The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Sex Influencers
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

How’s that for SEO maximization?

Commenter Jim Christian writes:

I don’t believe any polls because women lie about their sexual histories, they lie especially to the men who ask.

As it happens, the GSS has since 2004 recorded the sex of the interviewer in addition to the sex of the respondent. The following graph shows reported average opposite-sex partner counts among those at least 40 years old by the sex of both the interviewer and of the respondent:

Though the differences are modest, both men and women appear to relatively inflate their partner counts when the inquirer is of the opposite sex.

Jim’s observation sounds plausible and maybe it’s true, but the evidence for it isn’t to be found here–at least the part about women lying more about their sexual histories to men than to other women, anyway. With partner count averages this divergent between men and women, lies are obviously being told.

Tangentially, the survey has asked respondents about adult lifetime partner counts since 1989. In 2018, the last completed survey year, the percentage of women aged 40 or younger who reported zero or just one lifetime male sexual partner hit an all-time high of 46.5%. Nearly half of women in the prime of their sexual lives have not had multiple sexual partners (male partners, anyway!).

While women understate lifetime counts, there is little reason to think they would do so more egregiously now than they did a generation ago. To the contrary, the slut stigma is a shadow of what it used to be. If anything, women should lie less today than they did in the past.

Younger people really are having both less sex and fewer sexual partners than their parents did.

GSS variables used: INTSEX, SEX, NUMMEN, NUMWOMEN, AGE(40-89)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, History • Tags: GSS, Sex 
Hide 124 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What the hell is up with that massive difference between the mean and median for men??!! Are some guys reporting like 100+ and throwing it all off?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    “are some guys reporting like 100 and throwing it all off?”

    (the number on the paper refers to sexual-partner claim, not basketball points)


    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFke7_OYyiM/maxresdefault.jpg

    , @Twinkie
    The data have been very consistent. Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.
    , @SFG
    Yup.

    I'd also like to say I'm impressed with your statistical literacy. Most people would not have been immediately able to draw the correct conclusion like that.

    (It's in fact possible to have a positively-skewed distribution with a mean less than the median, but with data like this I doubt it.)
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah. A very similar thing happens with income statistics, which is why they're almost always reported based on the median rather than the mean, even though when most laymen hear "average", they think "mean" rather than "median" (and almost no one thinks "mode").
  2. @Talha
    What the hell is up with that massive difference between the mean and median for men??!! Are some guys reporting like 100+ and throwing it all off?

    Peace.

    “are some guys reporting like 100 and throwing it all off?”

    (the number on the paper refers to sexual-partner claim, not basketball points)

  3. @Talha
    What the hell is up with that massive difference between the mean and median for men??!! Are some guys reporting like 100+ and throwing it all off?

    Peace.

    The data have been very consistent. Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.
     
    While some of this is the media's bohemianism at work, a good chunk is probably the fact that musical beds provide far more creative possibilities, script-wise.
    , @LondonBob
    Homosexuals largely.
    , @Tony
    You mean most white people. Would have liked to seen it broken down by race.
  4. I don’t believe any polls because women lie about their sexual histories, they lie especially to the men who ask.

    You also can’t trust their pimps: I once had a pimp assure me his “sister” was a “virgin.”

    Interestingly, the mode (most common response) in all cases was 1.

  5. Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie; the more you get to know a chick’s friends and families, the more that comes out as regards old boyfriends, ‘flings’ and the rest that they don’t account for to their men in the beginning. The best sources of the truth in these matters has often been brothers of the sluts I’ve inadvertently dated and gotten involved with. Brothers hate having sluts for sisters, it seems, they tell on their sisters.

    Also, the ‘slut stigma’ is hardly a shadow of its former self; it’s a common smear, woman-to-woman when they get to fighting. Women say “I don’t usually do this so soon” as their panties are coming off four hours, a dinner and a few drinks into a date when that’s exactly what they’ve always done. Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur. Women want, or THINK they want, lots of sex with lots of men, but they don’t want anyone knowing they’re doing it like that. Sex In The City notwithstanding, real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.

    Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage. Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle for which remedies are advertised non-stop on television and it’s obvious women are lying in these polls society-wide. Women aren’t marrying in the cities until thirty and beyond. Exactly what do you think they’re doing with the prolonged single life? That’s right! Banging. Another slutty tell: more and more, they bang for money with sugar-daddy arrangements, too.

    Women lie, they tell a lie where the truth will do, especially about their sexual histories. Hence, my skepticism with any poll that’s presented with women being asked about their sexual histories. The one depicted in the article is a doozy.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    In my youth I slept with a young American girl, never did find out what brought her to the UK, we were comparing counts as one does, and hers was 41 (mine was low single figures). She was 17!

    When you first sleep with a girl. especially if she sees you as having options or thinks you're a 'player', she'll tell you all kinds of naughty stuff she's done and her friends have done, stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn't get to hear.
    , @zylonet
    Jim is correct, the rate of sociosexuality for young women is through the roof. From my own life experience, and from running a company that employees young people of various strata, I have seen the widespread social change compared to my younger years in the 1990s.

    First, if you have an attractive daughter and she has any type of libido: she is almost assuredly a slut. There is no way around it. Just deal with it. These girls are getting hit-on left and right by high status young men. It is unbelievable, the number of DMs they receive. If you are a normal young man, you may get hit on a few times per year by a girl who is not a war pig. If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days. But if you are a young woman at the 70th percentile, you may have guys "hitting you up" 50 times per day on Snap and Insta. So let's say those hitting on you are doing it over and over, that may only be 100 unique people per month. If you have intercourse with just 1, then that is very selective. But those are the numbers in play; rinse wash and repeat every month. Even if the number is 1 in 50, then you are more selective than a normal man whom in his entire life is never hit on by 50 attractive women. This is the reality. If a girl is horny and needs sex once a day or twice a day (a considerable fraction of women), then no way is she going to say no to all these hot dudes.

    Second, the carousel is real. It is the same small fraction of men getting nearly all the action with the non-fat girls. So intercourse frequency is down, because partners have more sex, but partner counts are up because girls are just waiting for their turn. But girls don't count "times on the carousel" so their numbers are low in these surveys.

    Third, young women go through slut phases. What will happen is they will be a good girl, then bam the dam breaks and they ride a few dozen times on the carousel in a very short period of time. As the ride approaches its end, they break down mentally and hit the Rx psycho meds. Then they pretend it didn't happen. The bodycounts can easily be 25-50 in a single freshmen year. The pull of the alpha male is dead on. Heartiste was correct when he said that 5 minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta. These girls will then fall off the carousel for some time, but once they convince themselves the first 25 men didn't count, they can get back on. Anyone marrying a women in her late 20s or later is basically marrying someone with a massive bodycount. Since women are hypergamous that will suck for him! He will never be as good as the composite of the men she has been with.

    Fourth, this sucks for women. They are not liking the results of their behavior but they keep pushing forward because they all need the high status man as that is validation of their own status. They are only doing what is natural to them: pursuing sex with the highest status men. Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck. If I recall correctly, women are 1.25 SD more conformist than men, so they have strong buy-in towards "media" concepts of independence and strength. Since a women's greatest asset is her sexuality, it is only natural to maximize the short-term results it brings all with the blessings of Beyonce and Lana Del Rey.

    Fifth, this country is completely fucked on this issue alone. Curious to learn if my observations were "Florida weird" I had some conversations with my summer interns. They were intelligent graduates of selective universities. These were young men from great families, they were not ugly, they were thin, tall, kind and respectful. I told one that he would get tons of girls if he hit the weights. He agreed but said that he estimated the average girl at his school was with well over 40 men and they didn't interest him at all. Why would this young man work hard to create something in this world, when he knows that his future wife will have been a slut and will thus compare him across the shopping cart of men and the miles of cock she has previously taken? If intelligent men respond as they are apt to, then it doesn't look good over the long-term. For people who think that that upper middle class women are exempt: they aren't. They are the worst since they delay marriage and have more field time.

    The women on these surveys are lying, they sleep around. That can be a lot of fun for them, at some stages, and for men at some stages, but the social implications are going to be profound as men opt out of the high marginal effort (I am not talking MGTOW but just trying less hard in life because the people around you are uninspiring) even if they are married because "maybe your wife is only worth 99% not 100%." There is no point in shaming anyone either because women are just responding to their environment and incentives.
    , @Corvinus
    "Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie..."

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It's no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would "pump and dump" a friend or acquaintance.

    "Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur."

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy's Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    "Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately."

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    "Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage."

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks.

    "Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle..."

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.
    , @Corvinus
    "Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie..."

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It's no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would "pump and dump" a friend or acquaintance.

    "Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur."

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy's Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    "Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately."

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    "Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage."

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks.

    "Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle..."

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.
    , @Corvinus
    "Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie..."

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It's no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would "pump and dump" a friend or acquaintance.

    "Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur."

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy's Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    "Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately."

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    "Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage."

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks?

    "Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle..."

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.
  6. @Talha
    What the hell is up with that massive difference between the mean and median for men??!! Are some guys reporting like 100+ and throwing it all off?

    Peace.

    Yup.

    I’d also like to say I’m impressed with your statistical literacy. Most people would not have been immediately able to draw the correct conclusion like that.

    (It’s in fact possible to have a positively-skewed distribution with a mean less than the median, but with data like this I doubt it.)

  7. Uhg. Moar bait for the resident thorny misandrist troll.

    Jim’s take is accurate IME. Especially the Tinder/Bumble effect on the coming generation prolapse. But NAWALT!

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Uhg. Moar bait for the resident thorny misandrist troll.
     
    My ears were burning.

    Anyway, when AE said this:

    Jim’s observation sounds plausible and maybe it’s true, but the evidence for it isn’t to be found here–
     
    I knew nobody would care. Empirical evidence means nothing around here unless it can be weaponized in the reactionary crusade against women, to which anyone who objects can be dismissed as a "misandrst."

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands. White people have more important things to do.
  8. @Jim Christian
    Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It's my own experience with chicks that lie; the more you get to know a chick's friends and families, the more that comes out as regards old boyfriends, 'flings' and the rest that they don't account for to their men in the beginning. The best sources of the truth in these matters has often been brothers of the sluts I've inadvertently dated and gotten involved with. Brothers hate having sluts for sisters, it seems, they tell on their sisters.

    Also, the 'slut stigma' is hardly a shadow of its former self; it's a common smear, woman-to-woman when they get to fighting. Women say "I don't usually do this so soon" as their panties are coming off four hours, a dinner and a few drinks into a date when that's exactly what they've always done. Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand "The Walk Of Shame", they invented the slur. Women want, or THINK they want, lots of sex with lots of men, but they don't want anyone knowing they're doing it like that. Sex In The City notwithstanding, real-life women aren't telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.

    Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they're doing a LOT of guys and they're also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage. Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle for which remedies are advertised non-stop on television and it's obvious women are lying in these polls society-wide. Women aren't marrying in the cities until thirty and beyond. Exactly what do you think they're doing with the prolonged single life? That's right! Banging. Another slutty tell: more and more, they bang for money with sugar-daddy arrangements, too.

    Women lie, they tell a lie where the truth will do, especially about their sexual histories. Hence, my skepticism with any poll that's presented with women being asked about their sexual histories. The one depicted in the article is a doozy.

    In my youth I slept with a young American girl, never did find out what brought her to the UK, we were comparing counts as one does, and hers was 41 (mine was low single figures). She was 17!

    When you first sleep with a girl. especially if she sees you as having options or thinks you’re a ‘player’, she’ll tell you all kinds of naughty stuff she’s done and her friends have done, stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear.

    • Replies: @iffen
    stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn't possibly have learned at the nunnery.

    Well, maybe nunnery is not what I needed to use there.

    Hell, it's so difficult to get things right these days.

    , @Rosie

    When you first sleep with a girl. especially if she sees you as having options or thinks you’re a ‘player’, she’ll tell you all kinds of naughty stuff she’s done and her friends have done, stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear.
     
    I note for the record that you have no shame about "damaging" another man's future wife.
  9. I don’t know why it’s so hard for boomers to believe that young people are having less sex today than they did.

    In the large cities, there are some sluts. 80% of the slut type women sleep with 20% of the men.

    On average, however, this is lower than before. Rural and suburban areas, and smaller cities still have more of a dating culture: not only is it lonely without a partner there, there is less anonymity, so you can be known as the town slut pretty easily.

    My theory is that the sugar babies are actually very common in large cities, essentially taking the top 5% of women out of the dating market and exerting downward pressure. Thanks, divorced gen x men and boomers.

    So yeah. There are some hyperactive male sluts. There are some regular men who date. There are many men who are losers and have no sex (incels). There are also many fat women.

    It depends on your circles, but on average people are having less sex, especially men.

  10. @YetAnotherAnon
    In my youth I slept with a young American girl, never did find out what brought her to the UK, we were comparing counts as one does, and hers was 41 (mine was low single figures). She was 17!

    When you first sleep with a girl. especially if she sees you as having options or thinks you're a 'player', she'll tell you all kinds of naughty stuff she's done and her friends have done, stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn't get to hear.

    stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn’t possibly have learned at the nunnery.

    Well, maybe nunnery is not what I needed to use there.

    Hell, it’s so difficult to get things right these days.

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    If only. That notion is the sex pozz sell job that somehow men who couple-up with post carousel women are in some way the beneficiaries of years of no-string hookups and all matters of quasi-relationship ‘practice’.

    For some, sure. They get some ‘skillz’. But in my experience this notion is patently false.

    Unless you are partial to the larpy porn-star fakery that tends to show up after decades of soulless rutting with strangers. Good sexytime is not about high-n count ‘experience’.

    But again, thats just my experience. Even so, The idea that it must just be awful to have to learn and explore together and that ‘experience’ is better is just proggy sex pozz hookup culture propaganda.
    , @Not My Economy

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn’t possibly have learned at the nunnery.
     
    Absolute cope meme. For the most part, girls just show up and lay there whether they are sluts or not. Very little technique involved since the guy will find a way to cum into/onto her regardless. Even if she did develop cool moves the husband is unlikely to get any of the "good stuff" that she did with all the other guys before him because she's old now and won't have the same biological drive for sex as she used to and is less attracted to him than she was to those guys besides. Sorry for the blackpill. To the extent that girls do learn sexual technique they learn while in a relationship or pseudoship, not by screwing high number of guys.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl as far as I'm concerned. But I'm becoming a curmudgeon.
  11. @Jim Christian
    Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It's my own experience with chicks that lie; the more you get to know a chick's friends and families, the more that comes out as regards old boyfriends, 'flings' and the rest that they don't account for to their men in the beginning. The best sources of the truth in these matters has often been brothers of the sluts I've inadvertently dated and gotten involved with. Brothers hate having sluts for sisters, it seems, they tell on their sisters.

    Also, the 'slut stigma' is hardly a shadow of its former self; it's a common smear, woman-to-woman when they get to fighting. Women say "I don't usually do this so soon" as their panties are coming off four hours, a dinner and a few drinks into a date when that's exactly what they've always done. Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand "The Walk Of Shame", they invented the slur. Women want, or THINK they want, lots of sex with lots of men, but they don't want anyone knowing they're doing it like that. Sex In The City notwithstanding, real-life women aren't telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.

    Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they're doing a LOT of guys and they're also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage. Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle for which remedies are advertised non-stop on television and it's obvious women are lying in these polls society-wide. Women aren't marrying in the cities until thirty and beyond. Exactly what do you think they're doing with the prolonged single life? That's right! Banging. Another slutty tell: more and more, they bang for money with sugar-daddy arrangements, too.

    Women lie, they tell a lie where the truth will do, especially about their sexual histories. Hence, my skepticism with any poll that's presented with women being asked about their sexual histories. The one depicted in the article is a doozy.

    Jim is correct, the rate of sociosexuality for young women is through the roof. From my own life experience, and from running a company that employees young people of various strata, I have seen the widespread social change compared to my younger years in the 1990s.

    First, if you have an attractive daughter and she has any type of libido: she is almost assuredly a slut. There is no way around it. Just deal with it. These girls are getting hit-on left and right by high status young men. It is unbelievable, the number of DMs they receive. If you are a normal young man, you may get hit on a few times per year by a girl who is not a war pig. If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days. But if you are a young woman at the 70th percentile, you may have guys “hitting you up” 50 times per day on Snap and Insta. So let’s say those hitting on you are doing it over and over, that may only be 100 unique people per month. If you have intercourse with just 1, then that is very selective. But those are the numbers in play; rinse wash and repeat every month. Even if the number is 1 in 50, then you are more selective than a normal man whom in his entire life is never hit on by 50 attractive women. This is the reality. If a girl is horny and needs sex once a day or twice a day (a considerable fraction of women), then no way is she going to say no to all these hot dudes.

    Second, the carousel is real. It is the same small fraction of men getting nearly all the action with the non-fat girls. So intercourse frequency is down, because partners have more sex, but partner counts are up because girls are just waiting for their turn. But girls don’t count “times on the carousel” so their numbers are low in these surveys.

    Third, young women go through slut phases. What will happen is they will be a good girl, then bam the dam breaks and they ride a few dozen times on the carousel in a very short period of time. As the ride approaches its end, they break down mentally and hit the Rx psycho meds. Then they pretend it didn’t happen. The bodycounts can easily be 25-50 in a single freshmen year. The pull of the alpha male is dead on. Heartiste was correct when he said that 5 minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta. These girls will then fall off the carousel for some time, but once they convince themselves the first 25 men didn’t count, they can get back on. Anyone marrying a women in her late 20s or later is basically marrying someone with a massive bodycount. Since women are hypergamous that will suck for him! He will never be as good as the composite of the men she has been with.

    Fourth, this sucks for women. They are not liking the results of their behavior but they keep pushing forward because they all need the high status man as that is validation of their own status. They are only doing what is natural to them: pursuing sex with the highest status men. Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck. If I recall correctly, women are 1.25 SD more conformist than men, so they have strong buy-in towards “media” concepts of independence and strength. Since a women’s greatest asset is her sexuality, it is only natural to maximize the short-term results it brings all with the blessings of Beyonce and Lana Del Rey.

    Fifth, this country is completely fucked on this issue alone. Curious to learn if my observations were “Florida weird” I had some conversations with my summer interns. They were intelligent graduates of selective universities. These were young men from great families, they were not ugly, they were thin, tall, kind and respectful. I told one that he would get tons of girls if he hit the weights. He agreed but said that he estimated the average girl at his school was with well over 40 men and they didn’t interest him at all. Why would this young man work hard to create something in this world, when he knows that his future wife will have been a slut and will thus compare him across the shopping cart of men and the miles of cock she has previously taken? If intelligent men respond as they are apt to, then it doesn’t look good over the long-term. For people who think that that upper middle class women are exempt: they aren’t. They are the worst since they delay marriage and have more field time.

    The women on these surveys are lying, they sleep around. That can be a lot of fun for them, at some stages, and for men at some stages, but the social implications are going to be profound as men opt out of the high marginal effort (I am not talking MGTOW but just trying less hard in life because the people around you are uninspiring) even if they are married because “maybe your wife is only worth 99% not 100%.” There is no point in shaming anyone either because women are just responding to their environment and incentives.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.
     
    It always comes down to forced prostitution.

    Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that men are offering, and women are refusing, earlier commitment. But nevermind that, we can just make assumptions based on some cockamame nonsense about "female hypergamy."

    (Schoolmarm, please bring it to my attention if I inadvertently said anything "misandrist" in this post.)

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Why would they be lying more now than they did in the past, though? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
    , @Screwtape
    Agree. Pretty much what I have seen across a wide array of social strata and contexts.

    The differences largely being: episodic vs Systemic sluttery; higher SES emphasis on ‘moral and social standing’ which means more emphasis on serialized ‘relationships’ and clandestine (eg travel and business) hookups as opposed to prolonged singleness hookups and overt slut signaling; and focused coupling at higher SES (eventual marriage to status acceptable males) as opposed to boyfriend cohabitation not resulting in marriage.

    Most women have some period or periods of playing the field. This includes all kinds of scenarios, but is in essence sex without ‘commitment’.

    How the history comes to light is largely dependent upon the next man in question and where he stands vis a vis her sexual history.

    For the most part, he will never know the extent and likely doesn’t want to know for good reason.

    According to the prevailing culture he is also not allowed to know, nor is he allowed to view her past choices negatively because that is somewhere between his insecurity or other deficit and outright misogyny.

    The only thing our feminized culture hates more than a man exercising his preferences in a woman is a man that knows his own value.

    This is the underlying premise from which theses things are socially adjudicated.

    So it is a difficult thing for women who can- and are encouraged, to spend her peak fertile and attractive years cashing in on her high sex value only to be confronted by the fact that many of those choices will end up lowering her value in the eyes of those men who may offer that elusive commitment once the sex currency loses its purchasing power.

    So yeah, a lot of unhappy women in the making and a huge incentive to disappear those years or those numbers.

    Luckily, most men have been so programmed and are so thirsty they will be there with commitment when the music stops regardless.

    Though this goodwill is running thin.

    And increasingly, her body of experience - and those men’s very willingness to accept the shit-sandwhich of her past (and even present, ‘I’m friends with most of my exes’) lowers him in her eyes and that coupled with the dopamine addiction of those past flings juxtaposed with the boring regularity of the average guy dooms the coupling day one.

    You can plainly see this in the disdain and resentment dynamics of the happy wife happy life pairings. Its painful.

    Someone else said, and I concur, that being attractive and fun and ‘just going with the flow’ unlocks a lot of blackpill truths from the horses mouths.

    Women have told me things they would never tell the man in her settle-down crosshairs. They have also broken all kinds of their ‘rules’ and ‘never done before’s.

    Conversely, as a man offering said commitment, I have also caught multiple women in outright lies about past choices.

    They were shocked and then distraught when I punted.

    But at the same time, they knew the score. Entering a relationship with lies is risky business. Besides, plenty of men don’t care. They need to find one of those.

    I have also had supposed chaste women advertise slut behavior because they have been told that ‘that’s what men want to hear’ which is probably true in some cases. Just not with me. So there is a lot of noise going both ways.

    Pretty much all women lie about sexual history. The longer the duration of favoring commitment free (or ambiguous) sex with hawt guys over actual commitment from their more natural counterparts, the more bodies that need to be buried. The more angst and noise down the road.

    I would poo-poo much of the reality of this subject if had I not seen both sides of the divide in terms of ‘nice guy beta provider’ and ‘hawt badboy not looking for anything serious’.

    Crossing that event horizon revealed much. I have earned this experience the hard way and take no joy in it.

    I never wanted it to be this way but it is suicide to pretend it is otherwise.

    Calls for quasi-empiricism of dubious self-reported survey ‘data’ as to the state of the sexual market by those not participating is understandable but also obtuse denial.

    Yes, there are a great many young men and women in and out of the folds of the market, in and out of the fringe, and/or outright exceptions to the anecdotes of experience.

    There is a also a thin but robust thread of traditional and normal coupling behavior that exists in spite of the culture at-large.

    But this does not mean the culture, social winds, mechanisms, technology, and behavior at-large is not all about the sex-pozz, hookup, femcentric option optimization machine that it is. And thus should be approached as such.

    The war on white, normalcy, tradition, etc begins and ends with the war on men. So if there is peace to be had, the left must be dethroned.

    In order for this to happen, outside of some massive reset, women will have to reject the system that has deified them; granted them status as both perpetual victims and empowered betters of men, and convinced them that their natural feminine gifts are weaknesses of submission that can only be remedied by becoming like men.

    Not holding breath. The only thing men need to do is stop supplicating, pussy begging, and supporting the system that castrates and imprisons them.

    Which to me means also rejecting sluts looking to suddenly value commitment because oldness or want lifestyle.
    , @Difference Maker

    If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days
     
    Try several times a day in a more populated area, depending on how many people you see. I understand now what it is that gays cruise for. Most girls will of course want you to actually open first.

    There are indeed still virtuous women out there; I probably should have married one. But the immense attention young women receive these days with wireless communications is introducing significant distortion into the market. * Even ugly girls will harass, and then form cliques for drama to disturb you

    * An experimental fake dating profile purportedly used an overweight girl with visible facial hair. She still got a tremendous number of offers
  12. A poignant exchange about youthful hesitancy that has much truth to it:

    “Did you ever consider marrying your high-school sweetheart?”

