A white woman’s chance of getting married

tl;dr If you are white woman who is thirty or over, and not already married or in a relationship resembling marriage, your chances are slim. You are washed up, you are left on the shelf, you are past your sell by date.

This is my analysis of Dalrock’s data.

If white men had their way, and women did not have their way, most women would get married between fourteen and seventeen, and men would get married as soon as they could afford to support a wife and children. We know that is what would happen, because when white men had all the power, when men got their way, that is what did happen, for women of the affluent class.

If women had their way, and men did not have their way, women would spend thirty years from age ten to age forty sexing a long succession of wealthy charismatic socially skilled alpha males with big tools, then get married and have children using IVF and their eggs that they froze in their late twenties. We know that because there is a pile of highly emancipated women with highly successful careers in front of the fertility clinic, only without the husbands.

If you are a woman approaching thirty, and you are nagging your husband, bitching at him, interrupting him, speaking disrespectfully of him, or refusing him sex: Repent now.

There is a lot of divorce porn around in which a not very attractive woman ditches her boring unexciting husband, and then lands a six foot eight inch tall highly athletic billionaire. File that with ones where she marries an immortal vampire or gets abducted by pirates, sold into the Sultan’s harem, and becomes the Sultan’s favorite. The author of “Eat Pray Love” attempted to carry out her novel in real life. Wound up marrying a man in need of a green card, much older and poorer than her ex, who dumped her shortly after his green card came through. And if you are a woman approaching thirty that is what will happen to you if you don’t let your husband get a word in sideways. He probably will not leave you, but if you don’t treat him respect, you will wind up making the extremely bad decision of leaving him. Much as so often sex “just happened” even though you were not really planning on it and it was a really bad idea, divorce also “just happens”. Women inherently lack agency, and really bad decisions just keep “just happening”.

Let us reflect on what happened to the notorious reality television shrew Kate Gosselin. She harassed, humiliated, and scolded her husband day and night on reality television, while he cared for their eight children and held down a job, then she frivolously divorced him, excluded him from his children’s lives, demonized him to his children, and obsessively brings lawsuits against him for all manner of silly things, making it impossible for him to own any property or accumulate any assets, and destroying her own assets in high and frivolous legal costs.  Now she is permasingle while he has a girlfriend ten years younger than himself and his ex wife.  The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.  You can tell that Jon Gosselin no longer loves Kate Gosselin, but Kate Gosselin is still very much in love with Jon Gosselin, for Kate hates Jon to the point of madness.  If a woman divorces at age thirty or close to it, she is apt to wind up like Kate Gosselin, while Jon Gosselin winds up with stalkers.

Men in their forties, fifties, and sixties routinely marry women much younger than themselves. Women in their thirties usually don’t marry men their own age, or indeed men of any age. Men past thirty usually will not marry women near their own age. They usually marry considerably younger women, or just do not get married at all.

I am a recent widower. I loved and cared for my wife all her days, even though during our last years she was terribly ill. And various women near my wife’s age, women in their sixties and late fifies, think to themselves “He loved his wife. Why should he not love me?”

Well it does not work like that. When a man loves a woman, he loves a young cute woman, and if she does not screw up, he gets wife goggles, and loves her all her days. But a man is just not going come to love an elderly woman. That is just how we are made.  Which means that when a girl past twenty five or so switches lovers, every time she switches, she will discover her marriage market value has fallen, fallen significantly and substantially.  And at age thirty, she still has substantial sexual market value, as a booty call girl, or a friend with benefits, but her marriage market value is likely to be zero.  Hence, when a woman is pushing thirty, probably not a good idea for her to act like the kind of girl who is going to divorce her husband, even if she still has lots of booty calls from rich charismatic men with big swinging tools, since such actions are apt to take on a life of their own.

Very few men are going to marry a women in her forties, even if the alternative is porn, whiskey and whores, but thirties is negotiable. It is a market price. How young a woman can a man get, so that he can ignore all the women older than that, how old can a woman dance on the cock carousel before she is left on the shelf and beyond her sell by date?  If all women panic at age x, a sensible man will insist on a woman a little bit younger than x.  The alternative for him is not porn, whiskey, and whores.   So a man should figure out the age at which all women panic, and marry a woman younger than that, a woman should figure out the age at which all women panic, and panic just before the rest of them.

Analyzing Dalrock’s data looks to me like not so much a marriage strike by men, but the age at which women should panic, and men can afford to ignore them because they can get someone younger, has been falling.  It was probable that before 2001, a woman was past her sell-by date at thirty two or so.   Then in 2007, past her sell by date at thirty or so.  Not a huge change in the age of panic, but the panic has been driven by a huge change in the number of women permanently left on the shelf.  Before 2001 the rise in the number of unmarried people was driven by a continual rise in the age at which women got married, driven by women choosing to marry later and later, a deal becoming ever more favorable for women, as they spent more and more years cavorting on the cock carousel from ten to forty, and ever less favorable for men, as their wives brought ever less youth, beauty, and chastity to the deal.  Now the deal is turning to be slightly less unfavorable for men, which means that the continuing rise in the number of unmarried people is a rise in the number of people who are never going to get married, ever.

Since the number of never-will-be-married people continues to increase, the age at which women should panic, the last minute at which men get picky and women get desperate, will continue to decrease, probably going to go all the way down to twenty five or so.

153 Responses to “A white woman’s chance of getting married”

  1. B says:

    Sorry for your loss.

    People are not machines. As the Soviets and American economists found out when homo sapiens turned out not to be homo economicus, and as the Freudians found out when homo sapiens turned out not to have a steam engine between his ears.

    If you want to reduce things to a materialistic analysis, you might as well go all the way. Porn, whiskey and whores are a much better deal, from a materialistic basis, than marriage, work, children.

    Darwin did such an analysis, at a time when porn, whiskey and whores were not a socially acceptable choice, and marriage, work and children barely tipped the scale.

    Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, did such an analysis when porn, whiskey and whores were a socially acceptable choice for his class (affluent aristocrats):

    I rise at eleven, I dine about two,
    I get drunk before seven, and the next thing I do,
    I send for my whore, when for fear of a clap,
    I spend in her hand and I spew in her lap;

    Then we quarrel and scold, till I fall fast asleep,
    When the bitch growing bold, to my pocket does creep.
    Then slyly she leaves me, and to revenge the affront,
    At once she bereaves me of money and cunt.

    If by chance when I wake, hot-heated and drunk,
    What a coil do I make for the loss of my punk!
    I storm, and I roar, and I fall in a rage.
    And missing my whore, I bugger my page.

    Then crop-sick all morning I rail at my men,
    And in bed I lie yawning till eleven again.

    • jim says:

      Wilmot’s analysis would seem to be that whiskey porn and whores are an unsatisfactory alternative to secure possession of a fertile age woman, or a woman that one loves.

      • B says:

        You’re right, Wilmot was sneakily bemoaning his inability to find the One. What was I thinking.

        Hey, our bet about the Orthodox gay marriage runs out at the end of the month, as I recall.

        • jim says:

          B:

          Hey, our bet about the Orthodox gay marriage runs out at the end of the month, as I recall.

          http://www.gatherthejews.com/2011/12/orthodox-judaism-and-gay-marriage-incompatible/

          ‘Rather, Kaplan labeled it a civil wedding with a Jewish commitment ceremony conducted by a rabbi who “has long been our friend and just happens to be ordained in the Orthodox tradition.”’

          So, the orthodox are supposedly not gay marrying people, they are commitment ceremonying gays – a ritual that is in practice indistinguishable to the congregation from gay marrying people even though supposedly different.

          Which is, as I recall, pretty much what I predicted – that orthodox jews would slither gay marriage in through some elaborate legalism whereby they could gay marry without gay marrying.

          “Rabbi Greenberg recently officiated a same-sex marriage in Washington, DC, claiming to be the first Orthodox gay marriage in the USA. This is a misrepresentation of Orthodox Judaism. While Greenberg was ordained by an Orthodox institution, his action cannot be justified by Orthodox Judaism. … This officiation may ipso-facto lead to his being defrocked as an Orthodox rabbi.”

          If this event that looks awfully like a gay marriage results in Rabbi Greenberg being defrocked, then you win the bet, in that the Orthodox community acted vigorously to cut itself of from defectors.

          If, as appears to be happening, he is not defrocked, I have won the bet, in that a gay marriage happened, or something that gays can plausibly claim and believe is a gay marriage happened, and the Orthodox Jewish community quietly let it slide.

          And as of today, they are quietly letting it slide.

          The orthodox Jewish avocacy organization http://advocacy.ou.org/ hinted at this solution:

          Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

          Hmm. I thought you were supposed to stone certain individuals to death.

          But if you cannot discriminate against gay couples, going to have to give their association some kind of religious recognition, right? Obviously you have a duty to give them a “commitment ceremony”.

          It managed to make a statement on gay marriage without once saying that gay sex is an abomination, that it is weird and disgusting, that it is a choice, and a bad choice with very bad consequences. Phil Robertson, these guys are not.

          More and more stuff that can be plausibly called Orthodox Jewish Gay Marriage is happening, and the orthodox community, rather than drawing bright lines to exclude it, is busy fuzzing away the lines in a fog of words.

          Repeating yet again:

          “Rabbi Greenberg recently officiated a same-sex marriage in Washington, DC, claiming to be the first Orthodox gay marriage in the USA. This is a misrepresentation of Orthodox Judaism. While Greenberg was ordained by an Orthodox institution, his action cannot be justified by Orthodox Judaism. … This officiation may ipso-facto lead to his being defrocked as an Orthodox rabbi.”

          If he is defrocked, you win.

          If the Orthodox Jewish community quietly let things slide, I win. So far, quietly letting things slide.

          • B says:

            You are moving the goalposts, but not moving them far enough.

            First, you were very certain there would be Jewish gay marriage, and this was the bet we made-that there would be/not be an Orthodox Jewish gay marriage by the end of this month-if there would be some Orthodox group performing a gay marriage, the rest of the Orthodox would publicly proclaim that group not to be Orthodox.

            Then you started worrying and hedging, and said “there will be some ceremony they won’t call marriage but which will be marriage”.

            (There is no “defrocked”. You have us confused with Catholics.)

            The people you are referring to are adherents of the “Open Orthodoxy” movement, which is a misnomer just like “Conservative Judaism”.

            The Orthodox mainstream, from the right (the Haredim) to the left (the Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America) has said that these people are not Orthodox and that what they are doing is not Judaism.

            http://forward.com/news/323887/agudath-rabbis-declare-war-on-open-orthodoxy/

            http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Breach-in-US-Orthodox-Judaism-grows-as-haredi-body-rejects-Open-Orthodoxy-institutions-431929

            http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Open-Orthodoxy-outside-bounds-of-tradition-says-European-rabbinical-group-434314

            In other words, not only are these Open Orthodox people outside the mainstream, but the mainstream has emphatically and publically stated this.

