patrick.net

Based on observation of a mid forties divorced man I know, women from 38-50 are ridiculously easy to bang. And they say they aren't looking for commitment. They're lying of course, but a man in that age range will be spoiled for choice when but comes to short term fuck buddies.

The scales tilt radically once women get toward the end of their childbearing years.

Quigley says

Based on observation of a mid forties divorced man I know, women from 38-50 are ridiculously easy to bang. And they say they aren't looking for commitment. They're lying of course, but a man in that age range will be spoiled for choice when but comes to short term fuck buddies.

The scales tilt radically once women get toward the end of their childbearing years.

Agreed. You still have to keep in shape and/or be somewhat successful (but who doesn't want to strive for both of these things naturally), but then you get spoiled. Still, that may or may not what you want for the long-term, and when you are dating younger ones you may (will) face some "societal headwinds" - in which a zero fucks given attitude is of great importance ;)

Quigley says

Based on observation of a mid forties divorced man I know, women from 38-50 are ridiculously easy to bang. And they say they aren't looking for commitment. They're lying of course, but a man in that age range will be spoiled for choice when but comes to short term fuck buddies.

I was fifty when my first marriage went south. But I can agree, when dating women between 38 - 50 the offers and opportunities to bang the date were - insane.

Excellent video.

But I'm pretty sure that the pill is not the direct cause of declining marriage rates. Contraception in some form was always available.

The direct cause of declining marriage rates is feminism, which encourages women to act like men. This is very unattractive to men who want long-term relationships.

And to be yet more specific, feminism encourages women to fuck whatever men they want, and as many as they want (ie, the way men act about sex) as if demanding this sort of sexual "equality" will not have any effect on men's desire to commit.

But it does have a huge effect. It's absolutely fatal to the marriage market, because no man wants to marry a woman who has fucked many men before him. Woman will still go for the high value man with a wild past. But the man will not go for such women, except for one night. Just a basic biological fact encoded in men's brains by evolution, because men are paranoid about paternity. Women always know the child is theirs. Men do not.

Fuck yes it's fun! You need to try some more variety, Dan, or maybe just get some of anything.

You and I clearly have different standards. If you want to dumpster dive, go ahead. If you want to brag about dumpster diving, go ahead. But trying to get "just some of anything" is how Call It Crazy ended up being a regular at the petting zoo.

HydroCabron says

the double standard ("a man with lots of partners is a stud; a woman with lots of partners is a slut")

It's not a double standard. It's a single standard applied to both men and women: if your behavior compromises the genetic interests of your partner or prospective partner, he or she will seek a different partner. How this standard gets played out in men and women is different because of the biological asymmetry of the sexes. In fact, the only reason for having two sexes is for that very asymmetry.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is what the expression "begging the question" really means.

So you believe feminists have harmed society and women, but you won't say which past historical period was actually better for women.

Dan8267 says

Banging a 38-year-old is like driving a Geo Metro. Yeah, it will get you where you need to go, but is it fun?

Nice line, but when you're 50 yourself we'll see what you get.

HydroCabron says

Tolstoy, late in life after he had fathered 13 children, decided it would be better if the human race went extinct.

I guess the ability to reach that conclusion earlier in life was weeded out by evolution.

Heraclitusstudent says

Outside of sex the other thing women do for men is, you know, carry their off-springs.

You may get sex easy but If you want to reproduce, you may have to deal with some woman desiderata (at least appear to be for a while).

And if you don't want your off-springs to be losers, you have to do a bit of father work as well - and work with the woman.

Agreed. That's why it is important to focus on good mothers vs good wives. If you find both that's awesome, but if you want to have kids you should focus on a good mom and good genes you can work with when the wive part doesn't work out anymore - and put some good father work in, needed now more than ever.

American and British women have been reporting decreasing happiness since the 60s.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

Men haven't changed, women have. Men lost their "Dinner waiting when I walk in the door" and "Spotless House", stayed happy. Women got the jobs they wanted and the release from daily endless housework they wanted - and are miserable.

Denial is a river in Egypt:
http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/66108552035/does-feminism-make-women-less-happy

Happiness is a relative thing. Maybe part of what has changed is what women now want, compared to what they have. Where as back then what they got was closer in many ways to what they had wanted.

IT's mostly economics. Women now pretty much (or nearly) have to work even if married and middle class. So that drop from 66 to 59% doesn't tell us that much. In fact, it's surprising that it didn't drop more.

Big shift in women who prefer Part-time employment to Full-Time. Among working mothers, as many say they'd prefer not to work as have a P/T Job.

Ironman says

Yeah, he doesn't pick up "dates" at Georgie's like you do...

Actually, I have picked up dates at Georgie's. Lots of straight women go there.

I'm sure the pickings aren't as easy as the petting zoo where you pick up your dates.

Heraclitusstudent says

Nice line, but when you're 50 yourself we'll see what you get.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/g2hw0XGWOEc

Your post implies that women overvaluing their market value is a fairly recent thing. I'm not so sure that doesn't go back before feminism.Quigley says

I know, women from 38-50 are ridiculously easy to bang.

Pics please!

HydroCabron says

Now I still have the same notion - equal standards, regardless of gender

it's not a double standard. the guy who sleeps with a lot of women has done something very hard, while the woman who sleeps with a lot of men has done something very easy.

in fact, it is a demonstration of being highly valued as a man by women if lots of women will sleep with you, because women want to make a very good investment with their expensive 9 months of pregnancy and some years of childcare. they don't want to throw it away on just any guy.

it's exactly the opposite situation for women. men do not have to value you at all to be willing to fuck you, because there is essentially no investment in a few minutes of sex, and a potentially big evolutionary payoff.

in every culture and at all times, men valued women with very low partner counts, and devalued women with high partner counts, exactly because of the resources involved.

this follows straight from biology, and is not at all cultural. paternity is uncertainty. men who valued sluts and provided for them did not leave any descendants. they were used as useful idiots by slutty women to raise other men's children. the only men alive today are those whose ancestors instinctively knew that a high partner count in a woman means she is not to be trusted with his commitment and resources.

feminists are attempting to repeal biology via the legal system and by shaming men for "cultural" attitudes which are in fact deeply instinctive. men who listen to feminists about all this will quickly be eliminated from the gene pool.

just think of it as a big test.

Ironman says

Tell us something we don't already know..

The touch of a woman not made of plastic feels good.

marcus says

Happiness is a relative thing. Maybe part of what has changed is what women now want, compared to what they have. Where as back then what they got was closer in many ways to what they had wanted.

According to the "Paradox of declining female happiness", whether women had or didn't have kids, they were less happy.

The thread video is not entirely terrible, but it is wildly inaccurate at times. For example, when it comes to the "two corners of the dating market", it completely glosses over the fact that 95% of the women stay in the sex corner from age 15-35, looking for the best sex and an impossibly rich husband at the same time, having sex with only 5% of the men most of the time.

The video avoids very carefully to tell the truth about female sexual behavior.

feminists are attempting to repeal biology via the legal system and by shaming men for "cultural" attitudes which are in fact deeply instinctive. men who listen to feminists about all this will quickly be eliminated from the gene pool.

I wasn't addressing the high-scool biology aspect of it. Maybe there are some here who haven't heard this stuff before, but if you step back and look at what you're saying, it's pretty straightforward.

And none of it matters unless you're having sex for procreation. The vast majority of sex these days is not for that purpose.

This part I quoted is the part I don't get. It seems to me that the more common outcome these days is that feminism traps you into being included in the gene pool, through the manipulation and guilt trips women have learned to use on men. Given how family law courts work, I'm more concerned with dealing with a manipulative guilt-tripping chameleon than whether or not I have children.

For all the talk about a chaste/choosy woman being important, if I'm using a condom or some other reliable birth control method, then none of this matters. And even if you expand to include sex for procreation, the odds of a cuckolding are well under 5% these days. Genealogists say it's probably between 1 and 2% historically, and women are less likely to pull anything these days because of paternity testing. And you cannot know your partner that well, anyway. ALL women underestimate their actual partner count.

And what the hell is wrong with being eliminated from the gene pool, anyway? What century are you from? The genetic variation among humans is so small - because our population has exploded so rapidly - that there are millions of backup copies of every good and bad gene we have, floating around out there. I think that my reproducing or not doing so has an impact on the future of this race of right around nil.

I know three women I grew up with who were outright whores in high school and college. Of the five kids they have, all look like the birth-certificate fathers.

You assume all sex is for procreation, and that therefore all this stuff can be understood in the context of basic evolutionary biology. That's a strange assumption.

There are still three layers: biology, culture, and free will. You can't explain the whole cake in terms of just one of these layers.

By the way: your statement that no man would want a woman who has had a lot of partners is completely false. I know plenty of married former sluts.

thunderlips11 says

According to the "Paradox of declining female happiness", whether women had or didn't have kids, they were less happy.

I think the fundamental issue is that women are fed lies from childhood. Many women are raised to believe that a certain sort of man exists who has his professional life in order, rarely needs emotional support, and will devote his free time to them. They are further told that this is their right, by virtue of being born female, and that they do not need to expend any work to sustain such a relationship: it is their entitlement.

I would guess that feminism is only partly responsible for this, because non-feminist women sometimes suffer from it. I believe part of the blame lies with movies and television.

By the way: some women escape these delusions, wholly or in part.

men who valued sluts and provided for them did not leave any descendants

This is complete bullshit. They probably left descendants; it's just that in some cases, they left fewer descendants than imagined.

I have heard of a survey of paternity in Glargow, for kids born in the 1980s, which found an illegitimacy rate of 20%. That was in a lower class zone with high unemployment and high transience. Glasgow is not part of planet Earth. I'd bet that illegitimacy rates anywhere above 10% are unusual outside ghettos.

HydroCabron says

And what the hell is wrong with being eliminated from the gene pool, anyway? What century are you from?

Pretty much all non-Caucasian and non-Asian countries are going to shit. And amongst those all non-European and non-American countries have have pretty much locked their borders, for good reasons. Subtle variation in the gene pool plus cultural values matter as anyone can clearly observer. So if you don't give a fuck about the future then it's no problem being eliminated from the gene pool. But if you do these trends should be very troubling for you.

mell says

So if you don't give a fuck about the future then it's no problem being eliminated from the gene pool

Don't preach to anyone on this topic: You don't give a fuck about mass extinctions.

HydroCabron says

I wasn't addressing the high-scool biology aspect of it. Maybe there are some here who haven't heard this stuff before, but if you step back and look at what you're saying, it's pretty straightforward.

thanks for agreeing that it's straightforward, but it's dangerous to state the obvious these days. you might be accused of disparaging feminism.

HydroCabron says

And none of it matters unless you're having sex for procreation.

i'm talking about the psychology, which was shaped by eons of evolution, not the fact that you can have sex without procreation. these elements of our psychology are genetic, not learned, and have profound real-world consequences. it matters a lot.

HydroCabron says

This part I quoted is the part I don't get. It seems to me that the more common outcome these days is that feminism traps you into being included in the gene pool, through the manipulation and guilt trips women have learned to use on men. Given how family law courts work,

i disagree. you can quite easily be ordered by family law courts to pay many years of child support for a child your wife had with any random stranger. feminism means the husband must pay, always, regardless of whose child it actually is.

HydroCabron says

For all the talk about a chaste/choosy woman being important, if I'm using a condom or some other reliable birth control method, then none of this matters.

it still matters more than anything else, because women are still programmed to want the best genes they can get along with the some guy to support the kid (who is not necessarily the guy with the genes, anyone who can be made to work will do).

and men are still programmed to do two things:
1. fuck the hottest women they can, because all of those correlates with hotness are evolutionary correlates to fertility
2. be very paranoid about committing time and resources to a woman who has been around

HydroCabron says

the odds of a cuckolding are well under 5% these days. Genealogists say it's probably between 1 and 2% historically

if that's true, it's an epic-level disaster for men. a 5% cuckold rate means genetic death very quickly as you count generations.

HydroCabron says

And what the hell is wrong with being eliminated from the gene pool, anyway?

the answer to that can only be felt, not explained.

HydroCabron says

By the way: your statement that no man would want a woman who has had a lot of partners is completely false. I know plenty of married former sluts.

are their husbands aware of their wives' histories? if so, do you think that had no impact on how they feel about their wives' probable loyalty?

HydroCabron says

I think the fundamental issue is that women are fed lies from childhood.

On second reading, I do not agree with this. Women certainly do not need to be fed lies about how male/female relations should work. Women are perfectly capable of generating the deceitful and manipulative propaganda themselves, even at a young age.

I think women engage in a lot of wishful thinking, and float lots of propaganda items. If men do not push back, and I mean REALLY push back, women chalk each one up as a victory for the sisterhood, and take the propaganda as a gospel to be imposed on men.

There are good reasons to have kids but immortality is not one of them. Your children share 50% of your genes, your grandchildren share 25%, great grandchildren 12.5%, etc, so essentially a couple hundred years down the line, it's like you never existed anyway. Ironically, a better way to achieve immortality is not through children but through looking in the rearview in a form of traveling to as many new places as possible and reading as much as related to history as possible. In that path, one is likely to feel as though they always existed instead of trying to exist forever through the pathway of having kids. Not to mention that the latter will likely interfere with traveling and reading...

dublin hillz says

They have simply mastered the art of "spitting game." They are not 5% in any other criteria. In fact many of them can't hold down a job

Seriously. A lot of these guys are alcoholics - fun to be around only in the short term.

dublin hillz says

There are good reasons to have kids but immortality is not one of them. Your children share 50% of your genes, your grandchildren share 25%, great grandchildren 12.5%, etc, so essentially a couple hundred years down the line, it's like you never existed anyway.

This reasoning is not correct. If you have 2 kids at each generation, after n generations, that's 2^n. Each carry (1/2)^n of your genes.
2^n x (1/2)^n = 1, so your genes are just spread around but in more or less equal quantity. Hopefully the better traits get chosen.

All beyond the point anyway, and bizarrely self-centered. People don't have kids to be immortal. We all know we'll die.
People have kids to take part in a story larger than themselves.

HydroCabron says

I think the fundamental issue is that women are fed lies from childhood. Many women are raised to believe that a certain sort of man exists who has his professional life in order, rarely needs emotional support, and will devote his free time to them. They are further told that this is their right, by virtue of being born female, and that they do not need to expend any work to sustain such a relationship: it is their entitlement.

That's the essence of the problem.

Also, many women are told they can be an Astronaut, CEO, Test Pilot, etc. when in reality, most of them are going to end up as Assistant AP Manager (or cashier, shelf stocker for that matter) and have dull, unsatisfying jobs.

As the generations march on, people become aware that not only do they lose something by working so much, but that even with the sacrifices, the CEO dream ain't gonna happen. Devoting more time to work is only going to make them Marcy the Copy Editor instead of Marcy the Copy Developer after 10 years of sacrificing family time to work F/T or more, with a few thousand bucks in salary difference, no life changer, along with a whole lot more responsibility on the job.

Call it KKKrazy says

I think you're both right. Women are fed the bullshit by other women who engage in a lot of wishful thinking the relative failure of which they pass on to younger women either through parenting or popular cultural media.

Exactly. The truth is there is a "Mommy Track", even in the Nordic Countries. When they give shared parental leave, women always take the greatest share. They tried to force men to take parental leave and men basically took the minimum.

The women who want a completely level outcome in all things (although never, strangely, in menial dangerous work like coal miner, but rather in hospital admin and law firm partner) definitely want to push for that, and are actually becoming opposed to Maternity Leave and Flexible Hours as a way of chaining women to work and stopping the drift of women into P/T work in their 30s when they start having kids.

At my workplace, we've lost two women (really great gals) in about 5 years in the same position, both left after their second child was born.

Heraclitusstudent says

good genes unstable

That is a contradiction regardless of gender. Someone who is unstable cannot possibly be considered a carrier of good genes. Instability leads to lack of accountability/dependability and is associated with biological/personality disorders such as depression, bipolar, borderline, narcissism, etc.

dublin hillz says

There are good reasons to have kids but immortality is not one of them. Your children share 50% of your genes, your grandchildren share 25%, great grandchildren 12.5%, etc,

Not exactly, because we are all more than about 99% the same genes anyway. But it is the small differences that count. Saying immortality is not important is the same as saying evolution is not important. Just ask women what they think about mating with a chump (or chimp) instead of the hollywood hunk-of-the-month. The answer is right there.

Heraclitusstudent says

Your other post about women being delusional about their real chances to get the top 5% to commit - and unhappily falling back on second choices - seems more realistic. They honestly think they can deserve the high status top 5% guy, because that guy will indeed sleep with them. But then he refuses to commit to more. And so the women keep trying until being forced into 2nd choices.

Now you are getting the point. Women refuse to accept that there is a huge gap between the kind of guy that might sleep with any of them once or twice, and the guy that will sleep with one of them AND STAY. The 95% of women who are all trying to get the 5% guy to stay simply refuse to acknowledge the mathematics of the situation, the simple fact that their equation does not have a solution, so to speak. And feminism is what enables women to do this from age 15 to age 30+, at which point their marital value (being still unmarried) drops like a rock, and they end up alone.

justme says

they end up alone.

Not quite alone :)

Seriously, though, if Beta Males were so undesirable, there sure are a lot of them, many with kids of their own. And yeah, some of them were tricked, but there are just too many kids who look like their dad to believe it's extremely high..

The extreme end of what Justme describes is Susan Smith, who was willing to kill her children because she thought if she was childless, the big Alpha in town would marry her.

She had an extremely supportive network, a great relationship with her Ex and his family, but she decided that she needed to remove her children in order to get a shot with Mr. Alpha, even though Mr. Alpha was a player and made it clear to all he had NO INTEREST in having a family.

http://www.alabamapress.org/uploads/Cat%2012%20Div%20A_Feature.pdf

justme says

Now you are getting the point. Women refuse to accept that there is a huge gap between the kind of guy that might sleep any of them once or twice, and the guy that will sleep with one of them AND STAY. The 95% of women who are all trying to get the 5% guy to stay simply refuse to acknowledge the mathematics of the situation, the simple fact that their equation does not have a solution, so to speak. And feminism is what enables women to do this from age 15 to age 30+, at which point their marital value (being still unmarried) drops like a rock, and they end up alone.

That is very true and a direct consequence of fully, legally and societal endorsed female hypergamy.

• college educated (sometimes advanced degrees)
• single for longer, married later
• working in tech/eng, often in management, and often officers of corporations

I just described both sexes as I encounter them in the late 20s to 40s crowd here in California.

The video portrays a very lopsided view of sexual power dynamics. Its oversimplification is that women control the physical act but men somehow control more of the marriage/lasting relationship equation. In truth both sexes control major segments of both of those realms.

The declining women's happiness trend is so complex, and doesn't point to feminism making women more miserable, or any one thing someone could point at as “the cause". It has far less to do with sex and the pill, than it does with equality in workplace, rights to vote, and be treated as a full equal person. Women can now compare themselves to broader segments of people/lifestyles, have more to seek in life, live more complex and richer lives, and might just be being more honest about their happiness now. It’s absolutely ludicrous to think my mother and wife’s generations aren't more happy now than the previous two generations before them. In sheer life burden alone, that's just beyond untrue.

The actual big secret is that women and men aren’t that different at all, where much of sexual desire, life goals, etc. are concerned. They may be approaching things at slightly oblique angles, but motivations and desires are much more similar, than they are different, at their core. And yes, I am casually writing off all the “men are from mars, women are venus” comparisons we love to make, down to brain waves, socialization, and hormones. Well and truly, there are differences (bless the differences!), but at the end of the day for relationships/sex/work/marriage/life : the goals aren’t diametrically opposed, they are aligned. If they weren't, the war of the sexes wouldn't sound so sexy.

Heraclitusstudent says

Probably more 15 yrs old are like that than unmarried 23 yrs old.

False. It's college and up where body modification and sexual activity are higher. 15 is way young in "maturity", especially in America. The difference between 15 - 18 isn't as great as 18 - 21 in experiences and self identity (again, for the USA).

There is some crazy stuff written about women, by men, on pnet