4,135 words
Note: This essay is a companion piece to my previous essay “Hooking Up,” which can be read here.
I hope the reader found my account of Jane Average’s hookup with Chad McDashly enlightening. But it hardly tells the entire story of today’s sexual dysfunction, for it is simply not true that everyone is hooking up. A closer look reveals plenty of young people not doing so at all. Here I propose to consider this group.
In my previous essay I mentioned in passing—so much in passing that if the reader will have missed it if he blinked—that Jane occasionally gets pestered by a creepy guy. Fortunately, she understands that women have a right to be free from unwanted male attention. It’s big business these days. And since I’m sure my readers will never be able to guess which men it is whose attention is unwanted, I will not keep them in suspense any longer: it is precisely that eighty percent of the male population who were discovered by that OKCupid survey of a couple of years ago to be of below-average attractiveness.
That’s a lot of creeps. And many of these fellows simply do not know when they ought to leave a girl alone (viz., always). It is almost as if they like girls as much as Chad does! Could anything be more ridiculous?
Jane’s unfortunate suitor is Joe Average—no relation. He is average in the dictionary sense that about half the guys are even less appealing to the ladies than he is, but of course this leaves him well within that eighty percent range which the ladies themselves view as substandard. No girl is having heart palpitations over Joe.
The stern editors at Chronicles whom I used to read fulminating against Chad’s heartless depredations upon Jane never had much to say about guys like Joe. But once, in the context of a discussion of prostitution, I did spot a reference to “pathetic losers who have to pay for sex when it is being given away on government grants.” This writer clearly believed that the sexual revolution had resulted in a sharp increase in the amount of sex available to men—so much so that any man who is not a “pathetic loser” can expect to be offered plenty for free! When women began having sex outside marriage, the effects were supposedly the same as if they had all turned into nymphomaniacs. Nowadays every ordinary man gets pursued by women as if he were a movie star.
The fallaciousness of this once-common view really ought to be obvious. The sexual revolution did not change the basic nature of men and women, and the total amount of sex on offer from women still falls about as far short of aggregate male demand as it always has. As I explained years ago in Sexual Utopia in Power, what actually occurred was a redistribution in the existing supply. Some men are indeed getting more sex than formerly, but every bit that gets added to their account must be subtracted from somewhere else.
The commentator who thought every guy failing to score with plenty of hot chicks must be a “pathetic loser” was succumbing to the apex fallacy: attributing to all members of a class some trait characteristic only of a small elite subset within that class. It would be like a visitor to the Palace of Versailles concluding that Seventeenth-Century Frenchmen lived in high style. In the realm of sex, the elite is formed by the exceptionally attractive. Such people are, by definition, exceptional: if you treat them as representative, you will make all kinds of foolish mistakes. Joe Average is not hooking up every night—or, indeed, at all. If he reads the conservative press, he might even find himself wishing for a little guidance on how he might hope to cease being a “pathetic loser” without turning into a “predator.” But somehow this is never provided.
Neither have male traditionalists had much to say about the sexual harassment industry that has exploded since the 1980s (the very expression “sexual harassment” was only coined as recently as 1978). Obviously, there have always been a few men who, driven by their unruly sexual urges, pestered women unreasonably; but for all of human history until about the day before yesterday there were informal yet effective ways of dealing with such men without literally “making a federal case out of it.” Where ordinary female rejection proved insufficient, the discreet intervention of another man normally did the trick. Only if the man resorted to la voie des faits might the law intervene. This was a sensible way of arranging such matters in a healthy society free of utopian delusions about sex and ever-expanding claims of “rights.”
Today, however, male traditionalists quick to ridicule other novel rights claims are for the most part happy to acquiesced in women’s supposed absolute and imprescriptible “right” to be free from unwanted male attention. Perhaps they imagine those occasional pests who have always existed have multiplied dramatically in recent years, but I know of no evidence for this.
Joe Average, having come of age long after the sexual revolution in an environment where sexual harassment laws largely go unquestioned, is in an unenviable situation. He hears that everyone is hooking up, and he observes his female peers studying Cosmo and Vogue and obsessing over men and sex. Yet they appear completely indifferent toward him. The poor sap concludes that women must like to play coy, and that persistence will eventually bring success. So the campus police get called in to teach him otherwise: women and hookups are not meant for the likes of him. This is a considerably more heavy-handed approach toward “unwanted attention” than the male trick of asking women for their numbers with no intention of calling, and the freedom with which it is used against harmless men does not convey a very favorable impression of contemporary womanhood.

You can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
Combining the previously discussed denunciation of “predators” with the calls to relieve women of “unwanted attention,” we may conclude that there are two subsets of the male population requiring punishment: 1) the attractive, and 2) the unattractive. If we can just come up with something sufficiently draconian to deal with both groups, all the world’s women will finally be made happy—won’t they?
Amid all the indignation being poured out on predators and harassers, women’s own decisions practically disappear from view. The gallant knights of conservative journalism treat them as passive beings to whom men do various bad things. The few commentators who can be distracted from their rage at Chad and contempt for Joe long enough to consider Jane’s own behavior are most likely to accuse her of cheapening herself: young women today are unaware of their true value, for which a lifetime of uxorious devotion can scarcely hope to make any man worthy.
To this claim I have two responses. Firstly, it does not correspond to how Jane sees matters. She thinks she maintains pretty high standards—so high, in fact, that she has no time at all for her male counterpart Joe Average. Jane is the very opposite of promiscuous; she deserves the very best: viz., Chad. The problem lies entirely with Chad, who inexplicably fails to see matters the same way she does.
All Jane’s friends feel the same way: not one of them is willing to hook up with just any guy. They simply must have Chad, or one of the very few young men who resemble him. So they compete over this small pool of dashing young men. And strangely enough, despite all the hours they devote to studying Vogue and Cosmo, they never seem able to outwit all their friends and keep Chad to themselves the way the editors promised. Aren’t men just pigs?
Secondly, I am dubious as to whether Jane’s possession of female sexual organs really makes her the Queen of Sheba. Girls like Jane are a dime a dozen: I ought to know, because I am the one who defined her as merely average. When male conservatives wax lyrical about Jane’s failure to appreciate her own true value, they are not going against the spirit of our age but reinforcing it: they are making far too much of sex.
In an earlier essay, “Home Economics,” I explained that marriage is a sexual and economic union. Sex is the woman’s strong suit, economics the man’s. Feminism has been hard at work eliminating and even reversing men’s advantage as family provisioners. Simultaneously, the sexual revolution has at once freed women from the constraints of monogamy and gotten both men and women obsessing about and overvaluing sex, the woman’s natural strong point. The traditional equilibrium in relations between the sexes has thus been seriously disturbed, making women unnaturally dominant over men. The result has been declining satisfaction for both sexes, but especially for women, who inevitably come to despise the weak, insecure men who result from this process. Yet when male traditionalists propose solutions to our present situation, all they can come up with is that we must do more to support and protect women, i.e., more of what got us into this mess in the first place.
I would like to suggest that the primary function of monogamy is not so much to protect women from “predators” as to lend some social support to men’s naturally weak sexual position. Where monogamy breaks down, a Darwinian mating pattern develops in which women—far from cheapening themselves—price themselves out of the marriage market.
Chad was Jane’s first hook up, and so I am not entirely without sympathy for the little idiot. But for most young women, their first hookup is not their last. With or without monogamy and weddings, women have certain needs, and some mating is inevitably going to take place. At first, Jane may still hope to fare better the second or third time around than she did with Chad. But eventually, inevitably, her heart will harden. For the seasoned woman, hooking up evolves into a contest for bragging rights with their girlfriends. As Steven E. Rhoads writes: “At parties there can be competition to attract the most desirable men. The big catches for hookups are the men who have had their way with other women, not the less experienced ‘nice guys.’” For these women, I can muster no sympathy at all. They care no more for the men they seduce than the men care for them. Their whole purpose is to feed their narcissism: “The girl can see herself as ‘the irresistible erotic lure who drives men wild,’” as Rhoads puts it.
You will never read about this phenomenon in the conservative press. It is called “preselection bias,” and is one of the most unattractive aspects of female sexuality. Men prefer innocent, inexperienced girls—virgins. Women are attracted specifically to promiscuous men. This is because under conditions of Darwinian competition, the men at the top of the heap can be identified by the number of women who mate with them. That is why the “millionaire playboy” serves as the male lead in Hollywood romantic fantasies aimed at a female audience (even though he always miraculously marries the heroine at the end). In this particular respect, it is men whose sexual preferences support monogamy, while those of women support intensive polygyny. So the latter is exactly what we get when we remove the constraints on female behavior formerly imposed by monogamy.
I have actually heard of women refusing to consider certain men because “if he’s never been married, there must be something wrong with him.” To the female mind, a man’s very availability can be sufficient grounds for rejecting him. Monogamy functions to thwart this distasteful female tendency: to compel women to choose only from among the available men. Otherwise they would simply compete to seduce one another’s husbands and score hookups with pump-and-dump rakes.
One novel sexual development of recent years is the willingness of at least some men to “come out of the closet” and admit that whoever has been doing all the hooking up we hear about, it hasn’t been them. They have for the most part been met with ridicule and contempt, exactly as one would expect of men complaining of their lack of success with women. But enough of them have persisted to become a kind of cultural phenomenon. They are known as “incels”—a barbarous neologism formed as an abbreviation for “involuntary celibates.” At first, I was unsure why we needed such a term, since men interested in finding a woman are not exactly new, and we used to call them simply “bachelors.” But on second thought, something must have changed, since there have been a few high-profile cases of “incels” going on killing sprees, lashing out at women as a group for being uninterested in them. Very few bachelors behaved this way before the sexual revolution. I have even come across proposals that “incels” be classed as a species of terrorist. The commentators do not appear to have reflected that if every guy looking for a girlfriend is to be defined as a terrorist, the world is going to have one hell of a lot of terrorists on its hands.
