I prefer beta males, probably because I'm a beta female (if B+) who grew up in the shadow of a ravishingly beautiful mother who didn't have to work at it. It made that path seem hopeless: I later realized I might have gone that way by working at it, but no one showed me how (on the contrary, she was delighted to outshine plainer daughters), and it didn't seem worth the trouble. So I became the looker rather than the looked-at, and am grateful for it. Now in my 70s, I'm fascinated to observe that the old women who WERE beautiful often act with the same high-handed entitlement that their beauty once gave them. For women, beauty IS power.
Interesting! Yes, I was a bit 'beta' too when young - too serious, needy etc - but don't tell anyone! One of the (few) benefits of being in one's 70s (I am too) is that it none of this matters anymore. I do hope you will take a free subscription and hopefully find some of my other essays of interest,
In the long march that is life... things have a way of evening out.
Very beautiful women (or very handsome men) get so privileged early in life, they often turn out vain or lazy... demanding... not very nice to be around... conceited. A beautiful woman who depends on her looks, and can easily have almost any husband she wants... might also end up being the first one dumped or divorced when she loses her looks, get middle aged or gains 15 lbs after her third child. THEN WHAT? she now lacks the resources to have a good life on her own. She always depended on her looks to get by.
For men, it becomes more about wealth & status after around 30... if you are incredibly handsome but POOR... your mating value will decline despite your looks, and just as in women... looks don't last. Lose your hair, gain 15-20 lbs and you are not the hottest guy on the beach or in the gym anymore.
WOW! My mother (very beautiful with great figure) constantly told me that I was sexually unattractive due to wearing glasses and having small breasts. She said that since I lacked any attractiveness, I might possibly eventually marry after age 40 since males didn't have a great deal of libido after age 40 so I might be able to attract some left over male due to my nice (meaning submissive, accommodating) personality. I did marry my beloved husband at age 46 although we had started dating 10 years earlier.
Now that tomorrow I will be 81, I am thankful for her opinion since my "nice" personality still exists--although my appearance has gone to pot. Still I have very good unwrinkled skin. On the other hand, I have arthritis, anxiety, and joint pain. Would I trade in my good beautiful skin for the ability to play tennis painlessly? Hmmmmmm. I'm like Jack Benny debating "Your money or your life!" I thought I was without ego when it comes to beauty. Uh Oh. Seems I lied. As Stan Tatkin says, "We are all primates. Primed for aggression and thoughtlessness."
Oh dear, your mom did a real number on you. I guess this was long enough ago that A. there was no Lasik surgery or contact lenses? and B. that people still thought that "guys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses"? And I gather no option for breast implants (if you had even wanted them!).
In fact, none of this was EVER TRUE. There are lots of stats on marriage, and very little correlation between eye glasses or breast size related to who gets married or not.
BTW: small breasted women started to actually be PREFERRED over larger breasted women starting in the late 60s and continuing on to the present day. I don't mean "porn" here, as that is not normal life. I mean in fashion... in movies... in the idealized images of celebrities... in actual clothing. How do I know this? I hit puberty in exactly the wrong time (late 60s) and I had very large breasts. I never EVER got admiration or flirting due to this, only shaming and embarrassment and outright criticism. I had a sister in law once, tell me very loudly (at a party, where others could hear) that "all large breasted women are slutty and sleep around".
Also you probably noticed as you aged... that smaller breasts stay firm, are much easier to buy bras and clothing for... don't get in the way of your doing sports, running, jumping, playing, dancing... don't attract gross lewd comments... let you buy any sort of t-shirt or swimsuit without worries.
Thanks so much for this comment! In the 1940's eyeglasses were quite rare. Now almost everybody wears contact lenses and many even prefer glasses. I had surgery for a "travelling eye" or amblyopia. I never considered myself defective and was very young when my mother told me I would be sexually unacceptable. That didn't seem terribly relevant to a 6 year old girl interested in horses, bicycles, radio music. My stepfather told me EVERYBODY would reject me because I wore glasses. That also didn't bother me because a)I was partially home schooled and didn't realize friends were necessary (not when I had my mother and my younger brother) b)It was so WONDERFUL to be able to see! Who knew that the solid red wall of NY apartment buildings was actually paved with individual bricks? and c)I was experiencing rejection only from my parents and caretakers.
I did hear from one of my caretakers that I was lucky not to have big breasts (at age 6 I had no breasts at all, so I dismissed her comment) I am very athletic, so I'm glad I don't need bras. Only trouble is that I play tennis and most white shirts (required for tennis) end up revealing my nipples when I sweat. Therefore, I need to purchase decorative bras that function to cover up female anatomy while not being too tight for comfort.
AHHH comfort. I had a sequined strapless prom dress. So beautiful--but I was without the anatomy to manage a strapless bra. The sequins caused my nipples to bleed. But when I complained, my mother replied, "You must learn to suffer for beauty!" REALLY?! Like the Chinese foot binding? Now I would just sew a lining onto the inside of the prom dress. Problem solved!
I would never have Lasik surgery. The majority of people suffer from dry eyes after this surgery. I did try contact lenses. I'm overly sensitive and never got used to them. I experienced mild discomfort or even pain for the 2 or 3 years that I wore them. Finally I accidentally tore my cornea doing home plastering and used that as an excuse to quit using lenses. I am a bit sorry since lenses gave me better vision. However, now that I'm older, I never wear glasses or lenses. I can still read perfectly and read on the computer. Who cares about seeing far away at age 81?
The mass media may have preferred small breasts (Twiggy?), but I think most males prefer average size breasts. My husband believed I would be more acceptable with larger breasts, but that was to avoid having his friends or colleagues criticize him for his choice in women. How did he end up with this grad school tomboy nerd who wears jeans and stained tunics while he is following a strict IBM dress code?
Ha Ha
The number that my Mom did on me was to project her own dissatisfactions with misogyny onto her daughter. She used to insist females were inferior (except SHE wasn't) and I also didn't deserve to be female. With my brains and athletic prowess I obviously should have been and deserved to be a male. Too bad I wasn't because that was the reason my parents divorced--my failure to provide my father with a male heir. (This failure stings, but we are conveniently/emotionally forgetting that my brother was available--so no reason to divorce just because he also fathered a daughter.)
It's only now after therapy I'm discovering that most males do sexually desire females. Before that I felt that males only liked me because I was like them. I'm happy to avoid being captured by "the beauty trap." Looking at my younger self, I'm actually quite physically attractive--probably well above average. Since I never relied on my looks, I'm not ashamed of losing them. That's a blessing. No constant rounds of botox, surgeries, insecure demands for reassurance. Old age brings its pains, fears, disabilities, and health problems. But loss of feminine attractiveness is not one of them for me. I had a great marriage of almost 40 years with my shy, insecure, but loving husband. That's good enough for me!
Gosh, I am so sorry for your experience... since most people in my family had bad eyesight, they DID have glasses even in the 1920s and before, but you are not wrong -- eye glasses then were very costly, and HEAVY, made of real glass. So if you were not literally "blind as a bat", you muddled through with blurry vision (probably doing terrible in school!)
I had amblyopia too, so my heart goes out to you. My family never made it an issue and got me the very finest care with a nationally recognized Ophthalmologist... I eventually had surgery at 12. My eyes look normal now, but the right eye is much weaker than the left. I wore bifocals from the age of 11 MONTHS! However other children and TEACHERS were often very cruel. I had teachers who told me and my classmates that my crossed eye meant "I was too stupid to control my eyes" -- can you imagine? so it was more an issue of the crossed eye than the GLASSES as many nearsighted kids also wore glasses.
I could see and read fine without the glasses with my one good left eye, so eventually after the surgery... I was able to forego glasses entirely for 30 YEARS until presbyopia caught up with me. I can still manage with just reading glasses.
So it was opposite what you experienced, since I had to attend pubic schools the whole time... EVEN AFTER SURGERY, in Junior High... kids would call me "cross-eyed" when I very obviously was not. Weird!
If you are small enough on top, I would think that a t-shirt or cami would suffice for tennis or sports... there were lots of sports I simply could not do (*before sports bras anyways) as it was too painful. So I guess it is always "six of one and half a dozen of the other", no?
I don't believe in "suffering for beauty" though I have heard it said... certainly young women today do things I couldn't have imagined in my wildest dreams... tattoos! multiple piercings! nails and hair extensions that take hours & hours and cost $$$$! It seems much worse and harder to be a young woman than it was in my era.
BTW: I did have Lasik, at 51 and it was great for about 12 years and then gradually wore off. It cost $3000 (both eyes) and I did get improvement even in my weak eye and didn't need glasses at all for that time, so... $3000 divided by 12 is less than the cost of a good pair of Progressive lens glasses. I would do it again, but am too old for the "cost benefit analysis", LOL. (No, I had no dry eye and only minor issues with "halos" at night and no long term side effects now, except my vision is back to what it was before the surgery.) I couldn't wear contacts at all... they bothered my eyes, and I guess they WERE dry (before Lasik) as the contacts would just FALL OUT without warning.
If you can read and work on the computer with no glasses at 81.... you are NEAR sighted. I am FAR sighted. Totally different kettle of fish. Near sighted is far easier to correct and far easier and better for Lasik. (However by 80... I'd wait for intraoccqular lens transplant, it is a TRUE MIRACLE and will restore you to perfect vision.)
As for men... their tastes vary and some men are fixated on breasts and others prefer women who are slim & lean. I'd be very offended if a man told me my breasts were too big or too small, or to change them FOR HIM!!! If your husband picked YOU the way you were... than he must not have really minded. I think the problem was your mom, and that she dumped HER ISSUES and HER ANGER onto YOU... that is so unfair.
And good lord, your father divorced her for not having a son? and she thought YOU should have been that son? holy cow, this is like the plot of a long novel! so glad you kept your self esteem and agency and did not crack under that pressure.
As old as I am now... frankly all young people look "good" to me... clear eyes, smooth skin, lustrous hair (and plenty of it!)... flexible young bodies full of energy... that we all drove ourselves mad over the size of our boobs or other minor things that never mattered in the long run... seems so crazy to me now. But I do REMEMBER being a teenager and yes it MATTERED TO ME in the moment. And I was fortunate that my mom was not like yours... she was thrilled to have a daughter, and do things together like cooking, sewing, music, crafts.
Honestly from the vantage point of age... the whole "beauty myth" just seems exhausting and I try to tell young women (my daughters, nieces, goddaughters and so on) to just enjoy being YOUNG... healthy... strong... it wont' last, but you can have a good long run of it before old age catches up. Life is so precious, to waste it worrying about being a B cup vs. a C cup.... or a certain dress size... is just such a waste.
Congrats on your wonderful long marriage too! thanks for posting.
Love your response. So healing to get input from other people. I also look cross eyed or wall eyed in my early baby/toddler pictures. There's one of me age 4 in an embroidered cotton dress that ends mid thigh. I'm standing with my legs apart as if I totally own the world. My legs are so strong and muscular--promising the athletic ability that I would later enjoy. AND I'm completely wall eyed. My right eye is far over to the right and up--doing its own thing. My eye surgeon was well known in NY City. He advised covering my "good" eye to restore vision in the weak eye. But that didn't please me. I wanted to read! Because my grandmother had taught me and I loved books. I complained so much that my mother caved in and said I didn't have to. Sometimes being a mother is tough. You can't always let your children do whatever they want to do.
By the way, my father DIDN'T divorce my mother because he wanted a boy. My mother divorced my father because she wanted to marry my step father. When she drank, she had a tenuous grasp on reality. She was jealous because I had just returned from a visit to the zoo with my father and was boasting about how much fun I had.
Interesting! amblyopia presents many different ways. I had a turned-in right eye. My left eye was fine. My son in law has a wall-eye -- never had it fixed. Did yours resolve with age? I had to wear a patch for 10 years, then had eye surgery. The eye does wander very very slightly if I am extremely tired.
In the 40s and 50s, it was definitely believed that covering the strong eye (and correcting the weak eye with glasses) would resolve the problem without surgery. They were far more hesitant to do surgery back then! and it had to be costly. We were lucky, my dad had a good job with a big company and the insurance covered all or most of it.
I still see kids with amblyopia here and there, and I am shocked people don't know much about it today (and treatments have not advanced hardly at all!)... if left untreated, it will eventually make you blind in one eye. Treating it early will preserve at least some vision.
Like most amblyopics, I have little depth vision and no "binocular vision"... I cannot look through microscopes or binoculars at all, the image will not fuse.
Sorry I got the story about your parents wrong! oh my! it really WAS convoluted! -- we don't always get the mothering we want or deserve, do we? (Or fathering.) We just have to roll with the punches and do the best with what we get... still and all, to be jealous of your own child... how sad. Your mom missed out on so much in life, by being so angry and resentful.
Fortunately you turned out OK anyhow and have lived a wonderful life!
Are there any of us who have not at least once thought, said, or done something really stupid?
I can raise both my arms (as two hands) acknowledging having done so more than once. I would raise additional "hands" but I am not primate enough to have prehensile feet.
[In confirming my correct understanding of "prehensile", I found the second definition is "Having a keen intellect or powerful memory. A prehensile mind." Well, I still have a keen intellect but now I seem to have only a modest memory. As near as I can recall.]
"Now in my 70s, I'm fascinated to observe that the old women who WERE beautiful often act with the same high-handed entitlement that their beauty once gave them."
I've seen that movie before, more than once, sort of like an aging athlete who no longer can perform the same feats of his youth and who also never grew up in the meantime. Not pleasant.
The most attractive females are not always those who meet certain physical standards, but who have a certain verve and snap about them, and that can last, long after their physical attributes are no longer what they once were.
That's interesting about your mother. I have had beautiful friends -- physically beautiful in the way that makes women powerful & popular in our culture -- and my observation is that it is WONDERFUL while it lasts... gives self-esteem, power, confidence... can be a path to success and wealth... but it doesn't last all that long.
