Who’s Dragging Those Heels?

Dalrock has another post up which touches on the issue of delaying marriage.  Now, whenever this topic comes up, someone claims that it’s really men who are delaying marriage.  This is both true and completely irrelevant and misleading.

The truth is, men have always delayed marriage.  In other words, men have never particularly wanted to marry; they’ve been willing to marry when that was the way to get what men really want: exclusive sex and procreation with a woman of their choice.  That’s why the trope is of a woman dragging her man to the altar, and not the other way around.  So while men may be delaying (“avoiding” would be a better word) marriage, men have always avoided marriage, so that doesn’t account for the changes we’re seeing.

The change is in women, in two closely related areas: how long women delay marriage, and how women have detached sex from marriage.

Since most girls now think the ideal age for marriage is about 28, and they’re consciously avoiding it until then, that means that most of them are sexually active for a solid decade or more before they start seeking a husband.  By that time she’s gotten used to the idea that relationships start with sex; marriage is something optional that might come along later if you let it.  When she hits 30 and starts to scramble for a husband, it’s not going to come natural to her to start being chaste and holding out for a ring.  Sex is how she gets to know guys; it’s how she knows how she feels about them.  Some women do try the “born-again virgin” thing, and I think we all know how well that works — it falls apart as soon as they get the tingles, or they go so far the other direction with frigidity to keep their pants on that no guy can get close to them.

A couple generations ago, guys knew that you had to marry to get sex.  Even if your girlfriend caved in and let you get past third base once or twice, it wasn’t going to be a regular thing — if nothing else, you’d end up with a quickie marriage and a kid six months later.  In the 80s and 90s when I was starting to date, girls would have sex if you were “going steady,” but if you were having regular sex, you knew the marriage clock was ticking.  At some point — usually within months, not years — she’d start talking about marriage, and if you didn’t go along, she’d cut off the sex and eventually move on.  The window of opportunity for getting the milk for free was limited.

Now it’s not limited at all.  If you’re having sex with a 22-year-old girl, you need not fear that she’ll ever bring up marriage.  In fact, if you bring it up, there’s a good chance you’ll scare her away.  If you just stay away from the topic — as your male ancestors tried to do — odds are marriage will never even come up unless you’re together until she hits 28 or so.

If you’re having sex with a 35-year-old girl, she’ll probably press for marriage before too long, but not in the 1950s sense of punishing you with blue-balls until you marry her.  More likely the sex will be plentiful from day one as she tries to entice you into marriage with the only skill she’s learned in that area.  Even then, there won’t be a direct connection between sex and marriage; the sex will be to try to get you to stay around, so that over time she can nag you into marriage.  There’s no direct quid pro quo anymore.

So, how does this relate to the numbers Dalrock is seeing, where men aren’t remarrying as quickly as they used to?  Well, why would they, when it no longer increases their chance of having sex?  That’s the real crux here: being willing to marry no longer noticeably increases a man’s chance of having sex, even regular exclusive sex with the same woman.  A man can be on a date with a woman and tell her he has no intention of ever marrying, and it probably won’t reduce his chance of getting laid that night.  It might with some women, but it’ll increase his odds with others.  (The ones who tingle will ignore him and assume they’ll change his mind later anyway.)

Since we’re talking about remarriage, we’re mostly talking about older people, say 30+.  If a man that age can’t get a date, this question is moot.  But if he can get dates, most of them will have sex on the first or second date.  If a woman likes him, she’ll keep coming back for more, and pretty soon she’ll manuever things toward living together.  He can simply go along with this program, never refusing to marry but never bringing it up, and get regular sex and companionship for a few years at least.  If she eventually gives him an ultimatum of marriage-or-out, well, he can deal with that when the time comes.  Maybe she won’t ever push it that hard, if she’s afraid to lose him.

So what we’re seeing is simply men reacting to their environment.  When the requirement for regular sex was getting married, men got married.  When the requirement changed to “be willing to get married pretty soon,” men went along with that, though some bailed out when the pressure got heavy.  But now that there’s no marriage requirement at all, men are fine with that too.

There are other aspects of this, especially the financial ones.  Thanks to punitive divorce laws and affirmative action, a lot of men don’t feel they can afford to remarry.  But I think that’s secondary to the issue above, because the desire for sex is very strong.  If so many women weren’t giving away the milk for free, more men would find a way to buy the cow — or fight against the legal and political changes that have made the cow so expensive.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Who’s Dragging Those Heels?

