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!
I think that for a real change Kat is onto something here - not about your writing, which I loved, or your style, which is fabulous and so far from boring, but in her last two lines. She hates men and calls them "unfuckable losers and women don't want them anyway." I mainly came into the comments, incidentally, to see how many guys proposed to you on the spot, but for a real question, and having read several of your other posts, how many guys are just invisible to you? Maybe you'd marry a bricklayer if he asked, but would you ever see him in the first place? You know the difference between being visible and invisible, so what percentage of men, do you think, are invisible to you now? I think there's a lot of that going around (but not necessarily you).
I certainly have a history of noticing various types of men, but it is hard to answer your question. Who knows? How could I telll? And am I supposed to live my life constantly pressurising myself to date men I am not initially attracted to ( and who, by the way, don’t ask me out or show interest) in the hopes I will develop feelings? I am not that desperate to begin with but I do think men have become a lot less proactive. I see that with older men.
I was surprised and a little disappointed not to see any guy actually challenge you along those lines (my logging in to count the proposals); did you at least get some dms asking you out? But no, I don’t think you should go around kissing random frogs, or any frogs for that matter, except I think that your going to the grave unfulfilled in the way you described would be unfortunate, especially when I’m sure that you’re igniting all sorts of romantic fantasies every time you go grocery shopping, for example. I don’t think men are nearly as averse to romantic attachment as most people responding to you here.
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
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.
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.
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.
There was an interesting time series graph recently that showed "where did you meet your partner?" over the past 80yrs or so.
Tl;Dr over time it shifted from family to friends to work to online, which is now 60% or more.
So, your snark, Kat, that "duh, it's always been this way" is misguided because it's only half the story.
Sure, the sex vs relationship (or probably more accurately the "promiscuity" vs "monogamy" dilemma. #1) pre-dates modern homo sapiens but you're missing what I'd call the "social counter-pressure").
If you meet your potential partner via your family there is a LOT of social counter-pressure to "not be a cad" (and in certain cultures it's literally a matter of life&death for both parties).
In the era that I started dating, the 80s, most people I know met their partners via friends... Someone threw a party at their house, people in your social circle always invited a few new people, so you got to meet the new people as potential romantic partners, assuming you weren't already hopelessly in love with someone in your social circle already (cf the song "Jessie's Girl" and ever John Hughes movie, every. Still rooting for you, Ducky!). Within that circle everyone learned pretty quickly who treated who with respect and who didn't, and people looked out for their friends. It's worth noting that that wasn't just the girls looking out for their girlfriends, either. I know from firsthand experience that guys would have a "quiet word" with another guy who was being a bit too "handsy" with one of the girls, especially if the girl was impaired by alcohol. If the "quiet word" didn't work, we'd either arrange for the girl to get taken home by a (sober, female) friend, or the male guest would find himself out on the front lawn, wondering WTF just happened, and later wondering why he never got invited to parties anymore. Counter-pressure.
Ditto for work relationships... There is a reason phrases like "don't fish off the company peer" or "don't sh*t where you eat" entered the vocabulary. There were consequences for romantic relationships that went bad at work.
So, fast forward to today...
What's the "social counter-pressure" to being a cad in the days of Internet dating? Will your family know if you're "being a cad"? Will your friends care about "some rando chick off the Internet" or just laugh at your crazy dating stories about how you "had to ghost this chick who was getting too clingy"?
It's not the same anymore.
It's not "same as it ever was".
Different problems require different solutions.
#1 I recommend reading Jared Diamond's book "Why is sex fun?" if you want to learn more about the utterly fascinating history of "promiscuity vs monogamy" in primates, the evolution of concealed ovulation, and how it's even flipped back and forth over time.
Ouch, Kat! We all have our trauma and have observed self-absorbed, take-no-responsibility behavior. We just have to keep trying because no matter what all the web's articles and comments say, there are people in healthy relationships and there are wonderful women and men (true) who care about the opposite gender and care about more than what they can give them.
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.
Sounds like quality problems. Hardly rises to the claim “crosses to bear”. Many thousands of ppl would gladly bear such a cross if anything you said is truthful and I would think it is.
Your job is a huge problem. For you, and anyone you'd like to have a relationship with. Who gives af how much money you make, your field is slimy, filled with slimy people on both sides of the aisle. You would be most successful dating another slimeball.
"....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.
I don't understand the trolling on this post. Dear 73 year old man, dating is different for young women in 2024 because men literally do not want to be in relationships.
Men crave being in a relationship but they have been burned and are cynical and both sexes have too much bad programming on what to expect in a relationship. But deep down, everyone craves a good partner.
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.
Well that is some straight shooting there. Well said. Nothing like a reality check to sober things up.
Sleeping around never was a healthy lifestyle and hasn’t become one. Most decent men want to have a family too and that means a stable home in which to raise their offspring. Having said that men who want to ditch the woman who bore their children because they no longer have that girlish figure or have delivery room damage so they dump them for some significantly younger woman are vermin. They don’t deserve the children they created and set a lousy example of what “love” looks like let alone antiquated ideas like commitment and fidelity.
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.
Women should not sleep with lots of men, nor should they sleep with anyone unless a long term relationship is on the line. Guys enjoy easy casual sex. They don’t marry these women though. The marriageable versus the sexable are two very distinct compartments.
I think the issue is that, whether getting to know someone starts with sex or with relationships, it leaves someone open to exploitation. Casual sex means women can get pumped and dumped. Being friends means a guy can languish in the friend zone and never be desired. I think trying to “ease into” a relationship one way or the other raises this problem.
An alternative would be to discuss basic compatibility beforehand, and then jump into both aspects of the relationship simultaneously, sex and committed relationship. Some find this boring because it takes away the illusion of things just happening naturally. They equate that with boring; though personally I think both the quality of sex and quality of relationship can be improved over time, if some baseline attraction is there.
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?
Attractive intelligent females in their 30s have a wider age group to date from than previous generations of women did. 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years younger than them is not going to receive as much eyebrow raising from the wider society than even in the the recent past. I'm sure that there are plenty of males who would be open to dating accordingly. Assuming that there would be very little baseline educational achievement asymmetries any age related issues would only be teething troubles.But of course what would her friends say 😉 🤔
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.
Hypergamy is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword. And while I don't believe it is entirely natural, rather more like an obsolete hangover from thousands of years of patriarchy, it unfortunately still stubbornly exists even in places where the wage gap has all but disappeared.