Middle age likely puts an end to it, and if not there... then old age certainly does. At 70, you may have visited a nursing home or two... you may have noted that you cannot tell the difference at 75 between those who were beautiful and those who were very plain.
Even more so, my beautiful friends were FAR FAR more miserable than the plain ones (like me!) as they aged... because they lost so much, whereas my life changed little or even got better.
Even when young I felt lucky to be free to be “the looker” instead of “the looked at.” I was in the gray zone where “I coulda been a contender” but would’ve had to work at it, and really wasn’t sufficiently interested.
"fascinated to observe that the old women who WERE beautiful often act with the same high-handed entitlement that their beauty once gave them."
As a late middle-aged man who's been around the block a few times with many different types of women, my friends and I would repeatedly say about certain middle-aged women,
"She acts like she thinks she's still 24 years old."
(Like she still has the leverage to be demanding and difficult . . . since beautiful 24 year-old women are at a supreme apex of power, and most boys will kiss their ass to get close to them)
I especially enjoyed the statistics that 'that men “liked” more than 60 percent of the female profiles they viewed, while women “liked” only 4.5 percent of male profiles.'
Women are famously more picky than men. And there are good evolutionary reasons why this is so.
However, dating apps are now the primary method of meeting. Only five or so years ago about 80 percent of women selected about 20 percent of men as matches. In the last few years this has dropped to about 5 percent, with all other men invisible. So this is having a strong effect on the dating market.
LOL, I have read that before but again I say... DATING SITES are not the most reliable collectors of data or reporters of human behavior. Why? because they are biased in favor of their business model. They do not seek (like an olden days matchmaker) to see people happily partnered or married. They seek to have CUSTOMERS who return again and again in desperation to "find someone".
If dating apps are the primary method of meeting (I think they are major, but not primary or ONLY methods)... and women only select 5% of the men... they wouldn't work. It isn't possible for 80-100% of women to all date the same 5% of men.
It would mean women were SELECTING to futilely swipe on only 5% of men (75% fewer than 5 years ago in 2018?) in order to NOT GET DATES? what would motivate them to do this?
I think the reality is that it FEELS THIS WAY to men who enter this market of dating apps, expecting to "order up" a woman like it was a restaurant, and who then are surprised when their strategy ("just click on 60% of the women, surely someone will respond"!) doesn't pan out.
But women who do this equally have complaints, that men feel entitled and demanding... that they are rude and dismissive... that they set near-impossible standards and demands. I don't think either gender really likes this system, and most people call it a "meat market" with despair.
There may be another dimension to this (one which I was unaware of when I wrote this essay). I have subsequently read stats a couple of times now to the effect that there is far greater USE of dating apps by men than by women. This, if true, will obviously be a big modifying factor in all the other stats. But I am way too old to have had any personal experience of these apps.
The dating apps (OKCupid, Tinder) released some data -- kinda suspect data, not double blind or peer reviewed -- but it said that the sites were badly out of balance, with about 75% of members being men and only 25% women.
This isn't new; I am old enough to remember "the olden days" when this stuff was called "personal ads" and they ran in newspapers and the backs of city magazines. And it was always majority men. In fact, men had to PAY to post ads but it was FREE for the women! why? they needed far more women!
Why? because it is obviously far riskier for a woman to date a stranger (vs. someone from work or church). He might be far worse than a lame date -- he might be violent or dangerous. Men on the other hand, face no worse risk than buying dinner for a woman they don't find pleasant or attractive. I think men also have come to feel that dating apps are a kind of "free sex" thing -- a way to get no-strings sex, but not having to pay an actual prostitute.
I have (sadly) heard way too many men doing this kind of dating app, say angrily that they resent having to buy A DRINK for a woman who "won't put out". They literally think they are owed sex if they buy a woman a cocktail at a bar.
Women risk violence, intimidation, STALKING, STDs, pregnancy, rape and a host of other things... even if some women also seek "no strings" sex. That makes women naturally more cautious and more careful about who they date. (No, it is not about "wanting Chad".)
Still and all, despite the pitfalls and unfairness and uneven representation... people still find each other in this crazy world, and date and marry and have kids. Most of them! So a lot of the histrionics are unwarranted.
Actually I find the greatest threat to happiness and the formation of happy marraiges/families is the new(ish) REDPILL movement (grew out of the much older MRA and How to Pick Up Women movements)... it spreads the most hateful things about women, claims men are "entitled" to sex and as many women as they want... encourages men NOT to marry (but to use gullible women for sex)....tells young men that all women are whores and thots, and have "high body counts". It is depressing and stupid, but it scares me because so many men apparently believe this.
Yes remember those personal ads from days of yore now you come to mention it....."GSOH", "bubbly personality" etc.
More seriously.... on your comment: if we are going to see both sides of the coin, you should at least recognise this imbalance that will work against lonely men: if a woman does choose to go on a dating site, she if far more likely to actually GET a date than a man would. Put another way, it's important to avoid stereotyping ALL men along the lines of the super-predatory kind that most annoy/scare you.
Yes, and it was GLACIALLY slow... you had to send LETTERS and actual PHOTOGRAPHS of yourself... took at least two WEEKS to make a "connection" that today would take literally minutes....
I think the "imbalance" is due to what I said -- safety for women. Nothing is going to make it MORE safe in the present milieu... especially where some posters say incredibly hateful things about "all women" (as if they KNOW "all women").
It is not true that women are more likely to get dates. Despite the imbalance, those larger numbers of men are HELLBENT on a handful of women who are very young and pretty, and ignore the women their own age... and when interviewed, they say they would rather masturbate to porn than date a real woman who wasn't pretty or thin. (And this from men who are very much NOT handsome or buff or thin themselves.)
The real problem is men choosing video gaming and porn over real relationships... women have nothing similar. There is no OnlyFans for WOMEN. There is little or no porn for WOMEN. Though women play video games, they are a minority of players -- rarely get obsessed with it -- and the games are not designed for women's interests. It can be a very female-unfriendly space (see: GAMERGATE).
I absolutely don't think "all men" do any specific things, I was writing about risks (or PERCEIVED risks) that women have. I love men... I have wonderful men in my life. I don't stereotype ALL MEN, but it drives me nuts when men like Spacemen Spiff regurgitate this RedPill stuff (WORD FOR WORD) and think they are great intellectuals who have figured it all out (and that women are at fault for everything).
My sons and stepsons are millennials... all of them are married or in long-term relationships. Most have kids of their own now. So I know that real human beings still meet in "real reality" and have real relationships based on mutual respect & kindness.
- The main method for younger people to date is now exclusively apps
- The data is easy to collect and analyze and is based on actual behaviour, including analysis of follow ups to meets etc. The data is extensive and more accurate than it used to be since it used to rely on surveys
- Approximately 80 percent of women pursue a small number of very attractive men; all other men are invisible to them; this is correlated by independent studies of how young women evaluate male attractiveness; strangers are seen as uglier than they objectively are; the familiar are rated higher
- They are indeed dating them; that small group of lucky devils are sleeping with a huge number of women because they are attractive; this is noted even by feminist researchers (with some anger, lol)
- There is a corresponding despondency widely reported in academia, and even the mainstream, that many women are aware of this; they know they are sleeping with attractive men who will not commit to them and are known to sleep with many women; but hope springs eternal and it is the nature of women to believe they can change a cad into a gentleman
- What is emerging is a form of polygamy; women reject average men and will pursue attractive men to the extent they will share them; this is happening in Scandinavian countries where a limited number of men are now producing many of the children
All this is discussed widely in academia.
One of the effect of this is to distort women's perceptions of the dating market. For example, you have this distortion yourself:
But women who do this equally have complaints, that men feel entitled and demanding... that they are rude and dismissive... that they set near-impossible standards and demands.
Most men are not in a position to demand anything. That's the 95 percent by the way. They will take what they can get and are less picky than women.
But that top five percent can afford to be demanding. And those are the men the women see, so those are "all men." This phenomenon too has been well researched. Women are famously gullible, much more so than men. And those top five percenters will tell them anything they want to hear to get them in the sack. Then they will renege.
The meta point here is not to trash women. I have great sympathy. But the sexual liberation and emancipation of women hasn't worked. For women today under 35 the projection is one in two will never have a husband or children. A tragedy that was avoidable had we reigned things in a bit.
No, you are wrong. And don't mistake me for someone that out of touch... I have millennial kids and nieces, nephews, etc. and I know how all of them met their partners. Most all of them are married or in long-term live-in situations.
1. Though it is a MAJOR way to try and date, as noted by you and me and others... it is so frustrating and not all that successful... so yes, other ways to meet people obviously still exist.
2. The data is not that simple to collect, and you are already going into it with a huge bias based on your own sour, nasty RedPill outlook. And dating sites are not necessarily honest or thorough... these are not peer reviewed studies AT ALL. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for a dating site to know if people did more than swipe or exchange a few messages. Most people quickly go off-line to text or talk on the phone. Nobody follows that. Nobody can possibly know which dates end in sex or a relationship.
3.As I pointed out, it is physically impossible for 5% (or even 20%) of men to sleep with 80% of women. You are not doing the logistics on this. The men would have to being sleeping with 5 women a week. A movie star, maybe. An ordinary (but nice looking) guy? no chance.
4. If independent studies say women prefer familiar men they know (presumably from work, school, church) vs. strangers... that would make women far less likely to want a stranger. And why wouldn't this also be true FOR MEN?
5. There is no ACADEMIA reporting any such thing. It is the RedPill Manosphere, and you have absorbed their hateful misogyny hook, line & sinker. 5% of men in the USA alone would be 16 MILLION men. They are not getting all the women, sorry. Many are married faithfully. Many are gay. And no, 5% are not millionaires nor are they movie stars. (I agree that millionaires & movie stars can get a LOT of women, but it as much on status as looks. Otherwise how would Harvey Weinstein have gotten all those women?)
6. Stop watching RedPill sites like @WHATEVER. Yes, I can tell when men do, because they quote them like it was a peer reviewed science study! it's just the hateful whinging of angry RedPillls. It has no basis in fact. It only reflects your insecurity and your jealousy -- here's a hint from a woman who has been around the block a few times -- NOTHING IS LESS ATTRACTIVE IN A MAN than jealous insecurity.
7. No, women are not doing that as a group. Obviously there are outliers here or there, but you are not describing "most women" (see above: angry, resentful, insecure, jealous, paranoid, MISOGYNY). That would be the dumbest dating strategy or reproductive strategy in human history. It has nothing to do with "cad vs. gentleman" (being lucky or handsome or rich, does not necessarily mean "cad" just as being a LOSER does not mean "gentleman"). It would result in a majority of women never finding partners, and not having children, and we know that is not true.
8. No, it isn't polygamy and women HATE polygamy so why would they seek it out in dating? this is the sad pathetic whinging of a incel who cannot get a date, and is sure that "Chad" is banging all the hot girls. (Meanwhile the incel ignores all the plain average girls JUST LIKE HIMSELF because they are "fugly dogs".) No, women will not willingly share men. I honestly can tell you that there is nothing women hate MORE than this... even in cultures with polygamy, women are universal in their hatred of this system. (I am also pretty sure this is not happening in Scandinavia anymore than in the US... 5% of men are not fathering all the children. Seriously you are not thinking this through. If true, we'd have incest between offspring (when they grow up!) ALL THE TIME.)
8. NO IT IS NOT DISCUSSED IN ACADEMIA! not at all. It is discussed by the RedPill Manosphere, most famously right now on @WHATEVER and a number of really nasty, angry YouTube channels. Dude, that is NOT "academia".
9. I do not have a distorted idea of the dating market, and you don't know me or my history. But I assure you I know about dating, having done it myself -- being happily married -- and having children who are millennials and I am well aware of how they met their spouses and found love and marriage. Everything I talk about, I have direct experience myself or through LOTS of people who are active in the dating market. That's why I know you are QUOTING THE REDPILLS literally word for word.
10. If 95% of men could not date, marry or have sex... the human race would die out. You cannot have a society where 5% of men father all the children. You are not thinking this through, because the math would never work out. Also: any trip to WALMART will quickly disabuse of the idea that "only good looking people mate, marry or have kids".
11. It would be great if you actually talked to some women -- and I don't mean "dating" here -- I mean TALKED TO WOMEN as if we were fellow humans, and not creatures to be lectured to, judged, weighed, evaluated, and minimized. We are NOT INTERESTED in all sleeping with a handful of arrogant, demanding selfish men who use us for sex and then discard us. That is 1000% false.
12. Though it is not completely like this on the male side, it is FAR more common to see men who refuse to date women on "their level" and would rather be alone masturbating to porn than date an plain or homely woman. It is MEN who reject ordinary women, not vice versa. But nice try.
13. NO women are NOT "famously gullible". There is certainly no mystery why you are alone or cannot get dates. No, there is not all that much research on this and for a good reason... this is a private part of people's life. They don't have sex in public. There are HUGE incentives for men to lie about having sex, especially to show off to other men about what "studs they are".
14. While there are SOME gullible women, especially. young ones... they smarten up fast It doesn't take many times being treated like a piece of meat before a woman realize "hmm, I guess I don't want to date Andrew Tate after all!" or a pathetic "Andrew Tate wannabe".
15. What you really mean here is "women don't want to date YOU", so you think if you "neg them" (say mean, cruel things and tell us we are stupid and gullible, addle brained and incompetent to run our lives)... we will spread our legs for you. When it doesn't work, you call us "thots and whores". NO THANK YOU!
16. Most women marry well before 35, and there not the slightest indication that women over 35 will never marry. You are literally making that up. Far more women marry than do men... far more women have children than do men. YOU ARE TRASHING WOMEN because they won't "put out" for you, and you blame literally everything else in the world BUT YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE for this.