            I’ll be looking forward to that bottle, then.

            • jim says:

              You are moving the goalposts, but not moving them far enough.

              I recall predicting that Orthodox Jews would introduce gay marriage, and piously call it something else, but allow the New York Times to get away with calling it gay marriage.

              Which prediction has been fulfilled.

              I also recall telling you that Orthodox Jews were slowly creeping towards gay marriage, and by this time would have crept far enough that it could reasonably be said that a gay couple had been gay married in an orthodox synagogue.

              Which prediction has also been fulfilled.

              I did not predict that by this time Orthodox Jews would have openly capitulated. But I predicted that by this time they would have quietly slithered around to something indistinguishable from quiet and furtive capitulation.

              Which prediction has been fulfilled.

              • B says:

                Well, the nice thing about the internet is that everything is archived. So you don’t have to rely on your fading powers of recall. Please pull up the link to the conversation where we made this bet and agreed on its terms and conditions.

                • jim says:

                  The conversation leading to the bet.

                  For you to win the Rabbinical Council of America has to firmly, loudly, and clearly blow Kaplan and Greenberg out of the water. If they let their gay marriages slide, they let everything slide, and then bye and bye, Jewish tradition will remember that everyone always knew that Moses received gay marriage on the mountain as part of the oral tradition, without anyone at any time admitting that anything has changed, without admitting that anything in supposed Jewish tradition ever changes.

                • B says:

                  The Rabbinical Council of America has said that Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy. What else do you want?

                • B says:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Orthodoxy

                  http://matzav.com/day-after-moetzes-statement-on-open-orthodoxy-yct-president-attends-agudah-breakfast-and-issues-troubling-remarks/

                  http://jewishlinknj.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8820:the-rabbinical-council-of-america-and-yeshivat-chovevei-torah-a-response-to-rabbis-avi-weiss-and-asher-lopatin&catid=155:op-eds&Itemid=567

                  http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/11/02/open-orthodoxy-not-a-form-of-torah-judaism/

                  So, the thread you link says “I will bet you a bottle of moderately good whiskey (not the top stuff, but pretty decent) that a gay marriage will happen in an orthodox synagogue before the end of 2016.”

                  Nope no gay marriage in an orthodox synagogue.

                  But wait, a thing that looks like gay marriage in a thing that looks like an orthodox synagogue!

                  Well, in the same quoted thread, you say “unless the great majority of the truly orthodox are willing to walk the extra mile to sharply define it as non orthodox, to draw a bright line between “us” and “them”

                  See above-this is exactly what happened. The great majority of the truly Orthodox have said that this is not Orthodoxy or Torah or anything involving Judaism.

                • jim says:

                  But wait, a thing that looks like gay marriage in a thing that looks like an orthodox synagogue!

                  Well, in the same quoted thread, you say “unless the great majority of the truly orthodox are willing to walk the extra mile to sharply define it as non orthodox, to draw a bright line between “us” and “them”.

                  Which led to a conversation about what would be the great majority of the truly orthodox.

                  The Rabbinical Council of America has said that Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy. What else do you want?

                  The Rabbinical Council of America saying that Kaplan and Greenberg in particular, by name or near equivalent, are not Orthodox, that their policies in regard to gays are not orthodox, and that anyone with like policies to gays is not Orthodox. Or equivalently the Rabbinical Council of America reading the riot act on things that look rather like gay marriage in anything that looks rather like an orthodox synagogue.

                • B says:

                  >Which led to a conversation about what would be the great majority of the truly orthodox.

                  The two largest Orthodox organizations in America are apparently not enough now. You’re really scraping.

                  >The Rabbinical Council of America saying that Kaplan and Greenberg in particular, by name or near equivalent, are not Orthodox

                  It has said that their entire movement is not Orthodox. It has said that the semichot (letters of rabbinical ordination) issued by the Open Orthodox are not valid. Why would it need to mention them by name? It’s said the whole movement is not kosher-why does it need to sit there and explain that any given one of its members is not kosher? Does all of Orthodox Judaism need to individually condemn every Reform and “Conservative” “rabbi” who condones homosexuality, violations of Shabbat and kashrut?

                  Admit your loss like a man and move on-you’re not really saving face here.

                • jim says:

                  When we made the bet I wrote that if something that looks rather like gay marriage in something that looks rather like an orthodox synagogue happens, it counts unless the rabbis draw a bright line against it, clearly denouncing it as not orthodox, that failure to loudly and clearly draw a bright line means that opposition to gay marriage gradually slides down the memory hole, and eventually gay marriage becomes part of the oral law given to Moses on the mountain without anyone ever admitting to any change in position.

                  B. replied:

                  It has said that their entire movement is not Orthodox

                  Has it? Who says Kaplan and Greenberg were ordained by the Open Orthodox movement? Supposing that they are, needs to be said out loud and clear, or equivalently said in that things that look rather like gay marriage in things that look rather like an orthodox synagogue are the fault of Open Orthodox who are not really orthodox.

                  The deal was that if something that looks rather like gay marriage in something that looks rather like an orthodox synagogue happens, the rabbis have to draw a bright line against it. If they fail to say “It is those immoral Open so-called Orthodox doing it”, not drawing a bright line.

                  The deal was “bright line” “loud and clear”

                  They have to say something like “Open Orthodox is not Orthodox because they failed to defrock Kaplan and Greenberg”. Or something like “one of the heresies of Open Orthodoxy is that they allow rituals that look rather like gay marriage” Or something like “The gay so-called marriages conducted by Kaplan and Greenberg were Open Orthodox, whom we do not regard as Orthodox”

                  That was the deal: That if gay marriage creeps up slowly on Orthodox Jews, they have to push back, they have to draw a bright line between themselves and gay marriage.

                  Well, Gay Marriage has been creeping up on them, and they are not pushing back.

                  If gays keep pushing, and Orthodox don’t push back, then after a decade or two, everyone will remember gay marriage as part of the oral law received by Moses on the mountain, and everyone will be much more comfortable, without anyone ever having to admit any change in position.

                  Orthodox Rabbis do not want to say that Gay Marriage is OK, or even that “commitment ceremonies” that look mighty like gay marriage are OK, but they are entirely comfortable with letting the fact that in the horrible bad old days, long, long ago, evil misunderstanders of Judaism used to think it was not OK slide slowly down the memory hole.

                  The bet said “bright line”. They let things slide, you lose the bet.

                • B says:

                  Phenomenal dishonesty, just as I’d predicted.

                • jim says:

                  I knew that when Orthodox Jews adopted gay marriage you, and even the Orthodox Jews doing it, would wrap it in denial and double talk.

                  So when we made the bet I said that if something that looks like gay marriage in something that looks like an orthodox synagogue happens, it counts, unless the Rabbinical Council draws a bright line against, unless they jump up and down and say “Hey, that ritual is not Orthodox and not permitted by Orthodoxy”.

                  Not hearing or seeing the Rabbinical Council draw a bright line against it.

                  You are engaged in exactly the dishonest lying and weaseling that I knew you would, and I specifically and explicitly worded the bet to protect myself against exactly what has happened, and exactly your response to what has happened. I knew what was going to happen when I made that bet, and I knew what you would do and say, and prepared the wording of the bet to cover exactly what has now happened, and to cover what you are now doing.

                  You, B, are lying thieving cheating scum. What I bet would happen, is exactly what happened, and your reaction is exactly what I expected, and exactly what the wording of the bet covers me against.

                • Koanic says:

                  Crushed.

                  Let’s apply Jim’s law of poster children. B snowflakes around the alt-right, posturing as the One Good Jew. Many buy it. He’s not even Orthodox; some kind of messianic. A half-Christian Jew! K-selected, special forces, communitarian, pro-white, pro-aliyah!

                  And the one time we can see his actual character, it’s basic happy merchant muh shekels plus projecting accusations of dishonesty.

                  Therefore, all basic happy merchant muh shekels plus projecting accusations of dishonesty.

                  “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

                • B says:

                  Anyone can be wrong on a bet.

                  And you’re wrong.

                  But instead of just going, “yep, was wrong, there was something I didn’t know,” you start doing this crazy dance about “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is. How bright is the bright line?” Listen to how loony you sound.

                  And you always do this. You know, Aleppo has already fallen and all of that.

                  This is what makes you a loser, Jim. The basic inability to be honest with yourself. If you were wrong, well, you weren’t wrong: reality was wrong!

                  This is why anything you try to organize will be a disaster.

                  Enjoy your cesspool. I’m done wasting time on you. I’ve got shit to do that is actually productive.

                  >snowflakes around the alt-right, posturing as the One Good Jew.

                  Me? I’m not “the one.” I’m “one of the many.”

                  >He’s not even Orthodox; some kind of messianic.

                  Are you some kind of dimwit?

                  >And the one time we can see his actual character, it’s basic happy merchant muh shekels plus projecting accusations of dishonesty.

                  You ARE a fucking dimwit. How much time have I spent arguing with you idiot host about this topic? How many shekels do you think an hour of my time is worth? A bottle of Ardbeg costs $80.

                  You’d better go back and redo your skull measurements there, skippy.

                  >Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

                  Uh-huh.

                  Weren’t you hoping for the advent of Der Trumpenfuhrer?

                  Who do you think his court consists of, dummy? West Virginia oxy popping rednecks? Btards? PUAs?

                • jim says:

                  I said “bright line”.

                  If the Rabbinical Council separates itself from those gay marriages by explicitly saying “Greenberg is not Orthodox”, or explicitly denounces them, or anything like that, that is separating itself from things that look rather like gay marriage in things that look rather like an Orthodox Synagogue and I lose the bet.

                  If Greenberg gets away with it and the Rabbinical Council rolls over and plays dead, no bright line, therefore I win the bet.

                  The Rabbinical Council does not want to approve gay marriage. But neither does it want to disapprove gay marriage, because this would attract the wrath of the Cathedral. Hence very comfortable with ambiguity.

                  I specifically and explicitly predicted that Orthodox Rabbis, and you yourself, would try to have it both ways, both permitting and not permitting gay marriage, that they would “weasel”. And here they are weaseling. Orthodox Jews both permit, and do not permit, gay marriage in America, depending on who they are talking to. And I also predicted that Gay Marriage would remain in that state of quantum indeterminacy for a very long time, because the Cathedral likes it that way.

                  Hence, the key point of the bet was “a bright line” between Orthodoxy and Gay Marriage, issued by the Rabbinical Council of America. Instead of a bright line, we see that they are rather comfortable with something that looks rather like gay marriage in something that looks rather like an Orthodox synagogue.

                  As for Aleppo, yes I predicted that it would have fallen by now. It has not fallen, but it is an unpopulated ghost town kept on life support by “the international community”. You predicted asymmetric warfare. I predicted there would be no asymmetric warfare. There has been no asymmetric warfare, or at least none that was particularly effective or had significant military impact.