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.
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.
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.
Assortative mating is the norm across the world. That means people pair up within the same socio-economic class more often than not. The cute waitress isn't being proposed to by the highly educated, professionally employed, upper class guy.
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.
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."
And the default answer still remains NO to this day. Only in men's minds is that not the case. Otherwise there would be no need for affirmative consent laws. If it's not a HELL YEAH it's a NO.
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.
More than two thirds of the world limits women’s participation in public life and work. Women’s rights are a western ideal. And the movement for women’s rights in the west HATES AND FIGHTS AGAINST western values which inherently lead to rights for women. Ask any woman in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, India, China, fuck even Japan if they would trade places with you. Stop whining and fighting against biology, logic, and common sense. How has the saying “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” worked out for you?
The choice is not between “limiting women’s participation in public life” and the current situation between men and women. That is your fear talking. This false paradigm is creating a culture that is toxic to human flourishing. Boys cannot “figure this shit out” on their own. Men and Women must figure it out together to create a culture that promotes human flourishing. It will require sacrifices, on both sides. What are those sacrifices? I don’t know. But dying alone, in the dark, because there is no one left but aged people who cannot care for themselves is not a future I’d want. I’m 60, so I have some hope I won’t. How old are you? I recommend digging into demographics a little, because not having children is leading to that end.
Fair enough. I don’t believe the western world will try to limit women’s participation in public life, although there are some fringe anti feminists who do want that. But look around the world, and look at history. The concern isn’t without precedent. Personally I would like to see feminine ways of being more valued and integrated. Motherhood is a profession actually, if you want to do it right.
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.
Just wondering if you yourself have the right marriage and healthy successful kids you’re talking about …. Usually people with this much of an idea about what others should be doing don’t even have anywhere near that themselves 😂 I do agree with a lot of the things you wrote though, even though I literally thought I was reading a male incel-type man’s writing. I truly and totally appreciate men to be men the more mature I become. We wouldn’t have any of the amazing advancements without their incredible hard work, mental and especially physical. I really agree with you there, and a few other places. Also I feel like if you answer me, it would be an attack using political examples and moral superiority towards me 😂 but I’m willing to hear it. 🍓
"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.
This is why the median male human has had more partners than his female counterpart, but promiscuous females have had way more partners than any man not named "Casanova".
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.
Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men want sex. Women want relationships. The ONLY way things will change for women in this regard is if modern women go back to how the average woman on the market behaved, on average, pre app dating (think early aughts and before): the average woman wasn't sleeping with a guy on the first date, and she wasn't going on dates with a new man every week. When sex became far easier to obtain for the average man via dating sites and then apps, they had less incentive to settle down.
I graduated high school in 1996. I got married in 2000, and divorced in 2010. I can tell you with great confidence that it was dramatically easier to sleep with 18-24 year old women in 2010 than in the 1990's. Yes, there were women who slept with me on the first date back then, but it was more exciting and less normal. From 2010-2020 is was pretty normal. Some of the women claimed it was their first time, which I do not know whether to believe or not.
I remarried, and I am very happy now, but the system definitely changed. That said, to me the biggest issue is that women delay finding a partner until they are significantly older and less attractive, then imagine that they can still get the same caliber of man she could get when she was young. I have met many women who imagined that their relative value was far higher than anything remotely reasonable. In many ways older women and young men are similar in that regard (both have unreasonable expectations).
Lol "I can tell you with great confidence because I invented it in my mind"
I've never seen anything more male in my life. Total lack of reality, total male solipsism.
All reliable data show that sexual activity has done nothing but decrease overall.
And getting married "young" doesn't mean anything. As if women don't get older after they're married? That's the reason to get married in the first place, like no one gets divorced?
So men can drop kick a woman out the door after that, after she wasted her life with him and didn't get an education and work experience, which happens all the time with divorce?
So what's the difference? You think telling women this doesn't do anything but show that males are a terrible investment because they're fickle and weak?
And stupid moids like you are honestly baffled why women don't want anything to do with marriage and are walking away?
I think you are misunderstanding me. Neither I nor anyone else is seeking to limit women's education or work. What I have seen are women who found out too late that they could not have children. Similar to many young men today getting angry at the world for their own failings, there are women who behave in a similar manner, only at a later stage of life and with less anti-social behavior (thank the Gods). I am convinced the two are linked. The absence of quality young men leads to large numbers of women who fight over those few remaining men who are reasonable, leading those men to engage in behaviors that seem fun at the time but cause long-term pain because in general most people tend to be happier in committed relationships.
I genuinely cannot see any connection to what you are writing. I do not want to kick any women or enslave them. No one in the US wants to do that. FYI, my "young" ex-wife worked in the Obama White House, then Goldman Sachs, and now is a Professor at Harvard. That might be naked and barefoot to you, but honestly, I cannot understand what you are talking about. Clearly you are against voting and the "fickle and weak", but I am not understanding the rest. I really hope this was a cocaine-influenced response.
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.
I am in the process of allowing my neediness, welcoming it to sit with me on date #5 (ok, 2). I am allowing myself to show my womanness to men. It’s a new shift and I am excited to see how Life will respond.
Maybe seeing it as a 'market' is part of a larger problem for all concerned? Making connections is likelier lead to both more fulfilling sex and fulfilling relationships than making purchases.
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.
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.
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
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.
Marriage was simply a way of redistributing wealth from those who could make money easily (men) to those who were engaged in other non-paid work like raising children (women), where the payoff for everyone was years in the future. That worked as long as "coercive marriages" where operational at least for a fraction of people, and it might have been a much larger fraction than we realize. People think if women just engage in sexual gatekeeping that this problem will be solved, but that's not it. I was just looking at how much it paid to foster a child, which where I live is about 5000 to 6000 per month. (That's barely breaking even in any case). Just calling women sluts and telling men they should get married for...uh...reasons is not going to solve the depopulation problem we will be having in the next two generations.
The original point of marriage was to link two *families* together in support of creating a healthful family unit to raise healthy children, immersed in the greater culture within which the two families reside.
In other words, it was about creating healthy children plugged into the two families AND the surrounding culture, because that’s what it took back then, and essentially why it’s so difficult now.
Coercively punishing individual men when they themselves may not have the family support, nor the ability to secure a partner who also has family support, to healthfully support children is….
Fill in the gap. Myopic is one word. There are others, less kind and perhaps more apt.
But we already punish them. If they don’t pay and they haven’t become disabled or lost a job intentionally, we take their driver’s license, their passports, garnish their wages, throw them in jail. That’s what happens. you have to understand that these things, alimony and child support, they aren’t for the individuals that receive them, they are for the taxpayers who would otherwise have to support these people with welfare. But these men, they aren’t paying, or it’s not enough to really support the family, so we have all these women and children in poverty. They never marry, never can get married, maybe were never “marriagable” to begin with. That being said, there is growing concern over the lack of children and these are the only people having them, so if we want more kids, we are going to have to do something.
You are right, at the real high end, kings and queens would trade children to establish bonds that would protect both kingdoms. Alliances through blood if you will. But on the lower ends, both men and women might have very limited options as to what they were going to do. It’s not so much pregnancy was not avoidable, it was inevitable because boys and girls like to be with each other. But not every girl is pretty and not every boy is realistic, so parents, churches, the society itself, fixed that problem, even if it was at the point of a gun or a huge payoff.
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.
I don’t know. It’s been my experience that most men have intense connections to their “friends”. Men can bond very well in platonic friendships. My husband, who is a great dad and devoted family guy, truly treasures his friends.
Love is the fruit of an honest commitment. It develops after the heavy allure of lust wanes. Every marriage goes through evolutions but putting God in the center of your relationship(s) can be the glue that binds. Kids that grow up in a home where parents are both present and demonstrate love and kindness are better able to consider relationships worth the effort to keep. Also it’s important to never place anyone on a pedestal. Everyone disappoints or falls short of perfection.
We’ve had our troubles. I was once so frustrated in our relationship that I put my wedding ring in the fish tank and left it there for over a year. I turned to my faith and left the outcome up to that. We’ve been together since September of 1989. I had been married twice before but never from a perspective of faith. I didn’t want to go through another divorce so was rather opposed to getting “married” even though we were actively trying to conceive. When there was finally success I came to the realization that breaking up with a child between us would be as complicated and painful as being married. It also simplifies the legality of parental stewardship. Our kids simply adore their father and he dotes on them. They are his whole world. He is a different kind of man. Not perfect but then I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t have their own brand of crazy and isn’t flawed. Not in danger of winning any awards for “best” anything myself or beauty contests for that matter.
Humans gonna human. We all are capable of good and evil. We have strengths and weaknesses. What is key to having any meaningful relationship is forgiveness and being able to risk loving others.
I guess I'm not sure what about that conflicts with what I said.
Sure, if a woman asks a guy to give up all his friends that's likely a non-starter but it's also usually something only really controlling people ask. Most ways women want a man to change don't require he never go off and hang with the boys.
No, you didn't offend at all. I was just trying to understand what you meant and I guessed wrong -- though I could tell you wouldn't ask your husband to give up his relationships I guessed you were saying that some women do that.
Anyway, it was my bad for misunderstanding. I should have asked rather than guessing.
FYI- I would never attempt to urge my spouse to I give up his other relationships. They are important to him and it’s good to have other connections. They bring him joy, companionship and he had good friends. He loves his motorcycles and riding them. Many of his good friends also ride bikes, on and off road. His best friends are our adult son and his dog. He wouldn’t tolerate being controlled by anyone, even me. He doesn’t try to control me either.
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’ve been fortunate to meet successful, intelligent, beautiful women over the years. Intimidation was never an issue. I couldn’t care less how much money she made, or how high up in the company or self-made she was. For me, it is all about common interests, common goals, and of course innate visceral attraction.
The following is cliché, yet simply always to be kept in mind, all of which I’m sure you know:
One issue has been said again and again: women want to marry up, and have a natural hypergamy. It’s built in. So they simply find fewer and fewer men able to be at their “level,” much less above it. They find less and less men attractive as partners, narrowing their own field of potential partners.
Another issue is that career-driven women exhibit more masculine qualities, so when a very successful man comes there way, those men are already steeped in the competitive masculine mindset (think hierarchy amongst men, it’s a real thing) and are not interested in a female version of the people with whom they compete in the workplace. It’s simply not a match energetically.
Further, as stated in other posts on this thread, there are fewer robust and healthy communities out there that support coupling. We are still wired by village sensibilities, yet the marketplace and modern life have destroyed much of it. Many of us need community much more than a partner, and yet all too often heap too many of these needs on a potential partner. That’s a lot of pressure on two people, especially when the communal support that helped previous generations create families is lacking to non-existent.
Finally, the dating pool is filled with been-there-done-that single parents, with busy lives and hearts already filled with care for their current responsibilities. Fewer and fewer are coming to the mating game with a clean slate.
All this makes long-term partnering, much less involving the State in marriage, more difficult.
The other angle here is that it's downright dangerous for a successful woman to be with someone who makes signigicantly less than she. Although a certain class of men might not be intimidated, there are too many who are intimidated even when they never thought they would be.
So women are scared of lesser-earning men because they are dangerous for making less? But then you say too many men are intimidated?
Umm… whatever the reason, women generally don’t want to do it.
If you’re suggesting that women use the excuse that men are intimidated to cover for their own negative judgement of lesser-earning men, then just say it.
I agree with some broad strokes but I'd quibble over some details.
1) Women certainly prefer men who have higher social status over those who have less. But I suspect that it's culturally relative whether that guy needs to be higher status than they are -- or even what that means. In a society that simply regarded women as inherently more statusful than men I doubt it would be an issue. Or consider the Haredim (hardcore orthodox jews) in Israel where the men are all just studying Torah -- yes that gives them a certain status but it shows that status and ability or even education come apart.
What's doing the work in our society is a certain narrative about how your romantic partner should be your intellectual equal. I mean that works for me but I can imagine a future where women see it as statusful to marry the high earning buff dude or the green beret or whatever.
2) Do career driven women exhibit more masculine qualities (than other women)? I think that's much less clear than you think. No doubt they exhibit them *at the office* but does that mean they are more or less inclined to keep that up when then they get home? Less clear. Yes, there has certainly been a change meaning that women today act in ways that were masculine 50 years ago but that's always kinda in flux. High heels were initially considered masculine as was pink.
But look human sexuality is incredibly flexible and people tend to be attracted to the kind of archetypes they grow up with. The more kids raised by professional women the more guys who want to date them. I think the real issue here is just what you said about communities and how to meet people.
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 ;)
Men are way more interested in relationships and commitment that women think. Yes, we are very good at detaching from our feelings. That's how we can go to war, and do all that manly crap we do. Also, what man doesn't like to paper over our feelings with copious amounts of sex and alcohol. Check and check. But we really do want rationships and responsibility. Read Jordan Peterson for an explanation why.
In my twenties, a close friend was very cavalier about his girlfriend. Always talking as though it was just good fun, nothing more. Yet he was devastated when she broke up with him. He truly cared for her, but was unable to even understand his own feelings at the time.
More recently a divorced friend hooked up with his former neighbor. Gleefully he related to me how she came right out and said she was looking for a strictly sexual arrangement. I understood immediately he was kidding himself -- he's a smart, creative, big hearted guy, and he needs way more. It lasted barely a couple months.
So men really, deep down, want and need a caring relationship. We are simply handicapped by our poor communication skills, lack self awareness for our own emotional needs, our propensity to fornicate whenever the chance presents itself and to drink way to much.
OK, so wrangling us is no easy task. But that's why God made you smarter, and better in just about every way. So figure it out, ...there's zero chance we will, without someone's help.
Diamonds are some of the hadest substances known to man. They resist being modified very, very hard.
Unfortunately, women temd to dislike men who actually care for them, because it makes the man seem weak. So we learn,like we have in so many other areas of our lives, to not be weak here either.
In many, maybe even most cases this is true. Nobody really respects a doormat so ppl in relationships should expect a spouse to be respectful. I also don’t have respect for abusive ppl.
I didn’t intend for my response to reduce the value of a caring and devoted man. I’m just noting that women I know( self included) find it a turn off to be in a relationship with someone else who doesn’t value themselves. I would not put up with any man who was unkind or abusive. I would likewise not treat anyone else badly either. I would think most men would prefer a woman who has a working sense of self respect.
My first sentence was in agreement with your comment. But most women do want a mate who exhibits care and devotion. Someone who acts like they love you, not just sweet talk to be manipulative.
You may not have intended to, but you did anyway. It was an unintentional truth and yet it was still a truth. As evidenced by your continued digression about "valuing [him]self."
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.
*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.
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.
Couldn't disagree more. Did men gain some benefits? Maybe, but I think even most alpha males may have actually lost them.
After all, before the sexual revolution it was pretty common for societies to tolerate men visiting prostitutes or having affairs with lower status women. The 50s may have been a bit of an aberration but I'd argue that the sense that non-losers should be able to get sex without paying thanks to the sexual revolution actually made it more shameful for many men to get easy sexual gratification -- and the few men at the very top have always had access to lots of sex.
Still maybe it's a net plus for alpha males but it's a relatively small plus to lifetime happiness. And true the sex may not be a huge benefit to the women but before the sexual revolution women who screwed up and had unapproved sex often became pariahs or lost their children etc etc.
So even if the modal woman doesn't benefit much women benefit hugely in expectation while the expectation change for men of any kind is much smaller.
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!
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.
Well said. Maybe all the homosexual ppl who think they are entitled to carry mankind into the future without the direct involvement of members of the opposite sex never took biology but that sh@t won’t fly. I have a niece that married another woman a few years ago and they have two very adorable little girls conceived via in-vitro fertilization using donor sperm. (Great tech that has helped thousands of couples have children) and sadly they really think those girls don’t need a present father figure. Nonsense. It’s vanity and foolishness. Imma choose to believe that our creator knew exactly what He was doing in designing men and women. They compliment one another and bring indispensable gifts to family life. I loved both my parents though neither was perfect. Turns out I’m not very perfect either! Shocking.
Maybe I’m just too old school to get this new philosophy. Our now adult kids truly love my husband and I. Their dad has been their champion, guide and loving father from the moment they were born.
Raising children is the hardest job you’ll ever love and gives meaning to life that nothing else really does. Aside from faith.
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
Divorces don't just happen out of the blue. Sure a few, but for the vast majority there are reasons. Divorce is still taboo in many countries with traditional cultures so while you may see lifelong marriages, that doesn't mean those marriages are happy or even healthy. People stay in abusive marriages when their society leaves no other choice for them.
This was well written, bravo. This ever expanding polarisation in the dating market, is imo, one of the unspoken cataclysms of the future. When MOST people are not only emotionally unfulfilled, but devoid of something very critical to their perception of self, what does that society look like.
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.
I think that for a real change Kat is onto something here - not about your writing, which I loved, or your style, which is fabulous and so far from boring, but in her last two lines. She hates men and calls them "unfuckable losers and women don't want them anyway." I mainly came into the comments, incidentally, to see how many guys proposed to you on the spot, but for a real question, and having read several of your other posts, how many guys are just invisible to you? Maybe you'd marry a bricklayer if he asked, but would you ever see him in the first place? You know the difference between being visible and invisible, so what percentage of men, do you think, are invisible to you now? I think there's a lot of that going around (but not necessarily you).
I certainly have a history of noticing various types of men, but it is hard to answer your question. Who knows? How could I telll? And am I supposed to live my life constantly pressurising myself to date men I am not initially attracted to ( and who, by the way, don’t ask me out or show interest) in the hopes I will develop feelings? I am not that desperate to begin with but I do think men have become a lot less proactive. I see that with older men.
I was surprised and a little disappointed not to see any guy actually challenge you along those lines (my logging in to count the proposals); did you at least get some dms asking you out? But no, I don’t think you should go around kissing random frogs, or any frogs for that matter, except I think that your going to the grave unfulfilled in the way you described would be unfortunate, especially when I’m sure that you’re igniting all sorts of romantic fantasies every time you go grocery shopping, for example. I don’t think men are nearly as averse to romantic attachment as most people responding to you here.
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.
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.
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.
Hoolee fook, you seem to care and it has made you angry. Why. That'd be a good story.
"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!
I thought it was a great article. Very honest and amusing and written with panache.
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...
There was an interesting time series graph recently that showed "where did you meet your partner?" over the past 80yrs or so.
Tl;Dr over time it shifted from family to friends to work to online, which is now 60% or more.
So, your snark, Kat, that "duh, it's always been this way" is misguided because it's only half the story.
Sure, the sex vs relationship (or probably more accurately the "promiscuity" vs "monogamy" dilemma. #1) pre-dates modern homo sapiens but you're missing what I'd call the "social counter-pressure").
If you meet your potential partner via your family there is a LOT of social counter-pressure to "not be a cad" (and in certain cultures it's literally a matter of life&death for both parties).
In the era that I started dating, the 80s, most people I know met their partners via friends... Someone threw a party at their house, people in your social circle always invited a few new people, so you got to meet the new people as potential romantic partners, assuming you weren't already hopelessly in love with someone in your social circle already (cf the song "Jessie's Girl" and ever John Hughes movie, every. Still rooting for you, Ducky!). Within that circle everyone learned pretty quickly who treated who with respect and who didn't, and people looked out for their friends. It's worth noting that that wasn't just the girls looking out for their girlfriends, either. I know from firsthand experience that guys would have a "quiet word" with another guy who was being a bit too "handsy" with one of the girls, especially if the girl was impaired by alcohol. If the "quiet word" didn't work, we'd either arrange for the girl to get taken home by a (sober, female) friend, or the male guest would find himself out on the front lawn, wondering WTF just happened, and later wondering why he never got invited to parties anymore. Counter-pressure.
Ditto for work relationships... There is a reason phrases like "don't fish off the company peer" or "don't sh*t where you eat" entered the vocabulary. There were consequences for romantic relationships that went bad at work.
So, fast forward to today...
What's the "social counter-pressure" to being a cad in the days of Internet dating? Will your family know if you're "being a cad"? Will your friends care about "some rando chick off the Internet" or just laugh at your crazy dating stories about how you "had to ghost this chick who was getting too clingy"?
It's not the same anymore.
It's not "same as it ever was".
Different problems require different solutions.
#1 I recommend reading Jared Diamond's book "Why is sex fun?" if you want to learn more about the utterly fascinating history of "promiscuity vs monogamy" in primates, the evolution of concealed ovulation, and how it's even flipped back and forth over time.
Ouch, Kat! We all have our trauma and have observed self-absorbed, take-no-responsibility behavior. We just have to keep trying because no matter what all the web's articles and comments say, there are people in healthy relationships and there are wonderful women and men (true) who care about the opposite gender and care about more than what they can give them.
Tell me you haven't been laid in a while without telling me you haven't been laid in a while.
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.
Sounds like quality problems. Hardly rises to the claim “crosses to bear”. Many thousands of ppl would gladly bear such a cross if anything you said is truthful and I would think it is.
Your job is a huge problem. For you, and anyone you'd like to have a relationship with. Who gives af how much money you make, your field is slimy, filled with slimy people on both sides of the aisle. You would be most successful dating another slimeball.
Antagonizing men is not the answer to your singledom!
Lol "antagonizing men"
Men think women who walk away from them are "antagonizing" them.
Get back to swiping on Tinder, sweaty.
Why did you read it?
So reading this was horrific. What misogynist trolling, there was no need for that.
"....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.
I don't understand the trolling on this post. Dear 73 year old man, dating is different for young women in 2024 because men literally do not want to be in relationships.
Men crave being in a relationship but they have been burned and are cynical and both sexes have too much bad programming on what to expect in a relationship. But deep down, everyone craves a good partner.
Men don't crave relationships.
Men crave punching bags/personal assistants who have no options in life.
It's not "both sexes."
And go tell the Taliban about your amazing ideas, sweaty.
Males literally cannot see themselves and operate in an ahistorical, delusional world. This is why all of you deserve what you get.
Go play video games.
Yes they totally do
"trolling"....really? What then is your definition of "trolling"?
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.
In other words, women should "play the field" as well.
Absolutely. Women have evolved to be pretty good at manipulating men to get what they want. Can’t say too much here lest I give away the farm....
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
Well that is some straight shooting there. Well said. Nothing like a reality check to sober things up.
Sleeping around never was a healthy lifestyle and hasn’t become one. Most decent men want to have a family too and that means a stable home in which to raise their offspring. Having said that men who want to ditch the woman who bore their children because they no longer have that girlish figure or have delivery room damage so they dump them for some significantly younger woman are vermin. They don’t deserve the children they created and set a lousy example of what “love” looks like let alone antiquated ideas like commitment and fidelity.
Im straight bro. I dont subscribe to "dating multiple people at once..."
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.
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.
Women should not sleep with lots of men, nor should they sleep with anyone unless a long term relationship is on the line. Guys enjoy easy casual sex. They don’t marry these women though. The marriageable versus the sexable are two very distinct compartments.
That's funny because nobody wants to fuck ugly, useless men, which is the vast majority of them. Go check the stats on Tinder.
You guys are operating in a factless world.
William, get back to your anime.
I think the issue is that, whether getting to know someone starts with sex or with relationships, it leaves someone open to exploitation. Casual sex means women can get pumped and dumped. Being friends means a guy can languish in the friend zone and never be desired. I think trying to “ease into” a relationship one way or the other raises this problem.
An alternative would be to discuss basic compatibility beforehand, and then jump into both aspects of the relationship simultaneously, sex and committed relationship. Some find this boring because it takes away the illusion of things just happening naturally. They equate that with boring; though personally I think both the quality of sex and quality of relationship can be improved over time, if some baseline attraction is there.
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
Slut shaming was basically a trade union for women, it used to work like scab shaming.
Attractive intelligent females in their 30s have a wider age group to date from than previous generations of women did. 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years younger than them is not going to receive as much eyebrow raising from the wider society than even in the the recent past. I'm sure that there are plenty of males who would be open to dating accordingly. Assuming that there would be very little baseline educational achievement asymmetries any age related issues would only be teething troubles.But of course what would her friends say 😉 🤔
BINGO.
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.
Hypergamy is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword. And while I don't believe it is entirely natural, rather more like an obsolete hangover from thousands of years of patriarchy, it unfortunately still stubbornly exists even in places where the wage gap has all but disappeared.
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?
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
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.
Assortative mating is the norm across the world. That means people pair up within the same socio-economic class more often than not. The cute waitress isn't being proposed to by the highly educated, professionally employed, upper class guy.
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.
"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.
This is basically the collective action problem that Mark Regnerus and Roy Baumeister have claimed. And it's mostly bullshit.
Most women love sex just as much as men. Abstaining until finding some illusive partner that may never materialize isn’t exactly a plan, either.
And the default answer still remains NO to this day. Only in men's minds is that not the case. Otherwise there would be no need for affirmative consent laws. If it's not a HELL YEAH it's a NO.
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.
Indeed, the sexual counterrevolution is really quite counterproductive at best.
ttps://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2022/07/viva-lacounterrevolution-why.html
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.
More than two thirds of the world limits women’s participation in public life and work. Women’s rights are a western ideal. And the movement for women’s rights in the west HATES AND FIGHTS AGAINST western values which inherently lead to rights for women. Ask any woman in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, India, China, fuck even Japan if they would trade places with you. Stop whining and fighting against biology, logic, and common sense. How has the saying “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” worked out for you?
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.
No subtlety in your analysis.
Brilliant response.
The choice is not between “limiting women’s participation in public life” and the current situation between men and women. That is your fear talking. This false paradigm is creating a culture that is toxic to human flourishing. Boys cannot “figure this shit out” on their own. Men and Women must figure it out together to create a culture that promotes human flourishing. It will require sacrifices, on both sides. What are those sacrifices? I don’t know. But dying alone, in the dark, because there is no one left but aged people who cannot care for themselves is not a future I’d want. I’m 60, so I have some hope I won’t. How old are you? I recommend digging into demographics a little, because not having children is leading to that end.
Fair enough. I don’t believe the western world will try to limit women’s participation in public life, although there are some fringe anti feminists who do want that. But look around the world, and look at history. The concern isn’t without precedent. Personally I would like to see feminine ways of being more valued and integrated. Motherhood is a profession actually, if you want to do it right.
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.
Just wondering if you yourself have the right marriage and healthy successful kids you’re talking about …. Usually people with this much of an idea about what others should be doing don’t even have anywhere near that themselves 😂 I do agree with a lot of the things you wrote though, even though I literally thought I was reading a male incel-type man’s writing. I truly and totally appreciate men to be men the more mature I become. We wouldn’t have any of the amazing advancements without their incredible hard work, mental and especially physical. I really agree with you there, and a few other places. Also I feel like if you answer me, it would be an attack using political examples and moral superiority towards me 😂 but I’m willing to hear it. 🍓
"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.
Terribly accurate. For 1 woman who win't, there's 100 who will.
Well, all that is needed is one woman who will.
This is why the median male human has had more partners than his female counterpart, but promiscuous females have had way more partners than any man not named "Casanova".
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.
Perfect analogy.
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.
Women are the gatekeepers to sex. Men want sex. Women want relationships. The ONLY way things will change for women in this regard is if modern women go back to how the average woman on the market behaved, on average, pre app dating (think early aughts and before): the average woman wasn't sleeping with a guy on the first date, and she wasn't going on dates with a new man every week. When sex became far easier to obtain for the average man via dating sites and then apps, they had less incentive to settle down.
"the average woman wasn't sleeping with a guy on the first date"
Neither is she now.
I graduated high school in 1996. I got married in 2000, and divorced in 2010. I can tell you with great confidence that it was dramatically easier to sleep with 18-24 year old women in 2010 than in the 1990's. Yes, there were women who slept with me on the first date back then, but it was more exciting and less normal. From 2010-2020 is was pretty normal. Some of the women claimed it was their first time, which I do not know whether to believe or not.
I remarried, and I am very happy now, but the system definitely changed. That said, to me the biggest issue is that women delay finding a partner until they are significantly older and less attractive, then imagine that they can still get the same caliber of man she could get when she was young. I have met many women who imagined that their relative value was far higher than anything remotely reasonable. In many ways older women and young men are similar in that regard (both have unreasonable expectations).
Lol "I can tell you with great confidence because I invented it in my mind"
I've never seen anything more male in my life. Total lack of reality, total male solipsism.
All reliable data show that sexual activity has done nothing but decrease overall.
And getting married "young" doesn't mean anything. As if women don't get older after they're married? That's the reason to get married in the first place, like no one gets divorced?
So men can drop kick a woman out the door after that, after she wasted her life with him and didn't get an education and work experience, which happens all the time with divorce?
So what's the difference? You think telling women this doesn't do anything but show that males are a terrible investment because they're fickle and weak?
And stupid moids like you are honestly baffled why women don't want anything to do with marriage and are walking away?
Men shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I think you are misunderstanding me. Neither I nor anyone else is seeking to limit women's education or work. What I have seen are women who found out too late that they could not have children. Similar to many young men today getting angry at the world for their own failings, there are women who behave in a similar manner, only at a later stage of life and with less anti-social behavior (thank the Gods). I am convinced the two are linked. The absence of quality young men leads to large numbers of women who fight over those few remaining men who are reasonable, leading those men to engage in behaviors that seem fun at the time but cause long-term pain because in general most people tend to be happier in committed relationships.
I genuinely cannot see any connection to what you are writing. I do not want to kick any women or enslave them. No one in the US wants to do that. FYI, my "young" ex-wife worked in the Obama White House, then Goldman Sachs, and now is a Professor at Harvard. That might be naked and barefoot to you, but honestly, I cannot understand what you are talking about. Clearly you are against voting and the "fickle and weak", but I am not understanding the rest. I really hope this was a cocaine-influenced response.
Look at how bad male reading comprehension skills are.
It appears that he thinks I literally mean that men kick women. It is quite obvious "drop kick" out the door is figurative language.
You sound delusional.
Of course you cannot understand what I'm talking about. You're unintelligent.
Be quiet.
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.
Very wise.
I am in the process of allowing my neediness, welcoming it to sit with me on date #5 (ok, 2). I am allowing myself to show my womanness to men. It’s a new shift and I am excited to see how Life will respond.
Maybe seeing it as a 'market' is part of a larger problem for all concerned? Making connections is likelier lead to both more fulfilling sex and fulfilling relationships than making purchases.
The biggest problem here is fear and avoidance of the truth, often by both people. Honesty is the best policy.
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.
@Viecgncnc ~ FYI on the subject.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151558136
Agreed
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!
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.
LOL!
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!
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.
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
A tax on single men… wow
Marriage was simply a way of redistributing wealth from those who could make money easily (men) to those who were engaged in other non-paid work like raising children (women), where the payoff for everyone was years in the future. That worked as long as "coercive marriages" where operational at least for a fraction of people, and it might have been a much larger fraction than we realize. People think if women just engage in sexual gatekeeping that this problem will be solved, but that's not it. I was just looking at how much it paid to foster a child, which where I live is about 5000 to 6000 per month. (That's barely breaking even in any case). Just calling women sluts and telling men they should get married for...uh...reasons is not going to solve the depopulation problem we will be having in the next two generations.
The original point of marriage was to link two *families* together in support of creating a healthful family unit to raise healthy children, immersed in the greater culture within which the two families reside.
In other words, it was about creating healthy children plugged into the two families AND the surrounding culture, because that’s what it took back then, and essentially why it’s so difficult now.
Coercively punishing individual men when they themselves may not have the family support, nor the ability to secure a partner who also has family support, to healthfully support children is….
Fill in the gap. Myopic is one word. There are others, less kind and perhaps more apt.
But we already punish them. If they don’t pay and they haven’t become disabled or lost a job intentionally, we take their driver’s license, their passports, garnish their wages, throw them in jail. That’s what happens. you have to understand that these things, alimony and child support, they aren’t for the individuals that receive them, they are for the taxpayers who would otherwise have to support these people with welfare. But these men, they aren’t paying, or it’s not enough to really support the family, so we have all these women and children in poverty. They never marry, never can get married, maybe were never “marriagable” to begin with. That being said, there is growing concern over the lack of children and these are the only people having them, so if we want more kids, we are going to have to do something.
You are right, at the real high end, kings and queens would trade children to establish bonds that would protect both kingdoms. Alliances through blood if you will. But on the lower ends, both men and women might have very limited options as to what they were going to do. It’s not so much pregnancy was not avoidable, it was inevitable because boys and girls like to be with each other. But not every girl is pretty and not every boy is realistic, so parents, churches, the society itself, fixed that problem, even if it was at the point of a gun or a huge payoff.
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.
Ugh! Negative and vapid
Excellent, very astute comment, Vera.
Thank you.
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.
I don’t know. It’s been my experience that most men have intense connections to their “friends”. Men can bond very well in platonic friendships. My husband, who is a great dad and devoted family guy, truly treasures his friends.
Love is the fruit of an honest commitment. It develops after the heavy allure of lust wanes. Every marriage goes through evolutions but putting God in the center of your relationship(s) can be the glue that binds. Kids that grow up in a home where parents are both present and demonstrate love and kindness are better able to consider relationships worth the effort to keep. Also it’s important to never place anyone on a pedestal. Everyone disappoints or falls short of perfection.
We’ve had our troubles. I was once so frustrated in our relationship that I put my wedding ring in the fish tank and left it there for over a year. I turned to my faith and left the outcome up to that. We’ve been together since September of 1989. I had been married twice before but never from a perspective of faith. I didn’t want to go through another divorce so was rather opposed to getting “married” even though we were actively trying to conceive. When there was finally success I came to the realization that breaking up with a child between us would be as complicated and painful as being married. It also simplifies the legality of parental stewardship. Our kids simply adore their father and he dotes on them. They are his whole world. He is a different kind of man. Not perfect but then I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t have their own brand of crazy and isn’t flawed. Not in danger of winning any awards for “best” anything myself or beauty contests for that matter.
Humans gonna human. We all are capable of good and evil. We have strengths and weaknesses. What is key to having any meaningful relationship is forgiveness and being able to risk loving others.
In the end it’s what brings value to life.
I guess I'm not sure what about that conflicts with what I said.
Sure, if a woman asks a guy to give up all his friends that's likely a non-starter but it's also usually something only really controlling people ask. Most ways women want a man to change don't require he never go off and hang with the boys.
I wasn’t contradicting anything you wrote. You make good points, most of which I fully agree upon.
You write very well so I gather you are a very intelligent person. I did not intend to offend you.
No, you didn't offend at all. I was just trying to understand what you meant and I guessed wrong -- though I could tell you wouldn't ask your husband to give up his relationships I guessed you were saying that some women do that.
Anyway, it was my bad for misunderstanding. I should have asked rather than guessing.
FYI- I would never attempt to urge my spouse to I give up his other relationships. They are important to him and it’s good to have other connections. They bring him joy, companionship and he had good friends. He loves his motorcycles and riding them. Many of his good friends also ride bikes, on and off road. His best friends are our adult son and his dog. He wouldn’t tolerate being controlled by anyone, even me. He doesn’t try to control me either.
That wouldn’t be love anyway.
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.
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.
I’ve been fortunate to meet successful, intelligent, beautiful women over the years. Intimidation was never an issue. I couldn’t care less how much money she made, or how high up in the company or self-made she was. For me, it is all about common interests, common goals, and of course innate visceral attraction.
The following is cliché, yet simply always to be kept in mind, all of which I’m sure you know:
One issue has been said again and again: women want to marry up, and have a natural hypergamy. It’s built in. So they simply find fewer and fewer men able to be at their “level,” much less above it. They find less and less men attractive as partners, narrowing their own field of potential partners.
Another issue is that career-driven women exhibit more masculine qualities, so when a very successful man comes there way, those men are already steeped in the competitive masculine mindset (think hierarchy amongst men, it’s a real thing) and are not interested in a female version of the people with whom they compete in the workplace. It’s simply not a match energetically.
Further, as stated in other posts on this thread, there are fewer robust and healthy communities out there that support coupling. We are still wired by village sensibilities, yet the marketplace and modern life have destroyed much of it. Many of us need community much more than a partner, and yet all too often heap too many of these needs on a potential partner. That’s a lot of pressure on two people, especially when the communal support that helped previous generations create families is lacking to non-existent.
Finally, the dating pool is filled with been-there-done-that single parents, with busy lives and hearts already filled with care for their current responsibilities. Fewer and fewer are coming to the mating game with a clean slate.
All this makes long-term partnering, much less involving the State in marriage, more difficult.
Just my two cents.
The other angle here is that it's downright dangerous for a successful woman to be with someone who makes signigicantly less than she. Although a certain class of men might not be intimidated, there are too many who are intimidated even when they never thought they would be.
So women are scared of lesser-earning men because they are dangerous for making less? But then you say too many men are intimidated?
Umm… whatever the reason, women generally don’t want to do it.
If you’re suggesting that women use the excuse that men are intimidated to cover for their own negative judgement of lesser-earning men, then just say it.
But that’s just repeating what I’ve said.
I agree with some broad strokes but I'd quibble over some details.
1) Women certainly prefer men who have higher social status over those who have less. But I suspect that it's culturally relative whether that guy needs to be higher status than they are -- or even what that means. In a society that simply regarded women as inherently more statusful than men I doubt it would be an issue. Or consider the Haredim (hardcore orthodox jews) in Israel where the men are all just studying Torah -- yes that gives them a certain status but it shows that status and ability or even education come apart.
What's doing the work in our society is a certain narrative about how your romantic partner should be your intellectual equal. I mean that works for me but I can imagine a future where women see it as statusful to marry the high earning buff dude or the green beret or whatever.
2) Do career driven women exhibit more masculine qualities (than other women)? I think that's much less clear than you think. No doubt they exhibit them *at the office* but does that mean they are more or less inclined to keep that up when then they get home? Less clear. Yes, there has certainly been a change meaning that women today act in ways that were masculine 50 years ago but that's always kinda in flux. High heels were initially considered masculine as was pink.
But look human sexuality is incredibly flexible and people tend to be attracted to the kind of archetypes they grow up with. The more kids raised by professional women the more guys who want to date them. I think the real issue here is just what you said about communities and how to meet people.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Yes, perhaps reason 3 is the most powerful driver of the current difficulties.
Absolutely correct.
"sexual revolution Stockholm syndrome" is such a smart phrase
thank you :-)
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 ;)
Men are way more interested in relationships and commitment that women think. Yes, we are very good at detaching from our feelings. That's how we can go to war, and do all that manly crap we do. Also, what man doesn't like to paper over our feelings with copious amounts of sex and alcohol. Check and check. But we really do want rationships and responsibility. Read Jordan Peterson for an explanation why.
In my twenties, a close friend was very cavalier about his girlfriend. Always talking as though it was just good fun, nothing more. Yet he was devastated when she broke up with him. He truly cared for her, but was unable to even understand his own feelings at the time.
More recently a divorced friend hooked up with his former neighbor. Gleefully he related to me how she came right out and said she was looking for a strictly sexual arrangement. I understood immediately he was kidding himself -- he's a smart, creative, big hearted guy, and he needs way more. It lasted barely a couple months.
So men really, deep down, want and need a caring relationship. We are simply handicapped by our poor communication skills, lack self awareness for our own emotional needs, our propensity to fornicate whenever the chance presents itself and to drink way to much.
OK, so wrangling us is no easy task. But that's why God made you smarter, and better in just about every way. So figure it out, ...there's zero chance we will, without someone's help.
Knuckle dragging Neanderthal men can be diamonds in the rough.
They clean up nicely and meet the primal needs and there are primal forces still at work.
Humans gonna human.
Diamonds are some of the hadest substances known to man. They resist being modified very, very hard.
Unfortunately, women temd to dislike men who actually care for them, because it makes the man seem weak. So we learn,like we have in so many other areas of our lives, to not be weak here either.
In many, maybe even most cases this is true. Nobody really respects a doormat so ppl in relationships should expect a spouse to be respectful. I also don’t have respect for abusive ppl.
That’s not strength either.
That women conflate "caring for them" with "being a doormat" says far more about the differences between the sexes than I ever could.
I didn’t intend for my response to reduce the value of a caring and devoted man. I’m just noting that women I know( self included) find it a turn off to be in a relationship with someone else who doesn’t value themselves. I would not put up with any man who was unkind or abusive. I would likewise not treat anyone else badly either. I would think most men would prefer a woman who has a working sense of self respect.
My first sentence was in agreement with your comment. But most women do want a mate who exhibits care and devotion. Someone who acts like they love you, not just sweet talk to be manipulative.
You may not have intended to, but you did anyway. It was an unintentional truth and yet it was still a truth. As evidenced by your continued digression about "valuing [him]self."
Hmm? You seem unsatisfied
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.
"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.
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.
Couldn't disagree more. Did men gain some benefits? Maybe, but I think even most alpha males may have actually lost them.
After all, before the sexual revolution it was pretty common for societies to tolerate men visiting prostitutes or having affairs with lower status women. The 50s may have been a bit of an aberration but I'd argue that the sense that non-losers should be able to get sex without paying thanks to the sexual revolution actually made it more shameful for many men to get easy sexual gratification -- and the few men at the very top have always had access to lots of sex.
Still maybe it's a net plus for alpha males but it's a relatively small plus to lifetime happiness. And true the sex may not be a huge benefit to the women but before the sexual revolution women who screwed up and had unapproved sex often became pariahs or lost their children etc etc.
So even if the modal woman doesn't benefit much women benefit hugely in expectation while the expectation change for men of any kind is much smaller.
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!
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.
Well said. Maybe all the homosexual ppl who think they are entitled to carry mankind into the future without the direct involvement of members of the opposite sex never took biology but that sh@t won’t fly. I have a niece that married another woman a few years ago and they have two very adorable little girls conceived via in-vitro fertilization using donor sperm. (Great tech that has helped thousands of couples have children) and sadly they really think those girls don’t need a present father figure. Nonsense. It’s vanity and foolishness. Imma choose to believe that our creator knew exactly what He was doing in designing men and women. They compliment one another and bring indispensable gifts to family life. I loved both my parents though neither was perfect. Turns out I’m not very perfect either! Shocking.
Maybe I’m just too old school to get this new philosophy. Our now adult kids truly love my husband and I. Their dad has been their champion, guide and loving father from the moment they were born.
Raising children is the hardest job you’ll ever love and gives meaning to life that nothing else really does. Aside from faith.
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.
Divorces don't just happen out of the blue. Sure a few, but for the vast majority there are reasons. Divorce is still taboo in many countries with traditional cultures so while you may see lifelong marriages, that doesn't mean those marriages are happy or even healthy. People stay in abusive marriages when their society leaves no other choice for them.
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!
This was well written, bravo. This ever expanding polarisation in the dating market, is imo, one of the unspoken cataclysms of the future. When MOST people are not only emotionally unfulfilled, but devoid of something very critical to their perception of self, what does that society look like.
we could all use more self-awareness for sure. thank you for reading !
Bleak.
Humans were designed purposefully as is all life on earth. We are meant to have intimate relationships with other humans.
I’m pretty certain that won’t change and attempts to force that to change in the past have not lasted.
We can evolve as individuals but collectively will always seek out partners, even in crime.
> devoid of something very critical to their perception of self
Wow, bingo! Great line
"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.
Please! It’s a childish statement at best