Over the weekend I happened across Girl Game team member Aoefe’s post “The Stock Market & Mate Selection”. It was a most timely subject, given the current state of affairs on the economic front not just for Americans, but throughout the world.

Her piece, while well written, was just basically a kind of “checklist” that a Woman would use in trying to land a real catch of a Man-no argument there, since this has always been the primary mating strategy of the Female. But, because of the deep and far reaching implications of our economically stressed times, I for one was hoping that someone out on the Femosphere-be it Girl Game, Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart, the crews of Feministing, Feminste or Jezebel, of *somebody* on that side of the aisle, would offer a comparatively cleareyed analysis of our times and how that directly relates to the dating and mating market. Needless to say, that to date, since the “Mancession” began, and Maria Shriver’s much heralded “A Woman’s Nation” report came down the pike, there has been, at best a kind of oblique nibbling around the edges by the likes of Ms. Aoefe, Ms. Bhetti (the latter of whom gives her take on the current economic situation in a new piece over at Girl Game) and Ms. Walsh (the latter having a Wharton MBA!), and at worst, the usual mocking of the “Menz” by the latter most feminist-identified sites (for example, a recent piece at Feministing openly mocks the idea of a Mancession, then turns the focus back on how bad Women have it, which is in direct contradiction of the Shriver Report-but then again, would we really expect anything less of Feministing?).

While I’m fairly sure the ladies of the previous cohort may raise their hackles at the notion that I lump them in with the latter cohort of fem-bloggers, the bottomline is, that they all comprise what I call the Femosphere, and serves as a kind of counterpoint to what some has coined the Manosphere, which is made up of Male blogging voices spanning the MGTOW and MRA corners of the Internet, to the Game and PUA oriented bloggers. They different in many ways, both camps do have quite a bit in common, and which serves to be the backbone of this essay.

For example, as noted above, there has been no “meta-analysis” of the current radically altered economic landscape and how this WILL effect the dating and mating one by ANYONE in the Femosphere; while, in the Manosphere, from Marc Rudov to Roissy in DC, there have been any number of “takes” on the situation that are easily found at the click of the mouse. Curious guys like me sit back and take notice of such a glaring difference and has to ask, “what’s up with that?”.

So, this article is gonna layout, in real basic terms, how the sexual marketplace works, the changes that have happened in recent years, and the changes that we see before our eyes right now, and why the Femosphere, with all due respect, is basically incapable of giving the kind of “meta-analysis” that one can’t help but trip over walking ten paces in any direction in the Manosphere. Ready? OK, here we go:

Astute readers of my post Why Game & Choice For Men Elicits So Much Hate will recall how I laidout the basic mating strategies of the Human Male and Female, which was deeply informed by our evolutionary past. Simply put, both sexes were exposed to environmental pressures against which they had to form adaptations to overcome; for the Male, he has to figure out a way to be noticed by the Female; for the Female, she has to figure out a way to “screen out” all but the best Male with which to mate. While both skill sets do take time and trial and error to perfect, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist-or a Wharton trained economist-to figure out which job is inherently harder-the Males have it infinitely tougher. Not only do they need to make the best showing to the Female, but they must also beat out all the other competition-which could prove deadly, and very often did.

This occurs among sperm even; millions of them fight to the death to unite with the one egg, and thus forms the basis of the sexual marketplace-eggs expensive, because of their scarcity, and sperm is cheap, because of its vast surplus. In said marketplace, Women are the “sellers”; Men, the “buyers”. And for much of Human history, and until relatively recently, it’s been a Seller’s Market. Contrary to all the boilerplate many feminists and the like try to foist on an otherwise ignorant and unsuspecting public, in truth Women have always gotten a kind of artificial market “bump”, much like the “bumps” Wall Street has received from the gov’t in the form of taxpayer funded bailouts and the like. For example-we’ve all heard of the Shotgun Wedding, right? Guy meets Girl, Guy hookup with Girl, Guy gets Girl preggers, Girl’s fam finds out, Guy is pressured to marry Girl. Now-who wins in that scenario? The Girl, of course. She gets support in the form of Guy’s resources, and is insured in this by the threat of her peeps doing something very bad to Guy if he welches out on the deal.

There are many other instances of artificial bumps in the market aimed at assisting Women historically as well, marriage in the more broader sense being yet another example. It helps Women, not necessarily Men. At least it does first and foremost-the benefits Men get got from marriage historically, were a secondary thing. From a purely Evo-Psych standpoint.

Polygamy is yet another example where the clear beneficiaries are the Women, because she’s almost assured of getting a “share” of a wealthy Man’s resources, rather than having a full “claim” on a poor Man to herself. Aside from a very small pool of Men who can put themselves in a position to gain from such an arrangement, the vast majority of Men do NOT benefit from Polygamy.

So, we see how, contrary to the arguments of the feminists, how the Female side of the SMV equation has always gotten a leg up as it were.

So, what does this have to do with the current Mancession, the Shriver Report, and the dearth of meaningful, straightahead discussion about it in Femosphere?

Very simple.

As my previous article clearly pointed out, Women are genetically wired to seek out the best Men with which to mate, and then do all they can to make him stick around after the party’s over. Doing this by necessity, means that *a lot of guys have to be eliminated from the search*. The current Mancession-where some 70-80% of ALL layoffs and firings have been Male, and the Shriver Report, which clearly says that for the first time in American history, there are more Women than Men gainfully employed, simply means that Women’s “field of erotic view”, as F. Roger Devlin would put it, just got a heck of a lot narrower. Far from giving the guy who’s down on his luck a “mercy shot”, they will follow their instincts and simply set their sights on the few remaining Alphas left in the field, and vie like made against all the other Females in the round hoping to rope him in.

This is why there has been no discussion of these types of topics along these lines in the Femosphere, BECAUSE WOMEN SEE THE ISSUE IN A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT WAY THAN MEN DO. They don’t need to figure out “workarounds” like Men do. They only need to figure out, how to get the Top Guy to stay with THEM.

Now…

Let’s go back to the site, Girl Game. It is a site found by a bunch of Women, who’s sole purpose is to give Ladies the tools with which to land the Best Guys-again, nothing wrong with that…in theory. The problem comes in when one considers what has happened in the sexual marketplace over the past four decades or so.

Aside from medical interventions like the Pill and Abortion, things like access to education and money/jobs, along with massive support from the gov’t, have made it possible for Women to make choices she could have never dreamed of only a half century ago, let alone 5 centuries ago. That she can do this all with a minimum of censure or reprisal, makes it all the better. I consider this a kind of “deregulation” of the sexual marketplace, where people, definitely Women, but as we’ll soon find out, a goodly number of Men, too-can really do as they wish. If ever there was a time when one could see our raw mating strategies at work, this timeframe, the late 20th to early 21st century, was it.

Because, while Women now have maximum choice in terms of mating, so too do Men-but, as I’ve said before, and contrary to popular opinion, not ALL of them-only a select few. This is just how Women prefer it, of course. Remember-the scarcer a resource, the higher the price.

The problem is, that the current situation, the SMP if you will, is greatly inflated-a kind of SMP “bubble”-and sooner or later it will burst-meaning that there will be A LOT of Lady Losers in its wake. They will have all the sex they can handle, but because of the Mancession and because of their own ability to provide for themselves, very few will be able to land the Man of their Dreams for more than a fortnight, if that. For one, the environment doesn’t support it, and two, of the few remaining Alphas left, they have every incentive to enjoy what is now essentially a Buyer’s Market of Poon.

This is where Game-and by that, I mean in its original parlance-comes in, because all it does is gives the Man more bargaining power at the table of the Sexual Marketplace. Of course, being gainfully employed helps, but it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, the end all be all, and we’ve all seen that to be true many, many times. Which is why my good friend, The Fifth Horseman, says that having Moderste Game Competence is worth roughly $2M. I, agree.

I’ve told the ladies at Girl Game before, and it bears repeating, that what they’re attempting to do can only, by design, “work” with a very small number of Women; by and large, unless the playing field is leveled again, the vast majority of Women, can and will LOOSE. Of course, there’ll be a lot of Male Losers, too, but that’s nothing new; what is, are little things like Glocks and Rugers, and the extreme losers will make use of these and exact their revenge on a number of ladies too. But I digress. The point is, for the first time in human history, Women enmasse won’t be the winners of the mating game. For the first time, they’ll be the losers.

I’m just sayin’.

Now adjourn your asses…

The Obsidian

98 Comments

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 11:21 am
    • Permalink

    Yes, very well put. The is the promise of Game—that it will allow betas to mimick the qualities of alphas, and give them a fighting chance in a sexual marketplace that has a glut of pussy, but a shortage of highly desired male “alpha-ness”.

    But it doesn’t have to end here. There is one way the ladies can restore the sexual marketplace back to equilibrium: burst the bubble themselves by decreasing the supply of pussy—stop being sexually promiscuous. Game is intended to fool a woman’s alapha radar, and it tends to be much less effective on women who who aren’t sluts (who also tend to be the women most obviously searching for pyschosocial dominance. I am speaking from personal experience here).

    The nice thing about Game is that it will eventually put women on guard because they’ll be fucking guys they were led to believe we alpha, but then there was no follow-up. Either they later found out he wasn’t alpha or, more likely, they couldn’t keep him around and he just moved on to the next piece of ass. The only way forward then will be to stop slutting it up, and evaluate men on more substantive traits.

  1. Dragnet,
    LOL, thanks Man, much appreciated. But really, the idea that Women enmasse, would intentionally rollback the Four Sirens, while noble, is akin to us saying, for the good of the USA economy, we need to stop shopping at Walmart-NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Why? Because we-you, me, all of us-want good shit real cheap.

    That’s why.

    The train has left the station, and there is no turning back, my friend. There will be outliers and enclaves-the Mormons represent a good example-but in the main, Women simply will not willingly give up their market position, even if it will make things better for them in the longrun. Not only is it antithetical to how Women perceive and experience Time itself (something else I’ve been meaning to address) but it goes every rule of Econ 101-which is about the study of Human incentives.

    All we can do, is manage the decline, bruh. Like my Man Daniel Day Lewis said:

    There will be blood…

    The Obsidian

  2. Interesting post. If things continue the path they are on women will find that there are no men willing to provide long term resources.

    Although we cannot go back, I do believe that an epic collapse, which may be coming, will shock the entire system and change the game again.

  3. Talleyrand,
    Indeed, it’s already begun to happen; blogger Markey Mark, earlier this Summer, took up an “angry letter” style article written by Anna Pasternak of London’s Daily Mail newspaper, I believe; she laments why Men her age don’t want to marry her or similarly aged Women.

    The inability/disinterest of Women in prognostication and longterm trends has really come back to bite them in the butt, I’m afraid; and unlike others in the Manosphere, I take no great pleasure in saying so. It won’t be pretty.

    The Obsidian

    • DADT
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    • Permalink

    “Game is intended to fool a woman’s alapha radar, and it tends to be much less effective on women who who aren’t sluts (who also tend to be the women most obviously searching for pyschosocial dominance. I am speaking from personal experience here).”……….

    This is what I’ve said before but the men retorted that it works on ALL women, even the pious/religious.

    Personally, I’ve found nothing thus far about “game” that would attract me. I’m not at all attracted to socially dominant men. Smart men that contribute valuable content to a social situation, yes. But the ones who “steal the show” – never. Guess I’m too much of a show stealer myself, I dunno. Don’t like competition – LOL.

    Obs, what was it about your current gf that made you wanna commit exclusively to her?

    Oh, and by the way, even the non-slutty women are suffering from a lack of quality male attention these days. Where is their reward for remaining “chaste”?

  4. DADT,
    I wasn’t one of those Men you mentioned, but if the “Amish romance novels”, Twilight, which was penned by a Mormon Woman and the like are any indication, than yes, Game would indeed “work” on the pious/religious/smart Women…perhaps even moreso.

    As for myself, my lady had all the qualities I liked. Really as simple as that, LOL.

    I find that one of the big problems with Game critics, is that they’re trying to assess it from a distance-they’re not involved with the current dating scene, don’t go to bars or clubs, or are interested in the kinds of “outliers” that doesn’t speak necessarily to Game, per say. For example, you said you’re attracted to basically, Beta Males. Well, by definition, you wouldn’t understand the current dating scene, hence the reason why you view things in the way you do.

    As for “non-slutty” Women bemoaning the lack of “Good Men”, they are basically the victims of circumstance that is today’s deregulated sexual marketplace, a SMP that WOMEN, NOT MEN, pushed for. These Women really don’t make out enmasse, because “holding out” really doesn’t work if all the other Women, are indeed out there hooking up-or the perception of same. Market forces are a MFer.

    The Obsidian

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 1:04 pm
    • Permalink

    Here’s that article by Anna Pasternak:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1203076/Is-ONE-straight-kind-solvent-single-man-40s-left-Britain.html

    Worth reading in it’s entirety, if you haven’t already. You can devote a separate post just to this one piece.

    • DADT
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 1:04 pm
    • Permalink

    So then game is only for the bar scene set?

    That makes sense.

  5. DADT,
    Not necessarily, in that Seduction can take place anywhere and at anytime. However, the “Pickup scene”, of which a goodly number of Game forums tends to cater to, yes, speaks more to a younger set, which also tends to be found in a bar and club scene.

    The Obsidian

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm
    • Permalink

    No, DADT—Game is for anywhere. Game is confidence + masculinity—this combination does work on ANY woman, but to varying degrees and with varying outcomes. I know what kind of girl I can Game into the sack, and I tend to be pretty no-holds-barred with her, and with excellent results. But with other kinds of girls (aka, less promsicuous) I deploy Game in different ways (less frequent or intense use of certain kinds of negs, for example). Ultimately, I want a stable lifelong relationship and the girl who responds to the hardest core asshole/Game routine is a usually a slut who’s a nice lay, but she’s not relationship material. When I meet a girl who I perceive to be not promiscious and attractive (and thus of higher value), then Game becomes less about her, and more about my confidence, how engaging I am—inner Game—but my experience that that kind of woman is more likely to judge me on my actual personality and character, than on perceived psychosocial dominance.

    I hope this helps explain somewhat. Game is very flexbile, in its objectives and how it can be deployed. The only way to know is to practice, practice, practice!

    • deery
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 1:56 pm
    • Permalink

    “Game” is such an amphorous notion that it almost has no meaning. Is Game any calculated, conscious action designed to increase the attraction of a woman towards a given male? Is it actions designed to increase socio-dominance in a given situation? Is it just a list of rules that guys pass amongst themselves that purport to increase a guys chances of getting laid? Or a way to suss out women who are innately attracted to (assholish) supposedly Alpha behavior, and prey on their insecurity until they sleep with you? It isn’t very clear.

    I think Lots of women are attracted to Betas just fine. Alphas, in general don’t make good husbands or fathers. Most guys aren’t Alphas, yet most guys still end having sex, getting into relationships, and getting married without a set of guidelines telling them what to do. So some women must like Betas and Beta behavior out there.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:09 pm
    • Permalink

    I am going to say something ‘controversial’, but that I see to be true :

    The ‘GirlGame’ blog is supposedly devoted to helping women land a commitment from a ‘quality man’.

    But what is a ‘quality man’ to begin with? His looks, his wealth, but most importantly his GAME, determine that.

    Hence, the real charter of any dating advice that women write for other women effective is :

    “We wish that the men we can already date had better Game, so that we could feel more attracted to them, turning them into ‘quality men’.”

    So any female tactics, whether ‘The Rules’ or ‘GirlGame’, are totally SECONDARY and SUBSEQUENT to a man becoming attractive via Game in the first place.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:11 pm
    • Permalink

    DADT,

    It works on ALL women, irrespective of anything, except that the most beautiful women are likely to be the only ones who get privilege of having men with Game approach them.

    99.9% of women cannot grasp Game. Your Indian background will make it doubly hard for you to grasp it.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm
    • Permalink

    I think Lots of women are attracted to Betas just fine. Alphas, in general don’t make good husbands or fathers. Most guys aren’t Alphas, yet most guys still end having sex, getting into relationships, and getting married without a set of guidelines telling them what to do.

    Bull. That is when a woman settles because she could not get her 1st or second choice man.

    Plus, then the woman cruelly divorces the dutiful Beta husband and swindles him out of his hard-earned money through the unfair divorce laws.

    What you write is very instructional to men who are otherwise unaware of how women think, and how they will rationalize future mistreatment of him if he is a Beta and unable to make her horny.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm
    • Permalink

    Obsidian,

    I will say that Bhetti is one of extremely few who actually do grasp what Game is, and are sympathetic to the male point of view. But there are a scant few women, even in these parts, who get it. Beyond Bhetti, I could only name maybe 2 more.

    The feministing piece just shows how cruel and sadistic the misandrists have become. They will suffer heavily by 2020, as I have described elsewhere, due to the blowback of their own actions.

  6. TFH,
    Yea, I also view Bhetti, and the Girl Game site in general, as both positive toward Game and rather benign overall. The problem, as I’ve noted above, is that what they’re advocating really doesn’t address the things I’ve talked about; indeed, an argument could be made that they’re making things worse, because by definition only a few Women can “win”.

    As for DADT, like I said, I find that a lot of critics of Game tend to do so from a distance; they’re not involved in today’s dating scene. Look, we can decry it all we want, but it is what it is, and it ain’t gonna change because we don’t like it. All we can do is adapt or opt out. DADT seems to have done the latter, and so far, so good-but there are millions who are playing the Game. Their concerns needs to be addressed, and I don’t see how browbeating them is going to do ay darn good.

    The Obsidian

    • deery
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:35 pm
    • Permalink

    Where is this magical place where people don’t settle? Game (whatever it is, as you still haven’t defined it) obviously isn’t some magical thing where the practioners can get whatever woman they want. They are still limited by looks, wealth, class, and status. I have some some of the practioners of Game post pictures of their conquests on the web, and while the girls tend to be cute, they aren’t 10’s by any stretch of the imagination. Shouldn’t every practioner of Game be with a 10, former virgin who goes wild only for them, educated, yet submissive, utra-feminine woman. And if they are not, are they, gasp, settling?! Couldn’t be, erase that thought.

    Some women do go through a bad boy phase, where they think they can “tame” a guy, and thereby prove their own worth. Of those that go through this phase, most of those outgrow it. They realize through trial and error that most of those guys are deeply psychologically flawed. And then they went a stable guy, and they join the vast majority of women who already knew that from the beginning. But why so much focus on women who are probably working out their own mental issues, and not on most women, who do manage to settle down, have stable relationships and marriages? I guess the good women are snatched up early from guys who who are smart enough to recognize a jewel when they see one. The ones left on the marketplace tend to be either playing the field, abstaining as their current focus is not in the sexual marketplace, or deeply messed up. That goes for both men and women. So if those are the only people left who are interacting in the sexual marketplace, your idea of men and womne becomes very skewed by all the left over losers who cannot bond, cannot focus, cannot relate to other people, or your general users and sociopaths.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:38 pm
    • Permalink

    DADT is Indian.

    Need I say more?

    The thing about Indian women is that as long as they follow the Indian traditions and infrastructure, they will happily end up with a Beta provideer, have 2 kids, etc. The process has been tuned with centuries of experience, and they have been programmed into this since birth. It works.

    BUT when they are exposed to the dystopian American dating scene, their Indian programming is so deep that the clash between the two makes their mind go in all sorts of crazy directions..

    Sort of how the combination of toothpaste and orange juice tastes in the morning causes a third (and undesirable) taste due to the acidic reaction.

    I think you have seen this firsthand yourself.

    We see this with FemX, bragging about how many ‘notches’ she has gotten – what type of women accumulates a tally of men? We see this with LSB – she is not allowed to date and has no sexual experience, and must marry someone her father approves of, yet has been in the ‘Rules Sisterhood’ for years. She actually thinks ‘GirlGame’ or whatever can make a 5 competitive with a 10 – something even other ladies on GG disagree with her about.

    This is solipism.

    And if you probe DADT, you will see the same thing.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
    • Permalink

    deery,

    I have defined Game in more detail than anyone else here has. Go read up.

    It is you who are operating from the Solipism that Ferdinand Bardamu talks about. You have no grasp of how men think, yet men with Game know how women think better than women themselves do. That is why it is such a brilliant discipline.

    • deery
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Sure t5H, do you mind giving me a succint definition of Game on this thread? Or a direct link? Thanks.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 4:51 pm
    • Permalink

    The definition of Game is to learn how women think, and how to generate the desired outcomes with this knowledge. This usually means sexual/relationship outcomes, but does not have to be limited to that.

    The steps that a man has to master to generate moderate competence in this art is right here :

    http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-realworld-value-of-game/#comment-660

  7. Hello Obsidian,

    Please do a post on beauty standards and why HBD guys just don’t get it. They spend their time looking down on people who aren’t 10s, thin, blonde, upper class, intelligent, or white. They just angry because they don’t get laid like the rest of humanity.

    Also, check out this blog at:

    http://mrlaureltonqueens.blogspot.com/
    La Reyna

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 9:44 pm
    • Permalink

    But it doesn’t have to end here. There is one way the ladies can restore the sexual marketplace back to equilibrium: burst the bubble themselves by decreasing the supply of pussy—stop being sexually promiscuous. Game is intended to fool a woman’s alapha radar, and it tends to be much less effective on women who who aren’t sluts (who also tend to be the women most obviously searching for pyschosocial dominance. I am speaking from personal experience here).

    Wise words. Yes, women need to start rationing sex: no ring, no sex, no exceptions. Until they do that the situation will simply deteriorate further. And the method only works if the most desirable women do it first. That is the key.

    Keeping your legs closed is the only effective method for finding and keeping a good man. Even the most determined alpha won’t stick around for longer than a few months if he’s not getting any. Weed them out, girls!

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 10:00 pm
    • Permalink

    I guess the good women are snatched up early from guys who who are smart enough to recognize a jewel when they see one.

    This. Doesn’t mean that the “leftovers” aren’t as good, just that there are fewer good ones. That’s why the “prime marrying years” are between the ages of 21 and 25. PUA’s brag about chicks they’ve picked up in bars. Newsflash: the best women aren’t hanging out in bars.

    Game is about understanding how women work. No more, no less. But if you’re using it just to get a different woman in the sack every week, that’s just nasty.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 16, 2009 at 11:34 pm
    • Permalink

    B&G wrote :

    Yes, women need to start rationing sex: no ring, no sex, no exceptions.

    That is a good start. But to complete the restoration of fairness, divorce laws should be changed so that the person who files for divorce is not entitled to any assets from the other, unless a serious level of abuse can meet a high standard of proof. Also, custody defaults to the person who it was filed against, not the filer, again barring a similar amount of proof of unsuitability.

    Are you game?

    Don’t underestimate the horrendously anti-male divorce laws as a deterrent that prevents higher-income men from marrying.

  8. B&G,
    Hey! Glad to see ya, because I was under the impression that you had packed your ball and gone home from The Spearhead, LOL. And I tried to find you over at Cless’ site, ni dice. So I was hoping we’d run into each other again. Glad you found your way here.

    Anyway, here’s the problem with your prescription: it’s not an attitudinal thing, but an environmental one-please see Roissy’s Four Sirens theory. So long as Women have wide access to The Pill, Abortion, education and money, as well as heavy gov’t support, in an anonymous urban setting, they can and will do what they like sexually. Period, fullstop. And no amount of preaching abstinence, which is what you’re really talking about B&G, is gonna work.

    Change the market conditions, and you change the Game. Until that Great Gettin’ Up Mornin’ comes though, everything else is merely pissing in the wind.

    The Obsidian

  9. Oh, and another thing…

    All this talk about marriage-kill it. From this point on, the only people getting married are those who can afford to, for the most part. It has pretty much lost all relevance thanks to the Four Sirens. That cuts accross pretty much all sociometric lines, and again, the only ones who will do so are those who can most afford it. And that’ll only be as another status marker.

    So, for all practical purposes, we need to stop talking about marriage, because it is fast becoming a non-factor and a non-starter. The practical reasons for it have lone gon by the wayside, and even the romantic rationales for it are fast becoming obsolete. Again: change the market conditions, and change the Game.

    It’s really as simple as that.

    The Obsidian

  10. B&G,
    You said:
    “Wise words. Yes, women need to start rationing sex: no ring, no sex, no exceptions. Until they do that the situation will simply deteriorate further. And the method only works if the most desirable women do it first . That is the key.

    Keeping your legs closed is the only effective method for finding and keeping a good man. Even the most determined alpha won’t stick around for longer than a few months if he’s not getting any. Weed them out, girls!”

    This only works when the Four Sirens aren’t in effect. With the way things are right now, it’s a recipe doomed to failure; please review what I said above wrt how the sexual marketplace has been “deregulated”. This means, that Dimes can’t command the same “price” on her goods because there’s a Walmart or Target chick down the street-who do you think most guys will go to? Hmm?

    Again: change the market conditions, and you change the game. Barring that, you’re only pissing in the wind.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 8:40 am
    • Permalink

    Um… TFH, I’m seriously Catholic. LOL. So I’d go WAAAAY further than you. I don’t believe in divorce, chemical contraception, or abortion. Raise the stakes and people won’t tread so lightly.

    I would make all divorce no-fault but then make it so hard to do that only the most desperate (such as the abused or those stuck with a repeat adulterer) would go for it. No alimony for anyone after the youngest child reaches the age of 3. Forbid remarriage (you have one go and if doesn’t work out, too bad). And I’d make shared-custody the default in divorce. After all, you’re divorcing from your spouse, not from your children.

    I’m hard-core like that.

    Obsidian,

    Yeah, I left in a bit of a huff, didn’t I? May I blame PMS or is that a girly cop-out? But I’ve been seeing some things… man, people out there are messed up.

    Market conditions are changing, Obsidian. You may not see it where you are but around here… the free-sex well is drying up, albeit VERY SLOWLY. It couldn’t go on forever like that.

    The problem with the abstinence movement is that they’re preaching it indiscriminately. It needs to start with the most attractive/marriageable women first. They control the market and have enough leverage to get away with it. They have the most to lose by sleeping around as their value drops rapidly that way.

    And the gov’t support needs to be addressed. But that’s a WHOLE ‘NOTHER ISSUE.

  11. B&G,
    You’re still not hearing me. Until the market conditions change, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. This isn’t about abstinence. this isn’t about religion. This is about taking away The Pill, Abortion, education/money, & gov’t support-failing that, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

    Human beings don’t react to ideology, but to incentives, by and large. Give em a reason to do something in their own interest, and 9 times outta 10, they will. Oh, and please don’t think I’m advocating for one thing or another, I’m not. Only saying that’s how human beings roll.
    Again, please review my post above. It lays everything out quite clearly.

    The Obsidian

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 9:34 am
    • Permalink

    Oh come on. I really don’t think banning birth control and abortion is necessary, and I would be strongly against those measures. I think the solution is to enact fairer divorce laws to disincentivize divorce and stop using gov’t funds to prop up female-dominated sectors of the economy that artificially shield them from economic & recessionary pressures. Those measures, in addition to a change in culture that condemns promiscuity, would change the conditions in the sexual marketplace enough to bring things back into equilibrium.

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 9:48 am
    • Permalink

    You’re still not hearing me. Until the market conditions change, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. This isn’t about abstinence. this isn’t about religion. This is about taking away The Pill, Abortion, education/money, & gov’t support-failing that, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

    I think this underestimates the true power of Game. Game has the power to forcibly re-balance the sexual marketplace by having too many women fuck fake alphas. Soon enough, they will realize that—after that charismatic investment banker/soulmate has moved on to the girl in the condo downstairs—the only way to put an end to it is to stop being a ho.

    The true power of Game isn’t that it gives men opportunities (though it does), it’s true power is that it incentivizes woman to return to their true source of power or else…

  12. Dragnet,
    I find it particularly interesting that a Finance Guy like you would even disagree with the basic premise I’m putting out above. You of all people should know that people respond to personal incentives – why do you think Abortion is so fiercely fought for by virtually ALL Women? It’s simply because, they want the option to abort qa kid they didn’t intend to have by way of SEX, that’s why. Take away the ability to get Abortion on Demand, and alot of the problem stops. Not all of it, ut alot of it. As you know, the best way to get more of something, is to incentivize it.

    Wrt Game, again, I think you got it twisted. The issue here is that Game in our time can work the way it does, is because the environment allows it. Take away the Fou Sirens, and it gets lots harder for Game to do it’s thing.

    It’s really all so very simple. NOT easy. But simple.

    The Obsidian

    • meep
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 10:16 am
    • Permalink

    Actually, I believe it is men who are more invested in the “choice” of abortion than are women. You’ll find women more likely to be anti-abortion.

    And from your story above, it makes the most sense. With abortion and birth control, women are more available to men to be used and left. No more shotgun weddings, huh?

    Indeed, Pope John Paul II noted this in many of his writings relating to sex that women are not really all that benefited by these “choices”.

    Thing is, you keep talking like everyone is in the same mating pool, which isn’t exactly true. The strategy I used was similar to that of my mother – she told me when she was looking at colleges to go to, she picked Clemson because 1. the sex ratio was 7-1 then, 2. the guys to pick from would be engineers [my dad was EE] and 3. they would be Southern [she's actually a Yankee].

    I did something similar, except I’m a geek myself. Most women weren’t interested in the men I was interested in, which made it all the more easy for me to target those I wanted.

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 10:27 am
    • Permalink

    I find it particularly interesting that a Finance Guy like you would even disagree with the basic premise I’m putting out above. You of all people should know that people respond to personal incentives – why do you think Abortion is so fiercely fought for by virtually ALL Women? It’s simply because, they want the option to abort qa kid they didn’t intend to have by way of SEX, that’s why. Take away the ability to get Abortion on Demand, and alot of the problem stops. Not all of it, ut alot of it. As you know, the best way to get more of something, is to incentivize it.

    Wrt Game, again, I think you got it twisted. The issue here is that Game in our time can work the way it does, is because the environment allows it. Take away the Fou Sirens, and it gets lots harder for Game to do it’s thing.

    I don’t think we’re that far apart—I think the we just disagree on what incentives Game provides. Game, deployed en masse by many men, provides the incentives for women decrease the oversupply of pussy because there will be no other way to weed out false-positive alphas.

    And yes, Game works the it does because of the Four Sirens. But I think another outcome is possible—that Game can eventually make it harder for Game to work because individual women will come to realize that there is no way to distinguish fake alphas from the real ones and adopt a new solution in the form of renoucing sluttiness to a large degree.

    Yes, taking away the pill and abortion might help, but I don’t think we will need to do that. I think Game will rebalance the equation on its own—so long as sufficient numbers of men learn to make it inhumanely difficult to distinguish fake alphas from real ones.

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 10:27 am
    • Permalink

    Sure, safe abortion and reliable birth control allow women to act more like men, and men certainly don’t like that. Turns out that the price of vagina in the marketplace has dropped precipitously, and men are the main beneficiaries of this, yet still don’t like it.

    Abortion has always been around, and in the age of chemical abortion, and how-to instructions on manual abortions available on the internet, there isn’t any going back. So how does one move forward?

    I think the US will eventually be like Sweden, where marriage is very rare, but long-term cohabitation is the most common. What real use is marriage today? The rest of the civilized world cannot understand how Americans can be both so obsessed with marriage, and yet so bad at it. This is where American individualism, where one is allowed to do what one pleases, and American puritanism and religion both bump heads. Right now individualism reigns, because Americans hate being told what to do (though we enjoy enormously telling other people what they should be doing). If were that serious about keeping marriages together, we would make it much more difficult to marry, and much harder to divorce. But most people see very little utility in keeping people apart who want to be together, or keeping together who would like to be apart, and I can’t say I disagree. I do see marriage, as such, gradually dying out, replaced more a common-law like system. The ultra-religious types will be the last hold-outs, still getting formally married.

    • meep
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 10:36 am
    • Permalink

    I agree that it should be more difficult to marry.

    I’m Catholic, and you have to have a “waiting period” of at least 6 months before marrying [at least in most U.S. parishes that I know of]. Yes, the pre-marriage counseling does tend to be cursory, but it’s more than a quickie Vegas wedding.

    I remember some of the couples from the pre-Cana seminar we went to…. some real ugly dynamics going on there. I’m hoping the 6 month period got some of them to rethink what they were doing.

    Btw, y’all focus too much on the sex aspect [being men and all, I suppose I shouldn't be overly surprised] – yes, it’s important, but the reason people have these LTRs is rarely solely about the sex. If you think only in terms of scoring, you’re missing out on a lot of the dynamics.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 12:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Meep,

    I also had to go through the Catholic pre-marriage counseling. It is assumed that this is the reason that Catholics have the lowest divorce rate among Christians.
    We need to slow people down; make it harder to get in and harder to get out.

    I really don’t think banning birth control and abortion is necessary, and I would be strongly against those measures. I think the solution is to enact fairer divorce laws to disincentivize divorce and stop using gov’t funds to prop up female-dominated sectors of the economy that artificially shield them from economic & recessionary pressures. Those measures, in addition to a change in culture that condemns promiscuity, would change the conditions in the sexual marketplace enough to bring things back into equilibrium.

    I agree, because I believe in small government and free will. Although I think abortion should be limited to the first 12 weeks and require consent from both parties.

    Abortion and birth control are side-issues. Same as gay marriage, polygamy, etc. It’s all just stuff to distract us from the core problem: promiscuity (including serial monogamy).

    You’re still not hearing me. Until the market conditions change, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. This isn’t about abstinence. this isn’t about religion. This is about taking away The Pill, Abortion, education/money, & gov’t support-failing that, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

    LOL, Obsidian. Brother, I hear you, I’m not deaf. But you’re not hearing me.
    Listen up: I agree with you. The entire environment is toxic to marriage and only by changing the environment will the situation change. My point is that government is reactive, not active. What happens is that a movement starts, becomes more and more powerful, gains followers until a majority are behind it, and THEN legislation changes.

    You can’t legislate change, in a democracy you have to convince the people FIRST. You can see how this works with two modern examples: gay marriage and pro-life. And look at the success the tea-party crazies are having. We all still know they’re nuts but their message is starting to wear on us and influence us. Yes, they’re nuts but sometimes even crazy people are right. Yes, the Catholic pro-lifers with their revolting posters and abortion-clinic blockades drive us crazy but… maybe they’re right, even just a little bit right. Do we really want to abort children who are viable human beings? What kind of monsters are we?

    You see where I’m going with this?

    The reason I think change is coming is because I can see it around me. A lot of highly desirable women (such as myself) avoided being lumped into the “just another slut” group that a lot of women get shoved into early. How did we do this? We priced our value so high that we said, “Nobody but our husband is good enough. And hardly anybody is good enough to be our husband. Now prospective suitors may get in line. The line is forming to the left. No shoving.” And the amazing thing (that my grandma could have told us all) is: the line forms. It really does. I was amazed to find out that quality men found me MORE attractive when I didn’t put out than when I did. (See, I’ve tried both methods and the latter works MUCH better.)

    Slowly the best women are coming around to my way of thinking. Some are smart enough to do it that way from the beginning. And the rest of us just have to learn the hard way. But we learn. The ones that don’t learn end up 40 and alone with cats. The rest reproduce and raise their daughters the same way.

    My point is: by altering the behavior of the most desirable women, you can CHANGE THE MARKET. As it is, we’re just using our behavior to benefit ourselves one-by-one. But if we change en mass, the benefit will spread to other women and the PUA’s will be stuck picking up the crumbs in bars. If you like it, put a ring on it.

    Remember that marriage as we know it didn’t always exist. It came up once before and I predict a gradual resurgence now. Marriage is a good idea; it’s good for society and good for the advancement of civilization. As it is, there’s a growing marriage gap: the “haves” (wealthy and highly educated) are actually getting married more and staying together more and the “have nots” are rutting around like animals, like they always do. Don’t let them fool you: the class-gap is largely a marriage gap. The discrepancy in results will make it obvious which is the better system. And then the movement will start. Actually, it is already starting.

    Form a line to the left…

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
    • Permalink

    Obsidian,
    p.s. I don’t know if you agree with my GOALS, but I think you can see the logic of my argument.

  13. B&G,
    I beg to differ on a great many points you’ve made. Let’s count the ways:

    1. The idea of changing the SMP by getting the Dimes to change their behavior, won’t do the trick. Why? Because the Dimes never saw that muh action to begin with-it was always the Middling Chicks-those who rank btw a 4 and 7 on the Attractiveness Scale-who got the most action from guys? Why? Because of Approach Anxiety on the part of guys, and far too guys being able to have Game and/looks/status for the Dimes. The MC’s of the world are more “sureshots” for guys, and hence, that’s where they go; they’re not Dimes, but they’re not Fuglies either-they’re good enough to get Wood. It’s like the difference btw a Neiman Marcus and a Walmart right accross the street-who wins?

    2. Religious convictions aside, the issue again, is about changing the market conditions, which, if you’ve ben a reader of me and TFH, Social Conservatives have a HORRID record of bringing about. I say this in direct reply to your notion that the Teabaggers will really bring about anything substantive. Consider the recent NY 23 election-they LOST. Such is the way of the SocialCons-Abortion is still very much the law of the land. And Gay Marriage, so long as its something that can be pushed through the courts, will become an eventuality.

    3. But even more importantly, let’s just do it like this:

    Do you, B&G, want to see Abortion made illegal? Would you like to see The Pill, made illegal? Would you like to see Women’s education, made illegal? Would you like to see Women barred from the workplace (and thereby earning independent incomes)?

    Now, if you said yes to any of the above, then you want marketplace conditions to change; if, on the other hand, you said no to any of the above, you don’t.

    It’s really as simple as that.

    Oh, and Catholics, the biggest religious group in the country, are overwhelmingly pro choice according to all the polls I’ve seen.

    Change the market conditions, and you change the Game.

    Its. That. Simple.

    The Obsidian

    • The Fifth Horesman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm
    • Permalink

    B&G wrote :

    I’m seriously Catholic. LOL. So I’d go WAAAAY further than you.

    That is wonderful. But do recognize that for the 80% of women who do not have your values, they happily abuse the unfair divorce laws, to the detriment of society, and to the very institution of marriage.

    Their actions hurt YOU, by making more men distrustful of women.

    And I will take it further than Obsidian – it is actually the wealthiest men who have the most to lose from marriage. The alimony and whatnot they would have to pay is far more than the average man.

    I personally would have like to have gotten married and had 3 kids. My main reason not to is the divorce laws. It is not that I want to run Game forever, but the divorce laws have killed marriage as an attractive prospect for me. A lot of men are coming to the same conclusion. And if even 20% of men come to this conclusion, ALL women are screwed, since 100 women are competing for every 80 men, despite women aging out of the market faster than men.

  14. TFH hits the nail on the head. Marriage, as a viable option accross the board, is all but DOA at this point. Nowadays, it is the preserve of the Landed Gentry as a status marker. So in that sense, B&G is correct.

    The point I’ve been trying to drive home is that no Women in her 20s or 30s, w/options, ie, good looks, is gonna want a rollback on the Four Sirens-please take a good look at the Women who says anything about it-they tend to be older, and many times married themselves. Show me a young gal w/options, an I’ll show you the Four Sirens Personified.

    Change the market conditions, and you’ll change the Game. Until that happens, get ready to revist the Lord of the Flies…

    The Obsidian

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm
    • Permalink

    Interesting. Why are the richest people more likely to get married, not less, as they have much more to lose if a marriage goes awry?

    I agree that you can’r un-eat the apple, you can’t close Pandora’s box once it has been opened. But the interesting thing is, the societies with the least opportunities for women, where women tend to be the most constrained, also tend to be the most stable. In fact, the I would say that the more masculine and patriarchal a society is, the more chance that it is some backwards hellwater that most of the inhabitants are trying to leave as soon as possible. While the socities that many decry as being so feminized, like Sweden, are comparative nirvana’s. Why is that? Does masculinity sow its own seeds of destruction?

    • PA
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 2:03 pm
    • Permalink

    ___
    Marriage, as a viable option accross the board, is all but DOA at this point. Nowadays, it is the preserve of the Landed Gentry as a status marker.

    You’ve said that before but I am unclear on what you are saying. Marriage license costs $25. Lavish weddings are elective and there is less pressure for them in shaky economies. Marriage is a pooling of income and resources, so absent divorce-hazard, it’s an economic win-win. So I don’t understant where you are coming from.

    I understand and agree with the points about divorce laws maknig marriage a raw deal for men. But good pre-selection (if you are lucky enough to meet marriageable women) and LTR game go to great lengths in mitigating the risk.

    And women by and large DO want to get married, not just rich ones, at least once they approach 30. So could you explain the “landed gentry” point?
    ____

  15. Dragnet,
    The notion that Men enmasse will learn and apply Game is a far fetched one, for a number of reasons, but I’ll give a doozy of one right now: because guys are for the most part, lazy. And it takes lots of introspection, study and trial and error, in order for Game to work for you. Most guys simply don’t have the time, patience or interest in doing all that, to say nothing about fundamentally changing themselves. So Game will, at least for the forseeable future, be a fringe or underground thing.

    Now, having said that, is it still possible for a small number of Men who have Game to make changes on the SMP? Sure-afterall, it only took 19 Men to knock down the Towers…

    ;)

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

  16. PA, to better understand what I’m saying you might wanna check out a book called Promises I Can’t Keep. Its about a multi-year long study of Philly and Camden poor White, Latina and Black Women, done by two White Women sociologists.

    What they found was that while all the Women in the study wanted to be married, they saw that as seperate event from childbearing-all of them had babies. All of them saw it as something richer people did, too. Whether we like it or not, marriage in our time is seen as status marker, it just is. Only Gay folks go down to City Hall. Evveryone else wants to have a lavish ceremony. It says to the world that we’ve made it.

    Check the book out. It’s important reading to anyone who wants a better understanding of Game.

    The Obsidian

  17. Deery,
    Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not arguing for or against a particularly society, or a particular societal norm. I am pretty much neutral on the whole thing. All’s I’m doing is pointing out why things are the way they are, and for things to change, changes in the conditions would have to take place. Failing that, nothing will change and things will remain status quo.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 2:28 pm
    • Permalink

    Because the Dimes never saw that muh action to begin with-it was always the Middling Chicks-those who rank btw a 4 and 7 on the Attractiveness Scale-who got the most action from guys? Why? Because of Approach Anxiety on the part of guys, and far too guys being able to have Game and/looks/status for the Dimes.

    It’s true that we get less action, but I would argue that the QUALITY of the action is higher.

    I’m not actually a social-conservative and I don’t appreciate their idea of legislating morality. Whose morality? As a Catholic I don’t always agree with what they’re preaching.

    I’m probably closer to a libertarian. I’m a homeschooling mom so you know I’m not crazy about the government getting in my business. And I have a strong Catholic belief in subsidiarity.

    My point is that either marriage is a public good, run for public benefit (and should therefore be further restricted to reflect that goal) or the government should get out of the marriage business altogether as they are currently making a hash out of it.

    The point I’ve been trying to drive home is that no Women in her 20s or 30s, w/options, ie, good looks, is gonna want a rollback on the Four Sirens

    That’s where I beg to differ. I’ve seen it and (obviously) I’ve lived through it myself. The question is: How rational are women? The women I know who changed did so because they educated themselves on the topic and made a rational decision. They managed to use their brains to make a decision to override their animal natures.
    That is why marriage is more common and successful the higher up the social ladder you go. Educated/ intelligent women make better decisions.

    This, by the way, is the reason that Sweden does so well. They’ve mitigated the effect of their disastrous social policies by virtue of having a highly educated and homogeneous population. However, that hasn’t stopped them from having a below replacement-level birthrate. Only with educated MARRIED women will you have both a stable, productive society and a suitably high birthrate. Otherwise you will face a choice: import large numbers of foreigners to take the place of your missing progeny or face the slow, steady decline of your economy.

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 2:53 pm
    • Permalink

    Oh, Obsidian. Look–not all the guys have to learn Game for Game to effect changes in the SMP. Take for instance the phenomenon of ‘herd immunity’. You don’t have to vaccinate every single child on the planet from polio to eradicate the disease—just enough so that the disease cannot easily transmit itself. If a certain threshold vaccination is reached, then the disease will die out on its own.

    I think Game could follow a similar analogy. Not even guy has to learn Game. Or even 80 percent of guys. Just enough to make it almost impossible for women in aggregate to distinguish real alphas from Game-enhanced betas. That’s it. I’m thinking once that threshold has been reached, then Game itself will catalyzed the behavioral changes of women in the SMP.

  18. B&G,
    Replies below:

    O: Because the Dimes never saw that much action to begin with-it was always the Middling Chicks-those who rank btw a 4 and 7 on the Attractiveness Scale-who got the most action from guys? Why? Because of Approach Anxiety on the part of guys, and far too guys being able to have Game and/looks/status for the Dimes.

    BG: It’s true that we get less action, but I would argue that the QUALITY of the action is higher.

    O: Wrong. Sex for the vast majority of Men isn’t a question of quality, but of quantity. So long as she’s willing and wet, she’ll do just fine.

    Moreover, most of the Dimes aren’t such great lays anyway, the Kim Kardashian sextape proves that. Take a look at the Golden Age of Porn’s biggest female stars-five’ll get you ten they rank more in the middle of the scale than on the upper end.

    BG: I’m not actually a social-conservative and I don’t appreciate their idea of legislating morality. Whose morality? As a Catholic I don’t always agree with what they’re preaching.

    O: I was only pointing out where all the action is coming from and their actual track record of achievement or the noted lack thereof.

    BG: I’m probably closer to a libertarian. I’m a homeschooling mom so you know I’m not crazy about the government getting in my business. And I have a strong Catholic belief in subsidiarity.

    O: Again: Catholics are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Especially Catholic Women.

    BG: My point is that either marriage is a public good, run for public benefit (and should therefore be further restricted to reflect that goal) or the government should get out of the marriage business altogether as they are currently making a hash out of it.

    O: OK.

    O: The point I’ve been trying to drive home is that no Women in her 20s or 30s, w/options, ie, good looks, is gonna want a rollback on the Four Sirens

    BG: That’s where I beg to differ. I’ve seen it and (obviously) I’ve lived through it myself. The question is: How rational are women? The women I know who changed did so because they educated themselves on the topic and made a rational decision. They managed to use their brains to make a decision to override their animal natures.

    O: There’s a website called Hooking Up Smart, which is devoted to college aged Women. They’re the ones MOST likely to hookup, B&G.
    They’re the ones in the clubs. They’re the ones in the bars. I’m just sayin.

    B&G: That is why marriage is more common and successful the higher up the social ladder you go. Educated/ intelligent women make better decisions.

    O: I don’t know about all that, and besides, my own family, none of whom are college grads, has a better track record insofar as married Black Women go-i have three sisters, two of whom are happily married for more than a decade each. *shrugs* the Sistas I see who are consistently the most miserable, are those who tend to be very highly educated. They’re almost always alone. Again, not taking a side here. I’m just sayin.

    BG: This, by the way, is the reason that Sweden does so well. They’ve mitigated the effect of their disastrous social policies by virtue of having a highly educated and homogeneous population. However, that hasn’t stopped them from having a below replacement-level birthrate. Only with educated MARRIED women will you have both a stable, productive society and a suitably high birthrate. Otherwise you will face a choice: import large numbers of foreigners to take the place of your missing progeny or face the slow, steady decline of your economy.

    O: I’ve always felt the comparison of us to Sweden was a serious logical fallacy. We are fundamentally different from them in almost every way.

    The Obsidian

  19. Dragnet,
    Interesting theory, but even if it were true, it still wouldn’t work. Why?

    Evolution. Men like big boobs, doesn’t matter if they’re fake or not. In the main, this is true. Same deal w/psychosocial dominance. Doesn’t matter if its natural or Game-assisted. Women like it, they are hardwired for it, it will work. Period.

    Again: change the market conditions, namely the Four Sirens, and Game gets a heck of a lot harder to make work.

    That. Simple.

    The Obsidian

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    • Permalink

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_mar_rat-people-marriage-rate

    The US has the highest marriage rate in the world (as well as the highest divorce rate). Yet that doesn’t stop our birthrate from being only so-so at best, and mostly fueled by immigrant births. In fact, none of the countries listed for having high rates of marriage are particular birth rate powerhouses. There doesn’t seem to be much correlation (if any) between marriage rates and baby-producing.

    Also, check out that divorce rate list. Definitely some overlap with the marriage rate list, which is to be expected, but it seems a lot of the more third world countries have a fine showing on the list as well, including many Catholic countries.

  20. Deery,
    Childbearing and marriage have been decopuled a long time ago. It’s only now playing itself out on a generation-wide scale, and throughout all social classes. Some more than others, like we’ve said earlier. But the effects are still there.

    It’s my understanding that heavily Catholic countries, like Italy and Spain, have very low birthrates as well. Hmm.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:16 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m thinking once that threshold has been reached, then Game itself will catalyzed the behavioral changes of women in the SMP.

    I agree. You just have to reach a critical threshold.

    That is wonderful. But do recognize that for the 80% of women who do not have your values, they happily abuse the unfair divorce laws, to the detriment of society, and to the very institution of marriage.

    Their actions hurt YOU, by making more men distrustful of women.

    I recognize that. Of course my arguments are self-serving. The more women that are married and stay married, the safer my own marriage is and the better chances my own daughter will have in the marriage market.

    Do you, B&G, want to see Abortion made illegal? Would you like to see The Pill, made illegal? Would you like to see Women’s education, made illegal? Would you like to see Women barred from the workplace (and thereby earning independent incomes)?

    Now, if you said yes to any of the above, then you want marketplace conditions to change; if, on the other hand, you said no to any of the above, you don’t.

    The pill and abortion are so prevalent because of extra-marital sex. That is just a fact. Married people abort less and use more reliable forms of birth control (two things which go together). The fastest and simplest way to reduce both is to increase marriage.

    Women’s education and workforce participation are not, per se, anti-marriage. This is reflective in the fact that the higher a woman’s education is, the more likely she is to get and stay married. It’s actually an inverse ratio: education and wealth actually INCREASE the worth of a marriage. Poor people don’t get married because they feel like they have nothing worth protecting (they’re wrong about that, by the way).

    The reason why Sweden has such a high rate of illegitimacy and low marriage rate is because the social-welfare system is so generous there that it’s managed to price even middle income men out of the market.

    Furthermore, even if an educated woman gets married and becomes a housewife (such as I, who needs to get her butt off the computer now) her education wasn’t worthless. For one, educated women are better mothers. Secondly, They serve as an economic back-up system in case their husband loses his employment (as evidenced by the fact that one-income families actually have a lower bankruptcy rate than two-income families). Thirdly, having an educated wife appears to have an impact on a husband’s income (this doesn’t surprise me). Fourthly, just because she stays home while the children are little, doesn’t mean that she’s home forever. Many women go back to work part or full-time when their children are older. Fifthly, women VOTE. Educated women tend to vote in line with their families priorites. They are also more likely to vote.

    Even before the 1960s, the vast majority of women were educated and literate (in fact, the rate is going DOWN year-by-year, not up). That is because being educated made them a better marriage prospect. The value of educating women has always been known and is one of the reasons America and other women-friendly countries have prospered so well.

    Please don’t compare true Catholics with the cafeteria-style agnostics that proclaim Catholicism. Can we say, Nanci Pelosi? They give us all a bad name.

  21. B&G,
    Nice dodge, LOL. Let’s try again:

    Are you, B&G, willing to rollback ALL of the Four Sirens? Yes, or no? I suspect the vast majority of Women in the country would vote a big fat NO to that question, and if my guess is right, so would YOU.

    So, please, let’s cut the crap. Simple Econ 101 says that people do what they do because they can. Women want a consequence free sex life, for as long as they can. That means, Game can and will persist. Marriage can and will, be fewer in numbers, simply because Women DON’T NEED IT in order to survive. And if college entry and graduation rates are any indication, let alone the workforce ratios of Men to Women, they will continue to fall off a cliff.

    The reason why Game works so well is because…wait for it…

    WOMEN WANT IT.

    And as long as the environmental conditions exist that makes Women to indulge their whims, Game will flourish. It’s really as simple as that.

    The Obsidian

    • DADT
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:36 pm
    • Permalink

    “Would you like to see Women’s education, made illegal? Would you like to see Women barred from the workplace (and thereby earning independent incomes)?”…….

    WHAT?!?!?!?

    • DADT
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm
    • Permalink

    “But what is a ‘quality man’ to begin with? His looks, his wealth, but most importantly his GAME, determine that.”…….

    Looks, wealth and “game” are “quality”???

    What about character, values, morals and ethics?

    Is he kind? Compassionate? Empathetic?

    I can understand why you men are so bitter/angry. The only kind of women you draw are the shallow types who only go for externals. But then you gotta ask yourselves WHY it is you are attracting them into your energy field.

  22. DADT,
    I’m not sure that every Man who makes use of Game is bitter and angry. I’m certainly not.

    The point is, out there in the dating scene, those qualities you mentioned aren’t as easily apparent. Other things take preceedance, among them looks and the like. That’s just the way it is, and I don’t see the point of arguing over why the dating scene is what it is. Its there, its gonna be there, and from where I sit, the issue should be how best to manage and navigate this gauntlet, rather than sitting around quibbling over stuff that doesn’t mean anything at the end of the day.

    I’m just sayin.

    The Obsidian

    • dragnet
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:52 pm
    • Permalink

    The reason why Game works so well is because…wait for it…

    WOMEN WANT IT.

    Haha. I think this maybe the crux of our disagreement. Women don’t want Game—they want ALPHAS. Game gives them false-positive alphas—that’s it. I’ve got to believe that if enough of them figure out they’re being continually had, then they will change their behavior, a classic case of something working so well it changes the conditions that formerly made it possible for it to work.

    Another thing—thanks for engaging with us in the comments, Obs. This has been a really interesting discussion. Like iron sharpening iron. I look forward to more of this :-)

    • Mack
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Black and German,

    I have lived several years in Sweden and my wife is Swedish so I have some experience on this subject. Americans either have trouble understanding some of the statistics coming out of Sweden or they have an ideological interest in manipulating them. And by the way I am also Catholic and I am quite sympathetic to many of the points you make. With that out of the way let’s get on with my spiel.

    Sweden most certainly does not have “disastrous social policies” although I would agree (even if I’m not sure this is what you were trying to say) that they have had disastrous immigration policies in the last ten to fifteen years. Sweden has one of the highest birth rates in Europe. America certainly has a higher rate but that is only because America is a country that is 65% First World and 35% Third World (with the Third World proportion rising daily). The First World portion of American probably has a birth rate that would fall somewhere in the middle of the European table and the Third World portion has a rate that falls somewhere Ghana and Guatemala. And obviously a very high percentage of the Third World births in America are to single mothers.

    But you might say that many of the births in Sweden are also to “single” mothers. True but there is a big difference. Marriage as an institution came late to Scandinavia and never totally caught on. But monogamous relationships have always been de rigor there. What happens is that many couples live together in long-term monogamous relationships where both parents are totally invested in the resulting children. They just don’t bother getting a piece of paper from the state. This is slowly changing as the state has recently introduced large tax incentives to encourage couples to marry.

    But this is where Sweden’s social policies come in. Although called a welfare state, almost every adult in Sweden contributes to the good of society. If we ignore very recent events (Islamic immigration), there is no underclass to speak of (+/- 5% underclass). Almost every child born is an asset to the state. Even if born to a “single” mother, that child will more than likely have two parents investing their love and lives into his future. And if it really is a single mother (pretty rare but it does happen) then the Swedish social policies kick in and that child basically has the same chance as any other child although it will suffer some psychologically if no father figure enters the picture. There are of course serious danger signs on the horizon due to inability of Sweden to “digest” their recent wave of Islamic immigration and this failure could drastically change the social calculus down the road.

    In America on the other hand 35% of so of the people are liabilities – in jail, permanently on welfare, criminals, drug addicts, etc. And many of these underclass women are reproducing; in their teens no less. So America higher birth rate is not necessarily a good thing when placed on an admittedly very inhuman balance sheet of assets and liabilities.

    Swedish divorce laws are also interesting. Alimony is just about unheard of; only in extreme cases, and only for a limited period of time (long enough for the weaker spouse to get job training). The default for children is 50% -50% custody. The whole issue of no-fault divorce, so often discussed on Men’s blogs is plain stupid; does anyone really want the alternative? The real problem in the US is the punitive alimony and child support that are stacked against men. Conservatives would do well to push for Swedish-style divorce laws. They won’t though for cultural reasons – they have deeply imbedded negative conditioned responses to anything European. Like Charles Murray who basically advocates the German education system – the only problem is that he can’t sell it that way because anything European is emotionally anathema to conservatives.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm
    • Permalink

    AAAAGH. I need to get off the computer. But I just couldn’t help myself. It’s too interesting.

    Moreover, most of the Dimes aren’t such great lays anyway, the Kim Kardashian sextape proves that.

    Okay, here’s where alpha/beta part. I’m not just talking about looks. I’m talking about the women who are the best marriage/mother prospects. Your typical engineer would shag Kardashian as fast as the next guy. He might even keep her around to play with for a while. But take her home to his mother? No way. They have a completely different scale for that. They want a pretty (6-8), intelligent, polite, modest, young woman who is good company and likes children. They aren’t trying to save-a-ho.

    O: There’s a website called Hooking Up Smart, which is devoted to college aged Women. They’re the ones MOST likely to hookup, B&G.
    They’re the ones in the clubs. They’re the ones in the bars. I’m just sayin.

    LOL. Extended adolescence. I had a very brief bar-scene-era myself. But the best women wisen-up fast. If they can get their act together before they hit 25 (and aren’t too damaged by the experience) they still have a good chance of making a solid match.
    The truth is, the competition isn’t that difficult. Most women are ho’s. Just being not-a-ho already puts you close to the angels. LOL. You know it’s true! Sad but true.

    I don’t know about all that, and besides, my own family, none of whom are college grads, has a better track record insofar as married Black Women go-i have three sisters, two of whom are happily married for more than a decade each. *shrugs* the Sistas I see who are consistently the most miserable, are those who tend to be very highly educated. They’re almost always alone. Again, not taking a side here. I’m just sayin.

    This is actually two points.

    It’s true that the HIGHLY educated usually end up alone. They’ve priced themselves out of the market and waited too long. But someone young and modestly educated (high school through Bachelor’s) is still in play.

    As for your family, may I suggest that you are middle-class? Considering that you are (I presume) well-read and intelligent, the chances are that your sisters are, as well. I also don’t have a college degree but that doesn’t mean I’m uneducated. College degrees are used as proxies for intelligence and class because they are simple statistically.

    Your family also has the benefit that marriage is heritable. Not biologically, but socially. Children whose parents are married (are yours?) tend to get married themselves and are less likely to divorce.

    I’ve always felt the comparison of us to Sweden was a serious logical fallacy. We are fundamentally different from them in almost every way.

    Yes, it doesn’t make any sense. A comparison with Britain, France or Germany would be closer but still not quite make it. America is pretty unique.

    There doesn’t seem to be much correlation (if any) between marriage rates and baby-producing.

    The correlation isn’t international but intra-national. Within each country, married women produce more children. Therefore, marriage is the best bet for reaching replacement birth-rates. Even if you only reach 1.9, or something, you’re still way better off than if you have 1.5.

    It’s my understanding that heavily Catholic countries, like Italy and Spain, have very low birthrates as well. Hmm.

    Those are traditionally Catholic countries. The people there are actually much less likely to be practicing Catholics than Americans. Also, birth rates go up with increased female participation in the workforce (yes, that’s right), even among married women. Also don’t forget that people are allowed to pension ridiculously early in Italy and Spain and that the added tax burden is shouldered by younger people. Many can barely afford to move out of their houses and start their own families.

    And I agree with dragnet and DADT above.

  23. Dragnet,
    Thank you for the great convo! It’s been a blast, & I’m glad I launched the blog when I did. Looking forward to many more great convos.

    As to your thoughts on the future of Game, I can understand what you *want* to believe certain things, but the facts are, that Women can no more change what makes them wet than we Men can change what makes us hard. So long as that is the case, Game will continue to work, unabated, all the moreso while the Four Sirens are in full effect.

    I’m just sayin.

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

    • meep
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 4:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Game will work for its purpose: getting tail.

    Again, it seems that people are ignoring that there are non-intersecting mating markets out there. This is why at OneSTDV I recommended guys go to traditional churches to look for wife material. When I was “available”, I was circulating in a different market than the NYC meat market some of my friends have tried [and run into the problem that Game causes]… any guy running Game would immediately pass me by, even when I was young – I’m a weird person. [and yes, y'all are probably weird, too. Be honest with yourselves.]

    I don’t know how old the guys on this thread are, but it could be you’re still in the “sowing wild oats” mode [or, rather, wanting to sow those wild oats and maybe able to do it]. As you get older, and aren’t quite the hot shots in the “getting some” scene, you might desire companionship and other things. You may be able to find someone, but it’s going to take skills other than Game to get what you want at that point.

    I agree Game works in what it is trying to do. I’m just saying you might not want what Game gets you throughout your entire life. But if that’s what you want, well, tastes differ.

  24. B&G,
    I’m from the Working Class. My parents were married, my mom was gently nudged to marry my dad by my beloved great-grandmother, LOL. One of these days, I’ll have to relay that story in full, but suffice it to say, those talks don’t go down anymore, and lots of Women are seriously the worse for it.

    My mom gave my sisters the talk too, so yup, what you said makes sense.

    As for Sistas, most of them do indeed price themselves out of the market, I see it all the time. They have advanced degrees, and age. And are alone. And bitter. The truth is, even for a Blue Collar Brotha like myself, it’s a Buyer’s Market. All the moreso the more accoutrements you have and can display. Trust me when I tell ya, you won’t hear too many Brothas complaining, LOL. Not saying that’s right or wrong, I’m just laying out the facts as they can be easily seen out there.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 4:21 pm
    • Permalink

    Wow, Mack. Good comment!

    I should have known better because I actually know a lot of Swedish people (in Germany). I personally prefer the German divorce laws as they seem gender-neutral and fair and are targeted towards the best interests of the children instead of those of divorce lawyers.

    What happens is that many couples live together in long-term monogamous relationships where both parents are totally invested in the resulting children. They just don’t bother getting a piece of paper from the state.

    This is true. Sorry for misrepresenting. But I do know that, even in Sweden, married couples stay together longer (on average) than those cohabiting. This doesn’t just help the children, it also aides wealth creation and societal stability.

    The reason I say they have “disastrous social policies” (and I know similar ones as I was born and raised in Germany and just moved to the States last year) is that that type of heavy social state creates a cushy life for the current generation but it reduces the dynamics of the economy. You can say what you like about America but it manages to take in a mind-boggling number of immigrants every year without exploding. That is a feat in itself and a testament to it’s strengths. Because America is so fundamentally different, I don’t understand why they are chasing the European model.

    America would do best if it concentrated on Chancengleichheit (equality of opportunity) rather than trying to “spread the wealth” (equality of status). That would mean: promotion and rewarding of marriage, educational vouchers, national catastrophic health-care coverage, and an expansion of the earned income tax credit (the only welfare program that actually helps married families and keeps men from being priced out of the marriage market). Every other social policy, no matter how noble, has little discernible benefit and should be abolished as a big waste of money.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm
    • Permalink

    Sisters price themselves out because education has been stressed too heavily for women. It’s become the mantra that if some education is good, more is better. That just isn’t true. If you are getting the education because you’re really driven towards a certain job (doctor, lawyer, etc.) then it makes sense. If you think it’s going to be your key to wealth and happiness, think again. It’s easier to just stop before you get ahead of yourself and get married. Once you are married and have had your kids you can always go back and finish (as I am doing). Then your education is valuable to your family and you still managed to get your kids in before your ovaries dry up. LOL.

    By marrying your sisters may be able to pull themselves into the middle or even upper-middle class. It has that great of a wealth-creating effect. My parents clawed their way up from way far down. My father started out as a lowly private working a second job in the Army canteen, so I’ve got anecdotal proof. LOL.

    I know that you know the benefits of marriage, you’re just enjoying yourself too much now to settle down. We’ll see what the deal is in 5 years. :-)

  25. B&G,
    I never argued against marriage, LOL. All I’m saying is tht the conditions are such, on a whole host of levels, that makes it harder and harder for guys like your dad and mine, to get married today in the first place. It’s just getting very difficult to do, and then when we bring in the highly educated Sista part of it…well, you know.

    I’m just saying.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 4:40 pm
    • Permalink

    Yeah, I’m just saying, too. :-) I think that modern marriage laws and social policies have been written by people who don’t really value marriage.

    Peace-out. Gotta go tend the kids and make some dinner.

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm
    • Permalink

    Highly educated Sistas have only priced themselves out of the market because of their relentless focus on trying to marry the IBM (Ideal Black Man) despite the extreme dearth of those black guys who can equal or surpass them, which aded to Men’s very willingness to date women less educated and/or dumber than they, means that they have should expand their horizons. Black women should try looking more outside the race, advice that until very recently was treated like heresy. Most black guys ( the “winners” that is, ones who aren’t dead, in jail, or completely retarded) are completely spoiled at this point. I think the only thing worse for society than female choice, is male choice. Because that really starts looking ugly, and unstable.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
    • Permalink

    Harder AND riskier!!

    The very notion that SHE leaves him, yet HE has to pay her for years after that, is simply absurd.

    Feminists have priced marriage out of the market, to the extent that the customers (men) are no longer buying. Socialcons and femininsts joined up to create the illusion that the WOMAN is the customer, via the wedding ring and bridezilla industry, but the man is the customer, and he is not seeing sufficient value in the product relative to the risks.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm
    • Permalink

    DADT is projecting her own Indian-woman frustrations onto others. She is using typical feminist shaming language that indicates that the women in question has been intellectually outclassed.

    Men with Game are always the happiest men – just about every man who learns Game will vouch that it was the greatest upliftment they have ever experienced.

    But DADT doesn’t know what Game is, so she is not qualified to discuss it.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 5:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Why are the richest people more likely to get married, not less, as they have much more to lose if a marriage goes awry?

    Not the richest young men. That is for sure.

    The exceptions are when the man and woman both make the same, and above the $300K level, extremely few women fit the bill.

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 5:52 pm
    • Permalink

    Married men tend to the happiest, and healthiest men. Your avaerage PUA, flutterring from woman to woman, is usually not a very happy person, on avaerage.

    Not the richest young men. That is for sure. One accumulates wealth and assessts over time. Therefore young men usually aren’t rich, barring family wealth. To be in the top 5 percent of US households, a couple has to make about $200,000 or so. Easily achievable in most urban areas.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 6:21 pm
    • Permalink

    Married men tend to the happiest, and healthiest men.

    Bullshit. These are bogus studies that are made BY women FOR women.

    Much like the totally uninformed lie that women only earn 75% of men for the same job.

    Your avaerage PUA, flutterring from woman to woman, is usually not a very happy person, on avaerage.

    How would you know? You may WISH for that to be true, but that does not make it reality.

    Plus, you have already been told about the difference between PUA and Game (PUA being a small subset of Game), so make sure you remember that.

    Therefore young men usually aren’t rich, barring family wealth.

    Young men on a career path that leads to high income are avoiding marriage, period. All it takes is becoming aware of what the divorce laws are. After that, a man has 2 choices : MGTOW and Game.

    Game is better, of course.

    Flail all you want, you are merely proving the point of the main article, which is that women CANNOT grasp what is going on, and cannot address it meaningfully.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 6:23 pm
    • Permalink

    deery,

    Plus, you totally fail to address how the divorce laws are horrendously and disgustingly anti-male.

    Women truly have no clue about how much feminists have damaged the average woman.

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 6:28 pm
    • Permalink

    You say lots of things t5h, but you really don’t point to anything. In the Us, at least, the people who avoid marriage the most tend to be from the lower classes, and least educated. Given the rise of assortative mating, this makes sense, and I haven’t heard of any trends where that is rversing. Can you point me to something which states otherwise? If all Game is defines as men being able to tell what women think, and then being able to take some advantage from that, I say, more power to Guys. Women, of the two sexes, is much better equipped to be able to tell what men are thinking, and anticipate what they may be thinking in the future. Nowadays, I think many women just don’t give too much of a shit what men are thinking, because they don’t have to rely on them as much anymore. I’m just saying.

    • deery
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 6:29 pm
    • Permalink

    Divorce laws are gender neutral. Now the application of such laws may be horribly biased, but that is a different story.

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 6:34 pm
    • Permalink

    Now the application of such laws may be horribly biased, but that is a different story.

    But that IS the story.

    The husband usually earns more than the wife. That is why 96% of alimony is paid by men, and only 4% by women.

    Custody is given to the woman, which means she gets alimony masked as ‘child support’ i.e. far more than the child’s expenses.

    You are dodging the main point. The fact is, the divorce laws AS APPLIED IN REAL CASES, are horrendously anti-male. The fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women show it. If the laws were fair, the stats would be 50/50.

    After 20 years of this causes more and more men to tell their stories to younger men, younger men, particularly those on a high-income trajectory.

    Women can’t think this far ahead, but are bearing the costs of feminist sadism and evil.

  26. The comin decade will prove most telling on all of this. So, we’ll soon see which view will win out…

    The Obsidian

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 7:10 pm
    • Permalink

    Obsidian,

    Marriage will see a resurgence IF the laws were to change.

    But since that isn’t happening, it will only go downhill from here.

    Women will be in VERY bad shape by 2020 – alone and unloved, earning less than today, and more at risk of crime.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 9:41 pm
    • Permalink

    Black women should try looking more outside the race, advice that until very recently was treated like heresy.

    Amen. I’m in an interracial marriage myself, as are some of my cousins (and I have a lot of cousins, LOL).

    Feminists have priced marriage out of the market, to the extent that the customers (men) are no longer buying. Socialcons and femininsts joined up to create the illusion that the WOMAN is the customer, via the wedding ring and bridezilla industry, but the man is the customer, and he is not seeing sufficient value in the product relative to the risks.

    It swings both ways. The truth is that the people who benefit the most from marriage are the children. Even Roissy will back me up on that one. Men are the next biggest direct beneficiaries and women the last.

    However, women benefit indirectly. Firstly, they benefit by being able to live in a more stable society. Secondly, the benefit to their children is so humongous, so constant, and so statistically obvious that for most women that would generally be cause enough to marry. The problem is that our country’s social policies warp the market and make marriage look like a worse deal for women than it is. There’s also a lot of false information out there concerning fatherhood and the situation is deteriorating with the whole “gay marriage” discussion. Feminists are teaming up with lesbians (and many gay men are remaining quiet, to their infinite shame) to say that fatherhood doesn’t matter, which is an outright lie.

    Men with Game are always the happiest men – just about every man who learns Game will vouch that it was the greatest upliftment they have ever experienced.

    I agree that Game is generally a good thing. More of it would be great. But I think her beef was less with Game then with PUAs. Unfortunately, the one is associated with the other.

    Young men on a career path that leads to high income are avoiding marriage, period.

    There is a slight decline in the upper class but the biggest decline is actually in the working class. The truth is that most of the wealthy feminists who screamed about the patriarchy and burned their bras went ahead and got married anyway, in the end. Hypocrites that they are. They didn’t put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. But poor and uneducated women heard their message, were affected by their policies, and changed their behavior accordingly. And they’re the ones suffering now.

    Even if a couple does divorce the man’s AVERAGE INCOME is higher than if he had never married at all. Having a wife and children is the most reliable way to increase your income. That advantage stays even if you divorce.
    Of course, if you start off with a gazillion dollars and then have to give her half on her way out the door then you were better off single. But that is a rare case. Most people start off broke (or even in debt) and get wealthier through marriage. Marriage is our society’s most reliable and universally applicable get-rich-slowly scheme.

    “Married couples living with their own children younger than 18 are also helping to drive a well-documented increase in income inequality. Compared with all households, they are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of income. Their income has increased 59 percent in the past three decades, compared with 44 percent for all households, according to the census. ”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

    Furthermore, Deery is absolutely right about marriage being beneficial for pretty much everybody. From the CDC:

    “Compared with unmarried people, married men and women tend to have lower mortality, less risky behavior, more monitoring of health, more compliance with medical regimens, higher sexual frequency, more satisfaction with their sexual lives, more savings, and higher wages.”
    From: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

    Lastly, all this talk about sexless marriages excludes one very important point: statisticians consider a marriage “sexless” if they are having sex less than once every 2 weeks. There are a lot of single men out there living in involuntary celibacy who would consider sex twice a month to be a veritable shag-bonanza. So, let’s keep this realistic: most men are not alphas and teaching them Game won’t change that. The quality of the woman they could be sleeping with will be higher if they marry than if they don’t, and they don’t have to worry about “sticking their spoon in another man’s custard”, if you know what I mean.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 9:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Getting back to the ORIGINAL POST TOPIC (Where were we, again? LOL)…

    The way I see it, the marriage situation links with the economic situation in this manner:

    Working class men have been completely priced out of the marriage market by social welfare systems and government-sponsored employment. This has the effect that most working class women are no longer directly affected by the unemployment of working class men. This leads to a general disregard for working-class jobs usually occupied by men. This in turn leads to women voting for policies that benefit them directly but harm them indirectly.

    But this is a system that cannot hold. Although most working-class men don’t pay income taxes (they do contribute greatly through other tax avenues), if they are unemployed they (and their children) are a drain on the tax base. This will leave less money for the state programs that are currently propping up single-mother households.

    So… basically I think Obsidian and TFH are right on this one. The center cannot hold and something will change when the dough starts to run out. The question is: How long will the free-love and free-money last?

  27. B&G,
    Your point about Working Class Men is quite legitimate. I think we’ll see a major “correction” in the SMP by/before the end of the next decade or so.

    Oh, and Women benefit infinitely more from marriage than Men do. I’ve outlined why in my post above. Please review it.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 10:37 pm
    • Permalink

    I wasn’t disagreeing with you. My point is that children’s and men’s benefits are more obvious. Through our social systems, women’s benefits have become more indirect and therefore undervalued. Women (especially in the working class) look around and say, “Hey, I’ve got it good. I’m safe, my kids go to school, I’ve got health care, I’ve got a job, enough to eat, a place to live, etc. Why do I need a man?” What they don’t realize is that their safety, comfort, and provision IS being paid for by a man. They’re being paid for by MY MAN. And by you, and TFH, and Novaseeker, and Welmer, and, and, and.

    If those systems were altered to eliminate this distortion, marriage would look like the plumb deal for women that it really is. Right now, unmarried mothers (even those that are working!) are being supported by childless workers and the husbands of married women. They’re free-loaders.

    Cut the money train and let them sink or swim. They’ll be married within a year. And they’ll make good wives, too. And the ones that don’t manage to get married can earn their own keep or go beg at the church door and serve as a lesson to the next generation.

    It’s the ultimate tough-love program. ;-)

  28. B&G,
    You’re pipedreaming. No way in hell are American Women-and a goodly number of American Men-gonna vote for any such thing. Simply put, being a Single Mom isn’t seen as being a bad thing anymore, and hasn’t for at least a generation, if not several. The ONLY way this thing is gonna change is through a major “market correction” and even then, I have my doubts because people hang on to their ideologies.

    So, we’re pretty much stuck with what we got.

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 17, 2009 at 11:10 pm
    • Permalink

    Heh. Yeah, I’m dreaming. But it’s the only way to change things quickly. Things do have to change because otherwise the money will just run out or a large section of the population will revolt under the resulting crushing tax burden.
    But will we live to see it?

    And now I’m signing off. Don’t you ever sleep?

  29. B&G,
    Yea, I sleep, lol. I just keep odd hours.

    The coffers are running dry as we speak. Several key states around the country are beginning to shed state workers, cut services, etc. Some of which will never return.

    TFH has written about all this on his blog The Futurist. The taxbase is maxed out in many locales, like NJ, NY and CA, just for starters. As you said, the center cannot hold.

    The next decade will see a series of massive market corrections. So the Reckoning is a lot closer than you think.

    The Obsidian

    • The Fifth Horseman
    • Posted November 18, 2009 at 12:25 am
    • Permalink

    Obsidian,

    You might find this comment on The Spearhead to be…..interesting.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/17/a-rational-costbenefit-analysis-of-marriage/#comment-10388

    • DADT
    • Posted November 19, 2009 at 10:55 am
    • Permalink

    “Black women should try looking more outside the race, advice that until very recently was treated like heresy”…..

    “Amen. I’m in an interracial marriage myself, as are some of my cousins (and I have a lot of cousins, LOL).”…….

    …….

    In the US the black women that get with non-black men tend to be with quality non-black men, while the white and other non-black women who get with black men, tend to get with the low quality black men.

    Any perspectives on why this particular dynamic?

    By the Fifth Horsemen, I’m not Indian and I generally cannot stand Indians, so that is why I’m not engaging with you.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 19, 2009 at 1:42 pm
    • Permalink

    If you mean “get with” to be “marry” and “quality” to be “well-educated professionals” then you are correct, from a statistical perspective. However, I would argue with you that quality is not limited by wealth. There are quality working-class men and DBR men who are making big $$.

    Any perspectives on why this particular dynamic?

    Oh, that’s easy. Both groups of upwardly-mobile men are selecting for quality and heading towards the group where quality is in huge oversupply: black women. Both black and non-black men have a good chance of “marrying well” in regards to class, education, values, wealth, behavior, beauty, etc. if they marry a black woman.

    It sort of sucks for us, though. Black men have a glut of quality women to choose from (Obsidian can attest to this) and non-black men come and pick off any strays in increasing numbers. But there are still many good black women left over in the end. At least, that’s what the statistics say. IRL, I don’t actually know any quality black women of any social class who aren’t married or in a LTR. And I know a lot of black women. A whole lot. But then again, they’re all open to interracial dating.

    A while back there was a big deal being made online about the OK Cupid study. Despite the fact that the study was pretty unscientific I found the reactions interesting. People were saying things like “See? Nobody wants black women.” That sort of surprised me because I was actually wondering at how many replies the women got (34% was the mean). It’s true that they got fewer than any other group of women, but so what? If the goal is to meet someone and you get a positive response 1/3 of the time you still have a pretty good chance of meeting someone you like. Even the best-rated men (white men at 29.2%) didn’t score that high. And this was a site targeting professional white people. If you went to a site targeting black or interracial people the black women would probably do much better.

    It might be true that blond chicks with big boobs get hit on the most in bars but I would posit that:
    1) The best men aren’t at the bars
    2) The best women aren’t there either
    3) At a different venue a non-hot-blond woman probably has an excellent chance if she looks modest, pretty, and intelligent.

    Don’t believe all the crap you read online. Other parts of the country might be a bit less enlightened, but around here (Baltimore/DC/Philly) a quality woman is a quality woman.

    I’ve never had a problem getting a date with a quality man and neither has any other quality black woman that I know, even those that don’t date non-black men. And if I was experiencing a temporary dry spell I’d just ask someone out. They nearly always said yes. Like I said, guys aren’t as choosy in real-life as they are online.

    Whenever I see some guy write, “Oh, I don’t think Gabriele Union (Sanaa Latham, Halle Berry, …) is attractive.” Ooooookaay. You know if they walked by those guys’ eyes would be falling out of their head. I see it everyday. They might not want to marry them but they’d hit it. You know they would. LOL.

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/okcupid-and-race-and-dating/

  30. Interesting thoughts, B&G.
    Personally, and I think its safe to say that I know at least as many Black folks as you, I don’t see any large “migration” of Black Women to non-Black Men, or vice-versa. Like the Cougar thing and other trends, much of the action will take place largely on the margins. That doesn’t make it any less impactful or important, but I do think we have to keep things in perspective here.

    If the stats are any indication, given the choice the vast majority of Black Women would prefer a Black Man as a mate. The problem for some Black Women, is that there aren’t enough of the kids of Black Men they’d like, ie, high earning and/or highly educated, coiffed, etc. That said, as a lifelong Blue Collar Brotha, one who’s dated pretty much nothing but Women like B&G I might add, I think there’s a lot of “wiggle room” for the RIGHT Brotha to come along, provided he really sets himself apart from the pack.

    I say that because, merely having a great education and/or money, alone, does not the complete package make. The great thing about being a Man, is that what a Woman finds attractive is a lot more fluid than the other way around-for guys, it really all cmes down to whether he gets wood, at least in the early stages. If that don’t happen, NOTHING HAPPENS.

    With Women, it’s not quite as rigid, pardon the pun-you can be intelligent but necessarily formally educated; ambitious but necessarily a Wall St raider; and so on. Plus, I’ve had a lot of Sistas tell me that a lot of the guys in their social class were BORING and many of them had their heads filled with all kinds of Wanna Be White junk, including wanting to chasedown White gals or the next best thing, the Redbone chick. I know B&G can relate to what I’m saying here.

    I think so long as a guy really keeps working on himself he’ll do well in the Sista market.

    Now having said that, I’ve heard from many Sistas, including my own blood sisters, about how they’re hit on ALL THE TIME by White guys-but here’s the trick. The vast majority of those White guys, they just want a downlow sexual thing with em, they don’t want anyone else to know about it-AND THAT’S WHAT TURNS SO MANY SISTAS OFF ABOUT WHITE GUYS IN GENERAL. I’ve personally found that White guys are extremely sensitive about what their peer, familial and social circle thinks of who they date. So, very often, they’ll do all they can to try to keep it hush if they’re trying to get with a Sista. One reason why most Black Women tend to gravitate toward Brothas is because, God bless us, we tend to be much more bolder in our intentions. Sure, unwarranted advances, catcalling and the like can be a pain, but still in all, what Woman doesn’t like, at least on some level, to know that she’s wanted and desired? In front of errbody? So, I think this, among other reasons, is why on average, Sistas tend to stick with Brothas or at least the hope of attracting one as a longterm mate.

    OK, holla back

    The Obsidian

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 19, 2009 at 3:03 pm
    • Permalink

    Like the Cougar thing and other trends, much of the action will take place largely on the margins.

    This is true. Most of the black women I know are upper-middle class professionals. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, etc.

    the next best thing, the Redbone chick

    Ugh, yeah. I’m that Redbone chick. Hated that.

    AND THAT’S WHAT TURNS SO MANY SISTAS OFF ABOUT WHITE GUYS IN GENERAL

    Exactly. Yeah, that’s what pisses us off. That and some of the nasty-ass stuff they say to us.
    And that’s another good reason to keep your legs closed.

    • DADT
    • Posted November 19, 2009 at 3:11 pm
    • Permalink

    By quality black man I am not thinking in terms of wealth, but rather in terms of honesty and integrity – straight shooters. White women ’round these parts tend to go with the drama kings. And I’m not just talking low quality, dumb 20 something white women either. I’m talking “intelligent”, gainfully employed women in their 40s. And they buy into everything the dude tells them.

    • The Iconoclast
    • Posted November 20, 2009 at 2:53 pm
    • Permalink

    Right now in America, educational CREDENTIALS (I’m not saying real education) are hugely overvalued. There are a lot of women who could probably be happy with a high-quality working class guy but wouldn’t consider such because he just wouldn’t be as impressive to her friends as some dude spending 10 years in grad school to get a lame degree of some sort.

  31. I don’t want to get rid of any of the Sirens. All in all, they are beneficial to the herd.

    When men become tools of an overgrown state and fewer of them get to be leaders on a local/smaller scale, this very unnatural situation needs some semblance of gender equality (equal right to serve as a drone) to sustain itself.

    Where prudence in sexual behavior benefits women is personally more than market wise. It is personally damaging to spread one’s self too thin, so to speak. It’s too much risk for too little reward both biologically and socially.

    Besides, knowing what you want (and what you don’t) is sexy and edgy in the right way. It makes you less interchangeable. It’s not the depriving the guy that makes you special. It’s the allowing him to be the man. Nowadays, that’s kinda rare.

    • K(yle)
    • Posted November 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm
    • Permalink

    The ‘bar girl’ is largely a myth. I’ve met plenty of quality women at bars and clubs. Many of which have only come along for a birthday party or some other social activity on a lark; and it’s their first time there.

    Here is the running definition of ‘quality woman’ I’m seeing. She finds a man who doesn’t stimulate her, and engages in an LTR. She defends her choices claiming she is attracted to Betas; which is just a rationalization.

    She went through her badboy phase, and as such she is now ‘trying something different’ by actively seeking out a beta male. She will easily find one, and then sequester herself from any social activity that could result in her being in the presence of an Alpha male.

    ‘Quality girls’ are simply the ones that fall head over heals quickly, which isn’t quality at all, because that is immature and unattractive. They are also the ones that fell for an Alpha bad boy once upon a time and got burned bad, and now run from the fire.

    If you are an insecure male, you might want devotional loyalty without earning it, but most men with options don’t and any man with Game knows that loyalty is something you command, not something you recieve.

    • Black&German
    • Posted November 22, 2009 at 7:05 pm
    • Permalink

    Why do you assume that a beta male can’t have Game? Anyway, when most women say “beta” they mean “guy who isn’t a player” they don’t mean “guy who nobody else wants”.

    I know Roissy defines “alpha” by how many women find him attractive but for me it is more a definition of reproductive strategy. An alpha spreads his sperm around indiscriminately (promiscuous) whereas a beta puts his effort into selecting an ideal mate and investing heavily in his few children (monogamous). Even when an alpha settles down he struggles (or doesn’t bother) to stay monogamous and often indulges in affairs.

    • finsalscollons
    • Posted December 8, 2009 at 12:13 am
    • Permalink

    So wrong. You are completely mistaken.

    Women are the winners. No wonder feminism was about sexual liberation.

    If women wanted betas instead of a share of an alpha, they could choose one of the many betas the modern sexual marketplace has left alone.

    When women whine about not being able to marry, they whine about not being able to marry AN ALPHA. Betas never cross their minds as possible long-term mates.

    The article by Anna Pasternak says “is there one solvent, kind, desirable, heterosexual single man in his 40s left in Britain?” where “desirable” stands for “alpha”.

    Women of yesteryear were FORCED to marry a beta out of social shaming and economic necessity. With the disappearance of social shaming and the entrance of women into the workforce, they can follow their wishes.

    Now they can bang as many alphas as they want, have children and be helped by welfare, alimony or child support. They enjoy the economic stability of a beta while banging alphas. It is the perfect crime and better than even the wildest dreams of their foremothers.

    Of course, they whine and whine. They are women. But they are the winners of the modern sexual marketplace. Most men are the losers and Western civilization is doomed.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. [...] Obsidian reveals why most women are incapable of addressing the realities of the sexual marketplace. [...]

Post a Comment

*
*