  1. For a simple cost benefit analysis (not factoring in religion) there is no reason for a man to get married.

    Nonmarried couples living together have more sex than marrieds.

    Nonmarried couples report being happier than marrieds.

    There is no economic benefit to being married if you both have comparable incomes, you’re better single.

    if she doesn’t work, you’re better off single — alimony.

    Child support for any kids and custody of any kids is not any different married or nonmarried.

    Her debts become yours at marriage, and this day and age that a huge issue.

    There is no guarantee of fidelity with the oath. No teeth to it.

    There’s is absolutely no benefit to the man being married. Zilch.

    And plenty of negatives.

  2. This claim that in today’s society, it’s women AND MEN who are delaying marriage really frosts me. It’s not men who are telling women to wait. It’s not men buying Louis Vuitton handbags and traveling to Brazil on a lark and a whim.

    Most men of my generation spent years getting themselves ready to be husbands and fathers. Most men of my generation were working their asses off trying to build a career, or at least get a decent job. The purpose was to make enough money and achieve enough status to sell oneself as “husband” and “father” to an attractive woman.

    Re: the male remarriage rate, in my opinion what’s going on there mostly is men simply either (1) not attractive enough for the dating market at all; and, more likely, (2) men don’t need to remarry to get sex. The male remarriage rate is literally falling off the cliff, and the main reason is just that remarriage simply isn’t necessary for men to get sex.

  3. Deti, right. Outside the issue of sin, there’s literally no advantage for a man in remarrying. (There may be some small advantage in a first marriage to a childless woman, but there’s no practical advantage at all in remarriage to a woman with ex-husband(s) and children, the divorce rate for such people being what it is.) It doesn’t help him get sex. It doesn’t reduce the chance of a woman leaving him. Except in certain rare social circles, it doesn’t make his relationship with a woman any more socially acceptable. It doesn’t guarantee him anything except greater liability in the event that she divorces him.

    If I were not concerned about sin and enternal punishment, I can see no other reason not to date around until I find a woman I like spending time with, live with her and have sex with her as long as we’re both happy with the arrangement, have kids with her if that happens, and then move on to the next if the time comes. That’s what’s going to happen anyway, if she decides it, marriage or no.

  4. Something else that this entire situation is laying bare, and that women aren’t going to like:

    Men want women for sex. Men do what they must to get sex. Sex is the prime reason men deal with women outside of formal relationships. Sure, friendship and companionship is great, but it’s secondary to sex. Good conversation, someone to be with, watch movies with, yeah, ok. But sex is the sine qua non of why men deal with women — the man wants to find a sex partner.

    Ladies, if you’re in a man’s life, and you are not his mother, sister or daughter, it is because he wants to have sex with you. If a man pays attention to you, and you are not related to him by blood or marriage, it is because he is seeking a sex partner.

    We might as well be up front about it, since women are engaged in open hypergamy, Women are completely transparent now about pursuing the AFBB strategy of hot men while she can get them, and then retirement with an undemanding drafthorse beta. Women make no bones about the fact that divorce and chilimony are in her future if she decides she’s just not feeling it anymore with hubby.

    So why, then, shouldn’t men just be open about it? We want sex, we’ll do what we have to do to get sex, no less, and no more.

  5. Yep. We’d be better off if we were honest about that: men want women for sex, and will trade investment for it. Yes, all the other stuff is great. As a divorced guy living alone myself, sometimes I’d almost rather be fighting with a woman than spending a night alone. Companionship is great, someone to talk to is great, kids are certainly great.

    But if you have all that and aren’t having sex, you’re not going to be happy. Sex is the foundation that all the rest builds on. Without sex the rest won’t seem like enough, and some of it will seem downright pointless — why would you want to feel emotionally close to a woman if you can’t have sex with her? That’s just asking for frustration.

  6. Nonmarried couples living together have more sex than marrieds.

    Nonmarried couples report being happier than marrieds.

    I’ve seen studies that claimed the opposite was true. But even so, your other points remain to counter-balance these. Let’s say marrying a woman statistically increases the frequency of the sex 25%. Is that enough to overcome the increased risk of divorce robbery and shared debt? Not too likely, especially when a judicilous application of Game can improve your sex life far more than that without the risk.

