As a guy in his early 20s, reading you feels like peaking behind a curtain and seeing certain aspects of the female psyche that are rarely articulated in the mainstream these days. I thank you for these insights and hope that you keep writing.
When you start dating casually, you quickly notice the female neediness simply by the fact that girls rarely ask the guy: “so where do you see this going?” Or even more brazen: “do you want a relationship”. They don’t ask this NOT because they don’t want this type of relationship (the intimacy they long for when you are with them makes that clear), but rather because they are simply afraid of the answer and the guy’s reaction.
A lot of these problems could be solved if women simply pursued their emotional interests as ruthlessly as men pursue their sexual interests. That means: Not giving in to sexual demands until there is certainty of commitment (relationship).
Otherwise women conform to forces of an unregulated dating market, dictated by men who do not have women’s best interest at heart
I am pleased to hear this and also interested in hearing your viewpoint. What I would say can be a problem is that often men feel too much pressure when a woman is explicitly saying she is looking for a relationship even if they, too, would like one. I'm not sure what's the best way around that apart from getting to know someone as a friend first.
I think part of the pressure of "Are you looking for a relationship?" is its unspoken subtext: "...With me?" Not always easy to answer on a first date!
Okay well I want to hear your sizzling hot, galaxy brain take on how women are interested in PEOPLE while men are interested in THINGS. Woooowww, that'll be some ground-breaking shit right there.
Like we don't know men hate old and ugly women. Like they keep it a mystery, and have for thousands of years. NOBODY CARES
The sentiments you've described men having in this and many of your other comments here and elsewhere do not, I believe, well-represent the actual sentiments of men.
Men also crucified men for thousands of years. Men sacrificed animals for thousands of years. Does that mean that men hate men too? Do men hate animals? Do men hate everything?
Perhaps, the way you see the world is through the dirty lenses of hate and anger because that is the immediate reflection of you inner being, of your own emotional state.
Also, do we need to write or have discussions only on the basis that we are exploring ground-breaking ideas? Are your ideas Noble worthy? How are you helping the world? Is spreading hate on blog comments bettering you or the community? And does that make you look like a credible source for your readers who you want to impact?
Go live your life lady. Perhaps you too, can come up with something ground-breaking if you did spend your time spreading negativity in the comments.
If you look at her posts and comments, there's a strong trend of - well, the nicest we can put it is, anger. She may of course have good reasons for this anger. But it does seem to be ongoing and overwhelming in what she presents online.
I've only been on substack for a little while now, but I'm quickly learning there are some I can straight-up mute (anti-semites, "the CDC is fraud!" etc) and others who aren't actually insane, but who I can probably just scan over without reading closely, and I won't be missing much.
That's usually guys, it's refreshing to have a woman or two in there.
Ugh I wish. Between my career, my gym regimen and my girlfriend, I haven't had the time to even touch my Xbox in months. We all have our crosses to bear I suppose.
At least I still have time to peruse some interesting substacks now and again.
"....I will take my bitterness to my grave and use my dying breath...." Late to this post. I realise that you are probably mostly kidding here but even so the cognitive dissonance needs picking up on. You are pretty woman (you've said so). And you are a savvy woman too. So you will know about the sexual mating dynamics whereby pretty young women tend to hanker after just a small % of men at the top of a kind of Alpha scale of desirability. And so you will also know that pretty women like you could have masses of suitors except that you are just not interested in them. Surely? They just don't count. [I - even more than James - am out of all this - by the way - because I am 73 - and my lovely wife is all I need.] Also, by the way, I do love reading your posts.
Yes, that was a great phrase. Reminiscent of tunes from a couple hundred years ago, or perhaps bluegrass music. I love these genres because they address the truth that there is much tragedy in being a person, vs.all the rah-rah today.
"Getting to know someone as a friend" is fine, as long as you are getting to know other people as friends simultaneously. Otherwise what happens is you start dating that one guy. Then the dating goes on for months, maybe even years, maybe you even move in together and live like that for years and years with no wedding in sight. Then you break up. Wasted years. Wasted fertile years. The best thing to do is rotational date multiple people simultaneously until you get a good proposal. Then and then only should you become exclusive. See the video I posted above by Mina Irfan The Universe Guru.
Oh well, what to do? "Girlfriend" is not a status. It is not recognized in evolution, in law, in religion, in history, nothing. Dating one person for 7 years and then breaking up serves what purpose - exactly? Worse yet - moving in and living with them - for what? It goes nowhere. "Girlfriend" is an imaginary made-up thing that modern humans invented. Historically women met a rotation of "gentleman callers", fielding and vetting them until a proper proposal was on offer. Women never gave exclusive commitment to anyone without a ring and a publicly announced betrothal. Why would they? There's nothing it in for them.
Men can also use this method to find an actual wife, since "boyfriend" isn't a status either.
Some people get turned off by the idea because for some reason they assume "dating" means "having sex". But in this context it absolutely does not. Even up until relatively recently dating simply meant going out with people and getting to know them.
How not to become a fuck buddy: don’t fuck. I completely agree with the author that young women are captured by a sort of Stockholm syndrome that is patterned after gay male behavior. Before birth control (not that long ago) women were in charge of sex because they had to be. The default was NO. Men knew this and it had to be a problem for not a few people (of both sexes) that marriage was the only way to get together. (Generalization alert.) Men got want they wanted from the sexual revolution because they can fuck all they want and then, if they choose, find a non fuck buddy to marry. Much much more easily than a woman can once her youth and beauty is gone. Will women learn to embrace the power of no?
I don't buy this. I think what's changed is less the willingness to give up sex and more the fact that the ratio of educated men and women has changed so radically,
If you're a woman looking for a stable long term relationship with an intellectual equal who shares the same cultural and other expectations -- well women get substantially more college degrees and now numerically dominate most jobs requiring more education.
Having attended a school with a distorted sex ratio I can tell you that really makes it hard. And remember there are lots of men who are happy to pair up with less intelligent attractive women so the ratio is far worse than it seems. This then changes the incentivizes of the men who they find desierable to be less interested in long term dating.
If you want to make things better fix the educational system to do better with men.
I think both of these points are valid. Sex is more inherently more costly for women and birth control has changed the game in many ways, both overt and subtle.
And women want to marry, but they don’t want to marry down. There genuinely is a shortage of eligible men in many circles.
The disruption of women’s hormonal cycles affects the type of attraction and drive men and women feel for each other too, and I wonder if the birth-control driven preference for mild-mannered men is part of what has driven the high-achievers out of view. (Not to mention the fact that men seem to find the scent of a fertile woman highly motivating and that has all but vanished from the earth)
A birth control driven preference for mild guys might actually make the problem less bad. But it's my guess those claims about birth control affecting attraction are, if not an outright result of publication bias/replication crisis, extremely exaggerated. Despite many people trying very hard it's virtually impossible to get substantial effects on human behavior with pheromones (see the pheremone perfumes) and the population with the highest birth control rates (highly educated well off young women) their marriages are actually more stable than earlier generations (no sudden divorce after going off the pill). Besides, from an evolutionary perspective it doesn't make sense for humans, who have other dispositions to avoid mating with close relatives, to be that influenced by this histocompatibility stuff.
Besides the idea that men are highly responsive to fertile women is in direct tension with the fact that human women obviously faced strong evolutionary to hide ovulation information (no clear external color signal like our primate relatives). As such any pheremone signal that men could detect with high reliability would go the way of the visual indicator of fertility.
And other work like this, eg, period syncing, has turned out to be kinda BS.
It's the shortage of eligible men issue doing the work (and making those men left less willing to settle down because they have a better deal playing the field).
"I wonder if the birth-control driven preference for mild-mannered men is part of what has driven the high-achievers out of view."
I'm not sure how much is birth control, which is after all not ubiquitous, and how much it is our comfortable society.
We know that men in prison have higher testosterone than men outside it. Well, that makes sense - more aggression sees you more likely to land in prison, right? Except that it drops once you leave. Could it be that being in an environment where you might be shivved at any time causes your body to amp up production of something which gives you aggression and muscles?
Likewise, testosterone is lower in men in the West than in the Third World. Perhaps it's just that we're safer?
We also know that testosterone drops in men if they have close contact with their newborns. A high level of aggression around someone needy who keeps you awake all night who is also very vulnerable is probably not a survival trait for a species.
Similarly, when you're having 6 children by the time you're 30 and 2 of the children will die in infancy, you will probably do better with a higher sperm count. When you're having 0-2 and only in your 30s, you don't need as much. This would explain the decline in male sperm counts in the West - which isn't reproduced in the Third World.
So while there may be chemical (plastics) and pharmaceutical (the Pill) contributors, I suspect the social ones are much stronger. Men aren't as aggressive, horny and fertile as they used to be because they don't need to be.
I had a conversation recently about American history (my college major) with a plumber who was able to hold his own with me & I can objectively, at least based on SATs & my graduate degree, claim some smarts. And I’ve known female college grads who weren’t all that educated, degrees to the contrary notwithstanding. I think what’s going on has more to do with social status than education. It also appears to me that the social connections that used to bring young people together have deteriorated, and the recent move to working from home isn’t helping those occupying that strata of society to make connections. This from the sidelines, though, since I’ve got mine, and she hers, and have for many years…
I agree it's not about intelligence. But it is about social expectations. Lots of shit we do in college isn't really important but it's a kind of finishing school that says refined intelligent people can talk about X,Y and Z. It doesn't matter if it's incorrect as long as that's how people perceive it.
" I think what’s going on has more to do with social status than education."
I read an article recently about rich families paying some guy's company $120k a year from grade 7-9 or so for their kids to be prepared to go to some Ivy League school.
Now, if the sole aim were education, then $120k could buy them a live-in tutor who'd teach them three languages, two musical instruments and at least one sport, as well as make them excellent in all the normal areas like mathematics and english. And if the sole aim were future income, then simply setting aside the $500k or so till the kid finished high school, paying $100k for a business coach and then giving them the other $400k as startup money for a business would do as well.
One needs to be on the ball to acquire a college degree in a field that will allow one to earn a middle-class income. It's the same to acquire a trade. Both will have similar marital success.
As someone noted, women are looking for a provider and protector and desire men who have attained some status. Whereas a man can be happy with the cute waitress. We are already in a hierarchical competition against men and part of the refuge a woman provides is that we don't have to compete w/her, it is safe to be open and vulnerable.
But that goes both ways. Sure, maybe for some guys it means the woman needs to not be engaged in the same kind of pursuits he is but for others it's going to mean even a woman who is achieving more in the same line of work doesn't get processed as a threat the same way a man would.
Mostly that's probably going to depend on culture because there is no evolutionary reason to process your mate as a competitive threat. You benefit from their success.
It's not the educational system. Men aren't going to college as much as women because college does not benefit them as much. Plenty of women get college degrees and go on to earn low incomes. Men who do the same enjoy less marital success than their low-income peers who did not go to college.