So what has changed? A moment’s reflection reveals that a mating market in which women limit their attention to exceptionally attractive and promiscuous men is going to produce many, many more lonely bachelors than a regime of monogamy. So these “incels” are not simply a handful of weak men whining about their personal misfortunes—they are pointing out a real and dangerous social shift. No society can survive in which eighty percent of men are excluded from relations with women and the opportunity to become fathers. It is time to put away self-satisfied talk of “pathetic losers” and pay some serious attention to what these men are trying to tell us, preferably before the next massacre occurs.
What can we expect the long-term results of intensive polygyny to look like? Commentary on the sexual revolution understandably devotes a lot of attention to college campuses, since this is where so many young American adults live when at the traditional age for seeking a mate. But time does not stand still: college men and women graduate and must go out and make their way in the wider society. What happens to our cast of characters after college?
Chad McDashly does not do too badly. Hookups eventually start to pall even on men after a while, so he ends by settling down with a women who is both attractive and significantly younger than himself. Divorce is the most serious danger he faces: a woman who marries for excitement will divorce out of boredom.
Unless and until she does divorce him, however, Chad’s wife is pleased with her big catch. The knowledge that Jane and others failed where she succeeded only adds piquancy to her achievement. The heroine of all those Hollywood fantasies about marrying the millionaire playboy can’t be expected to worry about all the women her husband serviced and discarded: sorry, sister, those are just the breaks.
Jane would still like to get married, a seemingly indestructible urge in the human female. But several years after that first hookup, she is angry. Not at herself for having bought into utopian fantasies, nor at the magazine editors for having profited handsomely by selling her those fantasies. No, she is angry at men. The bastards are all alike: only out for sex, utterly unreliable, unworthy of love or devotion. Furthermore, the only men she is able to interact with now are a huge comedown from Chad. And most maddeningly, these mediocre specimens of the male sex have the presumption to judge her unfavorably. Specifically, they are not thrilled with her extensive sexual experience. She angrily insists that this is irrelevant to her value as a person, but mysteriously fails to convince men to stop valuing innocence.
Joe Average still wishes he could meet some sweet, unpretentious girl who likes him and appreciates his attentions. College was lonely, and getting accused of “harassment” once or twice was humiliating. Perhaps now that he is earning money he will finally stand a better chance. He starts going to singles groups where he runs into…Jane. And all her anger and disappointment with men.
I am not speculating. Adult singles groups now overwhelmingly find themselves trying to match up innocent, never-married men with cynical, bitter women, often with as much sexual experience as prostitutes. The incompatibility is total. But the human craving for love is so strong that some of these unfortunate men attempt to make the best of things with the women available to them. It is like trying to get pigs to fly. The men may finally get a bit of grudging sex (and sometimes a medical condition to go along with it), but emotional intimacy is impossible with women whose hearts closed off long ago. If Joe marries Jane, she will probably end up divorcing him. Joe will lose any children he manages to father and be made to pay extortionate amounts to “support” them, but Jane will be allowed to spend the money on anything she likes. If he falls behind, or if Jane decides to accuse him of “abuse,” he will be subject to arrest and imprisonment.
In my previous essay I argued that Chad is not necessarily the monster he is made out to be by male traditionalists. Here I would like to suggest that Joe is not necessarily as contemptible an offscouring of manhood as generally assumed either, even though girls may not be lining up for the chance to fornicate with him. Indeed, I question whether that would really provide the best proof a man is not a “loser.” The men I most admire rarely resemble movie stars or the models on the covers of women’s romance fiction. Worldly success, always an aphrodisiac for women, is just as often a product of unscrupulous cunning and unearned advantages as of genuine merit. If the reader happens to be a big hit with the ladies, congratulations to him. Still, a wise man will not value himself primarily on the basis of what women think of him. Their concerns are too narrowly self-interested to be very meaningful.
I am, therefore, uncertain whether Joe Average is quite so far beneath contempt as claimed. If I could talk to him, I would tell him that his dream of enjoying the love of a loyal woman is both natural and legitimate, but in being unable to fulfill it under the new conditions produced by the sexual revolution he is in plentiful and not altogether disgraceful company. I would emphasize that he is not responsible for the situation in which he finds himself: It wasn’t Joe who taught Jane that only Chad was good enough for her, nor was it his fault that the more attractive men she chose to hook up with failed to “commit.” Jane has already had her fun with Chad and company during those years when Joe was lonely and struggling. She did not give him a thought then, and consequently is in no position to complain of any injustice if he returns the favor by ignoring her now. Moreover, thanks to “equality in the workplace,” she is perfectly capable of paying her own way in life. With pressure on corporations to promote women, she may even be able to earn more than he does. Why not let her do so?
Furthermore, lonely as Joe may be, he still enjoys a few blessings. Bachelorhood is not the worst thing that can happen to a man—a bad marriage is, especially when it culminates in divorce. This he has managed to avoid. So above all, I would advise him to ignore the swelling chorus trying to convince him he has some kind of duty to “man up” and marry Jane (after years of being under suspicion of wishing to “prey upon” or “harass” her). Better to leave her to endure on her own the predictable results of her earlier choices and behavior. Bitter, angry women are the natural product of the sexual revolution, but a man who avoids marriage does not have to deal with them and is not vulnerable to divorce at their hands. Joe still has the power to avoid the very worst, and he should use it with a good conscience.
By way of conclusion, and for purposes of comparison, I want to look at what would have befallen our same cast of characters if the sexual revolution had never taken place. I must warn the reader in advance that it is not all that splendid. While we lived under monogamy, people imagined their situation would improve drastically once we were liberated from it. Now that the falsity of the sexual revolution’s promises stands revealed to all, some are inclined to idealize the world we have lost. There has never been any sexual utopia in this world. The best monogamy can achieve is to make life’s disappointments a bit more bearable.
Under a system of socially enforced monogamy, then, guys like Chad McDashly go fast, usually to the most attractive women. So Chad would still get a good-looking wife, but she probably would not be much younger than he is (unless he exercised unusual powers of self-control in early adulthood). His chances for long-term success in his marriage, however, would hardly be greater than anyone else’s, since they depend so little on sexual attractiveness. Indeed, if he marries primarily on the basis of physical attraction, his odds of finding lasting happiness may even be a bit poorer than the average man’s.
Jane Average would still prefer Chad to Joe, of course, but would have been less likely to think she could get him by simply offering sex. In any case, as already mentioned, Chad gets taken off the market quickly. Receiving no attention from that quarter, Jane gradually falls into Joe’s orbit instead. She is unenthusiastic about him at first, and long cherishes the dream that someone more exciting will come along. But the months pass, and no one appears. One day her mother pulls her aside and says: “Jane, this fellow may not be exciting, but he is respectable and from a good family. A woman’s youthful bloom does not last long. If you don’t secure Joe while you can, some girl smarter than you is going to take him from you. Do you want to end up a spinster? Your father was not my first choice either, but he has been pretty good to me.” So Jane goes ahead and marries Joe—and it is only under a regime of monogamy that she will consent to do so. (For a compassionate yet realistic portrayal of how monogamy works to the advantage of the less-than-stunningly-attractive, watch the classic movie Marty from 1955, a rare and welcome relief from the fantasies Tinseltown usually puts out.)
Jane’s honeymoon with Joe is not as exciting as it might have been with Chad, but not so very bad, especially for a girl without any other sexual experience for comparison. Eventually she bears 2.3 average children, and much of the attention she used to devote to men shifts to them. In the end she discovers that mother was right and marriage to an ordinary man is endurable. She is dissatisfied with Joe in certain ways, but they are mostly not the kinds of ways that would have been averted by his being more “dashing.” What do you know? Youthful heart palpitations are not the most reliable guide to happiness in life.
Joe’s fate under monogamy is perhaps the most interesting of all. Since Jane had no premarital sexual experience, Joe imagines he was her first choice. Men are astonishingly naïve in this regard. Only Jane and her mother know the truth: that Jane would never have gone anywhere near Joe if only she could have gotten her hands on Chad instead.
Joe understands his own sexual impulses, but not Jane’s. So he believes women never suffer from lust the way he did as a young bachelor: they are purer, more ethereal beings. They want marriage while men just want sex, so they are men’s moral superiors. And in the absence of no-fault divorce and automatic mother custody, women are generally content to make the best of things with the husband they have got. So to Joe they seem naturally monogamous.
In short, Joe’s experience of women under a regime of monogamy qualifies him perfectly to hold forth in the conservative press about what a disaster the sexual revolution must be for innocent, virtuous, long-suffering women—and what a bonanza for every lust-crazed young man in the world!
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies” pt 2
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies”
-
Men Only Want One Thing And It’s Disgusting
-
Hooking Up
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 619
-
The Women’s Resistance
-
Rediscovering a Politics of Limits
-
American Degeneracy Laid Bare: Examining the Documentary “The Lost Children of Rockdale County” on its 25th Anniversary
82 comments
Great follow-up article FRD!
“To the female mind, a man’s very availability can be sufficient grounds for rejecting him.”
Indeed, the confirmation/attention seems to suffice for some females, for which they are willing to put on a prolonged series of flirtatious behaviour.
Let’s not forget the female equivalent of Chad in the real world however.
