Here are articles in the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Today we will discuss:
Part 3 — Luck
As I noted in yesterday’s post, “A Note on Hypergamy,” the level of discourse has improved over at Spawny’s Space. In particular, Deti has started making substantive arguments and avoiding ad hominem. This is quite welcome! But, he’s made so many comments that I can’t keep up. I’m usually the one dominating the discussion with everyone else falling behind, but the tables have turned. Consequently, it will take me some time to catch up.
If you want to read his comments, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. It’s a lot. I’m impressed.
To wit:
I’ll just be silent now. I have said what I have to say on this. I’ll see if there’s any response. I doubt there will be other than the equivalent of “selection bias” and “that’s his experience” and “well, that’s just your opinion, man”.
Sometimes I get this. Normally it is after a long reasoned argument on my part. Then I challenge them to do the same. Usually, they walk away on a huff.
Then you know something
Don’t worry, I won’t be walking away in a huff. There will be multiple responses, but it’s going to take me time to get through all ten comments. If he has written more, I’ve missed them. Deti is invited to post his most essential questions here, so I can focus on whatever he wants me to focus on. Otherwise, I’m probably going to go through them in order.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Spawny’s Space is allowing pingbacks from my blog anymore, so readers there are not going to get notified about my new posts. Readers be warned that this may reduce the actual interactions and they may think I walked away in a huff. Consequently, I may end up yelling into the void.
Alternatively, if it starts getting ugly with accusations and ad hominem or Deti actually decides to walk away in a huff, I may decide to ignore his requests. Keep it civil and patient if you want a response.
In any case, although epistemology is vitally important, today’s post will not be about “the equivalent of “selection bias” and “that’s his experience” and “well, that’s just your opinion, man.” It will be concrete, objective, substantive, and reason based.
Luck
Today we are going to focus on just one of the topics: luck. On one hand, ‘luck’ generally means…
…where the connotation is on the uncertainty and unpredictability of an outcome:
As we will see, human intention and observable causes, not luck, have massive impacts on divorce risk.
On the other hand, ‘lucky’ generally refers to “beating the odds” by having an unexpected positive outcome of an uncertain chance event occur:
The focus of the former is on having an outcome—positive or negative—takes place beyond one’s control and the latter is on getting an unexpectedly positive result. As you read the following, keep that distinction in mind.
Derek says he got married to a girl from his high school and is still married and men and women need to marry early. So… he got lucky. As I’ve said before – who would you rather take advice from: A guy who got lucky and thinks he’s brilliant; or a guy who can tell you all kinds of ways to screw it up and has learned from them?
There is little question that Deti believes that I have gotten lucky, that is, experienced an improbably positive result. This is a claim about probability. Since it is just mathematics, it can be easily substantiated or refuted without the need for debate. I wish all problems were this easy to resolve!
Below I will show that it is, objectively, not the result of random chance, but is, in fact, highly predictable.
I’m sure it is just luck. That’s how all of my friends and relatives have had such nearly universal success. A three-sigma statistical event. Pure luck. It definitely has nothing at all to do with the differences between all of them and the Red Pill sages, because that would imply that there is something about the sages that explains why they are having problems. That would be blaming men! And we all know that it’s entirely the fault of women.
Beyond the sarcasm, I’m making an important point. For something to be lucky, it has to be a rare, unlikely, or unexpected outcome. But my experience is not rare, nor exceptional, nor unexpected. It is, in fact, quite common. It’s so common, in fact, that the result appears to be (according to Red Pill hypotheses) an unpredicted multi-sigma statistical event, that is, not a matter of luck.
It’s like saying that it is luck when a different person living on the same 30-home street in a town “just happens” to win the lottery jackpot each day for a month. Nobody in their right mind would think this was due to luck. After just the second time a person on that street won, people would start to suspect fraud. But they’d know for sure after only the third time it happened: no need to wait for all 30 days to elapse.
When almost everyone is getting “lucky”—hundreds of people—it isn’t due to luck.
I didn’t get lucky. I and many others were just assortatively paired differently than the kind of men the ‘sphere collects.
Odds of Divorce
In America, the lifetime odds of a first marriage failing is supposedly about 40%. That means that in the worst case scenario three out of every five—more than half of—first marriages go the distance ’till death do us part’. By definition, it is not luck to experience the most probable result.
We could probably stop here having already proven what we set out to prove. But a 60% success rate, while a majority and most probably, is still not great. Can we do beter?