The issue here is basically the Prisoner's Dilemma once more. If only some women are saying no, they'll miss out on both sexual and romantic action over the women who are saying yes.
So the change has to be in men, too. As Rabbi Jeff Goldblum said in that documentary Jurassic Park, "your penises were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that your brains didn't stop to think if they should."
That reminds me of the story about some cow being available for purchase but the potential cow buyer declined to exchange his earnings for the acquisition of the cow as he already was getting free cow’s milk from the same cow (and probably had a similar relationship with most of remaining cow herd.)
Not trying to ugly here but the women embracing the feminist teachings have basically opted out of the “NO” to promiscuous sexual standards and instead have mimicked the sexual behavior of men (let off their socially restricting sexual leashes )all the while proclaiming the need ( oh the irony)for every one to recognize the significant differences between men and women. Well there’s a problem with acting like something you are not , it flies in the face of biological reality and when acted on disrupts the social structure that makes civil society a safe and healthy environment to live in and to reproduce and raise families in. There is a balancing act between the important differences (of men and women )that provides for a strong parental partnership that allows for the children they raise together to flourish and the society they are part of to grow and to thrive.
What have we got for following the feminist movement ( and don’t forget the well off feminist leaders who “ married up” while telling the regular women to divorce on a whim )?The feminist leaders told women to ditch having children( or ditch the children)to follow their feelings , experience sexual liberation to truly be free and independent of men and of course maintain their independence by landing their sexy new job at Walmart . Well these highly educated rich feminist leaders big plans turned out to not be as beneficial as proposed and has thrown a majority of the divorced women with kids (and single mothers)into economic tailspins .The explanation is simple:two adults can combine and compound their resources better than one. It’s not complicated, two is better than one , and the decision to follow your feelings ( and sexual urges)as your life’s foundational principles and decision guidance parameters is a sure fire path to poor outcomes.Anyone who wants a highly functional and good life needs to realize the obvious and beautiful fact that men and women are different .The beautiful part is that they can combine their differences to raise great kids to be successful future citizens. When you’re old and your youth is gone ..your sexual exploits are just empty meaningless history ..but what really matters is your family and children and promoting their success and assisting them in maximizing their potential and their agency .
My take is :The feminist movement was a vicious society destroying lie.I’m calling BS on it.
Me too. I think you are insightful and honest, qualities seriously lacking in too many educated idiots. Book smarts and pop culture dispense with the wisdom of our forebears to their demise.
I see the point and can’t argue with the capitalistic materialism that drives greed over all things first and entices women to set career over family. Family obligation is viewed as counterproductive in the pursuit of profit over a meaningful life. I encourage everyone to watch “Fiddler on the Roof” to understand that self sacrifice can reap reward too. Everything in modern society seems to value “me” before “we”.
A nod to stoicism is a nod to inner peace. Once I realized that all I do is in service to my Creator, I found everything more rewarding and less vexing. It’s considered uneducated to have faith in our world today but the end result of abandonment of faith has been the root of devaluing human life. I believe that dominion is a call for stewardship of our planet which is a responsibility to not exploit our world for profit but to nurture it.
Wow. Well said and reminds me that kids are better off with both mother and father. Not two moms or two dads. Even gay women aren’t the same as gay men.
Our society has taken the extreme position that the division of both role models is no longer necessary.
Nothing could be more wrong. I read an essay by this young woman who had been raised by two mothers. She felt it a betrayal of them to speak her heart growing up. By the time she was a teenager she became aware of the special relationship her peers had with their fathers and became envious.
She wasn’t the only kid to yearn for that duality in parents. I know lots of ppl refuse to accept that boys and girls are different in ways that aren’t just anatomical. School systems in America expect boys to behave like girls but they simply aren’t.
It’s funny I agree with everything but your conclusion. The feminist movement was necessary and even inevitable. Do I like where men and women are now? Maybe not, but I’m not going to endorse a world that limits women’s participation in public life and work. Anyway the genii never goes back in the bottle. Boys also have to figure this shit out and not just whine about what the girls are doing.
Should have specified feminism 2.0 -3.0 is poison..not all of the original first wave was bad.. I like having my vote counted but I can’t agree with the man bashing and the “ a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle , the breakdown of the family unit is a disaster for our civil society and the start of that breakdown came out of the feminist movement insisting women are the same as men and can do anything they can do and most likely better. It’s a lie and the pursuit of it has left a lot of women and men at odds instead of the strong stable combo unit that is better together for them and their children.What made them become so adversarial and determined to outdo men?Why did they try and deny everything that makes being a woman a societal strength and turn around and try and destroy the supposed patriarchal hierarchy only to replace it with a faux matriarchy ( imitation patriarchy).. Why not just get the vote and build up society on the strength of women in concert with the balancing effect of men’s strengths .The whole identity politics divisiveness got started with the feminist leadership convincing women that they weren’t happy and what they needed to do to be happy was to mimic the worst characteristics of the lowest common denominator of uncivilized male behavior.. ( not man bashing here as both sexes have their less virtuous outliers)and here we are , divorced, broken homes, fatherless children , STD and the subsequent infertility widespread ,impoverished, unhappy , men identifying as women and whupping them at their own game, kids too young to vote, drive, drink , or take out a bank loan without their parents consent or to live alone,transitioning from their biological Sex at birth ( the word transition is a poor choice as it implies they actually are changed into a different sex but the chromosomes remain impervious to puberty blockers and surgical procedures)and looking for anyone else to blame but ourselves.( and the feminist leadership that married UP.)
I didn’t used to think this way as I at one time ( youth)I bought into the harmful nonsense the feminist social groomers were plying us with. The feminist message should have stuck with getting the vote and then concentrated on ways to make men and women stronger together , instead they opted to go on the attack.
I personally pushed back against the casual denigration of men. I liked them and couldn’t see how putting them down was helpful at all. And I also agree that some feminists essentially tried to become men instead of valorizing the feminine experience.
And you are 100% correct. I don’t understand the women who think that men are inconsequential and vice versa. Both bring different gifts to the table and balance one another. We were designed this way and trying to kick against the goads is a fools errand.
"A lot of these problems could be solved if women simply pursued their emotional interests as ruthlessly as men pursue their sexual interests."
There is a collective action problem here. A lot of other women will give in.
This is why other women were traditionally such zealous enforcers of female chastity and other women's morals, because "loose women" were the equivalent of scabs undercutting the union price.
Funny how we discard wisdom of old in favor of “study” results only to find that the newly (a term used loosely) adopted norms had unintended consequences.
Wisdom is gathered over time. We think we “know” better yet we don’t.
I don't think your advice works. If my goal is a serious committed relationship it's extremely important that your partner take the issue seriously and not agree lightly. You certainly don't want a guy who is all confused by his sex drive into agreeing to something who will then feel trapped and unhappy with you.
Also, sexual compatibility is a very important part of a good relationship.
The problem is that the things that make a good committed partner aren't actually under conciouss control to be bargained with -- you can't actually commit to being in a loving serious relationship in 2 years time in exchange for sex now.
That's not to say honesty is bad. Just that the situation isn't symmetric like you implicitly suggest.
There are men out here looking to settle down. People have to vet for that if that is what they want. Especially at a certain age, if marriage and kids is what one truly wants, one has to be very clear. You can't "date" or live with a guy for 5 years. There are apps and dating sites for people looking to marry. Mina Irfan "The Universe Guru" on Youtube says that "girlfriend" is not a status. It doesn't exist anywhere in nature, in religion, in law. It's a made up thing. Therefore one should "rotational date for marriage". Never commit to being someone's "girlfriend". Make it clear that you are dating multiple people until you get a proposal and accept it. If a someone wants you to be "exclusive" to them, they will have to propose.
Here's some real hot takes! Women should put themselves first because men do. That's true.
I bet females are just lining up for you, right? As a male in his early 20s, you're in your peak of good looks and attractiveness, so that sounds about right.
Firstly, this piece is sensational, secondly it far outstrips the piece it is responding to. And gives me much to think about myself!
Good luck with the stand-up BTW. I am sure you will meet men who can accept anything other than women who are funnier than them, but I married my wife - to the extent that I 'chose' her - because she was the funniest person I've ever met. Hope for us all (specifically you).
Thank you James, I am so pleased you liked it!! Very encouraging to hear a comedian and writer say you fall for your wife because of her humour. Hopefully my Substack won’t be single rants forever 😬
I chose my wife because she was funny - and because she was the only one I'd ever dated who accepted me in full. Everyone else wanted to change me. I think there's something profound and universal in that.
Why did you paywall it? Don't you want it to go viral? I'm writing on a text on female overestimation of male sexuality and when I saw Stella's post I thought that I had found linkable proof to support my position. But I hadn't : (
Hi mate, it was an existing post which was paywalled from the off. I write five posts a month, and three are free, but it’s important for me to offer value to those who pay, as they allow me to keep writing.
There's a ton of free content on my newsletter, including on the same subject. This might be of interest:
My question was in earnest, because that is what I do myself: When I write something that is not useless but that I also don't want to become famous for having written, I paywall it.
I must confess I'm also trying to hold down a full-time job I like greatly. Therefore perhaps I am more inclined to paywall my 'I am fantastically horny' posts
James, here’s my own simple trick for when I see a hot babe, and my mind starts fantasizing about hot sex—I change the lovely into my wife, and continue with the fantasy sex but with the wife.
It still works after 30 years (in Oct.) of marriage and we still have a lot of hot lovemaking. It’s much easier with the wife maintaining a quite high level of sexy beauty, as our adult sons have noticed.
I’m 69 & have been married (2 kids & a step-kid) for almost 29 years; my dating was from the early 1970s to mid 1990s… Being a tall, successful professional who traveled all over the country on business, often told I was handsome when I was dating (IBM, 6 figures before 30, over 6’, Div-1 athlete in college, lots of professional success), my view is rather different and best exemplified by the “come-closer-go-away-come-closer-go…” game women play.
Finding a normal woman who can, and so is willing to be pleased socially, culturally, economically, sexually, is a pain in the ass. Getting a hot woman into bed was shooting fish in a barrel. Being treated as a peer, nearly impossible. The more attractive a woman is, the more entitled.
If women want not to be spinsters, they must learn to be friends. Men don’t do the Mean Girls gig, so women need to quit that shit and just be friends. First. If she isn’t interested in being friends, just bed her & move on; she - might - be a good lay, and why not? She doesn’t care, so why should he?
There’s a line in an old movie, In Like Flint, in which the protagonist is asked how he is so successful with women. His response: “I don’t compete with them.” When women start treating men as men and quit competing with men like they never cease to do with other women, women will have a far better chance of not growing old, gray and alone with their cats.
And if women valued themselves, they’d not lay down with every guy who comes along. Men, too, like to think that they … AND the woman they choose … are special.
I don’t know that men “won” the sexual Revolution, but women, families, children, society… lost it.
I have been coming to the same conclusion; it never works if you are approaching dating as if you or the other person being a prize; you have to get to know someone as an equal. The problem is in the modern world, people have forgotten how to 'build' relationships- be friends, as you say. Hang out like normal people etc.
It's less that they've forgotten but that there just isn't any good avenue to do so. For this to work you really need to get to know people in an environment other then dating -- and in modern america we invest all our time into work (not so great a place to date for all sorts of reasons) and even the activities we do engage in are rarely cooperative/social.
Basically, we still haven't found an organization to replace the role of the church in offering socialization in the US. The UK does it with pubs but that's turned them all into semi-problem drinkers.
That’s why the “dating” web sites are so prevalent. There are many societal ills as we’ve collectively moved away from faith. It’s a long and boring story but faith is important to me. It wasn’t always and if some one from the future came back and told me I’d become a born again Christian I’d say there’s absolutely zero chance for that. Yet I did and having done so I am a-tuned to the basis for the biblical understanding of the institution of marriage. We’ve been together since ‘89. He’s still the only guy for me and would be a tough act for anyone to beat.
For any relationship to flourish both parties need to forget the small stuff and it’s all small stuff. NOBODY is perfect. It’s not his job to make me happy. It’s a state of mind and a choice.
This is what I tell so many of my single female friends. Just be normal and friendly, hang out, get to know a new person without immediately expecting or hoping or fearing that you’ll die beside them in 50 years! Men are just people! That being said, I’m on the cusp of 26 and still single myself. Sometimes I read stuff like this and think, man, I’m theoretically doing everything right. But I really really value my physical attraction towards the man I’m dating. I don’t think that’s necessarily rare in women, but I’ve noticed that’s usually not as important as other qualities. Women will often date great men who they don’t find very physically attractive and end up attracted to them. I’ve never heard a single man admit to having that dating strategy, haha. And for some reason, I can’t do that either. Many of my male friends have said I’m single by choice, and if I wanted to change my relationship status, I could. I guess that sentiment applies to a lot of women. But I, like my compatriots, would rather hold out for great than settle for good enough. Maybe that will end in a lonely, childless death; I don’t know. I, like all of us, am left to trust God with those dreams and desires. He hasn’t failed me yet!
"The more attractive a woman is, the more entitled."
I have definitely seen this movie before. The problem with the hottest queen I ever had a relationship with was that she knew it. Consequently, she didn't have to try very hard.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with living with cats.
Also, the most attractive females of all are not necessarily those who fit a series of measurements, but those whose personalities have femininity, verve, snap and liveliness and allow them to be the roles they choose.
This sort of attractiveness doesn't necessarily fade so much with age, as long as they still have their energy.
I think we forget how much parents and communities made marriages happen. Men probably never wanted to get married. So, we paid them with doweries, refused to promote them at The Company, guilted them with babies, and, if that didn't work, forced them with shotguns. Mothers were nagging, fathers were stern, churches controlled the whole town and the government could tax away earnings. And marriage had very little, if anything, to do with love. We forget how these relationships were the consequences of sex, not the genesis of it. In certain places, at certain times in history, anywhere from 40% - 90% of brides to be were already pregnant. As a child of divorced parents in the 70 and 80s, not an insignificant number of my friends complained how they wished their parents would divorce because "all they do is fight." We forget, we forget it all, and wonder why this thing doesn't work anymore. It wasn't magic.
Well it's not even that. My point is generally that it was never up to the girl whether or not they were getting married. It was up to the parents, it was up to the community, it was up to the man involved whether he was going to accept the dowery, maybe not even him. It was mostly up to his parents, so those troglodyte, MAGA, men, were gonna get married to. Whoever mom said they were gonna get married to and that was that. And the society held this marriage together with all kinds of coercion. The happiness of this couple,being in love it was all irrelevant, and marriage as an institution can't work without it.
Well, that sounds like India, right now, except the "pregnant at the altar" bit, which I understand is still hella rare.
It is my private theory that one reason that arranged marriages seem to work by and large is that, for better or worse, in India, your rights and obligations are mostly set for you by family and society. So you can have an arranged marriage with someone that you've never spent fifteen minutes with alone, and you can go in with a pretty good idea of what you can expect, and what will be expected of you and your family.
Dowries are a bit of a supply/demand thing, funnily enough. There have been societies where the groom's family had to pay a 'bride price' when there was a shortage of eligible debutantes.
I'm very skeptical of the narrative of men just being too intimidated by women with too much success. Yes, sure it happens occasionally -- but what is going on most of the time is they are scared the successful woman won't find them desierable. It's not that they can't handle female success -- it's that they reasonably fear that a woman who is much more successful than they are will always be comparing them negatively to the men they work with and are friends with..
Everyone wants to be special to their partner. If you think your partner goes to work or the lab every day and sees better partners than you, even if they are currently taken, that's not going to be a happy or long lasting relationship.
As you point out women have these broader social support networks so while a women can be a catch for a man because of her emotional support that's less true in the other direction. It's much the same reason I think many women would be reluctant to seriously date some TV star who usually dates models.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this presents any problem for making the woman the breadwinner or more professionally successful. I put my wife's career first and handle the household stuff and it works great. But I have a PhD too and if I didn't (or have equivalent uncredentialed intellectual training/ability) I think it would be trouble.
yes I have been thinking of that actually, the difficult thing with a woman who is very very successful could be a fear that she will find the man lacking or will criticise them or expect them to change
I agree, though I think the whole "afraid she'll make me change" thing is exaggerated. As you point out men have less social support/structure and I think lots of men don't really mind changing quite a bit as long as they aren't frightened with sudden changes. I mean, I see women getting older and deciding they want to be parents, live this more stable life etc on their own (or peer promoted) initiative while men are more likely to adopt those roles because their significant other pushes them to do so (sometimes, as the joke goes, women succeed in changing their s.o. into someone they aren't attracted to anymore)..
I think the truth underlying fears expressed in this form is that people (including men) can sense when their s.o. isn't really that excited by who they are and the 'change' isn't so much an attempt to bring someone they love along on a journey but an expression of the fact that they really wish they were dating someone different and, rather than admit that, indulge in the fantasy that they can turn their current partner into the partner they couldn't land.
Speaking personally, I started having a lot more success with females, once I realized that they were not unattainable beings who lived on a sort of lofty pedestal and whose only desires were located somewhere on the ethereal plane. Their wants and desires were somewhat different from my own, but they were very much earthly desires.
Yes, of course. This is all about those desires. Women may find different things appealing in men than you do in women but same mechanism,
And that's the problem here. It's just in reverse. It's not men being unable to handle a successful woman. It's men having the same kind of concerns about being valued, having commitment and not seen as second rate goods women stereotypically have.
Queens??? Like the gay men who adopt an exaggerated homosexual affect?
If you mean women the problem is that works inside a social context. You might adopt the shy awkward guy in the dorm down the hall but the Harvard chic is much less likely to adopt the guy who works at the gas station. And there is a substantial ratio for the college educated.
I'm kinda sad I'm not young now because it's a great time to be a well-educated man but not so much for women.
Although, yes, it is a great time to be an alpha male. Axtually, it's always a great time to be an alpha male at the top of the pecking order. The JFKs have always had it good.
Just that now, it is a great time to be an alpha male who isn't quite at the level where they could flout convention and live how they wished.
JFKs have always had it good. What's changed since I was a teen is the status of nerds or generally guys who are academically gifted but not your stereotypical alpha jock.
Well, with cats, there are gender roles but it's different from humans. Queens and toms hunt, but usually the queens are better hunters and toms more interested in fighting.
The difference is that when a queen hisses "you'd better stay away from my kittens!" she means it, and even though I have won fights with toms who were bigger and stronger than I am and fought off big dogs many times my size, I had had better take heed of that hiss if I value my ears.
And no amount of "but I personally identify as a queen and not a tom" would change Mama's mind.
I remember the moment I admitted to myself that I really wanted to be married and that dating endlessly was awful and left me depressed. Maybe it's our biggest secret - anyway once I had that mindset - instead of "yeah I'm totally cool with these crumbs of a relationship" it was amazing how little time was wasted before I met my husband.
I know it sounds like something cheesy that belong on Instagram but putting yourself first & not being ashamed that falling in love and being married is a nice thing. I think I felt like it wasn't what clever feminists should want and felt v mixed up about it - but men do want to be married and be dads too. Being in love works for them too - we are hardwired for love. Loneliness in 20s & 30s can't be underestimated either. It's not an easy time. Anyway - I'll head back to writing inspo on Instagram now ;)
TL;DR the principal beneficiaries of the Sexual Revolution are alpha males. Perhaps not so much those at the very pinnacle of the pecking order, but second-order alphas?
Agree. Men won the sexual revolution. IMO all the moaning about female style taking over public discourse also has some validity. Females always had power, but it was an indirect sort, manipulative if you will. That old style clashes with traditional male ways. Feminine sensibilities aren’t really validated at all. I personally like many things about masculine style but female sensibility has its place, even in business. But we’re very far from working it out. What I see is mainly capitulation of women and resentment because that isn’t power. Women instead are rejecting their own experiences as invalid in the attempt to live up to an ideal that doesn’t suit them. That’s why I find this piece so refreshing.
Thinking it over, traditionally "female" sensibilities, strengths in garnering sympathy, building coalitions, gentle persuasion, assigning roles and getting people to play their assigned roles (not always to their own advantage) and in working with and mastering group dynamics works in a certain type of professional setting, and up to a certain point on the hierarchy.
Oh I can see much of what you’re saying but I’ve met a few women who are alpha females. Not many and generally speaking I agree. I think it’s a psychological game. I plant ideas in my husbands head and damn if he doesn’t eventually have a strikingly similar idea soon thereafter. Amazing!! No one, not men or women, can ascertain a long term commitment from a date or two. I think it’s also worth noting that you have to have similar enough ethical standards to have a lasting relationship. Trust takes time too.
My husband is a clever guy and keeps me laughing, mostly at myself. Never take yourself too seriously and a good sense of humor is medicine for the body and soul. Our kids are grown though our daughter has issues and is on the autism spectrum so at 21 she remains home with us. I hope she can find her way but she has a hard time. Our son just married last summer and lives nearby. He’s almost 8 years older than her and I’m hoping to see grandchildren eventually. My siblings have lots of grands but we had kids late. Not by choice. Turns out I wasn’t built for it.
Life can take some real turns but it would be boring if everything went by the “plan”.
One of the characteristics of my mate that I admire is his drive to get to the top of the dog pile. He’s a manly guy who doesn’t have a feminine side. He knows everything about firearms, automobiles and deep dives as he develops new interests. He isn’t hung up about what other ppl think of him.
For a guy who doesn’t have a college degree he makes pretty good money now. Like millions of Americans we hit tough financial times over the economic tailspin in 2007. People we knew lost virtually all their wealth. We squeaked by and he stressed about that so much I felt I needed to express support that I didn’t care if we lost everything. At least we’d be poor together. I didn’t want him to feel any more pressure even though I was rattled too. Stuff is just stuff.