                  Yeah, Aleppo has not fallen, but Russia has not found a quagmire in Syria either. You predicted quagmire, I predicted no quagmire.

                • Koanic says:

                  Leave in a huff; you’ve shown us enough.

                  The goy knows the Jew nose.

                  Beak of a liar, destined for fire.

                  Your face testifies the father of lies.

            • Cavalier says:

              You know, B, I see you on every post going back for a very, very long time, and in each post you’re making seemingly reasonable points. There’s just one problem: Jim consistently and methodically blows them out of the water. And then you slip and slide and shuck and jive and keep on keeping on. I’ve read many of your comments and I’ve noticed this many dozens of times. In fact, it’s now a pattern so apparent to me that I just can’t get a certain quote off my mind.

              “The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.”

              What I find even more remarkable is you don’t even bother to concede…ever.

    • pdimov says:

      “Porn, whiskey and whores are a much better deal, from a materialistic basis, than marriage, work, children.”

      A bit of a tangent, but, no.

      Hedonistic, not materialistic. Nothing material remains from porn, whiskey and whores, and that’s even if we don’t include ancestors and descendants in the economic calculation (from a purely materialistic point of view, yesteryear’s you is not the same person as most of the cells are new, so if yesteryear’s you is you, your ancestors are you as well, in the economic analysis.)

      • B says:

        >Nothing material remains from porn, whiskey and whores

        Nothing material remains from any of us after death. What use are descendants to a dead man?

        Read Larkin’s Aubade, and then talk about ” if yesteryear’s you is you, your ancestors are you as well, in the economic analysis.” Give me a break.

        Materialism without hedonism is just an unprincipled exception, where materialists keep living in the crumbling moral structure built by their believer ancestors. It doesn’t last very long. Ask the Americans or the Russians.

        • pdimov says:

          “What use are descendants to a dead man?”

          What use is tomorrow’s you to today’s you?

          • B says:

            From a materialist’s standpoint? None whatsoever, except that I don’t want to go through the subjectively unpleasant experience of dying or a range of other unpleasant experiences between now and then.

            In fact, I’d prefer a whole range of pleasant experiences, except insofar as a bunch of prejudices which I inherited from my religious forebears make me bashful.

            Thus, every culture which loses its soul inexorably moves into the sex, drugs and rock’n’roll phase (or whatever the chan kids call it these days-loli, jenkum and tendies? Peppermint, help me out here) before going full on Rat Heaven and swan diving into the toilet bowl.

            Once I’m dead, however, what do I care what happens? Apres moi, le deluge. What does it matter to me if some people who have some chunks of DNA which resemble my chunks of DNA to a greater extent are walking around on the earth doing ultimately meaningless things when I’m an insensate chunk of rotting meat being consumed by worms? The Earth will eventually be eaten by the sun, if you haven’t been notified, so ultimately, what does any of it matter? Pass the jenkum, Monica.

            This is how you go from Faulkner to Ernest Hemingway to Brett Easton Ellis in a few generations. And there’s no going back except by a leap of faith-which faith is inimical to materialism.

            • pdimov says:

              The distinction is between people whose time horizon extends beyond their own lifespan, and those whose does not. Which is, I say, merely a special case of low time preference vs high time preference, and “materialistic” is not the right way to describe the latter.

              From a purely materialistic perspective – matter is all that matters – pursuing pleasure can never be superior to building a bridge that outlasts you by centuries. That’s because bridge is matter and pleasure isn’t.

              Hedonism is not materialistic, because pleasure is not material; the distinction between “you” and “your descendants” is not materialistic, because conscience – the notion of “you” – is not material.

              And, if we get back to our bridge, yes, it’s of no use to you after you die. What does “of use to you” mean? It’s not material. The atoms of the bridge are the same no matter whether they are “of use”.

              • B says:

                >The distinction is between people whose time horizon extends beyond their own lifespan, and those whose does not.

                This kind of thinking is merely a relic of the thinking of the religious forebears, and it doesn’t last very long. Pretty soon, your low time preference atheists are making no children and your high time preference Africans who believe in anything and everything are making tons of children. In a purely imaginary, theoretical scenario, of course!

                About consciousness not being material-don’t be foolish, it’s always been obvious to materialists that consciousness is an emergent property of material. Marx said “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” Lenin said “existence determines consciousness.” Etc.

                >From a purely materialistic perspective – matter is all that matters – pursuing pleasure can never be superior to building a bridge that outlasts you by centuries. That’s because bridge is matter and pleasure isn’t…The atoms of the bridge are the same no matter whether they are “of use”.

                Do you even read what you write? Since the atoms of the bridge are the same regardless of the form they take, what, in a materialist framework, does it matter whether you assemble them into the bridge?

                The whole point of materialism is the denial of an independent existence of consciousness, i.e., a soul. And if there is no permanent existence of a soul, why should I suffer in order for something that will be irrelevant and useless to me after I am gone? Oh, sure, the thousandth of a percent of humanity which is composed of Stoics can motivate themselves to stare extinction in the face and smile. But these Stoics can only do so when standing on the shoulders of the religious, and even then they are fundamentally unproductive. Marcus Aurelius inherited a nation built on religion, and left it to…Commodus.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Do you even read what you write? Since the atoms of the bridge are the same regardless of the form they take, what, in a materialist framework, does it matter whether you assemble them into the bridge?”

                  Nihilism does not require materialism, and in fact does not play well with it.

                  Materialistic nihilism would posit that all states of matter are equivalent and therefore nothing matters – as you did above – but it’s a trivial observation that water consistently prefers some states of matter over others.

                  So a nihilist must then take the step to claim that even though states of matter are not equivalent, they are equally pointless, thereby introducing a non-material “point” into the equation.

                • Lies says:

                  “So a nihilist must then take the step to claim that even though states of matter are not equivalent, they are equally pointless, thereby introducing a non-material “point” into the equation.”

                  Did you not read what “B” wrote? In the long run nothing matters. This solar system will be our crypt. We don’t even have to get to the end game: my ancestors from a hundred years ago are dead and forgotten, as if they never lived, and hardly resembled me anyway.

                  Voy Day is correct that the atheists who claim that there is no ultimate purpose and that this does not lead to nihilism are dishonest. It does.

                  As Gómez Dávila wrote:

                  “We spend a life trying to understand what a stranger understands at a glance: that we are just as insignificant as the rest.”

                  “We live because we do not view ourselves with the same eyes with which everybody else views us.”

                  This is why:

                  “The Christian knows that Christianity will limp until the end of the world.”

                  Many simply lie to themselves in order to cope with the fact that they are of no importance. Sex and women are certainly addictive crutches:

                  “Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.”

                • jim says:

                  My descendants will conquer the universe.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Jim denounces Gnosticism as blackpilled, heretical and unGnonly. A few weeks later, a cartoonishly blackpilled Gnostic shows up, perfectly illustrating his point. A sign?

        • jim says:

          Nothing material remains from any of us after death. What use are descendants to a dead man?

          Gilgamesh and the innkeeper that advised him found plenty of use. I care about my descendants.

          This is a very ancient discussion. And we tend to be descended from those that found value in their descendants.

          • B says:

            Gilgamesh and the innkeeper were not materialists. And I am descended from many generations of non-materialists. The materialists tend to die out except for those of them who repent.

          • Lies says:

            Yes, but 1) I would not have cared if I had not been born, in fact I would not have chosen it: unlike you guys I don’t delude and numb myself with sex and thinking that I am important and “smart” when in fact 2) I and my descendants are unimportant and will die and be forgotten. I mean, Vox Day, the pollyanna, gets this point.

            Though I’m a Christian, I have no trouble declaring this world crap, since God will destroy it anway. Life is about enduring — nowadays especially about enduring our mediocrity. Gómez Dávila: “Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre.”

        • Nope. Look at the Pagan “Viking” view. It was highly materialistic. Gods were mostly just magic to invoke to help in material things like war, crops and fertility. No real spiritual motivation. The real motivation was your fame after your death. I.e. social status. What use is status to a dead man? Well, nobody said it was a rational thing, but psychologically it can work. Heck here in Mitteleuropa, in the less bright parts, we saw even in 1900 or so soldiers commit suicide because they envied the military pomp their dead comrades were buried with! They killed themselves to get a high status burial! Not the brightest ones of course and it is an amusing way to gain Darwin Awards, but still. Social status is a drug. It does not make one think rationally, it is simply seductive.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >Porn, whiskey and whores are a much better deal, from a materialistic basis, than marriage, work, children.

      This is proximally true. Men are not getting married because it is not in their interest, and because men are what matter most in this equation, fertility tanks.

      Formalized patriarchy satisfies the three animating desires; the desire for control, the desire for validation, and the desire to be Right. If a man’s wife and children are properly construed as property of the patriarch, it will be in their interest to get married, they will do what they must to get married, and fertility concordantly rises.

      • Mr. Realist says:

        Young white men acting in THEIR interests rather than in the race’s are exactly why we’re in the current pickle.

        “Patriarchy” is for those syncretic imported immivading Abrahamic religions. All that penny ante striving to be the Lugal of one’s inner fantasies…while laboring in the agricultural hive then begging at the temple for one’s ration of wheat and oil.

        That is not the Northern way.

        In the North a man is a father because the ancestors (male and female) direct it. Not because it’s a better deal than “porn, whiskey, and whores.” Not because it makes him right, valid or in control. Because it is right.

        The Abrahamic religions are not appropriate for Northern men’s psyches. The Abrahamic religions wage war on Northern men’s psyches, replacing our race’s genuine drives with Babylonian/Judaean mercantile/degenerate ones.

        The Abrahamic religions hate nothing so much as a strong, intelligent, beautiful white woman. Runty Jews, Muslims, and beta male Christians all agree on that point, and push race mixing as a result. That is because they envy Northern women and wage genocide upon our people by degrading our women at every possibility. Any man who can watch a white woman degraded in porn should be redefined as a degenerate and removed from the gene pool. Which is what is happening.

        • jim says:

          Probably you are right that the Abrahamic religions are bad for whites. It was a bad idea to let the laity read the bible.

          But what is the alternative? Actually existent paganism is a bunch of queers and lesbians prancing around and watching imaginary unicorns fart rainbows. Shinto is for Japanese only. Maybe we could try Vietnamese ancestor worship.

          Icelandic paganism was a really manly religion, but an essential part of the religion is that part of the duties of a priest could well result in him fighting bad guys man on man, or fighting for honor. Just as shootouts are in principle part of the Parliamentary Sergeant at Arms job, even though they do not happen very often, chopping up your enemies with axe was part of the Icelandic priest’s job, even though it did not happen very often. I don’t think we can revive that manly religion without the manly battles to the death.

