By Lyn87
Almost everything in life involves trade-offs of some sort. If you want something you usually have to give something to get it. I want a new Ferrari. The dealer wants some money – quite a lot of it as it turns out. I don’t make that kind of dough, so I look for something I can afford. Ah… that used Porsche looks about right. I give the dealer what he wants and he gives me what I want. I drive away laughing and he laughs his way to the bank. Win-win.
So why am I driving the used Porsche rather than the new Ferrari? Because I don’t have something the dealer values as much as what he’d be giving up if he gives me the keys. In this case what he wants is defined as, “More money than I have.” I’ll refer to the currency of commerce as ”Transactional Monetary Value” for reasons that will be obvious in a moment. If I want what he has and do not have the means of coercing him, I have to conduct a monetary transaction with sufficient value to make it worth his while. It works both ways of course: I’m not going to pay for the Porsche in exchange for a rusted-out old Gremlin. He has to offer me something I value at least as much as the money I’m giving him.
But what about relationships: does the same principle hold true? I think it generally does. The term I want to introduce is “Transactional Relationship Value,” which I will abbreviate as TRV starting now.
We instinctively understand that some things are more desirable than others – including women. All things being equal, a beautiful woman has higher TRV than an ugly one. The funny one will have more men vying for her attention and affection than the grouchy one. Nothing groundbreaking yet.
Let’s apply the principle further. I’m going to stick to things men look for in long-term relationships. TRV in short-term relationships focuses on the superficial, such as “Considering my states of inebriation and arousal, is she good-looking enough and easy enough for my purposes?” Not exactly the stuff good LTRs are made of.
It occurs to me that most guys look for potential wives and girlfriends to possess a whole suite of attributes, unlike the example I used earlier with only two variables: car and money. How much each of those attributes matters varies widely among individual men, but we mostly like the same things. There are ways to rack-and-stack our choices, and I’ll get to that a little later. First let’s look at some of the attributes. Keep in mind that none of these are exactly quantifiable, so for our purposes let’s peg their values at how the average guy would rate an individual woman on each trait. Remember though, it works both ways as women want to get the maximum TRV they can get as well.
Physical beauty. I don’t care if you’re a leg-man, a butt-man, a bust-man, a face-man, or whatever. Unless you have a serious fetish we men generally agree on who’s hot and who’s not. We may disagree about points, and I may think someone is a 9 while you think she’s a 7, but most guys will put most women within a few points of each other. Anything more is quibbling for purposes of my argument. Plot a bell curve and determine the mean if you want to put some semi-rigor into it.
Age: The old adage is for a man to take his age, divide it in half and add seven years to get an approximation of what he should be looking for at the start of a long-term relationship. Obviously it works the other way for women: they have to subtract seven years from their age and double the result. That fits what actually happens reasonably well. Women in their early twenties go for guys a few years older. Guys in their fifties find those women “pretty but vapid” and prefer women in their thirties instead for LTRs. The closer to the half-plus-seven age a woman is, the higher her TRV is to men at the corresponding age.
Baggage: This is tricky. If she has a high notch count, a couple of kids from the local thugs, daddy issues, control issues, whatever, those psychological rocks in her rucksack lower her TRV depending on what a man’s hot buttons are. Again, hard quantification is impossible, but if she has more baggage than a Samsonite factory, she loses TRV.
Money: Not usually as important to men as to women, but a woman who has her finances in order is preferable to a woman who is deeply in debt, all things being equal. This category also includes her ability to make money if you’re going that route, and her family connections that may help you in your own career ambitions.
I’m just scratching the surface here, and we could all name other attributes that might matter: sense of humor, intelligence, desire for children (or not), religion, political views, etc. We can debate about what matters most and by how much, and ultimately each of us decides for himself, but let’s not pretend that we can’t differentiate between treasure and trash. To return to my analogy, even if we all like sports cars, you may prefer your BMW to my Porsche, and I may prefer my Porsche to your uncle’s Corvette, but none of us will think the other’s choice is terrible. Granted, vehicles are not a perfect example, but stick with me for the sake of the analogy.
Just as the new Ferrari has more Transactional Monetary Value than the used Porsche I ended up with, every man and woman has a certain amount of TRV to bargain with. Under the Marriage 1.0 rules a man brought his TRV to the table, which included looks, money, humor, ambition, etc, and was probably going to marry a woman with similar TRV. What you can offer affects what you will receive.
I promised you a method to rack-and-stack your choices, which I turn to now. You can use something called a Decision Matrix, or DecMat for short. You develop your screening criteria first. Those are the “must haves” or “deal breakers.” It can be anything that really matters to you: if “natural blonde” is one of your “must haves” you screen out every redhead and brunette no matter how high she rates on her other attributes. If “already has kids” is one of your deal-breakers you’ll screen out single moms. Once you screen out the “no-go” women you rank the remainder using your evaluation criteria. Here’s where the DecMat comes in. It’s a graph or computer program that asks you to rank each attribute that matters to you against every other attribute. It then assigns weights to each one based on your answers, so when you plug in the values of the attributes it rank-orders your possibilities for you and gives each one a single score. That’s your estimation of her TRV. It’s not necessarily THE answer, but it’s AN answer based on what you say you want. TRV is the aggregate of a person’s ratings on all the attributes, weighted in accordance with the decision-making person’s preferences.
Here’s where it get tricky – and competitive. Sure, your evaluation of a woman’s TRV is your own opinion, but chances are if you rate a woman as having a high TRV, other men will too.
Since you want all the TRV you can get, and so does everyone else who’s in the LTR market, you need to have a realistic expectation of what your TRV can buy. If we plot every woman’s average TRV we’ll get some sort of bell curve. Same thing with men. Superimpose the two charts with the means lined up. Even with different preferences and the vagaries of attraction, the odds of you ending up with someone more than one standard deviation above you is probably negligible, although you can easily get someone more than a standard deviation below you – but why would you want to?
Now I’m going to outline the problem, and why this article belongs on an MRA site.
Here’s the problem. Feminism lowers a woman’s TRV.
A LOT.
I’m going to do a little napkin math here, so don’t go nuts with your calculators. I’m just making a point with numbers I think are about right – this is an opinion piece, not a statistical treatise. In the past under Marriage 1.0 a person was a pretty good bet as long they were weren’t much more than one and a half standard deviations below the mean of the TRV bell curve.
Feminism in general has lowered the female mean at least one and a half standard deviations. That is a HUGE shift. A guy at the 50th percentile – the middle of the curve – who would have had a decent shot at a decent life with a decent woman under Marriage 1.0 rules is now screwed. The women at the 50th percentile today – under Marriage 2.0 rules – are no longer good marriage risks for average guys (more on risk assessment later). The result is that the group “all men in their prime marriage years” is VASTLY larger than the group “acceptable women in their prime marriage years.” What happens is that a relatively small number of guys hit the jackpot, a lot of guys have “okay” marriages, a lot of guys get screwed over when they marry unsuitable women or turn out to be unsuitable themselves, and the rest wait it out while Kay Hymowitz nags at them to “man up.”
To compound the problem, half a century of misandrist family law has caused millions of boys to grow up without fathers in their lives to guide them into manhood. Feminized schools did the rest, and so the male mean has fallen under the assault as well. How much? I’d guess more than half a standard deviation versus previous generations. The average woman of your grandparent’s generation would not be very interested in what two generations of single mothers and feminist education has turned today’s average man into either.
We’re now two generations into female-headed households, feminized education, and feminist jurisprudence and they’ve taken a toll on both sexes. If you could take an average man and an average woman today and send them back a few generations the average guy would be in the bottom third of his peers (barely marriageable) and no decent guy from back then would consider the modern woman to be marriageable at all. (Feminism damaged both sexes but lowered women’s TRV more.)
To add insult to injury, the lines move to the right as we age and TRV decreases faster for women than for men. Stating in the late-20’s to late-30’s a man’s TRV goes into decline while a woman’s goes off a cliff. This helps older single men, who now may increasingly choose among women who are much younger than they are.
By the time the party-girls hit their 30’s and are awakened by the sound of their biological alarm clocks going off their TRVs are in the dumpster out back under an empty box of truffles. By age 35 their looks are on the way down, and they probably have a fair amount of baggage. (To be fair, I don’t look like I did when I was 20 either.) But the sexual dynamic has changed for them. Where they once could have all the guys they wanted in their beds, their male age-peers are now looking for women in their mid-twenties (half plus seven years). The men who are looking at those women are in their fifties, or maybe forties if the woman looks good for her age.
The good news is that half of all marriages do not end in divorce court, so there are a lot of men and women who are making marriage work. It is certain that a significant percentage of those marriages are not ideal, but either party has the ability to file a no-fault divorce petition. So in half of all marriages both parties perceive that the advantages outweigh the burdens. The bad news is that every year feminism pushes the lines a little farther to the right in favor of women hitting the kill switch.
So now people, mostly men, are haggling over evaluation criteria that would have been screening criteria a couple of generations ago. Feminism has turned LTRs into minefields for a lot of people, with the added caveat that it’s usually men who lose everything when it doesn’t work out. Their kids get the pink shaft too and the cycle continues with the next generation.
That brings me to the topic of risk assessment. Two factors come into play: the likelihood of something bad happening and the severity of the consequences if it does. The potential downside of a bad marriage is catastrophic, so it’s very important to set the odds in your favor as much as possible if you want to marry. The things you do to lower your chance of disaster are called risk mitigation. Once you understand the risks – the likelihood of things going wrong and the severity if they do, you have to mitigate the risks by either lowering the probability of failure and/or limiting the damage if they do. Integrity is the number 1 risk mitigation factor in my estimation. Integrity is not the “given” it used to be, so for many or perhaps most Western women today the odds are too high to warrant the risk. Risk assessment and mitigation is a large enough topic to warrant its own article though. Ultimately we all have to balance the risks against the potential rewards and make the call.
The beauty of the bell curve is that no matter how far you skew it there will still be people at the top who make the grade. They just go from being common, to uncommon, to rare, to very rare the farther you push the mean. A quarter century ago when I was dating, acceptable women were common, good women were uncommon, very good women were rare, and exceptional women were very rare. Today you have to slide everything over at least one notch. That means that while there are still a very small number of exceptional women, the average young woman is no longer an acceptable risk once you factor in the results of your risk assessment.
Having said all that, I’ll reiterate that integrity must be one of the screening criteria. With the legal power a woman has to wreck your life, a guy contemplating an LTR must know the woman he’s marrying will refrain from using her power to screw him to the wall.
Short of just packing it in – which is an option – I posit that learning short Game is a lot less important than having a high TRV, as it allows a man access to women at the high end of the curve. These women are mainly ones that would have been in the upper-middle of the curve 50 years ago, but at least a guy has a fighting chance if they pair off. Of course women more than a standard deviation above the mean are rare, and a man will have a lot of competition before the dynamic flips in favor of men at around age 26, but by that time most good ones are taken and anything else is a crap-shoot with loaded dice. Demographic data suggest that divorce is not spread evenly throughout the population. If two people both bring high TRV and integrity to the match, the odds are pretty good that they’ll be okay “’til death do us part.”
So if a man wants to marry he must do two things: pick the right woman and be the right man. Some guys here will jump all over that as if I’m blaming men. I’m just acknowledging the fact that men are actors in their own fates. Terrible things do happen to good guys who do everything right, but you can improve your odds a lot by refusing to settle for low TRV and low integrity in yourself and the women you spend time with. Good luck, and be smart.
{ 116 comments… read them below or add one }
Brilliant post. I would argue, and I think many would agree, that learning Game actually does increase your TRV. But otherwise, I think it was very well said.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
3
You kind of pass over the whole “relationship” and “marriage” thing itself, as though these are integral and indivisible themselves.
As I (50 years old) type this a 31 year old married woman is busy messaging me in an attempt to arrange sexual liaisons.
The cost to me is zero.
The cost to her cuckolded (I won’t be the first, or last) husband is literally Ferrari money.
$5 is nothing to Bill Gates
$5 is another day’s food and sustenance to a down and out.
To be useful / accurate, I think you should consider factoring this into your equations.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
12
A well written and thoughtful article. But I think you are missing an obvious point – why buy at all? There is a crude expression that rings true here – if it flies, floats or fucks it is cheaper to rent than buy.
You mention that it is important for a man to evaluate a woman’s integrity before he gets married. And while that is a good idea in theory, it is not always easy to make a proper evaluation. I know that many nice guys would be shocked if they knew the truth of what their sweet Christian wives and girlfriends have done. And even if you are able to make the proper evaluation that a woman has integrity, do you want to risk your life that she will maintain this integrity in 1, 4 or 20 years? All it takes is one Eat, Love and Pray moment and you are screwed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
76 
4
pick the right woman
I’ll not jump on you by claiming that you’re blaming the man, since you’ve pretty well outlined just how tricky it is to “pick the right woman” and, equally important, how rare the “right woman” is.
What is an additional/complementary shame is that those who consider themselves to be the bastions of character development – and therefore, enhancers of TRV- ie, organized religion, have further empowered women-propelling them to the “high risk” category, perilously close to the crotchless bar flies.
And they’re doing this in the name of God.
Good writing Lyn,
I look forward to more.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
What’s with puas and buzzwords? “TRV” is an unnecessary term as there are several other words to describe what you’re talking about.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
20
@ Leonidas,
Thanks. Notice that I specified “short game” as being less useful than high TRV. The skills needed to pick up bar skanks is of very limited utility in pairing off with a high-integrity, high-TRV woman. Now “long game;” that’ s a different story. I’m not sure I consider that “game” at all, but rather the attributes a man just, well, has. I see you point and I won’t quibble over semantics. I didn’t go into what constitutes high-TRV for men very much, and a discussion of that would certainly include those attributes. I like your icon, by the way. Did you take the picture yourself? I’ve seen that statue in person at Thermopylae.
@ AfoR,
Fair enough. I knew I had to condense a few things to make this an article rather than a research paper.
Perhaps I’ll flesh some of those items out in subsequent articles. This is my first foray out of the “comments” section and I want to see if my preferred topics and writing style are a good fit here. By the way, for those who didn’t catch it, 50/2+7 = 32. The formula still seems to be working.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
Dear Lyn87:
Thank you for your discussion: I appreciate it. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION certainly has targeted me, artificially driving down their value. I am a victim of such. I should have been well ahead in the corporate world by now hadn’t been for Feminist Socialist commercial violence against men.
Secondarily, Affirmative Action has made the female less valuable also. As she has a right to be a wallet (without deserving it), she has encroached onto male territory. As such, she does not, “need” the man as much. Largely, she has stollen his role.
In a number of ways, the male is not valued in and of himself (despite the fact that father-raised children and father-household-headed societies are very much better off as per crime rates, educational performance, economic performance, suicide rates, self-esteem levels, self-control levels and a whole lot more).
Being the disposable gender, the male can only hope to be ASSOCIATED WITH VALUE (economic value/social value associated with a socially recognized position such as that of a corporate executive). In contrast, the female, in and of herself is held to be of VALUE variously, including as per procreation.
As such, given Feminist Socialist policies, whereas the female experiences some manner of value topup (notwithstanding the above comments), the male experiences a value putdown. Her experiencing being her (and NOT HIS) own wallet, RAISES HER EXPECTATIONS for the size of his wallet. Whereas she is ASSIGNED A BIGGER WALLET, concommitantly, SHE IS NOT ASSIGNED, NOR DOES SHE EMBRACE THE ROLE OF BEING THE PAYER of things. She’s still a sponge, but now a bigger one, and it takes a taller drink of a man to fill her.
Both genders suffer from Feminism, as ill-intended, but, of course, as ill-intended, the female being the secary sufferer on some accounts while the male is the primary sufferer on ALL ACCOUNTS.
As such, the free interplay of the gender market place is skewed and that same gender market clears so diminitively on so many accounts, males being the worst throwaway victims.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
Another thing I think you’re missing. Feminism decreases a woman’s value a lot – this is true. However not in the mind of the woman. The woman thinks that it actually raises it.
The main problem with ‘f’s is that they really think that they are above the men that suitor them. Leaving the notion of ‘integrity’ in tatters, before we even discuss their entitlement and victim mindsets.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
65 
4
There was a time when he might “settle” with a woman who revealed herself to be a “ball-buster”, but at least she was cute to look at. Now even that isn’t a factor, as he’s learned the beauty is worn thin by her surly attitude in short order.
Men don’t want to contend with “relationship politics” and little power struggles over who is better at something all the time. Maybe he just wants to relax and enjoy her company. He doesn’t need the emotional turmoil that ensues over him leaving his socks on the floor again or the “silent treatment” because of something he said the other day. He doesn’t want to have to tip-toe around his own house for fear of upsetting her over any little thing, because she’s in “one of her moods”.
He doesn’t want to be “challenged” and have to incessantly be conscious of not offending her feminist inspired “equality sensitivity meter”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
60 
2
@ Muk,
I’m the last guy on Earth who would qualify as a Pick-Up Artist. I’m a military guy and we love our acronyms though.
Having said that, if you know of a more well-established term that means the same thing and captures the nuances of “Transactional Relationship Value” I’ll be happy to consider making the switch.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
Dear Keyster:
Picking up on your point, “Men don’t want to contend with “relationship politics” and little power struggles over who is better at something all the time,” what Feminism has done is replaced patriarchal COMPLEMENTARITY between the genders with Feminist COMPETITION.
And, as contradictorily as Feminism, such comes from those (Feminists) who claim preference for COOPERATION variously instead of COMPETITION.
Of course that, “cooperation” is really the feminie right to harm (Affirmative Action is a great example) along with its concommitant masculine responsibility to be harmed. And the training in such in the Feminist Socialist Government schools as per boys, is really to train them to be helpless in opposing their enemies, the Feminists.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
2
In addition to the points above, its worth pointing out 2 things:
i. mens’ trv is heavily skewed by attitude, and therefore whats broken can be fixed by those who take up game
ii. mens’ trv increases from late 20s to late 30s; it does not decline as you suggest
Overall: this article’s heart is in the right place but its a huge fail
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
24
Dear Evil Penis:
As per your comment,
“Another thing I think you’re missing. Feminism decreases a woman’s value a lot – this is true. However not in the mind of the woman. The woman thinks that it actually raises it. ”
You certainly are accurate. Once again, those Feminists want to wallet-up with a higher baseline. They’re still sponges, just bigger ones. And the blood money that men make by harming themselves emotionally and physically to make it must be larger in tandem.
Secondly, women becoming THEIR OWN WALLETS (and not men’s wallets–in addition to the Feminist state, etc. being their wallets), the DEMAND for men is diminished. Affirmative Action and women being in the, “paid workforce” serve to be SOCIAL TAXES on the demand side of the gender market for men.
In tandem, men being victims of Affirmative Action services to be a tax on the supply side of eligible men for sustainable coupling between the genders.
As such, the gender market is diminished all around by Feminism and the population implodes with all of its economic and other consequences. Men are substantively made ECONOMICALLY UNEMPLOYED and secondarily, SOCIALLY UNEMPLOYED.
Dear Gunn:
As per your comment,
“ii. mens’ trv increases from late 20s to late 30s; it does not decline as you suggest,” various factors can be brought to bear. Firstly, WITHOUT FEMINIST INTERVENTION BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, etc., in a patriarchal society, the value of the male WOULD INCREASE economically. However, sexually, the value of the male body is held to be less valuable. One can find resistance in younger women to marrying older men if they do not have GREAT BIG WALLETS.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
Interesting article. Please keep writing.
You are too kind. Feminism associates all western women with such high-risk potential that it drops her TRV like a stone sinking into a deep blue water hole.
Very true.
I think it is important to note that the marriage rate has dropped. There are also some important demographic factors to consider such as the vast immigration into America the past forty years has brought in large numbers of people with more traditional values. Those values (temporarily until moral corruption sets in) for the new Americans and their offspring reduce the divorce trend. Americans who are modern secular have a divorce rate that might be around 75%. Overall, the divorce rate for couples (even if they are multi-generations back American) is lower if they both hold traditional values. It happens just not as much.
Agreed. Marriage is too risky as is even cohabit.
Unfortunately, with time many of those women embraced feminist entitlement attitudes and values even more even if they did not call themselves feminist. Those same women would never hesitate to use feminist forged legal weapons against men to include her husband.
Trying to gauge a woman’s integrity level next month is increasingly a crap-shoot let alone trying to gauge it 10-20-40 years down the road.
It will be interesting to see if this article brings out many shrill shaming witches to post their hysteria.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
3
On Integrity:
There is no such thing. People do what works for them at any given situation. People are not good or bad, their acts are good or bad. (from the perspective of the other party). From their own perspective, they are just doing the right thing and looking out for themselves (which is justifiable).
The same woman who is genuinely sweet and caring (not acting) can become an angry, vengeful bitch at the moment its more profitable to be like that. This is why marriage is a bad idea, not only now but even if feminism, crooked laws etc go away.
Male-female relations are vastly more complicated than simple overlapping bell curves and much time has been wasted trying to make logical sense of it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
23
@gender foreigner:
I don’t know if you are a feminist woman or a mangina. Mens’ attractiveness to young women is not based on social conditioning, much as you might wish it so. Men in middle age are simply more attractive; historically, for a man to live to that age signalled extreme genetic fitness to young women. Its the reason why humans live as long as they do. Its why men go bald, and why grey hairs form distinctive patterns on men. Cry into the wind as much as you will; it won’t change biology one iota.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
9
the “silent treatment” because of something he said the other day. He doesn’t want to have to tip-toe around his own house for fear of upsetting her over any little thing, because she’s in “one of her moods”.
Sigh. For all my blather about a foreign bride some things about a woman are universal. And I don’t need to tell Keyster about women in cwhoreperation using the “stick up the ass silent treatment” as a manipulative tool.
Nice work Lyn. Could be improved but good work for discussion. I read parts of a book called “The Thinker’s Toolkit”, the guy was a former CIA analyst that presented about a dozen methods for logically deciding on something rather than use emotions, which most of us tend to do.
So in the past week bought a new truck for my son after 40 years of screwing around with used crap. A slightly used one with 50K miles @ $12K vs. new for about $16K. Also looked at used 150K miles @ $6K. Hard to justify a used beater. It ain’t the 1960s, where you could buy a wreck for $500 and still drive the crap out of it and grab a part at the junkyard to repair yourself if needed.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Nice article, and difficult goal you had, describe in an objective way the value of human beings in a trade like situation.
Bring the human nature in the realm of numbers is always tricky (main example intelligence and IQ measure).
While that can seem impossible, it is actually what most of us does, even unknowingly. At least for an approximate idea. So, congratulations for the effort.
The problem with women is their value changes too rapidly on a whim. I can screen out single mothers as much as I want, but this does not guarantee I will not be cheated on and forced to pay for someone else offspring.
The best lesson you gave us is: better an used car than a woman.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
Dear Gunn:
As a followup as per your comment,
“ii. mens’ trv increases from late 20s to late 30s; it does not decline as you suggest,” various factors can be brought to bear. Lyn87 revealed a number of things by way of being COMPARATIVE in his approach (something that Feminists hate–except as per false claims about wages and the like).
Your approach was INTRA-GENDER-COMPARATIVE. Yes, economically, a man’s value increases from the late 20s to the late 30s generally speaking. However, INTER-GENDER-COMPARATIVELY, having a age difference between the man and the woman makes sense sexually. This arises from further reflection of my comment, “However, sexually, the value of the male body is held to be less valuable. One can find resistance in younger women to marrying older men if they do not have GREAT BIG WALLETS.”
About a year ago, while researching inter-sexual medical evidence as per the making of couples, I examined evidence intentionally contrary to Feminist rants about, “Women should marry younger men….Women are not allowed to do what men do, marry their youngers, etc.” (I intentionally look for evidence and make argumentation against Feminism.)
First of all, to throw a wrench into the machinery, one could counter, “Men don’t get to marry older women but women get to marry older men all the time.” Of course, if a man marries a much older woman, the gender roles would reverse substantially, variously. She would most likely be the bigger wallet (and, by implication would have to be the one who pays while he is the one who is paid for). She would have little to no potential to be a mother to his children. As such, she would tend to be a role stutter.
SEXUALLY, Feminist complain that men are too fast in climaxing while women need a slow hand (as they do climax later than do men in sexual intercourse). Given that both males and females slow down sexually with age, in that it takes both longer to climax, over time, it makes sense sexually that a younger woman, even much younger woman be coupled with a much older man so that their climaxing profiles parallel each other.
The, “May-December” coupling is thusly logically much more desirable for both the male and female than is the Feminist, “December-May” coupling. In sum, the Feminists need for relational global warming can be found in Masculinist discourse, and NOT illogical Feminist dysfunction and rant.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
“Men in middle age are simply more attractive; historically, for a man to live to that age signalled extreme genetic fitness to young women.”
Historically yes, presently no. While there is most likely some attraction component for men becoming more attractive as they age as a result of evopsych, that would be due to a selection bias. Now there is no selection bias happening, and women can outright judge.
Younger men are riskier, so to speak. Their futures are uncertain, and so an older man who is highly successful will be more attractive than his younger, similarly talented counterpart. Meanwhile, an older man who has found less success will be less attractive than his younger equally-talented counterpart, simply because a young woman can more favorably influence the future prospects of the younger man than the older man.
Obviously this ignores all the social clusterfuck issues and feminist bullshit going on right now, which throw a ton more wrenches into the works.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
As per usual, I agree with Gunn’s take.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
One of the most obvious wrenches is that divorce is engineered to artificially lower men’s value so as to equalize things for women. A guy with a good job and a couple kids can suddenly find himself divorced and living the same lifestyle as a single, part-time bartender, only with less free time and far more emotional issues for having had his children seized.
In the meanwhile, the lousy women who dumped their husbands get to keep the house, receive a monthly subsidy and huge tax breaks, which at least gives them the opportunity to present themselves as financially independent.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
2
I smile with amused indifference at idiots that believe 400 years of enlightenment civilisation can somehow wipe out 200,000 years of evolution. Older men were attractive because they were survivors; evidence of good genes, and luck (as the famous quote goes, give me the choice between a clever general, and a lucky one, and I will choose the lucky one every time).
If young women did not systematically go for older men, human lifespan would be 30 (thats what it should be based on our heartbeat rate).
Its only recently that money factored into our world; evolutionary psychology is driven by older men being attractive. Feminists and manginas can argue the toss til they’re blue in the face; it doesn’t change the truth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
9
“If young women did not systematically go for older men, human lifespan would be 30 (thats what it should be based on our heartbeat rate).”
Can you explain this more, because it looks like gibberish.
“Its only recently that money factored into our world; evolutionary psychology is driven by older men being attractive.”
This is a laughable simplification. Female attraction psychology is extremely complex, which is why so many of them have no frickin clue what they want. Female attraction is much more mental, due to the necessity of determining future value of a man and likelihood of supporting children, whereas men can just look and say “fertile: i will sex her”. This is an evolutionary component, because, while money is a recent invention, monogamy and patriarchical male-support-female systems have been going on for a long time.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
Excellent, well thought out essay.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Thinking back over the past 20+ years, I can only recall knowing or seeing two or maybe three couples when the man is 10-15+ years older than the woman. In modern society, I would expect most any marriage involving a couple when the age group is 15-20 years apart that the woman will probably cheat.
I think it is an obvious fact that more women desire marriage or rather the wedding ceremony more then men. I’m no expert on the value-perception model yet I think it is important not to over-estimate, as a group, western women’s desire for marriage and men. In the perception of many modern western women i.e. feminists, men’s value has dropped. Often the woman is making good money so she is not financially ‘dependent’ on needing a man. She may have interests and values that might only marginally include men. Many western women have been fed and thoroughly digested the feminist propaganda demonizing men.
Women are notorious for keeping that shopping list of entitlements they want when it comes to dating and marriage criteria. Men on the other hand are usually more laid back, tolerant, and have less expectations. Women do seem more motivated than men to meet, date, and marry their Prince Charming based on their shopping list than a man is about finding his perfect princess. Yet, many of us men probably fall short on meeting some or many of those items on a woman’s shopping list.
Even if we are getting screwed over with affirmative action programs and making less money, which is wrong and needs to stop, men are literally making more money by not marrying, having children with a woman, living with, or dating a woman.
Men, MGTOW, ghost, avoid being a provider and protector. Never forget that if you keep things to dating and she somehow get mysteriously pregnant and has the child — you are then just going to be really screwed $$$ for the next 20 year$!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
4
Dear Aharon:
As per your comment, “I think it is an obvious fact that more women desire marriage or rather the wedding ceremony more then men,” one can reflect that such ceremonies, including their precursors (showers, etc.) and postcursors (home visits, etc.) revolve around the female.
The bride is called the bride, the groom is called the, “bride-room” or just, “groom” (such labeling actually relates to the wedding and not the gender of the female–but little is understood as such, however). The process is gender-designated, “MATRImony” (literally, “establishing the MOTHER”–and NOT, “establising the father). The processional is, “Here comes the BRIDE” and not, “Here comes the GROOM.” Similar to the above, the wedding suite is called the, “BRIDAL suite” and not the, “GROOMAL suite.”
In fact, a perusal of the whole wedding phenomenon in its fullness is akin to a same-sex marriage in which the bride marries herself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
Apart from humans, pretty much all mammals have a total heartbeats per lifetime that is more or less in the same ballpark. E.g. mice hearts beat much much quicker, and they die young. Elephants heart rates are slower, and they live longer. Humans are a bit strange; our heart rate of 60-70bpm suggests we should die around 30, but we don’t. Its been hypothesised that womens’ preference for older men is the key driver as to our species’ longevity.
As for the whole female sexuality being complex bullshit; its only in societies where men defer to women that their choice even comes about; for most of prehistory, older, dominant, males were the ones that fathered children in human tribes. Today’s woman is subject to sexual psychology based on thousands of generations of human tribal behaviour, and will always default to that in the absence of extreme social conditioning.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
3
There is one thing I would like to add to the discussion about age. It is true that girls favor elder men, and I think it is because they are more “succesful”, they provide shelter and they are less, ahem, adventurous, in short they are better prospects as fathers, just as younger women are better prospects for wives – because they give birth to healthier babies. (And for a loong time, being a wife and being a mother came together.)
But with the last century it changed, and the problem today is – I think – that the “perfact pair”, the late 30 – early 40 man and the 20-something women have nothing in common, they are considered a separate generation. A few hundred years ago the world didn’t change so fast, both of them grew up in the same circumstances, the same culture, maybe the woman brought something new to the marriage, that was welcome, she became more interesting because of that. But today there is a world apart, and if somebody doesn’t act his or her age, he or she considered freak.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
0
RedPill said:
“There is no such thing. People do what works for them at any given situation. People are not good or bad, their acts are good or bad. (from the perspective of the other party). From their own perspective, they are just doing the right thing and looking out for themselves (which is justifiable).
The same woman who is genuinely sweet and caring (not acting) can become an angry, vengeful bitch at the moment its more profitable to be like that. This is why marriage is a bad idea, not only now but even if feminism, crooked laws etc go away.
Male-female relations are vastly more complicated than simple overlapping bell curves and much time has been wasted trying to make logical sense of it.”
I definitely believe that integrity does exist. I remember a few somewhat recent news stories that show evidence of this: A Frenchman who jumped into a NYC harbor to save a toddler who had fallen off a boat, and an older man who saved a teenage girl who had fallen in the water as well. In both cases the men shied from the spotlight (it took a few days to find the name of the Frenchman, but I don’t think they ever learned the name of the other man). Integrity is about sticking to your principles despite the fact that acting otherwise will be more profitable (at least in the short term). I think it is also about accepting responsibility for your misactions and exhibiting shame; we see many examples of the OPPOSITE of this in the media all the time (Tiger Woods’ many mistresses come to mind). These days, thanks to feminism, modern materialism, and obsessions with fame, keeping one’s integrity is more difficult than it has ever been.
I think that this article is really good, although I understand some of the objections to this piece, namely, how tedious it can be to gauge a woman’s integrity. One of the main problems with women is that we find it difficult to maintain a certain set of ideals for long because we are more maleable to outside influences. As RedPill stated, our values may flunctuate depending on the situation and women are definitely more susceptible to this than men. One of the good things that feminism has done is that it has exposed (for those who observe), how little integrity most women have.
It would be cool if someone could develop a Long Term Relationship Value Test that men could use to test potential LTR candidates, not unsimilar to Roissy’s Dating Market Value Test for Women. Such a test would factor in what Lyn87 mentioned in his article and other preferences (e.g. low number of sexual partners). There could also be questions that test for integrity. I’m not a man, so I don’t consider myself qualified to write such a test, but I would think that indicators of poor integrity include:
- constant references to ‘girl’s nights out or girl’s only vacations
- refering to her friends as girls and men as boys
- music interests that include singers such as Christina Aguilera (or most contemporary songstresses) or Barry White (may indicate an entitlement mindset)
- having too many friends and/or pictures on facebook
- a favorable opinion of the movie or book “Eat, Pray, Love”
- a tendency to be late or to flake on dates
- obsessed with fashion labels and brands
Indicators of high integrity could include:
- not having a facebook page (especially if she is in her 20s)
- a strong father figure with whom she has a close relationship
- a dress style is relatively modest
- living at home with parents even though financially able to do otherwise
- sincerely offering to pay for her part of a date
Just my two cents.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
19
Thats interesting about heartbeats, Gunn. However, in both your arguments, I think you’re conflating age with success. Age has, as you’ve stated, historically been a signal of success, good genes, and so forth. But its only a signal. There are a fair number of other signals that women can look at. Furthermore, because of the high risk involved in sex for most women, they ARE more mental in their assessment of attraction.
You point out that for most of history, older dominant males were the ones who fathered children. However, you added the qualifier “dominant”, which I would argue is the signal used by women, not the age. If age is caught up as an attraction indicator, it would be a weaker indicator than dominance. Secondly, cuckolding has long been rampant, and just because the older dominant males had the most wives, that doesn’t mean they fathered all the children. Cuckolding strategies by younger males are successful, and in fact are selected for by women: if a younger or more devious male manages to slip a cuckoo into the nest, that son will be able to fool the next woman down the line.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Dear Ms-Fu:
Thank you for the gist and so many of the particulars of your contribution. I would add one thing (not by way of criticism, but by way of addition to your line of acknowledgement, etc.). The reference to Tiger Woods was appropriate as per his plural womanizing. The corollary to such is that plurality of women who had been manizing.
Yes, we DO NEED to hold accountable the blue needle, but we also need to hold accountable the pink haystack. (And given your line of commentary, I am only confident that you would agree….males and females need to be held accountable, period.)
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Yeah, if it were simply about having healthy kids and a hot wife, guys would be marrying 16-20yo girls like they used to. But in those days, dealing with a young woman wasn’t so much trouble as it is today — they’d been trained to hit the ground running. As much as I like the idea of going to bed with very young women, at my age (mid 30s), I really don’t want to be around them all the time, and they’ve got nothing to offer besides a tight body. Anyway, after women have knocked out a couple kids, they aren’t the same even in their 20s. That flower of youth is ephemeral. It comes and goes astonishingly fast.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
0
@ gender foreigner
I understand and appreciate your point, but I think I worded myself incorrectly. When I was making mention of Tiger Wood’s mistresses, I was actually thinking about how many of them went to the press and Gloria Allred and blamed Tiger Woods for lying to them as if he was the one guilty party in the situation. A woman with integrity probably wouldn’t sleep with a married man in the first place, but we all lapse sometimes. The appropriate response would be to accept responsibility, apologize for the misdeeds, and shy away from the limelight (which is ironically what Tiger Woods did). Most of the mistresses did exactly the opposite.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
16
Dear gender foreigner,
True and quite sickening to me. In theory, one would think by popular assumption men could use more emotional support and motivational congratulations for being married as traditionally males are more reluctant to tie the knot or rather sign on the dotting line and kiss your savings and sanity away.
Interesting that you used that metaphor in your reply to me about the bride marrying herself as someone recently commented at Spearhead how narcissist Carrie in Sex and the City really ended up marrying herself with her husband merely being an accessory piece to her lifestyle. I find your comment and the one made about Carrie to reflect the reality of this modern era.
Ms. Fu,
Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading it.
I agree. Women, like teenage girls, are more malleable (like gold?) to being manipulated by outside forces. Teen girls are notorious for chasing the latest fashion trends. Feminism has indeed exposed women’s integrity.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
I’m not so sure integrity is a useful screening item for marriage. Sure, it’s important, but (a) I’ve seen plenty of women lose all integrity when it comes to divorce, (b) our culture teaches women to have no integrity when it comes to divorce, and (c) our culture teaches women that it’s ok to treat men badly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
Dear Ms_Fu:
I agree, appreciate your points, especially your sincere and accurate appraisal of the situation; and most especially your commitment to true justice and accountability. The world needs more of you and none of the Feminists.
Thank you for being who you are.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
This article would be perfect and on point in a social universe where everyone had recognised rights to their own TRV [Transactional Relationship Value]
In this existing genderist society the only persons bearing recognised and enforcable rights to TRV are females. Males long ago were deprived of their recognised and enforcable rights to TRV.
So that nowadays, whereas females in work or personal relationships may sovereignly choose and then discard to choose again, as well as consent and withdraw consent to her person, progeny and property. It is not so for males … because their hitherto rec0gnised and enforceable rights to choose, to consent or to withdraw consent has been whittled down to nothingness and totally sold away.
A lot of mens activists beleive feminists cheaply and maliciously bought mens TRV and other male personal rights at rock bottom value, almost for nothing indeed. And in this view they are quite right.
But the corrolary to this realisation that our TRV and other rights have been bought cheaply, even freely by feminism, is to recognise that it was in fact fellow men that peddled and pawned away male TRV and other male commonwealth rights to feminism.
Any man doubting this conclusion shuold ask himself this:
Contrary to consent, approval or even notice, whom by gender actually makes, creates, enforces, prosecutes, persecutes, exploits, expropriates and assignes away all that, which a man hitherto believed was rightfully his, at the legtimate point of a gun in service of genderist rights and privilages he is himself denied ?
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Excellent article, Lyn87 – good thesis, sized and limited well enough to be coverable in an essay length piece, well developed with adequate support.
I would like to add what might be considered an external perspective. I’m going to take your new Ferrari vs used Porsche analogy and extend it in a couple of directions to illustrate how operating from fundamentally and characteristically different value systems can alter the picture.
Let’s apply the expectations of Marriage 1.0 to your analogy and turn it into Car-Buying 1.0. First, let’s assume that you currently have no mode of transportation. And, second, let’s further assume that the expectation is that you will only purchase one car in your life and will drive it, and only it, the rest of your life. In 10 years, the Ferrari will be used but the Porsche will be even more used. If you buy the Porsche now because you are more able to afford it now, but in time your financial situation improves such that you could afford the Ferrari, you are still going to be stuck driving that used Porsche – whose value and reliability go down every year.
I’m trying to get at something very subtle here, so bear with me. The difference between buying a car and picking a spouse is the concept of commitment. Many people do, in fact, treat the spouse market like the car market and “trade up” when their TRV goes up. And, since no-fault divorce makes it easy to trade out of a spouse with a few miles on him/her, a lot of people are prone to get lazy and become negligent on “maintenance.”
If you knew that the vehicle you were contemplating purchasing was the only one you would ever be able to buy, you might consider waiting a while longer – and perhaps riding the bus – so you could accumulate a bit more capital and be able to afford the higher quality/status ride. And you would be damn sure to take the best possible care of the one you ended up with.
I think this is exactly what we are seeing in the mating market as men who are a bit older and have accumulated more wealth and status are often pairing with younger women who still retain more of their youthful beauty power than women the men’s own age.
I mentioned in a previous comment about how much of mating was tied up in status. You illustrated this point by choosing 2 high-status but low utility vehicles for your analogy. This is not a criticism, but I think it reflects how mating choices are influenced by social values. A working farmer, for example, or landscaper, would not want either of those vehicles because he needs something to do work, not to look pretty.
The costs may be close to the same, and the TRV he needs to “purchase” a utility vehicle may be as much as he needs to purchase a status vehicle, but the way he is going to assess the value of the vehicle is going to be stacked in favor of how well it performs its utility functions.
And this is where I see feminism as having the most effect in lowering women’s TRV.
It used to be said that the way to a man’s heart was through his stomach, or that the way to keep a man happy was to keep his belly full and his testicles empty. Women were brought up to have skills that the average man needed, and which greatly enhanced the quality of his life. Keeping his house well, his children socialized, and his emotional needs for intimacy met, got many an average looking woman a dedicated husband.
Now, women are absolutely proud of their inability to cook, kvetch endlessly about men not doing at least 50% of the housework, and consider sexing him to be totally up to their mood of the moment and further requires him to have the same level of Game that a non-married player needs to date.
I think most of the decline in women’s TRV is related to how little they bring to the relationship other than looks and possibly income. Catering to a man’s needs is considered by most women to be an offensive and totally retro suggestion. I recently saw an online discussion by women who were absolutely offended that a man might expect sexual intimacy in a marriage.
One reason that the car analogy fits so well is that not everyone owns a car. Many residents of Manhattan, for example, find the expense and hassle of owning a car, finding a place to park it, insuring it against loss, and then driving it among the intense congestion to be far less cost effective than walking to those places they can and taking a taxi when they can’t walk.
In many downtown environments, a car is a very expensive luxury of marginal utility. I suggest that in many cases a spouse has become a luxury which some people believe does not provide enough value to be worth the cost.
As I said at the beginning, this is an outsiders perspective. If one does not hold the social values that everyone should get married, and that the traditional 2-parent family is the best environment for raising children, and that person does want to have children, the purchase of a spouse does boil down to the same kinds of considerations as purchasing a car –
“can I afford what I want, and if not should I wait until I can afford it or take what I can afford now?” and “Is what is available on the market today worth what I would have to pay for it, or are there other, less expensive, options?”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
1
Thanks for this great post. I am adding it to my knowledge base. Yes, I agree; nowadays there are less and less acceptable women. But also, the current education and the lack of masculine figures in today’s men life also slides men down. This gives opportunity, in my opinion, to those who are aware of the current situation and have worked on improving themselves towards manhood and becoming the best they can be. Additionally, I do believe that in the end, it is a contract and a sale and that sex and infatuation should be set aside as much as possible…there is a difference between the woman you would bed and the one you would marry. I find amazing the amount of women that thinks giving you sex will clinch the deal; this “Sex & City” delusional mentality is something I find offensive to men because it implies we are all instinct-driven only. It also implies, that women are entitled to get what they want without considering what they give in return besides sex. Sooner or later (more often later) some women realize their flawed strategy and concede men have some reasoning ability regarding mating. By then, they are not as young as they used to (mid-thirties maybe?); women may imply it takes probably the same amount of time for a man to truly achieve manhood/adulthood and stop spending his life in videogames and the next hi-tech gadget. But, the biological clock ticks earlier for women. So the knowledge should be implemented by a good education; hence, we should get to know who her parents are/were, friends, etc. If this is good, I am willing to make concessions in other areas like if she is not that good looking.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Robert Herrick. 1591–1674
248. To the Virgins, to make much of Time
GATHER ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying:
And this same flower that smiles to-day
To-morrow will be dying.
The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The higher he ‘s a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he ‘s to setting.
That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.
Then be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may, go marry:
For having lost but once your prime,
You may for ever tarry.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
Evil Penis has a good point that needs more love. “The main problem with ‘f’s is that they really think that they are above the men that suitor them. Leaving the notion of ‘integrity’ in tatters, before we even discuss their entitlement and victim mindsets.”
The vast majority of human beings operate under a relativist and moralist rather than ethics based honor system. Women are generally even more relativist than men. Most people’s sense of “honor” only extends to those they consider of equal to or greater value than themselves.
This is fine so long as in order to lessen one’s value, one actually has to do harm or make clear an intent to harm…at least carry the banner of an enemy. Most people don’t require that much though. It’s enough that a person be different in some way that is socially inconvenient.
This means that most feminists’ approach to men is going to be flat out dog eat dog. A guy can’t be less male than he is, and if he succeeds in feminizing himself enough to be socially convenient, he becomes undesirable.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
13
I think it goes beyond even that, Nicole. Several years ago I wrote an essay that I titled “Building Better Predators.” My observation and premise then was that women were increasingly choosing fathers for their children based on one single criterion – pure raw aggression.
Since then I have learned about Game and modified some of my premises, but it still boils down to the fact that the most socialized males are actively discriminated against in the mating market. Men who were socialized as they were growing up to be decent, honorable, respectful toward all people, and not to behave in self-serving, opportunistic, manners are now sneered at as “nice guys” – “bland, forgettable, and replaceable.”
In other words, the very values and behaviors which make for social stability now assure total lack of social/sexual success. And, behaviors which were once considered sociopathic and would have earned the person social ostracization are now rewarded with sexual and social success.
This inverted reward system, combined with the destruction of most socialization mechanisms, are leading to a completely dog eat dog environment, and very possibly a “Lord of the Flies” type of future.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
Nicole,
Did you write that as a play on words?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
:: blush ::
I now see how that could be taken the wrong way.
…and that ^ too.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
13
Zed, this is why I agree with those who say that feminism has destabilized civilization more than any other political change. It has reduced women’s value to men to their looks and/or sexual availability, and men’s value to women to their money and/or tingle inducing ability.
Nobody has benefitted from it but the most “beautiful” (in quotes because even that has become reductionist to the point of looking baroque and masked gargoyle-like) women and the most aggressive men. Everybody else is being sold a bill of goods based on images on a screen of how well the upper 100th lives.
I hear a lot of gloom and doom, but on the real, I’ve managed to snap my share of former “useful idiots” out of their socially imposed stupidity with an hour conversation. Most people, if they just heard the message in context, would wake up because the current situation isn’t doing anything good for them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
13
Because you’re a child Mikhail and no one wants you here spewing the same old crap you’ve been spewing on MRA blogs for years now. You’re nothing more than a tedious annoyance, who by definition IS a TROLL.
No one likes you.
You’re an idiot.
Now go away.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
Dear MikeeUSA:
Thank you for your honesty.
In the fact the man had had sex with the pubescent female, he had received a benefit. He should not have rapped her. Such was horrible sin and Scripture (God’s word) condemns such and, as such, I condemn such also.
That the man was REQUIRED to marry her was as per co-assigning him RESPONSIBILITY to take care of the female, a RIGHT FOR HER.
Throughout all history, the definition of adulthood related to puberty, until just recently. Gandhi and his wife were both 12 years old when they got married (and both are considered to be politically correct as per the present era). Feminists have sought and achieved the EXTENSION OF CHILDHOOD WELL INTO ADULTHOOD such that all kinds of responsibilities are NEVER embraced (the list is quite lengthly so I will not even try to list suchlike).
IN NO WAY IS RAPE (in this case, male against female) condoned in Scripture: it is opposed.
The context of the sometimes-quoted verse about a female reaching puberty is, in part, related to the fact that pre-pubescent females should not be married and sexually active. Such provides protection for the girl.
The whole context of the being ready for love relates to post-natal abortion in which a child of fornication (or physical adultery) is thrown into a ditch to suffer a slow and agonizing death. THE FEMALE BABY is referenced EXCLUSIVELY in the account of God rescuing the baby from abortion. (God’s people, Israel or the Church is the Bride of Christ, and, as such is Feminine, the corollary to the masculine God.)
Given the male need and want for a bride probably would increase the chances of survival of the female baby as opposed to the male baby but I can’t account that being the case by way of fact.
Contrary to the force required against the offending man (to take care of his bride), God decided to take care of his bride of choice (a throw-away). He did not have to be forced: he did it by his will. NO LAW REQUIRED HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS WRITTEN ON HIS HEART.
In the following Scriptural account, the girl was raised up from CHILDHOOD TO ADULTHOOD and from the status of a COMMONER TO THAT OF ROYALTY. I will quote a larger block of Scriptures related to the whole matter, namely that commonly referred to as Ezekiel 16:1-14 (Revised Standard Version)
“Again the word of the LORD came to me: 2′Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, 3and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: YOUR ORIGIN AND YOUR BIRTH ARE OF THE LAND OF THE CANNAANITES; YOUR FATHER WAS AN AMORITE, AND YOUR MOTHER A HITTITE. 4And as for your birth, on the day you were born your navel string was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor swathed with bands. 5No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you; but YOU WERE CAST OUT ON THE OPEN FIELD, FOR YOU WERE ABHORRED, on the day that you were born.
6 ‘And when I passed by you, and saw you weltering in your blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live, 7and grow up like a plant of the field.’ And you grew up and became tall and ARRIVED AT FULL MAIDENHOOD; YOUR BREASTS WERE FORMED, AND YOUR HAIR HAD GROWN; yet you were naked and bare.
8′When I passed by you again and looked upon you, behold, you were at the age for love; and I spread my skirt over you, and covered your nakedness; yea, I plighted my troth to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord GOD, and you became mine. 9Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you, and anointed you with oi. 10I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with leader, and swatched you in fine linen and covered you with silk. 11nd I decked you with ornaments, and put bracelets on your arms, and a chain on your neck. 12And I put a ring on your nose, and earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown upon your head. 13Thus you were decked with gold and silver; and your raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and embroidered cloth; you ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful, and gcame to regal estate. 14And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor which I had bestowed upon you, says the Lord GOD.”
As such, given that Scripture accounts that the Church is supposed to be immitators of God, men should act as per the above. Rape and abortion, in eutero or post-natal are abhorant utterly. THE way to go is indicated in God’s word quoted above.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
@MikeeUSA
This website has only got room for one nutter and thats my position so feck off somewhere else!
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
FYI – Little Mikhail is why guys like Welmer and Paul have to spend more time moderating and managing their great websites and less time on quality content…for virtually nothing.
He’s like herpes. Every now and then there’s a sore that eventually scabs and then goes away for a while, but you’re never cured completely. He’s infamous for disrupting and hijacking all kinds of internet threads by saying crazy and offensive things and threatening people. Don’t encourage him please.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
@Nicole
Exactly. This is what so many of us have been screaming about for many years.
Feminists are nothing more than useful idiots of the government/elite. The whole purpose was to destabalize western society.
It has worked exactly as planned. It would take many generations to get societies back to anything like normal, even if we wanted it ?
Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Domestication doubles life spans. Our dogs and horses live twice as long as their wild counterparts.
That answers the heartbeat paradox. Our brains and techniques fool mother nature.
As regards the female preference for aged mates: the Sand Diego Zoo famously had an old, old, old lion that — due to zoo living — reached a remarkable age. The youngest newly mature lionesses played up to the old codger like he was Elvis.
It’s also been established that lionesses prefer dark maned mates. Something about being well fed.
——-
Humanity has not only tamed the horse — we’ve tamed ourselves. The tamers were those parents who arranged marriage for their daughters.
It took many generations, but eventually Neolithic, hyper-athletic genes were bred out. Too much warrioring and the need to survive until mature adulthood caused the super brave to lose the gene war.
The reverse process is under way in the projects. There drug-gang alphas are casting Neolithic wilding genes all over the ‘hood. Which makes it impossible for the Dr. Huxtables of the world to swoop the babes. They’ve been mothered long before the good boys get into college.
This trend explains the reason why so few leave the projects. That population is being wilded back in time precisely because daddy is gone and can’t shied the babes from terrible mating selections — like the head of the local drug gang.
Arranged marriages almost always occurred between teenaged boys or older and drastically younger babes. If he’s 16 then she’d be 4 — stuff like that. You still see such set-ups in Afghanistan — a social time capsule of Neolithic values. Notably the only thing they can do is fight. Pure Neolithic right down the line.
This pairing has gone on for hundreds of thousands of years. It fully explains why females expect domination from their husbands/mates. He’s typically old enough to be her biological father! Further, first matings — globally — tended to be at age 16. It was considered a crime by the parents to have an unwed daughter aged 20. That was a plot element in Taming of the Shrew. She was 19! Oh my!
The idea of arranging marriages of the same age is entirely modern and royal. It goes back to Henry VIII and the like. His wife was older than him — and it proved a catastrophe. The ultimate body count was fearsome.
One need only review Romeo and Juliet to contemplate the fiasco of Juliet ignoring her father’s command to marry Paris. The 16th Century audience got the morality tale straight off. Romeo is a swooping beta who’s been chasing every skirt in town. At 14 Juliet is totally clueless as to the ways of the world.
Since Shakespeare had three daughters and no sons you can see whom the tale was aimed at.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
@Blert
Yeah but he sure knew how to end a marriage in his favour !
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
gender foreigner,
Among the ancient Israelites, a child’s identity came to be determined by the mother. Therefore, if the mother was Jewish so then was the child. That law kept the men from having sex with and taking wives from the pagan fertility cults around them which would have caused division from within. I guess too much multiculturalism was recognized as a problem. I’ve come across some conflicting information that claims a child’s Jewish identity was originally through the father’s lineage. The exception then and now is that the father’s lineage determines the actual tribe the child will belong to.
According to ancient Biblical law (supposedly), women cannot be forced into a marriage and to have children she does not want. In reality, force probably occurred sometimes by either family pressure or otherwise. Unlike females, a male did have the duty to marry and have children.
For the most part, women and girls from conquered people were not forced to marry or convert. I think it did happen a bit during the conquering of the land under Joshua.
The same old observation applies that one male can fertilize many females so therefore female babies were protected and prized in their own way. A boy baby was also appreciated yet his role was different along with his expected contributions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The expansion of the human life span (as opposed to expectancy is due to men and polygamy combined with female preference for older (established) men.
Nobody, at least till recently, had any test to suggest how long someone would live and women would live about the same length of time as men.
However, highly intelligent men who managed to escape disease and trauma and who collected wealth could generally count on having young women willing to mate with them far into old age, while women became sterile about age 40 no matter how long they lived past that.
Thus the longer a man lived the more children he was likely to father, and the smarter he was the same.
Men have been the source of increasing intelligence and lengthening lifespan in humans. Intelligent and long lived women contributed their genes, but men’s greater reproductive power made the real difference while women’s contribution was more random.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
[i]“Indicators of high integrity could include:
- not having a facebook page (especially if she is in her 20s)
- a strong father figure with whom she has a close relationship
- a dress style is relatively modest
- living at home with parents even though financially able to do otherwise
- sincerely offering to pay for her part of a date”[/i]
Ms Fu
By making biased rules like this, one only falls into the NAWALT trap. Sure, she may be displaying “good wife” traits but you have no way of knowing if she’s honest or not. Furthermore, even if she is honest these are just acts and acts cannot be reliably predicted to repeat themselves. Situations change, people change.
Thats why its better to rent than buy, no matter what.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Greenlander’s law of trolls: The quantity of trolls on a popular forum is always constant. If it isn’t Lady Raine, then it’s Skadi. If it isn’t Skadi, then it’s MikeeUSA. The disappearance of one troll creates a multi-dimensional troll vacuum which sucks in new trolls from other parts of the internet.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
I am quite curious to know how a man would test for integrity. Maybe this will be a future article?
Like or Dislike:
4 
14
… let me see now… where did I put my calculator? Oh, there it is…
..
..
Oh, high there! Didn’t see ya!
This stuff is getting complicated. Hey, great article but I’ll be damned if I understand.
What was that TRV again? Oh yes,: Total Resale Value. Inflation rate, R&D, love is getting so complicated…
You know what?
Floats?
Flies?
Fucks?
..
Rent!
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
He’s like herpes. Every now and then there’s a sore that eventually scabs and then goes away for a while, but you’re never cured completely.
You too Keyster? Damn we have a lot in common.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
This article and discussion, for me, just reinforces my observation that we are at .. and pick your own descriptor .. Peak, Extreme, High Water Mark of the current relationship paradigm in the West.
How can it get anymore extreme than this? More to the right on the graph? Really it’s about as far as it could be without grotesque blowback and unintended consequences caving it all in. It can’t be pushed significantly further than this point.
It is very evident to me, that a shockwave of change , initiated by Economic Realities , is looming like a speeding Tsunami to our shores.
And, that WILL change everything.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
No Uncle Elm, if you must know I don’t have herpes.
I did “roguer” a woman who told me she had it after the fact, but never contracted it. She lied to me, only to confess after we broke up.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
And now you understand the Black MRA. For the guy raised with morals, decency, work ethic and intelligence, you are seen as a loser by your entire community until they are all in trouble and want your “smarts”. Idiocracy was more of a documentary for us, than a look at the future.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
I did “roguer” a woman who told me she had it after the fact, but never contracted it. She lied to me, only to confess after we broke up.
You dodged the bullet. Wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Dear Aharon:
As per your comment,
“Among the ancient Israelites, a child’s identity came to be determined by the mother. Therefore, if the mother was Jewish so then was the child. That law kept the men from having sex with and taking wives from the pagan fertility cults around them which would have caused division from within,” I must say that I have not studied the matter assuredly.
I can only recall that the God of the Bible is quite patriarchal as measured by a whole lot of things and that the heads of the tribes of Israel were all patriarchs. As I am not otherwise qualified to answer, I will admit that I require study on the matter. Once I do have sufficient study, I will have one to reference.
Thanks for your contribution.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I haven’t read all the comments, so, if this is redundant, please accept my apologies.
People often point out that half of marriages end in divorce and, therefore, half don’t end in divorce. Aside from the fact that many people remain in unhappy, in many cases miserable, marriages for a variety of reasons, great numbers of people move in together and later break up with their relationships not counted as divorces. We have to a significant extent become a post-marriage society. I’d like to see statistics on the percentage of people in committed relationships (by which I mean here they have moved in together), who subsequently break up.
In the past, these people would have married or faced great social approbation, then again they wouldn’t have cavalierly divorced. In any case, I’d like to see statistics on the percentage of couples who move in together, whether or not they marry, and then break up. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s north of 90%.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
l have find, quite by accident, that when l throw transactional value and exchange mentality out the door, folks don’t know what to do. As if there always has to be an exchange and without one the cannot function. Especially whimminz. There’s nothing they can lever, nail down or add to their kitty. It confounds them every time. Priceless. Folks cannot even get past transactional exchanges in conversation. For them it become argumentative, dialogue, dialectic rubbish, always trying to get something out of it. Hell, they even refer to talking as ‘an exchange’ of views.
Detaching from that whole mindest is one of the most confounding things that one can do in the face of those who seek power. Those who see everything as an exercise of power. It ruins their whole modus. It can be especially satisfying to see those types looking for straws to clutch at when they’re dealing with someone whose on another level. After a while though, there is little satisfaction to it, as it becomes meaningless.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@Paige
I am quite curious to know how a man would test for integrity. Maybe this will be a future article?
I took my own stab at the question some time back: Interviewing a Prospective Wife Part II: Interview Questions
But boiling it down I think it comes down to what she would teach your kids about divorce:
My wife and I were at a Thanksgiving celebration where our then 4 year old daughter met a boy who called his dad by his first name. When she asked him why, he told her about his mom’s divorce and remarriage. He explained that sometimes “mommies and daddies just stop loving each other”. She was distraught for over a week before she came to us. She was terrified we would just stop loving each other like the other kid’s parents. We told her “He’s wrong, his mommy was a brat!”. And we also told her not to say this to the boy or other kids in the same situation or she would hurt their feelings. After this she was fine.
Tell that story to a woman and see what her reaction is. Who does she want to shelter? The innocent 4 year old, or the mommy who wasn’t haaaaaapy?
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
On the same topic, our daughter asked why some kids in her kindergarten class went to go see their daddies on weekends. My wife replied So their mommy can date. I’m going to get a call from the school one of these days, I just know it.
Just this week our daughter asked my wife why people marry if they aren’t going to stay married. Good question. I don’t know the answer but at 5 she already gets it better than most adults.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
I am so sick and tired of being told how all these men will have a harem of hot young women at their beck and call if they just wait until they hit 50 or so.
You idiots!! That shit only happens to old geezers when they have MONEY!!!
When are you guys going to LEARN this?!
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
“oddsock March 12, 2011 at 16:36
@Blert
The idea of arranging marriages of the same age is entirely modern and royal. It goes back to Henry VIII and the like. His wife was older than him — and it proved a catastrophe. The ultimate body count was fearsome.
Yeah but he sure knew how to end a marriage in his favour !”
Most kings had a loveless marriage. Henry the 8th had headless marriages.
His wives got “separated” … hahahaha!!!
The “turn over” was high. Promotions were aplenty. But short lived.
We should revive some traditions.
Some of them were quite good.
They helped ladies understand.
Men are losing touch these days.
A pity..
Henry VIII didn’t talk much. He left the talking to his axes. While today’s men leave the talking to their exes.
What a simple spelling mistake can do…
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Brilliant. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
@JB
“If young women did not systematically go for older men, human lifespan would be 30 (thats what it should be based on our heartbeat rate).”
Can you explain this more, because it looks like gibberish.
No, it isn’t:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000785
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“Let’s apply the expectations of Marriage 1.0 to your analogy and turn it into Car-Buying 1.0. First, let’s assume that you currently have no mode of transportation. And, second, let’s further assume that the expectation is that you will only purchase one car in your life and will drive it, and only it, the rest of your life. In 10 years, the Ferrari will be used but the Porsche will be even more used. If you buy the Porsche now because you are more able to afford it now, but in time your financial situation improves such that you could afford the Ferrari, you are still going to be stuck driving that used Porsche – whose value and reliability go down every year. “
I view Ferraris as beautiful but…
1. Unreliable
2. Temperamental
3. High maintenance.
4. Pretentious
5. Overly attention getting.
Sounds like the hot babes so many guys lust after.
I view the used Porsche 993 that I’ve owned for the last 5 years as beautiful and…
1. Reliable (never broken down)
2. Rock Solid (incredible build quality)
3. Low Maintenance (costs much less than a Ferrari to maintain)
4. A Classic (no need or desire to upgrade to a water pumper).
I’ll gladly take the “used Porsche” woman.
;^)
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
gender foreigner,
True, the God of the Bible is patriarchal and the heads of the tribes were patriarchal males. Moses brother Aharon was the first patriarch of my tribal line and I was named after him.
While God is neither gender, for our own sense of understanding we can try to understand God within certain limits by discussing masculine and feminine traits. Even some of the Hassidics (also known as ultra-orthodox; the guys in the black coats and hats with scraggly beards) in our time, discuss how part of God’s being is Shekina which is somewhat like a feminine aspect or nature of God. There are numerous idiot new age feminist revisionists being rather creative in re-interpreting that concept.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
@ Dalrock
Thanks for the link and your thoughtful answer.
@ Lyn87
I really enjoyed your article.
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
@ Paige
I’ve been staying out of the discussion so as not to derail where people wanted to go with this topic. After reading all the comments today I’ve identified three possible subjects for future spin offs of this article.
One of those is Risk Assessment, which will have to include something about screening criteria, including determining whether someone is likely to hose you over in the future. None of us can tell the future with total certainty, but there are indicators that lend themselves to increasing or decreasing levels of confidence. Indications of integrity are among them.
Another is the idea of how the TRV of men relates to the whole alpha / beta thing. Hint: I think it’s more of a continuum than a dichotomy, and one that changes as time and circumstances change.
Another is more thoroughly examining the passage of time into something like, “TRV comparisons among age-peers versus TRV comparisons within the entire dating/mating pool.” The explanation I gave today is “flat” in order to avoid being excessively long or excessively complicated. For the sake of simplicity I confined myself to two dimensions in addressing what is really a three-dimensional phenomenon. Some of the issues Gunn, Gender Foreigner, Red Pill and J.B. discussed would have been answered had I gone into that level of detail. As it was, the article was six pages of small print on my computer and I wanted to be respectful of people’s indulgence for a first-time writer.
On top of all that I don’t just want to re-hash what others have written. I’m certainly not the first person to address finding a good match, or how feminism has been destructive, or being realistic about what you want versus what you can get, but I’ve never seen the issues tied together the way I did. One of my gifts is the ability to see connections between things that appear unrelated to most others. If I can’t offer a fresh perspective that’s unavailable elsewhere I don’t want to waste everyone’s time just so I can see my myself in print.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
You’re article was solution-oriented which is unique in itself.
Analyzing women can be difficult because when we are in-love we are pretty good at intuiting what a man wants to hear. We will tell him pretty lies without even realizing it. Women are not endowed by nature with integrity. Evolutionary adaptation required that we master the art of manipulation. We are so good at it that we don’t even know what the truth is. If anyone tries to judge or define us we will pace furiously on our hamster wheels in defense of our illusions.
If you want to know the truth about a man or woman give them power. That is what feminism has done…it has given women power and in so doing has revealed the truth about our natures.
If some objective measure of integrity and virtue existed it would solve many problems. It can’t depend entirely on words, it would have to be elaborate and subtle.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
13
I think it is about time I corrected those with strange views of English History: Henry Viii was indeed older than his first wife Catherine – by six years. She had previously been married to his brother, who had died and to whom she had born children. She provided Henry with a daughter, Mary who was subsequently Queen. Henry wanted a Son – for dynastic reasons, but Catherine failed to provide one, hence the Divorce, and the argument was that as she had previously been his brother’s wife the marraige should be regarded as one that should not have taken place. The Pope disagreed.
He married five times more and married women who were all younger than him, respectively;10,13,24,23, and 21 years. This might suggest that marrying younger women is not a good idea; for all but the last marraige ended by either divorce, death, or execution!
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Welcome back Paige
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
Yes, what’s up with that? ‘I can’t even make mac and cheese out of a box’ type declarations are made with pride. I don’t get it. That’s shameful, for it means they can’t even take care of themselves, never mind anyone else.
Along with the preference for thuggery, comes the bastardization of the English language…it’s not coincidence that so many terms for describing good men are now epithets…
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Dear Aharon:
As per your comment,
“While God is neither gender, for our own sense of understanding we can try to understand God within certain limits by discussing masculine and feminine traits.”
Thank you for your response. As already stated, I require study in order to address such matters, and, admittedly, I have not yet done so (the peddle is to the metal already as per studying things as per the book I’m writing, e.g.).
As per the above-quoted words, one must keep in mind that man is made in God’s image: God is not made in man’s image. As such, there is nothing per se which is either masculine nor feminine about God: there is something God about the masculine and the feminine.
As worded, one can only reasonable hold that I was guilty of the error in logic. Such was a product of speed of submission to this blog (I am often quick to type–the book process is much more methodical and double-checking).
Nevertheless, of the Godliness show in the, “masculine” and of the Godliness shown in the, “feminine,” there is a God-inspired, self-identification with the Godliness of the masculine aspect.
You have declared that you are Hebrew as per, “Moses brother Aharon was the first patriarch of my tribal line and I was named after him.” Again, this is an area which I have not studied per se (and when I mean study, I mean something of a marathon of exacting particular and trend–such as I have done re the book).
Without confirmation, I have read, that in the year 70 AD, the Roman Legions destroyed the physical building temple in Jerusalem, along with the physical records of lineage. Such records were of importance as, according to the Law of Moses, one had to know who the Levites, especially the descendants of Aaron were so that the Law could be obeyed as per ceremonial and other matters.
As you have declared that you that you are of the tribal lineage of Aaron, you have made a declaration contrary to the, “established commentary.” I certainly know that standard commentary is not a synonym for truth, although it can coincide with it.
As being myself of the household of the God of Abraham, Isaach and Jacob by way of adoption as per the Messiah, Jeshua, such is of interest to me. I would certainly welcome any teaching as per the matter (or any other spiritual matter which you would wish to send my way). And yes, I realize that there are limits to such. As the proverb is written, “A wise man is of few words.”
Again, thank you, Aharon.
Dear Opus:
As per your comment,
“He married five times more and married women who were all younger than him, respectively;10,13,24,23, and 21 years. This might suggest that marrying younger women is not a good idea; for all but the last marraige ended by either divorce, death, or execution!”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Dear Opus:
I apologize for not addressing my quote of you; my error. Here, all I wanted to say was the the ANECDOTAL facts you mention are not sufficient to generalize a TREND. Insufficient data are not foundational to statistical significance.
“As a man,” (that is to say, as one who has examined himself, and observed others–also admittedly anecdotally, but, however as per a much wider range of such anecdotes), I can account that having a younger woman as a wife would be quite a luxury. Such would constitute a high sense of privilege, relational wealth and great honor. Even those words do not express the good thing. To find words which express the centre of such appreciation, perhaps the concept of, “life” would be closer to the essence of what I intend, but have not succinctly communicated.
By way of argumentatioin, and not evidence, the preciousness of such a younger woman could lead to a higher-level treatment of the woman. Likewise, I have no evidence, but I can anticipate that somebody would have done a study on such which is statistically significant.
As per Henry VIII, one can account that he was high-handed in his treatment of his wives for which I can only anticipate that God has punished, and is continuing to punish him (unless he had been saved from such just retribution).
Thank you for your contribution.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Opus
Dont forget Henry was also full of the clap! As was the case with most of our Royal family. Still, what a guy, possibly the original founder of MGTOW?
Perhaps a photo of Henry VIII as a letter head/logo for male friendly divorce lawyers ? I can just imagine the type of advertisement to drive the feminits crazy. lol I can’t type them for laughing.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
@Opus
What gender foreigner is trying to say is that rumour has it most men would much prefer to be bonking a much younger bint than he is currently able to obtain but, should he manage to get one via fame and fortune he will be well chuffed. If he achieves this without fame or fortune then he will be as happy as a dog with two dicks!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
How about ‘value’? I think the term about sums it up, and I think the source of the issue is that our Marxist masters do not allow us to connect the terms ‘quality’ or ‘value’ to ‘human beings’. They attempt to force us to believe that all people have equal utility, when in reality human potential varies widely with race, gender, age, culture, etc. If that is true, I suggest the better solution is reconnecting the term to humans, rather than creating a new one. And when it comes down to it, I think ALL human interactions are essentially transactional in nature, and that ALL humans are always self-interested.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Dear gender foreigner,
True, the Temple was destroyed in about 70AD and the cohens dispersed during the Diaspora. However, other known cohen families had left a couple centuries earlier and those along with other well-known and tracked families share the cohen DNA. Actually, those who have claimed cohen lineage, as per family history, have been amazingly proven correct with DNA testing to an accuracy rate of 98% of those being a match. Other Jews do not have the same DNA family group. The 2% that are not a DNA match are still regarded cohen. Interestingly, the tribal identity being from the father (not the mother) also carries the DNA that carries the cohen gene. Overall, I believe that cohens comprise about 3-4% of the Jewish population.
You are most welcome. It has been my pleasure.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Outstanding observations; surely they all will go over the head and be completely misunderstood by the very Jared Jeneration ™ that needs a look into the mirror and witness its brainwashed, inbred inferiority…instead of mewling for “self-esteem, dude.”
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Over all I’m in the MGTOW division of the MRM. I do understand there are MRA’s that are working on the ways to survive marriage. Both groups are needed and as men that have it in there head to marry and create families the real knowledge of what they are getting into will be a real eye opener.
Dalrock nailed it with the simple test of seeing if a woman will defend a child or will defend motherhood.
Nice article Lyn87 and I’m glad you have decided to stay around. Looks like you are getting the good stuff out of zed too.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Paige, this describes perfectly why I have never been able to see women as anything but a threat. Feminism has exposed womens true nature by giving them power. Everything they say and do to men are manipulations. It’s all a fraud.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
35
@ goldenfetus March 13, 2011 at 07:46
You attempted to answer my challenge to Muk:
With this:
While I heartily agree with your sentiments I have to reject ‘value’ as a descriptor for what I am writing about. The word ‘value’ is just too broad for my purposes, as it denotes all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with what people bring to relationships. One of the things I’ve discovered over the years in writing for mass audiences is that it pays to be precise, and the more esoteric and/or theoretical the topic is the more important precision becomes. Dissecting something as complex as human interactions when love is involved is complex stuff indeed, and ‘value’ by itself does not capture the nuances of the concept I was attempting to describe.
Even when an author is perfectly precise a certain portion of readers will usually miss the point anyway or infer things the author did not imply.
Anyway, Muk was just engaging in a drive-by. He wanted to throw some mud and go on his way. He didn’t even try to respond as he has no answer – there really is no more well-established term that means the same thing and captures the nuances of “Transactional Relationship Value.”
Anyway, I appreciate the feedback and I really do agree with the sentiment, if not the choice of terms.
/cheers,
Lyn87
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Lyn87,
This is truly an excellent article, and I am looking forward to reading more!
Integrity is indeed the most critical attribute.
Being young (less emotional baggage and exposure to prevalent mores) and having submissive tendencies (thus inclined to be a complement rather than a competitor) are also quite significant, for a woman.
But I have come to the conclusion that, because of a woman’s biology or/and psychology, being a virgin is the determining factor in being able to form a fundamental bond, which is essential to forming a stable LTR.
There are exceptions, of course, but “the first cut is the deepest” and “if you’re not the only, then you’re just another” seem to hold true.
Zed,
Excellent perspectives, as usual!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Talk about serendipity!
As I was typing this:
Rainbows and Lollipops was typing this:
Perfect timing!
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
One property that any man must require in a wife is loyalty. She must be loyal to him not just in good times but in difficult ones. She must be loyal to him even when he loses his job. She must be loyal to him even after she has children. That loyalty absolutely must include sexual faithfulness, because any hint of cuckolding kills the deal.
He in turn must be faithful to her. That’s not easy today, but if she isn’t loyal to him, it becomes all but impossible.
I have no way to quantify loyalty. However, it would seem more likely to exist in a woman raised in an intact family, where she’s loyal to her father, than otherwise. It should be made clear at the start that neither man nor woman is entitled to a 400 bullet point list of “must haves”, but rather that there are a few key qualities that are non-negotiable.
Loyalty may be at or near the top of that list.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
You’re very welcome, I’m sure.
“Rainbows and Lollipops Blah blah blah..men get to be shallow, vapid and treat women like shit yet you expect women to come crawling to you on their hands and knees because apparently women are worthless. Thanks!”
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Younger women have much greater value in the dating market not just because women are valued more for youth and fertility, but also because of simple supply and demand. There are more males born than females, but because the death rate is higher for males once you get into older age groups females start to outnumber males by larger margins.
Among young adults, there are usually slightly more males than females. So the males are at a disadvantage because the females are in short supply and so have more bargaining power. But young men are not just competing among each other for young women. They are also competing with a significant number of older men who are looking to get back into the market with a younger woman. And the older men may well be more successful, have more status and money and thus have greater TRV than the younger men. So young men are heavily disadvantaged in the dating market, and young women have it made.
But once women get older, their market value pretty much falls off a cliff. Not only are women less attractive once their youth and fertility fades, but as women get older they are no longer in short supply. Instead, there are a surplus of females compared to the available males.
This explains why a lot of women, especially those who haven’t succeeded in the relationship market, become so bitter as they get older. I have noticed many 20-something women will appear to be friendly, pleasant and sweet, yet the same women as 30-somethings or 40-somethings will become sour, sullen and difficult.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Women between 20 and 35 WITHOUT children are a hot commodity these days because of the hordes of American females who bear the unholy feral offspring of thugs and dysgenic saps make up a huge margin of the “single and available” lot out there now. Sad state of affairs and a RAW DEAL for the single guy to hook up with any of these frumpy chicks who generally don’t want to have any more children but will go to bed with you just so you’ll pay for their illegitimate womb-goblin who will hate you anyway as it gets older!
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Captain Capitalism illustrates this beautifully.
Worth reading again and again.
To the 30/40 Something Woman Who Wouldn’t Leave Me Alone
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/08/to-3040-something-woman-who-wouldnt.html
The Economics of Courtship – Part 1 – The Two Tiered Market
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/09/economics-of-courtship-part-1-two.html
———–
And for the topic. Transactional relationships. That’s precisely how I like my women – honest transactions and no judgements. Obviously, the professional prostitutes ace in honesty.
The non-professional prostitutes (i.e. most other women) are a tad more deceitful in their advertising and pricing.
So ladies…
State your price for your services, and I’ll think about it.
I still won’t marry you.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Lord Viktor wrote:
“I am so sick and tired of being told how all these men will have a harem of hot young women at their beck and call if they just wait until they hit 50 or so.
You idiots!! That shit only happens to old geezers when they have MONEY!!!
When are you guys going to LEARN this?!”
This is exactly true. If you are in your 40′s and 50′s and want a hot and personable younger woman (late 20′s to early 30′s), you need a great job, a house, nice car, vacations, to have aged well, and spare time. Most guys don’t have all of these.
It may have been true in the past that average older men could have a run at younger women, but what has changed so much because most women in their 30′s and older ARE OBESE, or fat enough where they could not be called hot. Take the small fraction that is sexy and evaluate their personality and the number of 30ish women who are sexy and personable approaches zero.
If you want a shot at those women, you need to have all of the above qualities I mentioned.
Also, sexy women in their 30′s and 40′s can, and often do, become cougars.
So for the AVERAGE American man, I think being older gives you FEWER opportunities to bang sexy hot women, much less be in an LTR with them.
Unless you want to do prostitutes, which quite a few middle aged men on this site do.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
A few people have been discussing the idea of older men pairing off with significantly younger women, such has these comments:
Of the options for a follow-up piece I’ve been considering, the idea I’m leaning toward is one that takes advancing age into consideration regarding one’s position on the TRV bell curve, which I did not spend a lot of time on in the current piece. The TRV bell curves I created for the article are snap-shots that do not address the passage of time on groups of age-peers.
Without giving my thesis away before I have time to think it through: it occurs to me that one’s TRV changes in absolute terms throughout one’s life, but equally important is that mens’ and womens’ TRVs change at different rates relative to their age-peers. Since everyone in the LTR market has to compete based on their absolute TRV, the older an age cohort gets the greater the relative TRV difference between male and female members of that age cohort. Nothing new so far, but if my theory about usually landing someone within one standard deviation of you is correct, that would explain why the “half-plus-seven” rule works pretty well, and also why VERY few 20-year-old hotties throw themselves at divorced SWPL guys in their 50′s (and the ones that do have serious “Daddy Issues” that render them unsuitable for long-term relationships anyway).
This is likely to take a while…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Keyster March 12, 2011 at 09:39
There was a time when he might “settle” with a woman who revealed herself to be a “ball-buster”, but at least she was cute to look at. Now even that isn’t a factor, as he’s learned the beauty is worn thin by her surly attitude in short order.
Men don’t want to contend with “relationship politics” and little power struggles over who is better at something all the time. Maybe he just wants to relax and enjoy her company. He doesn’t need the emotional turmoil that ensues over him leaving his socks on the floor again or the “silent treatment” because of something he said the other day. He doesn’t want to have to tip-toe around his own house for fear of upsetting her over any little thing, because she’s in “one of her moods”.
He doesn’t want to be “challenged” and have to incessantly be conscious of not offending her feminist inspired “equality sensitivity meter”.
You just made my day Keyster. This is exactly the thinking I had to put into action about five weeks ago when I broke up with a very hot, sexually-charged girlfried 14 years my junior but one helluva bitch when she wanted to be. In the long run that nice ass just ain’t enough.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Now if only I could learn how to properly use the posting system…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Great article. I wish someone had explained this to me ten years ago. I probably wouldn’t have believed it (and perhaps it wasn’t as bad then) but boy my ass is hurting now because of uninformed risk calculations.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@Lyn87- I don’t think you can make any generalized description of the Men’s shifting bell curve with age because the change of value of a man to women as he ages differs wildly between different men. Some men have great increases in value to a certain point of age (these guys being relatively rich from never being married, educated, ages well physically), while others probably have a DROP in value with age (poor from divorce, flat earnings through the years, ages poorly physically).
OTOH, I think you CAN generalize about woman’s bell curves with age: it shifts clearly to the left with age, as most of the value of women is in physical beauty.
If what I am saying is accurate, it predicts that a man whose value increases with age has much greater attraction to women on the whole, as compared to when he is young, when his value is lower, and the female curve is higher.
I think the reason why some men think that men’s value increases with age is because they imagine men to turn out to be like one of those who has increased value, while the average value of an American man probably stays the same or decreases with age.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
So maybe the male curve as men age becomes more bimodal with a relatively high plateau in the middle over time . Its not a bell curve anymore.
Women’s curve with advanced age remains basically a bell curve, but with its peak more to the left than right.
Sexy women in the 40 and 50 year old category are ridiculously rare, while fuglies are more predominant than sexy women.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
@ NMH,
One of the things I struggled with is the shape of the curves. Bell curves come in all sorts of variations, and the dynamics of a population represented by a shallow one are much different than the dynamics of one represented by a steep one. That’s one reason I made no attempt to assign values to the curves – napkin math, as I said. Plus, it messes with the ratios, especially at the upper extreme, and I wasn’t trying to write a book. You may be onto something with the bi-modal curve though, although I could see that applying to women, with the prime variable being whether she has primary custody of minor children. My gut feeling is that both sexes are bell curves in their 20′s, with the male curve being steeper. As time goes on the male curve becomes more shallow and the female curve becomes bi-modal in their 30′s and 40′s and reverts to a shallow bell curve in their 50′s. But I need to give this a lot more thought and analysis before I start writing.
I appreciate the feedback. I need all the help I can get.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Lyn,
great article…I’ve only browsed it so far and I need to come back to the details….but what I read? This is very, very good. The quality of writing around here just gets better and better. This is good!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’ve lost count how many different women I have dated/shagged/had a relationship with/been engaged to/lived with etc. from ALL walks of life. ALL, and I mean ALL of them were fucking crazy. Nurses, accountants, Losers, Office chicks, waitresses, you name it. Single, married, bisexual chicks, in ‘committed’ relationships……I’ve had em all. I’ve been the other man, I’ve been cheated on. They all had me in common, who treated them well. They all had one thing in common: They were all white North American women.
They were all crazy. I’ve had 4 longterm relationship between 4 and 8 years in length. I can’t decide which of the 4 treated me more like sh*t, and being in contact still with 3 of those 4, I can tell you that all three are vying for the title of ‘bat-shit’ craziest.
Just a couple months ago I encountered my 2nd ex in the street, drunk out of her mind, screaming obscenities at me, a full 3 years after we broke up……they never, ever forget when you dump them. Ever. The reason I had to dump each and everyone of them was because they ALL became increasingly controlling/demanding or jealous or simply impossible people who were negatively affecting my life emotionally, mentally, monetarily etc.
Whilst I have a good career, I sometimes shudder as to how much farther ahead I would have been in my life now at 39 had I not bothered with any one of those worthless women……all they did was TAKE TAKE TAKE and brought little to my life.
THAT, gentlemen, is what 22 years of involving myself with North American women has brought me. Nothing but grief.
Now, given that I have either shagged/dated/been engaged to or otherwise had a long-term relationship with easily almost 100 women in the past 22 years, you tell me if I do not have OVERWHELMING evidence that North American feminists are simply no longer worth it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
EDIT: I have had 3 longterm relationships between 4 and 8 years in length, the fourth lastesd mere 8 months. I broke up with her after having lived with her a mere 3 months……I walked out on her and never looked back…..after 3 months of hell…..her drinking….her mind games…..her refusal to let go of any of her former boyfriends……fawk that shyt.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
That was the “old adage” and was when women were more, well, women. Now what with the feminist flakes, and the momma’s boys who don’t want to work or do anything much worthwhile – or just figure the woman can support him, the dynamic is changing.
I predict we will see ever more of guys from their late 40s to early 60s (who take care of themselves and remain young and vibrant) with girls in their early to mid-twenties as well. I posit this simply because they are productive, have money, can support a family, are more masculine with masculine values, and can be more than just a dick-for-a-day.
Ultimately all women want someone who can take care of her. Unless she’s a feminist who sees Big Brother as that “guy”, she is finding the pickings slim, and more pressure and competition from younger women will be evident as things shake out and leave middle aged women in the dust.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Regarding conversational exchanges – I notice a lot of Americans like to play one-upmanship in conversation – regardless of the topic. In other cultures- that kind of behavior is seen as a marker of low status (trying to be more).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Best article (on any subject) I’ve read in some time. As a young Man, to this point I’ve had relationships almost exclusively with older girls (I say girls because I have never known a ‘Woman’ intimately). I’ve tended to think that someone younger will be too immature for me.
But looking at it from this perspective, age and ‘maturity’ will probably just mask TRV deficiencies in a woman.
The most important lesson I’ll take from this is to look for younger women, because it should be easier to spot the exceptional ones.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Aharon says on Shekina, “There are numerous idiot new age feminist revisionists being rather creative in re-interpreting that concept.”
Yeah, they do the same to many ancient faiths.
Peter, Ryan, and anybody else thinking of dating a woman over 25ish…
Sometimes an older woman is single or available because she’s unlucky. More often though, an older woman is single or available because she’s unfit for long term relationships.
Loving people find who to love, and are generally loved by others, even if the love they get from others is a bit exploitive because of the times and cultures we live in. Just remember that even bad women have a victim mentality, so a woman who’s complaining about how wronged she’s been more than a few times has something wrong with her.
Generally, even the less clued among us, when something we’re doing isn’t working for us, we stop. Only a fool keeps going for the same kind of bad over and over again…and it’s not someone’s fault if they’re stupid, but it is something to make a note of.
Also, some bad traits, or just traits that aren’t relationship conducive, get worse with age, not better. Some women just prefer their independence. A relationship with them isn’t going to lead to a house together in the suburbs and a white picket fence. This doesn’t mean it can’t be lasting. It’s just that this kind of chronic spinster is best suited for a chronic bachelor, not a husband type who’s going to spend forever making the best of an incompatibility.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Oh, and don’t make babies with a chronic spinster even if her clock is ticking. Whatever may be going on in her ovaries, if her genes don’t spell maternal instinct, and she’s not making lots of oxytocin, then what makes her unable to bond with a man for the long term will lead her to unconsciously neglect her children…or seek to have children outside a stable relationship because she won’t be thinking of the long term effects of being essentially fatherless.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
@ Zed
My favorite poem from that period is from Andrew Marvell and is compared with Herricks poem, as it also deals with the love and age written in the 1600′s:
To his Coy Mistress
by Andrew Marvell
Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day;
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long preserv’d virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust.
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am’rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp’d power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
{ 3 trackbacks }