BTW: even if true, which it absolutely IS NOT... I can assure you that most women would HAPPILY DIE ALONE than marry a RedPill like you. Who needs the snark, grief, lecturing, pandering, false claims and histrionics? You sleep with such a man... you're a whore with a "high body count". You refuse him? you are frigid, or STILL A WHORE who puts out for "Chad". You literally cannot win.
17. Stop watching @WHATEVER and RedPill sites. It is literally rotting your brain.
Peering through your rant, which you chose to personalize, explain this.
If dating works why the projection that approximately one in two women under the age of 35 in Western nations will never have children? That is a dire prediction. Even the mainstream, not the red pill community, are openly discussing this. It is quite literally discussed on mainstream news shows.
Because there is no such projection and no such academic research? and you got this off a RedPIll website? also you imply that over 80% of men won't have children. Isn't that WORSE than 50%?
No, it is not discussed in "mainstream academia" because it is factually untrue. There are tons of demographic data from the US Census; start there. 7 out of 8 women have children.
And do you think MORE MEN have children than this? by your own words here, men cannot even get dates 80% of the time, let alone father children! only the magical 5% of CHADS get dates. I guess CHAD fathers all the kids... shouldn't that be easy to prove? wouldn't CHAD be playing all the child support too?
Dude, the "mainstream TV shows" are just pathetic gossip whores and they "pick it up" from Tiktok or YouTube, where does THAT come from? REDPILL SITES and @WHATEVER.
FYI women actually enjoy sex & often get in the "sack" with men they don't want a relationship with. Also, men are WAY more likely to be alone, childless & unhealthy in old age & younger men will "take what they can get" bc they're so desperate & literally going on shooting sprees over not being able to get a girlfriend. Your obvious attempt to get women to be with men they don't want failed, we know better!
Women having casual sex; indeed, but they are not suited to it. There is a disturbing body of research exploring the harm female promiscuity causes. Social research to neuroscience, none of it works well. Women typically seek committment. Lots of sexual partners destroys them.
Men indeed were more likely to be alone and childless etc. But the balance is shifting, hence my comments. This is being actively explored by researchers. Numbers vary but everyone agrees the future for Western women is fewer children and husbands.
And yes, young men who cannot find wives are the most dangerous group in society. That's why many societies curtail females because if they don't they will be killed by angry young men. Life is a balance.
I have read those studies too, but I think people miss the fact that behavior on a DATING SITE (or data garnered from a dating site) is going to be biased and not normative at all.
Since dating sites are "private" and you use them in a solitary way... normal behavior standards don't apply. The same guy who swipes on 60% of female profiles, would not hit on 60% of women at a night club.
Also random dating is RISKY for women -- literally physically risky, they could be raped or even killed! -- but has near-zero risks for men. So the man is rewarded for the most scattershot approach... swipe on 60% of the women and surely SOME OF THEM will respond and go out with you.
Facing HUGE risks -- not just danger of harm, but risk of pregnancy or STDs -- women are naturally far more choosy and conservative... they don't want "just any man" largely because their goal is a relationship (where many of the men simply want a sexual hookup). so while the men may be responding to "any halfway decent woman who is in their age range"... the women are probably looking at things like is the man gainfully employed? mature? has a good personality? at least doesn't APPEAR to be dangerous?
Despite this disparity, in 2023.... dating apps are a primary (though not the only) way that people meet and date... so it MUST work, at least most of the time for most people.
Could we reasonably extrapolate from those statistics that in so demonstrating that men and women are just biologically “ wired” differently, that women, generally, are more prone to be narcissistic. Perhaps their primary drive to want to be the a desirable focus would suggest so? The most physically attractive women certainly are aware of their capacity to hold such ( primordial) power over men, generally. Not there is anything wrong with attractive women feeling good about themselves , they know full well they hold the whip hand! There are clearly different metrics we can point to once we start to measure the distribution of power between men and women. Vive la difference I say.
Actually (I used to work in department of psychiatry) I think males are more likely to be diagnosed as malignant narcissists, sociopaths. Women were more likely to be borderline personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, histrionic or hysterical. However, on second thought, you may be correct. Recently many women seem to feel entitled. I think this tendency is fostered by lack of community and focus on social media.
I am not one of those people who reflexively hate Peterson, but... honestly, what does he KNOW ABOUT THIS? he got married in his early 20s, to a fellow student and never divorced or dated again... he is 61 today in 2023. He's been out of the dating market since 1983 at least.
That means he never personally experienced ANY OF THIS.
I watch Jordan Peterson a lot. He is super smart and knowledgeable. What does he know about this? I think he has 2 daughters and a son. He noticed his daughters were incredibly picky as they scrolled through dating apps commenting on the poor qualities of the available candidates. He then examined research showing that dating apps routinely rewarded the top 1% or maybe 4% of male candidates. That men choose about 60% of the women they viewed--whereas women chose only around 4% of male candidates. What is the result? He interviewed several feminists who stated that feminism hasn't favored women. Because of safe contraception, there is no excuse for women declining sex. If a woman doesn't want to have sex--well there's another who will do it, and enjoy it, too! So some of the women he interviewed tell him that well-educated professional women have given up on sex and marriage. They can't find a suitable male partner. And if they see one that appeals--he's not willing to remain celibate to see if they might be compatible. Mary Harrington, for instance, suggests women wait 3 months before having sexual relations with their partner. What does Peterson know? He reads all the scientific papers examining the fall in birth rates, the decline of sex and marriage in young people, debating possible causes (the pill? vaccines? the economy? the internet?) Fascinating discussions. Jordan isn't simply lecturing. He's interviewing other people, other scientists, reading the literature, listening to his own children.
Actually his wife was a neighbor. I think they went to middle school together. They were very friendly with each other. He admired her outspoken opinions and intelligence. They teased each other. I think he admitted to her that he teased her about her glasses because he was jealous and wanted a pair like them. He truly seems to love her as well as his daughters. He also has a lot of clients (well, until he lost his license for refusing to follow Canadian guidelines mandating the use of gender affirming pronouns)
I'm not dating either--since 1978. What do I know? However, whenever I talk to people I feel close and friendly with them. I'm hesitant to start dating again at my age--although I can definitely pass for much younger. My health has gotten worse since nursing my husband for several years through his final decline precipitated by heart failure and cancer. I never want to put anybody through what I went through. That's a HUGE ask. You don't do that or expect that from a recent date. To me, health is like money. Do I marry or even date a younger, healthy man? That's like picking someone for their wealth. Do I instead want to marry a sickly man who will require my constant devotion and nursing skills? I gave my husband blood tests and insulin injections several times daily. I monitored his oxygen, cleaned his equipment, made sure the tubing was free of obstruction. Mixed his supplements, laid out his drugs, administered saline washes to clear out nasal passages. Helped him with toileting. Cleaned the bedding or furniture when he soiled. Gave him (fearfully) morphine to help him breathe better. Sent his heart tests to the medical center (for his pacemaker). Accompanied him to oncologist for cancer treatments. Mixed thickening agent into his water when he was too weak to swallow and aspirated all his water. Bought him a loud whistle so I could hear him call from the bedroom which was sound proofed. Endured his fears and complaints. Gave him nightly massages when he was too anxious and agitated to get to sleep. I certainly don't want to go through that again. I love men. But I think my best bet for a futre relationship (should I live that long) will be a sex robot. (That agrees with current thinking on this topic.) In a few years I bet they will be available to rent for a reasonable price. The sex robot won't care that I'm partially disabled or even cognitively impaired. We won't even need humans any more. The elite can enjoy their planet after they have killed off most of us. (For our own good.)
I think you and Jordan (and I believe the woman you are quoting is Louise Perry, whose book is called The Case Against The Sexual Revolution) may feel that women don't want or enjoy sex on its own. That is simply not true -- at least, not for many or most women. In any event, whether you "want it" or not should be up to the woman (and the man) -- a mutual choice. It shouldn't be blackmail, as in "I won't date you if you don't put out on the 2nd date".
I don't think Jordan is really conducting serious research; again -- he is long married. He married in college or right after, a fellow grad student and hasn't been single since maybe 1982. I think he is talking to people who echo back to him his existing views, which are quite conservative -- which are fine FOR HIM and his family. They aren't everybody's views though.
I actually believe I kinda know the problem that these "well educated professional women:" are having and have insights others seem to be missing (perhaps because I KNOW so many of them!). And please let's remember that MOST WOMEN ARE NOT highly paid professionals with six figure incomes and graduate degrees. Most women (AND MEN) are just average people. Only 1 in 3 Americans have a college degree.
So why can't they find a man? well for starters... it is bogus. The most married group in America is HIGHLY EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS. The unmarried ones are the poor, working class -- or lower -- the woman who works at Burger King or cleans motel rooms. SHE cannot find a mate! not one who will stick around and be a husband or father. The woman who is a lawyer or doctor? SHE IS DOING FINE! there is no vast demographic of unmarried high-income women. This is a pernicious myth, built out of jealousy from men. (Certainly such women could always have SEX, couldn't they? even if they can't find a husband?)
Anyhow: so why can't they find husbands easily? at least, some small subset of such women? EASY!!! they insist on living in Big Blue Cities. The population in places like New York City and San Francisco is BADLY skewed with many more women than men. And many more GAY men. They have slashed their odds in half (*unless they move to Big Blue City already married). I've talked to many such women, and they refuse to move to places with better demographic odds.
As for "waiting 3 months"... well, whatever floats your boat. If I met a great guy and we had amazing chemistry -- that's what we all want, right? -- I dont think that I would want to wait THREE MONTHS to sleep with him. I mean, maybe at 17 or 18 -- but not at 27 or 28. By then I knew my own mind and what I desired. I probably wouldn't date a man for 3 months if there was no chemistry there.
I don't think Peterson is STUPID. I think his views are slanted by his own experiences in life. He's an academic who has never done anything else in life. My advantage over him (*not saving I'm a genius or anything, LOL) is that I AM NONE OF THOSE THINGS. I am just an ordinary (if well-read) person. I'm working class. I live in the Rustbelt Midwest. But I know a lot of people, and I'm very friendly & talkative. My friends call me "The People Whisperer" -- people just gravitate to talk to me. And I think I have some insight into this, if nothing else AS A WOMAN.
(cont.) The decline in marriage? it isn't declining. It is just LATER because people need to go to college (or other training) and then pay off loans, save up for a house, etc. And the stats lose all the people who are living together, in long-term committed partnerships -- not married, but definitely NOT SINGLE. When I was a kid, the average age to marry was 19 or 20. Now it is 29. Frankly that is a huge improvement. (Divorce rates are WAY down too.)
If the Pill was the problem -- LOL -- I gotta laugh -- the Pill came out in 1961! that's 62 years ago! the Pill didn't cause any of this. There are 20 kinds of effective birth control out there! surely it wasn't better when people were having accidental, unplanned pregnancies! (EVEN IN MARRIAGES!).
Vaccines? nah. The economy? sometimes, yes, but the economy has been booming since 2011. It can't be that. There are some troubling things about the youngest people, GenZ (or very late Millennials) -- many "fail to launch" and stay home for years, paying video games in their parents basements. Some of the men devolve to that, plus watching porn or OnlyFans, because it is "easier than dating" (i.e, low effort). But again, is that men who have college degrees and professional jobs? Nope.
Diana: it is fascinating you actually know the Petersons. I think that may be influencing your view of them. I did know they met in school (though I thought it was college) and married young. That means he hasn't dated in an extremely long time. I was under the impression that Peterson was mostly a college professor, who did lectures and wrote books. I was sad to see him persecuted by Canadian authorities.
Is it possible your own experiences color your views on this issue? 1978 is 45 years ago! I assume in that time you did marry and had a long marriage. Life is so unexpected and cannot really be planned for -- I am so sorry you lost your husband and went through a very difficult final illness. But that is the price of marriage and love, isn't it? My mother had MS for 11 years and my dad faithfully and loyally nursed her all that time. I think growing up with that taught me that marriage isn't all wedding dresses and diamond rings and fun times. It is having someone to go through the hard times with.
You can date at any age... people today, thanks to the internet, meet and marry even in their 70s and 80s. Definitely late life marriage has different goals and risks than marrying in your 20s. I can only tell you that marriage should be with someone you cherish so much... that whether they are healthy or not... you would still choose them over all others. I have no doubt you cared tenderly for your late husband.
But if you are asking "how do I game the system, so I get a healthy man this time?" and sadly, there is no way. You can marry a totally healthy person who gets sick in a year or two. YOU might feel fine today, and be sick in a year or two. ON the other hand... if you avoid remarrying... you might miss out on 10-15-20 years of happiness and companionship.
There is no way to remove all risk from relationships. WANTING no risks -- heck, maybe that is why so many young people are "gun-shy about marriage. They want guarantees where there are none.
The sex robot makes me laugh. OK, whatever floats your boat. It wouldn't do a darn thing for me... or at least, nothing that a vibrator couldn't do for 1/1000th the price. It is the HUMAN touch we crave, really. Looking into the eyes of someone we love... yes, sometimes at the end of the life.
Of course... YMMV (your mileage may vary!) and to each their own.I don't dislike Peterson and I did know he had a daughter (she appears with him sometimes). I don't know her dating/marriage situation.
I would certainly HOPE his daughters would be very picky... you shouldn't date "just anyone" especially on a dating site with many tens of thousands of people in your area. The research on this is ... wonky, though. It comes FROM the dating apps themselves... it is not rigorous or peer-reviewed. It's just an accumulation of data, a sort of "data dump".
What is actually says is that men SWIPED on 60% of the women. That's really not "choosing" 60% -- it is more of a "meh, she's OK enough just for no-strings sex" kind of thing. Now, I don't think all men are like this, but enough are to tilt the data.
As I pointed out to someone else... men don't face the risks in dating a TOTAL STRANGER ON THE INTERNET that women do. The worst that a man might face is a bad date with someone unpleasant. A woman is risking her life, actually. Now, that's the extreme but even I -- dating in an era of newspaper "personal ads" -- when things were a lot tamer and more traditional -- sometimes ended up on dates with very skeevy men.... and I heard even worse stories from friends. Men who acted weird, angry, were domineering or violent. Men who stalk you after ONE coffee date. There is always the potential of date rape.