          The reason that the worship of Odin and Thor did not turn into faggotry back in the day was the ever present possibility that moral posturing could have fatal consequences. Cannot worship tough guy gods, unless you can demonstrate being a tough guy.

          The Mexican Cartels are successfully reviving the demon worship of pre Columbian Mexico, but cutting out the hearts of bound captives is not really being a tough guy. They are demonic, not manly.

          • Dave says:

            I would suggest a Darwinian religion, where after death you get to watch your descendants. You feel good when they do well, and you feel pain when they screw up, both in proportion to your genetic proximity to them. This would inspire people to have children, both to improve their own afterlife and to bring pleasure to their departed ancestors.

            As for converting this idea into a real religion believed by real people, well, I’m no Joseph Smith.

            • peppermint says:

              » darwinian
              » religion

              lol

              • Dave says:

                Christians hate Darwin, and Marxists hate Darwin even more. Evolution’s racist because its modus operandi for the last four billion years has been stronger races out-competing and replacing weaker races.

                But Confucianism is pretty much as I described, except that there’s no benefit to raising daughters — they honor only their husband’s ancestors.

                • peppermint says:

                  You know what’s even more Darwinian? The straight-up truth. Plus a description of how to change society wrapped up in “meme magic” esotericism so idiots can use it correctly. Idiots already know how to work and fight, because that’s what they were born to do.

                • Dave says:

                  The straight-up truth is that we’re all going to die, and most of us won’t long be remembered afterward. Not the most inspiring narrative — you got anything better?

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          I dont necessarily disagree with your general sentiment (i prefer Orthodoxy and Catholicism over protestantism and revivalism because they took on more of the good neandertalic character of the west), but, that doesnt really have much to do with what i wrote.

          In an environment where no fault divorce and ‘moment to moment consent’ is the law of the land, marriage does not actually exist. In fact, romantic relationships between different sexes in general can hardly exist beyond parody. In such an environment men are reduced to dancing monkeys who must constantly bend over backwards in order to prevent the metaphorical equivalent of children’s attention from wandering (https://therationalmale.com/2014/09/23/the-burden-of-performance/), instead of focusing more of their mental energies on shit that actually matters, more noble pursuits.

          Whats more, no man is the same in ability to intuitively navigate the labyrinth of sociality without a roadmap, without Tradition, to guide his steps are serve as superstructure. Few men are true Naturals, fewer still when it comes to women.

          This is the reality of trying to have a long term relationship with women in an environment that does not ‘lock’ those relationships in place. This is the reality of our Current Year.

          • Corvinus says:

            You speak from an Orthodox and Catholic perspective, and thus your generalizations stem from that lens. See, that would mean that tens of millions of men and women are essentially “living a lie”. Their observations, their experiences, their ideologies have no substance, no meaning. Basically, their existence is a sham. That is ultimately what you are saying. Again, what makes YOUR reality supersede other realities?

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Were you dropped on your head as a baby by any chance? That *is* observable reality.

              If you want to understand the plight of young men in the modern age, look at places like r9k, where lots of todays young men congregate.

              If you dont understand why places like r9k exist, and more importantly, why they are the way they are, you dont understand the problems young men today face.

              • jim says:

                If women are allowed to go feral, most men will lose, some men will win.

                Further, feral women make choices such that the winners are chosen on a basis that is frivolous and unreasonable. To win, you just cannot be a very nice person. I have to dance to that tune, and so does any male who has a sex life.

                Although it may appear that winning alpha males are in charge, and it appears that way to the women, in fact the women are topping from the bottom. If I beat my girlfriend, it is because she makes me do it. I really liked the deal I had with my wife. It was quieter and more peaceful.

  2. Cavalier says:

    It would be interesting to see a graph showing a cumulative “what’s the chance of X age getting married before the age of 30”, or perhaps its inverse, “what’s the chance of X age not getting married before the age of 30”.

    • jim says:

      That is Dalrock’s graph.

      The trouble with Dalrock’s graph is that it is hard to disentangle women not wanting to get off the cock carousel, with women being unable to get of the cock carousel, hard to disentangle a disinclination among women to marry, from an inability to marry.

      The dramatic decline in marriage prospects for thirty year old women and up in my graph is indicative of inability to get off the cock carousel.

  3. Joe Mack says:

    Hard truths, too bad our media culture prevents hard truths from being taken seriously.
    Sorry for your loss, it is an unimaginable sorrow.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Sorry about your loss Jim. Wife goggles are indeed powerful.

  5. reakcionar says:

    Let’s take a real-life example, my friend V. He’s a 32-year-old engineer with a decent amount of hobbies and interests (chess player, guitar player, lift weights, speaks several foreign languages) looks good, owns a huge apartment and drives a cool car. His hedonism includes smoking and getting drunk once in 2-3 weeks, but I’d say he has quite thrifty comparing to most of our common friends. However, his “game” with women is just zero and hadn’t got laid in years. Literally – years. He’s not into whiskey and whores, more porn and apathy.

    Now, when we have no church, family, state or any other organization to ensure female fidelity, a man has to use his personal characteristics much more than in old times, in order to keep his woman in line and avoid being divorce raped. My friend V. has NONE – his academic parents taught him nothing, his teachers taught him nothing, and he’s tame by nature and unwilling to learn much. A man would be a sure sell on the ancient sexual market is now worse off than a worn out whore because the present market selects for charm, popularity and womanizing.

    If he wants to get married, he has only two chances: 1. learn some Game, jump in the fire, get horribly drunk on whiskey, bang some sluts and get into fistfights, and maybe some girl will get a tingle and go for him; 2. get a used rag over 30 that was once a woman and settle down with her.

    So, a woman over 30 (at least here on the Balkans) still has some minor chance of finding a decent husband – she just needs to be nice to my friend V. for a couple of months and not bash him too much for being a tame beta. But after riding the carousel, just imagine all the misery she will feel with all those quiet nights with him, lack of drama, no psycho starring with fists clenched and plates crashing on the wall… nightmare, almost as bad as being a spinster. Divorce inevitable.

    • Corvinus says:

      “However, his “game” with women is just zero and hadn’t got laid in years. Literally – years. He’s not into whiskey and whores, more porn and apathy.”

      Perhaps that is his inner nature. Is getting laid important to him?

      “Now, when we have no church, family, state or any other organization to ensure female fidelity…”

      Stop right there. First, we have those organizations in place. Second, it is male and female fidelity. If your friend wants to get laid, he should be involved in a Christian relationship that will lead to marriage. That involves no sex until marriage.

      “a man has to use his personal characteristics much more than in old times, in order to keep his woman in line and avoid being divorce raped.”

      Modern men have their own ways to keep “women in line”. That is up to each man to decide, not you.

      “My friend V. has NONE – his academic parents taught him nothing, his teachers taught him nothing, and he’s tame by nature and unwilling to learn much.”

      Taught him what? Moreover, you just hit the nail on the head. Look at his inborn traits. Perhaps he is happy with his life. Are you trying to run it for him?

      “A man would be a sure sell on the ancient sexual market is now worse off than a worn out whore because the present market selects for charm, popularity and womanizing.”

      This “ancient sexual market” is extinct. Why lament about something that is dead and never coming back?

      “If he wants to get married, he has only two chances: 1. learn some Game, jump in the fire, get horribly drunk on whiskey, bang some sluts and get into fistfights, and maybe some girl will get a tingle and go for him: 2. get a used rag over 30 that was once a woman and settle down with her.”

      There are numerous options your friend has to get married. If he using game to bang sluts, he becomes part of the problem. Also, women over 30 are not “used rags”.

      “So, a woman over 30 (at least here on the Balkans) still has some minor chance of finding a decent husband – she just needs to be nice to my friend V. for a couple of months and not bash him too much for being a tame beta.”

      There are plenty of women who would find your friend a great catch. It’s just that he has to do some work in the personality department.

      “But after riding the carousel, just imagine all the misery she will feel with all those quiet nights with him, lack of drama, no psycho starring with fists clenched and plates crashing on the wall… nightmare, almost as bad as being a spinster. Divorce inevitable.”

      Stop being so melodramatic. Sounds like your friend is actually YOU.

      • Cavalier says:

        A good-looking, guitar-playing, weight-lifting, intelligent engineer in the prime of his life, with his own massive apartment, should have nubile, virginal women battering his door day and night.

        That he (seemingly) doesn’t suggests bad things, ill tidings, dark clouds on the horizon.

        “””This “ancient sexual market” is extinct. Why lament about something that is dead and never coming back?”””

        Nature abhors a vacuum.

        “If he using game to bang sluts, he becomes part of the problem.”

        Your reading comprehension is low.

        “Women over 30 are not used rags.”

        Lol.

        • Corvinus says:

          “A good-looking, guitar-playing, weight-lifting, intelligent engineer in the prime of his life, with his own massive apartment, should have nubile, virginal women battering his door day and night.”

          Those are physical and material attributes. What about the mental and intellectual side of things? He may be significantly lacking in those areas.

          “That he (seemingly) doesn’t suggests bad things, ill tidings, dark clouds on the horizon.”

          I thought it’s survival of the fittest out there. Every man for himself. Rather than complain about it, he should watch some videos on Game.

          “Your reading comprehension is low.”

          It’s actually post-doctorate level. Let me put it this way–If a man complains about women who have sex outside of marriage or have sex without being in a committed relationship, and that man uses whatever means necessary to get a woman to have sex with him outside of marriage or with no intention of having a committed relationship, he is part of the problem.

          • jim says:

            If a man complains about women who have sex outside of marriage or have sex without being in a committed relationship, and that man uses whatever means necessary to get a woman to have sex with him outside of marriage or with no intention of having a committed relationship, he is part of the problem.

            No he is not.

            It is hard for a man to get sex. But what is really hard is getting sex with a woman who will have sex with me and not have sex with someone else. Getting as many women as possible to have sex with me is part of the filtering process to find women who will have sex with me and not have sex with someone else.

            A key that opens any lock is a really great key.

            A lock that opens for any key is a really crappy lock.

            Sluts are no good trash. Casanovas are really great men.

            • Corvinus says:

              “No he is not.”

              He decidedly is part of the problem, similar to single Christian men and women who together have sex outside of marriage.

              “It is hard for a man to get sex.”

              Actually, it’s really easy. Ask Whorefinder, he pays for prostitutes.

              “But what is really hard is getting sex with a woman who will have sex with me and not have sex with someone else.”

              Corrected for accuracy –> It is sometimes difficult for men and women who wish to have sex with one person when that one person desires to have sex with other people.

              “Getting as many women as possible to have sex with me is part of the filtering process to find women who will have sex with me and not have sex with someone else.”

              When you were married? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.‘

              “Sluts are no good trash. Casanovas are really great men.”

              Corrected for accuracy –> Those who are single and Christian–men and women alike–must refrain from having sex, lest they get married, for otherwise they commit sin and incur the wrath of God.

              • Kevin says:

                Double standards are usually based on real biological differences. However, the “lock/key” crap is just pure rationalization by men. Men who are sexually incontinent are part of the problem. For Christians they sin themselves and lose their own soul and also help others sin. For atheists pointless sex still displays a lack of foresight. But if you wish to engage in pointless sex than you and the sluts are the same. Sure the cognitive impact on you be the girl are different but the net consequence to society is the same.

                “Enjoy the decline” types who recognize the sexual marketplace for the disaster it is and just want to have lots of sex with girls who want to have sex are broken but consistent. Imagining that the men are on the high ground having lots of sex – it’s an investigational tool – while women are sluts by doing it – it boggles the mind that much rationalization is possible.

                • jim says:

                  Watch all those good Christians cheering single mums for being single mums.

                  The psychological reality is that in order to refrain from cheering single mums, you have to cheer Casanova. If you piously condemn Casanova, you get a strange urge to cheer his supposedly suffering victims.

                  In practice, claiming to not admire Casanova is just and excuse for slut empowerment, just an excuse to let women of the hook for bad decisions and the bad consequences of bad decisions.

                  The problem is controlling female sexuality. Opposing the double standard is just an excuse for sluts, bastards, and fatherlessness.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                “When you were married? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.‘”

                That’s not adultery.

                Adultery is sex with a married woman (who is not his wife) regardless of the martial status of the man.

                If you had even a basic grasp of word roots you would know this.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Adultery is sex with a married woman (who is not his wife) regardless of the martial status of the man.”

                  Adultery is sex with a woman other than your wife or with man other than your husband. That means single or married.

                  If and when you stop fellating Roissy, read up on what is adultery from a Biblical perspective.

                  http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

            • Dave says:

              “women would spend thirty years from age ten to age forty sexing a long succession of …”

              “If all women *lose their virginity* at age x, a sensible man will insist on a woman a little bit younger than x.” (You wrote *panic* so I fixed it)

              How about burying a container in the backyard and kidnapping a nine-year-old virgin to be your secret wife? Ariel Castro’s dead and Phillip Garrido’s in for life, but they managed to reproduce, unlike reakcionar’s law-abiding engineer friend.

          • peppermint says:

            » man uses whatever means necessary to get a woman to have sex with him outside of marriage or with no intention of having a committed relationship, he is part of the problem.

            That’s great. Good luck keeping men from trying that. This is how we know that you have no balls and are utterly retarded about human nature.

          • Cavalier says:

            “It’s actually post-doctorate level.”

            That’s depressing.

            • Corvinus says:

              Are you that depressed that I have to simplify things further for you?

              • Cavalier says:

                I weep for the institution that gave you a doctorate.

                • peppermint says:

                  this is why all universities must be burned down and all professors executed

                • Corvinus says:

                  “I weep for the institution that gave you a doctorate.”

                  Take one of your sister’s chill pills to make you less sad. Just make sure to read the label. Better yet, have her dispense it for you.

                  “this is why all universities must be burned down and all professors executed.”

                  Professional idiocy is your calling card. I definitely see clown school in your future.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  We deserve a better standard of critic than this.

          • peppermint says:

            » » “A good-looking, guitar-playing, weight-lifting, intelligent engineer in the prime of his life, with his own massive apartment

            » Those are physical and material attributes. What about the mental and intellectual side of things?

            (☞゚∀゚)☞ ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)

            » actually post-doctorate level

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Cavalier –

        ““However, his “game” with women is just zero and hadn’t got laid in years. Literally – years. He’s not into whiskey and whores, more porn and apathy.”

        Corvinus –

        Perhaps that is his inner nature.”

        His inner nature is that he hasn’t gotten laid in years? That’s an external circumstance – the exact opposite of what “inner nature” means.

        You literally never make any sense.

        • Corvinus says:

          “His inner nature is that he hasn’t gotten laid in years? That’s an external circumstance – the exact opposite of what “inner nature” means”

          His inner nature is that he lacks the personality traits to attract quality poon. His in-born traits manifests itself into outward behavior. In other words, because he lacks natural charm, his words and actions lack the sufficient punch for women to feel tingles for him.

          Have you not learned anything from Roissy?

    • A third option is to look outside that highly elite upper middle class educated circles he is in. He could marry his cleaning maid any minute and likely she would be faithful. However if it is the US she is likely not white anymore. If she finds a rural girl who went to the city to become a waitress and has no ambition to go to college, bingo, that is the wife.

  6. Dave says:

    “that is what did happen, for women of the affluent class.”

    I was of the impression that prior to the welfare state, patriarchy was practiced in all social classes, because even a poor father is better for the children than no father.

    • jim says:

      Yes you are right. But it is complicated. “Slut” originally meant lower class female, because it was difficult for poor women to marry early, because difficult to find husbands who could afford children, and also difficult to protect them from the opportunity to fuck around.

      The law, social expectations, and actual enforcement was patriarchal. But actually imposing patriarchy on women is pushing shit uphill. Some PUAs, whistling in the dark, say that women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of commitment, but that is not the way it is. Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap, so by nature, women have all power regarding sex and reproduction, and men have no power. This results in a bad situation where it is difficult to reproduce, so, for the tribe to successfully reproduce, men have to plot against women to disempower women and empower men, but it is not in fact easy to make patriarchy actually work.

      Even in societies were legally and socially, women have the legal status of pets, and their owner can euthanize them if so inclined, law counts for considerably less than you would expect.

      Just as war is easy and peace is hard, emancipation is easy and patriarchy is hard. Patriarchy, like peace, is an elaborate social technology with lots of parts that have to work together just right.

      • Dave says:

        So poor women were more inclined than rich women to fuck around, because they had less to lose and more to gain by doing so.

        Patriarchy is easier to maintain in a Malthusian economy, in which most fatherless children starve to death. Notice how stable Catholicism was for 1500+ years, then Catholics got a taste of prosperity, and the next Sunday the churches were empty (as were the maternity wards nine months later).

        • jim says:

          I don’t agree with that analysis.

          Rather, I think that the Catholic Church always relied on state sponsorship, and emptied out when the state demanded it turn into progressivism.

          Compare the Russian Orthodox Church. There has been a huge increase in the number identifying as Russian orthodox, and a modesty increase (from tiny to very small) in the number actually attending Church. This is obviously a direct consequence of state backing.

          • Dave says:

            And why did the state, after centuries of support, suddenly turn against its own beloved church? Because its previous rulers naively sent their kids to Harvard? Or because the US State Department offered IMF loans and free trade deals in exchange for “modernizing” family law?

  7. JRM says:

    It seems that a good deal of the capital of Western culture was, for several centuries, invested in a giant conspiracy to control women and give them a good, honorable, safe and stable life. For this we are supposed to be *apologetic* now, in deference to high-powered, independent women, many of whom are proudly ruining their lives.

    We called it Patriarchy, but it was often a series of social boundaries that had to be enforced with an untiring sense of real urgency, backed as it was by the wisdom that women were not to be trusted.

    Since many of the enforcement protocols were based on tradition and religion, the rise of materialism eroded the bulwark. In the new materialist secular economy women became voters, deciders, active agents, and even politicians.

    So we now have mostly marketplace terminology to describe and explain to ourselves how the dynamics between the sexes work. Turns out the old traditional ethos really did value the eggs, and in some pretty profound ways! The eggs have now been obscured by ideology and feminist rhetoric, along with a hedonistic culture. The sperm is still much sought, figuratively speaking, as women seem to want to sample as much as possible.

    The new marketplace dynamic is swinging around toward favoring men. Without chastity and unspoiled youth, today’s women are finding their services are only required on a very temporary time-scale. The SMV, even for very attractive females, esp. those with bad attitudes, will get them plenty of sex but not necessarily any long-term devoted provider. Sex has been made too easy to get for it to retain its former high value.

    Meanwhile, for a few lucky men, it is back to the harem economy, if they can keep from getting sued, arrested for in-hindsight rape, or stalked.

    The MGTOW movement seems at first glance to be a reaction to the demolition of men’s rights, and it is no doubt partly that. But it is also, perhaps, a nascent sign of men’s rising value, esp. those who have good provider skills (aka money and profession). Why should we give it away? (To paraphrase an old bit of female logic).

    No doubt MGTOW also is a somewhat stoic philosophic reaction to the slightly frightening spectacle of voracious (sexually and materially) women.

    • TheBigH says:

      People who do MGTOW should cut their junk off. That’s effectively what the movement is.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      J.R.M.,

      No, white women aren’t having more sex, in fact they’ve gone on a sex strike. They, the white women, are protesting the amount of White Genocide being pushed against the white race today. As the weaker vessels, no way are they going to be intimate with somebody who is likely to have resentments and hatreds against them because of their own white race. White women have correctly stereotyped those who are most effective at being anti-white in the world today: white men, who are stereotyped (correctly) as being sick, self-hating, white anti-white traitors.

      In protest to end the genocidal crime, women are using the power that they best know how to wield, that of their hearts and what’s between their legs. This is known as the white woman sex strike against White Genocide, #WWSSAWhiteGenocide. Of course white marriage, white fertility and white families will suffer as a consequence, but if that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes or so they tell me…

      Hey, J.R.M., I noticed that you didn’t even use the word “white” as in “white women” that is used in this very blogpost… Hey… You wouldn’t be anti-white yourself, or are you?

      A.J.P.

      • Corvinus says:

        “No, white women aren’t having more sex, in fact they’ve gone on a sex strike.”

        Please show us the documentary evidence by which women are on this proverbial “sex strike”.

        Perhaps you are the one who is getting the poon if you are single and project this lack of sex as a “sex strike”. That would be pathetic.

        “They, the white women, are protesting the amount of White Genocide being pushed against the white race today.”

        White genocide is a lie.

        “White women have correctly stereotyped those who are most effective at being anti-white in the world today: white men, who are stereotyped (correctly) as being sick, self-hating, white anti-white traitors.”

        Define “anti-white”. Are whites able to decide for themselves their own conduct toward their own race and other races? Why must whites be beholden to you regarding alleged “anti-white” conduct? Who made you the “anti-white police”?

        “Of course white marriage, white fertility and white families will suffer as a consequence, but if that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes or so they tell me…”

        I’m sure you are married and have at least 4 white kids, right? Praytell, how do you teach your children about “anti-white” and “white genocide”? Do you have a curriculum that you follow? Picture books? Does your minister even get involved? How does that work out?

        “Hey, J.R.M., I noticed that you didn’t even use the word “white” as in “white women” that is used in this very blogpost… Hey… You wouldn’t be anti-white yourself, or are you?”

        Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

      • JRM says:

        AJP: “No, white women aren’t having more sex, in fact they’ve gone on a sex strike. They, the white women, are protesting the amount of White Genocide being pushed against the white race today.”

        I don’t see any evidence of a sex strike. Lower end SMV females may be enduring non-voluntary abstinence b/c so many low-end SMV males have unrealistic porn-based ideals, or have given up out of disappointment or from women’s previous rejections…there may be a lot of non-elective chastity among lower-end SMV males and females because the kinds of social cohesion that once brought them together in comfortable and non ego injurious ways have eroded.

        The amount of bm/wf miscegenation on display makes your assertion that women are leading an anti-White Genocide grass-roots movement seem far-fetched at best.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Why do white women go to higher learning and then onto a job as they’re told to do, but when Daddy tells them to find a nice white man to have him some white grandchildren they disobey?

          It’s because they’re on a sex strike, but then again, if you’re anti-white that might be what you want.

      • lalit says:

        Someone please tell me that Alan J. Perrick is a Satirist.

  8. Nobody says:

    My condolences.

    Do you intend to remarry?

    • jim says:

      I have moved a girl in with me. If it works out will marry her. Failing that, someone like her.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Well it does not work like that. When a man loves a woman, he loves a young cute woman, and if she does not screw up, he gets wife goggles, and loves her all her days.”

        Exactly. And when the husband or wife dies, there is a significant grieving period, and not a quick shacking up with someone who was a side dish when the body is still warm.

        “But a man is just not going come to love an elderly woman. That is just how we are made. Which means that when a girl past twenty five or so switches lovers, every time she switches, she will discover her marriage market value has fallen, fallen significantly and substantially.”

        Men generally do not think that way. If a man is 25, and the woman he is dating is 25, 26, or 27, she is still young.

        “And at age thirty, she still has substantial sexual market value, as a booty call girl, or a friend with benefits, but her marriage market value is likely to be zero.”

        Not if the guy she is dating is also 30 or slightly older.

        “Hence, when a woman is pushing thirty, probably not a good idea for her to act like the kind of girl who is going to divorce her husband, even if she still has lots of booty calls from rich charismatic men with big swinging tools, since such actions are apt to take on a life of their own.”

        You have an active imagination. It doesn’t work like this in the real world. Your fantasy world, certainly.

      • Zach says:

        heh that was a move much more swift than I could ever do.

        Took me years before I trusted and loved my only wife. She is a great woman. If this marriage should end for any reason, including death (being the only likely reason), I’ll raise the boy, and will never remarry ever again. Perhaps there are many like you that can just move someone in so rapidly. Alas, for me, this is simply not possible.

        It’s weird, in my extended family, that is to say dozens of marriages, there is not a single divorce to speak of, and where death occurred, my family is in no habit of remarrying. No replacements. Makes no sense, but I feel that as well. Maybe a German/Norwegian thing? I don’t know.

        My brother loved a woman once, never married but got burned. He will NEVER be in a relationship again that he takes seriously. Friends with benefits until the day he dies lol

        Whatever works.

      • Nobody says:

        Out of curiosity: How old is she? I assume less than 30.

        PS: It’s not only comments with HTML that are broken, comments with any less-than and greater-than characters are.

  9. jew613 says:

    Jim, this is the letter where Agudat Yisrael formally excommunicated the Open Orthodoxy movement and its leaders which includes Kaplan and Greenberg.

    http://www.vosizneias.com/219366/2015/11/02/new-york-american-lithuanian-rabbis-issue-kol-korei-saying-open-orthodoxy-is-incompatible-with-torah-judaism/

    • B says:

      You’re new here, aren’t you? 🙂

      It won’t be enough. He’ll say that in order to win the bet, I’ll have to present a tape of RCA trustee Rabbi Pruzanski decapitating an orange jumpsuited Kaplan and Greenberg under a black flag.

      And if I present such a video, it won’t be enough because the knife was not dull enough.

      Then he will say that wily Jews are always reinterpreting contracts after the fact to their advantage and so forth.

      It’s entertaining, frankly.

      • ron says:

        I’d still like to see those bastards decapitated.

        Metaphorically speaking of course.

      • Eli says:

        Don’t know anything about Kaplan or Greenberg, but some of them, like R Zev Farber, advance interesting Biblical scholarship, in the vein of BAS’s (Biblical Archeology Society’s), as part of Project TABs (thetorah.com). I disagree with their social views (eg acceptance of homo marriage, women in liturgy, changing divorce/giur laws etc), but some of their history and analysis of Bible is top-notch.

        I also must say that some of them are honest in the way they present their social ideas, in that they openly submit that the Torah and history don’t directly support the current turn to progressivism, but that one must have “courage” to extend “inclusiveness.” Insanity, but at least a self-reflected one.

        Zev Farber, as part of TABS, wrote a bunch of essays that that do challenge some of tenets advanced by Rambam, referring to Ibn Ezra, as a basis for validating historico-critical reading of the Torah, one where it is considered as a layered writing. Frankly, while Jim.com might not be the best place to say it, this (and legal) is the only reading of the Torah that vibes with mine.

        Then again, I don’t represent the view of Orthodox Judaism, merely my own, affected from having a historian father, and reading various sources, including by writers like Shaye Cohen.

        • jim says:

          I also must say that some of them are honest in the way they present their social ideas, in that they openly submit that the Torah and history don’t directly support the current turn to progressivism, but that one must have “courage” to extend “inclusiveness.” Insanity, but at least a self-reflected one.

          Those that lack the courage to say that homosexual sex acts are forbidden, immoral, and disgusting, those that lack the courage to say that those who engage in homosexual acts have an extraordinarily high rate of murder, suicide, death by disease, drug overdose, and sexual misadventure, those that lack the courage to say that those who engage in homosexual acts are a festering mass of dangerous diseases, and in the habit of committing drug, sex, and violation of trust crimes in addition to homosexual acts, are not reflecting on anything, but are quietly waiting for the fact that homosexual marriage was ever forbidden to slide slowly down the memory hole.

          Those who want gay marriage to become Jewish Orthodoxy are “bravely” speaking out. Those who don’t want it to become Jewish Orthodoxy are not speaking out.

          Not the Rabbinical Council of America

          And not, in fact, even B, who tells us that homosexual marriage is forbidden, while circumlocuitously going around the fact that homosexual acts are forbidden, without giving us any good reasons why both of them need to be forbidden in any religion that upholds the family, and any nation that needs to defend itself.

          B tells us homosexual marriage is forbidden, while reluctant to say why it should be. Well, B, what is wrong with a “commitment ceremony” that just happens to oddly resemble marriage?

          Not only is The Rabbinical Council of America not drawing a bright line, B does not seem very keen on drawing one himself.

          • Eli says:

            With a due respect, I disagree. Not in your exact terms, but the RCA did strongly object to homos getting married:

            http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100869

            • jim says:

              That was a decade ago. Try to get the Rabbinical Council to say such things about homosexuality now.

              If they said something like that today, whether explicitly mentioning Kragan and company or not, then yes, I would definitely lose my bet, and would be very happy that I had lost it.

              But they are not. They are going silent while gays stick it up them.

              • Mackus says:

                Well, decade ago even Obama and Hillary were against Gay Marriage.

                • jim says:

                  Thing is, the Orthodox Jews are not bracing for repercussions, but capitulating to avoid repercussions.

                  If bracing for repercussions, I would be impressed.

                  It is not that they are saying “OK, we changed our minds, Gay Marriage is now OK.” Rather, they are quietly dropping opposition to gay sex down the memory hole, in preparation for the time when it always will have been OK.

                  Which is why I made the bet on the bright line, that they would not draw a bright line making something that looks rather like gay marriage in something that looks rather like an orthodox synagogue clearly not orthodox.

  10. According to OK Cupid Trends

    “The typical 28 year-old women sends a small but significant number of messages to men too young to drink. The typical 29 year-old sends practically none.”
    https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/page/12/

    • Corvinus says:

      Your link is from six years ago. Anything more current?

      • Back when they were run by a bunch of Harvard students, OK Cupid published cool analyses of their unparalleled data on human sexuality. Later they sold out to match.com and blog went away.

  11. Jim

    The problem with this and with such typical Manosphere arguments is that it is perfectly valid for a given subset of people – both men and women, the kind of subset who are very driven, ambitious and have high libido, who really want hard to get the best out of life. Perhaps this type is common in your circles. It is interesting how your examples tend to be of the elite. Reality TV stars etc. Do you have any stories about the love life of a factory girl, a cleaning maid, a plumber man? Common average people?

    When we are talking about lower libido and less ambitious people, the whole thing is different. Women go through a series of boyfriends but don’t ride the cock carousel so hard. They marry at 30 or later, but the man who marries them does not marry them for sex but for simply having nothing else to do with their lives than being a dad. Having no ambitions, they figure they may as well have a family and a home as an ambition.

    I know a Belgian postman who has a part time work schedule, one week 40 hours, other week 0. He is so unambitious that he can do with half pay, his house already paid for. He is around 50 and his girlfriend is 55. His alternative is not porn, whisky and whores because his focus is not satisfying libido but more like having self-respect, not feeling like a foreveralone loser (he is divorced and lost his kids). This difference ambition + lust of a man who has no self esteem problems vs. the self validation of a man who has is the difference between the Earl of Rochester and a postman.

    Anyhow, my point is it is all true, but only for a certain subset of “aristocrats”. The highly driven, ambitious, lustful, who really want to reap the fruits of life, who are going for success and getting it instead of going for avoiding failure, blending in and propping up their self esteem.

    Like, I do know a guy who left his wife and kids for a secretary who was simply much younger. But I know everybody else was WTF, why give up a good nice comfortable respectable life for mere lust? No surprise that he is a hard working entrepreneur and that everybody else is not.

    Look if Average Jane / Joe would really work like this we would already know and would not need obscure Manosphere blogs to figure it out. The reason we need the obscure blogs is that these patterns are dripping down slowly from the societal elite.

    • jim says:

      Look if Average Jane / Joe would really work like this we would already know and would not need obscure Manosphere blogs to figure it

      The marriage statistics in this post are for white females, all white females, the average American jane.

      And I am pretty sure that the average ordinary hot fertile age white girl in her twenties, the average hot jane, is riding the cock carousel like she is beating a drum, having wild parties every weekend meeting men who are rich, handsome, dangerous, violent, and excitingly scary – plenty of normal janes but not so many of the average joe at those parties.

  12. glenfilthie says:

    I dunno Jim. To me it looks like exceedingly sloppy work. You can pick and choose your stats and beliefs, but you can’t pick your own facts. We may see Jane looking sad during rainy days and conclude that rain makes Jane sad; when the real explanation may be quite different: Jane is sad during rainy days because she can’t work in her garden.

    The fact that you draw these conclusions with rudimentary data makes me suspicious of the data itself, to be honest. At the minimum I would need to see a similar OBJECTIVE study done on men and a more detailed survey on both for their reasoning.

    • jim says:

      I have given you the spreadsheet and a link to the data. If you don’t like it, redo it.

      • glenfilthie says:

        I think I’ll reject it for now, if it’s all the same. I’ve never thought much of Dalrock, actually. He’s a woman hater obsessed with men’s rights and largely oblivious to men’s responsibilities.

        Quite frankly, IMHO you do better work than he does,moor the most part.

        • jim says:

          Eh, you reject what you don’t want to believe by refusal to look at the evidence.

          Basic principle of patriarchy: If women are not kept firmly under male control, we get a society without fathers, in which men decline to work or fight. In other words, it is women who are by nature the sexually immoral sex, and beta males are able to deny this because they don’t get any pussy.

          Corrollary. Anyone who denies the glaringly obvious fact that women are by nature the sexually immoral sex is not getting any pussy.

          This has been proven by experiment time after time, same verdict as socialism. Socialist societies collapse economically, societies with emancipated women fail to reproduce biologically due to vice and perversion and disappear from history.

          • glenfilthie says:

            LOL.

            Jim, I don’t live in a trailer park or my parent’s basement. Please don’t insult my intelligence with this silliness.

            I base my viewpoints on ALL the evidence at my disposal. If you want to do that too – may I offer the following:

            – ALL empires rise and fall. Patriarchies included.

            – Anything that hurts one gender ultimately hurts them both. There is no net societal gain in making smart women subservient to stupid men or vice versa. The pasty faced beta male feminist is a stereotype. I see plenty of sexual immorality there and in your heroes like Jian Ghomeshi. Patriarchal societies run by dishonourable men are not going to be better than what we have now.

            – in all the history of mankind, the standard of living has never been higher than it is right now. If we were to rewind the clock to biblical times, most of us guys here would be dead, or slaves, peasants or expendable cannon fodder for the noble class. Idiots that don’t learn from history are damned to repeat it.

            You are entitled to your own stats and your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. When I form an opinion I insist on as much info as possible, rather than cherry picking the info to support my position.

            • peppermint says:

              You fucking faggot.

              – ALL empires rise and fall. Patriarchies included.

              Yes, and the way patriarchies fall is well documented to be through democracy, socialism and feminism.

              – Anything that hurts one gender ultimately hurts them both.

              What the fuck does this even mean, faggot?

              – There is no net societal gain in making smart women subservient to stupid men or vice versa.

              Rarely happens, EXCEPT WHERE THE WOMAN IS A FEMINIST AND DOESN’T LISTEN TO HER PARENTS AND FRIENDS, YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

              – The pasty faced beta male feminist is a stereotype.

              Tell that to my Facebook feed YOU FUCKING FAGGOT. Do I need to screencap a few pages of pasty faced beta male feminists posting feminism to scrounge for likes from women who just don’t see them that way? YOU FUCKING FAGGOT.

              – I see plenty of sexual immorality there and in your heroes like Jian Ghomeshi.

              Ghomeshi was never a hero, was always evidence that YOU ARE A FUCKING FAGGOT

              – Patriarchal societies run by dishonourable men are not going to be better than what we have now.

              they’re better in the sense that they are capable of continuing to exist, which is the only biological criterion for superiority, YOU FUCKING FAGGOT SERIOUSLY WHAT THE FUCK

              – in all the history of mankind, the standard of living has never been higher than it is right now.

              Yes, and that’s all going away, due to YOUR FUCKING FAGGOTRY

              – If we were to rewind the clock to biblical times, most of us guys here would be dead, or slaves, peasants or expendable cannon fodder for the noble class.

              better than being consigned to a mancave with chicken tendies and a gaming pc and no chance at a family ever YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

              – Idiots that don’t learn from history are damned to repeat it.

              yes, they are, YOU FUCKING 20th CENTURY FAGGOT

              • Alf says:

                You have a non-banned functioning facebook account? Did not expect.

              • Glen Filthie says:

                HAR HAR HAR!

                Ahhhhhhh….HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!

                Why, that’th not nithe!!!! How vewy WUDE!!!!!

                HAR HAR HAR!

                P-mint, the world is gonna do what it’s gonna do. There was a time when I was as bitter and angry about it as you. The liberal fucknuckles drove me up the wall! But the Christians have an old nickel that goes something like this:

                “Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can, and the courage to accept the things I can’t… and the wisdom to tell the difference.”

                I hate the faggotry, feminism and fecklessness as much as you. Ain’t got the time of day for feminists. I’ve watched those types in my wife’s family turn their lives into train wrecks – and they tried to turn our lives into train wrecks too. They actively went out of their way to dump their enlightened bullshit on me and mine.

                About 7 years ago I finally got smart. I realized that nobody was in my corner, and that the colour of my skin and my reproductive equipment made me a marked man. Nobody was gonna look after me, and any number of wretched men and women would happily take me down and cast me aside in their quest their quest to spread their misery. It was time to draw lines.

                I told my progressive in-laws to FOAD. I told my wife she could go with them, or come with me, but she couldn’t do both. She wisely sided with me. When my militant lesbian SJW daughter and her creepy girlfriend told me they were re-defining the family, I wished them good luck with that and defined them right the hell out of mine. Haven’t seen her in 5 years. Haven’t seen my in laws in two.

                I paid off all my debts and started hording cash and silver. Other metals include brass and lead, if ya catch my drift. Although she fought me on it – I made my wife learn to shoot. I’m trying to learn how to cook. No room for a man cave in my house – I’m stockpiling guns, ammo and supplies. (Which reminds me that my popcorn stores are a little too low, maybe). I don’t facebook or twitter or tumblr – I got better things to do and anyone I want to talk to is a phone call away.

                You are right that all this is going away. I ain’t happy about any of it but the writing’s on the wall. In the days ahead the men will be separated from the boys (and the faggots, I suppose) by their ability to survive. I am secure in my manhood – I will either go down on a pile of spent brass, surrounded by the corpses of my enemies with the mags on my guns dropped and the bolts locked back – or I will be one of the men left alive after a very necessary cull. Either way, I will die as I have lived – and both will be done well.

            • Kevin says:

              Maybe it’s because their Dads are dumb and tell them nonsensical conflicting messages and the pursue career and mindless sex wins out

          • Corvinus says:

            “In other words, it is women who are by nature the sexually immoral sex, and beta males are able to deny this because they don’t get any pussy.”

            Corrected for accuracy –> It is men and women who have character flaws, either through nature or nurture, who display immoral conduct.

            Besides, you consistently violated one of God’s commandments–Thou shall not commit adultery. You really think your perversion of the Bible is going to bring you forgiveness?

            “Anyone who denies the glaringly obvious fact that women are by nature the sexually immoral sex is not getting any pussy.”

            How do YOU know this to be an indisputable fact?

    • peppermint says:

      Jim’s theory is that a woman should get a ring before she gets desperate and has to put up with whatever man she finds first. The same advice applies to every other purchase an individual makes.

      One doesn’t even need evidence for such an obvious theory, which is one reason reactionary posts aren’t as full of evidence. Jim has evidence for the fact that women past the age of 30 have much more trouble getting married, which is why they are desperate, not why they should get married before they are desperate.

      But we already knew that White womens’ SMV craters after 30.

      http://i.imgur.com/RNJW8CW.jpg (from some male feminist idiot’s facebook)

      • glenfilthie says:

        Judging from the divorce stats one may conclude or at least entertain the exact opposite: that couples are getting married without thinking it through first.

        This would in turn bolster my scholarly convictions that a classical approach to classical marriage is warranted: long, thorough courtships, a responsible approach to sexual relations, and accountability of both partners in maintaining a healthy family unit.

        • jim says:

          You are being silly. Consider the divorce of Kate Glossilin. This is absolutely typical of every single divorce I see. Woman has perfectly good marriage, destroys it for absolutely no sane reason with disastrous consequences for herself and everyone around her. And we know that is true of Kate Glossilin because we saw her husband and her marriage on reality television. See also the real life of the author of “Eat Pray Love”.

          Women should not be allowed to make such decisions except under male supervision, because really stupid decisions keep “just happening”.

          Almost all divorces are the result of granting dangerous decision making power to people who are incapable of exercising it. It is as if we turned eight year olds loose in the woods to live by hunting bear. Women just lack the necessary agency to make the decisions we are allowing them to make. They make bad decisions, or, far more often, bad decisions “just happen”, and get badly hurt as a result. And we can see those bad decisions happening around us and, in Kate’s case, on reality television.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Women should not be allowed to make such decisions except under male supervision, because really stupid decisions keep “just happening””

            So is your new woman doing exactly like she is told just like your past marriage? Amazing how you always seem to find women who you claim are at your beck and call, yet you widely complain that men today have major troubles finding completely compliant women.

        • jim says:

          a classical approach to classical marriage is warranted: long, thorough courtships, a responsible approach to sexual relations, and accountability of both partners in maintaining a healthy family unit.

          You are bananas.

          What you propose is not the “Classical approach to marriage” because no society that employed it survived for long enough for it to become “classical”.

          Now what you propose would make total sense if you were going into a long term partnership where one partner produces iron ore and another refines it into steel, but female decisions regarding sex and reproduction are driven by overwhelming volcanically powerful irrational forces, if they can be said to make decisions at all, rather than things “Just happening”.

          • glenfilthie says:

            Errrrr… ‘Reality TV’? C’mon, Jim. You’re smarter than that. Bad things just keep happening to stupid men too. Falling in with stupid women is a classic mistake. The idea is to stay out of the beds of women that are batshit crazy in the first place. A partnership with a stupid woman is a bad deal whether she’s subservient or not.

            The most powerful, the most productive marriages are ones where husbands and wives pool resources, split labour and play to their respective strengths and cover for weaknesses in their partners. A marriage that degenerates into a power struggle is hardly better than one that fails.

            The females in my family are very capable decision makers and the men have not had to worry about divorce. common sense is what it is, for men and women – so we don’t have much cause to argue.

            If you do the work up front and vet your women before bedding them – and vice versa – everyone is better off for it.

            • peppermint says:

              why is it so important to you to view or at least treat women as equal to men?

              • Glen Filthie says:

                I don’t think women are equal. They are quite different and only a fool would dispute that.

                Why is it so important for you boys to view women as liabilities rather than assets? A completely subservient, indecisive woman is a liability I don’t want or need. A woman like that is no better than the stupid, domineering femcunts that liberals adore.

        • peppermint says:

          you want the ’70s. Which was commented on in the ’90s romcom High Fidelity and begat the Slutwalk movement.

          We’re going back much further than you can possibly imagine.

  13. […] Much more at blog.jim.com […]

  14. Jim

    Don’t ignore the fact that with every year passing a womans chance of losing the battle against getting fat are getting lower and lower. And as far as attractiveness goes, fat is worse, far worse than old.

    I am currently watching a 35 year old woman acquaintance getting desperate to marry. But it is because she is losing the battle against fat. She was always chubby and was yo-yo dieting up and down. She will be obese in a few years whatever happens, her willpower reserves are running out, she will not do more than one or two ridiculous diets anymore. (That means, living on protein powder and cucumber for 20 weeks to drop some chub quickly, then back to chocolate again. Like most fat people she cannot stick to a reasonably healthy lifelong regimen because they are using sugar as a drug, not as food.)

    So right now she wants to marry, get pregnant and then with a sigh relax and get fat. No more having to close the eye and squeeze the teeth when walking by the cake shop. If the beta husband says anything, she can blame the pregnancy.

    I know it sounds ridiculous to say people want to get fat, but what I am saying is that many women don’t want to deny them certain treats several times a day that are sure to get them fat if they are not running a marathon every day. And they need to lock down a hubby and kid before they can let themselves do that.

  15. lalit says:

    Sorry about your loss Jim.

    If Social systems are a negative feedback loop, the world can look forward to the end of feminism once the age of panic drops below 20. Perhaps before.

  16. […] A. Donald: A white woman’s chance of getting married. Jim runs through marriage data to calculate the chances of getting married by age. Liberally […]

  17. Mike in Boston says:

    Sincere condolences on your loss, Jim.

    When I married my wife she was thirty-seven, but trim and energetic. We have had three kids since. I’m not claiming we are representative,but just how unrepresentative we are seems like an interesting question.

  18. A.B. Prosper says:

    Sorry for your loss Jim.

    re: marriage age. Its about where i’d expect a primarily urban culture and society to be.

    Back when the West was actually patriarchal and highly religious we see basically the similar to modern marriage patterns . Using 15th century England as a baseline

    Rural (most people) young as soon as can be afforded 18-22 typically (using Yorkshire as a baseline) Urban, Early to mid 20’s

    Big difference is we no longer have much of a Rural culture, everyone is Urban or Suburban so we’d expect people to marry late

    Normally the “burbs” serve as an ersatz rural area but there are big hitches though, wage arbitrage (wages as percent GDP are down by half) and the need to avoid Blacks and Immigrant Invaders and the need for college has made housing harder to afford

    If we had wages on par with 1973 as percent GDP people would marry earlier in the suburbs probably early 20’s

    One more facet though, Cultural Marxism has taught women to be stupid and to waste their best years. While overall lifespans are longer by a decade or so , fertile, youthful years are not and while well kept women in their early 30’s can still be fertile and pretty , most are slovenly at best , they are not a match for younger women in any case

    What this suggests to be is even a rollback and a partial return to patriarchy if it includes economic considerations and ethnic ones should have salutary effects on marriage and fertility

    But again I’m not sold on Jim’s 17th Century or bust theory and run to Burkean at times,. I’d rather not be a reactionary but if needs must I guess.

    • jim says:

      re: marriage age. Its about where i’d expect a primarily urban culture and society to be.

      Not seeing it. Emancipate women in poor third world countries, get modern type low fertility. Make women property and pets, as in urban Japan before McArthur, high fertility.

      I don’t think urbanity directly causes infertility, rather it makes it easier for girls to sneak off and play males against each other, makes it hard to maintain patriarchy.

      Spandrel has lots of Jeremiads from China on how, even when the law theoretically is severely patriarchal and theoretically makes women property of men, women wind up running things. Nature has given women lots of power. It is hard to take it away from them. Patriarchy, like peace, has lots of moving parts that have to work right.

      And its trickier to have patriarchy in a city, because of the possibilities of women sneaking off to fuck around, but the Japanese managed it.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        What I’m saying is White people in the US are mostly West of the Hajnal line types and minus the above issues are behaving predictably for our cultures and race and circumstances

        And as for urban fertility decline’s causes I honestly don’t know either. , I’d suspect its much easier though to raise a family with space, 1950’s Houses weren’t huge, I’ve lived in one but were by comparison to urban garrets quite pleasant and spacious

        While I agree urban life isn’t a distraction to the young, baring collapse which guarantees patriarchy we ought to take into account that more and more people are urban
        and that birth control isn’t going anywhere nor are all the distractions

        However as a side note i went to a very hippie music fest last week, it was 97-98% White maybe more .Also young One of the bands was exhorting people to be fertile and have children and families as part of a set and you know it was well received. It wouldn’t surprise me if a baby or two came out of that night

        I think the desire is there is just that the screwed up social conditions are keeping it down. Fox those , kick out foreigners and White folks will probably recover.

        We won’t probably get Timor Leste level fertility but 2.2 is growth and 2.1 afrer a decline period is alos fine.

        • Corvinus says:

          A collapse of the United States, if and when that ever happens, does not guarantee patriarchy. It only means that there will be a free for all as to who gains control.

          Besides, whites need not be lectured by you or the Alt-Right elites for not having enough children above replacement level.

          • jim says:

            Nothing guarantees winning. Fighting only makes it possible.

            Periods of violent and disorderly anarchy usually restore patriarchy as successful warlords assign women to men who fight and pay taxes, without regard for the preferences of those women. When things get violent, peoples with emancipated women either unemancipate them, as for example the Song Dynasty as a result of the fall of the North, or disappear utterly from history, their men killed and their women enslaved, as for example the classic Greeks and the Romano Britons in the fall of the Roman Empire in the west.

            • Corvinus says:

              “Periods of violent and disorderly anarchy usually restore patriarchy as successful warlords assign women to men who fight and pay taxes, without regard for the preferences of those women.”

              Except this is the 21st century. The warlords are in boardrooms, not battlefields.

          • peppermint says:

            ((No stupid goyim, the collapse of the apparatus that will surely destroy you doesn’t guarantee your survival, and no one needs to be told to have babies except for White women with mud boyfriends))

  19. […] A white woman’s chance of getting married […]

  20. Fed up with this world says:

    ‘If women had their way, and men did not have their way, women would spend thirty years from age ten to age forty sexing a long succession of wealthy charismatic socially skilled alpha males with big tools, then get married and have children using IVF and their eggs that they froze in their late twenties. We know that because there is a pile of highly emancipated women with highly successful careers in front of the fertility clinic, only without the husbands.”

    Yawn. As if life itself is so great. Extinction is our fate, as Darlington wrote. If someone can enlighten me why I should have chosen this life if I had been asked, it would really lift a burden off of me. After all, I only endure now because of my Christian faith; otherwise, I would see no reason to continue to live in this world, which is evil (Gal. 1:4) and wicked (1 John 5:19) anyway. And apart from nature, _being_ all of this is a different matter, as Schopenhauer wrote.

    Who wants to live in our ugly, modern world? As Gômez Dâvila wrote:

    “The modern world will not be punished.
    It is the punishment.”

    Yep. And you guys fell for it.

    Quoting him again:

    ” Just as in our society the dregs of society triumph, so too in our literature the dregs of the soul triumph. ”

    ” We live because we do not view ourselves with the same eyes with which everybody else views us. ”

    ” We spend a life trying to understand what a stranger understands at a glance: that we are just as insignificant as the rest. ”

    ” It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals. ”

    Even though I’m a Christian, even the New Testament itself does not demand having children. In fact, there is really no imperative at all to have them, which is also what Dr. Michael Blume concluded, who researched the liinks between religiosity and demographics.

    My own take is: if you are well-versed in the Bible, like Augustine or St. Jerome, then you understand that the Scripture itself even recommends celibacy. Augustine laid this out in “De bono viduitatis” and “De bono coniugali”. And St. Jerome’s position is well-known.

    A Christian may have children, but in the end I really see no reason why anyone would want to live in this world, why anyone would want to exist at all. The fact is that we don’t know what Heaven is like, we don’t know what eternity is like. It is not conceivable, because it ultimately leads to boredom and tedium. Which is why I reject anyone who claims to know more than a Christian can know.

    What I’m saying is that you guys really overvalue life and existence. I mean, you aren’t Goethes, Dantes, Kants, Platos, Newtons or so, you are regular guys with meaningless lives that amount to nothing in the end. No one will give a fsck. Sorry to hand it to you, but an atheist really _ c a n n o t _ argue for the world’s existence, because it is too awful, too wicked and evil. Too much ugliness and injustice. You guys don’t even have eugenics in place! Even Chris Langan, who is certainly very intelligent, is a supporter of eugenics (in his language: anti-dysgenics).

    So, calm down. God exists, yes; but if He had wanted trillions of humans alive, He would not have given any commandments against adultery, fornication, and so on.

    I see it more like this: Christ has mercy on our wretched and anguished state, our horrid existence. After all, God became flesh. He knows how horrible this world is, which He did not intend to create in this state. And this simply means there is a way out. No one chose his birth, no one chose his genetics, his parents, the century he is forced to live in and so on. But Christ has mercy on us, and understands who awful this world is. After all, the flesh is in constant battle with the Good, the Spirit, that which is Holy.

    In the end, what Gômez Dâvila writes in one of his aphorisms is certainly very true, given our — from an earthly perspective — completely, and I mean c o m p l e t e l e y meaningless lives:

    The irreplaceability of the individual is the teaching of Christianity and the postulate of historiography.

    Because we know that God cares about the individual, let us not forget that He seems to care little about humanity.

    For God there are only individuals.

    Only for God are we irreplaceable.

    PS: I’m mentally ill, so sorry if this posts appears a little messy. Another reason I wonder why I was forced into this in this body, with this mentally ill mind.

    • jim says:

      That is gnosticism, not Christianity, and just as third positionism is thinly disguised Marxism, gnosticism is thinly disguised demon worship. Gnostics worship death and Moloch.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        Jim,

        Can you give a definition of Gnosticism as you (and Ramzpaul, et al) are using it? The Wikipedia definition seems sterile and non-contextual with how you guys are using it.

        • alf says:

          Gnostics are an inversion of Christianity: Christians believe God loves, Gnostics believe God hates.

          But Christ has mercy on us, and understands who awful this world is. After all, the flesh is in constant battle with the Good, the Spirit, that which is Holy.

          • The Cominator says:

            Some Gnostics are worse then others.

            Gnostics quite reasonably suspect the creator of this world isn’t quite benign. Some of them then engage in religious justifications that end up making things worse ie they tend to be Manichean about the material world and egalitarian about society… these gnostics worship demons.

            But NAGALT… some gnostics aren’t subversive and antisocial.

            • jim says:

              Well, yes, difficult to justify the position that the creator of this world is benign, though Christians have had a good go at it.

              But all the gnostics that appear on this blog are subversive, anti social, and present or presuppose claims about this world that are far less defensible than the position that the creator of the world is benign.

              And even a gnosticism that was not subversive and anti social is going to lose. Black pill loses to white pill. Irrational optimism will get you further as an individual than rational pessimism, and as a group, one hell of a lot further.

              Even if a gnostic was prosocial, and I have not seen any prosocial gnostics on this blog, I would still push back against the black pill as demon worship and death worship.

Leave a Reply