Marriage is a horrible deal for women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I like to think of myself as a 70% guy. I am Caucasian. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I do sometimes scream at the TV, but I also wash dishes.

As it happens I did impregnate my wife a couple times, but I am a father to my children because I spend time with them.

I do make more than 65k but this is DC and I don't consider that to be 70% income around here.

I am not a unicorn - the other dads in the neighborhood are just like me in every way I've listed here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

There are rarely any dads on my neighborhood playground. Those who come with kids are divorced on custody schedule. Your multiple equally contributing dads must be from a La-La area

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

[Anonymous]

Rarely see any dads with toddlers on my neighborhood playground. Those who do come are usually divorced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I like to think of myself as a 70% guy. I am Caucasian. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I do sometimes scream at the TV, but I also wash dishes.

As it happens I did impregnate my wife a couple times, but I am a father to my children because I spend time with them.

I do make more than 65k but this is DC and I don't consider that to be 70% income around here.

I am not a unicorn - the other dads in the neighborhood are just like me in every way I've listed here.

What % is your wife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

[Anonymous]

Monogamous marriages are the bedrock of peaceful societies. In fact, the reason why polygamy was so wildly popular in ancient regimes was precisely because huge numbers of young men with no “genetic capital” or wealth died in wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

We have never yet had a society where access for marriage for men was determined as a meritocracy based on an assessment of their suitability as a parent, partner and provider. As others have pointed out we have historically used marriage as a way to ensure low-quality men have access to women since long term singlehood meant no children and likely destitution for women. Now women can— and should— demand more. Society will benefit when men have to step up and be equal partners and parents and not just (when women are lucky) a paycheck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

By the way “marry the men so they don’t become rapists” is a great argument for not perpetuating the genes of these men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

By the way “marry the men so they don’t become rapists” is a great argument for not perpetuating the genes of these men.

No, it’s much worse than that: societies in which many young men have no access to women *while a few men have all women* almost immediately fall collapse in violence. The first people to get murdered are the top 3% of men, the women in their patronage suffer a fate far worse. The idea that women would be better off five-to-one man only requires a brief look at the total failure of the FLDS to cure you of the notion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

By the way “marry the men so they don’t become rapists” is a great argument for not perpetuating the genes of these men.

No, it’s much worse than that: societies in which many young men have no access to women *while a few men have all women* almost immediately fall collapse in violence. The first people to get murdered are the top 3% of men, the women in their patronage suffer a fate far worse. The idea that women would be better off five-to-one man only requires a brief look at the total failure of the FLDS to cure you of the notion.

They have plenty of “access” to women. They can compete in the marketplace of partners. They can pay surrogates and have families. They can adopt the many children in foster care. The idea that women “owe” these unsuitable men something in order to avoid sexual violence is, again, not a good case to perpetuate these genes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average marriage is a bad deal. Women shouldn’t settle for average and, increasingly, aren’t.

It is only worth it if your partner is going to take on the responsibility of replacing your income for all of the childbearing/mommy tracking (or you marry early enough that you are in a position to delay kids until you’ve got enough seniority not to be mommy-tracked) AND your partner is going to take on 50%+ of the work at home AND your partner is someone you genuinely enjoy being around AND your partner is going to be a good parent. That’s just frankly not nearly lost men.

You are much better off if financially capable to have children of your own when you are ready, using designer sperm to whatever standards you want, having full custody and no man to answer to, and then avail yourself of all the readily available men for sex alone.

— Married to one of the extraordinary men, realize how rare it is.

Completely agree. A benefit to this is you get super sperm. Only 3% of sperm actually makes it past the vetting process at sperm banks, and usually they vet for height, genetic disorders, etc

Do you mediocre, frumptastic women not see that you are sewing the seeds of your own destruction? Now, every college-educated woman thinks she's entitled to - and settling unless she gets - a man in the top 3%. So in the dating market, 97% of men are invisible to them. The remaining 3% have so many women throwing themselves at them that they have no incentive whatsoever to settle down instead of having sex with an endless stream of women. This is why there are so many other threads lamenting the dim prospects in online dating or dating more broadly ("The men are either losers (the 97%) or just want sex (the 3%)!")

Or again, this is why you have so many DCUM threads from late-30s women now desperately seeking partners ("I make $150K and have a graduate degree!" they proclaim in all their frumptastic glory, not understanding that while that's what they value in men, the criteria are totally different in reverse.) So now we have the collapse of marriage, of families, maybe even of modern civilization if I can be a bit dramatic.

Why would that be destruction? Destruction for women- no. Destruction for mediocre men- yes. Men used to be assured of getting a wife and kids even if they had horrific genetics and were extremely unattractive/horrible personality/a failure. Now those men wont be able to contribute to the collective gene pool. Meanwhile, women will still be able to, and can have one night stands to get pregnant or go to a sperm bank. Reproducing with attractive, high quality men, leaving the losers out of the reproductive pool. That's exactly how it should be. Marriage was actually created to assure mediocre men would have the ability to reproduce, as was the pressure put on women to marry. So that women would feel obligated to settle with a man she wasnt actually attracted to or into. Now we can see, overwhelmingly, from statistics, women would much rather be alone than with a loser man. MUCH rather.
So men can either step it up or accept being alone. Women are still getting with attractive and highly successful men, just not losers. Oh well.

Yes, destruction for women. Read the bolded (that you wrote) - no woman dreams of having a kid by getting knocked up in a one-night stand. Imagine telling your parents, "I let a hot, rich surgeon bang me once; he agreed to come inside me, and now you're getting a grandchild!"

It would be far better, if a woman is in the 70th percentile, for her to accept a husband that is also in the 70th percentile. But with the delusions that DCUM and toxic feminism are selling, the 70th-percentile woman now believes she is entitled to a 97th-percentile man -- and is alone wondering why her dreams haven't come true yet (and causing societal fissures to boot).

Why would that be better for her? I see why it is better for him, but what benefit does the woman get from that arrangement as opposed to getting 3% sperm, and having a fully independent life?

A life partner, a father to her children, a second income.

You said we’re talking about a 70% guy, right?

A 70% guy, if Caucasian, likely voted for Trump (correlating income.) That’s not a partner. That’s someone screaming at the TV while never washing a dish, and lacking all respect for women.

“A father to her children” is easily achieved as others have told you, via a sperm bank. That gets her a 3% guys genes and avoids the baggage of a 70% father figure.

The example you’re using of a woman who should go for a “70% guy” makes $150,000 and has a masters degree. 70% income is roughly $65,000. That second income isn’t worth it.

Here’s a better idea. That 70% guy can seek out a 25% woman.

I actually wasn't using any particular woman in the example.

Sperm bank offers donors, not fathers. A sperm bank won't take your children to the doctor or sports practices, won't guide them, won't feed them or read stories or put them to bed. Fatherlessness has bad effects that are well documented. I don't know where you find these losers. I live in a perfectly average suburban neighborhood and I see fathers with their children all around all the time. Perfectly average men who are involved with their children. Some may even have voted for Trump! They are not in 3%, no. But they give more than a shot of sperm to their children .

Neither will many men. A sperm donor also won’t expect you to do their housework, have sex with them, and be entitled to 50% of your assets in exchange for their better-than-70% genetic material. I totally understand why people make the call they do. I married a top 3% guy and absolutely do not think women should settle.

Well, if women shouldn’t settle for anything less than a top 3% man, that’s going to leave a lot of unsatisfied women out there. I guarantee you not all are going to want to go with a sperm donor and some will try to steal away your top 3% husband. How do you feel about that?

I feel that if my husband is unfaithful that has to do with my husband, not some anonymous woman. I don’t think women should settle for bad marriages, or men who don’t pull their weight, and trying to scare me with the idea that I should want them to do so otherwise they’ll try to steal my husband is hilarious.

Yes, some women will settle. But the more who don’t, the better for society as a whole.

Ah yes, what societies have not thrived with an excess number of single men who have no access to women or the possibility to create a family! There will definitely not exist an increased amount of violence and aggression, nor a population of young women at risk for sexual violence.

By the way “marry the men so they don’t become rapists” is a great argument for not perpetuating the genes of these men.

Thank you so much. Yes.