Here is a humorous clip on human behaviour:
https://youtu.be/n1GUQVo1Lps?feature=shared
Quite a funny video on gyms, to be sure. The comments are entertaining, too.
Discussions about this topic are always popular on the Right. A big elephant in the room is the fact that many of the guys who are into WN tend to be misfits in one way or another, which puts them at a disadvantage with women right off the bat. Their view of what’s going on with sex and relationships is always wrong because they aren’t even participating. They also like the idea that somebody is working to prevent them from being successful, so they’re not open to realistic ways to improve their situation.
I was in my 20s when media first started talking about hook-up culture, and “friends with benefits”etc, and I used to think where are these girls, because I couldn’t find them anywhere. Every girl I knew, and every girl my friends were fooling around with all wanted commitment, whereas we just wanted sex. The “down to fuck” with no strings attached girls never showed up. Looking back on that now, a lot of it was probably goofy women journalists trying to portray themselves as more independent and badass.
The rise of the internet also has allowed this nonsense to get spread around much more easily. Not to mention struggling guys can find online communities and wallow in misery in a way that was never possible before.
Congratulations for so deftly signaling your sense of superiority while discounting the reality of what other men are suffering.
I’d say he bungled signaling his superiority by revealing that he never encountered a woman willing to have casual sex with him in the course of a post deriding other men for their lack of sexual success. I’m hardly a lady killer, but I’ve never been so undesired that I decided the idea of sexually available women was a falsehood invented by feminist journalists.
I’m not trying to be arrogant. It’s just that an honest look at what’s going on is always the best way. Guys escaping into a fantasy world to avoid their problems takes a toll on WN.
My point though, is “sexually available women” want more than just sex. If a woman wants you, she’s also thinking that you might be the one. The only pussy out there with no strings attached belongs to prostitutes.
What in Devlin’s article specifically was dishonest, flawed, or mistaken? — What are you alleging specifically that Devlin got wrong?
If your ruminations about loser WN men being the big elephant in the room don’t apply to Devlin’s writing specifically, those ruminations do not belong as commentary under Devlin’s article.
I’m not sure how to interpret this. Is the comment an invitation to audit womens’ agency, having to work out what they mean or is it something else ? If you don’t take it too far, there are are women who enthusiastically seek sexual opportunities, flings and affairs without necessarily intending to change their life, turn it upside down for something more with you. I’ve known some of them.
Speaking as a socially awkward right-wing incel I think he’s spot on.
It’s hard to make the argument that female hypergamy is “Darwinian”
If anything, it is anti-Darwinian. It results in a catastrophically collapsing birth rate and a population that cannot even reproduce itself, which is the most basic Darwinian imperative. It’s also unnatural in practice and can only exist in a totally artificial environment, such that would never exist under Darwinian conditions.
What you are doing is reinforcing the notion that there is something mystical about “female choice.” In a way you ARE the conservative commentators you are deriding. You are reinforcing this sexual selection mystique that you are mocking them for.
There’s this idea that female tingles have a mystical property that improves the human species. You see, females have a connection to the spiritual realm, which guides their feelings and intuitions into selecting the right mate, which results in eugenics.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the typical liberated female is getting smashed by Tyrone the local drug dealer in sync with a gangster rap song playing en ambiance.
There’s nothing particularly eugenic about female choice anymore than there’s something eugenic about choosing Doritos off the shelf at Walmart. They’re flashy and loud, which is a laughable metric by which to judge human value.
One more thing – this idea of thinking of human pairing as a “market” is a poisonous thought. You will never have a functional society so long as there exists the concept of “the dating market.”
There is a Darwinian struggle going on and it is being conducted in a different way, that is by group selection through the construction of culture. An aggressive and malicious group that imposes an anti-fertility culture on a target group is effectively selecting that group out.
We Whites are being selected out by a hostile, aggressive, and influential group that is “reforming” our culture in ways that destroy us.
Average Jane is not stronger than men of her own race and so the fatal aspects of some of her impulses do not matter very much, which is to her own benefit and to the benefit of her children.
With the false help of a highly influential group, which also avails itself of the help of high status traitors of our own race, Jane Average is effectively stronger than men, whom she can sic the law and cultural conformist men on at any time. Her worst impulses are incited, cultivated, and empowered, and so a sterilizing disaster follows.
The people who are at the top of the hierarchy that provides the moral and legal codes that encourage Jane’s most self-destructive impulses aren’t really her friends. They think Average White Jane is a shiksa, an abomination.
I think you would be very surprised about how an average guy frequently putting themselves out there and not having so much bullshit in their head, having respect and standards for themselves and others in an interaction and just going for it can actually succeed.
If you believe that thinks like being available or not having a girlfriend is a big deal and are embarrassed by it then the girl will probably think that too. There are legitimately Christian men who don’t think it’s a big deal and because they stand their ground women are still attracted to them. Telling and knowing the truth and having the courage to talk openly about these things with women (albeit maybe not entirely in the first interaction) you‘ll find that a lot of women do crave authentic human connection and you don’t have to be that attractive. However if you‘re insecure and too afraid to express it sometimes or you are scared of expressing the way you really feel about things which includes, jealousy, hatred etc, just to get the girl to like you. You‘ll come across as inauthentic and the fact that you wanted to change yourself for the girl with make her unattracted to you even if you are an attractive man.
I really challenge the guys reading this to legitimately approach women in an authentic way where they don’t bullshit around and just do and say as they actually feel.
that being said yeah there still is something wrong with society however I’d say the internet, pornography, social medial, online dating, women unessicarily in a lot of the workforce (in a lot of bullshit BS jobs too) have made things way worse then just lifting “enforced monogymy“. Needless to say I think that enforcing monogamy is a bad idea and there are so many other things we could tackle first.
i‘ll leave you with this. If women don’t respect you they are very likely to not sleep with you. People generally don’t respect people who don’t respect themselves. Therefore if you don’t have a good amount of self respect or a good self image you‘re going to struggle. Doing things that you‘re proud of in life and living authentically is so crucial
Do you have a woman?
Why is enforcing monogamy a bad idea considering doing away with it has produced awful results for our society?
Good points about self respect. Women don’t like men without it.
I don’t think we can get rid of monogamy. It is absolutely necessary for our society. Not to mention it’s better for raising kids.
I’m in a similar situation myself. I’m an older guy, divorced, advanced degree, already have children, who are wonderful BTW.
For health reasons & to improve mental acuity, I also do serious weight-lifting & watch what I eat. This is the one way that a “Joe Average” can become like “Brad” in your cartoon. It requires some knowledge as often gym-trainers desire quick results & are not interested in a multi-year lifestyle that will eventually result in a great physique.
Even so it can be difficult & requires some learning to form connections with desireable women. But they are out there. I believe it is in the best interest of this movement (white identitarianism) for guys, particularly younger ones, to be able to form relationships with women.
One resource that I’ve found particularly helpful is the free Dr. Pat Allen program on LA Talk Radio Thursday nites. They are really knowledgeable dating coaches. A lot of things have changed since the Covid isolation era.
If you call, please do Not identify yourself as coming from Counter-Currents or white movements. I think C-C could also publish more articles on practical dating advice for men rather than just lampooning the current state of affairs.
There is this one:
https://counter-currents.com/2024/02/game-101-part-1/
https://counter-currents.com/2024/02/game-101-part-2/
Thanks for the references Beau. I’ll take a look at them. I wonder how many guys here on C-C are seriously seeking a relationship w/ a woman. Of course many are married and settled down.
I’m older, so in a different class than a 20-something hoping to start a family.
Long time Devlin fan, read Sexual Utopia In Power nearly 15 years ago, used to be a semi-popular “alt right” blogger and referenced Devlin and his ideas constantly. I agree with Devlin’s general take.
However there are two major points I think Devlin, and his many, many imitators, get totally wrong:
Jane Average is NOT “hooking up” with Chad McDashly – she is “hooking up” with Joe Average.
Seriously – ask yourself why Chad McDashly would be hooking up with Jane Average when he already hooks up with Stacey Cheerleader and her hot friend?
The idea that men, even young men in their 20s at the height of their sex drive, want to “hit anything that moves” is … a weird fantasy that Joe Average has. The studly Chads don’t notice Jane Average any more than Stacey Cheerleader notices Joe Average.
I know for a fact Devlin and his many imitators have this completely wrong, because while I am Joe Average, I have 50+ notches on my bedpost, so Devlin et. al. thinks I’m Chad McDashly, which is comical.
Devlin greatly, greatly, overestimates the current social worth of a “relationship” for a woman. Yes, having a boyfriend/husband is very much a status symbol, but Devlin can’t even wrap his head around the idea that while a lot of Jane Averages fantasize about Chad McDashly, in the same way Joe Average fantasizes about Stacey Cheerleader, in actual real life she needs her button pushed on a semi-regular basis and Joe Average is what she has available.
Oh certainly, female hypergamy is real. I was one of the first writers to delve into the first release of OK Cupid data. Yep, women only rate 20% of male dating app profile pictures as “above average.”
But of course a “dating app” is like a video game. Jane Average rating profile pictures and messaging Chad McDashly to live out her hypergamous fantasy is no more real than Joe Average pretending he’s a Marine and fighting bad guys in Call of Duty.
Devlin et al cannot wrap their heads around the fact that for a lot of Jane Averages, having Joe Average as a “practice boyfriend” – for sex and romance, not necessarily to show off to your friends and family – is par for the course.
Devlin’s basic theory is correct, there is a female hypergamy/quality vs. male polygny/quantity difference in the sex game.