  7. The thing I was getting at is that women view men wanting sex, and sex being the prime reason for men even being willing to deal with women, as shallow, superficial, mean, rude, base and even misogynist.

    But to me, it’s par for the course when we have women openly admitting what we all can see – they’re using their most attractive years not to secure a husband; but instead to have sex with the most attractive men they can find; then getting serious about marriage only when time’s about to run out. Yes, I suppose some women are “hoping” that their husband will appear from among the hawt men they’re having sex with. I suppose they all hope that one of those hawt men will drop to a knee and pledge undying love. And that happens maybe .0001% of the time (Elspeth, Sunshine Mary). But for the rest of them, 99.999% of them, it’s pump and dump time; and instead of saying “no thanks”, these women are saying “Yep, sign me up!”

  8. So the point is, we men might as well be honest about the fact that we’re in this for the sex and the sexual release, and everything else is secondary. We’re not in this to be family men. We’re not in this to be husbands or dads. We’re not in this because we want good, meaningful, fulfilling careers. We’re in this to get laid on the regular.

  9. There are two ways in which a woman can persuade a man to marry her: by threatening to withdraw the supply of sex, and by announcing that she is going to bear his child. Some women still use the old but largely defunct system of withholding sex until marriage but that is less likely to be effective these days. When I was younger most women were married by their early twenties and thus there was considerable pressure on men to marry young for otherwise all that were left for marriage were the odd-balls fatties and fuglies – the woman who felt that she was too good for the available suitors was often left very much on the shelf.

    I have never been conscious of women reaching a certain age and then pushing men to marry; certainly, when I was in my thirties and had as many female options as one could want it never then occurred to me that marriage was something I ought to be attending to. I only ever asked one woman (she was twenty-seven) and I must confess that in doing so my prime motivation was to secure her sexual-services on a full-time basis – such is the effect women can have. A narrow escape, I now think, and that painful rejection merely had the effect of turning me into a player.

    In England marriage is perhaps less important than it is in The United States. What is much in evidence these days are the couple who will have a child or two and then decide that they should formalise the arrangement. Then again there is the starter-marriage which was not expected to last any longer than the ownership of their starter-home. Women are ahead of the curve and the older generation were simply blind to and unable to comprehend the marriage strategies of post-sexual revolution young women – and of course always blamed the men for ‘failed marriages’ ‘failed relationships’ and ‘unexpected pregnancies’ as well, of course, as being only too ready to believe any calumny about date-rape or unwanted sexual-attention. In their days a marriage was ‘for life’ and so one put up with what came ones way which is perhaps why parents never warned on the inadvisability of dating older-women, divorcees, ex-cohabitees, single mothers let alone persons of different faiths and cultures or class.

  10. Deti
    This claim that in today’s society, it’s women AND MEN who are delaying marriage really frosts me. It’s not men who are telling women to wait. It’s not men buying Louis Vuitton handbags and traveling to Brazil on a lark and a whim.

    Some of this is Apex fallacy imo. The attractive men 20something women can “see” are not marrying as soon, therefore all men are delaying marriage. Women over 30 are no doubt dismayed to find a serious lack of hunky handymen who are secret millionaires.

    However, this could all be moot in a few years.

    From Chris of Dark Brightness I learned today that New Zealand’s government regards any couple that cohabits for more than a period of time (2 or 3 years, IIRC) as married. Full stop. A poster at Dalrock’s from British Columbia claims that a law was quietly passed in 2013 that takes effect next summer to the same effect: 2 years of cohabiation = marriage 2.0. It is claimed the BC law explicitily drops marriage 2.0 into the situation, with alimony & child support leading the way, no idea if it is true but it seems very likely so.

    I speculate that the usual coalition of feminists and traditional conservatives supported these laws in the appropriate legislative bodies. Perhaps there was some talk of it being “for the children” as well. It seems like one of those “solutions” to social problems that is likely to spread further, as well. In the US I have no idea what states still have common law marriage on the books, it is likely fewer than 30 or more years ago, but those that still do could easily modify it to this mandatory “2 years cohabiting and you’re married” standard. A lot of men and some women might wind up very surprised.

    It is quite possible the beneficiaries in B.C., aside from the components of the divorce industry, will be plate-spinning PUA’s who are careful to monitor how long any given woman is under their roof – I’m sure there will be an app for that.

  11. @Anon Reader

    One will have the utterly bizarre situation that some unsuspecting man will find himself treated as having been married when neither he, his friends,n or anyone else thought that that was what he was – she exaggerating how often he stayed at her house – whereas the man whose marriage was a large affair but which lasts not six months (if that) can in practice walk away from it – no children, property transfer or alimony – as if it had never happened.

    From my conversations with the female sex, I understand that they see a considerable difference between cohabitation and matrimony, just as they see a difference between a one-night stand (never really happened and probably rape anyway) and real sex. If there is no difference between Cohabitation and Matrimony, why are homosexuals so keen to marry, let alone enter into civil partnerships, I ask rhetorically. Ceremony does make a difference: I will happily try and steal a woman from her lover but would think twice about stealing her from her husband.

    Marriage may be in a mess but these new laws do not at all improve the situation, and are yet another attack on its institution under the guise of ‘social justice’.

  12. The Left has to destroy marriage because it’s one of the foundations of civilization, especially Christendom, which they hate. However, there are a couple things marriage offered which they like, namely the protection of women (seen for now as a victim group) from the elements and the whims of fate, and the transfer of resources from men to women. So some replacement structures must be created to provide those, hence equal pay laws, child support, alimony, and the return of common law marriage.

  13. Ra’s al Ghul says:
    October 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    The church writ large could, if it wished, confer the sacramental bond to marrieds without the legal entanglements. With domestic partner benefits becoming more popular (thereby eliminating one of the very few upsides to civil marriage, access to group health insurance for a spouse), the only remaining advantage to civil marriage is possibly preferential tax treatment. And that’s not worth it anyway.

  14. In NC, the advantage goes to the biological father who didn’t marry the child’s mother

    Apparently the best way to get those men to pay child support is for them to actually spend time with the child so the state will enforce the custody agreement. They do not do this for divorced men

  15. sfcton says:
    October 7, 2014 at 11:10 am

    Just curious, how did you learn of this situation? I’ve suspected that in theory a legally married father is generally supposed to enjoy more protection in most states, but that in practice, it doesn’t really matter.

  16. If things keep going as they are, with male sexuality being more and more criminalized every day, then one day soon it might be MEN who insist upon marriage as a precondition for sex and intimacy.

    No, really. As the definition of “rape” and “sexual assault” expands and the burden of proof for said offenses keeps getting lower and lower, men will ultimately decide (assuming current trends continue) that the best, safest and most cost – effective way for them to have sex lives will be to seek out wives instead of hookup partners.

    Looks like women will have to save themselves for their husbands, after all, whether they want to or not. Tell a feminist thank you!

  17. I think that Dalrock’s observation on the “child support” model of marriage is very succinct, and it contains some deep waters. Too often we see marriages, or perhaps I should write “marriages”, in which the woman plays Queen Bee to the household, centering everything on the children – or The Children might be more appropriate. This relegates the man to the ATM/walking wallet – sperm vending machine – donkey model. It facilitates frivorce for cash and prizes, of course.
    But that’s so 20th century.

    Now we have 40% of births to women that aren’t married. Yet child support must be provided! Hence paternity fraud on the part of women – nothing new in that, 19th century fiction contains some examples, as do older stories, but now it’s state sanctioned. Yet “name it and claim it” isn’t enough, so we must have some way to extract resources from nonmarried men. Voila! Common-law marriage purely on the basis of cohabitation fills the bill. A whole new way to extract resources from one or more men, and thus the all important female strategy of AF-BB is not just preserved, but enhanced.

    I think this is just the sort of “marriage saving” idea tradcons have been searching for. Dalrock disagrees and he has some good points in his favor. But I do not see how a law such as that of New Zealand or BC could come into being with out support of white knights – the feminists can’t push it through on their own.

  18. @ AR

    But I do not see how a law such as that of New Zealand or BC could come into being with out support of white knights – the feminists can’t push it through on their own.

    In those places they could. Feminists are far stronger there, especially in NZ. Maybe not BC. But certainly in NZ they could manage that without TradCon support.

  19. Pingback: Driving The Delay | Donal Graeme

  20. Well, Ok, I freely admit to knowing nothing of NZ politics aside from a few narrow issues.
    Unilateral, government imposed marriage has the Big Sibling, police state feel to it that is sure to appeal to many (most? virutally all?) feminists and more than a few self-proclaimed traditional conservatives. If nothing else, it offers another way to blame men for the decline of marriage, something very important to both feminists and tradcons.

  21. Hurting, my divorced dragged out for ever. Bailiffs and lawyers told me that. Its not the written law but how the system works based om the courts observation that ex husbands pay child-support regardless of the mothers actions and baby daddy’s do not

  22. ‘The truth is, men have always delayed marriage.  In other words, men have never particularly wanted to marry; they’ve been willing to marry when that was the way to get what men really want: exclusive sex and procreation with a woman of their choice.”

    You are being binary. They have delayed marriage ONLY if they deem are able to procure a better prospect; otherwise, if they are in a committed relationship, the next step will be WANTING to tying the not.

    “The Left has to destroy marriage because it’s one of the foundations of civilization, especially Christendom, which they hate…”

    You can add the PUA’s like the Roissy’s and the Return Of Kings of the world. They are decidedly ANTI-MARRIAGE. In fact, they are anti-Godly masculinity; they peddle a brand that even supposed “Catholic” men relish—engage in “convo” and “number close”, with the sole intention of “pumping and dumping”. True Christian men are mandated to avoid these sites and/or when commenting, offer the pathway to God, rather than contribute to their sinful conduct.

  23. They have delayed marriage ONLY if they deem are able to procure a better prospect; otherwise, if they are in a committed relationship, the next step will be WANTING to tying the knot.

    I’m not sure whom you mean by “They” there. If you mean men, I don’t think that’s generally true. If a man is in a “committed relationship,” which generally means they’re having sex, he’s not going to look to rock the boat. If she wants to get married, he’ll drag his feet to some extent, but generally he’ll go along. If she doesn’t, that’s fine too.

    If you’re talking about women, that was more-or-less the case in the 1980s, but it was already changing then, and it’s not at all the case now. Now a woman who tingles hard for a man may try to secure his commitment, get him to move in with her even, but that doesn’t mean she’ll insist on marriage or even consider the idea. It’s more likely that she’ll try to delay marriage while using sex to hold him instead. Perhaps it’d be more accurate to say they do want to tie a knot of some sort, but not one as permanent (even now) as marriage.

    The reason is simple, and stated in your first sentence I quoted: she doesn’t know yet whether she’ll meet a better prospect. She hasn’t yet traveled the world, had any affairs with Italian painters, spent a year living in New York City or whichever Big City she considers an essential Experience. Until she does those things — which, coincidentally, will take until just about the time she notices guys aren’t hitting on her as much as they used to — she has to keep her options open. Even if she’s currently dating the local star high school quarterback, that doesn’t mean she won’t meet a pro QB someday.

    I’m not being binary; I’m describing the general attitudes of the population. Of course there are exceptions and outliers, but I’m not talking about them because they aren’t driving the change. Delayed marriage is caused by millions of women deciding (with the guidance of their parents, teachers, and most everyone else they know and listen to) that they shouldn’t marry until about 30ish. Men are going along with it because (if they’re alpha) they still get laid for free, or (if they’re not) they have no idea what to do about it anyway.

  24. “It’s more likely that she’ll try to delay marriage while using sex to hold him instead.”

    It is JUST AS likely that he’ll try to delay marriage while getting sex and deciding if he wants to be tied down. In other words, today’s single men are also equally considering their options or “better prospects” as single women.

    “The reason is simple, and stated in your first sentence I quoted: she doesn’t know yet whether she’ll meet a better prospect. She hasn’t yet traveled the world, had any affairs with Italian painters, spent a year living in New York City or whichever Big City she considers an essential Experience.”

    Or he hasn’t yet been to Vegas for a boys weekend out, or to procure a threesome with two Parisian women, or to choose to have a “summer of George”.

    Increasing numbers of men who are NOT in a relationship are taking the advice of Roissy and Return Of Kings to heart…marriage and children are for suckers. They tout “use our methods to secure sex WITHOUT the commitment”. In turn, men especially in their 20’s who normally would buy into a relationship with females are thinking “Why do I even want this responsibility?

    Covering for your brethren who have been influential in promoting the anti-Godly masculinity lifestyle truly runs counter to your alleged conservative, Christian values. Wow, just wow.

    “Delayed marriage is caused by millions of women deciding (with the guidance of their parents, teachers, and most everyone else they know and listen to) that they shouldn’t marry until about 30ish. Men are going along with it because (if they’re alpha) they still get laid for free, or (if they’re not) they have no idea what to do about it anyway.”

    Delayed marriage in the U.S. today is the result by men AND women who are taking their precious time to figure out what they want, and they realize that since they are in a relationship and are getting what they want, there is no need to rush. It’s really within their liberty to make that decision, well within the confines of freedom of association.

  25. GCM, the point is that men delaying marriage is nothing new. Men have never been in a hurry to get married; they got married as a means to the end of exclusive sex and procreation. The man being dragged to the altar is one of the oldest tropes around. The only time a man is in a hurry to marry is when he thinks he’s snagged a wife well above his level and he wants to make it official before she wakes up. So yes, men generally delay marriage when they can, but they always have and always will. Plenty of solid societies plugged along just fine with reluctant grooms.

    What’s changed is that women under 30 (and increasingly into their 30s) are now delaying marriage just as much as men, or even more. Yes, men are going along with it. Why wouldn’t they? A man can now get everything he wants from a woman — sex, companionship, even children — without marrying her, and no one will bat an eye. If he doesn’t have a religious problem with sex outside of marriage, there’s no practical reason for him to buy his woman a ring.

    You seem uncomfortable with any critique of women that doesn’t give equal time to bashing men. Too bad. Maybe it’s not fair that civilization requires that women be marriage- and commitment-oriented while men can get away with playing the field more, but life isn’t fair. We can sit around and whine about how men are cads and women aren’t all bad and there are PUAs and oh the humanity! Or we can do our best to understand how the world actually works, and try to find ways to work with it.

    By the way, I’m not Roissy’s keeper, I’m not “covering” for him or any other bloggers, and I’m not responsible for anyone’s statements but my own, so you can drop that particular line of insinuation.

  26. “Men have never been in a hurry to get married; they got married as a means to the end of exclusive sex and procreation.”

    Beware of saying “never been”. In colonial times, families arranged marriages. The sons complied with the demands of their mothers and fathers. After World War II, hundreds of thousands of returning veterans married their sweethearts (unless they had married prior to being shipped out) and began having children.

    “The man being dragged to the altar is one of the oldest tropes around.”

    Figurative speech, yes. Actual practice?

    “The only time a man is in a hurry to marry is when he thinks he’s snagged a wife well above his level and he wants to make it official before she wakes up.”



    ONLY time? No. ABOVE his level? Perhaps some men feel that way. It is also just as likely that some men do not think along those lines that she is “superior” to him on some level and therefore is desperate to the point to tie the knot as quickly as possible. It could be that they love the woman and want to begin their life as an “official” couple as soon as possible.

    “What’s changed is that women under 30 (and increasingly into their 30s) are now delaying marriage just as much as men, or even more.”



    Which is their well within their liberty. What’s the problem here?

    “You seem uncomfortable with any critique of women that doesn’t give equal time to bashing men.”

No, by all means, critique women. It’s just that in this particular case you are giving men a pass. Because their inclination.

    “Maybe it’s not fair that civilization requires that women be marriage- and commitment-oriented while men can get away with playing the field more, but life isn’t fair”.

    “Civilization” requires MEN AND WOMEN individually and collectively to be marriage and commitment-orientated. Why the hang-up, bro?

    “Or we can do our best to understand how the world actually works, and try to find ways to work with it.”

    How the world actually works from YOUR perspective, yes.

    “By the way, I’m not Roissy’s keeper, I’m not “covering” for him or any other bloggers, and I’m not responsible for anyone’s statements but my own, so you can drop that particular line of insinuation.”



    As a Christian male, you have the moral duty to combat the Roissy’s of the world. Unless you have posted specifically condemning his anti-Godly masculinity campaign, you are tacitly endorsing his practices and methods.

  27. GCM, when I say “men have never,” it should be obvious that I mean men in general, not “every man who has ever lived in all of human history.” I’m already too wordy as it is; I’m not going to sprinkle every paragraph with disclaimers on my own blog.

    I’m talking about societal trends here, not individual snowflakes. Heck, most of my own family doesn’t fit this trend of delayed marriage, but that doesn’t make it any less true or my observations less valid. My family aren’t the ones driving the direction society is going.

    As for Roissy, there are lots of sinners and sins in the world, including me and mine. I’m not responsible for combating them all, just mine and those I choose to take on. If you think Roissy needs to be opposed, start a blog (they’re free) and make it your own personal hobby-horse there. It’s not mine or this blog’s. If he says something that you think is relevant to one of my posts (I don’t read him), by all means bring it up and we’ll talk about it.

  28. “As for Roissy, there are lots of sinners and sins in the world, including me and mine.”

    He and his kind are one of the major reasons for the decline of Western Civilization. The moral crusade against his anti-Godly masculinity is on par with the crusade against SJW’s; yet, seemingly, they get a free pass.

  29. Western Civ was declining long before Roissy; his kind are a reaction to feminism, which is one factor in that decline. That doesn’t make him a good thing, but you’re blaming the symptom for the disease. Your rash isn’t to blame for your STD.

    But if you think he’s getting a free pass, then do something about it; don’t badger me to do it.

  30. “his kind are a reaction to feminism, which is one factor in that decline.”

    You are minimizing the symptom; the Roissy’s of the world contribute mightily to the disease spreading.

    “But if you think he’s getting a free pass, then do something about it; don’t badger me to do it.”

    Your involvement in “game” websites mandates that as an alleged pro-Judeo Christian male that you do more than shrug your shoulders and say “not really my problem”.

  31. GCM:

    Roissy, PUAs, players, et al. are a tiny, tiny group of men who happen to be better than the average man at getting women to sleep with them. Based on what I know of men in general, their relative power in current society and men’s relative attractiveness to women, the PUA faction of men comprises probably 2 or 3% of men, 5% tops. And you’re worried about this tiny group of men? YOu make it sound as if women across the land will be ravaged and pillaged by roving bands of PUAs. This is silly, quite frankly.

    Women caused this problem. Women are the ones delaying marriage. A man cannot make a woman marry him if she doesnt want to get married. A man cannot make a woman be with him if she doesn’t want to be with him. Women choose the men they want, the men they have sex with, the men they marry, and when all of those things happen. Full stop. So if men are reacting to this by refusing to marry and by getting what they can get while the getting’s good, I can’t say as I can blame them.

  32. GCM:

    Nope. No, neither I, nor Cail, nor anyone else has a moral obligation to call out the sin of players or pickup artists on a blog about intersexual relationships.

    I have enough to worry about with my own sin, much less that of others.

  33. GCM, you’re moving the goalposts. Before you said Roissy and his kind were a major reason for the decline, now you’ve backed off to “contributing.” Truth is they aren’t numerous enough to have much effect. There have always been cads. That some of them are now online sharing their knowledge may create a few additional cads, but it won’t change much. As effective as Game can be, most guys don’t get it and never learn to use it effectively, let alone transform from dud to cad.

    But again, I’m not your stalking horse. If you want to discuss something in particular, bring it up. Further comments amounting to “Roissy makes me feel bad, sic him!” will be deleted.

  34. “GCM, you’re moving the goalposts. Before you said Roissy and his kind were a major reason for the decline, now you’ve backed off to “contributing.”

    Moving goalposts? I clearly stated “contributing mightily”. Before you make any accusation, I suggest you read more carefully. I haven’t backed off of anything.

    “Further comments amounting to “Roissy makes me feel bad, sic him!” will be deleted.”

    Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.

    “Truth is they aren’t numerous enough to have much effect.”

    [Laughs] That’s what you’re going with? It is observably true that the Roissy’s, the
    Roosh’s, and the Return of Kings of the world have developed a brand name. e-books, podcasts, seminars, and web channels devoted to “pumping and dumping” have flooding the marketplace.

    “As effective as Game can be, most guys don’t get it and never learn to use it effectively, let alone transform from dud to cad.”



    Talk to Christian McQueen and get back to us.

    deti–“I have enough to worry about with my own sin, much less that of others.”

    Then you are clearly contributing to the problem. Read Vox Day’s posts on how to attack anti-SJW’s (which can easily extend to the the anti-Godly masculinity crowd).

Leave a Reply (Capitalization and some attempt at grammar required.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s