    “No. I never SPOKE WITH my high-school sweetheart.”

    Gotta go, something in my eye.

  13. Girls enter puberty significantly earlier than even a generation ago.

    A woman can have sex with a different fellow every day if she chooses to. Most do not.

    https://www.theonion.com/woman-masturbates-to-concept-of-commitment-1819566960

    ORTAGE, MI–Soaking in her bathtub Tuesday, area resident Linda Marston, 32, pleasured herself over the thought of a long-term committed relationship. “Mmmm… oh, yeah, baby… I want to settle down with you forever,” moaned the never-married Marston, as she gently massaged her clitoris with two fingers. “Oh, God, yes… two kids, maybe three… and a house in the country. Big swingset in the backyard.” Several hours later, Marston masturbated again to the idea of loving someone unconditionally through good times and bad.

  14. @Twinkie
    The data have been very consistent. Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.

    Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.

    While some of this is the media’s bohemianism at work, a good chunk is probably the fact that musical beds provide far more creative possibilities, script-wise.

  15. o/t

    Update, Thuringen

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Thüringen_2019

    Repeating the pattern in the previous two lander, Green support underperformed the polls, and notably the Greens suffered an absolute decline in share from the previous election.

    This is thanks to soft green voters going towards the biggest party, in this case: Linke.

    We have a real oddball here, there is no coalition that can achieve a majority vote, and I don’t know the procedure of German law that says what happens when you can’t do this.

    Presumably the establishment could get the FDP to join the leftist coalition, which does give them a majority, and more importantly avoids low-information CDU voters seeing their MPs in coalition with Communists.

    https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-left-party-tops-thuringia-election-far-right-afd-surges-to-second/a-51010071

  16. Jim is only wrong about the women lying more to men than women – he’s right that they’re lying, and to a hilarious degree that strains credulity by even the most blue-pilled normies. They understate their counts by a factor of roughly 10, by my estimate. 3 partners by age 40, or even age 28? Ya, ok there lil’ missy. Maybe 3 this month.

    Women actually lie more to other women than to men because men, very unfortunately in this modern age, are far more tolerant of slutty behavior. It’s women who slut-shame.

    Reminder of all of the things that women do not count as sex:
    – Drunk sex (AKA “rape”)
    – Regrettable sex with betas (AKA “rape”)
    – One-night stands where they can’t remember the dude’s name (AKA “rape”)
    – Anal sex
    – Oral sex
    – Sex with a condom or where the guy pulled out
    – “Friends with benefits”

    You think I’m being hyperbolic… for every single one of these categories, I have met at least one woman who asserted that it “wasn’t sex” or “doesn’t count”.

    What does count as a sex partner to women? LTRs, and repeat encounters with exciting alphas. Because that is how they actually measure it, whereas for guys, it’s almost the opposite – third base, or a handjob, or sometimes even accidentally coppin’ a feel, is like, technically sex, right?

    Two totally different mindsets, therefore two totally different scales. Men tend to overdeclare, usually up to 2-3x, while women underdeclare, up to 10-20x depending on who’s asking.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up, so the underreporting by women can't be that extreme even if men are reporting accurately, let alone high-balling it by a magnitude of 2x or 3x.
  17. @Screwtape
    Uhg. Moar bait for the resident thorny misandrist troll.

    Jim’s take is accurate IME. Especially the Tinder/Bumble effect on the coming generation prolapse. But NAWALT!

    Uhg. Moar bait for the resident thorny misandrist troll.

    My ears were burning.

    Anyway, when AE said this:

    Jim’s observation sounds plausible and maybe it’s true, but the evidence for it isn’t to be found here–

    I knew nobody would care. Empirical evidence means nothing around here unless it can be weaponized in the reactionary crusade against women, to which anyone who objects can be dismissed as a “misandrst.”

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands. White people have more important things to do.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands.
     
    You can't call a truce.  You are not the CinC.  You are not even a senior NCO.
    , @Mark G.
    "My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands."

    When the government becomes heavily involved in everything conflict between different groups is inevitable. This is because the government has no resources of its own and can usually only help one person by taking away something from another person first, thereby harming them in the process. This creates zero sum games with winners and losers. Organized groups are able to influence the government more than unorganized individuals so people start banding together by economic class, religion, gender, race and various other groups. Cooperation between individuals is replaced by hostility between groups. To improve relations between the genders would require each side to stop trying to use the government to benefit their own specific gender which would require a decrease in government involvement in society, not an increase. The way evolution works, I don't think men and women would have evolved in a way they would become adversaries. They would have each developed traits that would complement each other and enabled them to work together to survive in what would have been a harsh environment from prehistoric times up until very recently. The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.
  18. @iffen
    stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn't possibly have learned at the nunnery.

    Well, maybe nunnery is not what I needed to use there.

    Hell, it's so difficult to get things right these days.

    If only. That notion is the sex pozz sell job that somehow men who couple-up with post carousel women are in some way the beneficiaries of years of no-string hookups and all matters of quasi-relationship ‘practice’.

    For some, sure. They get some ‘skillz’. But in my experience this notion is patently false.

    Unless you are partial to the larpy porn-star fakery that tends to show up after decades of soulless rutting with strangers. Good sexytime is not about high-n count ‘experience’.

    But again, thats just my experience. Even so, The idea that it must just be awful to have to learn and explore together and that ‘experience’ is better is just proggy sex pozz hookup culture propaganda.

    • Agree: Kevin O'Keeffe
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Somewhat relatedly, this weekend I'd borrowed a friend's pickup truck so I turned on terrestrial radio and heard for the first time (though it's quite old) a country song that should be officially recognized as the beta bux mercy cry anthem:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rF_jr4RGe0

  19. @zylonet
    Jim is correct, the rate of sociosexuality for young women is through the roof. From my own life experience, and from running a company that employees young people of various strata, I have seen the widespread social change compared to my younger years in the 1990s.

    First, if you have an attractive daughter and she has any type of libido: she is almost assuredly a slut. There is no way around it. Just deal with it. These girls are getting hit-on left and right by high status young men. It is unbelievable, the number of DMs they receive. If you are a normal young man, you may get hit on a few times per year by a girl who is not a war pig. If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days. But if you are a young woman at the 70th percentile, you may have guys "hitting you up" 50 times per day on Snap and Insta. So let's say those hitting on you are doing it over and over, that may only be 100 unique people per month. If you have intercourse with just 1, then that is very selective. But those are the numbers in play; rinse wash and repeat every month. Even if the number is 1 in 50, then you are more selective than a normal man whom in his entire life is never hit on by 50 attractive women. This is the reality. If a girl is horny and needs sex once a day or twice a day (a considerable fraction of women), then no way is she going to say no to all these hot dudes.

    Second, the carousel is real. It is the same small fraction of men getting nearly all the action with the non-fat girls. So intercourse frequency is down, because partners have more sex, but partner counts are up because girls are just waiting for their turn. But girls don't count "times on the carousel" so their numbers are low in these surveys.

    Third, young women go through slut phases. What will happen is they will be a good girl, then bam the dam breaks and they ride a few dozen times on the carousel in a very short period of time. As the ride approaches its end, they break down mentally and hit the Rx psycho meds. Then they pretend it didn't happen. The bodycounts can easily be 25-50 in a single freshmen year. The pull of the alpha male is dead on. Heartiste was correct when he said that 5 minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta. These girls will then fall off the carousel for some time, but once they convince themselves the first 25 men didn't count, they can get back on. Anyone marrying a women in her late 20s or later is basically marrying someone with a massive bodycount. Since women are hypergamous that will suck for him! He will never be as good as the composite of the men she has been with.

    Fourth, this sucks for women. They are not liking the results of their behavior but they keep pushing forward because they all need the high status man as that is validation of their own status. They are only doing what is natural to them: pursuing sex with the highest status men. Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck. If I recall correctly, women are 1.25 SD more conformist than men, so they have strong buy-in towards "media" concepts of independence and strength. Since a women's greatest asset is her sexuality, it is only natural to maximize the short-term results it brings all with the blessings of Beyonce and Lana Del Rey.

    Fifth, this country is completely fucked on this issue alone. Curious to learn if my observations were "Florida weird" I had some conversations with my summer interns. They were intelligent graduates of selective universities. These were young men from great families, they were not ugly, they were thin, tall, kind and respectful. I told one that he would get tons of girls if he hit the weights. He agreed but said that he estimated the average girl at his school was with well over 40 men and they didn't interest him at all. Why would this young man work hard to create something in this world, when he knows that his future wife will have been a slut and will thus compare him across the shopping cart of men and the miles of cock she has previously taken? If intelligent men respond as they are apt to, then it doesn't look good over the long-term. For people who think that that upper middle class women are exempt: they aren't. They are the worst since they delay marriage and have more field time.

    The women on these surveys are lying, they sleep around. That can be a lot of fun for them, at some stages, and for men at some stages, but the social implications are going to be profound as men opt out of the high marginal effort (I am not talking MGTOW but just trying less hard in life because the people around you are uninspiring) even if they are married because "maybe your wife is only worth 99% not 100%." There is no point in shaming anyone either because women are just responding to their environment and incentives.

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution.

    Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that men are offering, and women are refusing, earlier commitment. But nevermind that, we can just make assumptions based on some cockamame nonsense about “female hypergamy.”

    (Schoolmarm, please bring it to my attention if I inadvertently said anything “misandrist” in this post.)

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution.
     

    So as I understand Rosie's position, Marriage 1.0 (pre-60s), in which the deal was basically sex and child-bearing/rearing in exchange for provisioning and help in childrearing, with penalties applied to whichever party failed to keep their side of the deal, is "forced prostitution" ?

    We now have a system which is not marriage, but child support (CS).

    If the man fails to keep his side of the deal, he's hit with child support costs and mother support costs (like the family house) - quite right too, we can say. This was also the situation in Marriage 1.0.

    If the women fails to keep her side of the deal, the situation is exactly the same - the man pays up on pain of imprisonment. "No-fault" divorce = "His fault" divorce.

    If having to sleep with your husband in Marriage 1.0 is "forced prostitution", what's having to work 20 years for someone who's become a stranger, who you no longer share a life with, and hand over a large chunk of income or go to jail (you can go to jail if you lose your job) - and maybe not even to see your kids?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    I don't agree with Thomas Ball's committing suicide, but I can understand.

    https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/16702-divorced-father-thom-16702

  20. @YetAnotherAnon
    In my youth I slept with a young American girl, never did find out what brought her to the UK, we were comparing counts as one does, and hers was 41 (mine was low single figures). She was 17!

    When you first sleep with a girl. especially if she sees you as having options or thinks you're a 'player', she'll tell you all kinds of naughty stuff she's done and her friends have done, stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn't get to hear.

    When you first sleep with a girl. especially if she sees you as having options or thinks you’re a ‘player’, she’ll tell you all kinds of naughty stuff she’s done and her friends have done, stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear.

    I note for the record that you have no shame about “damaging” another man’s future wife.

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
  21. @Talha
    What the hell is up with that massive difference between the mean and median for men??!! Are some guys reporting like 100+ and throwing it all off?

    Peace.

    Yeah. A very similar thing happens with income statistics, which is why they’re almost always reported based on the median rather than the mean, even though when most laymen hear “average”, they think “mean” rather than “median” (and almost no one thinks “mode”).

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    >Income statistics, laymen

    So, for income, what is the best way to answer what everybody is trying to find out which is "my salary is X so if I move to this zone will I be richer or poorer than approximately most other people I encounter" Seems like mode income would be the best way.
  22. @iffen
    stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn't possibly have learned at the nunnery.

    Well, maybe nunnery is not what I needed to use there.

    Hell, it's so difficult to get things right these days.

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn’t possibly have learned at the nunnery.

    Absolute cope meme. For the most part, girls just show up and lay there whether they are sluts or not. Very little technique involved since the guy will find a way to cum into/onto her regardless. Even if she did develop cool moves the husband is unlikely to get any of the “good stuff” that she did with all the other guys before him because she’s old now and won’t have the same biological drive for sex as she used to and is less attracted to him than she was to those guys besides. Sorry for the blackpill. To the extent that girls do learn sexual technique they learn while in a relationship or pseudoship, not by screwing high number of guys.

  23. @iffen
    stuff that I bet her eventual husband doesn’t get to hear

    The consolation prize is that he is the beneficiary of all sorts of sexual techniques and maneuvers that she couldn't possibly have learned at the nunnery.

    Well, maybe nunnery is not what I needed to use there.

    Hell, it's so difficult to get things right these days.

    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl as far as I’m concerned. But I’m becoming a curmudgeon.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl
     
    Gross. Besides, vaginas are for birthing babies, and you know what that means.
  24. @zylonet
    Jim is correct, the rate of sociosexuality for young women is through the roof. From my own life experience, and from running a company that employees young people of various strata, I have seen the widespread social change compared to my younger years in the 1990s.

    First, if you have an attractive daughter and she has any type of libido: she is almost assuredly a slut. There is no way around it. Just deal with it. These girls are getting hit-on left and right by high status young men. It is unbelievable, the number of DMs they receive. If you are a normal young man, you may get hit on a few times per year by a girl who is not a war pig. If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days. But if you are a young woman at the 70th percentile, you may have guys "hitting you up" 50 times per day on Snap and Insta. So let's say those hitting on you are doing it over and over, that may only be 100 unique people per month. If you have intercourse with just 1, then that is very selective. But those are the numbers in play; rinse wash and repeat every month. Even if the number is 1 in 50, then you are more selective than a normal man whom in his entire life is never hit on by 50 attractive women. This is the reality. If a girl is horny and needs sex once a day or twice a day (a considerable fraction of women), then no way is she going to say no to all these hot dudes.

    Second, the carousel is real. It is the same small fraction of men getting nearly all the action with the non-fat girls. So intercourse frequency is down, because partners have more sex, but partner counts are up because girls are just waiting for their turn. But girls don't count "times on the carousel" so their numbers are low in these surveys.

    Third, young women go through slut phases. What will happen is they will be a good girl, then bam the dam breaks and they ride a few dozen times on the carousel in a very short period of time. As the ride approaches its end, they break down mentally and hit the Rx psycho meds. Then they pretend it didn't happen. The bodycounts can easily be 25-50 in a single freshmen year. The pull of the alpha male is dead on. Heartiste was correct when he said that 5 minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta. These girls will then fall off the carousel for some time, but once they convince themselves the first 25 men didn't count, they can get back on. Anyone marrying a women in her late 20s or later is basically marrying someone with a massive bodycount. Since women are hypergamous that will suck for him! He will never be as good as the composite of the men she has been with.

    Fourth, this sucks for women. They are not liking the results of their behavior but they keep pushing forward because they all need the high status man as that is validation of their own status. They are only doing what is natural to them: pursuing sex with the highest status men. Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck. If I recall correctly, women are 1.25 SD more conformist than men, so they have strong buy-in towards "media" concepts of independence and strength. Since a women's greatest asset is her sexuality, it is only natural to maximize the short-term results it brings all with the blessings of Beyonce and Lana Del Rey.

    Fifth, this country is completely fucked on this issue alone. Curious to learn if my observations were "Florida weird" I had some conversations with my summer interns. They were intelligent graduates of selective universities. These were young men from great families, they were not ugly, they were thin, tall, kind and respectful. I told one that he would get tons of girls if he hit the weights. He agreed but said that he estimated the average girl at his school was with well over 40 men and they didn't interest him at all. Why would this young man work hard to create something in this world, when he knows that his future wife will have been a slut and will thus compare him across the shopping cart of men and the miles of cock she has previously taken? If intelligent men respond as they are apt to, then it doesn't look good over the long-term. For people who think that that upper middle class women are exempt: they aren't. They are the worst since they delay marriage and have more field time.

    The women on these surveys are lying, they sleep around. That can be a lot of fun for them, at some stages, and for men at some stages, but the social implications are going to be profound as men opt out of the high marginal effort (I am not talking MGTOW but just trying less hard in life because the people around you are uninspiring) even if they are married because "maybe your wife is only worth 99% not 100%." There is no point in shaming anyone either because women are just responding to their environment and incentives.

    Why would they be lying more now than they did in the past, though? That’s what doesn’t make sense to me.

  25. @Michael S
    Jim is only wrong about the women lying more to men than women - he's right that they're lying, and to a hilarious degree that strains credulity by even the most blue-pilled normies. They understate their counts by a factor of roughly 10, by my estimate. 3 partners by age 40, or even age 28? Ya, ok there lil' missy. Maybe 3 this month.

    Women actually lie more to other women than to men because men, very unfortunately in this modern age, are far more tolerant of slutty behavior. It's women who slut-shame.

    Reminder of all of the things that women do not count as sex:
    - Drunk sex (AKA "rape")
    - Regrettable sex with betas (AKA "rape")
    - One-night stands where they can't remember the dude's name (AKA "rape")
    - Anal sex
    - Oral sex
    - Sex with a condom or where the guy pulled out
    - "Friends with benefits"

    You think I'm being hyperbolic... for every single one of these categories, I have met at least one woman who asserted that it "wasn't sex" or "doesn't count".

    What does count as a sex partner to women? LTRs, and repeat encounters with exciting alphas. Because that is how they actually measure it, whereas for guys, it's almost the opposite - third base, or a handjob, or sometimes even accidentally coppin' a feel, is like, technically sex, right?

    Two totally different mindsets, therefore two totally different scales. Men tend to overdeclare, usually up to 2-3x, while women underdeclare, up to 10-20x depending on who's asking.

    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up, so the underreporting by women can’t be that extreme even if men are reporting accurately, let alone high-balling it by a magnitude of 2x or 3x.

    • Replies: @anon
    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up,

    Why is that?
    , @Lot
    40 year old woman who has had three 4-year LTRs, and sex with a new guy an average of every 3 months in between, starting age 18, is hardly SATC extreme, but that comes to 3 + 10*4 = 43.

    Or a 35 year old who a averages 2 partners a year starting at 16 = 38.
  26. While women understate lifetime counts, there is little reason to think they would do so more egregiously now than they did a generation ago. To the contrary, the slut stigma is a shadow of what it used to be. If anything, women should lie less today than they did in the past.

    1. Women will lie at the same rate across all time and space regardless of changes in norms. This is called “Rosie’s constant” and it’s basic physics so don’t @ me.

    2. The slut stigma is only cancelled if you’re an old person who believes what you read online. On the ground at a high school college or young workplace it is just as strong as ever. Everybody knows who is what and girls fear the rep.

    3. While actual partner counts for girls have gone parabolic, for men the partner count we ideally want in our mate is still about a hair under zero. So the lying is going to be much, much worse now than before.

    4. Sugar daddy relationships are lindy and a good thing.

    5. Dueling.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
  27. @Screwtape
    If only. That notion is the sex pozz sell job that somehow men who couple-up with post carousel women are in some way the beneficiaries of years of no-string hookups and all matters of quasi-relationship ‘practice’.

    For some, sure. They get some ‘skillz’. But in my experience this notion is patently false.

    Unless you are partial to the larpy porn-star fakery that tends to show up after decades of soulless rutting with strangers. Good sexytime is not about high-n count ‘experience’.

    But again, thats just my experience. Even so, The idea that it must just be awful to have to learn and explore together and that ‘experience’ is better is just proggy sex pozz hookup culture propaganda.

    Somewhat relatedly, this weekend I’d borrowed a friend’s pickup truck so I turned on terrestrial radio and heard for the first time (though it’s quite old) a country song that should be officially recognized as the beta bux mercy cry anthem:

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    I had to lookup beta bux in the Urban Dictionary. This is a very sad song. It is especially sad because I read once that a very high percent of female sexual fantasies involve not a different person, perhaps some movie star, but rather, the husband, when he was younger.
    , @Screwtape
    Haha. Yeah I’m a country boy from the hills but dang if most country music (all country pop) isn’t full of blue pill pussy pedestal ballads.

    Though country music festivals are great. Those songs really lube up the vixens. So many dichotomies in the hay rolling biz.
  28. @Audacious Epigone
    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl as far as I'm concerned. But I'm becoming a curmudgeon.

    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl

    Gross. Besides, vaginas are for birthing babies, and you know what that means.

    • Replies: @iffen
    vaginas are for birthing babies, and you know what that means.

    You tell him, Rosie.

    It means that you are supposed to see exactly how far apart you can make her spread that pelvis. Makes the beginning of life for all those big headed babies easier for mom and the baby.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I just meant a 'boring' chaste girl beats an experienced nighttime gymnast, other things equal.
  29. @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah. A very similar thing happens with income statistics, which is why they're almost always reported based on the median rather than the mean, even though when most laymen hear "average", they think "mean" rather than "median" (and almost no one thinks "mode").

    >Income statistics, laymen

    So, for income, what is the best way to answer what everybody is trying to find out which is “my salary is X so if I move to this zone will I be richer or poorer than approximately most other people I encounter” Seems like mode income would be the best way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Median. If your income is greater than the median, you will be wealthier than the majority of people there, and if your income is less than the median, you will be poorer than the majority of people there. Of course, "people you encounter" can depend on specific neighborhood, workplace, schools, etc.
  30. @zylonet
    Jim is correct, the rate of sociosexuality for young women is through the roof. From my own life experience, and from running a company that employees young people of various strata, I have seen the widespread social change compared to my younger years in the 1990s.

    First, if you have an attractive daughter and she has any type of libido: she is almost assuredly a slut. There is no way around it. Just deal with it. These girls are getting hit-on left and right by high status young men. It is unbelievable, the number of DMs they receive. If you are a normal young man, you may get hit on a few times per year by a girl who is not a war pig. If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days. But if you are a young woman at the 70th percentile, you may have guys "hitting you up" 50 times per day on Snap and Insta. So let's say those hitting on you are doing it over and over, that may only be 100 unique people per month. If you have intercourse with just 1, then that is very selective. But those are the numbers in play; rinse wash and repeat every month. Even if the number is 1 in 50, then you are more selective than a normal man whom in his entire life is never hit on by 50 attractive women. This is the reality. If a girl is horny and needs sex once a day or twice a day (a considerable fraction of women), then no way is she going to say no to all these hot dudes.

    Second, the carousel is real. It is the same small fraction of men getting nearly all the action with the non-fat girls. So intercourse frequency is down, because partners have more sex, but partner counts are up because girls are just waiting for their turn. But girls don't count "times on the carousel" so their numbers are low in these surveys.

    Third, young women go through slut phases. What will happen is they will be a good girl, then bam the dam breaks and they ride a few dozen times on the carousel in a very short period of time. As the ride approaches its end, they break down mentally and hit the Rx psycho meds. Then they pretend it didn't happen. The bodycounts can easily be 25-50 in a single freshmen year. The pull of the alpha male is dead on. Heartiste was correct when he said that 5 minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta. These girls will then fall off the carousel for some time, but once they convince themselves the first 25 men didn't count, they can get back on. Anyone marrying a women in her late 20s or later is basically marrying someone with a massive bodycount. Since women are hypergamous that will suck for him! He will never be as good as the composite of the men she has been with.

    Fourth, this sucks for women. They are not liking the results of their behavior but they keep pushing forward because they all need the high status man as that is validation of their own status. They are only doing what is natural to them: pursuing sex with the highest status men. Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck. If I recall correctly, women are 1.25 SD more conformist than men, so they have strong buy-in towards "media" concepts of independence and strength. Since a women's greatest asset is her sexuality, it is only natural to maximize the short-term results it brings all with the blessings of Beyonce and Lana Del Rey.

    Fifth, this country is completely fucked on this issue alone. Curious to learn if my observations were "Florida weird" I had some conversations with my summer interns. They were intelligent graduates of selective universities. These were young men from great families, they were not ugly, they were thin, tall, kind and respectful. I told one that he would get tons of girls if he hit the weights. He agreed but said that he estimated the average girl at his school was with well over 40 men and they didn't interest him at all. Why would this young man work hard to create something in this world, when he knows that his future wife will have been a slut and will thus compare him across the shopping cart of men and the miles of cock she has previously taken? If intelligent men respond as they are apt to, then it doesn't look good over the long-term. For people who think that that upper middle class women are exempt: they aren't. They are the worst since they delay marriage and have more field time.

