patrick.net

Rin says

However way they can get it. And yes, a certain percentage will be either hookers or friends-with-benes. Ever noticed all those ads on Craigslist for such services? Or Seeking Arrangements/Sugar Babies?

Duh, who's claiming otherwise?

You can't get it. Others can. Such is life.

Bigsby says

Rin says

However way they can get it. And yes, a certain percentage will be either hookers or friends-with-benes. Ever noticed all those ads on Craigslist for such services? Or Seeking Arrangements/Sugar Babies?

Duh, who's claiming otherwise?

The cultural notion of normal dating, and finally, marriage. That's been the bane of this entire rant.

If men in the marrying age bracket of 35 to 54, at an increasing clip of 50% per decade, are not opting for marriage, but instead, decide to simply have hookups... then eventually, the combination of one night stands(adultfriendfinder et al), sugar babies/arrangements, hookers, etc, will be much more normal.

Rin says

The cultural notion of normal dating, and finally, marriage. That's been the bane of this entire rant.

If men in the marrying age bracket of 35 to 54, at an increasing clip of 50% per decade, are not opting for marriage, but instead, decide to simply have hookups... then eventually, the combination of one night stands(adultfriendfinder et al), sugar babies/arrangements, hookers, etc, will be much more normal.

Show me the data where they are simply choosing to have hookups. How many are looking for a relationship and simply use hookers to fill the gap? How many only ever want to be with hookers? Show me those numbers.

Hookers are common place the world over. It isn't something unusual that is suddenly becoming the norm with people foregoing relationships in favour of fucking a hooker a few times a year instead.

Bigsby says

Show me the data where they are simply choosing to have hookups. How many are looking for a relationship and simply use hookers to fill the gap? How many only ever want to be with hookers? Show me those numbers.

So you want me to show you numbers of an underground economy, I guess you really are reaching for straws.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1292936/is-the-sugar-daddysugar-baby-phenomenon-a-kind-of-prostitution/

Excerpt: "Seekingarrangement.com claims to have four million members — three million of them “sugar babies” — including nearly 250,000 in Canada. About 50,000 of those are in Toronto, of which all but 7,000 are women."

Ok, so 3 million women in North America, USA & Canada, want to be in an engagement with a man, in exchange for financial favors. Do you realize that that's not a small number. And then, this website isn't the only place where these things are happening so it could easily be, 2 to 3 times that number.

Thanks for supplying data that is utterly irrelevant to what I said. Who has claimed hookers aren't big business? Your bloody example isn't even related to hookers. The point is who is choosing only to go with hookers and forfeit having a relationship instead - the thing you are peddling. Your assertion appears to be that you won't have a relationship with someone you meet even if you really liked them and were attracted to them. That is what you are claiming, isn't it? I suspect that doesn't have a great deal of traction for most people, and I rather suspect that also applies to you.

Bigsby says

Thanks for supplying me data that is utterly irrelevant to what I said. Who has claimed hookers aren't big business? The point is who is choosing only to go with hookers and forfeit having a relationship instead. Your assertion appears to be that you won't have a relationship with someone you meet even if you really liked them and were attracted to them. That is what you are claiming, isn't it? I suspect that doesn't have a great deal of traction for most people, and I rather suspect that also applies to you.

Sorry, ppl had met their best friends during childhood and those formative years.

Afterwards, it's basically a bunch of baloney. Of course, being a cultural conformist, you believe those lies. Do you not think, for one moment, that the average gal at a party can't figure out that I'm a successful white collar professional? No, it's obvious and thus, I'm not interested in her. I would have rather have met her, when I was struggling STEM worker. Today, she's irrelevant.

Rin says

Sorry, ppl had met their best friends during childhood and those formative years.

Afterwards, it's basically a bunch of baloney. Of course, being a cultural conformist, you believe those lies. Do you not think, for one moment, that the average gal at a party can't figure out that I'm a successful white collar professional? No, it's obvious and thus, I'm not interested in her. I would have rather have met her, when I was struggling STEM worker. Today, she's irrelevant.

A cultural conformist? Yeah, I guess that's why I've spent almost my entire adult life working around the world.

People make friends and lose friends throughout their life. Seriously, how socially stunted are you?

And you don't go out with women because they can see how successful you are?!? Ha, fucking, ha. Let me guess, it's the car you drive. Oh, hang on...

Seriously, you're living in your own little fantasyland, aren't you?

Bigsby says

A cultural conformist? Yeah, I guess that's why I've spent almost my entire adult life working around the world.

People make friends and lose friends throughout their life. Seriously, how socially stunted are you?

And you don't go out with women because they can see how successful you are?!? Ha, fucking, ha. You're living in your own little fantasyland, aren't you?

Of course, the sun never sets over the British Empire. You're the new viceroy abroad. I presume you walk around Asia, looking down upon ppl's flat nose and feel more powerful than them.

Actually, I've retained many of my earlier friendships. And yes, it's important to do so.

Plus, I don't date women because I don't give a rat's ass about 'em. Do you get that, Lord Mountbatten?

I know you feel a sense of superiority over me, because of some overseas British Empire nonsense, but in reality, you're just another dickweed ex-pat.

Heraclitusstudent says

justme says

You are conflating (equating) allowing men the same rights as women, in marriage and otherwise, with "dumping a homemaker on the street without help."

If you are arguing for equality then I disagree on that premise first. You would know that if you had read my comments above.

Okay, so so you disagree with equality being a goal. You want women to have more and better rights than men. Good you got that off your chest.

justme says

Okay, so so you disagree with equality being a goal. You want women to have more and better rights than men. Good you got that off your chest.

Good to see you here, I was wondering when those with common sense were going to come up.

Rin says

Of course, the sun never sets over the British Empire. You're the new viceroy abroad. I presume you walk around Asia, looking down upon ppl's flat nose and feel more powerful than them.

Got any more cliches you'd like to trot out whilst you're at it?

Rin says

Plus, I don't date women because I don't give a rat's ass about 'em. Do you get that, Lord Mountbatten?

Yeah, I understand you're a misogynist. And apparently all because a woman dumped you 4 years ago. How sad.

Bigsby says

Got any more cliches you'd like to trot out whilst you're at it?

Considering your level of arrogance, I believe it's quite there, Monty.

I've met others like you, who'd live in Asia, and are so proud of their immense popularity among the natives.

:::Oh, I understand you've become a mysogynist. And apparently all because a woman dumped you 4 years ago. You sad man.

OMG, you've just made me cry. Oh ... how I miss that bitchy Canadian. My heart's broken LOL!

You're such an ordinary man if that's the best you can come up with.

Now, get back to making fun of those slanted eye East Asians and dark skinned South Asians. I'm sure you're so proud of the fact that Asian women worship your British Empire member. BTW, thanks to your Empire, I've heard that South Asians living in Britain, use skin bleaching creams to look more Anglo-Saxon. I guess you guys have done a real good job on instilling that colonial mentality among your subjects.

BTW, in one year, I'll never have to work a day in my life again. Tell me, if you've achieved such a thing, Mr White Power/Viceroy, Lord of Asia.

I think we're done with this conversation.

Rin says

Considering your level of arrogance, I believe it's quite there, Monty.

My arrogance? That's a bit rich coming from you.

Rin says

I've met others like you, who'd live in Asia, and are so proud of their immense popularity among the natives... I'm sure you're so proud of the fact that Asian women worship your British Empire member.

Err, I don't live in Asia, and it's YOU who likes to boast/fantasize about fucking whores in Thailand...

Rin says

OMG, you've just made me cry. Oh ... how I miss that bitchy Canadian. My heart's broken LOL!

Sure, you can tell by the way you never bring her up...

Rin says

Now, get back to making fun of those slanted eye East Asians and dark skinned South Asians.

My wife is Japanese. Try again.

Rin says

BTW, thanks to your Empire, I've heard that South Asians living in Britain, use skin bleaching creams to look more Anglo-Saxon. I guess you guys have done a real good job on instilling that colonial mentality among your subjects.

My empire, my subjects? I didn't realize I had an empire. Wow, what shall I do...

Rin says

BTW, in one year, I'll never have to work a day in my life again. Tell me, if you've achieved such a thing, Mr White Power/Viceroy, Lord of Asia.
I think we're done with this conversation.

So you claim. The internet is a wonderful place for people like you.

And you say I'm arrogant. You have to laugh.

Rin,

I can understand and sympathize with some of what you are saying. However, as a fellow numbers guy, I hope you realize that the average child support payment in this country is only $350/mo or so, and you are in a state where the maximum child support cap is $2000/mo (unless you have consistently provided for a higher standards of living to the woman previously, or marriage is involved). Granted, $2000/mo or $24k/yr after tax money is close to $40k pre-tax and is higher than the entire average woman's earning, it is not a huge sum of money, and not much more than what you'd spend on circling the globe impaling hookers. In exchange for the minimal cost inccrease, you get to f*ck the girl bareback, have kids of your own; whether you can manage to keep her looking up to you and stay "devoted" to you after a while is a function of your ability to replace her (yes, most girls are that silly, actually LOGICAL: it's us idealistic men who are silly! it's their biological programming to take you for granted until you threaten to walk away; it's a mechanism to maximize her take from you for her offsprings' benefit, don't hate her for it).

Seems to me, you can have more time for your research projects and banging if you just stay home and cycle through them one after another every few years (if it has to be carried out instead of merely dreading her), instead of travelling and writing about it.

BTW, also agree with you that prostitution should be legal, so that the young boys can have an outlet and building self-confidence instead of chasing their classmates and turning into manginas, while married women can have real / implied competition so that they don't become too complacent.

Rules have to change. otherwise the only people feeling safe to have kids are like that 32 yr old guy in TN who has 30+ kids from several different women. Since he is on minimum wage, he has to give a few cents per kid a month. Good, competent, smart, successful people -and that includes an increasing number of professional women-are foregoing having kids. Then we just have a legion of people who need support from taxpayers having multiple kids and then badmouthing the givers too.

In animals if you breed like to like long enough-you get like soon enough Same thing will happen to us.

Agree, "Lost." There should be laws mandating sterility / implanted contraception for the biological parents of children that have to receive welfare from the state.

Everyone is allowed to make mistake once for producing a child that he/she can not afford, but not a second time. It's a human rights issue for the child! No child deserves to be born into poverty and to irresponsible parents.

Reality says

Seems to me, you can have more time for your research projects and banging if you just stay home and cycle through them one after another every few years (if it has to be carried out instead of merely dreading her), instead of travelling and writing about it.

Here's the thing, perhaps this is the piece which my detractors don't understand but women are boring.

For the most part, they do not share my hobbies, nor did they help me build my career. The reason why that Canadian was the last GF was because during the final year, I could barely stand her. It was one meltdown/crisis after another. And what ppl also don't get is that I first tried to break up with her and she went into a tailspin to keep the already tattered relationship going. And then finally, when she'd walked 4 years ago, I was completely free, to devoted myself 100% to the business. What a relief it was.

And yet, ppl think that it's all natural to be in relationships. I disagree, for a man, it's to follow his passions whether it's work, writing, photography, martial arts, music, etc. Those are the things which bring joy and happiness. I'd say that a crew of Vikings, navigating the seas, are probably a lot happier than most married men in America today. Sure, they may screw a few dames along the road but their true calling is exploration and boating.

Rin says

For the most part, they do not share my hobbies

One could consider sex a hobby.

not that y'all asked, but my current and evolving understanding is that as women "liberated" themselves from their traditional roles as wives and mothers, skewed the legal system to be unfair to men, became more than half of college grads, and moved up in the workforce, they found they still were not happy with the situation.

the reason is unspeakable in public: women want men who are higher status than themselves. they want men who are higher earning, more respected, literally bigger, etc etc. and this is fundamental and biological, not cultural. it evolved that way over a million years because the wives of high-status men tended to have more children, and better protected children.

a high-earning professional woman finds her pool of acceptable men greatly constrained. she just doesn't get turned on by any of those nebbishes who earn less than she does and are less ambitious than she is. and now, having taken the time to work on a career, she is also a bit older, and the younger men probably arent' even looking at her.

men, conversely, want young, beautiful, and feminine women and actually want to commit to and provide for such women in exchange for love and loyalty from them. ambition and a career in women are invisible to men, or are even a turn-off. women think that what they want in a man (manliness, yes) must be what men want in women, and this is completely wrong, pretty much the opposite of reality.

so now we get the situation of zillions of liberated but frustrated career women not able to find a man acceptable to them who is willing to commit to them. the really high status men get their pick of women, and they pick the young feminine ones pretty much every time. and the career women fume and tell each other that men are all assholes.

and zillions of frustrated men like rin wonder what the fuck happened to the traditional deal, which would have been acceptable. i bet that if you could guarantee rin a hot young loyal wife, he'd go for it. he just doesn't want to get ripped off by the feminist movement. and he feels it's definitely a rip-off for men. somehow they are supposed to provide their side of the traditional deal (love, money, protection) but in exchange for nothing instead of the traditional woman's role of loyal wife and mother.

well, you can get crucified these days for honest opinions that don't jibe with feminism, so i should probably stop there.

rin wonder what the fuck happened to the traditional deal, which would have been acceptable. i bet that if you could guarantee rin a hot young loyal wife, he'd go for it. he just doesn't want to get ripped off by the feminist movement. and he feels it's definitely a rip-off for men. somehow they are supposed to provide their side of the traditional deal (love, money, protection) but in exchange for nothing instead of the traditional woman's role of loyal wife and mother.

The problem with the word guarantee, is that it doesn't apply to the current condition in America. The success rate (meaning long term happiness) is actually rather low.

What a guarantee is basically attending a US medical/MD school equals a solid, high paying job provided one does the work or that a Toyota Camry will probably have very few technical problems during its first 100K miles.

Rin says

The problem with the word guarantee, is that it doesn't apply to the current condition in America. The success rate (meaning long term happiness) is actually rather low.

yes, i agree with you.

my argument is that long-term marriage success was destroyed by feminism. both genders were happier in their traditional roles, even if those roles themselves are not optimal for everyone's happiness. the men would prefer to continue to fuck around instead of being limited to one woman, and the women get pretty damn tired of being at home and watching kids, but those were the costs of the old deal and they were acceptable costs to both sides before feminism.

note the excellent correlation of the rise in feminism with the rise in divorce rates.

Patrick is 100% correct on this subject.

@Rin

Female reproduction partners are not there to be your hobby partner or business partner, unless your hobby and business are making and raising a lot of babies. It's just like if you have an accountant or lawyer for business partner, you wouldn't necessarily count on taking him on fishing trips of golf games or hang-gliding!

The idealized life partner in everything theme is BULL SHIT designed to trick women into giving up the goods :-) It conjures up a younger version of her dad!

Female reproduction partners are there to provide babies and steady supply of sex. That's why infertility and sex refusal (abandonment) were both fault grounds for divorce. The product itself is fine so long as you RTFM. Make sure you read the correct manual, not the fantasy in relationship porn written for female audience.

BTW, just in case any female reader think above comment is mysogynistic, no it is not: wife / GF being only expected to provide babies and sex means it is a good idea for the woman to have a successful career of her own after the babies go to school. That means it is a good idea for her to find an established man early, get married early and have the 2.2 babies early, so she can have a long uninterrupted professional career for herself afterwards.

A man should sow wild oats early because his opportunity cost is low at that point because he can't afford to raise any kids anyway;
A woman should find a worthy man and have baby early when her biological opportunity cost is high, then build her professional career and f*ck around later in life when her biological opportunity cost is low.

women want men who are higher status than themselves.

About 10 years ago, when it had fully dawned on me what the problem was, I used to state the above in the following way:

Women demand to be equal(*) to men in public life and work life, but they still also demand that their PRIVATE man must be BETTER than them (and not just equal).

There is no solution to the equation implied by the above demand. The above is the essence of the incredible mess that modern society has become since abut 1960, cf. the divorce rate plot Patrick posted, not to mention the other stats that show that the rate of staying unmarried has sky-rocketed.

Addendum: (*) In practice women are not asking to be treated equally, they are demanding to be treated AS IF EQUAL and equally qualified, whether or not they actually are. There is plenty of evidence of this, from reduced-level firefighter and military fitness tests for women, to run-of-the-mill affirmative action, to corporate boardroom quotas.

justme says

Women demand to be equal to men in public life and work life, but they still also demand that their PRIVATE man must be BETTER than them (and not just equal).

yes, exactly.

women demand contradictory things all the time since the advent of feminism, and it's driving men crazy, or driving them to give up on marriage and long-term commitment completely.

the basic contradiction is the one above: how dare you assert you are in any way better than me, and you damn well better be better than me in most ways, or you're not getting any!

most men think: wtf?

justme says

(*)

(*)

heh

the basic contradiction is the one above: how dare you assert you are in any way better than me, and you damn well better be better than me in most ways, or you're not getting any!

+100

that's the more outspoken way of putting it.

most men think: wtf?

Most men think WTF, but I also believe that only a small fraction of them (5% ?) really understand what is going on, and how insane it is. But the percentage is growing, and when it reaches 50% there will be change.

justme says

Most men think WTF, but I also believe that only a small fraction (5% ?) of them really understand what is going on, and how insane it is, But the percentage is growing, and when it reaches 50% there will be change.

That realization may take a couple of generations but during that time period, virtual reality environments and sex androids will come online and even more men may opt out completely, as a result.

Let's face it, a robot with all of one's hobbies/interests programmed in, will outperform any regular person, in addition to the sexual services.

note the excellent correlation of the rise in feminism with the rise in divorce rates.

If you are blaming feminism for better equality in law, then fine, feminism is to blame, but that doesn't appear to be what you are saying. Divorce rose primarily because it was made easier under the law both in terms of the process and financially (and no doubt also because of a decline in the social stigma attached to it). Divorce rates in England and Wales doubled between 1961 and 1969 from 25,000 to 51,000. The Divorce Reform Act of 1969 made divorce easier and rates rose to 120,000 by 1972. Rates then continued to rise until 1994 but have since returned to the 1972 levels even though the population has risen 8 million, there is greater workforce participation, greater expectations of equality, even less stigma....

The slight decline in divorce count in most recent years is due to collapsing marriage rate in the 20-50 age group.

The divorces per thousand are declining, so the decline is both in number and in percent. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for that, but the story certainly isn't all about ball busting feminists. The number of cohabiting couples has risen greatly in the UK, so apparently people are still interested in relationships, but are just less tied to a traditional approach.

The divorces per thousand population are declining primarily because less marriages per thousand;
The divorces per thousand marriages may also be declining because people, especially men, are avoiding getting married to begin with, so only the faithful and idealistic are self-selecting to get married.

Reality says

The divorces per thousand population are declining primarily because less marriages per thousand;

The divorces per thousand marriages may also be declining because people, especially men, are avoiding getting married to begin with, so only the faithful and idealistic are self-selecting to get married.

In recent decades in the West, marriages generally haven't been arranged, aren't a social requirement prior to having children, are less of a financial necessity etc.., so I presume the driving force for many is that general vague idea of a life time commitment. That's been true over the period we've been discussing. Your assertion about the reason for the decline in divorces is just that. How about it being about the fact people are delaying marriage and so are more mature now than a few decades ago - maybe the decision is actually less idealistic than before. Who knows - I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons.

And more to the point, the thrust of the argument on here seems to be about a breakdown in the relationship between men and women (with divorce being the go to manifestation of this), but as I said, you could argue that one form of monogamous relationship has simply been replaced by another for many, cohabitation instead of marriage. The former has risen by 30% over the last decade in the UK.

Bigsby says

you could argue that one form of monogamous relationship has simply been replaced by another for many, cohabitation instead of marriage

sure, as men figure out that there is no longer any benefit to them in marriage, they refuse to enter any legal commitment. perfectly rational.

Fucking hookers is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

sure, as men figure out that there is no longer any benefit to them in marriage, they refuse to enter any legal commitment. perfectly rational.

Plenty (all?) of the same issues will arise with cohabiting as they do in marriage and more than likely the law will reflect that given time, or else people will make use of cohabitation agreements to fill the gap.

Bigsby says

The former has risen by 30% over the last decade in the UK

There is a reason. You don't have big brother controlling your life down to the last cent. Feminazis of course are trying to make cohabitation the same as marriage and in quite a few places-one owes palimony.

This idea that you owe half for ever is just silly. Take Hulk Hogan-a lifetime of injuries, gym workouts, possible steroids and the ex ends up with 70% of their assets and he is alone. She wa snot asked to do 70% of the household chores for the next 30 yrs. Not that she did any-with their money, she just enjoyed it. Feminazis asked for equality and they got it-now get equality in everything and be treated as an equal. A man is expected to stand on his own and now so should a woman. Enough of the safety net. Woman can run for president, can join the armed forces/police etc etc-well then you are an equal and be responsible for your own life-be responsible for your choices. A small transitory support for a few years is fine-but that is it.

Given the feminazis history, I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a rule saying if you are not married or not cohabiting, then you have to maintain the hookers in the lifestyle they want to be maintained. They have successfully transformed a woman from mom to the whore.

This place is much better:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Botonica+Angel+Abundia/@29.367757,-98.504005,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xa6095386b0cfcde1

My solution would be to ban No Fault divorces, except by mutual agreement, and only then if there are no children under 18.

You have kids, you shouldn't be able to get divorced unless there is substance abuse, physical abuse, total abandonment, etc.

Think about it, what other agreement/contract in life can one party unilaterally walk away from a contract that includes a total intertwining of financial arrangements (to say nothing of emotional, physical, etc. entangements) and actually get *Rewarded* for it.

I'm really sick of the way the media bullshits about how divorce is important for the parents' mental health, but the kids will get over it. Studies show divorce does a helluva job on children, and effects their ability to form relationships (inc. non-sexual ones) later on in life.

Adults need to suck it up for the kids, and stay married.

An alternative solution to the ban on No Faults would be "Whomever files for the no fault divorce automatically does not get custody of the children." Why reward the person who chose to dissolve the divorce?

Do this and I guarantee a big drop in the divorce rates.