But I’m guessing Devlin actually knows next to nothing about promiscuity in either males or females. There is likely far more of a biological/cultural/personality difference between promiscuous and non-promiscuous people than there is between Joe and Jane Average.
Also, the idea that Jane Average is going around suing men for sexual harassment or divorce raping Joe Average is … a perfect example of the Apex Fallacy itself.
Actually, it makes sense that Chad is hooking up with Jane. I know a genuine Chad McDashly who literally could find a new woman every day. He was a 9.5, but the women I saw him with were all 5s and 6s. But that makes sense, just given the nature of things, because women in his league are as rare as he is, so as soon as quality goes up, quality goes down. The Chads are the ones who are best at settling, because they are “settling” all the time for women who are below their league. The trouble is that they are “serial settlers,” so they don’t really settle for a long time.
Serious request. I see females, and males too, being discussed in terms of numbers but no photo examples that we can actually look at. Could we possibly have some charts here showing just what you (all) consider a 9 or a 10 or a 2 or a 3 or 4, etc.
I have a hunch that your high-number women are going to resemble those wives of top of the heap tennis players, Indy/Formula 1 drivers, movie stars, etc. But I will not prejudge. As to anyone’s idea of a high-number man, I don’t know. Stefan Kraft (ski jumper from Austria) is nice looking IMO but as to career/life path, I wonder what he will do for a living after he is bumped down to Tier 2 ski jumping and then, nowhere to go in that sport.
I think the most accurate way to visualize it would be to put a 1 to 10 scale on the bottom of a bell curve. Most people would fall near the middle in terms of physical attractiveness and then you’d find fewer people the farther out you go.
A female 9 or 10 would be considered attractive by the vast majority of men and a male 9 or 10 would be similar. A person who is a 1 or a 2 would be very unattractive.
There’s also going to be personal preferences, desires, etc. What some people consider a 7.5 is a 9 to others and vice versa.
[And this is just physical attractiveness, it gets more complicated when you add in personality traits, charisma, baggage, etc.]
Thanks, Wilhelm, for your reply. Much appreciated. I would say that Aristotle Onassis was no screaming hell in the looks department, but he had no trouble snagging himself some mighty high test & good looking women, 3 that I’ve seen pictures of.
And then there is the young (age 21) tennis hot shot Carlos Alcaraz. He is actually a good deal homelier than the photo on wikipedia (if you watch tennis). Mainly Spanish (which could mean just about anything dark); swarthy; thick features; resembles a peasant. But when he’s at a match there is no shortage of girls, lovely blond ones, screeching “I love you, Carlito!” “Marry me!” and waving photos of him, etc. LOL. We wimminz is a funny lot.
When it comes to women clicking “above average” on the OKCupid.com website for only 20% of the profile pictures of male members of that particular website, you’re discussing a video game competition, nothing to do with real life. And you’d miss a major aspect of the romantic/sexual/relationship social signaling here, the Keynesian beauty contest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest).
I realize how autistic this is, however:
If Chad is a “9” and Jane is an “8” then sure, hypergamy applies.
But “Red Pill” types think “9” Chad is bedding a different “5” Jane every night, and that is just nonsense. That happens during warfare (and in some cases in the UK apparently this applies) but it certainly isn’t the general case in 2025 North America among whites.
A handsome man has more romantic options than a homely man – obviously. A beautiful woman has more romantic options than a homely woman – obviously. If we are talking about “physical beauty” – even in “objective” universal terms like facial symmetry, it is my understanding that women have an advantage, but I believe it is only slight. Certainly, the male sexual drive is more direct, faster, and in a sense more “simple” than the female sexual drive, but all of this “online dating apps” and rhetoric leaves out, e.g., scent, one of the most basic drivers of sexual arousal.
All this talk about the “sexual marketplace” or the “relationship marketplace” and the word “scent” has rarely been printed, despite it being a major, huge, driver of sexual attraction, so much so there is a multi-billion dollar market for products to change or disguise your physical scent.
Devlin is really particularly good at deciphering the euphemistic and emotional language women often use to describe their own physical, sexual arousal: “the earth moved,” “I found myself in his bedroom,” “I felt a deep emotional connection.” For men it’s “I got a little bit hard” but women typically won’t say “I began to lubricate” – but actually, if you know a woman, at least a white woman, an American woman, the type of women I have known, or at least ones who like to speak frankly about such topics, actually, yeah, more than one have told me (often hilarious) stories about “lubrication” due to just some random line some man gave her on a date. Not using the word “lubrication” of course, but they were … frank.
For whatever reason, I’ve just never had the Madonna-Whore complex. I think every woman has a little bit of a Madonna and a little bit of a whore in her, and I 100% agree with the Spengler quote:
“At all times and in all places, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.” — Oswald Spengler
Steve Sailer wrote one or two great articles about the rock musician Tom Petty, who died a few years ago. Sailer pointed out how Tom Petty was an “artsy redneck” (perhaps the musician equivalent of David Lynch.) Petty could never compete with the college quarterback nor the yuppie Wall Street trader, so instead he simply appealed directly to women’s emotions, and became one of the most famous American musicians of the 1970s-2000s. He certainly never lacked attention from women ever again – despite the fact he was a homely man, to say the least. No woman ever called Tom Petty “handsome” that is for sure. In that department, men and women really are different.
One of the things the “Red Pill” types leave out is that “physical beauty” is way more subjective for women than it is for men. Sure, women like a man who is tall, but a homely guy who is smart, funny, and a really good dancer doesn’t have any problem getting a lady.
Perhaps Confucius was right about the rectification of names: “Red Pill” types always confuse different but related concepts: “sex” “marriage” “family” “attraction.”
For instance there is a certain “transactional” element to “marriage.” A husband “provides resources” and a wife “provides children” – but red pill types think a wife is supposed to “provide sex” like she’s a prostitute. This is mistaking the transactional, legal relationship of “marrige” with the intimate, romantic, sexual relationship between a man and a woman.
Do they really not see how autistic this is?
Husbands do not “buy” “sex” from their wife with flowers, as so many Red Pill men seem to think. “I married her, I pay the mortgage, therefore she should be providing sex?”
That is insane and autistic.
Devlin is generally correct about the “market” for marriage and family. I think he’s mostly wrong about the “market” for “sex” and certainly his description of “college hook up culture” is nothing even close to what I remember engaging in myself in the 1990s. I say that as a perfectly average Joe Average.
I’m 50, over the course of my life at least ten women/girls “used” me for “sex” without having the slightest bit of interest in any sort of “relationship,” when I was young I was essentially “practice boyfriend” for a half dozen girls my age, and even when I was in my 30s I had four rather torrid affairs with college co-eds, early-mid 20s, just because they wanted to “experiment” with an older man.
Devlin et. al. have this idea there is some “scale” from one to ten, and while it is certainly true there are “objective” standards, at least when you talk about “our” people, trying to simplify something as complex as the relationship between men and women to a “sexual marketplace” is … actually, that is the logic of a brothel.
We aren’t actually like that. “Dating apps” are fake. Sometimes white gals really just want some friction on their body parts and a nice-smelling guy to give them some attention.
Personally, I don’t “advocate” anything, I’m just telling it like I see it. You decide your own morals.
“Devlin is generally correct about the “market” for marriage and family. I think he’s mostly wrong about the “market” for “sex” and certainly his description of “college hook up culture” is nothing even close to what I remember engaging in myself in the 1990s. I say that as a perfectly average Joe Average.”
It actually is spot on for the high school and environment of the latchkey-kid era in one of the NYC boroughs I grew up in. I’m in my mid 40’s and all of my teenage years were in the 90’s. Hopefully my lengthy post before this one is permitted by Greg and you can read an expansion on my experience.
I am an admitted huge Devlin fanboy, and I don’t often flatter people.
“For instance there is a certain “transactional” element to “marriage.” A husband “provides resources” and a wife “provides children” – but red pill types think a wife is supposed to “provide sex” like she’s a prostitute. This is mistaking the transactional, legal relationship of “marrige” with the intimate, romantic, sexual relationship between a man and a woman.
Do they really not see how autistic this is?”
Much of the red-pill space consists of vindictive, bitter, detestable, middle-aged madmen. As I write this now, the deranged madman Rollo Tomassi is doing a livestream on YouTube. I suspect they are like this because they too were frustrated and womanless in their young years and had to “improve themselves” to finally, finally get some women later on, when broccoli-headed teenaged men who haven’t done much in their lives have more sexual powers they do. Hence their obsession with “self improvement”. Haha, improve oneself so he can finally snag a jaded woman, perhaps a single mommy, who has been bedding down thrilling males since thirteen years old (I have met and heard several women say, “I have never been single since thirteen years old”.) Much of these RP men are late to the party, literally, though there is nothing wrong with that, and you’ll see I was somewhat late to the party too in my last post, I was busy being a kid from twelve to sixteen year old. Even judging from their facial expressions and speech, one can tell there is something “off” about Red Pillers, and many are in a near constant state of anger and yelling and whining! See Myron Gaines, Rollo Tomassi, Andrew Tate, Casey Zander, John Anthony, Anthony Johnson. All raving lunatics.
Marriage is not transactional in that the men provides resources for children any more than he provides resources for sex: he cannot sue his wife into giving him children (or sex). it is not a contract.
And at different times and places, wives DID have an obligation to provide sex to their husbands. There was a time before ‘martial rape’ was a thing.
I can’t really argue with anything Devlin presents, although I want to. Because it is depressing as hell.
But if Joe can learn 3 basic steps (Salsa, Merengue, and the Two-Step) and dress halfway decently at least one night a week, he stands a chance of meeting women in over the half the counties in the US.