    The women on these surveys are lying, they sleep around. That can be a lot of fun for them, at some stages, and for men at some stages, but the social implications are going to be profound as men opt out of the high marginal effort (I am not talking MGTOW but just trying less hard in life because the people around you are uninspiring) even if they are married because "maybe your wife is only worth 99% not 100%." There is no point in shaming anyone either because women are just responding to their environment and incentives.

    Agree. Pretty much what I have seen across a wide array of social strata and contexts.

    The differences largely being: episodic vs Systemic sluttery; higher SES emphasis on ‘moral and social standing’ which means more emphasis on serialized ‘relationships’ and clandestine (eg travel and business) hookups as opposed to prolonged singleness hookups and overt slut signaling; and focused coupling at higher SES (eventual marriage to status acceptable males) as opposed to boyfriend cohabitation not resulting in marriage.

    Most women have some period or periods of playing the field. This includes all kinds of scenarios, but is in essence sex without ‘commitment’.

    How the history comes to light is largely dependent upon the next man in question and where he stands vis a vis her sexual history.

    For the most part, he will never know the extent and likely doesn’t want to know for good reason.

    According to the prevailing culture he is also not allowed to know, nor is he allowed to view her past choices negatively because that is somewhere between his insecurity or other deficit and outright misogyny.

    The only thing our feminized culture hates more than a man exercising his preferences in a woman is a man that knows his own value.

    This is the underlying premise from which theses things are socially adjudicated.

    So it is a difficult thing for women who can- and are encouraged, to spend her peak fertile and attractive years cashing in on her high sex value only to be confronted by the fact that many of those choices will end up lowering her value in the eyes of those men who may offer that elusive commitment once the sex currency loses its purchasing power.

    So yeah, a lot of unhappy women in the making and a huge incentive to disappear those years or those numbers.

    Luckily, most men have been so programmed and are so thirsty they will be there with commitment when the music stops regardless.

    Though this goodwill is running thin.

    And increasingly, her body of experience – and those men’s very willingness to accept the shit-sandwhich of her past (and even present, ‘I’m friends with most of my exes’) lowers him in her eyes and that coupled with the dopamine addiction of those past flings juxtaposed with the boring regularity of the average guy dooms the coupling day one.

    You can plainly see this in the disdain and resentment dynamics of the happy wife happy life pairings. Its painful.

    Someone else said, and I concur, that being attractive and fun and ‘just going with the flow’ unlocks a lot of blackpill truths from the horses mouths.

    Women have told me things they would never tell the man in her settle-down crosshairs. They have also broken all kinds of their ‘rules’ and ‘never done before’s.

    Conversely, as a man offering said commitment, I have also caught multiple women in outright lies about past choices.

    They were shocked and then distraught when I punted.

    But at the same time, they knew the score. Entering a relationship with lies is risky business. Besides, plenty of men don’t care. They need to find one of those.

    I have also had supposed chaste women advertise slut behavior because they have been told that ‘that’s what men want to hear’ which is probably true in some cases. Just not with me. So there is a lot of noise going both ways.

    Pretty much all women lie about sexual history. The longer the duration of favoring commitment free (or ambiguous) sex with hawt guys over actual commitment from their more natural counterparts, the more bodies that need to be buried. The more angst and noise down the road.

    I would poo-poo much of the reality of this subject if had I not seen both sides of the divide in terms of ‘nice guy beta provider’ and ‘hawt badboy not looking for anything serious’.

    Crossing that event horizon revealed much. I have earned this experience the hard way and take no joy in it.

    I never wanted it to be this way but it is suicide to pretend it is otherwise.

    Calls for quasi-empiricism of dubious self-reported survey ‘data’ as to the state of the sexual market by those not participating is understandable but also obtuse denial.

    Yes, there are a great many young men and women in and out of the folds of the market, in and out of the fringe, and/or outright exceptions to the anecdotes of experience.

    There is a also a thin but robust thread of traditional and normal coupling behavior that exists in spite of the culture at-large.

    But this does not mean the culture, social winds, mechanisms, technology, and behavior at-large is not all about the sex-pozz, hookup, femcentric option optimization machine that it is. And thus should be approached as such.

    The war on white, normalcy, tradition, etc begins and ends with the war on men. So if there is peace to be had, the left must be dethroned.

    In order for this to happen, outside of some massive reset, women will have to reject the system that has deified them; granted them status as both perpetual victims and empowered betters of men, and convinced them that their natural feminine gifts are weaknesses of submission that can only be remedied by becoming like men.

    Not holding breath. The only thing men need to do is stop supplicating, pussy begging, and supporting the system that castrates and imprisons them.

    Which to me means also rejecting sluts looking to suddenly value commitment because oldness or want lifestyle.

  31. @Audacious Epigone
    Somewhat relatedly, this weekend I'd borrowed a friend's pickup truck so I turned on terrestrial radio and heard for the first time (though it's quite old) a country song that should be officially recognized as the beta bux mercy cry anthem:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rF_jr4RGe0

    I had to lookup beta bux in the Urban Dictionary. This is a very sad song. It is especially sad because I read once that a very high percent of female sexual fantasies involve not a different person, perhaps some movie star, but rather, the husband, when he was younger.

  32. @Rosie

    Uhg. Moar bait for the resident thorny misandrist troll.
     
    My ears were burning.

    Anyway, when AE said this:

    Jim’s observation sounds plausible and maybe it’s true, but the evidence for it isn’t to be found here–
     
    I knew nobody would care. Empirical evidence means nothing around here unless it can be weaponized in the reactionary crusade against women, to which anyone who objects can be dismissed as a "misandrst."

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands. White people have more important things to do.

    My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands.

    You can’t call a truce.  You are not the CinC.  You are not even a senior NCO.

  33. Halloween is coming up. I know our family basically doesn’t participate, but I have noticed an unmistakable trend over the years. When I was growing up, it was mostly a kids thing , then older people started getting into it – like at work (what the hell??!!) and basically as far as women are concerned; it just seems all their costumes are some variation of slut. Am I wrong?

    I remember a family I knew that their teenage girl and her brother dressed up as ketchup and mustard – very cute. Young women don’t seem to be too interested in that kind of innocent thing anymore.

    An older coworker of mine also discussed this with me a while back. She hosted her niece and her friends over before they went to their Halloween party and she said she felt so bad for those girls; they looked like they were popping out of costume everywhere…and kept sticking to her leather couch.

    Peace.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  34. @Audacious Epigone
    Somewhat relatedly, this weekend I'd borrowed a friend's pickup truck so I turned on terrestrial radio and heard for the first time (though it's quite old) a country song that should be officially recognized as the beta bux mercy cry anthem:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rF_jr4RGe0

    Haha. Yeah I’m a country boy from the hills but dang if most country music (all country pop) isn’t full of blue pill pussy pedestal ballads.

    Though country music festivals are great. Those songs really lube up the vixens. So many dichotomies in the hay rolling biz.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    The country pop you mentioned is the pukiest stuff I've ever heard. It's more like that bubble gum music from the 60s. Here's some hard country:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU19dWpeWTg
  35. As a guy who’s only kissed one woman (and had to marry her before being able to hold her hand), I have to admit, I learn the most fascinating things here. It’s like a complete other world – quite interesting and mind blowing for sure.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @whahae
    Don't believe everything you read here.
  36. @Talha
    As a guy who’s only kissed one woman (and had to marry her before being able to hold her hand), I have to admit, I learn the most fascinating things here. It’s like a complete other world - quite interesting and mind blowing for sure.

    Peace.

    Don’t believe everything you read here.

  37. @Twinkie
    The data have been very consistent. Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.

    Homosexuals largely.

  38. @Rosie

    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl
     
    Gross. Besides, vaginas are for birthing babies, and you know what that means.

    vaginas are for birthing babies, and you know what that means.

    You tell him, Rosie.

    It means that you are supposed to see exactly how far apart you can make her spread that pelvis. Makes the beginning of life for all those big headed babies easier for mom and the baby.

  39. What is the topic here? Female promiscuity in the US & its (dis)contents? Does it have wider repercussions on the subject of human nature?

    It seems that:

    Only in traditional societies with a strong religious influence female sexuality, in the times of peace, remains somehow subdued, combined with above replacement level fertility rate

    In post-modern societies, secular, advanced & essentially hedonist (with a tinge of desperation), female promiscuity is generally high (and fertility abysmally low). The only exception I know of is Israel- not just their religious nutjobs- where you get a combination of high tech modern society & a sustainable dose of religion which keeps men- and womenfolk in line. You have to have an overarching world-view & codes 0f behavior, religion or something, to keep people satisfied & restrained. If you let, archaically speaking, animal nature run amok- this is a sure recipe for disintegration.

    Some investigations, in past few years, have shown that females with more than 5-10 previous partners, as a rule, don’t make a good marriage material (I mean stability of a monogamous marriage). With men, it is different. Anatomy is different, biology, psychology…. For women, perhaps 80-90% of them, the true fulfillment of life is in children- but in modern world, combined with education & financial independence. So, conservatives who would like women to go back to the 1950s..sorry guys, you lost. No way going back.

    True, there are women who don’t care for children, but they’re in the minority, say ~10%. Some are highly productive in other areas, for instance Barbara McClintock.

    Most comments here are a reflection of manospheroid mind-set.

    Bad thing, in most manospheroid advice columns & sites: women are basically whores & gold-diggers incapable of anything “higher”; quasi-Masonic lingo worse than Stalin’s “Brief Course” (revisionist> see under Bernstein, Eduard); simplistic Darwinian-for-dummies atheism with something depressing in all that (why, after all, pussy matters so much if 99.99999….% of all life-forms have vanished in past 500 million years?); celebrity culture idolatry & focus on material aspects of life as the royal road to pussy; instead of giving simple advice to cultivate your being in all aspects, they offer a welter of confusing & ideologically charged acronyms and psychological tricks no normal man would bother to remember, let alone work on their instructions; this entire world-view is: get laid & fear wicked pussies with minuscule brains dominated by hamsters & then die.

    In Jungian parlance, they see female shadow as the whole woman.

    Instead of seriously working on changing absurd divorce laws & whole whorish cultural climate, as well as moral depravity infesting Western world after 60s & to try, as much as one can, to return to sanity (but not to Eisenhower-era way of life: modern women nowhere in the world would assent to go back to the housewife role as virtually the only life they could have) – they advise men to fear women, but to exploit them as much as they can.

    This all just does not have a future.

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    Wrong Bardo. On so many levels.

    While the tradcucks, cuckservatives and feminized churchian goodwhites claim to be fighting for ‘conservative family values’ the actual result for three generations has been nothing but moar progress toward clown world, more boys and men plowed under in the name of progress. Women too but recognizing this would be crimethink.

    You are suggesting more of the same futile posturing. How many more generations must be tossed to the wolves so you can feel righteous in protecting the interests of progress?

    This dissidents in politics have figured out that the system hates them and their way of life and wants them dead or enslaved. So they are responding accordingly.

    They focus on building themselves up to be robust, anti-fragile, minimizing dependence upon the system; optimizing the deployment of their energy toward ends that serve their needs and desires; building skills and relationships that serve their values and communities.

    The sexual social and political climate, as a reflection of the larger politik, should be approached in the same manner.

    There is an active larpy ‘men’s rights’ movement that seeks to somehow alter the legal framework of the system while maintaining the egalitarian and femcentric social order. Good luck with that.

    They are basically the RINO’s of sexual politics. Not totally worthless, but merely one weak front in the conflict that does very little to improve the day to day lives.

    So in the meantime boys and men need to understand the truth about the system, about their own nature, about female nature - as it is and not as they have been taught to believe, and then make choices that optimize their chances for positive outcomes (whatever their goals) within that reality. That is the sphere.

    Of course it attracts all kinds. Some will not respond to their shattered idealism so positively. Others will. The wide array of players and outcomes does not make the sphere a bad thing.

    Indicting it whole hog as anti-female is just retarded. Men have a deep and innate desire to be with women. The sphere gives them tools and knowledge, the baked truth in all its beauty and ugliness in order to equip them

    The lack of empathy for the scores of men who have been broken and marginalized is also telling.

    Your take is deeply ignorant and hateful. I suggest you refrain from speaking on matters of which you know very little. It is embarrassing. Parroting the media’s disdainful agitprop is does nothing to bring any clarity or resolve.

    Nobody is talking about going back to the ‘50’s. Thats propaganda. Besides, the fact that you think the ‘50’s is some terrible ideal where being a stay at home mother is enslavement is very telling as well.

    Women are not as happy now as they were then. So just who is really winning this war?
  40. Younger people really are having both less sex and fewer sexual partners than their parents did.

    Is that one of them “regressions to the mean”, though? Given the ages involved, “parents” might mean “damn dirty hippies who fucked anything that moved”.

  41. The decline in partner counts is interesting.

    There is an incredible chasm right now between revealed preferences and political ideology.

    People who identify as leftists will labor their entire lives to live in better neighborhoods (and we all know what that means).

    People who outwardly celebrate sexual deviancy in going along with leftist culture are themselves — well just look at this survey.

    Many who would publically advocate and vote for ‘criminal justice reform’ live in places where they are incredibly dependent on the police for their protection.

    My home team, the Washington Nationals are incredibly popular in DC, are bathed in nationalist symbols, from red white and blue colors to the race between likenesses the dead white male presidents Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt that happens every game, to the name of the team itself, all within the sport of baseball which is the ‘national pastime’. Yet DC voted just 4% conservative. The Nats fans loudly booed Trump yesterday at the game, and yet their whole team identity is patriotic.

    The ideological leftists in my circle invest a great deal in their children and worry about what their children are exposed to.

    And so on…

    My point is, as leftism brings actual consequences (actual rise in crime, actual economic decline, actual decline in schools and the beauty of the country, and so on) these bourgeoisie leftists (most of the DC crowd for example) will be terribly unhappy with how things are going.

    How much suffering will their accept to keep up liberal appearances?

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Hmm. People who say one thing and do another.

    First time I've encountered that.

    [When are people going to stop expecting human beings to live up to our shared fantasy, that humans are rational creatures?]
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Isn't NYC a sort of microcosm of this? They had the Dinkins disaster so they brought in Giuliana/Bloomberg. De Blasio is trying to turn the city back into a disaster now.

    I think our deliverance will come in the form of an ostensible catastrophe.
  42. Women lie about their pornography habits. I remember there being an experiment roughly twenty years ago, where women watched porno movies and had something placed in their vaginas to measure physical arousal. When these ladies were asked if they found the movies exciting, many of those who were getting wet while watching still denied that they found the movies stimulating.

    • Replies: @iffen
    had something placed in their vaginas to measure physical arousal.

    I don't have a vagina of my very own, but if I did, I am pretty sure that having something placed into it would arouse me.
  43. I think women respondents might consider sexual “partner” different from “person with whom you e had sex”

  44. Everything in the comments here is sample bias.

    This is why there’s no such thing as “science” in studying human sexuality. Self-reporting isn’t science, and so “studies” either “prove” (confirm) prior biases or are “baloney.”

    As far as I’m concerned, the simplest way to discern what’s actually “normal” is to look at TV/Movies and invert their plot-lines. From TV’s Friends (and its endless reboots) to Sex In the City and all the standard Soap Opera crap every evening, we can discern that (1) interracial dating & marriage aren’t common, (2) people aren’t hooking up like bonobos in the zoo, (3) women aren’t kicking men’s butts in H2H combat and (4) most doctors and scientists aren’t black.

    Not everyone with opportunity acts on it; thank Heaven, since were that NOT true there’d be piles of dead bodies in the wake of many of us.

  45. @Nodwink
    Women lie about their pornography habits. I remember there being an experiment roughly twenty years ago, where women watched porno movies and had something placed in their vaginas to measure physical arousal. When these ladies were asked if they found the movies exciting, many of those who were getting wet while watching still denied that they found the movies stimulating.

    had something placed in their vaginas to measure physical arousal.

    I don’t have a vagina of my very own, but if I did, I am pretty sure that having something placed into it would arouse me.

    • Replies: @Bill
    For the guys, they put a plastic thingy around your penis to measure arousal. Are you saying that would turn you on?
    , @anon
    Perhaps you could actually look up the research instead of just boomerposting?

    It was at U. Waterloo in Canada, and the metric used was "blood flow" in both men and women.
    Doubtful the research can be repeated now, because of all the aging feminists who would shriek.
    But it did provide interesting results. I know because I've read the source documents.

    Here is a site you can use for searching: http://www.duckduckgo.com
    good luck.
  46. Off topic – but so worth it:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    How are the local muslims in Illinois reacting to this news?

    Secretly sad? Or are they happy?
  47. @Talha
    Off topic - but so worth it:
    https://twitter.com/SamEdwardx/status/1188638272198709248

    Peace.

    How are the local muslims in Illinois reacting to this news?

    Secretly sad? Or are they happy?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Everybody I know is:
    1) happy - people consider him (assuming he is real) part of the Khawarij - who the Prophet (pbuh) called the dogs of hell
    2) not convinced it's necessarily true - this dude has been killed multiple times before

    He seems to be an convenient Emmanuel Goldstein figure that is useful to kill whenever you want to lead the news - you know, like when there is talk about impeachment going on. He might be killed again.

    I'm ecstatic - whenever I used to ask many people on UNZ; "really, do you have a name of a scholar or Islamic institute of knowledge can takes position A?"

    I always get; "well, Baghdadi, blah blah blah..."

    Kind of hard to make that case when the dude is dead.

    Peace.

  48. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    How are the local muslims in Illinois reacting to this news?

    Secretly sad? Or are they happy?

    Everybody I know is:
    1) happy – people consider him (assuming he is real) part of the Khawarij – who the Prophet (pbuh) called the dogs of hell
    2) not convinced it’s necessarily true – this dude has been killed multiple times before

    He seems to be an convenient Emmanuel Goldstein figure that is useful to kill whenever you want to lead the news – you know, like when there is talk about impeachment going on. He might be killed again.

    I’m ecstatic – whenever I used to ask many people on UNZ; “really, do you have a name of a scholar or Islamic institute of knowledge can takes position A?”

    I always get; “well, Baghdadi, blah blah blah…”

    Kind of hard to make that case when the dude is dead.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Some leaders do their best work after they are dead.
  49. …the slut stigma is a shadow of what it used to be. If anything, women should lie less today than they did in the past.

    That seems logical, but the tabu against lying is also much weaker than it used to be.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  50. @Rosie

    Uhg. Moar bait for the resident thorny misandrist troll.
     
    My ears were burning.

    Anyway, when AE said this:

    Jim’s observation sounds plausible and maybe it’s true, but the evidence for it isn’t to be found here–
     
    I knew nobody would care. Empirical evidence means nothing around here unless it can be weaponized in the reactionary crusade against women, to which anyone who objects can be dismissed as a "misandrst."

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands. White people have more important things to do.

    “My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands.”

    When the government becomes heavily involved in everything conflict between different groups is inevitable. This is because the government has no resources of its own and can usually only help one person by taking away something from another person first, thereby harming them in the process. This creates zero sum games with winners and losers. Organized groups are able to influence the government more than unorganized individuals so people start banding together by economic class, religion, gender, race and various other groups. Cooperation between individuals is replaced by hostility between groups. To improve relations between the genders would require each side to stop trying to use the government to benefit their own specific gender which would require a decrease in government involvement in society, not an increase. The way evolution works, I don’t think men and women would have evolved in a way they would become adversaries. They would have each developed traits that would complement each other and enabled them to work together to survive in what would have been a harsh environment from prehistoric times up until very recently. The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Hoppe writes that when the political state is a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (which is a nifty general description of it, albeit wordy), and it thus settles disputes between "it" and "not it" in favor of the political state, then it follows that people operating the state have a huge incentive to incite conflicts so that all can be "settled" in a way that favors the operators of the political state.

    We see this everywhere now.

    As I see it, the problem is that while such conflicts could be artificial in genesis (i.e., manufactured via the "let's you and him fight" theory of winning by conflict-creation), it doesn't matter if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your ticket could get punched.

    Black-white, men-women, normal sex-abnormal sex, north-south, urban-suburban, suburban-rural, rich-poor, migrant American-cultural American.... while some or all of these are manufactured conflicts as they exist today, if a member of the "opposing faction" targets you for unpleasantness ranging from dirty looks to interpersonal violence, those effects are very, very real.

    None of us creates the environment in which we must navigate.

    We'd be better off with smaller units of political government, and while today's Nation-States are dying, they're not dead. No political entity the size of the USA is governable when the reach of the State is universal (it's now both secular and religious authorities, a very dangerous condition.)
    , @Rosie

    The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.
     
    I'm not buying it. You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women.

    In any event, at least you are decent enough not to demand that I hold my fire while I'm being sprayed with bullets myself.
  51. @iffen
    had something placed in their vaginas to measure physical arousal.

    I don't have a vagina of my very own, but if I did, I am pretty sure that having something placed into it would arouse me.

    For the guys, they put a plastic thingy around your penis to measure arousal. Are you saying that would turn you on?

    • Replies: @iffen
    a plastic thingy around your penis

    Sho 'nuff if the plastic thingy was something like Rachael Tyrell.

  52. @Mark G.
    "My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands."

    When the government becomes heavily involved in everything conflict between different groups is inevitable. This is because the government has no resources of its own and can usually only help one person by taking away something from another person first, thereby harming them in the process. This creates zero sum games with winners and losers. Organized groups are able to influence the government more than unorganized individuals so people start banding together by economic class, religion, gender, race and various other groups. Cooperation between individuals is replaced by hostility between groups. To improve relations between the genders would require each side to stop trying to use the government to benefit their own specific gender which would require a decrease in government involvement in society, not an increase. The way evolution works, I don't think men and women would have evolved in a way they would become adversaries. They would have each developed traits that would complement each other and enabled them to work together to survive in what would have been a harsh environment from prehistoric times up until very recently. The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.

    Hoppe writes that when the political state is a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (which is a nifty general description of it, albeit wordy), and it thus settles disputes between “it” and “not it” in favor of the political state, then it follows that people operating the state have a huge incentive to incite conflicts so that all can be “settled” in a way that favors the operators of the political state.

    We see this everywhere now.

    As I see it, the problem is that while such conflicts could be artificial in genesis (i.e., manufactured via the “let’s you and him fight” theory of winning by conflict-creation), it doesn’t matter if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your ticket could get punched.

    Black-white, men-women, normal sex-abnormal sex, north-south, urban-suburban, suburban-rural, rich-poor, migrant American-cultural American…. while some or all of these are manufactured conflicts as they exist today, if a member of the “opposing faction” targets you for unpleasantness ranging from dirty looks to interpersonal violence, those effects are very, very real.

    None of us creates the environment in which we must navigate.

    We’d be better off with smaller units of political government, and while today’s Nation-States are dying, they’re not dead. No political entity the size of the USA is governable when the reach of the State is universal (it’s now both secular and religious authorities, a very dangerous condition.)

  53. @Bardon Kaldian
    What is the topic here? Female promiscuity in the US & its (dis)contents? Does it have wider repercussions on the subject of human nature?

    It seems that:

    Only in traditional societies with a strong religious influence female sexuality, in the times of peace, remains somehow subdued, combined with above replacement level fertility rate

    In post-modern societies, secular, advanced & essentially hedonist (with a tinge of desperation), female promiscuity is generally high (and fertility abysmally low). The only exception I know of is Israel- not just their religious nutjobs- where you get a combination of high tech modern society & a sustainable dose of religion which keeps men- and womenfolk in line. You have to have an overarching world-view & codes 0f behavior, religion or something, to keep people satisfied & restrained. If you let, archaically speaking, animal nature run amok- this is a sure recipe for disintegration.

    Some investigations, in past few years, have shown that females with more than 5-10 previous partners, as a rule, don't make a good marriage material (I mean stability of a monogamous marriage). With men, it is different. Anatomy is different, biology, psychology.... For women, perhaps 80-90% of them, the true fulfillment of life is in children- but in modern world, combined with education & financial independence. So, conservatives who would like women to go back to the 1950s..sorry guys, you lost. No way going back.

    True, there are women who don't care for children, but they're in the minority, say ~10%. Some are highly productive in other areas, for instance Barbara McClintock.

    Most comments here are a reflection of manospheroid mind-set.

    Bad thing, in most manospheroid advice columns & sites: women are basically whores & gold-diggers incapable of anything “higher”; quasi-Masonic lingo worse than Stalin’s “Brief Course” (revisionist> see under Bernstein, Eduard); simplistic Darwinian-for-dummies atheism with something depressing in all that (why, after all, pussy matters so much if 99.99999….% of all life-forms have vanished in past 500 million years?); celebrity culture idolatry & focus on material aspects of life as the royal road to pussy; instead of giving simple advice to cultivate your being in all aspects, they offer a welter of confusing & ideologically charged acronyms and psychological tricks no normal man would bother to remember, let alone work on their instructions; this entire world-view is: get laid & fear wicked pussies with minuscule brains dominated by hamsters & then die.

    In Jungian parlance, they see female shadow as the whole woman.

    Instead of seriously working on changing absurd divorce laws & whole whorish cultural climate, as well as moral depravity infesting Western world after 60s & to try, as much as one can, to return to sanity (but not to Eisenhower-era way of life: modern women nowhere in the world would assent to go back to the housewife role as virtually the only life they could have) – they advise men to fear women, but to exploit them as much as they can.

    This all just does not have a future.

    Wrong Bardo. On so many levels.

    While the tradcucks, cuckservatives and feminized churchian goodwhites claim to be fighting for ‘conservative family values’ the actual result for three generations has been nothing but moar progress toward clown world, more boys and men plowed under in the name of progress. Women too but recognizing this would be crimethink.

    You are suggesting more of the same futile posturing. How many more generations must be tossed to the wolves so you can feel righteous in protecting the interests of progress?

    This dissidents in politics have figured out that the system hates them and their way of life and wants them dead or enslaved. So they are responding accordingly.

    They focus on building themselves up to be robust, anti-fragile, minimizing dependence upon the system; optimizing the deployment of their energy toward ends that serve their needs and desires; building skills and relationships that serve their values and communities.

    The sexual social and political climate, as a reflection of the larger politik, should be approached in the same manner.

    There is an active larpy ‘men’s rights’ movement that seeks to somehow alter the legal framework of the system while maintaining the egalitarian and femcentric social order. Good luck with that.

    They are basically the RINO’s of sexual politics. Not totally worthless, but merely one weak front in the conflict that does very little to improve the day to day lives.

    So in the meantime boys and men need to understand the truth about the system, about their own nature, about female nature – as it is and not as they have been taught to believe, and then make choices that optimize their chances for positive outcomes (whatever their goals) within that reality. That is the sphere.

    Of course it attracts all kinds. Some will not respond to their shattered idealism so positively. Others will. The wide array of players and outcomes does not make the sphere a bad thing.

    Indicting it whole hog as anti-female is just retarded. Men have a deep and innate desire to be with women. The sphere gives them tools and knowledge, the baked truth in all its beauty and ugliness in order to equip them

    The lack of empathy for the scores of men who have been broken and marginalized is also telling.

    Your take is deeply ignorant and hateful. I suggest you refrain from speaking on matters of which you know very little. It is embarrassing. Parroting the media’s disdainful agitprop is does nothing to bring any clarity or resolve.

    Nobody is talking about going back to the ‘50’s. Thats propaganda. Besides, the fact that you think the ‘50’s is some terrible ideal where being a stay at home mother is enslavement is very telling as well.

    Women are not as happy now as they were then. So just who is really winning this war?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Agreed. His reference to 'returning to the 1950's' was obtuse. IIRC BK is from eastern Europe somewhere, so maybe all he gets are Happy Days reruns on his old tube TV.

    What rational men want, is a return to family formation that was the bedrock of Western Civilization up until about the 1950's. Men and women with an understanding of roles and responsibilities that were clear and obvious for over 2000 years. It has only been since the 1950's that our elites and intellectuals had decided they knew better than those who came before. We see the results of that arrogance everyday.
  54. @zylonet
    Jim is correct, the rate of sociosexuality for young women is through the roof. From my own life experience, and from running a company that employees young people of various strata, I have seen the widespread social change compared to my younger years in the 1990s.

    First, if you have an attractive daughter and she has any type of libido: she is almost assuredly a slut. There is no way around it. Just deal with it. These girls are getting hit-on left and right by high status young men. It is unbelievable, the number of DMs they receive. If you are a normal young man, you may get hit on a few times per year by a girl who is not a war pig. If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days. But if you are a young woman at the 70th percentile, you may have guys "hitting you up" 50 times per day on Snap and Insta. So let's say those hitting on you are doing it over and over, that may only be 100 unique people per month. If you have intercourse with just 1, then that is very selective. But those are the numbers in play; rinse wash and repeat every month. Even if the number is 1 in 50, then you are more selective than a normal man whom in his entire life is never hit on by 50 attractive women. This is the reality. If a girl is horny and needs sex once a day or twice a day (a considerable fraction of women), then no way is she going to say no to all these hot dudes.

    Second, the carousel is real. It is the same small fraction of men getting nearly all the action with the non-fat girls. So intercourse frequency is down, because partners have more sex, but partner counts are up because girls are just waiting for their turn. But girls don't count "times on the carousel" so their numbers are low in these surveys.

    Third, young women go through slut phases. What will happen is they will be a good girl, then bam the dam breaks and they ride a few dozen times on the carousel in a very short period of time. As the ride approaches its end, they break down mentally and hit the Rx psycho meds. Then they pretend it didn't happen. The bodycounts can easily be 25-50 in a single freshmen year. The pull of the alpha male is dead on. Heartiste was correct when he said that 5 minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta. These girls will then fall off the carousel for some time, but once they convince themselves the first 25 men didn't count, they can get back on. Anyone marrying a women in her late 20s or later is basically marrying someone with a massive bodycount. Since women are hypergamous that will suck for him! He will never be as good as the composite of the men she has been with.

    Fourth, this sucks for women. They are not liking the results of their behavior but they keep pushing forward because they all need the high status man as that is validation of their own status. They are only doing what is natural to them: pursuing sex with the highest status men. Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck. If I recall correctly, women are 1.25 SD more conformist than men, so they have strong buy-in towards "media" concepts of independence and strength. Since a women's greatest asset is her sexuality, it is only natural to maximize the short-term results it brings all with the blessings of Beyonce and Lana Del Rey.

    Fifth, this country is completely fucked on this issue alone. Curious to learn if my observations were "Florida weird" I had some conversations with my summer interns. They were intelligent graduates of selective universities. These were young men from great families, they were not ugly, they were thin, tall, kind and respectful. I told one that he would get tons of girls if he hit the weights. He agreed but said that he estimated the average girl at his school was with well over 40 men and they didn't interest him at all. Why would this young man work hard to create something in this world, when he knows that his future wife will have been a slut and will thus compare him across the shopping cart of men and the miles of cock she has previously taken? If intelligent men respond as they are apt to, then it doesn't look good over the long-term. For people who think that that upper middle class women are exempt: they aren't. They are the worst since they delay marriage and have more field time.

    The women on these surveys are lying, they sleep around. That can be a lot of fun for them, at some stages, and for men at some stages, but the social implications are going to be profound as men opt out of the high marginal effort (I am not talking MGTOW but just trying less hard in life because the people around you are uninspiring) even if they are married because "maybe your wife is only worth 99% not 100%." There is no point in shaming anyone either because women are just responding to their environment and incentives.

    If you are at the 90th percentile, maybe a few times a month, at the 99th percentile maybe every few days

    Try several times a day in a more populated area, depending on how many people you see. I understand now what it is that gays cruise for. Most girls will of course want you to actually open first.

    There are indeed still virtuous women out there; I probably should have married one. But the immense attention young women receive these days with wireless communications is introducing significant distortion into the market. * Even ugly girls will harass, and then form cliques for drama to disturb you

    * An experimental fake dating profile purportedly used an overweight girl with visible facial hair. She still got a tremendous number of offers

  55. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:

    Besides, the fact that you think the ‘50’s is some terrible ideal where being a stay at home mother is enslavement is very telling as well.

    Women are not as happy now as they were then. So just who is really winning this war?

    Interesting point. Women are highly conformist, and therefore believe exactly what they are taught ie. being a home maker is boring, and patriarchal (which is inherently evil).

    From my experiences, the sluttier the woman is, the more mentally fucked up, and more unhappy she is. I have found antidepressants and a raft of other medications on two occasions, of sluts I have had one night stands with. The problem is, women have poor insight into their own condition, and can only operate along the pre-supposed paths they have been taught, and thus their only solution to their depression is to keep fucking more men. Women double down when something is going wrong.

    Who is winning the war, is the top 20% of men. Abortion on demand, sluttiness, birth control pill, while marketed as feminist are actually simple tools for self serving men to fuck to their heart’s content without any consequences. Feminism is great for Chads.

    Personally, I have decided to step back from the slut game. I’m going to go volcel until I find a decent girlfriend, at least. I always feel shame and disgust after hooking up with a slutty woman.

    If men didn’t engage the sluts, the sluts wouldn’t exist. If women thought men wanted chaste, conservative, and modest women, that’s what they would be.

    STOP FEEDING THE BEAST.

  56. @Audacious Epigone
    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up, so the underreporting by women can't be that extreme even if men are reporting accurately, let alone high-balling it by a magnitude of 2x or 3x.

    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up,

    Why is that?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Because the sex distribution is close to 50/5o. Medians and modes don't need to match, but means do. Create a hypothetical island with 10 men and 10 women. Have each man have sex with any number of women, from 0 up to all 10, and the mean number of partners for men and women on the island will be identical no matter what number of partners you assign each man.
  57. anon[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    had something placed in their vaginas to measure physical arousal.

    I don't have a vagina of my very own, but if I did, I am pretty sure that having something placed into it would arouse me.

    Perhaps you could actually look up the research instead of just boomerposting?

    It was at U. Waterloo in Canada, and the metric used was “blood flow” in both men and women.
    Doubtful the research can be repeated now, because of all the aging feminists who would shriek.
    But it did provide interesting results. I know because I’ve read the source documents.

    Here is a site you can use for searching: http://www.duckduckgo.com
    good luck.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks, anon, but I'm not really that interested. A study that suggests some women are stimulated by pornography is about as valuable as a study that shows some people think the sky is sometimes blue.
  58. @Screwtape
    Haha. Yeah I’m a country boy from the hills but dang if most country music (all country pop) isn’t full of blue pill pussy pedestal ballads.

    Though country music festivals are great. Those songs really lube up the vixens. So many dichotomies in the hay rolling biz.

    The country pop you mentioned is the pukiest stuff I’ve ever heard. It’s more like that bubble gum music from the 60s. Here’s some hard country:

  59. But to make this work the study had to have interviewed the same people by the opposite sex and that unbeknownst to the subjects said interviewer would be unique to the process (in other words — the subjects would be unsuspecting that the previous interview data was know or occurred.

    And all of the subjects would have to remain constant throughout.

    A interviews b

    A interviews c

    K interviews b

    K interviews c

    If that level of control was exerted, i might consider the information valid.
    ———————————–
    “For the guys, they put a plastic thingy around your penis to measure arousal. Are you saying that would turn you on?”

    As it happens, it happens I was watching this particular study too this morning. A Netflix program call “Game Changers” referenced it as a tool to note the impact of diet to size and number of arousals during sleep. The implications were telling. The diets in question were animal to vegan comparisons.

  60. @Bill
    For the guys, they put a plastic thingy around your penis to measure arousal. Are you saying that would turn you on?

    a plastic thingy around your penis

    Sho ’nuff if the plastic thingy was something like Rachael Tyrell.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  61. @Talha
    Everybody I know is:
    1) happy - people consider him (assuming he is real) part of the Khawarij - who the Prophet (pbuh) called the dogs of hell
    2) not convinced it's necessarily true - this dude has been killed multiple times before

    He seems to be an convenient Emmanuel Goldstein figure that is useful to kill whenever you want to lead the news - you know, like when there is talk about impeachment going on. He might be killed again.

    I'm ecstatic - whenever I used to ask many people on UNZ; "really, do you have a name of a scholar or Islamic institute of knowledge can takes position A?"

    I always get; "well, Baghdadi, blah blah blah..."

    Kind of hard to make that case when the dude is dead.

    Peace.

    Some leaders do their best work after they are dead.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Plants need to eat too.

    Peace.
  62. @iffen
    Some leaders do their best work after they are dead.

    Plants need to eat too.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    touche
  63. @Talha
    Plants need to eat too.

    Peace.

    touche

  64. @Rosie

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.
     
    It always comes down to forced prostitution.

    Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that men are offering, and women are refusing, earlier commitment. But nevermind that, we can just make assumptions based on some cockamame nonsense about "female hypergamy."

    (Schoolmarm, please bring it to my attention if I inadvertently said anything "misandrist" in this post.)

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution.

    So as I understand Rosie’s position, Marriage 1.0 (pre-60s), in which the deal was basically sex and child-bearing/rearing in exchange for provisioning and help in childrearing, with penalties applied to whichever party failed to keep their side of the deal, is “forced prostitution” ?

    We now have a system which is not marriage, but child support (CS).

    If the man fails to keep his side of the deal, he’s hit with child support costs and mother support costs (like the family house) – quite right too, we can say. This was also the situation in Marriage 1.0.

    If the women fails to keep her side of the deal, the situation is exactly the same – the man pays up on pain of imprisonment. “No-fault” divorce = “His fault” divorce.

    If having to sleep with your husband in Marriage 1.0 is “forced prostitution”, what’s having to work 20 years for someone who’s become a stranger, who you no longer share a life with, and hand over a large chunk of income or go to jail (you can go to jail if you lose your job) – and maybe not even to see your kids?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    I don’t agree with Thomas Ball’s committing suicide, but I can understand.

    https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/16702-divorced-father-thom-16702

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    FWIW, I still haven't figured out what Rosie means by "forced prostitution."

    To me, it's beyond obvious that the marriage contract is a pledge for lifelong exchange.

    Women pledge to err on the side of sexual receptivity. Men pledge to err on the side of restraining their greater physical power. Both pledge to offer mutual respect, support, emotional involvement, privacy boundaries (i.e., reducing relationships outside the marriage like those with siblings and parents, in favor of the marital bond), etc.

    Those who think that marriage is somehow a prison aren't doing it right. And my take from reading Rosie's comments is that she thinks that women today are still not "equal" to men, and that Feminism 1.0 and 2.0 (at least) were righting prior wrongs.

    Men and women are not equal. And what many women decried previously as "forced dependence" was anything but. Women are still dependent, and to the extent they believe otherwise they simply exhibit permanent childishness. Men, too, are dependent. The relationship between the sexes is one of mutual interdependence. For those who can't or won't see (and live) this, I suggest you all don't get married or have children. You're just F-ing it up for the rest of us.
    , @MBlanc46
    Yes.
  65. If a guy buys a used car that has had several owners, it is understandable if he worries a bit about whether some prior owner has kept a pair of keys to the vehicle. There are ways to alleviate these worries. You can keep the car in a locked garage. You can move to a location where there are no prior owners around. You can “change the ignition switch” so that only your key will start the engine.

    Most of this worry about “slightly used” cars is pretty much performance anxiety just like it always has been. Many guys are worried that the previous owner made the car purr like a Lamborghini being driven by Mario Andretti in a mountain grand prix. Now they are driving the car and they remember that they had to take driver’s ed twice in order to pass, and the car is driving like a Yugo on a street full of pot holes and they panic. Just hold in the road, that’s all.

  66. “ How’s that for SEO maximization?”

    Pathetic.

    You’ll never guess who the top 12 Celebrity Sex Influencers Are (Hint: A Kardashian is #1, but not who we all expected!)

    • Replies: @Talha

    A Kardashian is #1, but not who we all expected!
     
    OMG!
    https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTM5OTQwOTIxNDQwNDc4MjQ5/robert--kardashian-gettyimages-51583984_500jpg.jpg
    And he's dead!!! But who can resist that slick gray streaked hair, eh? Hubba, hubba!

    Peace.

  67. @Lot
    “ How’s that for SEO maximization?”

    Pathetic.

    You’ll never guess who the top 12 Celebrity Sex Influencers Are (Hint: A Kardashian is #1, but not who we all expected!)

    A Kardashian is #1, but not who we all expected!

    OMG!And he’s dead!!! But who can resist that slick gray streaked hair, eh? Hubba, hubba!

    Peace.

  68. @Audacious Epigone
    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up, so the underreporting by women can't be that extreme even if men are reporting accurately, let alone high-balling it by a magnitude of 2x or 3x.

    40 year old woman who has had three 4-year LTRs, and sex with a new guy an average of every 3 months in between, starting age 18, is hardly SATC extreme, but that comes to 3 + 10*4 = 43.

    Or a 35 year old who a averages 2 partners a year starting at 16 = 38.

  69. @Rosie

    Tight in missionary beats loose reverse cowgirl
     
    Gross. Besides, vaginas are for birthing babies, and you know what that means.

    I just meant a ‘boring’ chaste girl beats an experienced nighttime gymnast, other things equal.

  70. @anon
    Perhaps you could actually look up the research instead of just boomerposting?

    It was at U. Waterloo in Canada, and the metric used was "blood flow" in both men and women.
    Doubtful the research can be repeated now, because of all the aging feminists who would shriek.
    But it did provide interesting results. I know because I've read the source documents.

    Here is a site you can use for searching: http://www.duckduckgo.com
    good luck.

    Thanks, anon, but I’m not really that interested. A study that suggests some women are stimulated by pornography is about as valuable as a study that shows some people think the sky is sometimes blue.

  71. @Screwtape
    Wrong Bardo. On so many levels.

    While the tradcucks, cuckservatives and feminized churchian goodwhites claim to be fighting for ‘conservative family values’ the actual result for three generations has been nothing but moar progress toward clown world, more boys and men plowed under in the name of progress. Women too but recognizing this would be crimethink.

    You are suggesting more of the same futile posturing. How many more generations must be tossed to the wolves so you can feel righteous in protecting the interests of progress?

    This dissidents in politics have figured out that the system hates them and their way of life and wants them dead or enslaved. So they are responding accordingly.

    They focus on building themselves up to be robust, anti-fragile, minimizing dependence upon the system; optimizing the deployment of their energy toward ends that serve their needs and desires; building skills and relationships that serve their values and communities.

    The sexual social and political climate, as a reflection of the larger politik, should be approached in the same manner.

    There is an active larpy ‘men’s rights’ movement that seeks to somehow alter the legal framework of the system while maintaining the egalitarian and femcentric social order. Good luck with that.

    They are basically the RINO’s of sexual politics. Not totally worthless, but merely one weak front in the conflict that does very little to improve the day to day lives.

    So in the meantime boys and men need to understand the truth about the system, about their own nature, about female nature - as it is and not as they have been taught to believe, and then make choices that optimize their chances for positive outcomes (whatever their goals) within that reality. That is the sphere.

    Of course it attracts all kinds. Some will not respond to their shattered idealism so positively. Others will. The wide array of players and outcomes does not make the sphere a bad thing.

    Indicting it whole hog as anti-female is just retarded. Men have a deep and innate desire to be with women. The sphere gives them tools and knowledge, the baked truth in all its beauty and ugliness in order to equip them

    The lack of empathy for the scores of men who have been broken and marginalized is also telling.

    Your take is deeply ignorant and hateful. I suggest you refrain from speaking on matters of which you know very little. It is embarrassing. Parroting the media’s disdainful agitprop is does nothing to bring any clarity or resolve.

    Nobody is talking about going back to the ‘50’s. Thats propaganda. Besides, the fact that you think the ‘50’s is some terrible ideal where being a stay at home mother is enslavement is very telling as well.

    Women are not as happy now as they were then. So just who is really winning this war?

    Agreed. His reference to ‘returning to the 1950’s’ was obtuse. IIRC BK is from eastern Europe somewhere, so maybe all he gets are Happy Days reruns on his old tube TV.

    What rational men want, is a return to family formation that was the bedrock of Western Civilization up until about the 1950’s. Men and women with an understanding of roles and responsibilities that were clear and obvious for over 2000 years. It has only been since the 1950’s that our elites and intellectuals had decided they knew better than those who came before. We see the results of that arrogance everyday.

    • Agree: Dissident
  72. anon[115] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t know why it’s so hard for boomers to believe that young people are having less sex today than they did.

    Because Boomers live in their heads somewhere back in 1978 or 1982 or maybe 1988, & assume that social custom and law haven’t changed in the slightest since Reagan beat Carter. That’s why they often give crap advice to anyone under 50. Plus too many Boomers and others assume that the Gaussian distribution is the only possible one in the real world. Even though plenty of things in the real world are not Gaussian, but something else such as Poisson, or bimodal, multimodal, and of course Pareto.

  73. @DaninMD
    The decline in partner counts is interesting.

    There is an incredible chasm right now between revealed preferences and political ideology.

    People who identify as leftists will labor their entire lives to live in better neighborhoods (and we all know what that means).

    People who outwardly celebrate sexual deviancy in going along with leftist culture are themselves -- well just look at this survey.

    Many who would publically advocate and vote for 'criminal justice reform' live in places where they are incredibly dependent on the police for their protection.

    My home team, the Washington Nationals are incredibly popular in DC, are bathed in nationalist symbols, from red white and blue colors to the race between likenesses the dead white male presidents Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt that happens every game, to the name of the team itself, all within the sport of baseball which is the 'national pastime'. Yet DC voted just 4% conservative. The Nats fans loudly booed Trump yesterday at the game, and yet their whole team identity is patriotic.

    The ideological leftists in my circle invest a great deal in their children and worry about what their children are exposed to.

    And so on...

    My point is, as leftism brings actual consequences (actual rise in crime, actual economic decline, actual decline in schools and the beauty of the country, and so on) these bourgeoisie leftists (most of the DC crowd for example) will be terribly unhappy with how things are going.

    How much suffering will their accept to keep up liberal appearances?

    Hmm. People who say one thing and do another.

    First time I’ve encountered that.

    [When are people going to stop expecting human beings to live up to our shared fantasy, that humans are rational creatures?]

  74. @YetAnotherAnon

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution.
     

    So as I understand Rosie's position, Marriage 1.0 (pre-60s), in which the deal was basically sex and child-bearing/rearing in exchange for provisioning and help in childrearing, with penalties applied to whichever party failed to keep their side of the deal, is "forced prostitution" ?

    We now have a system which is not marriage, but child support (CS).

    If the man fails to keep his side of the deal, he's hit with child support costs and mother support costs (like the family house) - quite right too, we can say. This was also the situation in Marriage 1.0.

    If the women fails to keep her side of the deal, the situation is exactly the same - the man pays up on pain of imprisonment. "No-fault" divorce = "His fault" divorce.

    If having to sleep with your husband in Marriage 1.0 is "forced prostitution", what's having to work 20 years for someone who's become a stranger, who you no longer share a life with, and hand over a large chunk of income or go to jail (you can go to jail if you lose your job) - and maybe not even to see your kids?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    I don't agree with Thomas Ball's committing suicide, but I can understand.

    https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/16702-divorced-father-thom-16702

    FWIW, I still haven’t figured out what Rosie means by “forced prostitution.”

    To me, it’s beyond obvious that the marriage contract is a pledge for lifelong exchange.

    Women pledge to err on the side of sexual receptivity. Men pledge to err on the side of restraining their greater physical power. Both pledge to offer mutual respect, support, emotional involvement, privacy boundaries (i.e., reducing relationships outside the marriage like those with siblings and parents, in favor of the marital bond), etc.

    Those who think that marriage is somehow a prison aren’t doing it right. And my take from reading Rosie’s comments is that she thinks that women today are still not “equal” to men, and that Feminism 1.0 and 2.0 (at least) were righting prior wrongs.