I don’t know if it’s a guy thing but our stuff is the evidence of his labor. I see his point. At the end of the day we defer to some things that are important to me but I defer to his good judgement most of the time. Even when I know it’s a lost cause because he needs to come to that conclusion on his own.
He is the head of our house and I’m okay with that as I’ve learned to trust him. He would move heaven and earth to accommodate his kids and me. Great dad, husband, human.
Probably. Ruthlessness rules. At some point a woman might just opt out because they really don’t want it enough whereas there’s always a guy that does.
*Some* men won. Most men lost, and lost badly. Now not only do you get ignored by women, but they think you "just want in her pants" (even those of us who are waiting for marriage), and then once you eventually *do* find a wife, she's settled for (in her mind) the plow horse after dating the hot, exciting guys, and will never be content with you. And she'll definitely compare you to them continually (negatively, of course.) So instead of the top-shelf relationship and sex that the hit guys had, you get complaints, negativity, and duty sex.
Raised three beautiful kids in a long term committed marriage, worked like a dog to finance the gig, never once strayed not even the slightest and then a thirty year marriage vanished in a blink of an eye one day. Just like that, gone. Because why? Who really knows why when it comes to a woman’s heart. It’s a fickle beast with many dark recesses that are both intriguing and exciting but also morose and entitled. Much the same as men but with less testosterone.
Dating again since last attempted in 1987 was an exercise in wtf and it was only by pure luck that finding someone amazing, beautiful, smart and fun was possible. So I don’t have any pithy or sage advice because it was only random luck that allowed for a great relationship to find itself and grow into a three year commitment. I’ll be 107 next week apparently. But being open, wise and able to listen to your internal wisdom can help find someone in all the noise and in places you least expect.
I am sorry to hear about your marriage but I have hope in knowing you find someone brilliant even later in life. I am certainly not giving up on love, not quite yet!
Given that you are bright and beautiful, it is absolutely shocking to me that you are single even though you are willing to date men who are not on your level. I have a male friend in his mid 40s who literally tells me he is desperate to get married. He is neither ugly nor poor, but a big problem for him is that he tends to prefer beautiful women who are not on his level. I told him to compromise. The sad truth is that for many men who do not look like Poldark, their deep romantic urges still need to be triggered by a woman who is pretty, in addition to being sweet, feminine, and having similar sensibilities—which reduces the dating pool quite dramatically. The desire for beauty is a kind of curse for many men (and women). When I was young, I literally fell in love with the screen presence of the beautiful, feminine, Ingrid Bergman. But I was no Carry Grant.
Yes indeed. There is much truth to the chemistry thing.
Beauty is fleeting and can be altered by all kinds of things. If your partner only wants you for your looks then it’s a shallow relationship. You are attracted by the physical but stay for the things unseen.
I’ve met good looking ppl who were so ugly inside that their appearance seemed diminished and vice versa. True beauty is something that emanates from your core person.
I think the real fear of Western women, lies more in the divorce statistics, because the divorce courts typically favour women and will tear children away from the father. So that the trouble is that while you're certainly right about a lot of men, the reason they're also going for foreign women, is that they don't seem to believe that the foreign woman will divorce them (statistics bear this out).
The trouble is that as needy as women are, the trouble is that they have been so liberalised (even though women don't deep down like being liberalised), that they will divorce men, who naturally fear the loss of children and so have given up.
Also bear in mind the statistics on male depression and suicide is incredibly high in the Anglosphere. What is noteworthy is that in places like France, Quebec, Asia, Africa and other places men and women are able to make it work. Only in the Anglosphere, China, Russia and a few other choice locations are things utterly hopeless which is interesting.
I don't know if it is all men, but a significant number of them have seen their fathers, brothers and friends get eviscerated by the divorce industrial complex and have vowed to never let that happen to them. I'm happily married but would never take that risk again
Wonderful piece. I was in a small elite liberal arts college in the early 90’s in the US, and I was puzzled by the prevailing sentiment amongst my female peers that they “didn’t need men” and they needed to be “independent”. It just seemed like they were kidding themselves — as a man I don’t think that I don’t want a woman in my life.
I think it helps for a woman dating today to signal to dates that they are looking for husband material and if they are looking for children. I think this will change the way a guy will treat you, and mostly for the better— you don’t waste your time on those that run, and instead focus on compatibility with those that stay and learn if the two of you can grow together to make the small piece of the world you inhabit yours.
Thank you for this new perspective. I now find myself contemplating my dating woes from an entirely different angle. I thought dating had taken on a new form while I was out of the game for a couple years. I was surprised when I re-entered the dating world almost a year ago to find women dating like men; getting their physical needs met and casting me aside to seek out a new conquest. However, I’m now wondering if it was I who changed. Admittedly, I came back into the dating world a little jaded from past heartbreak. A feeling of “ah shit, here we go again” overtook me as I endlessly swiped on the dating apps, “I was really hoping I wouldn’t have to do this again.”
So, I built my walls higher this time, determined not to get hurt again. Maybe this is where I went wrong. In doing so, I may have given off an air of disinterest to the women I dated. They in turn built their walls higher so as not to get hurt by me. Like clock work, after some dates and a couple nights spent together, the dreaded HR styled text would come.
“Hey, you’re really great and I’ve enjoyed getting to know you. I just don’t think this is going to work out in the long run. I wish you all the best!”
In some ways I’m relieved because it saves me from getting too attached. Being rejected still sucks, though. After going through these motions over and over for months, one can start to get bitter and resentful of the opposite sex. It’s difficult to look inward when these feelings arise. Maybe most of the women I’ve dated do actually share your perspective. They just don’t want to put in effort for a guy who seems like he’s only in it for an easy lay. As Sadia Khan says, “Current dating is just practising for divorce.” I think I’ve been guilty of dating this way lately. Reading your perspective gives me reason to start dating for marriage again.
I think something is to be said about being defensive; this is why I am taking a break from the apps at the moment: You get burnt too many times, and you stop having grace and engaging meaningfully when you meet new people. Nobody is attracted to that. People can smell your intentions whether you reveal them or not. It's best to build your confidence outside of dating first and then re-enter excited about meeting new people and building a genuine connection.
Thanks! While my essays are personal commentary from my life, there is quite a bit of artistic flare in them too, I am going to write a follow-up response clearing up some things, but in summary, I speak out so vulnerably about my personal life because I believe I can ''afford to'' if that makes sense. No one in their right mind would think I have anything to worry about. I know I am a great catch, have more than enough time and the right guy will come along. I just need it to work out with one man, not a million of them. But where I was older or less objectively good-looking or had other burdens that lowered my "mating" value, I could not complain about the state of the dating market without a bunch of people ridiculing me. Hence why I speak out, because I can ! I can take the personal judgment that has accumulated under my post. :-)
She really doesn’t have plenty of time if she wants to have children (without going through painful and dangerous and only somewhat effective fertility procedures).
Male testosterone and sperm counts have gone down dramatically in the last 40 years. A 30 year old man today has less than 1/2 the sperm count of a 30 year old in the past. More and more couples are needing fertility treatments. The clock is ticking for both sexes
Men have a far lower sperm count after 35 so neither gender has indefinite time to put off starting a family. There’s no guarantees that you’ll be successful even if your young. Our first successful pregnancy was when I was 37 and after a few more fails I gave up. We had another when I turned 46 but I thought it was a different change of life so it was kinda shocking to find out I was pregnant.
Well, I can't have kids with my male cat or force a man to have kids with me (or indeed force myself to have kids with someone I am not attracted to), so that's that!
Yep. This does not work. This is the age-old female gambit, and does not work. It has never worked, except on occasion, when the mariage was forced by social pressure or barrelpoint. Both are no longer a factor in marriage.
As a guy in his early 20s, reading you feels like peaking behind a curtain and seeing certain aspects of the female psyche that are rarely articulated in the mainstream these days. I thank you for these insights and hope that you keep writing.
When you start dating casually, you quickly notice the female neediness simply by the fact that girls rarely ask the guy: “so where do you see this going?” Or even more brazen: “do you want a relationship”. They don’t ask this NOT because they don’t want this type of relationship (the intimacy they long for when you are with them makes that clear), but rather because they are simply afraid of the answer and the guy’s reaction.
A lot of these problems could be solved if women simply pursued their emotional interests as ruthlessly as men pursue their sexual interests. That means: Not giving in to sexual demands until there is certainty of commitment (relationship).
Otherwise women conform to forces of an unregulated dating market, dictated by men who do not have women’s best interest at heart
Anyways, great piece!
I am pleased to hear this and also interested in hearing your viewpoint. What I would say can be a problem is that often men feel too much pressure when a woman is explicitly saying she is looking for a relationship even if they, too, would like one. I'm not sure what's the best way around that apart from getting to know someone as a friend first.
I think part of the pressure of "Are you looking for a relationship?" is its unspoken subtext: "...With me?" Not always easy to answer on a first date!
This is so fucking boring. Like this bullshit hasn't been going around for hundreds of years.
"DuRrRr, the males want sex! Wow, on the other hand, females want actual relationships!"
WOW, what a sizzling hot take there! Real earth-shattering news over here.
Nobody gives af. The vast majority of males are unfuckable losers and women don't want them anyway. Get over it. There's real problems out here.
I enjoyed writing, you don't have to read it.
Okay well I want to hear your sizzling hot, galaxy brain take on how women are interested in PEOPLE while men are interested in THINGS. Woooowww, that'll be some ground-breaking shit right there.
Like we don't know men hate old and ugly women. Like they keep it a mystery, and have for thousands of years. NOBODY CARES
Jump off darlin. Is it that time or are you always a B?
Lol what original insults. You think this is a good way to insult another woman? Great job. You're smart and creative just like men are.
The sentiments you've described men having in this and many of your other comments here and elsewhere do not, I believe, well-represent the actual sentiments of men.
Men also crucified men for thousands of years. Men sacrificed animals for thousands of years. Does that mean that men hate men too? Do men hate animals? Do men hate everything?
Perhaps, the way you see the world is through the dirty lenses of hate and anger because that is the immediate reflection of you inner being, of your own emotional state.
Also, do we need to write or have discussions only on the basis that we are exploring ground-breaking ideas? Are your ideas Noble worthy? How are you helping the world? Is spreading hate on blog comments bettering you or the community? And does that make you look like a credible source for your readers who you want to impact?
Go live your life lady. Perhaps you too, can come up with something ground-breaking if you did spend your time spreading negativity in the comments.
Hoolee fook, you seem to care and it has made you angry. Why. That'd be a good story.
Huh?
Who is not accepting it as truth that men hate women? They were hiding it when they burned old women at the stake for being witches, is that it?
Where is this resistance you're talking about?
"The vast majority of males are unfuckable losers and women don't want them anyway. Get over it. There's real problems out here."
Good Lord , woman! Somebody needs a bubble bath and some chocolate, STAT.
If you look at her posts and comments, there's a strong trend of - well, the nicest we can put it is, anger. She may of course have good reasons for this anger. But it does seem to be ongoing and overwhelming in what she presents online.
I've only been on substack for a little while now, but I'm quickly learning there are some I can straight-up mute (anti-semites, "the CDC is fraud!" etc) and others who aren't actually insane, but who I can probably just scan over without reading closely, and I won't be missing much.
That's usually guys, it's refreshing to have a woman or two in there.
Ha! MM is everywhere!
Rude.
Why take the time to insult this lady? And all those who can relate or the expanded conversations?
Since you clearly have much more relevant and exciting things to say why not write your own essay instead of trolling other ppl?
Thought so...
Tell me you haven't been laid in a while without telling me you haven't been laid in a while.
YAWNNNN
So fucking boring. As if this isn't the oldest crap you can try.
The idiot who wrote this has no original or new thoughts, and all the idiots following her on substack are morons too. You people are a waste.
Now try something about cats, you dolt. Get back to your video games.
Ugh I wish. Between my career, my gym regimen and my girlfriend, I haven't had the time to even touch my Xbox in months. We all have our crosses to bear I suppose.
At least I still have time to peruse some interesting substacks now and again.
"....I will take my bitterness to my grave and use my dying breath...." Late to this post. I realise that you are probably mostly kidding here but even so the cognitive dissonance needs picking up on. You are pretty woman (you've said so). And you are a savvy woman too. So you will know about the sexual mating dynamics whereby pretty young women tend to hanker after just a small % of men at the top of a kind of Alpha scale of desirability. And so you will also know that pretty women like you could have masses of suitors except that you are just not interested in them. Surely? They just don't count. [I - even more than James - am out of all this - by the way - because I am 73 - and my lovely wife is all I need.] Also, by the way, I do love reading your posts.
Yes, that was a great phrase. Reminiscent of tunes from a couple hundred years ago, or perhaps bluegrass music. I love these genres because they address the truth that there is much tragedy in being a person, vs.all the rah-rah today.
"Getting to know someone as a friend" is fine, as long as you are getting to know other people as friends simultaneously. Otherwise what happens is you start dating that one guy. Then the dating goes on for months, maybe even years, maybe you even move in together and live like that for years and years with no wedding in sight. Then you break up. Wasted years. Wasted fertile years. The best thing to do is rotational date multiple people simultaneously until you get a good proposal. Then and then only should you become exclusive. See the video I posted above by Mina Irfan The Universe Guru.
Oh well, what to do? "Girlfriend" is not a status. It is not recognized in evolution, in law, in religion, in history, nothing. Dating one person for 7 years and then breaking up serves what purpose - exactly? Worse yet - moving in and living with them - for what? It goes nowhere. "Girlfriend" is an imaginary made-up thing that modern humans invented. Historically women met a rotation of "gentleman callers", fielding and vetting them until a proper proposal was on offer. Women never gave exclusive commitment to anyone without a ring and a publicly announced betrothal. Why would they? There's nothing it in for them.
Men can also use this method to find an actual wife, since "boyfriend" isn't a status either.
Learn more here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMRuSDr_ydA
Im straight bro. I dont subscribe to "dating multiple people at once..."
Yeah, that's my take too. If you are looking for real love you can't and won't play the field. It's not a game.
Some people get turned off by the idea because for some reason they assume "dating" means "having sex". But in this context it absolutely does not. Even up until relatively recently dating simply meant going out with people and getting to know them.
How not to become a fuck buddy: don’t fuck. I completely agree with the author that young women are captured by a sort of Stockholm syndrome that is patterned after gay male behavior. Before birth control (not that long ago) women were in charge of sex because they had to be. The default was NO. Men knew this and it had to be a problem for not a few people (of both sexes) that marriage was the only way to get together. (Generalization alert.) Men got want they wanted from the sexual revolution because they can fuck all they want and then, if they choose, find a non fuck buddy to marry. Much much more easily than a woman can once her youth and beauty is gone. Will women learn to embrace the power of no?
thing is though even if you don't have casual sex it does not mean you will be get (or indeed that anyone owes you) a relationship in return
I don't buy this. I think what's changed is less the willingness to give up sex and more the fact that the ratio of educated men and women has changed so radically,
If you're a woman looking for a stable long term relationship with an intellectual equal who shares the same cultural and other expectations -- well women get substantially more college degrees and now numerically dominate most jobs requiring more education.
Having attended a school with a distorted sex ratio I can tell you that really makes it hard. And remember there are lots of men who are happy to pair up with less intelligent attractive women so the ratio is far worse than it seems. This then changes the incentivizes of the men who they find desierable to be less interested in long term dating.
If you want to make things better fix the educational system to do better with men.
I think both of these points are valid. Sex is more inherently more costly for women and birth control has changed the game in many ways, both overt and subtle.
And women want to marry, but they don’t want to marry down. There genuinely is a shortage of eligible men in many circles.
The disruption of women’s hormonal cycles affects the type of attraction and drive men and women feel for each other too, and I wonder if the birth-control driven preference for mild-mannered men is part of what has driven the high-achievers out of view. (Not to mention the fact that men seem to find the scent of a fertile woman highly motivating and that has all but vanished from the earth)
A birth control driven preference for mild guys might actually make the problem less bad. But it's my guess those claims about birth control affecting attraction are, if not an outright result of publication bias/replication crisis, extremely exaggerated. Despite many people trying very hard it's virtually impossible to get substantial effects on human behavior with pheromones (see the pheremone perfumes) and the population with the highest birth control rates (highly educated well off young women) their marriages are actually more stable than earlier generations (no sudden divorce after going off the pill). Besides, from an evolutionary perspective it doesn't make sense for humans, who have other dispositions to avoid mating with close relatives, to be that influenced by this histocompatibility stuff.
Besides the idea that men are highly responsive to fertile women is in direct tension with the fact that human women obviously faced strong evolutionary to hide ovulation information (no clear external color signal like our primate relatives). As such any pheremone signal that men could detect with high reliability would go the way of the visual indicator of fertility.
And other work like this, eg, period syncing, has turned out to be kinda BS.
It's the shortage of eligible men issue doing the work (and making those men left less willing to settle down because they have a better deal playing the field).
See, for cats, its all about pheromones.
"I wonder if the birth-control driven preference for mild-mannered men is part of what has driven the high-achievers out of view."
I'm not sure how much is birth control, which is after all not ubiquitous, and how much it is our comfortable society.
We know that men in prison have higher testosterone than men outside it. Well, that makes sense - more aggression sees you more likely to land in prison, right? Except that it drops once you leave. Could it be that being in an environment where you might be shivved at any time causes your body to amp up production of something which gives you aggression and muscles?
Likewise, testosterone is lower in men in the West than in the Third World. Perhaps it's just that we're safer?
We also know that testosterone drops in men if they have close contact with their newborns. A high level of aggression around someone needy who keeps you awake all night who is also very vulnerable is probably not a survival trait for a species.
Similarly, when you're having 6 children by the time you're 30 and 2 of the children will die in infancy, you will probably do better with a higher sperm count. When you're having 0-2 and only in your 30s, you don't need as much. This would explain the decline in male sperm counts in the West - which isn't reproduced in the Third World.
So while there may be chemical (plastics) and pharmaceutical (the Pill) contributors, I suspect the social ones are much stronger. Men aren't as aggressive, horny and fertile as they used to be because they don't need to be.
I had a conversation recently about American history (my college major) with a plumber who was able to hold his own with me & I can objectively, at least based on SATs & my graduate degree, claim some smarts. And I’ve known female college grads who weren’t all that educated, degrees to the contrary notwithstanding. I think what’s going on has more to do with social status than education. It also appears to me that the social connections that used to bring young people together have deteriorated, and the recent move to working from home isn’t helping those occupying that strata of society to make connections. This from the sidelines, though, since I’ve got mine, and she hers, and have for many years…
I agree it's not about intelligence. But it is about social expectations. Lots of shit we do in college isn't really important but it's a kind of finishing school that says refined intelligent people can talk about X,Y and Z. It doesn't matter if it's incorrect as long as that's how people perceive it.
" I think what’s going on has more to do with social status than education."
I read an article recently about rich families paying some guy's company $120k a year from grade 7-9 or so for their kids to be prepared to go to some Ivy League school.
Now, if the sole aim were education, then $120k could buy them a live-in tutor who'd teach them three languages, two musical instruments and at least one sport, as well as make them excellent in all the normal areas like mathematics and english. And if the sole aim were future income, then simply setting aside the $500k or so till the kid finished high school, paying $100k for a business coach and then giving them the other $400k as startup money for a business would do as well.
So that's all bullshit. It's just status.
One needs to be on the ball to acquire a college degree in a field that will allow one to earn a middle-class income. It's the same to acquire a trade. Both will have similar marital success.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/two-visions-of-america-bedford-falls
Men are ok with dating/marrying down the social ladder. Women are not. So let's fix men?
As someone noted, women are looking for a provider and protector and desire men who have attained some status. Whereas a man can be happy with the cute waitress. We are already in a hierarchical competition against men and part of the refuge a woman provides is that we don't have to compete w/her, it is safe to be open and vulnerable.
But that goes both ways. Sure, maybe for some guys it means the woman needs to not be engaged in the same kind of pursuits he is but for others it's going to mean even a woman who is achieving more in the same line of work doesn't get processed as a threat the same way a man would.
Mostly that's probably going to depend on culture because there is no evolutionary reason to process your mate as a competitive threat. You benefit from their success.
It's not the educational system. Men aren't going to college as much as women because college does not benefit them as much. Plenty of women get college degrees and go on to earn low incomes. Men who do the same enjoy less marital success than their low-income peers who did not go to college.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/two-visions-of-america-bedford-falls
"Will women learn to embrace the power of no?"
The issue here is basically the Prisoner's Dilemma once more. If only some women are saying no, they'll miss out on both sexual and romantic action over the women who are saying yes.
So the change has to be in men, too. As Rabbi Jeff Goldblum said in that documentary Jurassic Park, "your penises were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that your brains didn't stop to think if they should."
I may be paraphrasing.
That reminds me of the story about some cow being available for purchase but the potential cow buyer declined to exchange his earnings for the acquisition of the cow as he already was getting free cow’s milk from the same cow (and probably had a similar relationship with most of remaining cow herd.)
Not trying to ugly here but the women embracing the feminist teachings have basically opted out of the “NO” to promiscuous sexual standards and instead have mimicked the sexual behavior of men (let off their socially restricting sexual leashes )all the while proclaiming the need ( oh the irony)for every one to recognize the significant differences between men and women. Well there’s a problem with acting like something you are not , it flies in the face of biological reality and when acted on disrupts the social structure that makes civil society a safe and healthy environment to live in and to reproduce and raise families in. There is a balancing act between the important differences (of men and women )that provides for a strong parental partnership that allows for the children they raise together to flourish and the society they are part of to grow and to thrive.
What have we got for following the feminist movement ( and don’t forget the well off feminist leaders who “ married up” while telling the regular women to divorce on a whim )?The feminist leaders told women to ditch having children( or ditch the children)to follow their feelings , experience sexual liberation to truly be free and independent of men and of course maintain their independence by landing their sexy new job at Walmart . Well these highly educated rich feminist leaders big plans turned out to not be as beneficial as proposed and has thrown a majority of the divorced women with kids (and single mothers)into economic tailspins .The explanation is simple:two adults can combine and compound their resources better than one. It’s not complicated, two is better than one , and the decision to follow your feelings ( and sexual urges)as your life’s foundational principles and decision guidance parameters is a sure fire path to poor outcomes.Anyone who wants a highly functional and good life needs to realize the obvious and beautiful fact that men and women are different .The beautiful part is that they can combine their differences to raise great kids to be successful future citizens. When you’re old and your youth is gone ..your sexual exploits are just empty meaningless history ..but what really matters is your family and children and promoting their success and assisting them in maximizing their potential and their agency .
My take is :The feminist movement was a vicious society destroying lie.I’m calling BS on it.
funny you say that, I wrote about exactly this in my previous post: https://humancarbohydrate.substack.com/p/why-i-am-worried-about-the-rise-of
I will seek it out and read it. Thank you
Me too. I think you are insightful and honest, qualities seriously lacking in too many educated idiots. Book smarts and pop culture dispense with the wisdom of our forebears to their demise.
I see the point and can’t argue with the capitalistic materialism that drives greed over all things first and entices women to set career over family. Family obligation is viewed as counterproductive in the pursuit of profit over a meaningful life. I encourage everyone to watch “Fiddler on the Roof” to understand that self sacrifice can reap reward too. Everything in modern society seems to value “me” before “we”.
A nod to stoicism is a nod to inner peace. Once I realized that all I do is in service to my Creator, I found everything more rewarding and less vexing. It’s considered uneducated to have faith in our world today but the end result of abandonment of faith has been the root of devaluing human life. I believe that dominion is a call for stewardship of our planet which is a responsibility to not exploit our world for profit but to nurture it.
Most conservatives share this vision.
Wow. Well said and reminds me that kids are better off with both mother and father. Not two moms or two dads. Even gay women aren’t the same as gay men.
Our society has taken the extreme position that the division of both role models is no longer necessary.
Nothing could be more wrong. I read an essay by this young woman who had been raised by two mothers. She felt it a betrayal of them to speak her heart growing up. By the time she was a teenager she became aware of the special relationship her peers had with their fathers and became envious.
She wasn’t the only kid to yearn for that duality in parents. I know lots of ppl refuse to accept that boys and girls are different in ways that aren’t just anatomical. School systems in America expect boys to behave like girls but they simply aren’t.
Mother isn’t father.
It’s funny I agree with everything but your conclusion. The feminist movement was necessary and even inevitable. Do I like where men and women are now? Maybe not, but I’m not going to endorse a world that limits women’s participation in public life and work. Anyway the genii never goes back in the bottle. Boys also have to figure this shit out and not just whine about what the girls are doing.
Should have specified feminism 2.0 -3.0 is poison..not all of the original first wave was bad.. I like having my vote counted but I can’t agree with the man bashing and the “ a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle , the breakdown of the family unit is a disaster for our civil society and the start of that breakdown came out of the feminist movement insisting women are the same as men and can do anything they can do and most likely better. It’s a lie and the pursuit of it has left a lot of women and men at odds instead of the strong stable combo unit that is better together for them and their children.What made them become so adversarial and determined to outdo men?Why did they try and deny everything that makes being a woman a societal strength and turn around and try and destroy the supposed patriarchal hierarchy only to replace it with a faux matriarchy ( imitation patriarchy).. Why not just get the vote and build up society on the strength of women in concert with the balancing effect of men’s strengths .The whole identity politics divisiveness got started with the feminist leadership convincing women that they weren’t happy and what they needed to do to be happy was to mimic the worst characteristics of the lowest common denominator of uncivilized male behavior.. ( not man bashing here as both sexes have their less virtuous outliers)and here we are , divorced, broken homes, fatherless children , STD and the subsequent infertility widespread ,impoverished, unhappy , men identifying as women and whupping them at their own game, kids too young to vote, drive, drink , or take out a bank loan without their parents consent or to live alone,transitioning from their biological Sex at birth ( the word transition is a poor choice as it implies they actually are changed into a different sex but the chromosomes remain impervious to puberty blockers and surgical procedures)and looking for anyone else to blame but ourselves.( and the feminist leadership that married UP.)
I didn’t used to think this way as I at one time ( youth)I bought into the harmful nonsense the feminist social groomers were plying us with. The feminist message should have stuck with getting the vote and then concentrated on ways to make men and women stronger together , instead they opted to go on the attack.
I personally pushed back against the casual denigration of men. I liked them and couldn’t see how putting them down was helpful at all. And I also agree that some feminists essentially tried to become men instead of valorizing the feminine experience.
Perfection. You have adeptly disseminated the hype, smoke and mirrors charade.
The world has not limited women's participation in public life and work.
Women just don't make the same choices men make.
The illusion pushed by feminists that women were held back is a poisonous lie.
Do you really think the son of a farm labourer in the 1800s would go to become a leader of a Wesrern nation?
Or become educated in university?
In 99% of instances he'll just get another form labourer like his dad.
There are too many lies from feminists with their skewed worldview.
Even the "Votes for women" was a lie.
The majority of Western men couldn't pre-WWI.
And you are 100% correct. I don’t understand the women who think that men are inconsequential and vice versa. Both bring different gifts to the table and balance one another. We were designed this way and trying to kick against the goads is a fools errand.
"A lot of these problems could be solved if women simply pursued their emotional interests as ruthlessly as men pursue their sexual interests."
There is a collective action problem here. A lot of other women will give in.
This is why other women were traditionally such zealous enforcers of female chastity and other women's morals, because "loose women" were the equivalent of scabs undercutting the union price.
n.b. this inverts feminist mythology on its head.
So... we are returning to Tradition? I knew those old folks had the right idea all along...
Funny how we discard wisdom of old in favor of “study” results only to find that the newly (a term used loosely) adopted norms had unintended consequences.
Wisdom is gathered over time. We think we “know” better yet we don’t.
Something about tearing down fences when we don't know why they were put up, I think.
I don't think your advice works. If my goal is a serious committed relationship it's extremely important that your partner take the issue seriously and not agree lightly. You certainly don't want a guy who is all confused by his sex drive into agreeing to something who will then feel trapped and unhappy with you.
Also, sexual compatibility is a very important part of a good relationship.
The problem is that the things that make a good committed partner aren't actually under conciouss control to be bargained with -- you can't actually commit to being in a loving serious relationship in 2 years time in exchange for sex now.
That's not to say honesty is bad. Just that the situation isn't symmetric like you implicitly suggest.
There are men out here looking to settle down. People have to vet for that if that is what they want. Especially at a certain age, if marriage and kids is what one truly wants, one has to be very clear. You can't "date" or live with a guy for 5 years. There are apps and dating sites for people looking to marry. Mina Irfan "The Universe Guru" on Youtube says that "girlfriend" is not a status. It doesn't exist anywhere in nature, in religion, in law. It's a made up thing. Therefore one should "rotational date for marriage". Never commit to being someone's "girlfriend". Make it clear that you are dating multiple people until you get a proposal and accept it. If a someone wants you to be "exclusive" to them, they will have to propose.
Here's some real hot takes! Women should put themselves first because men do. That's true.
I bet females are just lining up for you, right? As a male in his early 20s, you're in your peak of good looks and attractiveness, so that sounds about right.
Good luck, and get back to the video games.
Firstly, this piece is sensational, secondly it far outstrips the piece it is responding to. And gives me much to think about myself!
Good luck with the stand-up BTW. I am sure you will meet men who can accept anything other than women who are funnier than them, but I married my wife - to the extent that I 'chose' her - because she was the funniest person I've ever met. Hope for us all (specifically you).
Thank you James, I am so pleased you liked it!! Very encouraging to hear a comedian and writer say you fall for your wife because of her humour. Hopefully my Substack won’t be single rants forever 😬
I chose my wife because she was funny - and because she was the only one I'd ever dated who accepted me in full. Everyone else wanted to change me. I think there's something profound and universal in that.
The same. Tho my spouse has changed me profoundly. I even have a job now!
It's remarkable you were able to GET a spouse without having a job! :)
We did, in fairness, meet on an MA course. And I now have a job in the area of the MA!
Why did you paywall it? Don't you want it to go viral? I'm writing on a text on female overestimation of male sexuality and when I saw Stella's post I thought that I had found linkable proof to support my position. But I hadn't : (
Hi mate, it was an existing post which was paywalled from the off. I write five posts a month, and three are free, but it’s important for me to offer value to those who pay, as they allow me to keep writing.
There's a ton of free content on my newsletter, including on the same subject. This might be of interest:
https://stiffupperquip.substack.com/p/we-need-a-safe-space-for-heterosexual
And if you do want to sign up, there's another free post on Thursday. Have a good day!
Thank you, that is a good post.
My question was in earnest, because that is what I do myself: When I write something that is not useless but that I also don't want to become famous for having written, I paywall it.
I must confess I'm also trying to hold down a full-time job I like greatly. Therefore perhaps I am more inclined to paywall my 'I am fantastically horny' posts
I can imagine! I really like it when people write about themselves. The more intimate, the better. But I'm not that keen on reciprocating.
As I said, I feel 'SUQ' - and the newsletter we're discussing under, obvs - has the goods for you!
James, here’s my own simple trick for when I see a hot babe, and my mind starts fantasizing about hot sex—I change the lovely into my wife, and continue with the fantasy sex but with the wife.
It still works after 30 years (in Oct.) of marriage and we still have a lot of hot lovemaking. It’s much easier with the wife maintaining a quite high level of sexy beauty, as our adult sons have noticed.
Thanks Tom. Next time I'm horny, I will also think about your hot wife x
My Facebook foto with our family is many years old. But if you ever visit Bratislava, we could have a beer and talk about your thoughts.
I’m 69 & have been married (2 kids & a step-kid) for almost 29 years; my dating was from the early 1970s to mid 1990s… Being a tall, successful professional who traveled all over the country on business, often told I was handsome when I was dating (IBM, 6 figures before 30, over 6’, Div-1 athlete in college, lots of professional success), my view is rather different and best exemplified by the “come-closer-go-away-come-closer-go…” game women play.
Finding a normal woman who can, and so is willing to be pleased socially, culturally, economically, sexually, is a pain in the ass. Getting a hot woman into bed was shooting fish in a barrel. Being treated as a peer, nearly impossible. The more attractive a woman is, the more entitled.
If women want not to be spinsters, they must learn to be friends. Men don’t do the Mean Girls gig, so women need to quit that shit and just be friends. First. If she isn’t interested in being friends, just bed her & move on; she - might - be a good lay, and why not? She doesn’t care, so why should he?
There’s a line in an old movie, In Like Flint, in which the protagonist is asked how he is so successful with women. His response: “I don’t compete with them.” When women start treating men as men and quit competing with men like they never cease to do with other women, women will have a far better chance of not growing old, gray and alone with their cats.
And if women valued themselves, they’d not lay down with every guy who comes along. Men, too, like to think that they … AND the woman they choose … are special.
I don’t know that men “won” the sexual Revolution, but women, families, children, society… lost it.
I have been coming to the same conclusion; it never works if you are approaching dating as if you or the other person being a prize; you have to get to know someone as an equal. The problem is in the modern world, people have forgotten how to 'build' relationships- be friends, as you say. Hang out like normal people etc.
It's less that they've forgotten but that there just isn't any good avenue to do so. For this to work you really need to get to know people in an environment other then dating -- and in modern america we invest all our time into work (not so great a place to date for all sorts of reasons) and even the activities we do engage in are rarely cooperative/social.
Basically, we still haven't found an organization to replace the role of the church in offering socialization in the US. The UK does it with pubs but that's turned them all into semi-problem drinkers.
But this is a really hard cultural problem.
That’s why the “dating” web sites are so prevalent. There are many societal ills as we’ve collectively moved away from faith. It’s a long and boring story but faith is important to me. It wasn’t always and if some one from the future came back and told me I’d become a born again Christian I’d say there’s absolutely zero chance for that. Yet I did and having done so I am a-tuned to the basis for the biblical understanding of the institution of marriage. We’ve been together since ‘89. He’s still the only guy for me and would be a tough act for anyone to beat.
For any relationship to flourish both parties need to forget the small stuff and it’s all small stuff. NOBODY is perfect. It’s not his job to make me happy. It’s a state of mind and a choice.
This is what I tell so many of my single female friends. Just be normal and friendly, hang out, get to know a new person without immediately expecting or hoping or fearing that you’ll die beside them in 50 years! Men are just people! That being said, I’m on the cusp of 26 and still single myself. Sometimes I read stuff like this and think, man, I’m theoretically doing everything right. But I really really value my physical attraction towards the man I’m dating. I don’t think that’s necessarily rare in women, but I’ve noticed that’s usually not as important as other qualities. Women will often date great men who they don’t find very physically attractive and end up attracted to them. I’ve never heard a single man admit to having that dating strategy, haha. And for some reason, I can’t do that either. Many of my male friends have said I’m single by choice, and if I wanted to change my relationship status, I could. I guess that sentiment applies to a lot of women. But I, like my compatriots, would rather hold out for great than settle for good enough. Maybe that will end in a lonely, childless death; I don’t know. I, like all of us, am left to trust God with those dreams and desires. He hasn’t failed me yet!
"The more attractive a woman is, the more entitled."
I have definitely seen this movie before. The problem with the hottest queen I ever had a relationship with was that she knew it. Consequently, she didn't have to try very hard.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with living with cats.
Also, the most attractive females of all are not necessarily those who fit a series of measurements, but those whose personalities have femininity, verve, snap and liveliness and allow them to be the roles they choose.
This sort of attractiveness doesn't necessarily fade so much with age, as long as they still have their energy.
No PC there but you’re quite right. Society lost out in a few ways and hasn’t bottomed out yet.
"sexual revolution Stockholm syndrome" is such a smart phrase
thank you :-)
I think we forget how much parents and communities made marriages happen. Men probably never wanted to get married. So, we paid them with doweries, refused to promote them at The Company, guilted them with babies, and, if that didn't work, forced them with shotguns. Mothers were nagging, fathers were stern, churches controlled the whole town and the government could tax away earnings. And marriage had very little, if anything, to do with love. We forget how these relationships were the consequences of sex, not the genesis of it. In certain places, at certain times in history, anywhere from 40% - 90% of brides to be were already pregnant. As a child of divorced parents in the 70 and 80s, not an insignificant number of my friends complained how they wished their parents would divorce because "all they do is fight." We forget, we forget it all, and wonder why this thing doesn't work anymore. It wasn't magic.
Exactly, it's not as if we will stop having casual sex and suddenly men who were previously unwilling to commit will now become dad material. I wrote about the points you are making in my previous post: https://humancarbohydrate.substack.com/p/why-i-am-worried-about-the-rise-of
Well it's not even that. My point is generally that it was never up to the girl whether or not they were getting married. It was up to the parents, it was up to the community, it was up to the man involved whether he was going to accept the dowery, maybe not even him. It was mostly up to his parents, so those troglodyte, MAGA, men, were gonna get married to. Whoever mom said they were gonna get married to and that was that. And the society held this marriage together with all kinds of coercion. The happiness of this couple,being in love it was all irrelevant, and marriage as an institution can't work without it.
Well, that sounds like India, right now, except the "pregnant at the altar" bit, which I understand is still hella rare.
It is my private theory that one reason that arranged marriages seem to work by and large is that, for better or worse, in India, your rights and obligations are mostly set for you by family and society. So you can have an arranged marriage with someone that you've never spent fifteen minutes with alone, and you can go in with a pretty good idea of what you can expect, and what will be expected of you and your family.
And you aren't going to up and leave that marriage because if you do there will be total hell to pay
Not Desi myself but I know people from India who did leave their marriages, and yeah, it better be serious.
https://open.substack.com/pub/amicurious/p/leave-the-libertines-alone?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7xjre
Dowries are a bit of a supply/demand thing, funnily enough. There have been societies where the groom's family had to pay a 'bride price' when there was a shortage of eligible debutantes.
Sorry about the editing. I'm working on it.
I'm very skeptical of the narrative of men just being too intimidated by women with too much success. Yes, sure it happens occasionally -- but what is going on most of the time is they are scared the successful woman won't find them desierable. It's not that they can't handle female success -- it's that they reasonably fear that a woman who is much more successful than they are will always be comparing them negatively to the men they work with and are friends with..
Everyone wants to be special to their partner. If you think your partner goes to work or the lab every day and sees better partners than you, even if they are currently taken, that's not going to be a happy or long lasting relationship.
As you point out women have these broader social support networks so while a women can be a catch for a man because of her emotional support that's less true in the other direction. It's much the same reason I think many women would be reluctant to seriously date some TV star who usually dates models.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this presents any problem for making the woman the breadwinner or more professionally successful. I put my wife's career first and handle the household stuff and it works great. But I have a PhD too and if I didn't (or have equivalent uncredentialed intellectual training/ability) I think it would be trouble.
yes I have been thinking of that actually, the difficult thing with a woman who is very very successful could be a fear that she will find the man lacking or will criticise them or expect them to change
I agree, though I think the whole "afraid she'll make me change" thing is exaggerated. As you point out men have less social support/structure and I think lots of men don't really mind changing quite a bit as long as they aren't frightened with sudden changes. I mean, I see women getting older and deciding they want to be parents, live this more stable life etc on their own (or peer promoted) initiative while men are more likely to adopt those roles because their significant other pushes them to do so (sometimes, as the joke goes, women succeed in changing their s.o. into someone they aren't attracted to anymore)..
I think the truth underlying fears expressed in this form is that people (including men) can sense when their s.o. isn't really that excited by who they are and the 'change' isn't so much an attempt to bring someone they love along on a journey but an expression of the fact that they really wish they were dating someone different and, rather than admit that, indulge in the fantasy that they can turn their current partner into the partner they couldn't land.
Speaking personally, I started having a lot more success with females, once I realized that they were not unattainable beings who lived on a sort of lofty pedestal and whose only desires were located somewhere on the ethereal plane. Their wants and desires were somewhat different from my own, but they were very much earthly desires.
Yes, of course. This is all about those desires. Women may find different things appealing in men than you do in women but same mechanism,
And that's the problem here. It's just in reverse. It's not men being unable to handle a successful woman. It's men having the same kind of concerns about being valued, having commitment and not seen as second rate goods women stereotypically have.
In my case, queens often saw me as a sort of project, a rescue cat to be domesticated, as it were.
Queens??? Like the gay men who adopt an exaggerated homosexual affect?
If you mean women the problem is that works inside a social context. You might adopt the shy awkward guy in the dorm down the hall but the Harvard chic is much less likely to adopt the guy who works at the gas station. And there is a substantial ratio for the college educated.
I'm kinda sad I'm not young now because it's a great time to be a well-educated man but not so much for women.
No, I am a tomcat.
Although, yes, it is a great time to be an alpha male. Axtually, it's always a great time to be an alpha male at the top of the pecking order. The JFKs have always had it good.
Just that now, it is a great time to be an alpha male who isn't quite at the level where they could flout convention and live how they wished.
As in warriorcats?
JFKs have always had it good. What's changed since I was a teen is the status of nerds or generally guys who are academically gifted but not your stereotypical alpha jock.
I like cats and dogs. My mate loves dogs but hates cats. We still have a couple and he tolerates them for my sake.
It’s not much fun up on that pedestal alone
It is no picnic being looked down upon either.
Well, with cats, there are gender roles but it's different from humans. Queens and toms hunt, but usually the queens are better hunters and toms more interested in fighting.
The difference is that when a queen hisses "you'd better stay away from my kittens!" she means it, and even though I have won fights with toms who were bigger and stronger than I am and fought off big dogs many times my size, I had had better take heed of that hiss if I value my ears.
And no amount of "but I personally identify as a queen and not a tom" would change Mama's mind.
Absolutely correct.
I remember the moment I admitted to myself that I really wanted to be married and that dating endlessly was awful and left me depressed. Maybe it's our biggest secret - anyway once I had that mindset - instead of "yeah I'm totally cool with these crumbs of a relationship" it was amazing how little time was wasted before I met my husband.
ah that's lovely to hear, good for you, hopefully I am next :-P
I know it sounds like something cheesy that belong on Instagram but putting yourself first & not being ashamed that falling in love and being married is a nice thing. I think I felt like it wasn't what clever feminists should want and felt v mixed up about it - but men do want to be married and be dads too. Being in love works for them too - we are hardwired for love. Loneliness in 20s & 30s can't be underestimated either. It's not an easy time. Anyway - I'll head back to writing inspo on Instagram now ;)
TL;DR the principal beneficiaries of the Sexual Revolution are alpha males. Perhaps not so much those at the very pinnacle of the pecking order, but second-order alphas?
Agree. Men won the sexual revolution. IMO all the moaning about female style taking over public discourse also has some validity. Females always had power, but it was an indirect sort, manipulative if you will. That old style clashes with traditional male ways. Feminine sensibilities aren’t really validated at all. I personally like many things about masculine style but female sensibility has its place, even in business. But we’re very far from working it out. What I see is mainly capitulation of women and resentment because that isn’t power. Women instead are rejecting their own experiences as invalid in the attempt to live up to an ideal that doesn’t suit them. That’s why I find this piece so refreshing.