I don’t know if there is a correlation or not, but it seems that around the time that sexual revolution got going, dancing began to decline.
RE divorce: if 50% of marriages end in divorce, that would imply that yes, a lot of Janes are divorce raping a lot of Jies.
Imho, no parents of kids <18 should get divorced, ever. There’s only a few good things that have been personally beneficial to me (an agnostic) with regards to having had a Roman Catholic upbringing–no abortions, no divorces, & no suicides.
I know that one spouse being nationalist, and the other not, has strained many marriages. If even heard some people wanting a separation simply after their spouse watched Europa. I’ve seen good techniques used for parents who wish to ‘save their marriage for the sake of the kids’. Spoiler: It involves lots of heavy guilt, but it works.
Disagree. If a relationship is dysfunctional ─ or becomes that way for whatever reason and by the fault of whomever ─ perpetuating that dysfunctional relationship for whatever reason, including “for the sake of the kids” (or the Church) will do immense harm. A little dab of Holy Water is especially not going to fix what is already broken.
Sometimes it is simply better to lance the boil. Doing otherwise only continues a war “by other means” and forces both sides to turn the kids against the other whether it ultimately goes to divorce court or not.
In the end the kids don’t trust anybody in the very places where unconditional well-being should come, and the girls especially bring incredible baggage to future relationships from my experience. Such persons learn a habit of lying to their family members and spouse when the truth sounds better ─ which is a good way to sour any relationship from the start.
There are many systemic reasons as to why half of marriage relationships are not working out these days, and Vatican II ain’t one of them.
🙂
Re: “Disagree. If a relationship is dysfunctional ─ or becomes that way for whatever reason and by the fault of whomever ─ perpetuating that dysfunctional relationship for whatever…”
Choose a high-character spouse & treat that person well (for a minimum of 18 years) if you have created children with her/him.
We have to know how to problem-solve, and that not all problems can be solved, but also how to make the best of it. Our decision to *behave* in inconsiderate ways is what strains our relationships. We have an obligation to hold things together so our kids can have a low-drama home — with as much attention as possible from each parent, all within one family household.
Unfortunately, there is a *serious* crisis of deliberate bastardization of children in America. We’re the adults responsible for having brought children into this messed-up world, & they are dependent on us to guide them for ~2 decades. They don’t deserve to be moved back & forth between 2 households, or to be forced to share attention from their parent & his/her new squeeze. They don’t deserve the heartbreak of watching mom & dad’s new roller coaster love-lives, always wondering if the latest companion will be the new step-mom/step-dad. And of course, there’s the likely possibility that the new “mom” or new “dad” has split from yet another family (which has minor kids) leading to yet more divided attention, jealousy, split loyalties, etc., etc.
I think the “hypergamy” concept is best dropped. Let’s just talk about “settling.” Everyone thinks he deserves the best, but we’re not all the best, and eventually we have to settle. The future of civilization requires that we have incentives in place that lead women to settle as much as men do, and to settle while they are still fertile. Women are less likely to settle than men, however, if they think that 80% of men are below average while men think that 50% of women are below average. This preference structure is as much about the opposite sex as it is about one’s self-perception and entitlement.
This imbalance on the female side gets labeled female narcissism or female hypergamy. Women “think they all that, but they ain’t.” They need someone to tell them that. Devlin hypothesizes that mothers used to play that role when they were more involved in courtship and parenting. Instead, though, we have a “you go girl” culture that stokes female narcissism, which gets reinforced on dating apps.
Beyond that, feminist female empowerment in education and employment (as well as welfare for black queenz) removes economic necessities that made women more inclined to settle in the past.
I think it is important to stress the imbalance between male and female settling behavior, because to speak of female narcissism or hypergamy on its own invites the brainless response, “Yes, but I know men who are narcissistic and hypergamous.” To which the proper answer is, “Yes, but look at the imbalance here. Society needs to address this, or it will perish.”
It’s a useful concept. It explains how women think about selection and it explains the sexual dynamics in our society. It revitalizes the rationale behind the stigmas of the past. And it illuminates the destructive crossroads between female hypergamous impulse and mass electronic media. Making observations on female hypergamy is not really about putting women down, it’s about observing how the majority of women behave once they have been freed of all constraints. I don’t think most men “settle” in the way you are implying. In fact I don’t think men are settling at all. I would go so far as to say the vast majority of young women would be considered perfectly suitable by most men. You could pair them off almost arbitrarily and the men would be happy. I think the male list of demands is far more modest and in accordance to what nature has endowed women with. As a commentator noted on the previous article, the men aren’t really “settling” at all, they’re all taking the first woman they can get. Settling implies a choice, and I don’t think most men are choosing the women. They are either taking whatever they can get or giving up entirely. Modern society is a peculiar combination of hypersexualized media and sexlessness in reality. The average male is totally inundated with what is basically softcore pornography everywhere he looks, yet can’t get sex. The average woman is taught to think of herself as basically what amounts to an amateur porn star. There was some mid-century author I read once who noted that the essence of sadism is when the object of desire is constantly displayed but never obtained. This plays out on both the male and female side. There’s something particularly vicious about our society and sex. It’s just brutal, there’s no way this can last.
I honestly don’t believe this:
“I would go so far as to say the vast majority of young women would be considered perfectly suitable by most men. You could pair them off almost arbitrarily and the men would be happy. I think the male list of demands is far more modest and in accordance to what nature has endowed women with. As a commentator noted on the previous article, the men aren’t really “settling” at all, they’re all taking the first woman they can get. Settling implies a choice, and I don’t think most men are choosing the women. They are either taking whatever they can get or giving up entirely.”
It smacks of paranoia and Manichaeanism. There’s a narrative being pushed here.
All of the young men I know are with the first woman that showed them favor. The only exception to this was when/if the woman subsequently ended the relationship and they moved on to meet someone else. This idea that men are playing many hands at the table and then only later begrudgingly settle (because they all secretly want super models? what would the implication there even be? what do super models even offer that an average young woman doesn’t?) is just not borne out in reality. It smacks of a strange need to equivocate. Men fall in love much more readily and it typically doesn’t take much.
When you look at sexual nature and current conditions, it is easy to appreciate that there is a serious problem. A lot of people don’t want to admit that these problems exist. So they deny them wholesale, by denying human sexual nature or denying current social conditions.
Or they say that these problems are small and marginal, affecting only losers and kooks. They deny that there are systemic problems requiring systemic solutions and instead preach individual self-improvement. Since almost everyone has room for self-improvement, you can’t dismiss them entirely. But when the game is rigged systematically against you, it is idiotic to say that you just need to compete harder.
These people are not being honest. They are pushing a narrative.
But we also need to be realistic about the manosphere: it is full of dishonest people selling products or rationalizing what really are just personal failures, not to mention raving loons. All these groups have an incentive to paint in binary, Manichean, apocalyptic terms. It’s always “everybody” (or “everybody I know”). What you write smacks of that.
Putting this in terms of personal experience doesn’t really help, since such narrative are conveniently unverifiable. Also, people are hesitant to question personal narratives out of politeness, but they’re no more likely to believe them just because they won’t question them. Thus for both reasons, making it personal is a huge opportunity just to lie.
You may be entirely honest and sincere, but I still don’t believe you, because I have seen these tropes before. It is a pity, because there really is a massive and systemic problem here that needs to be addressed by social policies, i.e., banning dating apps and reducing female participation in the job force.
Look at it this way: generalizations about social phenomena always take the forms of “Not always, but for the most part . . .” The idiotic NAXALT response is “Generalizations are meaningless because they aren’t all like that.” Yeah, that’s why one says “Not always, but for the most part . . .” But it is no help to construct strict generalizations by making them unverifiable, because it is easy to dismiss them as lies or just say, “This must just apply to extreme nerds.”
“I would go so far as to say the vast majority of young women would be considered perfectly suitable by most men. You could pair them off almost arbitrarily and the men would be happy.”
I get it as a kind of eye-rolling average, it could be technically true by virtue of youth.
But I’ve never really been in that category. In my particular world women are stacked in a great hierarchy, a Great Chain of Being. Settling explicitly, with any women because she’s a woman sounds perverse. You have to have sufficient enthusiasm for the other person or it wouldn’t last. The settling wouldn’t actually happen.
The other way round, and I’m a bit behind on the details of these threads, but I saw Roger Devlin comment about women’s type. They way I interpreted that, is that presented with some images, they will trend towards a certain baseline of attractiveness, as all humans do. But outside of some rough baselines, women don’t have a ‘type’ as we do.
Far too many men are only too happy to marry the first girl who is nice to them. I think this stokes female narcissism. Young men would do better to follow the advice of Smokey Robinson’s mother and “shop around.” Getting rejected a few times does vain young women no harm whatsoever.
Jane Average is NOT “hooking up” with Chad McDashly – she is “hooking up” with Joe Average.
Seriously – ask yourself why Chad McDashly would be hooking up with Jane Average when he already hooks up with Stacey Cheerleader and her hot friend?
I’ve known several ‘Chads’ who would hook up with average or even unattractive women because that’s what was available at the time. One of them was dating a hockey cheerleader / figure skater and he hooked up with a very overweight girl who immediately developed feelings for him. It was a ridiculous fiasco.
There really are a lot of Chads who are impulsive and make questionable decisions.
But I’m guessing Devlin actually knows next to nothing about promiscuity in either males or females.
I’ve seen plenty of examples of what he’s talking about and so have many other young men.
We also have statistics showing it is true:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/
[Anyone who pulls the ‘they must all be dating older men’ card either doesn’t understand statistics, has zero experience with the college scene, or is purposefully obfuscating the issue – you don’t get a two to one ratio without something else happening].