    Men and women are not equal. And what many women decried previously as “forced dependence” was anything but. Women are still dependent, and to the extent they believe otherwise they simply exhibit permanent childishness. Men, too, are dependent. The relationship between the sexes is one of mutual interdependence. For those who can’t or won’t see (and live) this, I suggest you all don’t get married or have children. You’re just F-ing it up for the rest of us.

  75. Anonymous[921] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not My Economy
    >Income statistics, laymen

    So, for income, what is the best way to answer what everybody is trying to find out which is "my salary is X so if I move to this zone will I be richer or poorer than approximately most other people I encounter" Seems like mode income would be the best way.

    Median. If your income is greater than the median, you will be wealthier than the majority of people there, and if your income is less than the median, you will be poorer than the majority of people there. Of course, “people you encounter” can depend on specific neighborhood, workplace, schools, etc.

  76. Rosie is, generally, right. You guys, well….. I like you, but you’re, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    No need to expatiate upon that further.

    • Replies: @anon
    Rosie is, generally, right.

    Another aging White Knight heard from.

    ut you’re, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    Pretty good trolling, but not as good as Rosie. However, the facts do not care about your feelings.

    Here is some data. I also posted this table and link in the incel thread, but it fits in both places. I'm sure our host will do as ht thinks best.

    https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wolfinger-sex-divorce-table-1.png

    Note the distribution and how it has changed over the last 40+ years. It is not 1970-whatever anymore and hasn't been for a while, it is easy to see why aging Boomers have faulty ideas about "what women are like in their 20's".

    Simple addition shows that half of all women reported 4+ premarital partners in the 2010's. Also note the low probability of a virgin bride in the 2010's, hardly surprising given that the average age of a US woman on her first wedding day is 27.

    Here is the source for that table of data.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

    The more sexual partners prior to marriage, the higher the probability of divorce in the first 10 years. Or to be more blunt, the longer a girl rides the Cock Carousel before marriage, the more likely she will divorce her Beta Bucks after bearing her 2.1 children.

    Again, 50% of women reported 4+ premarital partners. Those women are higher risk to the men who marry them. These facts do not care about the feelings of women or aging White Knights, either.

    Facts such as these are mandatory for young men in their 20's and 30's, in order to mitigate risk to themselves and to their future children. Because divorce causes serious damage to children, especially young ones, and in the US women file 70% of divorce actions. Therefore knowing the risk factors that increase the chances of divorce is hugely important.
    , @Talha

    probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.
     
    While this seems out of my league to seriously opine on (figuring out relationship issues with a single woman as data is complicated enough for me) - I believe the point these guys are making is that their experience has been over such a wide field that they consider their dataset to be indicative of the norm and not isolated cases. I could be wrong.

    On a side note, I did find this video (related to the subject of relationships and compromise) interesting:
    https://youtu.be/lDXB5tgMO6o

    Peace.
  77. anon[251] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Rosie is, generally, right. You guys, well..... I like you, but you're, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    No need to expatiate upon that further.

    Rosie is, generally, right.

    Another aging White Knight heard from.

    ut you’re, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    Pretty good trolling, but not as good as Rosie. However, the facts do not care about your feelings.

    Here is some data. I also posted this table and link in the incel thread, but it fits in both places. I’m sure our host will do as ht thinks best.

    Note the distribution and how it has changed over the last 40+ years. It is not 1970-whatever anymore and hasn’t been for a while, it is easy to see why aging Boomers have faulty ideas about “what women are like in their 20’s”.

    Simple addition shows that half of all women reported 4+ premarital partners in the 2010’s. Also note the low probability of a virgin bride in the 2010’s, hardly surprising given that the average age of a US woman on her first wedding day is 27.

    Here is the source for that table of data.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

    The more sexual partners prior to marriage, the higher the probability of divorce in the first 10 years. Or to be more blunt, the longer a girl rides the Cock Carousel before marriage, the more likely she will divorce her Beta Bucks after bearing her 2.1 children.

    Again, 50% of women reported 4+ premarital partners. Those women are higher risk to the men who marry them. These facts do not care about the feelings of women or aging White Knights, either.

    Facts such as these are mandatory for young men in their 20’s and 30’s, in order to mitigate risk to themselves and to their future children. Because divorce causes serious damage to children, especially young ones, and in the US women file 70% of divorce actions. Therefore knowing the risk factors that increase the chances of divorce is hugely important.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Rosie is, generally, right.
     
    Yes, I am right, and I genuinely feel sorry for any man who misses out on a good family life because of doomsayers such as yourself, and for the children that will never be born because of it.

    You offer nothing in the way of real solutions, just cowardice and retreat.

    To the extent you are correct that women are sluts, Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.

    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women. Of course, men don't want that.
    , @SZ
    Most comments here only mention the sluttiness of modern women but totally ignore that the average contemporary male also wants to fuck as many women as possible until he decides to settle down. So Adam complains that Amy rode more than 10 cocks and sucked another 5 (excluding the one-night-stands) before marrying him, but until deciding to marry, Adam also dreamt of shagging every lookable girl around him, irrespective of whether these dreams have materialised or not.
    It is ridiculous that a 35 year old guy who until then kissed 10 girls, fucked 5 of them, and masturbated to another 500, decides to marry a 30-something gal and expects her to be loyal to him.
    Most men definitely had a sweetheart at high school or college or during the first couple of years at their first workplace who was willing and longing to marry them, hence, awaiting a proposal or at least an invitation for cohabitation with a promise of a long-term-relationship, but hey, average Adam does not want to settle with sweet Amy, at least not yet, because he dreams of shagging slutty Patricia from HR, wants to give a facial to that hot Asian lady from finances, or fantasises to fuck his Latina neighbour in the ass, and so on and so forth, even if most of the time he only has intercourse with his left hand.
    If a young man wants to have a loyal and happy wife he should aim at marrying a girl in her early 20s or even younger, and pursue the struggle of life as a team, not as an 'individual', preferably not later than in his late 20s (the earlier the better). But hell no, Adam dreams of endless opportunities and that everything-is-possible-my-ass.
    Most girls want to go long-term with one of their first three boyfriends, but the guy she is with cheats on her and 'moves on', and it is only then that the girl decides to 'move on' herself and ride the carousel and not to give a shit until she gets too old for that lifestyle. It always starts with a man breaking a promise to, or cheating on, a woman.
    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else. Now in her early 40s, she is still a sweet girl who loves me as I am, and she is a good mother to our two kids both of whom definitely look like me.
    But she could have turned into a slut and a cum-dumpster if I had rejected and left her, who knows. It's not about the innate qualities of a woman but rather about how her first couple of mates treat her.
    Most guys complaining of female sluttiness are insincere bitches themselves for if they were not they would have married the sweet girl who loved them while they were both young instead of longing for alternatives and possibilities.
  78. @Bardon Kaldian
    Rosie is, generally, right. You guys, well..... I like you, but you're, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    No need to expatiate upon that further.

    probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    While this seems out of my league to seriously opine on (figuring out relationship issues with a single woman as data is complicated enough for me) – I believe the point these guys are making is that their experience has been over such a wide field that they consider their dataset to be indicative of the norm and not isolated cases. I could be wrong.

    On a side note, I did find this video (related to the subject of relationships and compromise) interesting:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Many of guys here are right. For instance, this sorry video where sugar daddy, a guy in his 60s, is having sex for $ 100-150 with good, sometimes great looking females ages 18-26, is empirically true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI5G8sGxZFM

    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don't have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don't need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    Also, as far as I know - I despise such kind of life & don't have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying - man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that, or that this is their true nature (whatever it means). What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.
    That's all.
  79. @Talha

    probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.
     
    While this seems out of my league to seriously opine on (figuring out relationship issues with a single woman as data is complicated enough for me) - I believe the point these guys are making is that their experience has been over such a wide field that they consider their dataset to be indicative of the norm and not isolated cases. I could be wrong.

    On a side note, I did find this video (related to the subject of relationships and compromise) interesting:
    https://youtu.be/lDXB5tgMO6o

    Peace.

    Many of guys here are right. For instance, this sorry video where sugar daddy, a guy in his 60s, is having sex for $ 100-150 with good, sometimes great looking females ages 18-26, is empirically true.

    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don’t have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don’t need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    Also, as far as I know – I despise such kind of life & don’t have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying – man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that, or that this is their true nature (whatever it means). What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.
    That’s all.

    • Replies: @Talha

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it. That’s all.
     
    That's true enough - I know my community certainly operates on different standards. I guess they are talking about how it is getting increasingly difficult to find that different type of life because of the social pressures in the sexual marketplace. So, for instance, women trying to be chaste or have higher standards are getting hemmed in by the actions of other looser women with less standards and thus being expected to put out to keep a man.

    Again, I'm just going off of what I've gleaned from reading and hearing about. And this is about the general public environment, not niche communities.

    On a related note; my daughter confessed to me a while back how she had considered taking off the hijab because of all the social pressure around her to not be different. And she apparently did try it out once when she went to a mall by herself. She was hit on aggressively by a group of young men and found the experience so revolting, she's not interested in doing it again.

    Me reacting to my daughter (in Muslim):
    https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEjHAUOqG3lSS0f1C/giphy.gif

    Peace.

    , @anon
    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don’t have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don’t need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    "Madonna / whore" much?

    These are the 20-something girls who as they approach the big 3 - 0 will suddenly become much more interested in marriage, family, and so forth. Some of them will attempt to scour their past off of the web - which is why a young man considering marriage should start his vetting with social media; see if there are images of his pure and sincure girl bravely facing down a foam cannon on some beach as a college student, for example.

    Plus there is a real hunger among 20-something women for masculinity, not entirely surprising given what the schools and colleges do to young men.

    Also, as far as I know – I despise such kind of life & don’t have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying – man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    The phenom called "sugar babying" is fairly new, but if you call them "mistresses"? It's not so new.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that,

    Lol @ your binary emoting. But it's progress for you to even admit that Sugar Babies exist and they aren't dragged or intimidated or threatened into that phase, they walk into it by their own choice. Just as 18th century women became mistresses to nobility. Just as girls in ancient Rome did something similar.

    Historical ignorance is a real problem, especially among the "traditional". It's odd, because how can someone be all about "tradition" if they are clueless about anything in the past?

    or that this is their true nature (whatever it means).

    LOL! It means evolution doesn't stop at the neck, and the feminist cant of the blank slate is a lie. It means that any woman living right now is descended from a long, long line of women who did whatever was required to get (a) sperm to make babies from the best man available and (b) resources to raise at least some of those babies to adulthood. That's the prime directive, and that's why women are they way they are.

    For example, women love opportunistically. Not really romantically.

    What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    So what? What do you plan do to about this fact?

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.

    Fortune cookie philosophy. Droll. Did you get that from a Tony Robbins video? Here is some reality: I know of a man who was being ground up by his wife, her divorce attorney, his divorce attorney - he was paying for both - and the state via family court.

    He couldn't take the stress, he fell into despair, one night he shot himself in the head. One more patriarchal oppressor down, hurrah! Feminists cheer!

    Perhaps if he'd known more about life and women and the universe, and had not been brainwashed with pretty lies about romance and stuff, he would not have made the mistakes that led to his suicide. It's all a game to some such as you, but to others it can be life and death. Literal life and death.
  80. They just are empty & like being sluts.

    It Ain’t Easy Bein’ Easy

    Janie Fricke

    Surely you can sit down for a while
    Maybe you can even smile
    And I’ll try to pretend that you love me again
    But it might take me a little while
    I know you’ll be holding me tight
    You’ll know when the moment is right
    When I was broken in two it was all because of you
    But baby I need you tonight
    [Chorus]
    It ain’t easy being easy
    Oh no
    You’re the one who took my heart and my soul
    You walk away and left me out of control
    It ain’t easy being easy
    Oh no
    (No it ain’t)
    Easy when you’re needing someone
    It ain’t easy being under the gun
    But I’ll surrender even though I should run
    It ain’t easy being easy
    It ain’t easy being easy
    Ooh
    It ain’t easy being easy.
    I might end up lonely again
    But once you were my only friend
    So I’ll hold you and cry with the truth in my eyes
    Hoping you’ll love me again.

  81. @Bardon Kaldian
    Many of guys here are right. For instance, this sorry video where sugar daddy, a guy in his 60s, is having sex for $ 100-150 with good, sometimes great looking females ages 18-26, is empirically true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI5G8sGxZFM

    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don't have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don't need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    Also, as far as I know - I despise such kind of life & don't have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying - man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that, or that this is their true nature (whatever it means). What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.
    That's all.

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it. That’s all.

    That’s true enough – I know my community certainly operates on different standards. I guess they are talking about how it is getting increasingly difficult to find that different type of life because of the social pressures in the sexual marketplace. So, for instance, women trying to be chaste or have higher standards are getting hemmed in by the actions of other looser women with less standards and thus being expected to put out to keep a man.

    Again, I’m just going off of what I’ve gleaned from reading and hearing about. And this is about the general public environment, not niche communities.

    On a related note; my daughter confessed to me a while back how she had considered taking off the hijab because of all the social pressure around her to not be different. And she apparently did try it out once when she went to a mall by herself. She was hit on aggressively by a group of young men and found the experience so revolting, she’s not interested in doing it again.

    Me reacting to my daughter (in Muslim):
    Peace.

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @RSDB

    in Muslim [dog gif]
     
    If there isn't already a translation of hadith into dog gifs one has to be made.
  82. @Jim Christian
    Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It's my own experience with chicks that lie; the more you get to know a chick's friends and families, the more that comes out as regards old boyfriends, 'flings' and the rest that they don't account for to their men in the beginning. The best sources of the truth in these matters has often been brothers of the sluts I've inadvertently dated and gotten involved with. Brothers hate having sluts for sisters, it seems, they tell on their sisters.

    Also, the 'slut stigma' is hardly a shadow of its former self; it's a common smear, woman-to-woman when they get to fighting. Women say "I don't usually do this so soon" as their panties are coming off four hours, a dinner and a few drinks into a date when that's exactly what they've always done. Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand "The Walk Of Shame", they invented the slur. Women want, or THINK they want, lots of sex with lots of men, but they don't want anyone knowing they're doing it like that. Sex In The City notwithstanding, real-life women aren't telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.

    Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they're doing a LOT of guys and they're also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage. Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle for which remedies are advertised non-stop on television and it's obvious women are lying in these polls society-wide. Women aren't marrying in the cities until thirty and beyond. Exactly what do you think they're doing with the prolonged single life? That's right! Banging. Another slutty tell: more and more, they bang for money with sugar-daddy arrangements, too.

    Women lie, they tell a lie where the truth will do, especially about their sexual histories. Hence, my skepticism with any poll that's presented with women being asked about their sexual histories. The one depicted in the article is a doozy.

    “Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie…”

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It’s no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would “pump and dump” a friend or acquaintance.

    “Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur.”

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy’s Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    “Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.”

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    “Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage.”

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks.

    “Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle…”

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.

  83. @Jim Christian
    Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It's my own experience with chicks that lie; the more you get to know a chick's friends and families, the more that comes out as regards old boyfriends, 'flings' and the rest that they don't account for to their men in the beginning. The best sources of the truth in these matters has often been brothers of the sluts I've inadvertently dated and gotten involved with. Brothers hate having sluts for sisters, it seems, they tell on their sisters.

    Also, the 'slut stigma' is hardly a shadow of its former self; it's a common smear, woman-to-woman when they get to fighting. Women say "I don't usually do this so soon" as their panties are coming off four hours, a dinner and a few drinks into a date when that's exactly what they've always done. Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand "The Walk Of Shame", they invented the slur. Women want, or THINK they want, lots of sex with lots of men, but they don't want anyone knowing they're doing it like that. Sex In The City notwithstanding, real-life women aren't telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.

    Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they're doing a LOT of guys and they're also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage. Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle for which remedies are advertised non-stop on television and it's obvious women are lying in these polls society-wide. Women aren't marrying in the cities until thirty and beyond. Exactly what do you think they're doing with the prolonged single life? That's right! Banging. Another slutty tell: more and more, they bang for money with sugar-daddy arrangements, too.

    Women lie, they tell a lie where the truth will do, especially about their sexual histories. Hence, my skepticism with any poll that's presented with women being asked about their sexual histories. The one depicted in the article is a doozy.

    “Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie…”

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It’s no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would “pump and dump” a friend or acquaintance.

    “Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur.”

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy’s Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    “Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.”

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    “Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage.”

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks.

    “Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle…”

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.

  84. @Jim Christian
    Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It's my own experience with chicks that lie; the more you get to know a chick's friends and families, the more that comes out as regards old boyfriends, 'flings' and the rest that they don't account for to their men in the beginning. The best sources of the truth in these matters has often been brothers of the sluts I've inadvertently dated and gotten involved with. Brothers hate having sluts for sisters, it seems, they tell on their sisters.

    Also, the 'slut stigma' is hardly a shadow of its former self; it's a common smear, woman-to-woman when they get to fighting. Women say "I don't usually do this so soon" as their panties are coming off four hours, a dinner and a few drinks into a date when that's exactly what they've always done. Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand "The Walk Of Shame", they invented the slur. Women want, or THINK they want, lots of sex with lots of men, but they don't want anyone knowing they're doing it like that. Sex In The City notwithstanding, real-life women aren't telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.

    Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they're doing a LOT of guys and they're also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage. Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle for which remedies are advertised non-stop on television and it's obvious women are lying in these polls society-wide. Women aren't marrying in the cities until thirty and beyond. Exactly what do you think they're doing with the prolonged single life? That's right! Banging. Another slutty tell: more and more, they bang for money with sugar-daddy arrangements, too.

    Women lie, they tell a lie where the truth will do, especially about their sexual histories. Hence, my skepticism with any poll that's presented with women being asked about their sexual histories. The one depicted in the article is a doozy.

    “Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie…”

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It’s no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would “pump and dump” a friend or acquaintance.

    “Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur.”

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy’s Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    “Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately.”

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    “Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage.”

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks?

    “Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle…”

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.

    • Replies: @fish
    Wow! So disturbed by the topic you posted your “rebuttal” thrice!

    Oh Corby!
  85. anon[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Many of guys here are right. For instance, this sorry video where sugar daddy, a guy in his 60s, is having sex for $ 100-150 with good, sometimes great looking females ages 18-26, is empirically true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI5G8sGxZFM

    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don't have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don't need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    Also, as far as I know - I despise such kind of life & don't have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying - man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that, or that this is their true nature (whatever it means). What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.
    That's all.

    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don’t have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don’t need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    “Madonna / whore” much?

    These are the 20-something girls who as they approach the big 3 – 0 will suddenly become much more interested in marriage, family, and so forth. Some of them will attempt to scour their past off of the web – which is why a young man considering marriage should start his vetting with social media; see if there are images of his pure and sincure girl bravely facing down a foam cannon on some beach as a college student, for example.

    Plus there is a real hunger among 20-something women for masculinity, not entirely surprising given what the schools and colleges do to young men.

    Also, as far as I know – I despise such kind of life & don’t have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying – man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    The phenom called “sugar babying” is fairly new, but if you call them “mistresses”? It’s not so new.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that,

    Lol @ your binary emoting. But it’s progress for you to even admit that Sugar Babies exist and they aren’t dragged or intimidated or threatened into that phase, they walk into it by their own choice. Just as 18th century women became mistresses to nobility. Just as girls in ancient Rome did something similar.

    Historical ignorance is a real problem, especially among the “traditional”. It’s odd, because how can someone be all about “tradition” if they are clueless about anything in the past?

    or that this is their true nature (whatever it means).

    LOL! It means evolution doesn’t stop at the neck, and the feminist cant of the blank slate is a lie. It means that any woman living right now is descended from a long, long line of women who did whatever was required to get (a) sperm to make babies from the best man available and (b) resources to raise at least some of those babies to adulthood. That’s the prime directive, and that’s why women are they way they are.

    For example, women love opportunistically. Not really romantically.

    What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    So what? What do you plan do to about this fact?

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.

    Fortune cookie philosophy. Droll. Did you get that from a Tony Robbins video? Here is some reality: I know of a man who was being ground up by his wife, her divorce attorney, his divorce attorney – he was paying for both – and the state via family court.

    He couldn’t take the stress, he fell into despair, one night he shot himself in the head. One more patriarchal oppressor down, hurrah! Feminists cheer!

    Perhaps if he’d known more about life and women and the universe, and had not been brainwashed with pretty lies about romance and stuff, he would not have made the mistakes that led to his suicide. It’s all a game to some such as you, but to others it can be life and death. Literal life and death.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    LOL! It means evolution doesn’t stop at the neck, and the feminist cant of the blank slate is a lie. It means that any woman living right now is descended from a long, long line of women who did whatever was required to get (a) sperm to make babies from the best man available and (b) resources to raise at least some of those babies to adulthood. That’s the prime directive, and that’s why women are they way they are.
     
    Note the lack of evidence to support this armchair bullshit.


    For example, women love opportunistically. Not really romantically.
     
    In behalf of every woman who's ever had a broken heart, GFY!
  86. OOPS, don’t know why my post was triplicated.

    Anyways…

    Zylonet–the rate of sociosexuality for men and women has been relatively high, with attractive sons and daughters perhaps having a higher sex drive. “Normal men”, however, are getting hit on at work, in bars, and at ballparks. It’s happening whether or not you want to believe it. It’s not a few men who are getting all the top shelf women, it’s evenly distributed across the board, depending upon a number of factors–looks, dress, money, occupation, humor, family considerations. Moreover, depending upon how a young person was raised, they may be hitting the carousel hard and heavy, or they may be sitting on the sidelines waiting to be taken. Men and women go through their phases where they “pump and dump” or when they take their sweet time to get to know someone before hopping into bed. What happens is that men and women who have issues with self-control and tend to be full of themselves are seeking this validation through notch counts at their own peril. In the end, men and women are responding to their preferences, environment, and incentives. That you have difficulty grasping these observable truths is fascinating to me.

    Screwtape–Serialized relationships and clandestine hookups is something that men and women who have serious personal issues engage in. Moreover, playing the field is attributed to both genders, which may happen for a variety of reasons. The past sexual history could be a topic of conversation, or it may be revealed by family members or friends. Prevailing culture allows for such discussions to take place, and depending upon the level of reveling or revulsion, he or she may stick around or vamoose. Unfortunately, there still remains those men and women who their peak fertile and attractive years cashing in on their perceived value, only to realize at some juncture that their decisions may end up costing them the opportunity at marriage and children–their “sex currency” has essentially bankrupted them. However, the fact is that most men and women are figuring out who to be with, when to be with them, and how to be with them. You can plainly see in the joy and happiness of a number of couples who are committed to one another. Why are seemingly blind to the facts that I laid out?

  87. @DaninMD
    The decline in partner counts is interesting.

    There is an incredible chasm right now between revealed preferences and political ideology.

    People who identify as leftists will labor their entire lives to live in better neighborhoods (and we all know what that means).

    People who outwardly celebrate sexual deviancy in going along with leftist culture are themselves -- well just look at this survey.

    Many who would publically advocate and vote for 'criminal justice reform' live in places where they are incredibly dependent on the police for their protection.

    My home team, the Washington Nationals are incredibly popular in DC, are bathed in nationalist symbols, from red white and blue colors to the race between likenesses the dead white male presidents Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt that happens every game, to the name of the team itself, all within the sport of baseball which is the 'national pastime'. Yet DC voted just 4% conservative. The Nats fans loudly booed Trump yesterday at the game, and yet their whole team identity is patriotic.

    The ideological leftists in my circle invest a great deal in their children and worry about what their children are exposed to.

    And so on...

    My point is, as leftism brings actual consequences (actual rise in crime, actual economic decline, actual decline in schools and the beauty of the country, and so on) these bourgeoisie leftists (most of the DC crowd for example) will be terribly unhappy with how things are going.

    How much suffering will their accept to keep up liberal appearances?

    Isn’t NYC a sort of microcosm of this? They had the Dinkins disaster so they brought in Giuliana/Bloomberg. De Blasio is trying to turn the city back into a disaster now.

    I think our deliverance will come in the form of an ostensible catastrophe.

  88. @anon
    Ha, well the means need to roughly match up,

    Why is that?

    Because the sex distribution is close to 50/5o. Medians and modes don’t need to match, but means do. Create a hypothetical island with 10 men and 10 women. Have each man have sex with any number of women, from 0 up to all 10, and the mean number of partners for men and women on the island will be identical no matter what number of partners you assign each man.

  89. @YetAnotherAnon

    Society is now structured to provide what men once did, so men who rely on their provisioning ability as a partnering strategy, are out of luck.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution.
     

    So as I understand Rosie's position, Marriage 1.0 (pre-60s), in which the deal was basically sex and child-bearing/rearing in exchange for provisioning and help in childrearing, with penalties applied to whichever party failed to keep their side of the deal, is "forced prostitution" ?

    We now have a system which is not marriage, but child support (CS).

    If the man fails to keep his side of the deal, he's hit with child support costs and mother support costs (like the family house) - quite right too, we can say. This was also the situation in Marriage 1.0.

    If the women fails to keep her side of the deal, the situation is exactly the same - the man pays up on pain of imprisonment. "No-fault" divorce = "His fault" divorce.

    If having to sleep with your husband in Marriage 1.0 is "forced prostitution", what's having to work 20 years for someone who's become a stranger, who you no longer share a life with, and hand over a large chunk of income or go to jail (you can go to jail if you lose your job) - and maybe not even to see your kids?

    Sounds like slavery to me.

    I don't agree with Thomas Ball's committing suicide, but I can understand.

    https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/16702-divorced-father-thom-16702

    Yes.

  90. @anon
    Most of these girls do it just for fun. They don’t have gerontophilic fetish. They are not nymphomaniacs. They don’t need money (at least, some of them). They just are empty & like being sluts.

    "Madonna / whore" much?

    These are the 20-something girls who as they approach the big 3 - 0 will suddenly become much more interested in marriage, family, and so forth. Some of them will attempt to scour their past off of the web - which is why a young man considering marriage should start his vetting with social media; see if there are images of his pure and sincure girl bravely facing down a foam cannon on some beach as a college student, for example.

    Plus there is a real hunger among 20-something women for masculinity, not entirely surprising given what the schools and colleges do to young men.

    Also, as far as I know – I despise such kind of life & don’t have any experience with it, but some of my acquaintances corroborated what this guy has been saying – man who talks with the host is, mostly, telling the truth.

    The phenom called "sugar babying" is fairly new, but if you call them "mistresses"? It's not so new.

    But, where our embittered commenters are extrapolating is: they seem to think that all (or most) females are like that,

    Lol @ your binary emoting. But it's progress for you to even admit that Sugar Babies exist and they aren't dragged or intimidated or threatened into that phase, they walk into it by their own choice. Just as 18th century women became mistresses to nobility. Just as girls in ancient Rome did something similar.

    Historical ignorance is a real problem, especially among the "traditional". It's odd, because how can someone be all about "tradition" if they are clueless about anything in the past?

    or that this is their true nature (whatever it means).

    LOL! It means evolution doesn't stop at the neck, and the feminist cant of the blank slate is a lie. It means that any woman living right now is descended from a long, long line of women who did whatever was required to get (a) sperm to make babies from the best man available and (b) resources to raise at least some of those babies to adulthood. That's the prime directive, and that's why women are they way they are.

    For example, women love opportunistically. Not really romantically.

    What is true, on the other hand, is that such a behavior is typical of a decadent phase in any developed civilization & is not infrequent in some social circles.

    So what? What do you plan do to about this fact?

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it.

    Fortune cookie philosophy. Droll. Did you get that from a Tony Robbins video? Here is some reality: I know of a man who was being ground up by his wife, her divorce attorney, his divorce attorney - he was paying for both - and the state via family court.

    He couldn't take the stress, he fell into despair, one night he shot himself in the head. One more patriarchal oppressor down, hurrah! Feminists cheer!

    Perhaps if he'd known more about life and women and the universe, and had not been brainwashed with pretty lies about romance and stuff, he would not have made the mistakes that led to his suicide. It's all a game to some such as you, but to others it can be life and death. Literal life and death.

    LOL! It means evolution doesn’t stop at the neck, and the feminist cant of the blank slate is a lie. It means that any woman living right now is descended from a long, long line of women who did whatever was required to get (a) sperm to make babies from the best man available and (b) resources to raise at least some of those babies to adulthood. That’s the prime directive, and that’s why women are they way they are.

    Note the lack of evidence to support this armchair bullshit.

    For example, women love opportunistically. Not really romantically.

    In behalf of every woman who’s ever had a broken heart, GFY!

  91. @anon
    Rosie is, generally, right.

    Another aging White Knight heard from.

    ut you’re, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    Pretty good trolling, but not as good as Rosie. However, the facts do not care about your feelings.

    Here is some data. I also posted this table and link in the incel thread, but it fits in both places. I'm sure our host will do as ht thinks best.

    https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wolfinger-sex-divorce-table-1.png

    Note the distribution and how it has changed over the last 40+ years. It is not 1970-whatever anymore and hasn't been for a while, it is easy to see why aging Boomers have faulty ideas about "what women are like in their 20's".

    Simple addition shows that half of all women reported 4+ premarital partners in the 2010's. Also note the low probability of a virgin bride in the 2010's, hardly surprising given that the average age of a US woman on her first wedding day is 27.

    Here is the source for that table of data.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

    The more sexual partners prior to marriage, the higher the probability of divorce in the first 10 years. Or to be more blunt, the longer a girl rides the Cock Carousel before marriage, the more likely she will divorce her Beta Bucks after bearing her 2.1 children.

    Again, 50% of women reported 4+ premarital partners. Those women are higher risk to the men who marry them. These facts do not care about the feelings of women or aging White Knights, either.

    Facts such as these are mandatory for young men in their 20's and 30's, in order to mitigate risk to themselves and to their future children. Because divorce causes serious damage to children, especially young ones, and in the US women file 70% of divorce actions. Therefore knowing the risk factors that increase the chances of divorce is hugely important.

    Rosie is, generally, right.

    Yes, I am right, and I genuinely feel sorry for any man who misses out on a good family life because of doomsayers such as yourself, and for the children that will never be born because of it.

    You offer nothing in the way of real solutions, just cowardice and retreat.

    To the extent you are correct that women are sluts, Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.

    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women. Of course, men don’t want that.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.
     
    Correct. The onus is and always has been on the fathers (men with experience and a hell of a lot of skin in the game) in society to fix the situation - to raise their girls right and to keep horny, stupid young men off of them. As I mentioned before, one of the key functions of a serious patriarchy is to keep the sexual ambitions of young, stupid males in society from running roughshod all over their future generation.

    The fact that so many men around here assume women are equally at fault for the collapse of sexual mores is the biggest sign to me that patriarchy is truly dead if not on life support around here. No patriarchy worth its salt would ever - EVER - entertain the thought that women have an equivalent responsibility to keep the floodgates closed.


    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women.
     
    Now you're talking, and this is the principled approach.

    Peace.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Anti-fornication laws would make a situation worse. If a healthy ethic goes out of society (or one of its segments), then no amount of lawyering is going to change that.

    These are social & cultural, not legal issues.
  92. @Mark G.
    "My call for a truce in the gender wars still stands."

    When the government becomes heavily involved in everything conflict between different groups is inevitable. This is because the government has no resources of its own and can usually only help one person by taking away something from another person first, thereby harming them in the process. This creates zero sum games with winners and losers. Organized groups are able to influence the government more than unorganized individuals so people start banding together by economic class, religion, gender, race and various other groups. Cooperation between individuals is replaced by hostility between groups. To improve relations between the genders would require each side to stop trying to use the government to benefit their own specific gender which would require a decrease in government involvement in society, not an increase. The way evolution works, I don't think men and women would have evolved in a way they would become adversaries. They would have each developed traits that would complement each other and enabled them to work together to survive in what would have been a harsh environment from prehistoric times up until very recently. The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.

    The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.

    I’m not buying it. You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women.

    In any event, at least you are decent enough not to demand that I hold my fire while I’m being sprayed with bullets myself.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    "You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women."


    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women. Since they have higher average incomes fewer of them qualify for welfare benefits. So when women vote for a larger welfare state they are voting for increasing income transfers from men to women. I don't have any objection to the government helping the truly needy like small children or the very elderly or providing temporary assistance to abused women until they can become self-supporting in order to enable them to leave male abusers. If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men. This means not supporting a large welfare state or affirmative action quotas. Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want. Currently nonwhites support a large welfare state so if white females support that also by voting for the same candidates they appear to be forming a political coalition with nonwhites against the white males who will end up paying a disproportionate amount of the costs involved. Nonwhites have no great love for white females and are not dependable long term allies. White males are potential long term allies. On the white male side, we need to support female choice when it comes education, careers and who they marry and not use the government to prevent female choice in these areas. If we want them to marry us, we need to be nice to them and not get angry at any particular females who don't have a romantic interest in us and support laws that punish male domestic abuse of women.
  93. @Rosie

    Rosie is, generally, right.
     
    Yes, I am right, and I genuinely feel sorry for any man who misses out on a good family life because of doomsayers such as yourself, and for the children that will never be born because of it.

    You offer nothing in the way of real solutions, just cowardice and retreat.

    To the extent you are correct that women are sluts, Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.

    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women. Of course, men don't want that.

    Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.

    Correct. The onus is and always has been on the fathers (men with experience and a hell of a lot of skin in the game) in society to fix the situation – to raise their girls right and to keep horny, stupid young men off of them. As I mentioned before, one of the key functions of a serious patriarchy is to keep the sexual ambitions of young, stupid males in society from running roughshod all over their future generation.

    The fact that so many men around here assume women are equally at fault for the collapse of sexual mores is the biggest sign to me that patriarchy is truly dead if not on life support around here. No patriarchy worth its salt would ever – EVER – entertain the thought that women have an equivalent responsibility to keep the floodgates closed.

    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women.

    Now you’re talking, and this is the principled approach.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    As I mentioned before, one of the key functions of a serious patriarchy is to keep the sexual ambitions of young, stupid males in society from running roughshod all over their future generation.
     
    I once read that a father should be very thoughtful about the high school his daughters attend, given that it might well represent half the gene pool of his grandchildren. (The same applies to all parents.)

    I weep for fathers today, given that the ubiquity of hard-core pornography virtually guarantees that every child (yes CHILD) will have added full-color, up-close video images of often-bizarre sexuality to their mind by the age of 11 or 12 (all it takes is an acquaintance with a cellphone.) You cannot un-see anything, and our modern technological "marvels" arrive yielding a vast psycho-social experiment with potentially catastrophic outcomes...which is vastly under-appreciated. If you think this is a nothingburger, then I have no words to describe my disgust with you. Such a viewpoint is 98% of the way to suggesting that an adult socially-engineering an adolescent into sex is, too, harmless. The world lacks the quantity of lead needed to infuse into such believers.

    I kept my sons short on alone-time, especially with girls (or adults, I'm not a trusting soul.) Adolescence is a blend of lingering childish impulsivity mixed with pubescent hormones and proto-adult risk-taking...an incendiary stew rendering them prone to self-immolation. I told my sons that while a girl might offer her body, free of charge, there might not be a more costly decision. I noted that I'd pay huge sums to prevent a grandchild from being aborted, so please, please, please do not create one with some batshit crazy bitch (to whom your cart would thus be hitched forever.) My sons took that to heart, and all passed through the Valley of Proto-adulthood without baggage. They are all FULL adults now, living successful lives.

    My advice to my sons regarding their sons and daughters: Do as we did, do not allow them the opportunity to self-immolate. Explain to them the WHY of the What, i.e., show them how important are the decisions they make, and show them how they are surrounded by peers too impulsive and (frankly) stupid to avoid actions today they'll regret for a lifetime.

    That's about the best one can do. If I had young kids now, I'd probably try to move to a super-rural area and home-school in an attempt to reduce the peer-contact that will inevitably yield exposure to the toxic filth that is our Modern World. Sadly, it's illegal to promise to end anyone (kid or adult) who "introduces" one's children to porn sites.

    But who knows? Times change, and what's deemed allowable changes with them.
  94. @Rosie

    Rosie is, generally, right.
     
    Yes, I am right, and I genuinely feel sorry for any man who misses out on a good family life because of doomsayers such as yourself, and for the children that will never be born because of it.

    You offer nothing in the way of real solutions, just cowardice and retreat.

    To the extent you are correct that women are sluts, Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.

    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women. Of course, men don't want that.

    Anti-fornication laws would make a situation worse. If a healthy ethic goes out of society (or one of its segments), then no amount of lawyering is going to change that.

    These are social & cultural, not legal issues.

  95. @Rosie

    The natural state of men and women would be to see each other as friends and lovers but this requires an environment that encourages voluntary relationships rather than government imposed involuntary relationships.
     
    I'm not buying it. You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women.

    In any event, at least you are decent enough not to demand that I hold my fire while I'm being sprayed with bullets myself.

    “You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women.”

    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women. Since they have higher average incomes fewer of them qualify for welfare benefits. So when women vote for a larger welfare state they are voting for increasing income transfers from men to women. I don’t have any objection to the government helping the truly needy like small children or the very elderly or providing temporary assistance to abused women until they can become self-supporting in order to enable them to leave male abusers. If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men. This means not supporting a large welfare state or affirmative action quotas. Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want. Currently nonwhites support a large welfare state so if white females support that also by voting for the same candidates they appear to be forming a political coalition with nonwhites against the white males who will end up paying a disproportionate amount of the costs involved. Nonwhites have no great love for white females and are not dependable long term allies. White males are potential long term allies. On the white male side, we need to support female choice when it comes education, careers and who they marry and not use the government to prevent female choice in these areas. If we want them to marry us, we need to be nice to them and not get angry at any particular females who don’t have a romantic interest in us and support laws that punish male domestic abuse of women.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Rosie's incorrect.

    An analysis of tax benefits vs tax payments, split by sex and race, showed fairly conclusively that neither NAM's nor women are net tax payers.

    In the aggregate, only white (and I suspect, East Asian) men pay in more than they take out.

    Orwell was wrong; it's not Big Brother, it's Big Daddy, and many women seem to prefer a Daddy that (1) tells them they can do no wrong and (2) squeezes scrotums to make the men pay for whatever Little Princess wants.

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of "Mommy" so she can spend "child support" on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a "tails I win, heads he loses" incentive structure for family dissolution.

    That number is a rounding error off zero.
    , @Rosie
    Thank you for this reasonable and civil post. I agree with some of what you say here.

    Here is what I don't agree with:


    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women.
     
    I'm not sure this is true. I have no income, but I do have a marital right to my husband's income. When he pays taxes, I am paying them also.

    If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men.
     
    This is silly. The fact that White women agree with non-Whites on the question of income distribution has nothing to do with our loyalties or desired alliances. Indeed, I even acknowledge that, in a multicultural society, the welfare state can be used as a vehicle for racial transfers of wealth that are unfavorable to Whites, and that is part of the reason why women should reject multiculturalism. It undermines the solidarity and cohesion that a welfare state depends on.


    Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want.
     
    That is a terrible idea. The terms of the marriage contract are settled based on the public interest, not the desires of the party with the least interest (the man).
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    In the UK women pay 27.2% of income tax and I'd imagine an even smaller share of Capital Gains Tax.
  96. @Talha

    Talha is also correct in pointing out that there is little women can do, as individuals, to change the current reality of normalized premarital sex.
     
    Correct. The onus is and always has been on the fathers (men with experience and a hell of a lot of skin in the game) in society to fix the situation - to raise their girls right and to keep horny, stupid young men off of them. As I mentioned before, one of the key functions of a serious patriarchy is to keep the sexual ambitions of young, stupid males in society from running roughshod all over their future generation.

    The fact that so many men around here assume women are equally at fault for the collapse of sexual mores is the biggest sign to me that patriarchy is truly dead if not on life support around here. No patriarchy worth its salt would ever - EVER - entertain the thought that women have an equivalent responsibility to keep the floodgates closed.


    If you really believe that premarital sex is so damaging, you should support anti-fornication laws that control both men and women.
     
    Now you're talking, and this is the principled approach.

    Peace.

    As I mentioned before, one of the key functions of a serious patriarchy is to keep the sexual ambitions of young, stupid males in society from running roughshod all over their future generation.

    I once read that a father should be very thoughtful about the high school his daughters attend, given that it might well represent half the gene pool of his grandchildren. (The same applies to all parents.)

    I weep for fathers today, given that the ubiquity of hard-core pornography virtually guarantees that every child (yes CHILD) will have added full-color, up-close video images of often-bizarre sexuality to their mind by the age of 11 or 12 (all it takes is an acquaintance with a cellphone.) You cannot un-see anything, and our modern technological “marvels” arrive yielding a vast psycho-social experiment with potentially catastrophic outcomes…which is vastly under-appreciated. If you think this is a nothingburger, then I have no words to describe my disgust with you. Such a viewpoint is 98% of the way to suggesting that an adult socially-engineering an adolescent into sex is, too, harmless. The world lacks the quantity of lead needed to infuse into such believers.

    I kept my sons short on alone-time, especially with girls (or adults, I’m not a trusting soul.) Adolescence is a blend of lingering childish impulsivity mixed with pubescent hormones and proto-adult risk-taking…an incendiary stew rendering them prone to self-immolation. I told my sons that while a girl might offer her body, free of charge, there might not be a more costly decision. I noted that I’d pay huge sums to prevent a grandchild from being aborted, so please, please, please do not create one with some batshit crazy bitch (to whom your cart would thus be hitched forever.) My sons took that to heart, and all passed through the Valley of Proto-adulthood without baggage. They are all FULL adults now, living successful lives.

    My advice to my sons regarding their sons and daughters: Do as we did, do not allow them the opportunity to self-immolate. Explain to them the WHY of the What, i.e., show them how important are the decisions they make, and show them how they are surrounded by peers too impulsive and (frankly) stupid to avoid actions today they’ll regret for a lifetime.

    That’s about the best one can do. If I had young kids now, I’d probably try to move to a super-rural area and home-school in an attempt to reduce the peer-contact that will inevitably yield exposure to the toxic filth that is our Modern World. Sadly, it’s illegal to promise to end anyone (kid or adult) who “introduces” one’s children to porn sites.

    But who knows? Times change, and what’s deemed allowable changes with them.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Good advice. And I believe setting one's life on the straight and narrow and providing a living example to one's children is probably the most solid thing one can do; children can easily detect hypocrisy and they will dismiss your lessons when they see you don't live by the principles you claim to espouse. The video that Bardon posted about that sugar-daddy whose daughter ended up becoming a stripper (though he demanded she quit) is an excellent example.

    I cannot believe how early people get their children cell phones. Absolutely amazing. My kids have asked many times in grade school; "well so-and-so got a cell phone" - to which, my response has been; "sorry, you have responsible parents".

    Peace.
  97. @Mark G.
    "You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women."


    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women. Since they have higher average incomes fewer of them qualify for welfare benefits. So when women vote for a larger welfare state they are voting for increasing income transfers from men to women. I don't have any objection to the government helping the truly needy like small children or the very elderly or providing temporary assistance to abused women until they can become self-supporting in order to enable them to leave male abusers. If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men. This means not supporting a large welfare state or affirmative action quotas. Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want. Currently nonwhites support a large welfare state so if white females support that also by voting for the same candidates they appear to be forming a political coalition with nonwhites against the white males who will end up paying a disproportionate amount of the costs involved. Nonwhites have no great love for white females and are not dependable long term allies. White males are potential long term allies. On the white male side, we need to support female choice when it comes education, careers and who they marry and not use the government to prevent female choice in these areas. If we want them to marry us, we need to be nice to them and not get angry at any particular females who don't have a romantic interest in us and support laws that punish male domestic abuse of women.

    Rosie’s incorrect.

    An analysis of tax benefits vs tax payments, split by sex and race, showed fairly conclusively that neither NAM’s nor women are net tax payers.

    In the aggregate, only white (and I suspect, East Asian) men pay in more than they take out.

    Orwell was wrong; it’s not Big Brother, it’s Big Daddy, and many women seem to prefer a Daddy that (1) tells them they can do no wrong and (2) squeezes scrotums to make the men pay for whatever Little Princess wants.

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of “Mommy” so she can spend “child support” on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a “tails I win, heads he loses” incentive structure for family dissolution.

    That number is a rounding error off zero.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of “Mommy” so she can spend “child support” on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a “tails I win, heads he loses” incentive structure for family dissolution.
     
    Nonsense. The actions of organized feminism do not represent the policy preferences of women in the aggregate.

    In any event, if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so. A man shouldn't have "subsequent children" that he can't afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children's interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.

    , @Rosie

    An analysis of tax benefits vs tax payments, split by sex and race, showed fairly conclusively that neither NAM’s nor women are net tax payers.

    In the aggregate, only white (and I suspect, East Asian) men pay in more than they take out.
     
    Notice that, if women pursued more lucrative careers, that would be reason to attack us as materialist or careerist. The fact that we don't do so is used to attack us as parasites and whose policy preferences are illegitimate.
  98. @Mark G.
    "You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women."


    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women. Since they have higher average incomes fewer of them qualify for welfare benefits. So when women vote for a larger welfare state they are voting for increasing income transfers from men to women. I don't have any objection to the government helping the truly needy like small children or the very elderly or providing temporary assistance to abused women until they can become self-supporting in order to enable them to leave male abusers. If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men. This means not supporting a large welfare state or affirmative action quotas. Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want. Currently nonwhites support a large welfare state so if white females support that also by voting for the same candidates they appear to be forming a political coalition with nonwhites against the white males who will end up paying a disproportionate amount of the costs involved. Nonwhites have no great love for white females and are not dependable long term allies. White males are potential long term allies. On the white male side, we need to support female choice when it comes education, careers and who they marry and not use the government to prevent female choice in these areas. If we want them to marry us, we need to be nice to them and not get angry at any particular females who don't have a romantic interest in us and support laws that punish male domestic abuse of women.

    Thank you for this reasonable and civil post. I agree with some of what you say here.

    Here is what I don’t agree with:

    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women.

    I’m not sure this is true. I have no income, but I do have a marital right to my husband’s income. When he pays taxes, I am paying them also.

    If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men.

    This is silly. The fact that White women agree with non-Whites on the question of income distribution has nothing to do with our loyalties or desired alliances. Indeed, I even acknowledge that, in a multicultural society, the welfare state can be used as a vehicle for racial transfers of wealth that are unfavorable to Whites, and that is part of the reason why women should reject multiculturalism. It undermines the solidarity and cohesion that a welfare state depends on.

    Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want.

    That is a terrible idea. The terms of the marriage contract are settled based on the public interest, not the desires of the party with the least interest (the man).

  99. @dc.sunsets
    Rosie's incorrect.

    An analysis of tax benefits vs tax payments, split by sex and race, showed fairly conclusively that neither NAM's nor women are net tax payers.

    In the aggregate, only white (and I suspect, East Asian) men pay in more than they take out.

    Orwell was wrong; it's not Big Brother, it's Big Daddy, and many women seem to prefer a Daddy that (1) tells them they can do no wrong and (2) squeezes scrotums to make the men pay for whatever Little Princess wants.

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of "Mommy" so she can spend "child support" on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a "tails I win, heads he loses" incentive structure for family dissolution.

    That number is a rounding error off zero.

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of “Mommy” so she can spend “child support” on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a “tails I win, heads he loses” incentive structure for family dissolution.

    Nonsense. The actions of organized feminism do not represent the policy preferences of women in the aggregate.

    In any event, if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so. A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children’s interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so.
     
    Because reasons.

    A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.
     
    A man should not be prevented from having more children because his disloyal previous "wife" (or three) frivorced him.

    All divorce suits without established legal evidence-based grounds should either be denied or come with NO property and NO child support, and emotional abuse or infidelity should be 100% against the woman.  Whatever the woman wants, let her pay for it herself or do without.  Dissolving the marriage at whim should not bind her ex-husband to anything he did not agree to beforehand, nor deprive him of anything he built including the company of his children.
    , @dc.sunsets

    A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children’s interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.
     
    So would you agree that a woman who has subsequent children with Man B should not be able to spend Man A's child support on Man B's children (assuming Man B is either unknown or absent?)

    I'm just asking if sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    I'm curious what you think of a woman who engages in sexual activity with a man who will not be around to pay to raise their offspring?
  100. @dc.sunsets
    Rosie's incorrect.

    An analysis of tax benefits vs tax payments, split by sex and race, showed fairly conclusively that neither NAM's nor women are net tax payers.

    In the aggregate, only white (and I suspect, East Asian) men pay in more than they take out.

    Orwell was wrong; it's not Big Brother, it's Big Daddy, and many women seem to prefer a Daddy that (1) tells them they can do no wrong and (2) squeezes scrotums to make the men pay for whatever Little Princess wants.

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of "Mommy" so she can spend "child support" on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a "tails I win, heads he loses" incentive structure for family dissolution.

    That number is a rounding error off zero.

    An analysis of tax benefits vs tax payments, split by sex and race, showed fairly conclusively that neither NAM’s nor women are net tax payers.

    In the aggregate, only white (and I suspect, East Asian) men pay in more than they take out.

    Notice that, if women pursued more lucrative careers, that would be reason to attack us as materialist or careerist. The fact that we don’t do so is used to attack us as parasites and whose policy preferences are illegitimate.

  101. @Mark G.
    "You know perfectly well the welfare state benefits men as well as women."


    Since men have higher average incomes than women they pay more in taxes and pay a higher percentage of the costs of the welfare state than women. Since they have higher average incomes fewer of them qualify for welfare benefits. So when women vote for a larger welfare state they are voting for increasing income transfers from men to women. I don't have any objection to the government helping the truly needy like small children or the very elderly or providing temporary assistance to abused women until they can become self-supporting in order to enable them to leave male abusers. If white females want to form an alliance with white males, though, they need to avoid it looking like they are using the government to benefit themselves at the expense of men. This means not supporting a large welfare state or affirmative action quotas. Male and female quarrels about divorce laws can be settled by having more options for marriage contracts and letting each individual couple jointly pick the one they want. Currently nonwhites support a large welfare state so if white females support that also by voting for the same candidates they appear to be forming a political coalition with nonwhites against the white males who will end up paying a disproportionate amount of the costs involved. Nonwhites have no great love for white females and are not dependable long term allies. White males are potential long term allies. On the white male side, we need to support female choice when it comes education, careers and who they marry and not use the government to prevent female choice in these areas. If we want them to marry us, we need to be nice to them and not get angry at any particular females who don't have a romantic interest in us and support laws that punish male domestic abuse of women.

    In the UK women pay 27.2% of income tax and I’d imagine an even smaller share of Capital Gains Tax.

  102. @Twinkie
    The data have been very consistent. Most people are monogamous or nearly monogamous throughout their entire lives, but there is a minority that is highly promiscuous. And it’s the minority that the media portrays as the norm.

    You mean most white people. Would have liked to seen it broken down by race.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    You mean most white people. Would have liked to seen it broken down by race.
     
    With the black rate of births to married couples down to below 25%, perhaps the full court press to "normalize" high promiscuity is just another "black be better" shtick, AKA "Our Sacred Idols' behavior must be, well, idolized."
  103. @dc.sunsets

    As I mentioned before, one of the key functions of a serious patriarchy is to keep the sexual ambitions of young, stupid males in society from running roughshod all over their future generation.
     
    I once read that a father should be very thoughtful about the high school his daughters attend, given that it might well represent half the gene pool of his grandchildren. (The same applies to all parents.)

    I weep for fathers today, given that the ubiquity of hard-core pornography virtually guarantees that every child (yes CHILD) will have added full-color, up-close video images of often-bizarre sexuality to their mind by the age of 11 or 12 (all it takes is an acquaintance with a cellphone.) You cannot un-see anything, and our modern technological "marvels" arrive yielding a vast psycho-social experiment with potentially catastrophic outcomes...which is vastly under-appreciated. If you think this is a nothingburger, then I have no words to describe my disgust with you. Such a viewpoint is 98% of the way to suggesting that an adult socially-engineering an adolescent into sex is, too, harmless. The world lacks the quantity of lead needed to infuse into such believers.

    I kept my sons short on alone-time, especially with girls (or adults, I'm not a trusting soul.) Adolescence is a blend of lingering childish impulsivity mixed with pubescent hormones and proto-adult risk-taking...an incendiary stew rendering them prone to self-immolation. I told my sons that while a girl might offer her body, free of charge, there might not be a more costly decision. I noted that I'd pay huge sums to prevent a grandchild from being aborted, so please, please, please do not create one with some batshit crazy bitch (to whom your cart would thus be hitched forever.) My sons took that to heart, and all passed through the Valley of Proto-adulthood without baggage. They are all FULL adults now, living successful lives.

    My advice to my sons regarding their sons and daughters: Do as we did, do not allow them the opportunity to self-immolate. Explain to them the WHY of the What, i.e., show them how important are the decisions they make, and show them how they are surrounded by peers too impulsive and (frankly) stupid to avoid actions today they'll regret for a lifetime.

    That's about the best one can do. If I had young kids now, I'd probably try to move to a super-rural area and home-school in an attempt to reduce the peer-contact that will inevitably yield exposure to the toxic filth that is our Modern World. Sadly, it's illegal to promise to end anyone (kid or adult) who "introduces" one's children to porn sites.

    But who knows? Times change, and what's deemed allowable changes with them.

    Good advice. And I believe setting one’s life on the straight and narrow and providing a living example to one’s children is probably the most solid thing one can do; children can easily detect hypocrisy and they will dismiss your lessons when they see you don’t live by the principles you claim to espouse. The video that Bardon posted about that sugar-daddy whose daughter ended up becoming a stripper (though he demanded she quit) is an excellent example.

    I cannot believe how early people get their children cell phones. Absolutely amazing. My kids have asked many times in grade school; “well so-and-so got a cell phone” – to which, my response has been; “sorry, you have responsible parents”.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    My wife teaches 4th grade. Numerous students in the class have $800-$1000 smartphones. This is in a Title One (AKA poor students, overwhelmingly on free breakfast and lunch) school.

    What would happen if a chimpanzee was handed a hand grenade?

    The most innovative and industrious among us have handed people far too stupid, self-destructive and foolish technological tools just as destructive. The difference is that the destruction occurs over a long period of time, in occult ways, so that the damage is not directly attributed to the tool.

    Kind of like how alcoholism leads to fatal liver disease.
  104. @Rosie

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of “Mommy” so she can spend “child support” on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a “tails I win, heads he loses” incentive structure for family dissolution.
     
    Nonsense. The actions of organized feminism do not represent the policy preferences of women in the aggregate.

    In any event, if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so. A man shouldn't have "subsequent children" that he can't afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children's interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.

    if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so.

    Because reasons.

    A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    A man should not be prevented from having more children because his disloyal previous “wife” (or three) frivorced him.

    All divorce suits without established legal evidence-based grounds should either be denied or come with NO property and NO child support, and emotional abuse or infidelity should be 100% against the woman.  Whatever the woman wants, let her pay for it herself or do without.  Dissolving the marriage at whim should not bind her ex-husband to anything he did not agree to beforehand, nor deprive him of anything he built including the company of his children.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    A man should not be prevented from having more children because his disloyal previous “wife” (or three) frivorced him.
     
    Lol.

    Seriously, though, I agree with you on no-fault divorce, but good luck convincing the bros.
  105. @Mr. Rational

    if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so.
     
    Because reasons.

    A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.
     
    A man should not be prevented from having more children because his disloyal previous "wife" (or three) frivorced him.

    All divorce suits without established legal evidence-based grounds should either be denied or come with NO property and NO child support, and emotional abuse or infidelity should be 100% against the woman.  Whatever the woman wants, let her pay for it herself or do without.  Dissolving the marriage at whim should not bind her ex-husband to anything he did not agree to beforehand, nor deprive him of anything he built including the company of his children.

    A man should not be prevented from having more children because his disloyal previous “wife” (or three) frivorced him.

    Lol.

    Seriously, though, I agree with you on no-fault divorce, but good luck convincing the bros.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    FYI, an attempt at rolling back NFD was made with Covenant marriage statutes, which were a total failure. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll wager that lack of interest in restoring grounds for divorce was chiefly Male- driven. I can't imagine a groom suggesting the idea and the bride balking.

    https://daily.jstor.org/why-covenant-marriage-failed-to-take-off/
  106. @Rosie

    A man should not be prevented from having more children because his disloyal previous “wife” (or three) frivorced him.
     
    Lol.

    Seriously, though, I agree with you on no-fault divorce, but good luck convincing the bros.

    FYI, an attempt at rolling back NFD was made with Covenant marriage statutes, which were a total failure. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’ll wager that lack of interest in restoring grounds for divorce was chiefly Male- driven. I can’t imagine a groom suggesting the idea and the bride balking.

    https://daily.jstor.org/why-covenant-marriage-failed-to-take-off/

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    High value men can dictate pre-nuptial contracts.
    Most men do not bat in that league.

    Once the social stigma of divorce was removed, and endless rationalizations that claimed "no harm" to the kids flooded society (lies which are finally being chipped away), adults' commitment to their marital vows declined. This was simply a measure of a society in decline...as is ours.

    This simply illustrates that few people can determine for themselves the proper way to live, and that successful societies have structures that discipline those who carry their adolescence into adulthood. Instead, today's "anything goes" ethos is a prescription for decline and widespread misery...the latter of which is very profitable for drug companies.

    These problems are evident going back thousands of years; there's nothing new about this today.

    Albert J. Nock's 1936 essay, Isaiah's Job reminds us that the masses are, well, the masses...and there will never be a time when Mass Man and Mass Woman will live life coherently (or honorably.) The members of the Remnant do that...

    Excerpt:

    In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are,” He said. “Tell them what is wrong, and why, and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you, and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”

    Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job—in fact, he had asked for it—but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so—if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start—was there any sense in starting it?

    “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and buildup a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.” . . .
     
  107. @Rosie

    Good evidence of this is the number of women fighting to change Family Court rules that (1) make Child Support awards unchangeable, even if the man paying them has subsequent children who need his support, even if he loses his job, (2) render un-review-able the spending decisions of “Mommy” so she can spend “child support” on herself entirely, and (3) thus give women a “tails I win, heads he loses” incentive structure for family dissolution.
     
    Nonsense. The actions of organized feminism do not represent the policy preferences of women in the aggregate.

    In any event, if feminists are indeed fighting any measures to allow child support reductions based on subsequent children, they are quite right to do so. A man shouldn't have "subsequent children" that he can't afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children's interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.

    A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children’s interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.

    So would you agree that a woman who has subsequent children with Man B should not be able to spend Man A’s child support on Man B’s children (assuming Man B is either unknown or absent?)

    I’m just asking if sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    I’m curious what you think of a woman who engages in sexual activity with a man who will not be around to pay to raise their offspring?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So would you agree that a woman who has subsequent children with Man B should not be able to spend Man A’s child support on Man B’s children (assuming Man B is either unknown or absent?)
     
    In theory, yes. The problem that child support is awarded based on the idea that children's lives should be disrupted as little as possible in a divorce scenario. That means the wife keeps the same house in the same neighborhood with the children attending the same school. Since money is fungible, subsequent children are probably going to indirectly benefit from that.

    I can certainly see how this would appear to be an injustice, but ultimately it depends on who was at fault for the divorce. The conventional wisdom around here is that women are filing for divorce over nothing and innocent men who dindu nuffin are being railroaded in court. I find that very hard to believe.


    I’m curious what you think of a woman who engages in sexual activity with a man who will not be around to pay to raise their offspring?
     
    Women don't do that. They think he will be around, usually because that is what he has promised. My mother had me out of wedlock when she was very young. I have the utmost respect for her, and indeed I am very grateful that she didn't kill me when it became apparent that she would have to raise me alone.
  108. @Talha
    Good advice. And I believe setting one's life on the straight and narrow and providing a living example to one's children is probably the most solid thing one can do; children can easily detect hypocrisy and they will dismiss your lessons when they see you don't live by the principles you claim to espouse. The video that Bardon posted about that sugar-daddy whose daughter ended up becoming a stripper (though he demanded she quit) is an excellent example.

    I cannot believe how early people get their children cell phones. Absolutely amazing. My kids have asked many times in grade school; "well so-and-so got a cell phone" - to which, my response has been; "sorry, you have responsible parents".

    Peace.

    My wife teaches 4th grade. Numerous students in the class have $800-$1000 smartphones. This is in a Title One (AKA poor students, overwhelmingly on free breakfast and lunch) school.

    What would happen if a chimpanzee was handed a hand grenade?

    The most innovative and industrious among us have handed people far too stupid, self-destructive and foolish technological tools just as destructive. The difference is that the destruction occurs over a long period of time, in occult ways, so that the damage is not directly attributed to the tool.

    Kind of like how alcoholism leads to fatal liver disease.

    • Replies: @Talha

    What would happen if a chimpanzee was handed a hand grenade?
     
    Yup. It seems fairly crazy to me to hand a young person a window and access to the entire world at any time and any situation (and that world access to them).

    In fact, I KNOW I would have likely screwed up my life if I had one of these devices when I was younger; I'll readily admit that part of me not having done more stupid things when I was younger was due to lack of opportunity and boundaries my parents defined. It is another argument I use when my kids bring it up; I wouldn't have even handed my younger self a cell phone.

    The most innovative and industrious among us have handed people far too stupid, self-destructive and foolish technological tools just as destructive.
     
    My spiritual teachers highly discourage smart phones. My main teacher gets migraines when cell phones are close to him and does not own one. I've sat next to him before and he'll immediately know if my phone is in the pocket closer to him and ask if I can switch it to the other pocket. No joke. Many of the brothers also have flip phones (these are men in IT, doctors, etc.) - in fact, I had absolutely no desire to get a smart phone until it was forced upon me by my boss. I was quite happy with this guy:
    https://i.redd.it/ta3xsl5q1c801.jpg

    Because they are spiritual teachers in the community, people come to them with their problems, have collectively dealt with thousands of cases and crises in families - they have no delusions how destructive these things are.

    Peace.
  109. @Rosie
    FYI, an attempt at rolling back NFD was made with Covenant marriage statutes, which were a total failure. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll wager that lack of interest in restoring grounds for divorce was chiefly Male- driven. I can't imagine a groom suggesting the idea and the bride balking.

    https://daily.jstor.org/why-covenant-marriage-failed-to-take-off/

    High value men can dictate pre-nuptial contracts.
    Most men do not bat in that league.

    Once the social stigma of divorce was removed, and endless rationalizations that claimed “no harm” to the kids flooded society (lies which are finally being chipped away), adults’ commitment to their marital vows declined. This was simply a measure of a society in decline…as is ours.

    This simply illustrates that few people can determine for themselves the proper way to live, and that successful societies have structures that discipline those who carry their adolescence into adulthood. Instead, today’s “anything goes” ethos is a prescription for decline and widespread misery…the latter of which is very profitable for drug companies.

    These problems are evident going back thousands of years; there’s nothing new about this today.

    Albert J. Nock’s 1936 essay, Isaiah’s Job reminds us that the masses are, well, the masses…and there will never be a time when Mass Man and Mass Woman will live life coherently (or honorably.) The members of the Remnant do that…

    Excerpt:

    In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are,” He said. “Tell them what is wrong, and why, and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you, and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”

    Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job—in fact, he had asked for it—but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so—if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start—was there any sense in starting it?

    “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and buildup a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.” . . .

    • Replies: @Rosie

    High value men can dictate pre-nuptial contracts.
    Most men do not bat in that league.
     
    I'm not interested in rewriting the terms of the marital Covenant to suit the preferences of individual couples. That is a relativistic approach that has the effect of abolishing marriage as a cultural institution.

    Absent very specific circumstances, the Catholic Church will bar you from communion for living with a person in a fake marriage with a "prenup," and they are right to do so. You have said "I do" in a public ceremony but in private you have made very clear in a legal document that you actually don't.
  110. @dc.sunsets
    My wife teaches 4th grade. Numerous students in the class have $800-$1000 smartphones. This is in a Title One (AKA poor students, overwhelmingly on free breakfast and lunch) school.

    What would happen if a chimpanzee was handed a hand grenade?

    The most innovative and industrious among us have handed people far too stupid, self-destructive and foolish technological tools just as destructive. The difference is that the destruction occurs over a long period of time, in occult ways, so that the damage is not directly attributed to the tool.

    Kind of like how alcoholism leads to fatal liver disease.

    What would happen if a chimpanzee was handed a hand grenade?

    Yup. It seems fairly crazy to me to hand a young person a window and access to the entire world at any time and any situation (and that world access to them).

    In fact, I KNOW I would have likely screwed up my life if I had one of these devices when I was younger; I’ll readily admit that part of me not having done more stupid things when I was younger was due to lack of opportunity and boundaries my parents defined. It is another argument I use when my kids bring it up; I wouldn’t have even handed my younger self a cell phone.

    The most innovative and industrious among us have handed people far too stupid, self-destructive and foolish technological tools just as destructive.

    My spiritual teachers highly discourage smart phones. My main teacher gets migraines when cell phones are close to him and does not own one. I’ve sat next to him before and he’ll immediately know if my phone is in the pocket closer to him and ask if I can switch it to the other pocket. No joke. Many of the brothers also have flip phones (these are men in IT, doctors, etc.) – in fact, I had absolutely no desire to get a smart phone until it was forced upon me by my boss. I was quite happy with this guy:

    Because they are spiritual teachers in the community, people come to them with their problems, have collectively dealt with thousands of cases and crises in families – they have no delusions how destructive these things are.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    People generally think I'm a kook when I suggest that today's belief that "smartphones are a permanent addition (and essential) to modern life" is but a passing phase.

    Whether it's realization that access to the Web is anti-wisdom (and basically a path to being pervasively misinformed), that modern phones as entertainment devices are worse than a gambling addict having a personal slot machine or that phones have turned our life into living in a nearly-literal panopticon (prison), I fully expect the era of phones-as-we-now-know-them to end, possibly in my lifetime. Given their production rests on globalism's global cooperative marketplace, I also think their days are numbered. Peace today will end. Unfortunately, good things don't last forever.

    In my view, today is characterized by pathological levels of outward trust. We trust Authority (if not always those who occupy its positions), we trust our money (even as the mother of all credit bubbles erodes its value by giving some people the ability to create monetary demand from literally nothing), we trust people we don't know (even when they are innately different enough from us to warrant a great deal of caution) and we trust everything that gets dressed in the mantle of "science" (even when it's anything but.) One aspect of this is the openness megaphone we hold in our hands.

    I think this period is the greatest social mania in recorded history, eclipsing the South Sea Bubble and John Law's Mississippi Scheme and the mania around the harnessing of electricity, combined into one and raised to a large exponent. When it finally runs its course and inverts, trust will turn to fear and rage, at the same amplitude as today's idiotic openness. This is how humans are wired, part of the cost of a human nature that is otherwise phenomenally capable.

    I've long predicted that the result will be what amounts to a resumption of the English Civil War, a time when men killed neighbors over questions of who do you support, the Crown or Parliament? That this question was then and remains a philosophical contest between Plato and Aristotle (reminding us that nothing is new under the sun) informs me that we're all on a roller-coaster ride, and we neither control the ups and downs nor can we just "get off the ride."

    My suggestions:
    1. Don't be in debt.
    2. Don't be a minority where you live.

    The melting pot will turn out to be a mixture of water and metallic sodium.
  111. @Tony
    You mean most white people. Would have liked to seen it broken down by race.

    You mean most white people. Would have liked to seen it broken down by race.

    With the black rate of births to married couples down to below 25%, perhaps the full court press to “normalize” high promiscuity is just another “black be better” shtick, AKA “Our Sacred Idols’ behavior must be, well, idolized.”

  112. @Talha

    What would happen if a chimpanzee was handed a hand grenade?
     
    Yup. It seems fairly crazy to me to hand a young person a window and access to the entire world at any time and any situation (and that world access to them).

    In fact, I KNOW I would have likely screwed up my life if I had one of these devices when I was younger; I'll readily admit that part of me not having done more stupid things when I was younger was due to lack of opportunity and boundaries my parents defined. It is another argument I use when my kids bring it up; I wouldn't have even handed my younger self a cell phone.

    The most innovative and industrious among us have handed people far too stupid, self-destructive and foolish technological tools just as destructive.
     
    My spiritual teachers highly discourage smart phones. My main teacher gets migraines when cell phones are close to him and does not own one. I've sat next to him before and he'll immediately know if my phone is in the pocket closer to him and ask if I can switch it to the other pocket. No joke. Many of the brothers also have flip phones (these are men in IT, doctors, etc.) - in fact, I had absolutely no desire to get a smart phone until it was forced upon me by my boss. I was quite happy with this guy:
    https://i.redd.it/ta3xsl5q1c801.jpg

    Because they are spiritual teachers in the community, people come to them with their problems, have collectively dealt with thousands of cases and crises in families - they have no delusions how destructive these things are.

    Peace.

    People generally think I’m a kook when I suggest that today’s belief that “smartphones are a permanent addition (and essential) to modern life” is but a passing phase.

    Whether it’s realization that access to the Web is anti-wisdom (and basically a path to being pervasively misinformed), that modern phones as entertainment devices are worse than a gambling addict having a personal slot machine or that phones have turned our life into living in a nearly-literal panopticon (prison), I fully expect the era of phones-as-we-now-know-them to end, possibly in my lifetime. Given their production rests on globalism’s global cooperative marketplace, I also think their days are numbered. Peace today will end. Unfortunately, good things don’t last forever.

    In my view, today is characterized by pathological levels of outward trust. We trust Authority (if not always those who occupy its positions), we trust our money (even as the mother of all credit bubbles erodes its value by giving some people the ability to create monetary demand from literally nothing), we trust people we don’t know (even when they are innately different enough from us to warrant a great deal of caution) and we trust everything that gets dressed in the mantle of “science” (even when it’s anything but.) One aspect of this is the openness megaphone we hold in our hands.

    I think this period is the greatest social mania in recorded history, eclipsing the South Sea Bubble and John Law’s Mississippi Scheme and the mania around the harnessing of electricity, combined into one and raised to a large exponent. When it finally runs its course and inverts, trust will turn to fear and rage, at the same amplitude as today’s idiotic openness. This is how humans are wired, part of the cost of a human nature that is otherwise phenomenally capable.

    I’ve long predicted that the result will be what amounts to a resumption of the English Civil War, a time when men killed neighbors over questions of who do you support, the Crown or Parliament? That this question was then and remains a philosophical contest between Plato and Aristotle (reminding us that nothing is new under the sun) informs me that we’re all on a roller-coaster ride, and we neither control the ups and downs nor can we just “get off the ride.”

    My suggestions:
    1. Don’t be in debt.
    2. Don’t be a minority where you live.

    The melting pot will turn out to be a mixture of water and metallic sodium.

    • Replies: @Talha

    In my view, today is characterized by pathological levels of outward trust.
     
    Yeah - seems like it, especially when you break down those institutions you mentioned.

    I think this period is the greatest social mania in recorded history
     
    Likely. Nothing is isolated anymore. A stupid thing or idea in some corner of New York city will make itself around the world in seconds.

    My suggestions:
    1. Don’t be in debt.
    2. Don’t be a minority where you live.
     
    Hard to argue with this.

    Peace.
  113. @dc.sunsets

    A man shouldn’t have “subsequent children” that he can’t afford without taking resources away from his children by his first (real) wife.

    Potential homewreckers should be on notice that their children’s interests will be subordinate to the children a man already has.
     
    So would you agree that a woman who has subsequent children with Man B should not be able to spend Man A's child support on Man B's children (assuming Man B is either unknown or absent?)

    I'm just asking if sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    I'm curious what you think of a woman who engages in sexual activity with a man who will not be around to pay to raise their offspring?

    So would you agree that a woman who has subsequent children with Man B should not be able to spend Man A’s child support on Man B’s children (assuming Man B is either unknown or absent?)

    In theory, yes. The problem that child support is awarded based on the idea that children’s lives should be disrupted as little as possible in a divorce scenario. That means the wife keeps the same house in the same neighborhood with the children attending the same school. Since money is fungible, subsequent children are probably going to indirectly benefit from that.

    I can certainly see how this would appear to be an injustice, but ultimately it depends on who was at fault for the divorce. The conventional wisdom around here is that women are filing for divorce over nothing and innocent men who dindu nuffin are being railroaded in court. I find that very hard to believe.

    I’m curious what you think of a woman who engages in sexual activity with a man who will not be around to pay to raise their offspring?

    Women don’t do that. They think he will be around, usually because that is what he has promised. My mother had me out of wedlock when she was very young. I have the utmost respect for her, and indeed I am very grateful that she didn’t kill me when it became apparent that she would have to raise me alone.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Did she later marry your father?
  114. @dc.sunsets
    High value men can dictate pre-nuptial contracts.
    Most men do not bat in that league.

    Once the social stigma of divorce was removed, and endless rationalizations that claimed "no harm" to the kids flooded society (lies which are finally being chipped away), adults' commitment to their marital vows declined. This was simply a measure of a society in decline...as is ours.

    This simply illustrates that few people can determine for themselves the proper way to live, and that successful societies have structures that discipline those who carry their adolescence into adulthood. Instead, today's "anything goes" ethos is a prescription for decline and widespread misery...the latter of which is very profitable for drug companies.

    These problems are evident going back thousands of years; there's nothing new about this today.

    Albert J. Nock's 1936 essay, Isaiah's Job reminds us that the masses are, well, the masses...and there will never be a time when Mass Man and Mass Woman will live life coherently (or honorably.) The members of the Remnant do that...

    Excerpt:

    In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are,” He said. “Tell them what is wrong, and why, and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you, and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”

    Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job—in fact, he had asked for it—but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so—if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start—was there any sense in starting it?

    “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and buildup a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.” . . .
     

    High value men can dictate pre-nuptial contracts.
    Most men do not bat in that league.

    I’m not interested in rewriting the terms of the marital Covenant to suit the preferences of individual couples. That is a relativistic approach that has the effect of abolishing marriage as a cultural institution.

    Absent very specific circumstances, the Catholic Church will bar you from communion for living with a person in a fake marriage with a “prenup,” and they are right to do so. You have said “I do” in a public ceremony but in private you have made very clear in a legal document that you actually don’t.

  115. @dc.sunsets
    People generally think I'm a kook when I suggest that today's belief that "smartphones are a permanent addition (and essential) to modern life" is but a passing phase.

    Whether it's realization that access to the Web is anti-wisdom (and basically a path to being pervasively misinformed), that modern phones as entertainment devices are worse than a gambling addict having a personal slot machine or that phones have turned our life into living in a nearly-literal panopticon (prison), I fully expect the era of phones-as-we-now-know-them to end, possibly in my lifetime. Given their production rests on globalism's global cooperative marketplace, I also think their days are numbered. Peace today will end. Unfortunately, good things don't last forever.

    In my view, today is characterized by pathological levels of outward trust. We trust Authority (if not always those who occupy its positions), we trust our money (even as the mother of all credit bubbles erodes its value by giving some people the ability to create monetary demand from literally nothing), we trust people we don't know (even when they are innately different enough from us to warrant a great deal of caution) and we trust everything that gets dressed in the mantle of "science" (even when it's anything but.) One aspect of this is the openness megaphone we hold in our hands.

    I think this period is the greatest social mania in recorded history, eclipsing the South Sea Bubble and John Law's Mississippi Scheme and the mania around the harnessing of electricity, combined into one and raised to a large exponent. When it finally runs its course and inverts, trust will turn to fear and rage, at the same amplitude as today's idiotic openness. This is how humans are wired, part of the cost of a human nature that is otherwise phenomenally capable.

    I've long predicted that the result will be what amounts to a resumption of the English Civil War, a time when men killed neighbors over questions of who do you support, the Crown or Parliament? That this question was then and remains a philosophical contest between Plato and Aristotle (reminding us that nothing is new under the sun) informs me that we're all on a roller-coaster ride, and we neither control the ups and downs nor can we just "get off the ride."

    My suggestions:
    1. Don't be in debt.
    2. Don't be a minority where you live.

    The melting pot will turn out to be a mixture of water and metallic sodium.

    In my view, today is characterized by pathological levels of outward trust.

    Yeah – seems like it, especially when you break down those institutions you mentioned.

    I think this period is the greatest social mania in recorded history

    Likely. Nothing is isolated anymore. A stupid thing or idea in some corner of New York city will make itself around the world in seconds.

    My suggestions:
    1. Don’t be in debt.
    2. Don’t be a minority where you live.

    Hard to argue with this.

    Peace.

  116. @anon
    Rosie is, generally, right.

    Another aging White Knight heard from.

    ut you’re, basically, disillusioned romantics, probably hurt in your erotic-romantic lives by worthless sluts, so your world-view re females is, albeit genuine, limited.

    Pretty good trolling, but not as good as Rosie. However, the facts do not care about your feelings.

    Here is some data. I also posted this table and link in the incel thread, but it fits in both places. I'm sure our host will do as ht thinks best.

    https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wolfinger-sex-divorce-table-1.png

    Note the distribution and how it has changed over the last 40+ years. It is not 1970-whatever anymore and hasn't been for a while, it is easy to see why aging Boomers have faulty ideas about "what women are like in their 20's".

    Simple addition shows that half of all women reported 4+ premarital partners in the 2010's. Also note the low probability of a virgin bride in the 2010's, hardly surprising given that the average age of a US woman on her first wedding day is 27.

    Here is the source for that table of data.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/

    The more sexual partners prior to marriage, the higher the probability of divorce in the first 10 years. Or to be more blunt, the longer a girl rides the Cock Carousel before marriage, the more likely she will divorce her Beta Bucks after bearing her 2.1 children.

    Again, 50% of women reported 4+ premarital partners. Those women are higher risk to the men who marry them. These facts do not care about the feelings of women or aging White Knights, either.

    Facts such as these are mandatory for young men in their 20's and 30's, in order to mitigate risk to themselves and to their future children. Because divorce causes serious damage to children, especially young ones, and in the US women file 70% of divorce actions. Therefore knowing the risk factors that increase the chances of divorce is hugely important.

    Most comments here only mention the sluttiness of modern women but totally ignore that the average contemporary male also wants to fuck as many women as possible until he decides to settle down. So Adam complains that Amy rode more than 10 cocks and sucked another 5 (excluding the one-night-stands) before marrying him, but until deciding to marry, Adam also dreamt of shagging every lookable girl around him, irrespective of whether these dreams have materialised or not.
    It is ridiculous that a 35 year old guy who until then kissed 10 girls, fucked 5 of them, and masturbated to another 500, decides to marry a 30-something gal and expects her to be loyal to him.
    Most men definitely had a sweetheart at high school or college or during the first couple of years at their first workplace who was willing and longing to marry them, hence, awaiting a proposal or at least an invitation for cohabitation with a promise of a long-term-relationship, but hey, average Adam does not want to settle with sweet Amy, at least not yet, because he dreams of shagging slutty Patricia from HR, wants to give a facial to that hot Asian lady from finances, or fantasises to fuck his Latina neighbour in the ass, and so on and so forth, even if most of the time he only has intercourse with his left hand.
    If a young man wants to have a loyal and happy wife he should aim at marrying a girl in her early 20s or even younger, and pursue the struggle of life as a team, not as an ‘individual’, preferably not later than in his late 20s (the earlier the better). But hell no, Adam dreams of endless opportunities and that everything-is-possible-my-ass.
    Most girls want to go long-term with one of their first three boyfriends, but the guy she is with cheats on her and ‘moves on’, and it is only then that the girl decides to ‘move on’ herself and ride the carousel and not to give a shit until she gets too old for that lifestyle. It always starts with a man breaking a promise to, or cheating on, a woman.
    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else. Now in her early 40s, she is still a sweet girl who loves me as I am, and she is a good mother to our two kids both of whom definitely look like me.
    But she could have turned into a slut and a cum-dumpster if I had rejected and left her, who knows. It’s not about the innate qualities of a woman but rather about how her first couple of mates treat her.
    Most guys complaining of female sluttiness are insincere bitches themselves for if they were not they would have married the sweet girl who loved them while they were both young instead of longing for alternatives and possibilities.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Good points - it's not simply a one-sided thing.

    TL;DR - it takes two to tango.

    Peace.
    , @Talha

    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else.
     
    My wife also approached me about marriage while we were both in UCLA. She graduated with a big belly expecting our first child. I'm also on the get-married-early-and-face-the-struggles-together crowd.

    Peace.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Wise people agree that delayed marriage offers both men and women plenty of time to add what I call "deal-breaker" experiences to their mental attic.

    (Wise people are wise, of course, because I agree with them....)

    There are two kinds of people: a tiny few who will make good choices about their lives despite what surrounds them, and most who will do what others around them appear to be doing, good or bad. Humans have brain structures (and a period of ontogeny) that resemble those of herd animals, and it's self-evident that we herd.

    A healthy society encourages "doing healthy things" and a sick one encourages self-destruction. The West is drowning in the latter, so the masses of people who are not capable of navigating life against the social milieu's winds blow inexorably toward immiseration. It's often just a question of time-exposure.

    Early marriage (or early pairing/courtship) reduces the exposure. College (today's all-expenses-paid-extension-of-adolescence) is particularly toxic, so exposure there counts "double."

    I pity those who can't find a mate by the time they're 20-22. The "adult world" has lost most of the institutions that assisted in mate-finding and courtship, leaving needles-in-search-of-partnership in haystacks-of-throwbacks.
  117. @SZ
    Most comments here only mention the sluttiness of modern women but totally ignore that the average contemporary male also wants to fuck as many women as possible until he decides to settle down. So Adam complains that Amy rode more than 10 cocks and sucked another 5 (excluding the one-night-stands) before marrying him, but until deciding to marry, Adam also dreamt of shagging every lookable girl around him, irrespective of whether these dreams have materialised or not.
    It is ridiculous that a 35 year old guy who until then kissed 10 girls, fucked 5 of them, and masturbated to another 500, decides to marry a 30-something gal and expects her to be loyal to him.
    Most men definitely had a sweetheart at high school or college or during the first couple of years at their first workplace who was willing and longing to marry them, hence, awaiting a proposal or at least an invitation for cohabitation with a promise of a long-term-relationship, but hey, average Adam does not want to settle with sweet Amy, at least not yet, because he dreams of shagging slutty Patricia from HR, wants to give a facial to that hot Asian lady from finances, or fantasises to fuck his Latina neighbour in the ass, and so on and so forth, even if most of the time he only has intercourse with his left hand.
    If a young man wants to have a loyal and happy wife he should aim at marrying a girl in her early 20s or even younger, and pursue the struggle of life as a team, not as an 'individual', preferably not later than in his late 20s (the earlier the better). But hell no, Adam dreams of endless opportunities and that everything-is-possible-my-ass.
    Most girls want to go long-term with one of their first three boyfriends, but the guy she is with cheats on her and 'moves on', and it is only then that the girl decides to 'move on' herself and ride the carousel and not to give a shit until she gets too old for that lifestyle. It always starts with a man breaking a promise to, or cheating on, a woman.
    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else. Now in her early 40s, she is still a sweet girl who loves me as I am, and she is a good mother to our two kids both of whom definitely look like me.
    But she could have turned into a slut and a cum-dumpster if I had rejected and left her, who knows. It's not about the innate qualities of a woman but rather about how her first couple of mates treat her.
    Most guys complaining of female sluttiness are insincere bitches themselves for if they were not they would have married the sweet girl who loved them while they were both young instead of longing for alternatives and possibilities.

    Good points – it’s not simply a one-sided thing.

    TL;DR – it takes two to tango.

    Peace.

  118. @SZ
    Most comments here only mention the sluttiness of modern women but totally ignore that the average contemporary male also wants to fuck as many women as possible until he decides to settle down. So Adam complains that Amy rode more than 10 cocks and sucked another 5 (excluding the one-night-stands) before marrying him, but until deciding to marry, Adam also dreamt of shagging every lookable girl around him, irrespective of whether these dreams have materialised or not.
    It is ridiculous that a 35 year old guy who until then kissed 10 girls, fucked 5 of them, and masturbated to another 500, decides to marry a 30-something gal and expects her to be loyal to him.
    Most men definitely had a sweetheart at high school or college or during the first couple of years at their first workplace who was willing and longing to marry them, hence, awaiting a proposal or at least an invitation for cohabitation with a promise of a long-term-relationship, but hey, average Adam does not want to settle with sweet Amy, at least not yet, because he dreams of shagging slutty Patricia from HR, wants to give a facial to that hot Asian lady from finances, or fantasises to fuck his Latina neighbour in the ass, and so on and so forth, even if most of the time he only has intercourse with his left hand.
    If a young man wants to have a loyal and happy wife he should aim at marrying a girl in her early 20s or even younger, and pursue the struggle of life as a team, not as an 'individual', preferably not later than in his late 20s (the earlier the better). But hell no, Adam dreams of endless opportunities and that everything-is-possible-my-ass.
    Most girls want to go long-term with one of their first three boyfriends, but the guy she is with cheats on her and 'moves on', and it is only then that the girl decides to 'move on' herself and ride the carousel and not to give a shit until she gets too old for that lifestyle. It always starts with a man breaking a promise to, or cheating on, a woman.
    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else. Now in her early 40s, she is still a sweet girl who loves me as I am, and she is a good mother to our two kids both of whom definitely look like me.
    But she could have turned into a slut and a cum-dumpster if I had rejected and left her, who knows. It's not about the innate qualities of a woman but rather about how her first couple of mates treat her.
    Most guys complaining of female sluttiness are insincere bitches themselves for if they were not they would have married the sweet girl who loved them while they were both young instead of longing for alternatives and possibilities.

    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else.

    My wife also approached me about marriage while we were both in UCLA. She graduated with a big belly expecting our first child. I’m also on the get-married-early-and-face-the-struggles-together crowd.

    Peace.

  119. @Talha

    If you want such a life, you can get it. If you want a different type of life, you can also find it. That’s all.
     
    That's true enough - I know my community certainly operates on different standards. I guess they are talking about how it is getting increasingly difficult to find that different type of life because of the social pressures in the sexual marketplace. So, for instance, women trying to be chaste or have higher standards are getting hemmed in by the actions of other looser women with less standards and thus being expected to put out to keep a man.

    Again, I'm just going off of what I've gleaned from reading and hearing about. And this is about the general public environment, not niche communities.

    On a related note; my daughter confessed to me a while back how she had considered taking off the hijab because of all the social pressure around her to not be different. And she apparently did try it out once when she went to a mall by herself. She was hit on aggressively by a group of young men and found the experience so revolting, she's not interested in doing it again.

    Me reacting to my daughter (in Muslim):
    https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEjHAUOqG3lSS0f1C/giphy.gif

    Peace.

    in Muslim [dog gif]

    If there isn’t already a translation of hadith into dog gifs one has to be made.

  120. @Corvinus
    "Audie, my observation is partly from reading, observing and mostly, my own experience with sluts and there have been many. It’s my own experience with chicks that lie..."

    Exactly, YOUR experiences of the women that YOU met, which does not mean that they can be made into a generalization about ALL or MOST females. On some occasions, a guy may find out more than he bargained for when it comes to past sexual encounters, and then there are those instances where the guy discovers the woman has been selective in who she sleeps with. It's no different than men who make all sorts of bravado claims about who they bed. As far as brothers are concerned when it comes to revealing the sordid history of their sister, it depends upon the strength of their relationship. The brothers who I knew who had sisters were quite protective of them, as well as the sister being ticked off whenever her brother would "pump and dump" a friend or acquaintance.

    "Even women call the slink back home at sunrise after a one-night stand “The Walk Of Shame”, they invented the slur."

    Not necessarily. Apparently this phrase was found first in Pat Conroy's Lords of Discipline (1980), a novel about life at a Southern military academy.

    "Real-life women aren’t telling their girlfriends what sluts they are privately."

    They are more forthcoming than you think.

    https://www.thehealthsite.com/sexual-health/sex/do-women-share-everything-about-sex-with-their-girlfriends-real-women-tell-you-t1117-534505/

    "Medical evidence and the bent of commercials indicate they’re doing a LOT of guys and they’re also doing a lot of ass-sex (go ahead, find an honest poll on THAT), as evidenced by the fact of the skyrocketing rates of rectal and lower-intestinal warts, cancers and my all-time favorite, pissing-in-the-pants issues and prolapse of the vagina and anus from their idiotic dildo usage."

    Do you have any sources here, or are you simply throwing crap at the wall and hopes it sticks?

    "Throw in HepatitisA-Z, HIV HPV, Chlamydia, clap, herpes and all the other products of a slutty female lifestyle..."

    You mean men AND women who frequently ride the sex train.

    Wow! So disturbed by the topic you posted your “rebuttal” thrice!

    Oh Corby!

  121. @SZ
    Most comments here only mention the sluttiness of modern women but totally ignore that the average contemporary male also wants to fuck as many women as possible until he decides to settle down. So Adam complains that Amy rode more than 10 cocks and sucked another 5 (excluding the one-night-stands) before marrying him, but until deciding to marry, Adam also dreamt of shagging every lookable girl around him, irrespective of whether these dreams have materialised or not.
    It is ridiculous that a 35 year old guy who until then kissed 10 girls, fucked 5 of them, and masturbated to another 500, decides to marry a 30-something gal and expects her to be loyal to him.
    Most men definitely had a sweetheart at high school or college or during the first couple of years at their first workplace who was willing and longing to marry them, hence, awaiting a proposal or at least an invitation for cohabitation with a promise of a long-term-relationship, but hey, average Adam does not want to settle with sweet Amy, at least not yet, because he dreams of shagging slutty Patricia from HR, wants to give a facial to that hot Asian lady from finances, or fantasises to fuck his Latina neighbour in the ass, and so on and so forth, even if most of the time he only has intercourse with his left hand.
    If a young man wants to have a loyal and happy wife he should aim at marrying a girl in her early 20s or even younger, and pursue the struggle of life as a team, not as an 'individual', preferably not later than in his late 20s (the earlier the better). But hell no, Adam dreams of endless opportunities and that everything-is-possible-my-ass.
    Most girls want to go long-term with one of their first three boyfriends, but the guy she is with cheats on her and 'moves on', and it is only then that the girl decides to 'move on' herself and ride the carousel and not to give a shit until she gets too old for that lifestyle. It always starts with a man breaking a promise to, or cheating on, a woman.
    I married a woman who had only two boyfriends before me. We married while she was still in college (she was the one who proposed) and since then I never have sensed that she was searching and longing for someone else. Now in her early 40s, she is still a sweet girl who loves me as I am, and she is a good mother to our two kids both of whom definitely look like me.
    But she could have turned into a slut and a cum-dumpster if I had rejected and left her, who knows. It's not about the innate qualities of a woman but rather about how her first couple of mates treat her.
    Most guys complaining of female sluttiness are insincere bitches themselves for if they were not they would have married the sweet girl who loved them while they were both young instead of longing for alternatives and possibilities.

    Wise people agree that delayed marriage offers both men and women plenty of time to add what I call “deal-breaker” experiences to their mental attic.

    (Wise people are wise, of course, because I agree with them….)

    There are two kinds of people: a tiny few who will make good choices about their lives despite what surrounds them, and most who will do what others around them appear to be doing, good or bad. Humans have brain structures (and a period of ontogeny) that resemble those of herd animals, and it’s self-evident that we herd.

    A healthy society encourages “doing healthy things” and a sick one encourages self-destruction. The West is drowning in the latter, so the masses of people who are not capable of navigating life against the social milieu’s winds blow inexorably toward immiseration. It’s often just a question of time-exposure.

    Early marriage (or early pairing/courtship) reduces the exposure. College (today’s all-expenses-paid-extension-of-adolescence) is particularly toxic, so exposure there counts “double.”

    I pity those who can’t find a mate by the time they’re 20-22. The “adult world” has lost most of the institutions that assisted in mate-finding and courtship, leaving needles-in-search-of-partnership in haystacks-of-throwbacks.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Wise people agree that delayed marriage offers both men and women plenty of time to add what I call “deal-breaker” experiences to their mental attic.
     
    This is true, but then very early marriage can lead to deal-breaking lack of experience. As much as people ridicule the idea of finding oneself, I am convinced there's something to it. You have to figure out what your passions are in life if you're going to have a chance of staying out of trouble.

    Get Thai'd. You're talking to a tourist
    whose every movie's among the purest.
    I get my kicks above the waistline, Sunshine.
     

    https://youtu.be/mnqj31VPNoE
  122. @dc.sunsets
    Wise people agree that delayed marriage offers both men and women plenty of time to add what I call "deal-breaker" experiences to their mental attic.

    (Wise people are wise, of course, because I agree with them....)

    There are two kinds of people: a tiny few who will make good choices about their lives despite what surrounds them, and most who will do what others around them appear to be doing, good or bad. Humans have brain structures (and a period of ontogeny) that resemble those of herd animals, and it's self-evident that we herd.

    A healthy society encourages "doing healthy things" and a sick one encourages self-destruction. The West is drowning in the latter, so the masses of people who are not capable of navigating life against the social milieu's winds blow inexorably toward immiseration. It's often just a question of time-exposure.

    Early marriage (or early pairing/courtship) reduces the exposure. College (today's all-expenses-paid-extension-of-adolescence) is particularly toxic, so exposure there counts "double."

    I pity those who can't find a mate by the time they're 20-22. The "adult world" has lost most of the institutions that assisted in mate-finding and courtship, leaving needles-in-search-of-partnership in haystacks-of-throwbacks.

    Wise people agree that delayed marriage offers both men and women plenty of time to add what I call “deal-breaker” experiences to their mental attic.

    This is true, but then very early marriage can lead to deal-breaking lack of experience. As much as people ridicule the idea of finding oneself, I am convinced there’s something to it. You have to figure out what your passions are in life if you’re going to have a chance of staying out of trouble.

    Get Thai’d. You’re talking to a tourist
    whose every movie’s among the purest.
    I get my kicks above the waistline, Sunshine.

  123. @Rosie

    So would you agree that a woman who has subsequent children with Man B should not be able to spend Man A’s child support on Man B’s children (assuming Man B is either unknown or absent?)
     
    In theory, yes. The problem that child support is awarded based on the idea that children's lives should be disrupted as little as possible in a divorce scenario. That means the wife keeps the same house in the same neighborhood with the children attending the same school. Since money is fungible, subsequent children are probably going to indirectly benefit from that.

    I can certainly see how this would appear to be an injustice, but ultimately it depends on who was at fault for the divorce. The conventional wisdom around here is that women are filing for divorce over nothing and innocent men who dindu nuffin are being railroaded in court. I find that very hard to believe.


    I’m curious what you think of a woman who engages in sexual activity with a man who will not be around to pay to raise their offspring?
     
    Women don't do that. They think he will be around, usually because that is what he has promised. My mother had me out of wedlock when she was very young. I have the utmost respect for her, and indeed I am very grateful that she didn't kill me when it became apparent that she would have to raise me alone.

    Did she later marry your father?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    No, she declined because of alcohol-related abuse. She never took any money from him either, hoping that some other man could be a father to me without him in the way.

    I grew up with a succession of stepfathers who weren't terrible, but that's about the best I can say for them. I think they did their best, but to be honest, they really didn't have much of a chance. How do you deal with a child who is a couple of standard deviations above you in verbal IQ?

  124. @Audacious Epigone
    Did she later marry your father?

    No, she declined because of alcohol-related abuse. She never took any money from him either, hoping that some other man could be a father to me without him in the way.

    I grew up with a succession of stepfathers who weren’t terrible, but that’s about the best I can say for them. I think they did their best, but to be honest, they really didn’t have much of a chance. How do you deal with a child who is a couple of standard deviations above you in verbal IQ?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS