Posted on 02/15/2025 10:03:27 PM PST by grundle
As I said, the topic is not really single motherhood but the hypergamic culture that has taken hold of women around the world.
It’s a well-known phenom that these women will screw around in their 20’s. However, when they reach their 30’s they will try to redeem themselves by wearing clothing suited to the Amish to try and make it appear that they are something that they weren’t a few years prior.
Yes, there are single mothers who are good women but were dealt with a bad hand. Their husbands died or they weren’t able to discern that their high quality, in physicality and income, were really low quality in their character and weak in their ability to commit. |
Hypergamy is not about those type of women. Hypergamy is about using men. In their 20’s, they allow themselves to be used by high value men and are damaged in the process. The beta males, during this period, are absolutely dumped on by these women. They will savage him if he gets the gumption to just say hi. She will get him fired from his job if he tries to talk to her socially. He is a worm to her, in her mind, during this period. I do not exaggerate in the least about this for these men.
Once the women gets out of her ho phase, because her options have dwindled to where he is now competitive, she will then try and convince him to be a husband because she now needs a provider and she couldn’t land the big whale that she really wanted.
If he agrees to marry her, she will always compare him to the guy that she slept with one time. She will tell him that she could have had this guy, because he was willing to sleep with her once.
These men are mostly celibate outside relationships. If they went to the bar alone, they will go home at 2am alone. So they don’t go out. They tend to their life. If they do marry, quite often they are celibate within the marriage. The woman in question cannot bring herself to sleep with her husband on a regular basis, because she is forever in love with the big whale that she landed once. So the man in question, who was involuntary celibate in his twenties, is now involuntarily celibate in his thirties. Except he now has the responsibilities of marriage and being nice to her without a comparable reciprocity from her.
The woman who rejects him in their 20’s is stil rejecting him in their 30’s, except she is using him for financial support to provide for her children that are not his. He gets to be stuck in the marraige because divorce means losing most of his assets and child support.
Do you understand now what the issue is?
It’s a well-known phenom that these women will screw around in their 20’s. However, when they reach their 30’s they will try to redeem themselves by wearing clothing suited to the Amish to try and make it appear that they are something that they weren’t a few years prior.
And when you take her to dinner, she just orders a salad.
She’s full on trying to create the image that she was always this way.
I do laugh at the cartoon I saw once. The woman on a date did as you say, order a light dinner. When she got home, she went full-on Dagwood with her arms lined with plates so she could actually eat to her appetite.
Many good points.
The manosphere taught me that young women divide men into two categories:
—Hot
—Creeps
Men need to decide which one they want to be.
Lol.
Some guys who cheat are doing it because they want to, not because they are unhappy. Some are accustomed to variety.
How much one cheats is often dependent on a person’s ability to replace mates. The easier it is to replace people, the less committed they will be to that relationship.
It’s why you see some men never leave their marriages, no matter how badly they are treated. They don’t think they will find a replacement.
It goes for the woman as well, but women have an easier time replacing their mates.
"Taylor the Fiend" can be entertaining. His griping seems sincere. He doesn't attempt to explain anything on a deeper level, however, so I don't find his podcasts very instructive.
"Better Bachelor" likewise seems quite sincere - maybe even a little too sincere. He does delve more deeply into the psycho-evolutionary roots of female behavior. And lately, he's also drifted into correlating gynocentrism with liberalism, so he's to be commended.
Rich Cooper is more of a dating coach, and I suspect that he might be a grifter. His "cool dude" persona is a little off-putting.
Manosphere Highlights Daily has good production values, tight narration (no rambling), but is maybe a little too polished. The narrator sounds like a Black dude (his catchword is "Cuz we're men, ain't we? SHEE-IT"), but he is quite eloquent.
Dating Delusions is hilarious! His purported main goal is to provide concrete, actionable advice to women on how to better script their online dating profiles, but in actuality, he ends up critiquing unrealistic female dating expectations.
Rollo Tomasi / The Rational Male is excellent, and provides a "deep dive" into ancient evolutionary pressures which no longer have much validity in modern times and which therefore lead to incongruent behaviors. He's also written several books on the subject, and was a trailblazer in the field.
"Manosphere" - a (I think) East European guy with a noticeable accent - seems sincere.
Aaron Clarey / "Cappy" is well-versed in the economics of dating, etc., but is a little long-winded.
Michael Sartain invites low-I.Q. hussies onto his show and demolishes their puerile, self-serving worldviews. Unless your preferred dating pool consists of ex-Las Vegas showgirls, don't bother!
Kevin Samuels is (was) the undisputed king of the manosphere. Although Black, and focussing on a Black audience (99% of the people calling in to his show are Black females), he was a master at exposing their delusional attitudes and unrealistic expectations - to the benefit of men.
"Fresh & Fit" are trash.
I don't take female podcasters in this space seriously.
Regards,
I have stated elsewhere here on the forum that I thoroughly disapprove of Musk's licentious behavior - chiefly because he cannot seriously be a part of the lives of the children he sires, and children deserve to have an active father. He is no better (but also no worse) than some high-earning but monogamous men who remain faithful to their wives, pay through the nose for their upkeep, but hardly ever actually see their children or play an active role in their lives.
He is definitely not on the level of some financial wastrel / lay-about impregnating multiple women who (feign to) know nothing about the other women; the women in Musk's life know that they are being "kept" - and kept well!
The libertinism per se is not the issue for me. There are undoubtedly staunchly religious men with high-profile careers who are utterly faithful to their wives, and uphold all the Biblical injunctions in that respect, but who nevertheless contribute almost nothing to the emotional development and psychological molding of their children. They are no better than Musk, in my eyes.
Regards,
Shades of Jane Eyre, but with the sexes reversed!
Regards,
I’m thinking someone took advantage of a real dummy here.
Unfortunately, "dating" is downstream from "culture" - and our modern, gynocentric culture glorifies and exalts the female sexual power which "The Pill" has unleased.
Modern contraceptives, unfair divorce laws, and abortion have warped the "playing field." And the "Nanny State" - which has become a surrogate for a nurturing, protective, providing husband - has made husbands obsolete.
It is a "cock-up" of monumental proportions.
Regards,
The message being promulgated to such men today is essentially, "Nobody needs you. Just die already."
Regards,
Joseph and Mary weren't already married by the time of Christ's birth?!
Regards,
I'm sure that all the young ladies you asked were very frank and forthcoming with that information. They weren't at all offended by the question, and hastened to supply you with the requested data, so that you could evaluate it and make the corresponding assessment of their "dateability."
/sarcasm
Never heard the term body count before. Is this a recent term? By recent I mean after the year 2000
Its first documented mention was in a 1955 episode of "Father Knows Best."
/sarcasm
Nota Bene: In reference to a man's sexual history, in contrast, the preferred term is "notch count" (because men are proud of their sexual conquests, seeing as how they validate their sexual prowess).
Regards,
It boils down to encumbering men with "Responsibility without Authority" (= slavery).
Regards,
False!
The phenomenon of "dating" is a very recent one, first appearing in the U.S. after WWI. But it didn't really acquire momentum until after WWII and the advent of cheap motor vehicles - vulgo "bedrooms on wheels."
Young men have needed "dating advice" for less than a century. For the majority of recorded history, whenever any kind of "orderly" matching-up occurred, the PARENTS of the future bride and groom arranged for everything.
The PARENTS evaluated the prospective bride's / groom's potential, and after the wedding, the community provided the intense social pressure that ensured they stayed together.
It was about legacy.
Regards,
Sure, he could TELL her that, but would it be true?
Broadly speaking, in modern Western culture, a man will tend to have far less motivation to lie about his "notch-count" - and by the same token, women will have far less motivation to inquire.
So this is almost a "non-issue."
But thanks for "stirring the pot!"
Regards,
I would agree that any such discussion is almost doomed to failure - but at least theoretically, such information would be invaluable to the male.
Between 18-29, women are at the height of their SMV, and enjoy an extremely high level of corresponding social power. Many do not use that power wisely. (Modern society actually encourages them to defer settling down until their fertility is already in decline.)
Men, on the other hand, do not "come into their own" until their late 20s / early 30s. Their SMV does not peak until their late 30s. The playing field is thus not level until much later in life.
Most men gain their first dating experiences in a "scarcity environment." Those experiences imprint them. At the same time, women are dating on "easy mode," and their experiences imprint them.
Bitter 40-year-old single women are bitter because they squandered their peak SMV years and gave too freely of their sexual favors. They are now finally learning what it's like to be a normal man early in life.
Bitter 40-year-old men are invariably embittered by divorce (i.e., being taken to the cleaners, losing their children). They are not bitter because they gave too freely of their sexual favors.
The whole situation is asymmetrical but our society teaches us that this is NOT the case.
Regards,
Both jackasses who have ruined many nice young men.
How so? Can you provide any examples of the things that they have said that are untrue? Can you cite any examples of nice, young men who have taken their advice, to their detriment?
Regards,
Your entire mindset is warped, as indicated by the fact that you conflate "having high standards" with "deserving to have those standards met in the real world."
A "broke, dusty" 45-year-old man, balding and paunchy, barely hanging on financially, is certainly to be commended for having "high standards," right? Isn't he admirable for having such "high standards?"
I mean, he's "holding out" for a slim, attractive cover girl in her 20s, with firm Christian values. Further, she should also have a bankroll, so that they can live in comfort while raising a big family.
How could you possibly criticize him for having "high standards," after all?
Because they're UNREALISTIC!
Because the women he wants, DON'T WANT HIM!
By the same token, men who are finally "coming into their own," have boosted their SMV through hard work, accumulating capital, acquiring societal status, building a career, etc. - DON'T WANT / have no reason to "settle" for a woman who was profligate during her peak SMV years, who would have spurned him in his 20s, when he was still struggling, but is now willing to accept him as a step-father to her children.
About being "pro-life": I most certainly am - but that does NOT mean that the woman shouldn't have to pay a penalty (bear the consequences) of her previous bad behavior. It most certainly does not mean that the man has any obligation to "step up" and "rescue" her from the unhappy consequences of her bad behavior.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.