I’m 50, over the course of my life at least ten women/girls “used” me for “sex” without having the slightest bit of interest in any sort of “relationship,” when I was young I was essentially “practice boyfriend” for a half dozen girls my age, and even when I was in my 30s I had four rather torrid affairs with college co-eds, early-mid 20s, just because they wanted to “experiment” with an older man.
I’m in my 20s and the things Devlin is writing about are common. Many women try to use sex to ‘land’ a man out of their league because they don’t understand that men don’t bond that way.
An additional issue is that whenever a young man writes about these issues he’s accused of LARPing, being an incel, being a homosexual, etc. There is very little serious discussion about the issues young men experience in the dating market.
Being a rather ugly man, I’m now glad I did not settle. I am now over 40 years old and quite fine with being single. Settling would have meant coupling up with a really ugly woman (as no remotely normal-looking girl has ever wanted me). I am sure we both would be miserable now and above all our children would be ugly and misearble. Earlier white cultures had a way for people to stay single and not lose their dignity. As white nitionalists we need to create also the conditions for us white incels to contribute to our struggle without having to spread our bad defective genes. It will be enough if more of the average attractive and handsome whites breed. In particular, very physically attractive girls and men should aim to have lots of children and thus create a new happier white population where there will not be so many deformed individuals like us incels.
Ha! Good on you, Ugly Bug. Apparently we are all getting uglier due to dysgenic fertility anyway (less symmetrical features and such) even as everybody watches porn, reads romance novels, and dreams of a stunningly attractive mate. The sexual revolution is in part a “revolution of rising expectations.” The more demanding either men or women are about who they would be willing to accept, the fewer people will be able to get married. I have read that on average, women think a husband’s income in the seventieth percentile is the minimum they would find acceptable. How many of these women have stopped to reflect that if women actually refused to compromise on this point, not more than thirty percent of them would be able to get a husband? And the same goes for looks and every other variable one might consider.
That reminds me, my main girlfriend was playing a compilation of bridezilla stories yesterday. One bachelorette said that her minimum income requirement for a husband is $500K/year. As I was listening, I was thinking – what exactly is she bringing to the table (aside, of course, from being female)? Something tells me she isn’t a movie star. Moreover, any guy who actually is rich enough to “afford” her should consider being a gold digger to be a red flag. Not all women are like that, of course, but it still floors me to think that someone out there can’t possibly be happy unless her hubby brings in at least half a million a year.
This ties in somewhat nicely with the work of Greg’s latest weekend podcast guest, owner of Child Free By Choice.
As a young white man who has struggled with many of the issues addressed in this article series, I appreciate the concern shown towards men whose efforts to win some love and romance end in frustration and dissapointment. However, I do disagree with many aspects of these articles’ argument. The overall narrative presented here is highly subjective and speculative, and I think the author should have acknowledged that. Any opinion about love or romance is bound to be subjective, since attraction, sex, and love are all intensely subjective and personal experiences. A perspective on these topics that acknowledges its own subjectivity is likely to be more accurate than one that tries to present the “red pill” or the Truth about gender relations. The whole story about Chad and Joe and Jane is just fiction. Maybe intelligent fiction, but fiction nonetheless.
There is a big subjective component to all sexual and romantic preferences. I once went on a date with a woman who was actually dissapointed when she took off her high heels and realized that I was taller than her! I had a male housemate recently who was about 5’4 and was unattractive by any conventional standard, yet was constantly bringing women home. I suppose he was just confident and courageous and good at flirting. I realize that these are an extreme example, but F. Roger Devlin does massively underestimate the difference between different individuals’ preferences. I’m most attracted physically to tall, curvier women. I know some men share this preference, and others don’t. I think that there is similar variation among women’s preferences about men. Obviously there are objective factors to attraction like height, race .etc. but there is a big subjective component. I think that attraction also has a lot to do with aesthetic choices like clothing. But I am speculating here too, and I wouldn’t like to pretend like I have all the ultimate secrets and knowledge…
The one piece of data given in this article is the OK Cupid study. But, as other commenters have pointed out, this study might not have the scope that the article implies it does. This study is a useful indicator of women’s behviour on dating apps, and indirectly about hookup dynamics on dating apps. It is a leap to use such data to support a conclusion about hookup and relationship dynamics in general. I think the real problem indicated by that study is with the pervasiveness of the internet and commercial online platforms in our social lives, with what DH Lawrence would have called “the mechanization of life,” not with feminism or sexual liberation. If we lived in a sexually conservative and monogamous society, would the data from such a study be any different? I doubt it.
The author is right that there is no such thing as a sexual utopia, but I don’t see why Christian sexual ethics (monogamy) should be the model for a white society. Were the ancient Greeks or Romans monogamous? Were the Norse or Germanic peoples? Were the Etruscans? It seems to me like monogamy only entered into white cultures as a result of Christianity, and that in healthier times, even in Christian societies, there was a fair amount of promiscuity (take a look at some medieval poetry for evidence of this).
I’ve suffered and struggled and wasted a lot of time in the modern dating game. But I dislike this style of writing that assumes that we can do justice to this kind of struggle with a reductive narrative about Chad and Jane…
A funny Houllebecq quote to sign off:
“Youth, beauty, physical strength: the criteria for physical love are exactly the same as those of Nazism.”
.
Monogamus, married-to-each-other, parents have been shown to have the best results when working to raise high-character kids.
Not raising kids? It’s completely up to you how much high drama you like in your life.
I’m sorry to hear that you’ve struggled, although I think it takes a significant amount of honesty to admit that. Many men simply lie or exaggerate and this leaves everyone else confused.
It seems to me like monogamy only entered into white cultures as a result of Christianity, and that in healthier times, even in Christian societies, there was a fair amount of promiscuity (take a look at some medieval poetry for evidence of this).
I’m not trying to be nit picky, but the argument that ancient Europeans practiced libertine sexual values before Christianity arrived is basically a ‘meme’ that was promoted very heavily in the 1960s.
Emperor Augustus passed the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis and the lex Papia Poppaea before Christianity existed. These laws codified marriage as being between one man and one woman, banned adultery, and included provisions for punishing those who broke them. They were similar to previous laws. Many powerful Roman men had mistresses, but even the Emperors were only allowed to have one wife.
As for the Germans, Tacitus claimed they practiced fairly strict chastity and that most of them were monogamous. In Chapter 19 of Germania he writes:
Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power. Having cut off the hair of the adulteress and stripped her naked, he expels her from the house in the presence of her kinsfolk…
…They receive one husband, as having one body and one life…
The only Germanics who had multiple wives were some of their kings / leaders.
I don’t know much about the Etruscans, but I did find multiple articles and Wiki links claiming they were monogamous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization
As for promiscuity… my honest belief is that it will always exist because it’s part of human nature. I think the big issue is how we regulate it / control it so we can encourage people to have healthy families. Right now, Western pop culture actively encourages it and this leads a lot of young people to do things they later regret.
Normally I try to read many comments before responding so I’m not just repeating what someone else has said, but I’ll simply take my chances here.
The internet/online world incl electronic dating profiles are FILLED with socially maladjusted people, (ones which nobody would pay any mind to IRL, once they get to talking.) Add to this, sifting through profiles, is like playing a game. Who wouldn’t be aiming to score “the top prize” in this circumstance, completely regardless of whether that person would make a great parent for potential children, or a wonderful long-term companion.
It’s important to really know what you want out of life. Though all the churches have fallen to liberalism, you can meet altruistic people doing volunteer work in libraries, museums, parks, schools, zoos, and local politics. Are any revisionist history classes offered in person these days? Philosophy classes are another good place to meet serious folks who are not simply killing time in life. Cooking classes are practical & creative. I know folks who ended up dating their ballroom dance instructor, motorcycle riding instructor, etc.
Take some of the competitive pressure off of 1 on 1 dating situations. Meet folks in hiking groups, travel groups. Mill though junk shops & you are bound to bump into some history lovers. Let things happen organically. Spending lots of time together also helps people get to know one another. It’s why so many people fall for their co-workers, especially in high-drama jobs, like emergency rooms staffers. Invite someone for a Sunday morning/brunch, as opposed to a date in the evening time. There’s no need to obsess about how much affection is expected from you. It helps keep things fun, low-pressure, casual. Sit down in one of the empty seats at a sushi bar around lunch time, or at a counter diner at noon on Sundays to yak about politics.
I heard a self-described average-looking White guy over 50 remark on how, “to [his] shock & amazement” a polite, not overweight, & not-bad-looking ~40 year old complete stranger in a beer & wine shop asked him if he would like some company. (And she was not a prostitute/tranny!) I, myself, was in a liquor store, on the hunt for ~2 tablespoons of a dessert liquor & was mulling over whether or not to buy a half gallon sized bottle just for a recipe, (the smallest size available) and one pair of folks cheerily announced, “Invite us over & we’ll help you drink it!” My point: there’s no need to drop money to meet alcoholics in a noisy bar if you are just dating for recreation purposes.
Bottom line: meet people in person.
If America ever gets a do-over, we should consider “dating for recreational purposes” anti-social behavior.
No, dating with low or no expectations (or recreationally) is exactly the way that men learn how to relate to women, which is how one ultimately builds good relationships when you do decide to get more serious.
It is not about how many notches that you can put on your bedpost ─ or any at all ─ prior to marriage. That is the main flaw with the messaging from the Sexual Revolution, whatever that was.
I went to a college where you actually had to commit to abstinence (or risk expulsion) before marriage, and it was not hard at all to find good dates or marriage partners. But I don’t think the dynamic was really any different than in secular universities. (I graduated from both.)
Marriages are ultimately about building functional relationships, and nobody teaches how to do that anymore.
Today Family Formation is economically harder than in the recent past, and where nobody who is not a millionaire will likely be able to afford a home to raise a family. Plus, the boys and men today spend all their time playing Call of Duty instead of spiffing up to go to the Study Hall to learn Algebra with the girls. And everybody nowadays gets bombarded with Marxist messaging in the adulthood process.
🙂
“No, dating with low or no expectations (or recreationally) is exactly the way that men learn how to relate to women, which is how one ultimately builds good relationships when you do decide to get more serious.”
By that use of the word recreationally, then I agree. That is different than considering women “for recreational use only,” which some men do, especially in online male spaces.
Lol.
Young women treat average males as subhuman. And no they aren’t going to wait for the women to “settle down” when they’re 30+ and had their fun in Chad’s harem. At that point, the average guys have either killed themselves or learned how to live alone.
Re: “And no they aren’t going to wait for the women to “settle down” when they’re 30+ and had their fun in Chad’s harem.”
I don’t happen to know any gals that chose years of meaningless, degrading sex with no commitment for a more purposeful life, but I do know many that allowed themselves to mistakenly become convinced that their careers, instead of their close relationships with their husband & children, would bring them lifelong satisfaction.
Fortunately, some of these feminists are publicly admitting their regret, & are warning others of the disastrous outcome of poor life decisions:
Sex and the City writer Candace Bushnell, 60, admits she regrets choosing a career over having children as she is now ‘truly alone’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7295837/Sex-City-writer-admits-regrets-choosing-career-having-children.html
Re, being over 60 and finding oneself truly alone… Yes, and when one finds oneself there, it is truly way, way too late.
From an old Tom Petty song: “It was too late to cry when I woke up alone.”
Also, I think I pretty much agree with a commenter above who stated that casual dating should be outlawed — at least the kind of casual dating that really just means casual sex. What ever happened to old-fashioned group dating, wherein a group of young, unattached persons engaged in platonic activities like bowling, or ice skating?
Agreed, — fun group activities, & no 1-on-1 high stress make it, or break it, interviews
Recently, I was surprised to discover that ~ 80% of all the girls at the local ice skating rink were Oriental. ? (Figure skating & ice hockey both used to be very White activities. )
“To the female mind, a man’s very availability can be sufficient grounds for rejecting him.”
I’ve noticed this paradox that ever since I’ve been in a committed relationship that I get more attention from women than when I was single. It could be evolutionary biology at work.
Your experience is far from unique. It is preselection bias in action.
Women can feel safer flirting for someone attached. It is often done for fun, without seriously attempting to seduce him. Ha, perhaps a little like teasing or flaunting for the animal in a cage. They are more careful flirting with the uncaged beastie.
I’ve noticed this paradox that ever since I’ve been in a committed relationship that I get more attention from women than when I was single.
Depends on what you mean by “attention from women”. If a female at work or some other situation has a conversation with you on some not-sex-charged topic it hardly means she is flirting or chasing, or that she thinks you are the cat’s whiskers. Some of us are just friendly/outgoing and like to yak a bit with a more or less intelligent person of either sex for any or no particular reason other than an opportunity presenting itself. A personality type, nothing more.
It’s not just me (in the past when I was young). I heard not a few girls/women of various ages (including the editor of a general interest women’s magazine) noticing that anything but standoffish-ness toward a man results in his right away announcing that he is married, shacked up, engaged, whatever. WTF, are we in the Moslem world or something where even just looking at a non-related man and/or chatting a wee bit is forbidden and punished by flogging or worse.
Yes, when a man is married and thus presumably off the market, might it not the be case that women are more comfortable being friendly because they think that such behavior is less likely to be misinterpreted as flirtation? Hegel once remarked that it is easier for brothers and sisters to be friends because the whole dimension of sex is off the table.
So there were two instances when I was working in food service when I was at the time engaged. If we arrived a few minutes early we got comped food before we started the shift. I come in and notice a female coworker already eating and I comment, “wow! Looks like the chef cooked us up something yummy.” To which my female coworker, who knew I was engaged replied without any hesitation, “you’re yummy!” Then another female coworker, just randomly walks past me and says, “I’m going to whip you with my ponytail!” Like, I’m not making this up. I reply, “I’m not sure my fiancé is going to like that!” To which she replied, “I didn’t mean it like that!” I don’t know, once body parts, even hair, are being used as a tactile means for attention, I think you’ve entered flirting territory.
There was also this one time I was out on the town with my then girlfriend. We’re walking down the street and pass three ladies(of course, woman all walk together). All three of them are noticeably scanning me up and down with their eyes. I noticed it, my wife noticed it, my girlfriend (now my wife) and those ladies noticed it when after we past them they all started giggling. Next thing I know, my girlfriend is mad at me that those ladies were staring me up and down!
But yes, as Greg mentioned, I can see where it is the case that a woman would be more comfortable being around a married man for precisely the reason he mentioned.
There is an evolutionary explanation to this phenomenon: You have already been selected by a female, it must therefore mean that you are safe to invest genes on, as a potential mate/provider for other females too.
I remember the first time I had a serious girlfriend and how several other girls who had never shown interest suddenly started flirting with me. I’ve always been rather extroverted and good at reading people, and it wasn’t just friendly banter.
Preselection is real. My first love was stringing me along through my senior year of high school. When I was in college, I mentioned to her that I’d found a girlfriend. Then she told me it’s too bad I wasn’t available, since she’d been seriously considering me at last.
The emotions that this topic arouses show what a big problem it has become. But I don’t see a solution either, it will only get much worse.
Thank you for this article. I hope that this important subject matter would sometime in the not too distant future be discussed in such a depth in mainstream press, too. You never know.
Just a couple of details. My experience is that as a young man, average Joe is capable of scoring a lot of middle-age women who have not married or have divorced. There is a treasure trove waiting for you, young Joe.
I don´t think that it is very important these days how “experienced” she is or isn´t. Dating market is so difficult these days that it doesn´t matter if she has slept with the whole football team. Personally it has never bothered me. Maybe I am an exception.
Many men married very late in the 19th century, that is long before the sexual revolution. It was not uncommon for men to marry in their 40´s or 50´s: only when they could afford starting a family and caring for the kids. Prostitution was very common back in the day.
That’s not much of a treasure trove if you want a marriageable young woman to be your wife and bear your children.
Someone asked the American poet William Stafford if he had a cure for writer’s block. He said “Yes. Lower your standards.”
I think it’s important to focus on the factors that are exacerbating hypergamy.
Young women are more likely to identify as Leftists than ever before and many of them end up making themselves undateable. This increases the value of those women who are desirable. I’ve posted stats showing roughly 25% of young White women ID as LGBT and most of them are very fanatical, and very anti-Western.
You can go to any college campus right now and talk to the girls who are protesting against Israel. Rather than absorbing anything useful about the Jewish Lobby, most of them view Israel as a Western power that is colonizing poor Brown people. Many of these girls ID as non-binary / genderqueer / etc. They are basically Marxists.
I do wish them the best, and hope they can pull out of it, but most men are not going to want to date women who are as mixed up as they are. It’s a very unfortunate situation.
SCOTT: “Disagree. If a relationship is dysfunctional ─ or becomes that way for whatever reason and by the fault of whomever ─ perpetuating that dysfunctional relationship for whatever…”
KIM – Re Disagree : “Choose a high-character spouse & treat that person well (for a minimum of 18 years) if you have created children with her/him.”
I agree. But it is not always easy to determine a high-character spouse before tying the knot. If the relationship somehow becomes toxic, then by definition it can’t be fixed, and the kids are going to be hurt in one way or another, and having the courts (or the Church) ajudicate further is not likely to improve things for the better. Anyone can credibly find fault with another.
My Silent Generation parents (who are still married after 64 years) both came from broken homes and it is hard for me to see my grandparents as not being of “high-moral character,” and yet they all made mistakes. One of the set were actually in a Temple Marriage, or similar to what could now be called a “Covenant Marriage,” so it was not lightly taken. The other one involved a long courtship.
I have four sisters and lots of nieces and nephews, most of whom have families of their own now. My four sisters have followed the 50 percent divorced law of averages. The ones who are still together are still happy, and the two others have remarried happily, I think, although one new husband is now deceased but he was a decent guy whom I liked. I never really liked the now ex-husbands, but who am I to have an opinion on that?
There are many factors involved, but I think the main issue for the White race is that family formation is very difficult for young people these days, and that is the best time to do it.
The fact that half of marriages ultimately end in divorce is certainly not good, but a different issue, and I don’t agree that this is the main problem for White Nationalism as pontificated by some. Our modern predicament predates the 1960s. And calls to “enforce monogamy,” whatever that means, sounds incredibly silly to me.
🙂
I remain an optimist for all and believe there is ‘someone for everyone’, but there are better and worse ways to go about it, and for some it will take longer.
The harder you work the luckier you get. As unromantic as it sounds, when done right “being out there” trying to date feels like having a second job (at least a part time one). The serendipitous meetings from movies rarely occur. Phases of my life hoping for this were barren. More fruitful is when you are out there applying for jobs, so to speak. Rejection is standard and frequent. Don’t take it personally. Don’t even expect a rejection letter. People are petty, do your best to move on immediately. If you try to meet in bar or the like, you will need to be with a group trying to chat with another group. Few will become that guy who just walks up to a group of women and successfully joins in. Better yet is to be involved with community organizations and build a network from there. More and more people meet online, but rejection is standard and it there is a craft to sending an introduction that is not purely cut/paste as well as having a photo that stands out.
Don’t rush into marriage. The heat and excitement of a relationship dampen after about 3-4 years. Make sure both parties feel it is still loving and “cozy” and are okay it is not as red hot. I’d say women get bored more easily than men. They may not necessarily cheat, but just look for a way out, start unnecessary fights, expect more/offer less, inject unhappiness just to claim they are “ethical” in the split. This successful transition (or failure to do so) is all about that famous “work” of the relationship.
Can the right and left successfully have a family together? I think so in some circumstances and with each being civil on these issues. Men and women get more conservative as they age. The imbalance might make divorce more of a risk, so these circumstances might best be when each spouse earns a similar salary. There is a whole legal/sociological theory that divorce should be “costly” to incentivize the parties to stay together. This theory breaks down if one gender is disproportionately penalized. Women are smart. As they have ascended in the workplace, they are unwilling to accept this risk and marry a man who earns less and have a family. I do know some exceptions to this rule and have praise for the feminists who practice what they preach.
Over-emotional people get divorced more often. Doubly true if both partners are very dramatic and neurotic.
“The heat and excitement of a relationship dampen after about 3-4 years.”
The honeymoon phase should dampen after one year. Do you have an idea how many women have blown through their most beautiful and fertile years in successive, so-called “relationships” lasting three, four, up to seven years, only to have the area of the brain responsible for love and affection burnt to a crisp by 30 years old?
There are a lot of folks who say a year is enough time to say ‘forever’. No. Divorce is especially common in the first 2 years… so add on 1-2 years to courtship time. There is a second peak of divorce around years 7-8, but that is unreasonably long for a courtship.
I see in many of these type discussions here and elsewhere griping and dreams for likely impossible realities. Technically getting married is a “marriage license”. Though given the stakes for civilization, it is ridiculous that getting a driver’s license is more difficult and rigorous. Perhaps there should be required counseling and discussions between couples on matters such as children, money, sex, leisure time… the common issues all couples argue about and either resolve or break up over.
Well, that is not really so surprising because our society for the most part does not teach the importance of the Nuclear Family as the foundation of society (oh, there I am quoting from Mein Kampf again).
And (((Second Wave Feminism))) despises the idea of the Nuclear Family as being an especially odious form of the mythic Patriarchy.
🙂
Some additional OKC data.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/146909-this-is-why-you-should-be-sending-more-okcupid-messages
1) Men send way more messages than women, at all levels of attractiveness.
2) Both genders send messages to people who are more attractive, esp. men. Understanding the meaning of this is limited by the women sending 4 fold fewer messages.
3) Women who message first do better at getting dates with attractive guys. This may be limited by there being more women than men on dating sites who are not making an effort. There used to be a saying that women go to online dating sites after a breakup to boost self esteem after seeing all the messages, but aren’t really ready or intending to date yet. It could be argued that sites with paid memberships weed out the non-serious types. But there are many quasi-scam operations, so go where the numbers are.
Excellent observations from Dr. Devlin, as always. And yet … while much of what he says seems true in a general sense, my own eyes say the situation is far more complex. How does he explain the many attractive women I’ve seen hook up with and/or even marry very unattractive men? Some of those men were rich or successful in some way, but not all of them. I could never figure it out, and still can’t. I very rarely see a really good looking guy with an ugly GF, but I see pretty girls with ugly guys all the time, and have for decades.
Moreover, are there no more female “desperation marriages”? In the 90s and 00s I used to see these all the time – stuck up chicks who ‘played’ around for years, and then suddenly, after age 35 or so, would settle for some very unimpressive dudes. Hell, I attended several weddings in those days that exactly fit this description.
I also wonder if Devlin’s conclusions apply to specific faith communities. The hook up culture he describes is exactly what I experienced in the 80s-00s, but then I lived in places like LA and NY which were filled with “gold-diggers” and “players”. Is it this way everywhere now, even in more conservative rural America, and even among conservative Christians?
Finally, a general question for the CC community: we all strongly disapprove of interracial fraternization and of course miscegenation, but what is the consensus view on interracial dating among those like me too old to have children (or who may be widowers, or divorcees, etc)? I ask because, after a long hiatus, I intend to jump back into the older (I guess the term is “seniors”) dating market, and I wonder why I should restrict myself to white women as I did for all my youth. I notice that I seem to be more attractive to nonwhite than white females (this was true even decades ago). Would it be improper for me to score a nonwhite GF, given that a) I have no intention of having children and b) I have no intention of getting married?
Of course, I would prefer a white GF, but maybe that won’t be in the cards.
Older white men seen in public with non-white females signals two things to people: they are losers and that race mixing is okay. Your “But non-reproductive!” caveat is not visible to the primitive part of the brain that draws conclusions simply from seeing things. The same is true about any “But maybe he isn’t a loser” caveats.
I agree with that second concern – that I’d be contributing to the normalization of race-mixing. Of course, my “contribution” as Mr. Nobody is vanishingly small next to, say, JD Vance’s (or John Lennon’s, Matt Damon’s, Matthew McConoughey’s, Ben Affleck’s, Robert De Niro’s, etc), that that would hardly be an overriding consideration. A more serious one is that I would be leaving at least some financial resources to ensure my GF’s wellbeing after my death, resources that could otherwise stay “within the race”. But that could mostly be solved via leaving her only the income from a Trust, whose principal would ultimately (at her death) devolve upon various prowhite entities (I intend to leave all my assets to prowhite institutions; indeed, since my mother’s death, that is how I now have my will structured).
I disagree, however, with the automatic “loser” label. I would say it depends upon how hot (and/or impressive) the nonwhite GF is. I dislike JDV’s nonwhite marriage, but I haven’t heard any of my friends (several of whom, like me, arched their eyebrows at the Hindu wife) consider JDV a loser because of it (disloyal has cropped up, but not pathetic). His wife is no Melania, but I don’t think she’s ugly (and some of my pals think she’s hot). Regardless of how her looks are rated, she is reputedly highly intelligent, and undeniably has an elite educational background. IOWs, she is superior to many white females.
But ultimately, as I said, while I’d prefer a white GF for my final years, if all I can obtain is a satisfactory nonwhite GF, I suspect I would find that better than nothing. I’ve been single since somewhat pre-Covid, and that’s long enough to know I don’t wish to be in this solitary condition for the rest of my days.
I’m a big believer in “Timing is everything”. For women in their 30s, reality starts hitting hard when they consider the biological clock. All the brash confident talk of what they’re entitled to starts seeing the brick wall coming of infertility. Guys as well start feeling the awkwardness when all their friends have paired off. 35 years of age is when the risk of having a child with Down’s syndrome starts really climbing. Women in this bracket can be very pushy about commitment. Asking a guy if he wants a family very early on – appropriate. Wanting engagement 6 months in – bad idea in the current culture. Signs that she stopped taking her birth control without telling your – exit immediately and pray for the period…….
Middle age and older men with and without children have different value to women. Depending on the age of the children, there may be appeal or aversion to someone who missed the opportunity for family… or wants to avoid it. The children are also heirs. There’s a certain type of woman or suitor who wants a partner with no children because they don’t want to see a will or inheritance divided up too much.
I encounter couples of differing attractiveness regularly and it runs in both directions, though it might be lopsided. Why this is so might be for different reasons: timing, incomes, chronic medical issue, invisible issue (tiny penis, low sex drive), an uncommon hobby or kink, demanding personality that few can tolerate, that we only glimpse such couples before an inevitable break up.
35 years of age is when the risk of having a child with Down’s syndrome starts really climbing.
Yes, an elderly mother can produce more Down’s kids, but the older the father, the more likely the child will have mental and/or physical issues as well, of a different nature. Used to be the mother got the blame but in turns out the father’s age is an important contributor as well to other defects.
An “older” woman is probably married to, or having sex with, an older man, so it is easier (and understandable) to look to the woman’s age as the cause of anything wrong with the baby because she actually carries the child. If you look this up, you will be amazed at the long list of possible problems with offspring of an older man. And they are serious. While I’m here, it’s not good for a teenage girl to have a baby, either. They are still growing.
IMO it may not be more-than-average age of the parents in and of itself, but rather the simple fact that nowadays we are living in a toxic soup, with use of prescription medicines being a good sized factor. Thalidomide was just the most obvious example. Grist for the mill.
You are correct, the longer fertility period for men does have some risk, but not as high as Down’s Syndrome. It is a newer concept and the numbers vary a bit more from study to study.
Down syndrome is 0.1 per 100 births overall (0.1 %), but goes to 0.8 per 100 by maternal age 40 (8 fold increase) and 3.5 per 100 by age 45 (a thirty five fold increased risk). There exists debate if paternal age matters too.
Autism spectrum is about 1 per 100 (1%), a fairly common disorder to start with. Older age of men and women each increases risk by about 1.5 fold (e.g. 1.5 per 100).
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2000/0815/p825.html
https://www.verywellhealth.com/older-parents-and-autism-risk-for-child-5199211
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-024-02184-9
Why this obsession with carnal matters to begin with? Take a breather and re-evaluate your place in the cosmos, gettin’ it wet is not what life’s all about. Furthermore sexuality is not democratic. Put the men and women who are too ugly to reproduce in monasteries and the fields, and let them be productive members of society in their own ways and teach them to step over the sex culture. Don’t press your faces against the glass windows of the big house on the hill you can’t and never will get into like a bunch of sexual jacobins, it just makes everything for painful for everyone involved.
“Why this obsession with carnal matters to begin with?”
Forty percent of the male population aged eighteen to 35 years old being womanless.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment