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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
“10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males” seems like a pretty high proportion of blame to assign to the victims.
Lol, are you harpies really arguing that all college-educated women should hold out for top-3% men? Like, do you not see the problem there? Maybe you can get your toddler to explain some toddler-level math so you understand.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
“10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males” seems like a pretty high proportion of blame to assign to the victims.
No, 100000% you are absolutely positively contributing to the problem as to NOT contributing, as your so ideologically dug in position that it’s internalized misogyny to think women could ever possibly contribute even an iota to their own misery holds.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
“10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males” seems like a pretty high proportion of blame to assign to the victims.
No, 100000% you are absolutely positively contributing to the problem as to NOT contributing, as your so ideologically dug in position that it’s internalized misogyny to think women could ever possibly contribute even an iota to their own misery holds.
Anonymous wrote:Lol, are you harpies really arguing that all college-educated women should hold out for top-3% men? Like, do you not see the problem there? Maybe you can get your toddler to explain some toddler-level math so you understand.
The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
“10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males” seems like a pretty high proportion of blame to assign to the victims.
No, 100000% you are absolutely positively contributing to the problem as to NOT contributing, as your so ideologically dug in position that it’s internalized misogyny to think women could ever possibly contribute even an iota to their own misery holds.
Women can certainly contribute to their own misery— for example by marrying unworthy men— but no I don’t think women who sleep with men bear responsibility for even one iota of violence against women. Sorry that seems so extreme to you.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
“10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males” seems like a pretty high proportion of blame to assign to the victims.
No, 100000% you are absolutely positively contributing to the problem as to NOT contributing, as your so ideologically dug in position that it’s internalized misogyny to think women could ever possibly contribute even an iota to their own misery holds.
Women can certainly contribute to their own misery— for example by marrying unworthy men— but no I don’t think women who sleep with men bear responsibility for even one iota of violence against women. Sorry that seems so extreme to you.
It’s okay—it’s not extreme to me. I said it right there, I just don’t take your opinion seriously.
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.
I don’t know what to tell you. Most men in our circle do all of these things and happily. Your sample must be particularly uninvolved men. And these men are really not top 3%. They are average , perfectly normal men with normal wives and incomes.
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.
DP. Funny enough, 100% of the sexual and emotional violence I experienced was perpetuated by men who did not, and would not marry me. Marriage to one serious man who has assumed the responsibilities of marriage and children is a halcyon sanctuary compared to life on the market exposed to an infinite number of single, irresponsible men.
I only take the anti-marriage-for-women take seriously if they are staunchly celibate in principle. Like okay, you’re a nun or a lesbian, at least you’re consistent. But if you’re still dating/sleeping with men but anti-marriage you are 10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males.
And I don’t blame women for violence against women, because I’m not suffering from internalized misogyny. Even women who aren’t “nuns or lesbians” aren’t responsible for the violence of men.
Contributing to the problem != Responsible for the problem
“10000000% contributing to the problem of deranged males” seems like a pretty high proportion of blame to assign to the victims.
No, 100000% you are absolutely positively contributing to the problem as to NOT contributing, as your so ideologically dug in position that it’s internalized misogyny to think women could ever possibly contribute even an iota to their own misery holds.
Women can certainly contribute to their own misery— for example by marrying unworthy men— but no I don’t think women who sleep with men bear responsibility for even one iota of violence against women. Sorry that seems so extreme to you.
It’s okay—it’s not extreme to me. I said it right there, I just don’t take your opinion seriously.
That will give hope to the mediocre men of the world. They can marry your daughters!
Anonymous wrote:Lol, are you harpies really arguing that all college-educated women should hold out for top-3% men? Like, do you not see the problem there? Maybe you can get your toddler to explain some toddler-level math so you understand.
The only math problem occurs if all women want to get married. Not settling means remaining unmarried and raising kids on your own if you want kids, vs. marrying someone unsuitable. I might say the top 10% of men are marriage material if I were feeling generous. Only 45% of Americans are married, so it’s not like it eliminates all marriage, just the lower quartiles.
Perfect now all you have to do is give women lobotomies so they want what you tell them to want.
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.
Oh lord, some of you need to take a basic economics class and read a book. The sum of individual actors is a force, the same way a feminist might argue that it’s no problem when one woman chooses to swear fealty as a vassal to her lord husband, but it’s a f***** nightmare if all women do. No woman owes a man squat, but if all women choose to love-and-obey Mr. 1% and the rest of these losers get a chance to off him, the *sum of their choices* is a force that will end in violence.
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.
I’m beginning to think the main reason for this thread is for you to announce your marital fortunes over and over again. You say it with too much gusto and too eagerly.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}