Now most men are normal and most dates are -- at worst -- boring but the RISK is there. It does not exist for men. So OF COURSE women have to be much more selective.
Frankly if you consider how many people are ON dating sites... anyone swiping on 60% is basically saying "I will go out with anybody who isn't outright hideous". That's a very poor dating strategy. Think about how people date in the "real world" -- surely you didn't go out with "just anyone" -- just any guy who gave you a glance in a bar or nightclub? or on the bus? why wouldn't women ONLINE be just as cautious?
I completely reject the recent anti-feminism. I think it is based on shallow research (if any) and mostly opinionating, and a lot of kowtowing to the RedPill movement.... the idea that women shouldn't have agency or choice, but should marry "low value men" and just "accept they are not very attractive". I despise this. (BTW: this is the sole purpose of the popular podcast, @WHATEVER.) It is telling women to have low self-esteem and to put themselves down.
Feminism has GIVEN US the vote... credit in our own name... the freedom to abort unwanted pregnancies... to go to college... work in any profession... own our own homes! and have careers. That's a lot. You can add "safe & legal contraception, easily available (and actually free under Obamacare).
Safe contraception is a huge blessing, and I don't agree that it means women cannot say no to sex. The "olden days" when women had to be the "guardians of sex" and were denied sexual pleasure until marriage... didn't result in happiness for either men or women. In fact, it mostly led to very incompatible people marrying each other, because they were horny and that was the only way to get laid. This didn't serve anyone very well, men or women.
If women are having sex they don't want, to please or hold onto a man... well, I definitely do not encourage that and I have told my daughters not to do that. No man is worth it, frankly. No GOOD MAN tells you "put out or I will move on to another, easier woman". That man is TRASH. You don't want him.
Wow! Well said! I am a widower... "But if you are asking "how do I game the system, so I get a healthy man this time?" and sadly, there is no way. You can marry a totally healthy person who gets sick in a year or two. YOU might feel fine today, and be sick in a year or two. ON the other hand... if you avoid remarrying... you might miss out on 10-15-20 years of happiness and companionship."
Just an aside; I like Peterson because he was the first man I can remember that could go toe to toe with radical feminists in media. His training as a psychologist gave him the foundation to speak courageously & intelligently on these gender issues. He actually encouraged self-responsibility & courage. A message young men are receptive too. Just the fact that he cares about young men (& women) was tremendous.
[A]nyone swiping on 60% is basically saying "I will go out with anybody who isn't outright hideous". That's a very poor dating strategy. Think about how people date in the "real world" -- surely you didn't go out with "just anyone" -- just any guy who gave you a glance in a bar or nightclub? or on the bus? why wouldn't women ONLINE be just as cautious?
</blockquote>
Is "go out with anyone that shows interest" really that bad of a dating strategy when almost nobody shows interest in the first place? Because that's the position I was in... the first time I ever had a girlfriend was in my early 30s, and I ended up happily married to her even though sane people would have thought our relationship was made entirely out of red flags and ran screaming. 😆
On the oeuvre of art, my cupboard is relatively bare, but I did come up with Cyrano, Othello, and whatever Shakespeare sonnet we studied in HS about his lover having "hair like wires".
I suspect that even in societies where women were treated as chattel, a demanding and forthright girl or young woman of intelligence and ability could still earn the respect and admiration of her father, brothers, eventual husband, sons and nephews, brothers in law, etc., such that her influence (direct or indirect) would extend beyond the purely domestic. History suggests this was a relatively rare occurrence in the political realm, but perhaps a less often reported benefit was supplied by women in the social and economic areas involving family and clan business, etc.
Over the last few years I have occasionally observed an older couple in the store or on the street and tried to imagine how they looked in their twenties and thus what the attraction(s) might have been. Even from such anecdotal surveys it is clear many less than actor quality people managed to find each other and prosper together where they might have lagged as non-joined individuals. And sometimes the visages of the couples being observed are closer to the actor roles for horror films than the usual soap opera.
How biased to you have to be to believe Christine Blasey Ford over Justice Kavanaugh; or Anita Hill over Justice Thomas? In one case the shred of a possibility exists while in the other there is no "there" there at all. Political shenanigans like those don't help the truly aggrieved either. I suspect these US cases did make the news overseas, while if there were any corresponding situations in Britain or Europe, I don't recall reading about them.
I also read your MeToo essay and noted you cited the Pinker low violence in modern times and honor killings and Rotherham, so you covered items I might have thought of, too. I has failed to remember FGM, although that is cultural violence with the "best of intentions" within that culture.
It is also disturbing that the ardent feminists don't seem to give any considerations to the large complement of males (as fathers, brothers, husbands, friends, et al. ) that would move very forcefully to provide protection to the women in their lives if they are aware of a threat and in a position to act.
I know that women have had a hugh effect on society. Even in the political realm. What the radical feminist conveniently forget is the subtle, indirect ways women have & do use their influence. Especially by using sex as a weapon or instrument of persuasion. Even today, withholding sex to get what they want is common. Look at history and you will see how very intelligent women have persuaded kings to give up their kingdoms. The once king of England in WW2 is a recent example. Helen of Troy is another. The list is endless. Men may have been in the lead, but that also put them in the position of being a target.
Yes, beauty is power. I had it and now that I'm 82 I no longer have the beauty or the power. However, I have to say that it is a relief not to be hormone driven any more. I certainly didn't use my power, in fact, as a child of the sixties, I squandered it, and thereby hangs a tale!
Fantastic piece. I’ve been saying something similar to this for twenty years now. I’ve always thought really good looking people live in a separate reality. Their perceptions skewed by a reality filled with sexual opportunities that most of us couldn’t dream of. Now…I will say that men don’t have to be that good looking for those opportunities to appear. I’ve seen some ugly men get lots of girls. In those cases, other variables begin to play out but the result is the same: they monopolize the women. In my experience, under our sexual market, that’s where this all ends up.
Thank you. Yes for women it's mostly about looks and for men it's confidence and success. The evolutionary psychologists have more or less proved that this is how it goes.
OK You have me. This essay is so brilliant and absorbing that I simply must become a subscriber. After a while, I dare say, I will also be forced to become a paid subscriber should you keep up this promise of thought provoking creativity. :)
What a generous compliment...Thank you! Subscription is free for the foreseeable. Some people have pledged but I have no intention of taking them up at the moment.
I always find these types of posts interesting. We've grown up in a society that explores the lives of people you classify in this Substack post as the lucky ones. When the lives of those unlucky in love are explored, they still find love (as a way to show that love is for anyone. Think Bridget Jones's Diary if my understanding of the premise is correct). It's only until recently we've begun to explore the lives of the unlucky in a way that empathizes with them and allows them to discover their value outside of a romantic relationship. I've spent a lot of my younger years sad about my lot in the physical attractiveness market, but I've learned (and am always having to remind myself) I was put on this planet to do more than just be beautiful. I have no interest or desire in romance or a romantic relationship and in the process of forging a single life for myself. But based on what I've observed, people regardless of what they look like tend to find the love they want when they are willing to put themselves out there and like those who like them back.
Interesting. I have to disagree with you though about "recently we've begun to explore the lives of the unlucky". The main reason for writing this essay was that we haven't!....the huge differences between the experiences of what I have called "the more desired" and "the less desired" doesn't get explored in journalism about sexual relations....because it almost always focuses on the difference between the experiences of a stereotypical male vs a stereotypical female. Thank you anyway for sharing these thoughts Rhea.....and hope you'll subscribe?
It's nerdy, white male, loner teens, bullied in school who turn into the school shooters. These males are not considered sexy, they know they never will be. Young black males don't shoot up schools because they're considered sexy.
This comment reminds me of something an old colleague of mine said many years ago and and is one of those random memories that has stuck in my head. I used to work in the building construction industry and it was at a meeting about some technical issue (can't remember what now). Suddenly my colleague chipped in to the discussion with this amazing non-sequitur....."It's all about sex you know".
F Roger Devlin's Sexual Utopia in Power does a great job laying this out. I get irritated when ppl can't explain the content of a book and just infodump, so I'll give the TLDR version.
He talks about how roughly 100 years ago, men felt constricted, they wanted to get more sex and they imagined that "sexual liberation" of women would be a fun playtime free for all. Women likewise wanted the best men, the stuff of romance novels, didn't want to settle down with ordinary betas.
Both men and women were motivated by a Utopian dream, some secret abundant source of near infinite sex, or at least, enough to satisfy their desires. But it turns out our desires and imaginations lust far in excess of available romantic opportunities. So then this ideology goes thru a process of "8 Stages of Grief", as Utopian dreamers crash into reality, must suffer denial, grief — and then embittered RAGE which demands revenge against reality for disappointing their ideals.
He makes the comparison that the French Revolution started idealistically and swiftly descended into savagery. Divorce courts, sexual harassment claims, child custody battles have similarly wrecked the romantic landscape.
This is one of the more sensible outlines I have read. Thanks for posting. I can see the carnage now. A dating apocalypse. From a male perspective it is easy to blame the ladies. But a small handful of men, about five percent. are having a whale of a time.
One of the modern aspects, really an artefact of dating apps specifically, is that approximately 80 percent of women are swiping right on only 5 percent of men. It is out of that pool most of the action is taking place. As a consequence younger women have a skewed view of male behaviour. The only men they are seeing have an absurd amount of options, so they imagine most men are cheating devils who don't return phonecalls. Inevitably this is making its way into the feminist literature while ignoring the observation a majority of young men now no longer date any women.
I have read that stat, and I think it is biased by the very format of dating sites, which even in 2023... are not real life. (Most couples do still meet in "real life".)
If 80% of women only dated 5% of men... obviously most of the women would get NO BOYFRIEND and no dates, or be man sharing, and we don't actually see that at all. The numbers just don't work.
Despite your and other men's "jealousy of the Giga Chad"... in fact, it is simply impossible for 80% of women to all date the same 5% of men.
They may all WANT to date Leo DiCaprio or similar, and Leo may get a lot of poon and have any woman he wants... but he is far far from the norm and 5% of men (even 5% on dating sites, which is not 5% of the general population) are not Leo DiCaprio.
When you actually talk to men, very few of them are leading this fantabulous Playboy Mansion lifestyle of getting to bang 10-15 women at a time, and having women just throw themselves at the guys. Movie stars, maybe. Not normal guys, not even rich guys.
I don't believe that 75% plus of women are actively engaging in behavior designed to leave them alone and dateless.
Oh and stop watching/listenign to the @WHATEVER podcast. It is all staged and lies.
Well, we actually know what happened to the two million surplus women left by WWI... they became the first generation of feminists, the ones who had professions, went to medical school and law school, etc. You could argue from the male perspective, that while it is a bit sad & lonely not to have a suitable mate for marriage and children... it is preferable to being DEAD IN A TRENCH.
Thank you! It's still happening today. It was not that long ago that men fought & died in Iraq & Afghanistan. Young men are disposable. Look at Ukraine, men can't leave the country. They must stay and die in the meat grinder. What I really find disturbing is that in our society, women are being promoted thru the military ranks as officers. Yet, they are not required to register for military service or fight in combat. Seems to be very inequitable. It is true that war hurts women also but, as you pointed out, the level of sacrifice is lopsided.
(A nebbishy character played by Fred Armisen is accused of sexual harassment for speaking to women in the office, while another character played by guest host Tom Brady can behave much worse and they like it.)
There is some truth to this, but it cuts both ways.
Women are thrilled to be hit on by a handsome rich guy, but offended at the same behavior from a nerdy loser. Nothing new here.
BUT... men are also disgusted and horrified if a plain, homely or fat woman flirts or approaches them... even just sits nearby or talks to them. There is an entire BODY of comedic movies and TV shows featuring just this HORROR of the aggressive, horny but hideous woman hitting on a man.
The same men would be OVER THE MOON if hit on by a beautiful sexy woman... it would be the high point of their lives. But they run in horror from the "fugly dog".
How men behave towards women they find "ugly" or undesirable was told very beautifully in a 1991 film called "Dogfight"... the late River Phoenix and the marvelous actress Lili Taylor starring. If you can find it to stream or rent, I recommend.
How can "calling out sexual harassement" ever be "taken to excess"?
“more disconcerting research findings that men who use sexual coercion have more partners than men who do not.....[and men] ...high on Dark Triad traits are viewed as more attractive by women, are more likely to have consensual sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in sexual coercion.”
If someone is "dark triad" but has an attractive face/body, then it is the face/body that will be considered attractive, not their psychopathy. A psychopath with an ugly face will not be considered attractive.
Is this what you mean? "There is, of course, little that Western liberals can do about these horrors but one gets a sense that even thinking much about them can get crowded-out by intra-metropolitan middle class preoccupations. (They could, for instance, direct more political firepower to issues like forced marriage which remains a scourge in all parts of the world".
Great article. I liked how you juxtaposed the two sides of the issue. Normally we only hear the female side. I hope that men in general will wake up soon. If only for the sake of the next generation of young men. Men must adapt to our rapidly changing world. We don't speak out against inequities that our fellow men suffer. The empathy gap for men is perpetrated by women AND men.
I prefer beta males, probably because I'm a beta female (if B+) who grew up in the shadow of a ravishingly beautiful mother who didn't have to work at it. It made that path seem hopeless: I later realized I might have gone that way by working at it, but no one showed me how (on the contrary, she was delighted to outshine plainer daughters), and it didn't seem worth the trouble. So I became the looker rather than the looked-at, and am grateful for it. Now in my 70s, I'm fascinated to observe that the old women who WERE beautiful often act with the same high-handed entitlement that their beauty once gave them. For women, beauty IS power.
Interesting! Yes, I was a bit 'beta' too when young - too serious, needy etc - but don't tell anyone! One of the (few) benefits of being in one's 70s (I am too) is that it none of this matters anymore. I do hope you will take a free subscription and hopefully find some of my other essays of interest,
Done.
Ha Ha I misread your newsletter title and thought it was "Either Or" I guess it's part of my problem of only seeing what I expect to see.
In the long march that is life... things have a way of evening out.
Very beautiful women (or very handsome men) get so privileged early in life, they often turn out vain or lazy... demanding... not very nice to be around... conceited. A beautiful woman who depends on her looks, and can easily have almost any husband she wants... might also end up being the first one dumped or divorced when she loses her looks, get middle aged or gains 15 lbs after her third child. THEN WHAT? she now lacks the resources to have a good life on her own. She always depended on her looks to get by.
For men, it becomes more about wealth & status after around 30... if you are incredibly handsome but POOR... your mating value will decline despite your looks, and just as in women... looks don't last. Lose your hair, gain 15-20 lbs and you are not the hottest guy on the beach or in the gym anymore.
WOW! My mother (very beautiful with great figure) constantly told me that I was sexually unattractive due to wearing glasses and having small breasts. She said that since I lacked any attractiveness, I might possibly eventually marry after age 40 since males didn't have a great deal of libido after age 40 so I might be able to attract some left over male due to my nice (meaning submissive, accommodating) personality. I did marry my beloved husband at age 46 although we had started dating 10 years earlier.
Now that tomorrow I will be 81, I am thankful for her opinion since my "nice" personality still exists--although my appearance has gone to pot. Still I have very good unwrinkled skin. On the other hand, I have arthritis, anxiety, and joint pain. Would I trade in my good beautiful skin for the ability to play tennis painlessly? Hmmmmmm. I'm like Jack Benny debating "Your money or your life!" I thought I was without ego when it comes to beauty. Uh Oh. Seems I lied. As Stan Tatkin says, "We are all primates. Primed for aggression and thoughtlessness."
Oh dear, your mom did a real number on you. I guess this was long enough ago that A. there was no Lasik surgery or contact lenses? and B. that people still thought that "guys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses"? And I gather no option for breast implants (if you had even wanted them!).
In fact, none of this was EVER TRUE. There are lots of stats on marriage, and very little correlation between eye glasses or breast size related to who gets married or not.
BTW: small breasted women started to actually be PREFERRED over larger breasted women starting in the late 60s and continuing on to the present day. I don't mean "porn" here, as that is not normal life. I mean in fashion... in movies... in the idealized images of celebrities... in actual clothing. How do I know this? I hit puberty in exactly the wrong time (late 60s) and I had very large breasts. I never EVER got admiration or flirting due to this, only shaming and embarrassment and outright criticism. I had a sister in law once, tell me very loudly (at a party, where others could hear) that "all large breasted women are slutty and sleep around".
Also you probably noticed as you aged... that smaller breasts stay firm, are much easier to buy bras and clothing for... don't get in the way of your doing sports, running, jumping, playing, dancing... don't attract gross lewd comments... let you buy any sort of t-shirt or swimsuit without worries.
Thanks so much for this comment! In the 1940's eyeglasses were quite rare. Now almost everybody wears contact lenses and many even prefer glasses. I had surgery for a "travelling eye" or amblyopia. I never considered myself defective and was very young when my mother told me I would be sexually unacceptable. That didn't seem terribly relevant to a 6 year old girl interested in horses, bicycles, radio music. My stepfather told me EVERYBODY would reject me because I wore glasses. That also didn't bother me because a)I was partially home schooled and didn't realize friends were necessary (not when I had my mother and my younger brother) b)It was so WONDERFUL to be able to see! Who knew that the solid red wall of NY apartment buildings was actually paved with individual bricks? and c)I was experiencing rejection only from my parents and caretakers.
I did hear from one of my caretakers that I was lucky not to have big breasts (at age 6 I had no breasts at all, so I dismissed her comment) I am very athletic, so I'm glad I don't need bras. Only trouble is that I play tennis and most white shirts (required for tennis) end up revealing my nipples when I sweat. Therefore, I need to purchase decorative bras that function to cover up female anatomy while not being too tight for comfort.
AHHH comfort. I had a sequined strapless prom dress. So beautiful--but I was without the anatomy to manage a strapless bra. The sequins caused my nipples to bleed. But when I complained, my mother replied, "You must learn to suffer for beauty!" REALLY?! Like the Chinese foot binding? Now I would just sew a lining onto the inside of the prom dress. Problem solved!
I would never have Lasik surgery. The majority of people suffer from dry eyes after this surgery. I did try contact lenses. I'm overly sensitive and never got used to them. I experienced mild discomfort or even pain for the 2 or 3 years that I wore them. Finally I accidentally tore my cornea doing home plastering and used that as an excuse to quit using lenses. I am a bit sorry since lenses gave me better vision. However, now that I'm older, I never wear glasses or lenses. I can still read perfectly and read on the computer. Who cares about seeing far away at age 81?
The mass media may have preferred small breasts (Twiggy?), but I think most males prefer average size breasts. My husband believed I would be more acceptable with larger breasts, but that was to avoid having his friends or colleagues criticize him for his choice in women. How did he end up with this grad school tomboy nerd who wears jeans and stained tunics while he is following a strict IBM dress code?
Ha Ha
The number that my Mom did on me was to project her own dissatisfactions with misogyny onto her daughter. She used to insist females were inferior (except SHE wasn't) and I also didn't deserve to be female. With my brains and athletic prowess I obviously should have been and deserved to be a male. Too bad I wasn't because that was the reason my parents divorced--my failure to provide my father with a male heir. (This failure stings, but we are conveniently/emotionally forgetting that my brother was available--so no reason to divorce just because he also fathered a daughter.)
It's only now after therapy I'm discovering that most males do sexually desire females. Before that I felt that males only liked me because I was like them. I'm happy to avoid being captured by "the beauty trap." Looking at my younger self, I'm actually quite physically attractive--probably well above average. Since I never relied on my looks, I'm not ashamed of losing them. That's a blessing. No constant rounds of botox, surgeries, insecure demands for reassurance. Old age brings its pains, fears, disabilities, and health problems. But loss of feminine attractiveness is not one of them for me. I had a great marriage of almost 40 years with my shy, insecure, but loving husband. That's good enough for me!
Gosh, I am so sorry for your experience... since most people in my family had bad eyesight, they DID have glasses even in the 1920s and before, but you are not wrong -- eye glasses then were very costly, and HEAVY, made of real glass. So if you were not literally "blind as a bat", you muddled through with blurry vision (probably doing terrible in school!)
I had amblyopia too, so my heart goes out to you. My family never made it an issue and got me the very finest care with a nationally recognized Ophthalmologist... I eventually had surgery at 12. My eyes look normal now, but the right eye is much weaker than the left. I wore bifocals from the age of 11 MONTHS! However other children and TEACHERS were often very cruel. I had teachers who told me and my classmates that my crossed eye meant "I was too stupid to control my eyes" -- can you imagine? so it was more an issue of the crossed eye than the GLASSES as many nearsighted kids also wore glasses.
I could see and read fine without the glasses with my one good left eye, so eventually after the surgery... I was able to forego glasses entirely for 30 YEARS until presbyopia caught up with me. I can still manage with just reading glasses.
So it was opposite what you experienced, since I had to attend pubic schools the whole time... EVEN AFTER SURGERY, in Junior High... kids would call me "cross-eyed" when I very obviously was not. Weird!
If you are small enough on top, I would think that a t-shirt or cami would suffice for tennis or sports... there were lots of sports I simply could not do (*before sports bras anyways) as it was too painful. So I guess it is always "six of one and half a dozen of the other", no?
I don't believe in "suffering for beauty" though I have heard it said... certainly young women today do things I couldn't have imagined in my wildest dreams... tattoos! multiple piercings! nails and hair extensions that take hours & hours and cost $$$$! It seems much worse and harder to be a young woman than it was in my era.
BTW: I did have Lasik, at 51 and it was great for about 12 years and then gradually wore off. It cost $3000 (both eyes) and I did get improvement even in my weak eye and didn't need glasses at all for that time, so... $3000 divided by 12 is less than the cost of a good pair of Progressive lens glasses. I would do it again, but am too old for the "cost benefit analysis", LOL. (No, I had no dry eye and only minor issues with "halos" at night and no long term side effects now, except my vision is back to what it was before the surgery.) I couldn't wear contacts at all... they bothered my eyes, and I guess they WERE dry (before Lasik) as the contacts would just FALL OUT without warning.
If you can read and work on the computer with no glasses at 81.... you are NEAR sighted. I am FAR sighted. Totally different kettle of fish. Near sighted is far easier to correct and far easier and better for Lasik. (However by 80... I'd wait for intraoccqular lens transplant, it is a TRUE MIRACLE and will restore you to perfect vision.)
As for men... their tastes vary and some men are fixated on breasts and others prefer women who are slim & lean. I'd be very offended if a man told me my breasts were too big or too small, or to change them FOR HIM!!! If your husband picked YOU the way you were... than he must not have really minded. I think the problem was your mom, and that she dumped HER ISSUES and HER ANGER onto YOU... that is so unfair.
And good lord, your father divorced her for not having a son? and she thought YOU should have been that son? holy cow, this is like the plot of a long novel! so glad you kept your self esteem and agency and did not crack under that pressure.
As old as I am now... frankly all young people look "good" to me... clear eyes, smooth skin, lustrous hair (and plenty of it!)... flexible young bodies full of energy... that we all drove ourselves mad over the size of our boobs or other minor things that never mattered in the long run... seems so crazy to me now. But I do REMEMBER being a teenager and yes it MATTERED TO ME in the moment. And I was fortunate that my mom was not like yours... she was thrilled to have a daughter, and do things together like cooking, sewing, music, crafts.
Honestly from the vantage point of age... the whole "beauty myth" just seems exhausting and I try to tell young women (my daughters, nieces, goddaughters and so on) to just enjoy being YOUNG... healthy... strong... it wont' last, but you can have a good long run of it before old age catches up. Life is so precious, to waste it worrying about being a B cup vs. a C cup.... or a certain dress size... is just such a waste.
Congrats on your wonderful long marriage too! thanks for posting.
Love your response. So healing to get input from other people. I also look cross eyed or wall eyed in my early baby/toddler pictures. There's one of me age 4 in an embroidered cotton dress that ends mid thigh. I'm standing with my legs apart as if I totally own the world. My legs are so strong and muscular--promising the athletic ability that I would later enjoy. AND I'm completely wall eyed. My right eye is far over to the right and up--doing its own thing. My eye surgeon was well known in NY City. He advised covering my "good" eye to restore vision in the weak eye. But that didn't please me. I wanted to read! Because my grandmother had taught me and I loved books. I complained so much that my mother caved in and said I didn't have to. Sometimes being a mother is tough. You can't always let your children do whatever they want to do.
By the way, my father DIDN'T divorce my mother because he wanted a boy. My mother divorced my father because she wanted to marry my step father. When she drank, she had a tenuous grasp on reality. She was jealous because I had just returned from a visit to the zoo with my father and was boasting about how much fun I had.
Interesting! amblyopia presents many different ways. I had a turned-in right eye. My left eye was fine. My son in law has a wall-eye -- never had it fixed. Did yours resolve with age? I had to wear a patch for 10 years, then had eye surgery. The eye does wander very very slightly if I am extremely tired.
In the 40s and 50s, it was definitely believed that covering the strong eye (and correcting the weak eye with glasses) would resolve the problem without surgery. They were far more hesitant to do surgery back then! and it had to be costly. We were lucky, my dad had a good job with a big company and the insurance covered all or most of it.
I still see kids with amblyopia here and there, and I am shocked people don't know much about it today (and treatments have not advanced hardly at all!)... if left untreated, it will eventually make you blind in one eye. Treating it early will preserve at least some vision.
Like most amblyopics, I have little depth vision and no "binocular vision"... I cannot look through microscopes or binoculars at all, the image will not fuse.
Sorry I got the story about your parents wrong! oh my! it really WAS convoluted! -- we don't always get the mothering we want or deserve, do we? (Or fathering.) We just have to roll with the punches and do the best with what we get... still and all, to be jealous of your own child... how sad. Your mom missed out on so much in life, by being so angry and resentful.
Fortunately you turned out OK anyhow and have lived a wonderful life!
Are there any of us who have not at least once thought, said, or done something really stupid?
I can raise both my arms (as two hands) acknowledging having done so more than once. I would raise additional "hands" but I am not primate enough to have prehensile feet.
[In confirming my correct understanding of "prehensile", I found the second definition is "Having a keen intellect or powerful memory. A prehensile mind." Well, I still have a keen intellect but now I seem to have only a modest memory. As near as I can recall.]
"Now in my 70s, I'm fascinated to observe that the old women who WERE beautiful often act with the same high-handed entitlement that their beauty once gave them."
I've seen that movie before, more than once, sort of like an aging athlete who no longer can perform the same feats of his youth and who also never grew up in the meantime. Not pleasant.
The most attractive females are not always those who meet certain physical standards, but who have a certain verve and snap about them, and that can last, long after their physical attributes are no longer what they once were.
Beautifully said and observably true.
That's interesting about your mother. I have had beautiful friends -- physically beautiful in the way that makes women powerful & popular in our culture -- and my observation is that it is WONDERFUL while it lasts... gives self-esteem, power, confidence... can be a path to success and wealth... but it doesn't last all that long.
Middle age likely puts an end to it, and if not there... then old age certainly does. At 70, you may have visited a nursing home or two... you may have noted that you cannot tell the difference at 75 between those who were beautiful and those who were very plain.
Even more so, my beautiful friends were FAR FAR more miserable than the plain ones (like me!) as they aged... because they lost so much, whereas my life changed little or even got better.
That’s a very good point!!
Even when young I felt lucky to be free to be “the looker” instead of “the looked at.” I was in the gray zone where “I coulda been a contender” but would’ve had to work at it, and really wasn’t sufficiently interested.
"fascinated to observe that the old women who WERE beautiful often act with the same high-handed entitlement that their beauty once gave them."
As a late middle-aged man who's been around the block a few times with many different types of women, my friends and I would repeatedly say about certain middle-aged women,
"She acts like she thinks she's still 24 years old."
(Like she still has the leverage to be demanding and difficult . . . since beautiful 24 year-old women are at a supreme apex of power, and most boys will kiss their ass to get close to them)
Excellent essay. Well done, I loved it, Graham.
I especially enjoyed the statistics that 'that men “liked” more than 60 percent of the female profiles they viewed, while women “liked” only 4.5 percent of male profiles.'
Women are famously more picky than men. And there are good evolutionary reasons why this is so.
However, dating apps are now the primary method of meeting. Only five or so years ago about 80 percent of women selected about 20 percent of men as matches. In the last few years this has dropped to about 5 percent, with all other men invisible. So this is having a strong effect on the dating market.
LOL, I have read that before but again I say... DATING SITES are not the most reliable collectors of data or reporters of human behavior. Why? because they are biased in favor of their business model. They do not seek (like an olden days matchmaker) to see people happily partnered or married. They seek to have CUSTOMERS who return again and again in desperation to "find someone".
If dating apps are the primary method of meeting (I think they are major, but not primary or ONLY methods)... and women only select 5% of the men... they wouldn't work. It isn't possible for 80-100% of women to all date the same 5% of men.
It would mean women were SELECTING to futilely swipe on only 5% of men (75% fewer than 5 years ago in 2018?) in order to NOT GET DATES? what would motivate them to do this?
I think the reality is that it FEELS THIS WAY to men who enter this market of dating apps, expecting to "order up" a woman like it was a restaurant, and who then are surprised when their strategy ("just click on 60% of the women, surely someone will respond"!) doesn't pan out.
But women who do this equally have complaints, that men feel entitled and demanding... that they are rude and dismissive... that they set near-impossible standards and demands. I don't think either gender really likes this system, and most people call it a "meat market" with despair.
There may be another dimension to this (one which I was unaware of when I wrote this essay). I have subsequently read stats a couple of times now to the effect that there is far greater USE of dating apps by men than by women. This, if true, will obviously be a big modifying factor in all the other stats. But I am way too old to have had any personal experience of these apps.
The dating apps (OKCupid, Tinder) released some data -- kinda suspect data, not double blind or peer reviewed -- but it said that the sites were badly out of balance, with about 75% of members being men and only 25% women.
This isn't new; I am old enough to remember "the olden days" when this stuff was called "personal ads" and they ran in newspapers and the backs of city magazines. And it was always majority men. In fact, men had to PAY to post ads but it was FREE for the women! why? they needed far more women!
Why? because it is obviously far riskier for a woman to date a stranger (vs. someone from work or church). He might be far worse than a lame date -- he might be violent or dangerous. Men on the other hand, face no worse risk than buying dinner for a woman they don't find pleasant or attractive. I think men also have come to feel that dating apps are a kind of "free sex" thing -- a way to get no-strings sex, but not having to pay an actual prostitute.
I have (sadly) heard way too many men doing this kind of dating app, say angrily that they resent having to buy A DRINK for a woman who "won't put out". They literally think they are owed sex if they buy a woman a cocktail at a bar.
Women risk violence, intimidation, STALKING, STDs, pregnancy, rape and a host of other things... even if some women also seek "no strings" sex. That makes women naturally more cautious and more careful about who they date. (No, it is not about "wanting Chad".)
Still and all, despite the pitfalls and unfairness and uneven representation... people still find each other in this crazy world, and date and marry and have kids. Most of them! So a lot of the histrionics are unwarranted.
Actually I find the greatest threat to happiness and the formation of happy marraiges/families is the new(ish) REDPILL movement (grew out of the much older MRA and How to Pick Up Women movements)... it spreads the most hateful things about women, claims men are "entitled" to sex and as many women as they want... encourages men NOT to marry (but to use gullible women for sex)....tells young men that all women are whores and thots, and have "high body counts". It is depressing and stupid, but it scares me because so many men apparently believe this.
Yes remember those personal ads from days of yore now you come to mention it....."GSOH", "bubbly personality" etc.
More seriously.... on your comment: if we are going to see both sides of the coin, you should at least recognise this imbalance that will work against lonely men: if a woman does choose to go on a dating site, she if far more likely to actually GET a date than a man would. Put another way, it's important to avoid stereotyping ALL men along the lines of the super-predatory kind that most annoy/scare you.
Yes, and it was GLACIALLY slow... you had to send LETTERS and actual PHOTOGRAPHS of yourself... took at least two WEEKS to make a "connection" that today would take literally minutes....
I think the "imbalance" is due to what I said -- safety for women. Nothing is going to make it MORE safe in the present milieu... especially where some posters say incredibly hateful things about "all women" (as if they KNOW "all women").
It is not true that women are more likely to get dates. Despite the imbalance, those larger numbers of men are HELLBENT on a handful of women who are very young and pretty, and ignore the women their own age... and when interviewed, they say they would rather masturbate to porn than date a real woman who wasn't pretty or thin. (And this from men who are very much NOT handsome or buff or thin themselves.)
The real problem is men choosing video gaming and porn over real relationships... women have nothing similar. There is no OnlyFans for WOMEN. There is little or no porn for WOMEN. Though women play video games, they are a minority of players -- rarely get obsessed with it -- and the games are not designed for women's interests. It can be a very female-unfriendly space (see: GAMERGATE).
I absolutely don't think "all men" do any specific things, I was writing about risks (or PERCEIVED risks) that women have. I love men... I have wonderful men in my life. I don't stereotype ALL MEN, but it drives me nuts when men like Spacemen Spiff regurgitate this RedPill stuff (WORD FOR WORD) and think they are great intellectuals who have figured it all out (and that women are at fault for everything).
My sons and stepsons are millennials... all of them are married or in long-term relationships. Most have kids of their own now. So I know that real human beings still meet in "real reality" and have real relationships based on mutual respect & kindness.
Let me restate it more clearly then.
- The main method for younger people to date is now exclusively apps
- The data is easy to collect and analyze and is based on actual behaviour, including analysis of follow ups to meets etc. The data is extensive and more accurate than it used to be since it used to rely on surveys
- Approximately 80 percent of women pursue a small number of very attractive men; all other men are invisible to them; this is correlated by independent studies of how young women evaluate male attractiveness; strangers are seen as uglier than they objectively are; the familiar are rated higher
- They are indeed dating them; that small group of lucky devils are sleeping with a huge number of women because they are attractive; this is noted even by feminist researchers (with some anger, lol)
- There is a corresponding despondency widely reported in academia, and even the mainstream, that many women are aware of this; they know they are sleeping with attractive men who will not commit to them and are known to sleep with many women; but hope springs eternal and it is the nature of women to believe they can change a cad into a gentleman
- What is emerging is a form of polygamy; women reject average men and will pursue attractive men to the extent they will share them; this is happening in Scandinavian countries where a limited number of men are now producing many of the children
All this is discussed widely in academia.
One of the effect of this is to distort women's perceptions of the dating market. For example, you have this distortion yourself:
But women who do this equally have complaints, that men feel entitled and demanding... that they are rude and dismissive... that they set near-impossible standards and demands.
Most men are not in a position to demand anything. That's the 95 percent by the way. They will take what they can get and are less picky than women.
But that top five percent can afford to be demanding. And those are the men the women see, so those are "all men." This phenomenon too has been well researched. Women are famously gullible, much more so than men. And those top five percenters will tell them anything they want to hear to get them in the sack. Then they will renege.
The meta point here is not to trash women. I have great sympathy. But the sexual liberation and emancipation of women hasn't worked. For women today under 35 the projection is one in two will never have a husband or children. A tragedy that was avoidable had we reigned things in a bit.
Hope that clarifies.
No, you are wrong. And don't mistake me for someone that out of touch... I have millennial kids and nieces, nephews, etc. and I know how all of them met their partners. Most all of them are married or in long-term live-in situations.
1. Though it is a MAJOR way to try and date, as noted by you and me and others... it is so frustrating and not all that successful... so yes, other ways to meet people obviously still exist.
2. The data is not that simple to collect, and you are already going into it with a huge bias based on your own sour, nasty RedPill outlook. And dating sites are not necessarily honest or thorough... these are not peer reviewed studies AT ALL. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for a dating site to know if people did more than swipe or exchange a few messages. Most people quickly go off-line to text or talk on the phone. Nobody follows that. Nobody can possibly know which dates end in sex or a relationship.
3.As I pointed out, it is physically impossible for 5% (or even 20%) of men to sleep with 80% of women. You are not doing the logistics on this. The men would have to being sleeping with 5 women a week. A movie star, maybe. An ordinary (but nice looking) guy? no chance.
4. If independent studies say women prefer familiar men they know (presumably from work, school, church) vs. strangers... that would make women far less likely to want a stranger. And why wouldn't this also be true FOR MEN?
5. There is no ACADEMIA reporting any such thing. It is the RedPill Manosphere, and you have absorbed their hateful misogyny hook, line & sinker. 5% of men in the USA alone would be 16 MILLION men. They are not getting all the women, sorry. Many are married faithfully. Many are gay. And no, 5% are not millionaires nor are they movie stars. (I agree that millionaires & movie stars can get a LOT of women, but it as much on status as looks. Otherwise how would Harvey Weinstein have gotten all those women?)
6. Stop watching RedPill sites like @WHATEVER. Yes, I can tell when men do, because they quote them like it was a peer reviewed science study! it's just the hateful whinging of angry RedPillls. It has no basis in fact. It only reflects your insecurity and your jealousy -- here's a hint from a woman who has been around the block a few times -- NOTHING IS LESS ATTRACTIVE IN A MAN than jealous insecurity.
7. No, women are not doing that as a group. Obviously there are outliers here or there, but you are not describing "most women" (see above: angry, resentful, insecure, jealous, paranoid, MISOGYNY). That would be the dumbest dating strategy or reproductive strategy in human history. It has nothing to do with "cad vs. gentleman" (being lucky or handsome or rich, does not necessarily mean "cad" just as being a LOSER does not mean "gentleman"). It would result in a majority of women never finding partners, and not having children, and we know that is not true.
8. No, it isn't polygamy and women HATE polygamy so why would they seek it out in dating? this is the sad pathetic whinging of a incel who cannot get a date, and is sure that "Chad" is banging all the hot girls. (Meanwhile the incel ignores all the plain average girls JUST LIKE HIMSELF because they are "fugly dogs".) No, women will not willingly share men. I honestly can tell you that there is nothing women hate MORE than this... even in cultures with polygamy, women are universal in their hatred of this system. (I am also pretty sure this is not happening in Scandinavia anymore than in the US... 5% of men are not fathering all the children. Seriously you are not thinking this through. If true, we'd have incest between offspring (when they grow up!) ALL THE TIME.)
8. NO IT IS NOT DISCUSSED IN ACADEMIA! not at all. It is discussed by the RedPill Manosphere, most famously right now on @WHATEVER and a number of really nasty, angry YouTube channels. Dude, that is NOT "academia".
9. I do not have a distorted idea of the dating market, and you don't know me or my history. But I assure you I know about dating, having done it myself -- being happily married -- and having children who are millennials and I am well aware of how they met their spouses and found love and marriage. Everything I talk about, I have direct experience myself or through LOTS of people who are active in the dating market. That's why I know you are QUOTING THE REDPILLS literally word for word.
10. If 95% of men could not date, marry or have sex... the human race would die out. You cannot have a society where 5% of men father all the children. You are not thinking this through, because the math would never work out. Also: any trip to WALMART will quickly disabuse of the idea that "only good looking people mate, marry or have kids".
11. It would be great if you actually talked to some women -- and I don't mean "dating" here -- I mean TALKED TO WOMEN as if we were fellow humans, and not creatures to be lectured to, judged, weighed, evaluated, and minimized. We are NOT INTERESTED in all sleeping with a handful of arrogant, demanding selfish men who use us for sex and then discard us. That is 1000% false.
12. Though it is not completely like this on the male side, it is FAR more common to see men who refuse to date women on "their level" and would rather be alone masturbating to porn than date an plain or homely woman. It is MEN who reject ordinary women, not vice versa. But nice try.
13. NO women are NOT "famously gullible". There is certainly no mystery why you are alone or cannot get dates. No, there is not all that much research on this and for a good reason... this is a private part of people's life. They don't have sex in public. There are HUGE incentives for men to lie about having sex, especially to show off to other men about what "studs they are".
14. While there are SOME gullible women, especially. young ones... they smarten up fast It doesn't take many times being treated like a piece of meat before a woman realize "hmm, I guess I don't want to date Andrew Tate after all!" or a pathetic "Andrew Tate wannabe".
15. What you really mean here is "women don't want to date YOU", so you think if you "neg them" (say mean, cruel things and tell us we are stupid and gullible, addle brained and incompetent to run our lives)... we will spread our legs for you. When it doesn't work, you call us "thots and whores". NO THANK YOU!
16. Most women marry well before 35, and there not the slightest indication that women over 35 will never marry. You are literally making that up. Far more women marry than do men... far more women have children than do men. YOU ARE TRASHING WOMEN because they won't "put out" for you, and you blame literally everything else in the world BUT YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE for this.
BTW: even if true, which it absolutely IS NOT... I can assure you that most women would HAPPILY DIE ALONE than marry a RedPill like you. Who needs the snark, grief, lecturing, pandering, false claims and histrionics? You sleep with such a man... you're a whore with a "high body count". You refuse him? you are frigid, or STILL A WHORE who puts out for "Chad". You literally cannot win.
17. Stop watching @WHATEVER and RedPill sites. It is literally rotting your brain.
Hope that "clarifies".
Peering through your rant, which you chose to personalize, explain this.
If dating works why the projection that approximately one in two women under the age of 35 in Western nations will never have children? That is a dire prediction. Even the mainstream, not the red pill community, are openly discussing this. It is quite literally discussed on mainstream news shows.
Because there is no such projection and no such academic research? and you got this off a RedPIll website? also you imply that over 80% of men won't have children. Isn't that WORSE than 50%?
No, it is not discussed in "mainstream academia" because it is factually untrue. There are tons of demographic data from the US Census; start there. 7 out of 8 women have children.
And do you think MORE MEN have children than this? by your own words here, men cannot even get dates 80% of the time, let alone father children! only the magical 5% of CHADS get dates. I guess CHAD fathers all the kids... shouldn't that be easy to prove? wouldn't CHAD be playing all the child support too?
Dude, the "mainstream TV shows" are just pathetic gossip whores and they "pick it up" from Tiktok or YouTube, where does THAT come from? REDPILL SITES and @WHATEVER.
FYI women actually enjoy sex & often get in the "sack" with men they don't want a relationship with. Also, men are WAY more likely to be alone, childless & unhealthy in old age & younger men will "take what they can get" bc they're so desperate & literally going on shooting sprees over not being able to get a girlfriend. Your obvious attempt to get women to be with men they don't want failed, we know better!
Women having casual sex; indeed, but they are not suited to it. There is a disturbing body of research exploring the harm female promiscuity causes. Social research to neuroscience, none of it works well. Women typically seek committment. Lots of sexual partners destroys them.
Men indeed were more likely to be alone and childless etc. But the balance is shifting, hence my comments. This is being actively explored by researchers. Numbers vary but everyone agrees the future for Western women is fewer children and husbands.
And yes, young men who cannot find wives are the most dangerous group in society. That's why many societies curtail females because if they don't they will be killed by angry young men. Life is a balance.
LoL you're so full of crap, while desperately trying to sound intelligent & concerned, it's truly embarrassing!
I have read those studies too, but I think people miss the fact that behavior on a DATING SITE (or data garnered from a dating site) is going to be biased and not normative at all.
Since dating sites are "private" and you use them in a solitary way... normal behavior standards don't apply. The same guy who swipes on 60% of female profiles, would not hit on 60% of women at a night club.
Also random dating is RISKY for women -- literally physically risky, they could be raped or even killed! -- but has near-zero risks for men. So the man is rewarded for the most scattershot approach... swipe on 60% of the women and surely SOME OF THEM will respond and go out with you.
Facing HUGE risks -- not just danger of harm, but risk of pregnancy or STDs -- women are naturally far more choosy and conservative... they don't want "just any man" largely because their goal is a relationship (where many of the men simply want a sexual hookup). so while the men may be responding to "any halfway decent woman who is in their age range"... the women are probably looking at things like is the man gainfully employed? mature? has a good personality? at least doesn't APPEAR to be dangerous?
Despite this disparity, in 2023.... dating apps are a primary (though not the only) way that people meet and date... so it MUST work, at least most of the time for most people.
Could we reasonably extrapolate from those statistics that in so demonstrating that men and women are just biologically “ wired” differently, that women, generally, are more prone to be narcissistic. Perhaps their primary drive to want to be the a desirable focus would suggest so? The most physically attractive women certainly are aware of their capacity to hold such ( primordial) power over men, generally. Not there is anything wrong with attractive women feeling good about themselves , they know full well they hold the whip hand! There are clearly different metrics we can point to once we start to measure the distribution of power between men and women. Vive la difference I say.
Actually (I used to work in department of psychiatry) I think males are more likely to be diagnosed as malignant narcissists, sociopaths. Women were more likely to be borderline personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, histrionic or hysterical. However, on second thought, you may be correct. Recently many women seem to feel entitled. I think this tendency is fostered by lack of community and focus on social media.
Yeah, Jordan Peterson said something similar.
I am not one of those people who reflexively hate Peterson, but... honestly, what does he KNOW ABOUT THIS? he got married in his early 20s, to a fellow student and never divorced or dated again... he is 61 today in 2023. He's been out of the dating market since 1983 at least.
That means he never personally experienced ANY OF THIS.
I watch Jordan Peterson a lot. He is super smart and knowledgeable. What does he know about this? I think he has 2 daughters and a son. He noticed his daughters were incredibly picky as they scrolled through dating apps commenting on the poor qualities of the available candidates. He then examined research showing that dating apps routinely rewarded the top 1% or maybe 4% of male candidates. That men choose about 60% of the women they viewed--whereas women chose only around 4% of male candidates. What is the result? He interviewed several feminists who stated that feminism hasn't favored women. Because of safe contraception, there is no excuse for women declining sex. If a woman doesn't want to have sex--well there's another who will do it, and enjoy it, too! So some of the women he interviewed tell him that well-educated professional women have given up on sex and marriage. They can't find a suitable male partner. And if they see one that appeals--he's not willing to remain celibate to see if they might be compatible. Mary Harrington, for instance, suggests women wait 3 months before having sexual relations with their partner. What does Peterson know? He reads all the scientific papers examining the fall in birth rates, the decline of sex and marriage in young people, debating possible causes (the pill? vaccines? the economy? the internet?) Fascinating discussions. Jordan isn't simply lecturing. He's interviewing other people, other scientists, reading the literature, listening to his own children.
Actually his wife was a neighbor. I think they went to middle school together. They were very friendly with each other. He admired her outspoken opinions and intelligence. They teased each other. I think he admitted to her that he teased her about her glasses because he was jealous and wanted a pair like them. He truly seems to love her as well as his daughters. He also has a lot of clients (well, until he lost his license for refusing to follow Canadian guidelines mandating the use of gender affirming pronouns)
I'm not dating either--since 1978. What do I know? However, whenever I talk to people I feel close and friendly with them. I'm hesitant to start dating again at my age--although I can definitely pass for much younger. My health has gotten worse since nursing my husband for several years through his final decline precipitated by heart failure and cancer. I never want to put anybody through what I went through. That's a HUGE ask. You don't do that or expect that from a recent date. To me, health is like money. Do I marry or even date a younger, healthy man? That's like picking someone for their wealth. Do I instead want to marry a sickly man who will require my constant devotion and nursing skills? I gave my husband blood tests and insulin injections several times daily. I monitored his oxygen, cleaned his equipment, made sure the tubing was free of obstruction. Mixed his supplements, laid out his drugs, administered saline washes to clear out nasal passages. Helped him with toileting. Cleaned the bedding or furniture when he soiled. Gave him (fearfully) morphine to help him breathe better. Sent his heart tests to the medical center (for his pacemaker). Accompanied him to oncologist for cancer treatments. Mixed thickening agent into his water when he was too weak to swallow and aspirated all his water. Bought him a loud whistle so I could hear him call from the bedroom which was sound proofed. Endured his fears and complaints. Gave him nightly massages when he was too anxious and agitated to get to sleep. I certainly don't want to go through that again. I love men. But I think my best bet for a futre relationship (should I live that long) will be a sex robot. (That agrees with current thinking on this topic.) In a few years I bet they will be available to rent for a reasonable price. The sex robot won't care that I'm partially disabled or even cognitively impaired. We won't even need humans any more. The elite can enjoy their planet after they have killed off most of us. (For our own good.)
I just try to enjoy the dating process. It's not easy but I have had many interesting conversations & made a few new friends.
Peterson is an amazing man!
I think you and Jordan (and I believe the woman you are quoting is Louise Perry, whose book is called The Case Against The Sexual Revolution) may feel that women don't want or enjoy sex on its own. That is simply not true -- at least, not for many or most women. In any event, whether you "want it" or not should be up to the woman (and the man) -- a mutual choice. It shouldn't be blackmail, as in "I won't date you if you don't put out on the 2nd date".
I don't think Jordan is really conducting serious research; again -- he is long married. He married in college or right after, a fellow grad student and hasn't been single since maybe 1982. I think he is talking to people who echo back to him his existing views, which are quite conservative -- which are fine FOR HIM and his family. They aren't everybody's views though.
I actually believe I kinda know the problem that these "well educated professional women:" are having and have insights others seem to be missing (perhaps because I KNOW so many of them!). And please let's remember that MOST WOMEN ARE NOT highly paid professionals with six figure incomes and graduate degrees. Most women (AND MEN) are just average people. Only 1 in 3 Americans have a college degree.
So why can't they find a man? well for starters... it is bogus. The most married group in America is HIGHLY EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS. The unmarried ones are the poor, working class -- or lower -- the woman who works at Burger King or cleans motel rooms. SHE cannot find a mate! not one who will stick around and be a husband or father. The woman who is a lawyer or doctor? SHE IS DOING FINE! there is no vast demographic of unmarried high-income women. This is a pernicious myth, built out of jealousy from men. (Certainly such women could always have SEX, couldn't they? even if they can't find a husband?)
Anyhow: so why can't they find husbands easily? at least, some small subset of such women? EASY!!! they insist on living in Big Blue Cities. The population in places like New York City and San Francisco is BADLY skewed with many more women than men. And many more GAY men. They have slashed their odds in half (*unless they move to Big Blue City already married). I've talked to many such women, and they refuse to move to places with better demographic odds.
As for "waiting 3 months"... well, whatever floats your boat. If I met a great guy and we had amazing chemistry -- that's what we all want, right? -- I dont think that I would want to wait THREE MONTHS to sleep with him. I mean, maybe at 17 or 18 -- but not at 27 or 28. By then I knew my own mind and what I desired. I probably wouldn't date a man for 3 months if there was no chemistry there.
I don't think Peterson is STUPID. I think his views are slanted by his own experiences in life. He's an academic who has never done anything else in life. My advantage over him (*not saving I'm a genius or anything, LOL) is that I AM NONE OF THOSE THINGS. I am just an ordinary (if well-read) person. I'm working class. I live in the Rustbelt Midwest. But I know a lot of people, and I'm very friendly & talkative. My friends call me "The People Whisperer" -- people just gravitate to talk to me. And I think I have some insight into this, if nothing else AS A WOMAN.
(cont.) The decline in marriage? it isn't declining. It is just LATER because people need to go to college (or other training) and then pay off loans, save up for a house, etc. And the stats lose all the people who are living together, in long-term committed partnerships -- not married, but definitely NOT SINGLE. When I was a kid, the average age to marry was 19 or 20. Now it is 29. Frankly that is a huge improvement. (Divorce rates are WAY down too.)
If the Pill was the problem -- LOL -- I gotta laugh -- the Pill came out in 1961! that's 62 years ago! the Pill didn't cause any of this. There are 20 kinds of effective birth control out there! surely it wasn't better when people were having accidental, unplanned pregnancies! (EVEN IN MARRIAGES!).
Vaccines? nah. The economy? sometimes, yes, but the economy has been booming since 2011. It can't be that. There are some troubling things about the youngest people, GenZ (or very late Millennials) -- many "fail to launch" and stay home for years, paying video games in their parents basements. Some of the men devolve to that, plus watching porn or OnlyFans, because it is "easier than dating" (i.e, low effort). But again, is that men who have college degrees and professional jobs? Nope.
Diana: it is fascinating you actually know the Petersons. I think that may be influencing your view of them. I did know they met in school (though I thought it was college) and married young. That means he hasn't dated in an extremely long time. I was under the impression that Peterson was mostly a college professor, who did lectures and wrote books. I was sad to see him persecuted by Canadian authorities.
Is it possible your own experiences color your views on this issue? 1978 is 45 years ago! I assume in that time you did marry and had a long marriage. Life is so unexpected and cannot really be planned for -- I am so sorry you lost your husband and went through a very difficult final illness. But that is the price of marriage and love, isn't it? My mother had MS for 11 years and my dad faithfully and loyally nursed her all that time. I think growing up with that taught me that marriage isn't all wedding dresses and diamond rings and fun times. It is having someone to go through the hard times with.
You can date at any age... people today, thanks to the internet, meet and marry even in their 70s and 80s. Definitely late life marriage has different goals and risks than marrying in your 20s. I can only tell you that marriage should be with someone you cherish so much... that whether they are healthy or not... you would still choose them over all others. I have no doubt you cared tenderly for your late husband.
But if you are asking "how do I game the system, so I get a healthy man this time?" and sadly, there is no way. You can marry a totally healthy person who gets sick in a year or two. YOU might feel fine today, and be sick in a year or two. ON the other hand... if you avoid remarrying... you might miss out on 10-15-20 years of happiness and companionship.
There is no way to remove all risk from relationships. WANTING no risks -- heck, maybe that is why so many young people are "gun-shy about marriage. They want guarantees where there are none.
The sex robot makes me laugh. OK, whatever floats your boat. It wouldn't do a darn thing for me... or at least, nothing that a vibrator couldn't do for 1/1000th the price. It is the HUMAN touch we crave, really. Looking into the eyes of someone we love... yes, sometimes at the end of the life.
Of course... YMMV (your mileage may vary!) and to each their own.I don't dislike Peterson and I did know he had a daughter (she appears with him sometimes). I don't know her dating/marriage situation.
I would certainly HOPE his daughters would be very picky... you shouldn't date "just anyone" especially on a dating site with many tens of thousands of people in your area. The research on this is ... wonky, though. It comes FROM the dating apps themselves... it is not rigorous or peer-reviewed. It's just an accumulation of data, a sort of "data dump".
What is actually says is that men SWIPED on 60% of the women. That's really not "choosing" 60% -- it is more of a "meh, she's OK enough just for no-strings sex" kind of thing. Now, I don't think all men are like this, but enough are to tilt the data.
As I pointed out to someone else... men don't face the risks in dating a TOTAL STRANGER ON THE INTERNET that women do. The worst that a man might face is a bad date with someone unpleasant. A woman is risking her life, actually. Now, that's the extreme but even I -- dating in an era of newspaper "personal ads" -- when things were a lot tamer and more traditional -- sometimes ended up on dates with very skeevy men.... and I heard even worse stories from friends. Men who acted weird, angry, were domineering or violent. Men who stalk you after ONE coffee date. There is always the potential of date rape.
Now most men are normal and most dates are -- at worst -- boring but the RISK is there. It does not exist for men. So OF COURSE women have to be much more selective.
Frankly if you consider how many people are ON dating sites... anyone swiping on 60% is basically saying "I will go out with anybody who isn't outright hideous". That's a very poor dating strategy. Think about how people date in the "real world" -- surely you didn't go out with "just anyone" -- just any guy who gave you a glance in a bar or nightclub? or on the bus? why wouldn't women ONLINE be just as cautious?
I completely reject the recent anti-feminism. I think it is based on shallow research (if any) and mostly opinionating, and a lot of kowtowing to the RedPill movement.... the idea that women shouldn't have agency or choice, but should marry "low value men" and just "accept they are not very attractive". I despise this. (BTW: this is the sole purpose of the popular podcast, @WHATEVER.) It is telling women to have low self-esteem and to put themselves down.
Feminism has GIVEN US the vote... credit in our own name... the freedom to abort unwanted pregnancies... to go to college... work in any profession... own our own homes! and have careers. That's a lot. You can add "safe & legal contraception, easily available (and actually free under Obamacare).
Safe contraception is a huge blessing, and I don't agree that it means women cannot say no to sex. The "olden days" when women had to be the "guardians of sex" and were denied sexual pleasure until marriage... didn't result in happiness for either men or women. In fact, it mostly led to very incompatible people marrying each other, because they were horny and that was the only way to get laid. This didn't serve anyone very well, men or women.
If women are having sex they don't want, to please or hold onto a man... well, I definitely do not encourage that and I have told my daughters not to do that. No man is worth it, frankly. No GOOD MAN tells you "put out or I will move on to another, easier woman". That man is TRASH. You don't want him.
Wow! Well said! I am a widower... "But if you are asking "how do I game the system, so I get a healthy man this time?" and sadly, there is no way. You can marry a totally healthy person who gets sick in a year or two. YOU might feel fine today, and be sick in a year or two. ON the other hand... if you avoid remarrying... you might miss out on 10-15-20 years of happiness and companionship."
Just an aside; I like Peterson because he was the first man I can remember that could go toe to toe with radical feminists in media. His training as a psychologist gave him the foundation to speak courageously & intelligently on these gender issues. He actually encouraged self-responsibility & courage. A message young men are receptive too. Just the fact that he cares about young men (& women) was tremendous.
<blockquote>
[A]nyone swiping on 60% is basically saying "I will go out with anybody who isn't outright hideous". That's a very poor dating strategy. Think about how people date in the "real world" -- surely you didn't go out with "just anyone" -- just any guy who gave you a glance in a bar or nightclub? or on the bus? why wouldn't women ONLINE be just as cautious?
</blockquote>
Is "go out with anyone that shows interest" really that bad of a dating strategy when almost nobody shows interest in the first place? Because that's the position I was in... the first time I ever had a girlfriend was in my early 30s, and I ended up happily married to her even though sane people would have thought our relationship was made entirely out of red flags and ran screaming. 😆
She died last March and I miss her a lot. 😭
On the oeuvre of art, my cupboard is relatively bare, but I did come up with Cyrano, Othello, and whatever Shakespeare sonnet we studied in HS about his lover having "hair like wires".
I suspect that even in societies where women were treated as chattel, a demanding and forthright girl or young woman of intelligence and ability could still earn the respect and admiration of her father, brothers, eventual husband, sons and nephews, brothers in law, etc., such that her influence (direct or indirect) would extend beyond the purely domestic. History suggests this was a relatively rare occurrence in the political realm, but perhaps a less often reported benefit was supplied by women in the social and economic areas involving family and clan business, etc.
Over the last few years I have occasionally observed an older couple in the store or on the street and tried to imagine how they looked in their twenties and thus what the attraction(s) might have been. Even from such anecdotal surveys it is clear many less than actor quality people managed to find each other and prosper together where they might have lagged as non-joined individuals. And sometimes the visages of the couples being observed are closer to the actor roles for horror films than the usual soap opera.
How biased to you have to be to believe Christine Blasey Ford over Justice Kavanaugh; or Anita Hill over Justice Thomas? In one case the shred of a possibility exists while in the other there is no "there" there at all. Political shenanigans like those don't help the truly aggrieved either. I suspect these US cases did make the news overseas, while if there were any corresponding situations in Britain or Europe, I don't recall reading about them.
I also read your MeToo essay and noted you cited the Pinker low violence in modern times and honor killings and Rotherham, so you covered items I might have thought of, too. I has failed to remember FGM, although that is cultural violence with the "best of intentions" within that culture.
It is also disturbing that the ardent feminists don't seem to give any considerations to the large complement of males (as fathers, brothers, husbands, friends, et al. ) that would move very forcefully to provide protection to the women in their lives if they are aware of a threat and in a position to act.
I know that women have had a hugh effect on society. Even in the political realm. What the radical feminist conveniently forget is the subtle, indirect ways women have & do use their influence. Especially by using sex as a weapon or instrument of persuasion. Even today, withholding sex to get what they want is common. Look at history and you will see how very intelligent women have persuaded kings to give up their kingdoms. The once king of England in WW2 is a recent example. Helen of Troy is another. The list is endless. Men may have been in the lead, but that also put them in the position of being a target.
Yes, beauty is power. I had it and now that I'm 82 I no longer have the beauty or the power. However, I have to say that it is a relief not to be hormone driven any more. I certainly didn't use my power, in fact, as a child of the sixties, I squandered it, and thereby hangs a tale!
Fantastic piece. I’ve been saying something similar to this for twenty years now. I’ve always thought really good looking people live in a separate reality. Their perceptions skewed by a reality filled with sexual opportunities that most of us couldn’t dream of. Now…I will say that men don’t have to be that good looking for those opportunities to appear. I’ve seen some ugly men get lots of girls. In those cases, other variables begin to play out but the result is the same: they monopolize the women. In my experience, under our sexual market, that’s where this all ends up.
Thank you. Yes for women it's mostly about looks and for men it's confidence and success. The evolutionary psychologists have more or less proved that this is how it goes.
OK You have me. This essay is so brilliant and absorbing that I simply must become a subscriber. After a while, I dare say, I will also be forced to become a paid subscriber should you keep up this promise of thought provoking creativity. :)
What a generous compliment...Thank you! Subscription is free for the foreseeable. Some people have pledged but I have no intention of taking them up at the moment.
I always find these types of posts interesting. We've grown up in a society that explores the lives of people you classify in this Substack post as the lucky ones. When the lives of those unlucky in love are explored, they still find love (as a way to show that love is for anyone. Think Bridget Jones's Diary if my understanding of the premise is correct). It's only until recently we've begun to explore the lives of the unlucky in a way that empathizes with them and allows them to discover their value outside of a romantic relationship. I've spent a lot of my younger years sad about my lot in the physical attractiveness market, but I've learned (and am always having to remind myself) I was put on this planet to do more than just be beautiful. I have no interest or desire in romance or a romantic relationship and in the process of forging a single life for myself. But based on what I've observed, people regardless of what they look like tend to find the love they want when they are willing to put themselves out there and like those who like them back.
Interesting. I have to disagree with you though about "recently we've begun to explore the lives of the unlucky". The main reason for writing this essay was that we haven't!....the huge differences between the experiences of what I have called "the more desired" and "the less desired" doesn't get explored in journalism about sexual relations....because it almost always focuses on the difference between the experiences of a stereotypical male vs a stereotypical female. Thank you anyway for sharing these thoughts Rhea.....and hope you'll subscribe?
I'm the type of person who is slow to subscribe (I'm a Gemini, I can't help it) but never say never.
It's nerdy, white male, loner teens, bullied in school who turn into the school shooters. These males are not considered sexy, they know they never will be. Young black males don't shoot up schools because they're considered sexy.
This comment reminds me of something an old colleague of mine said many years ago and and is one of those random memories that has stuck in my head. I used to work in the building construction industry and it was at a meeting about some technical issue (can't remember what now). Suddenly my colleague chipped in to the discussion with this amazing non-sequitur....."It's all about sex you know".
F Roger Devlin's Sexual Utopia in Power does a great job laying this out. I get irritated when ppl can't explain the content of a book and just infodump, so I'll give the TLDR version.
He talks about how roughly 100 years ago, men felt constricted, they wanted to get more sex and they imagined that "sexual liberation" of women would be a fun playtime free for all. Women likewise wanted the best men, the stuff of romance novels, didn't want to settle down with ordinary betas.
Both men and women were motivated by a Utopian dream, some secret abundant source of near infinite sex, or at least, enough to satisfy their desires. But it turns out our desires and imaginations lust far in excess of available romantic opportunities. So then this ideology goes thru a process of "8 Stages of Grief", as Utopian dreamers crash into reality, must suffer denial, grief — and then embittered RAGE which demands revenge against reality for disappointing their ideals.
He makes the comparison that the French Revolution started idealistically and swiftly descended into savagery. Divorce courts, sexual harassment claims, child custody battles have similarly wrecked the romantic landscape.
This is one of the more sensible outlines I have read. Thanks for posting. I can see the carnage now. A dating apocalypse. From a male perspective it is easy to blame the ladies. But a small handful of men, about five percent. are having a whale of a time.
One of the modern aspects, really an artefact of dating apps specifically, is that approximately 80 percent of women are swiping right on only 5 percent of men. It is out of that pool most of the action is taking place. As a consequence younger women have a skewed view of male behaviour. The only men they are seeing have an absurd amount of options, so they imagine most men are cheating devils who don't return phonecalls. Inevitably this is making its way into the feminist literature while ignoring the observation a majority of young men now no longer date any women.
I have read that stat, and I think it is biased by the very format of dating sites, which even in 2023... are not real life. (Most couples do still meet in "real life".)
If 80% of women only dated 5% of men... obviously most of the women would get NO BOYFRIEND and no dates, or be man sharing, and we don't actually see that at all. The numbers just don't work.
Despite your and other men's "jealousy of the Giga Chad"... in fact, it is simply impossible for 80% of women to all date the same 5% of men.
They may all WANT to date Leo DiCaprio or similar, and Leo may get a lot of poon and have any woman he wants... but he is far far from the norm and 5% of men (even 5% on dating sites, which is not 5% of the general population) are not Leo DiCaprio.
When you actually talk to men, very few of them are leading this fantabulous Playboy Mansion lifestyle of getting to bang 10-15 women at a time, and having women just throw themselves at the guys. Movie stars, maybe. Not normal guys, not even rich guys.
I don't believe that 75% plus of women are actively engaging in behavior designed to leave them alone and dateless.
Oh and stop watching/listenign to the @WHATEVER podcast. It is all staged and lies.
I agree completely, and you will enjoy reading my essay "Pygmalion and the Anime Girl" which mentions this exact statistic. https://billionairepsycho.substack.com/p/pygmalion-and-the-anime-girl
Thanks for this. I will read it.
Well, we actually know what happened to the two million surplus women left by WWI... they became the first generation of feminists, the ones who had professions, went to medical school and law school, etc. You could argue from the male perspective, that while it is a bit sad & lonely not to have a suitable mate for marriage and children... it is preferable to being DEAD IN A TRENCH.
Yes, real life is full of a lot of unfair stuff.
Thank you! It's still happening today. It was not that long ago that men fought & died in Iraq & Afghanistan. Young men are disposable. Look at Ukraine, men can't leave the country. They must stay and die in the meat grinder. What I really find disturbing is that in our society, women are being promoted thru the military ranks as officers. Yet, they are not required to register for military service or fight in combat. Seems to be very inequitable. It is true that war hurts women also but, as you pointed out, the level of sacrifice is lopsided.
This reminds me of a great SNL skit (almost an oxymoron in recent years): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxuUkYiaUc8&t=137s
(A nebbishy character played by Fred Armisen is accused of sexual harassment for speaking to women in the office, while another character played by guest host Tom Brady can behave much worse and they like it.)
There is some truth to this, but it cuts both ways.
Women are thrilled to be hit on by a handsome rich guy, but offended at the same behavior from a nerdy loser. Nothing new here.
BUT... men are also disgusted and horrified if a plain, homely or fat woman flirts or approaches them... even just sits nearby or talks to them. There is an entire BODY of comedic movies and TV shows featuring just this HORROR of the aggressive, horny but hideous woman hitting on a man.
The same men would be OVER THE MOON if hit on by a beautiful sexy woman... it would be the high point of their lives. But they run in horror from the "fugly dog".
How men behave towards women they find "ugly" or undesirable was told very beautifully in a 1991 film called "Dogfight"... the late River Phoenix and the marvelous actress Lili Taylor starring. If you can find it to stream or rent, I recommend.
Beta males built civilization and keep it running.
How can "calling out sexual harassement" ever be "taken to excess"?
“more disconcerting research findings that men who use sexual coercion have more partners than men who do not.....[and men] ...high on Dark Triad traits are viewed as more attractive by women, are more likely to have consensual sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in sexual coercion.”
If someone is "dark triad" but has an attractive face/body, then it is the face/body that will be considered attractive, not their psychopathy. A psychopath with an ugly face will not be considered attractive.
The ending is like, “See?! You don’t have it so bad, woman!”
Is this what you mean? "There is, of course, little that Western liberals can do about these horrors but one gets a sense that even thinking much about them can get crowded-out by intra-metropolitan middle class preoccupations. (They could, for instance, direct more political firepower to issues like forced marriage which remains a scourge in all parts of the world".
Great article. I liked how you juxtaposed the two sides of the issue. Normally we only hear the female side. I hope that men in general will wake up soon. If only for the sake of the next generation of young men. Men must adapt to our rapidly changing world. We don't speak out against inequities that our fellow men suffer. The empathy gap for men is perpetrated by women AND men.
Well, it’s complicated. Lol.