Thinking it over, traditionally "female" sensibilities, strengths in garnering sympathy, building coalitions, gentle persuasion, assigning roles and getting people to play their assigned roles (not always to their own advantage) and in working with and mastering group dynamics works in a certain type of professional setting, and up to a certain point on the hierarchy.
Above that is the domain of the alpha males.
Oh I can see much of what you’re saying but I’ve met a few women who are alpha females. Not many and generally speaking I agree. I think it’s a psychological game. I plant ideas in my husbands head and damn if he doesn’t eventually have a strikingly similar idea soon thereafter. Amazing!! No one, not men or women, can ascertain a long term commitment from a date or two. I think it’s also worth noting that you have to have similar enough ethical standards to have a lasting relationship. Trust takes time too.
My husband is a clever guy and keeps me laughing, mostly at myself. Never take yourself too seriously and a good sense of humor is medicine for the body and soul. Our kids are grown though our daughter has issues and is on the autism spectrum so at 21 she remains home with us. I hope she can find her way but she has a hard time. Our son just married last summer and lives nearby. He’s almost 8 years older than her and I’m hoping to see grandchildren eventually. My siblings have lots of grands but we had kids late. Not by choice. Turns out I wasn’t built for it.
Life can take some real turns but it would be boring if everything went by the “plan”.
Such females do exist, but they are relatively rare, compared with the male variety.
And yes, comparable ethical standards are important. It's one reason why arranged marriages in India so often by and large work.
One of the characteristics of my mate that I admire is his drive to get to the top of the dog pile. He’s a manly guy who doesn’t have a feminine side. He knows everything about firearms, automobiles and deep dives as he develops new interests. He isn’t hung up about what other ppl think of him.
For a guy who doesn’t have a college degree he makes pretty good money now. Like millions of Americans we hit tough financial times over the economic tailspin in 2007. People we knew lost virtually all their wealth. We squeaked by and he stressed about that so much I felt I needed to express support that I didn’t care if we lost everything. At least we’d be poor together. I didn’t want him to feel any more pressure even though I was rattled too. Stuff is just stuff.
I don’t know if it’s a guy thing but our stuff is the evidence of his labor. I see his point. At the end of the day we defer to some things that are important to me but I defer to his good judgement most of the time. Even when I know it’s a lost cause because he needs to come to that conclusion on his own.
He is the head of our house and I’m okay with that as I’ve learned to trust him. He would move heaven and earth to accommodate his kids and me. Great dad, husband, human.
Probably. Ruthlessness rules. At some point a woman might just opt out because they really don’t want it enough whereas there’s always a guy that does.
"Men won the sexual revolution."
*Some* men won. Most men lost, and lost badly. Now not only do you get ignored by women, but they think you "just want in her pants" (even those of us who are waiting for marriage), and then once you eventually *do* find a wife, she's settled for (in her mind) the plow horse after dating the hot, exciting guys, and will never be content with you. And she'll definitely compare you to them continually (negatively, of course.) So instead of the top-shelf relationship and sex that the hit guys had, you get complaints, negativity, and duty sex.
Raised three beautiful kids in a long term committed marriage, worked like a dog to finance the gig, never once strayed not even the slightest and then a thirty year marriage vanished in a blink of an eye one day. Just like that, gone. Because why? Who really knows why when it comes to a woman’s heart. It’s a fickle beast with many dark recesses that are both intriguing and exciting but also morose and entitled. Much the same as men but with less testosterone.
Dating again since last attempted in 1987 was an exercise in wtf and it was only by pure luck that finding someone amazing, beautiful, smart and fun was possible. So I don’t have any pithy or sage advice because it was only random luck that allowed for a great relationship to find itself and grow into a three year commitment. I’ll be 107 next week apparently. But being open, wise and able to listen to your internal wisdom can help find someone in all the noise and in places you least expect.
I am sorry to hear about your marriage but I have hope in knowing you find someone brilliant even later in life. I am certainly not giving up on love, not quite yet!
Given that you are bright and beautiful, it is absolutely shocking to me that you are single even though you are willing to date men who are not on your level. I have a male friend in his mid 40s who literally tells me he is desperate to get married. He is neither ugly nor poor, but a big problem for him is that he tends to prefer beautiful women who are not on his level. I told him to compromise. The sad truth is that for many men who do not look like Poldark, their deep romantic urges still need to be triggered by a woman who is pretty, in addition to being sweet, feminine, and having similar sensibilities—which reduces the dating pool quite dramatically. The desire for beauty is a kind of curse for many men (and women). When I was young, I literally fell in love with the screen presence of the beautiful, feminine, Ingrid Bergman. But I was no Carry Grant.
That's a good story, thanks. If only good looks were all it took to find a partner; alas, romantic alchemy works in mysterious ways.
Yes indeed. There is much truth to the chemistry thing.
Beauty is fleeting and can be altered by all kinds of things. If your partner only wants you for your looks then it’s a shallow relationship. You are attracted by the physical but stay for the things unseen.
I’ve met good looking ppl who were so ugly inside that their appearance seemed diminished and vice versa. True beauty is something that emanates from your core person.
I think the real fear of Western women, lies more in the divorce statistics, because the divorce courts typically favour women and will tear children away from the father. So that the trouble is that while you're certainly right about a lot of men, the reason they're also going for foreign women, is that they don't seem to believe that the foreign woman will divorce them (statistics bear this out).
The trouble is that as needy as women are, the trouble is that they have been so liberalised (even though women don't deep down like being liberalised), that they will divorce men, who naturally fear the loss of children and so have given up.
Also bear in mind the statistics on male depression and suicide is incredibly high in the Anglosphere. What is noteworthy is that in places like France, Quebec, Asia, Africa and other places men and women are able to make it work. Only in the Anglosphere, China, Russia and a few other choice locations are things utterly hopeless which is interesting.
I don't know if it is all men, but a significant number of them have seen their fathers, brothers and friends get eviscerated by the divorce industrial complex and have vowed to never let that happen to them. I'm happily married but would never take that risk again
Good point, I'm keen to marry, but have seen my father get eviscerated along with my uncle.
Wonderful piece. I was in a small elite liberal arts college in the early 90’s in the US, and I was puzzled by the prevailing sentiment amongst my female peers that they “didn’t need men” and they needed to be “independent”. It just seemed like they were kidding themselves — as a man I don’t think that I don’t want a woman in my life.
I think it helps for a woman dating today to signal to dates that they are looking for husband material and if they are looking for children. I think this will change the way a guy will treat you, and mostly for the better— you don’t waste your time on those that run, and instead focus on compatibility with those that stay and learn if the two of you can grow together to make the small piece of the world you inhabit yours.
I’m assuming many of you have read Louise Perry’s “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution“? If not, you should buy it immediately!
yeap, she is a friend actually!
Thank you for this new perspective. I now find myself contemplating my dating woes from an entirely different angle. I thought dating had taken on a new form while I was out of the game for a couple years. I was surprised when I re-entered the dating world almost a year ago to find women dating like men; getting their physical needs met and casting me aside to seek out a new conquest. However, I’m now wondering if it was I who changed. Admittedly, I came back into the dating world a little jaded from past heartbreak. A feeling of “ah shit, here we go again” overtook me as I endlessly swiped on the dating apps, “I was really hoping I wouldn’t have to do this again.”
So, I built my walls higher this time, determined not to get hurt again. Maybe this is where I went wrong. In doing so, I may have given off an air of disinterest to the women I dated. They in turn built their walls higher so as not to get hurt by me. Like clock work, after some dates and a couple nights spent together, the dreaded HR styled text would come.
“Hey, you’re really great and I’ve enjoyed getting to know you. I just don’t think this is going to work out in the long run. I wish you all the best!”
In some ways I’m relieved because it saves me from getting too attached. Being rejected still sucks, though. After going through these motions over and over for months, one can start to get bitter and resentful of the opposite sex. It’s difficult to look inward when these feelings arise. Maybe most of the women I’ve dated do actually share your perspective. They just don’t want to put in effort for a guy who seems like he’s only in it for an easy lay. As Sadia Khan says, “Current dating is just practising for divorce.” I think I’ve been guilty of dating this way lately. Reading your perspective gives me reason to start dating for marriage again.
I think something is to be said about being defensive; this is why I am taking a break from the apps at the moment: You get burnt too many times, and you stop having grace and engaging meaningfully when you meet new people. Nobody is attracted to that. People can smell your intentions whether you reveal them or not. It's best to build your confidence outside of dating first and then re-enter excited about meeting new people and building a genuine connection.
Great piece. I echo every word. Only one thing: you’re 29. You have plenty of time to get this right. Reach out.
Thanks! While my essays are personal commentary from my life, there is quite a bit of artistic flare in them too, I am going to write a follow-up response clearing up some things, but in summary, I speak out so vulnerably about my personal life because I believe I can ''afford to'' if that makes sense. No one in their right mind would think I have anything to worry about. I know I am a great catch, have more than enough time and the right guy will come along. I just need it to work out with one man, not a million of them. But where I was older or less objectively good-looking or had other burdens that lowered my "mating" value, I could not complain about the state of the dating market without a bunch of people ridiculing me. Hence why I speak out, because I can ! I can take the personal judgment that has accumulated under my post. :-)
She really doesn’t have plenty of time if she wants to have children (without going through painful and dangerous and only somewhat effective fertility procedures).
Please don't catastrophize. She is in prime dating age - never more attractive to men, never more fertile. If your fertility is healthy, you have an 82% chance of having kids at age 38, although it goes down pretty dramatically thereafter. https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/commitment/why-women-who-want-to-have-kids-should-date-seriously-in-their-early-30s? Signed, a dating coach for women whose wife had kids naturally at 41 and 42 (without fertility treatments.)
Male testosterone and sperm counts have gone down dramatically in the last 40 years. A 30 year old man today has less than 1/2 the sperm count of a 30 year old in the past. More and more couples are needing fertility treatments. The clock is ticking for both sexes
Men have a far lower sperm count after 35 so neither gender has indefinite time to put off starting a family. There’s no guarantees that you’ll be successful even if your young. Our first successful pregnancy was when I was 37 and after a few more fails I gave up. We had another when I turned 46 but I thought it was a different change of life so it was kinda shocking to find out I was pregnant.
Never say never.
Alright, well that’s a nice anecdote.
Well, I can't have kids with my male cat or force a man to have kids with me (or indeed force myself to have kids with someone I am not attracted to), so that's that!
"Well, I can't have kids with my male cat...."
Wouldn't that be kittens?
😂
"indeed force myself to have kids with someone I am not attracted to)"
You may well have identified the crux of the issue.
"Damn you, I ll say.
You wanted to fuck me, I wanted you to love me."
Those words strike a deep chord.
thanks for reading x
Well, mayyyyyyybeeee she shouldn’t have fucked him until he did… just sayin…
Yep. This does not work. This is the age-old female gambit, and does not work. It has never worked, except on occasion, when the mariage was forced by social pressure or barrelpoint. Both are no longer a factor in marriage.