservative evangelical churches, the attractive, under 25 set are not willing to settle for a provider nice guy but instead are holding out for the alphas they have crushes on.
ReplyDeleteThis is what it's like to be in the midst of civilizational collapse, we are drinking the bitter dregs of prodigal living.
ReplyDeleteA woman with that many partners is damaged goods. She will no longer be able to form a health pair bond with any man.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic that women who are best suited to perpetuate our civilization prefer to be concubines of a small minority of men. More often these women of many partners are serial rejects from some alpha's stable of sexual candidates, as they often fail to perceive being used as means to his own breeding selection ends.
ReplyDeleteIn denying their own nature many women have degraded themselves to the state similar to the animal kingdom.
Liberalism's reduction of other goods in the human experience and its pathological refusal to acknowledge human weakness will continue to distort human bonding. For many women today, it would seem the purpose of life is being good looking. That it's personally damaging or culturally destructive causes little concern. The overarching propaganda by the media trivializes any other considerations and achieving pinnacle status on the beauty hierarchy is the prime directive drummed at women.
Why would any man would accept being consort to a spent player from A line beauty team? Status is a likely motivator, however, a women who's so emotionally used and inured more often than not becomes repellent to the poor schlep who takes up with her.
"The problem, Anonymous, is that that is increasingly difficult, as women that age have become increasingly unavailable for marriage. I've commented elsewhere on how, even in conservative evangelical churches, the attractive, under 25 set are not willing to settle for a provider nice guy but instead are holding out for the alphas they have crushes on."
ReplyDeleteThese men (and I was once one) should, then, continuing looking at the under 25 crowd, and never settle for some playered-out older woman. The message should be sent that these women have made themselves unsuitable for marriage.
Some of these phenomena may be the symptom more than the disease. If you have a society that valourises instant gratification and quick fixes to profound problems, and a society that has pinned its hopes to a mixture of narcissism and consumerism, in which it is quite normal to view human relationships as merely instrumental, then your town trollops and Ibiza trashbags are bound to turn up.
ReplyDeleteAnne Manne is a good writer, and I'm glad to see her cited here. Contra Strocchi, though, reducing the problem to one of 'liberalism', or, even more ridiculously, to 'postmodernism', is really only telling a small part of the story.
I have to say it. Your attitudes towards women come across less like responsible conservatives and more like guys who were rejected by a chick at age 15 and have held a grudge every since.
ReplyDeleteI have to say it. Your attitudes towards women come across less like responsible conservatives and more like guys who were rejected by a chick at age 15 and have held a grudge every since.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
That is exactly right. They don't have any uses for women except as child breeders and sex objects. The only female qualities they value are youth and beauty. They consider any woman over the age of 25 as worthless. Read their blogs; it's all there.
We men must also take some responsibility for this awful mess. Too many times a couple will be in a long-term relationship throughout their 20s, usually cohabiting, but no marriage, and then sometime in the early 30s, the relationship ends. At that stage, the man is well placed to start again, but for the women to move back to square one, when she is now past her prime, is a much more difficult proposition. In such a case, the woman is mainly at fault - she should have insisted on marriage much earlier - but the man is also to blame for taking advantage of the situation. Men's "failure to commit" is a cliche and, I'm sure, is the main factor that women would cite to explain the problem, but surely it is a real issue.
ReplyDeleteThe only female qualities they value are youth and beauty. They consider any woman over the age of 25 as worthless. Read their blogs; it's all there.
ReplyDelete---
Absolutely. We are whatever we are because you have made us that way. Sperm chases the egg and you can direct any complaints to evolution.
And regarding the betas all I have to say is that sheep get sheared.
"Your attitudes towards women come across less like responsible conservatives and more like guys who were rejected by a chick at age 15 and have held a grudge every since."
ReplyDeleteMeh. It's not the rejections by women - of which there were plenty - so much as the lack of affordable family formation.
I couldn't afford to start a family when I was young and horny. If I had been presented with the opportunity, I would have taken it. Instead I saved up money.
Now I might spend that money on a woman and kids -- but you know what? I *wanted* kids when I was 27. I don't feel the same desire now.
Yeah, I *might* date. I don't have a need for sex, but maybe the company will be charming. If I do, I'll start a blog called "How a Grumpy Creepy Grudge-Holding guy can date women 20 years Younger Than He Is."
Yes Haha, these men have reservations about marrying strong independent womyn who have avaraged 40+ cocks on the odometer, because they are insecure losers who can't get laid. Makes so much sense now.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you probably have quite a few miles on the odometer yourself. Go buy some cats you old hag.
assuming she started having sex at 16 (could be even younger) that makes for over 2 partners per year. So until now her average relationship lasted under 6 months tops. And thats also assuming she hasn't been single for any length of time.
ReplyDeleteBut NOW she's ready to commit to a relationship that should last about 40 years or more...
riiiiight
1. The woman is lying. She has likely had many more than 40 partners, she has simply lost count and is rounding down.
ReplyDelete2. She may also have presented herself to her new man as a woman of virtue. The truth of unpaid whore is what is turningthe man away.
3. In any event, the man deserves to know the truth, or to know that he will never know the truth, which is also more information that he has now with her lie of "10".
4. With the promiscuous woman comes increased risk of disease, fertility risks, and the risk of running into old "boyfriends". It would be an intollerable humiliation for the man to discover after the wedding that he had married the town bicycle.
Absolutely. We are whatever we are because you have made us that way. Sperm chases the egg and you can direct any complaints to evolution.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Yes, and it sounds like this attitude has made you a very, very happy person indeed.
"Your attitudes towards women come across less like responsible conservatives and more like guys who were rejected by a chick at age 15 and have held a grudge every since."
ReplyDeleteHow typically iLberal, to reduce any reservation or misgiving about human conduct to be rooted in some irrational adolescent event.
One of the most striking pathologies I've observed in Liberalism is to misidentify the temporary as permanent and the permanent as temporary.
Previous behaviour is a pretty reliable indicator as to what a person will repeat in the future.
Being selfish is a hallmark of liberal thinking, as natural as eating.
Used up women, no matter how attractive they remain are no competition for any twenty five year old who knows the value of exclusive access to her youth.
Used up women, no matter how attractive they remain are no competition for any twenty five year old who knows the value of exclusive access to her youth.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
I did not marry until age 35 and I married a younger man when I did; I did not "sleep around," just had a social disability that made dating and social interaction very difficult for me. My husband did not consider me "used up" and I am fiercely loyal to him. Many men in our circle who married for "exclusive access" to some young woman's youth are now stuck with financial problems because the "exclusive access" came with a large price tag. We, on the other hand, have built a large foundation of wealth together and are envied for our stable marriage and healthy financial position. We also have a beautiful daughter who will never be allowed anywhere near a "game" player, if we can help it.
Here is a simple rule. Anyone who tries to get you to do, believe or accept anything using an appeal to the "real man" is your enemy. They do not have your interest at heart. Even if they don't admit it to themselves they are trying to get you to act for their interest against your own.
ReplyDeleteAny women who uses the line "a real man would" should be expunged from your life.
PeterB
Any women who uses the line "a real man would" should be expunged from your life.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
The same for any man using this line on any woman.
re: 35 and Married
ReplyDeleteObviously, you don't fall into that "used up" category. That's why I made an adjectival distinction. Your acting on a natural desire to commit has lead to a superior quality of life. Isn't that the purpose of conservatism? Recognition of our nature and acting in accord with it for the purpose of improvement.
This is one of Liberalism's big lies, that it alone can lead human beings to greater happiness. One other point, exceptions don't make the rule, that's a common Liberal tactic; not to sound overly critical please consider making your arguments from statistical rather than anecdotal references.
Anonymous 3...
Anon: "such a case, the woman is mainly at fault - she should have insisted on marriage much earlier - but the man is also to blame for taking advantage of the situation. Men's "failure to commit" is a cliche and, I'm sure, is the main factor that women would cite to explain the problem, but surely it is a real issue."
ReplyDeleteMen don't commit, because women don't really commit. In a no-fault system, the woman can unilaterally get up and walk away, helping herself to 1/2 the guy's assets, and good chunk of his future earnings (alimony) in the process.
You don't believe me? Check this out:
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/special_reports/paying_alimony_forever_081209
So what you are saying is "REAL MEN SHOULD COMMIT" in the manner described by the other posters above. Why commit, when the other party isn't held to their commitment, but only *you* are financially/legally held to yours?
A one-way commitment, is an idiotic commitment. No man should sign such a one-way contract. None.
Anonymous 3: Obviously, you don't fall into that "used up" category.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
I heard all the same biologically reductive terms thrown at me when I was looking for my husband. "used up," "past her prime," etc. Didn't make the task of finding someone easier, just made it that much harder. And yes I know many other educated, professional women in their 30s and 40s who are married and having children, and are in happy marriages. Where I live, they (and Third World immigrants supported by welfare) are the only people who can afford to!
Men don't commit, because women don't really commit. In a no-fault system, the woman can unilaterally get up and walk away, helping herself to 1/2 the guy's assets, and good chunk of his future earnings (alimony) in the process.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Well what do you expect when all you want are young hotties? Young hotties are the worst marriage prospects around for a man with money. If you were willing to marry a decent, educated woman your own age you wouldn't have that problem. Young hotties are greedheads and don't understand that marriage is an economic partnership, not a credit card qualifier for Neiman Marcus, and other men will try to poach them too.
"Very well said, Mr. Richardson. This is why beta men in their thirties (this guy is a beta - any 34-year old man with that few partners in this hedonistic era is) should not settle for their same-aged peers."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but this feeds the whole feminist "men are wankers" idea which had helped put men in this mess in the first place. I'm certainly not going to give some big ego lefty women the satisfaction of thinking she's got some moral superiority over me that's for sure.
Contrary to the belief of a lot of junvenile nerds who read game theory blogs some relatively attractive men actually do restain themselves for ethnical or ideological reasons.
Unfortunately for both participants the clock is ticking and will eventually stop..
ReplyDeleteFor the man, the idea of a women having bonked half the city is about as appealing as going to the abattoir for a steak..
For the woman, now is the time (over 30)to spawn and I want it now regardless of the fact that I have been incapable of holding onto any type of relationship with the opposite sex..
What a great option, the only one that would appear to make sense would be to just give it a miss and hope there are some sane women left..
-----------------------------------
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly right. They don't have any uses for women except as child breeders and sex objects. The only female qualities they value are youth and beauty. They consider any woman over the age of 25 as worthless. Read their blogs; it's all there.
++++++++++++
Indeed, the 'pragmatism' displayed comes accross quite dehumanising. Part of being human is breaking some of the 'genetic' chains, and taking ownership over your behaiviour, your predispositions and make rational, thought out choices. Instead, they view everything as nothing more than genetically programmed mechanics and treat relationships with people strictly at this level. There is more to being human than just being a DNA replicating machine.
The overwhelming majority of women left comments of one of two types, or occasionally combining them:
ReplyDelete1) It's far better to lie. One woman's suggestion was to figure out how many past lovers she would be likely to ever mention to her intended life partner, and stick with that;
2) the second was feminist belitting of men for caring, and often implying that they must be sexually inadequate or they wouldn't care.
If looking through those comments doesn't convince you that surveys indicating the media or average number of lovers women have had are utter rubbish, because women with big or even fairly high numbes will lie through their teeth even on anonymous surveys, then you're beyond the react of realism.
This is awful- absolutely no one seems to care about love! Has anyone posting these comments ever felt human emotion, or are you just listing the qualities you want in your imaginary girlfriend?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Friday, 21 August 2009 9:13:00 AM AEST
ReplyDeleteWell what do you expect when all you want are young hotties? Young hotties are the worst marriage prospects around for a man with money. If you were willing to marry a decent, educated woman your own age you wouldn't have that problem. Young hotties are greedheads and don't understand that marriage is an economic partnership, not a credit card qualifier for Neiman Marcus, and other men will try to poach them too. <- Your argument is full of inconsistencies.
"All you want are the young hotties?" <- Each man sees each woman differently. We're all individuals who have different standards of what is hot. But we can agree on what's ugly, and that's a woman that has forsaken morality and sees the man as a meal ticket and walking ATM.
"Young hotties are the worst marriage prospects around for a man with money." <- Women don't want poor men. Not usually. And the men are poor when young, so it's a chicken-egg situation.
"If you were willing to marry a decent, educated woman your own age you wouldn't have that problem." <- Women that age are decent only because they can't get the player's attention any more. Educated? Maybe on the seamier side of life or the entitlement train. They've also picked up how to become liars and game-players from their many boyfriends and attendant female clique.
"Young hotties are greedheads and don't understand that marriage is an economic partnership, not a credit card qualifier for Neiman Marcus, and other men will try to poach them too." <- So the older women who were unable to previously take men seriously are now capable of being faithful? If you're going to get divorced, might as well do so with the youngest and most beautiful (legally) girl you can. People don't own the other person in a relationship, eventhough you make it out that is the way it should be. You cherrypick the worst of patriarchy, and use it to justify complete female licentiousness. Your arguments are deceptive.