There is another factor at play:
Notice that the best-to-worst outcome is separated by a 3x difference in divorce! That’s astoundingly high stratification, indicating that experiences vary significantly according to your own situation. So of that 60% average success rate, some groups do better than that and some do worse.
My own placement on this table means that, on average, my default risk of divorce is even lower than the national average. This moves my likely outcome even deeper into “success.”
Now let’s look at another factor:
Although this variable is highly confounded with intelligence, the fact that our education level is masters or higher further reduces my odds of divorce by as much as 25%. Those degrees didn’t happen by luck, neither is the corresponding drop in divorce risk a matter of improbable chance. It reflects the fact that divorce is stratified by one’s innate intelligence: smarter people tend to avoid divorce, while less smart people make worse life decisions that ultimately lead to divorce. This will likely deeply offend any blankslatists who are reading this.
Here is another highly confounded variable that is relevant:
The graph comes from the CDC. Just like one’s race swings their divorce odds by as much as 3x, so too does the choice of where you live. Three times! Another data source (here and here) says that the maximum swing is closer to 1.75x. Whatever the actual number is, where you live matters greatly for your risk of divorce. There is no such thing as a universal experience that applies to everyone.
There are many other factors that I and my peers share that further decrease our risk below the average. In short, I would estimate that the lifetime chance of divorce among my various peer groups is less than one in ten, perhaps much lower. I’m not sure if it is as low as 1% anymore, but it’s probably closer to that than to 10%.
If anything, only those who get divorces are lucky—successfully defying the strong odds that they would remain together.
The Problem with Age
As derived from these statistics (from 2009), by age 25, roughly a quarter of all women were married to the person they will spend the rest of their life with. That means about half of the best women are already off the table. By age 30, a majority of them are permanently unavailable. It only gets worse from there.
There is an apparent age paradox: to marry well you need to marry young to grab the best selection possible, but the people who marry young—before age 25—are also the most likely to divorce. To wit:
But this is not a paradox because it is confounded. It is also a problem with “correlation does not equal causation.”
Young age does not cause divorce, rather, it is the people who marry young who are already more likely to divorce. People who are likely to divorce cause divorce to be likely. If low-divorce-risk-marry-later couples married equally well at a younger age, their already low divorce rate would cause the average divorce rate at young ages to go down. Similarly, if the high-divorce-risk-marry-young couples started marrying later, the average divorce rate at older ages would go up.
During the young ages, the best women are still being snatched up even as the worst marriages are also taking place simultaneously. There is no paradox, both things are true.
Keep this in mind.
I allege that “hypergamy” is a perceived—but largely illusory—problem for older men mainly because the best cream-of-the-crop women are already long since married and won’t ever be leaving their husbands for another man. This has nothing to do with luck, but with supply and demand. It’s just a pure numbers game. Of course men in their 30s (or older) are not finding high quality women, and it isn’t because of female hypergamy, female discontent, or lack of attraction. It’s because they are not available.
So let’s briefly talk about the elephant in the room for those who can’t wait until next week. As you probably know, most relationships these days begin online:
But you may not know what this data has to say:
There are two extremely important points here that expose the myth of hypergamy.
First, the discrepancy in male/female results is best explained by the laws of supply and demand. Far more men than women are using dating apps, dramatically depressing the value of men and elevating the value of women. As I wrote a yesterday, the reason women never buy low in online dating is because they don’t have to. There are just too many (often low value) men flooding the market (i.e. male hypergamy). It’s a buyers market and women are the buyers.
Second, roughly two-thirds of men are too old for dating apps to be effective. As aforementioned, by age 30 a significant portion of the desireable, cream-of-the-crop, women are off the market. This means that dating apps are a terrible way to find desireable women, because more-or-less only the dregs remain. This mismatch creates a wildly distorted view of the nature of the average relationship, and leads to the perpetuation of the hypergamy myth.
It’s like I said to Cameron yesterday. The dating apps are evidence against female hypergamy, not evidence for it. That’s why the researchers use dating apps as evidence of homophily and heterogamy.
Do you realize that the source I cited in the OP references these? The OKCupid and similar studies form the starting point for the argument against hypergamy, not evidence for it.
One the surface those sources give the appearance of hypergamy, but this rapidly disappears once the dating selection process begins in earnest:
Much of the heterogamous sorting takes place before couples take the relationship offline.
Now here is another important point:
Third, despite the importance of online dating, the people currently dating someone that they met through a dating app represents a minority of relationships. The majority outcome is, and remains, existing married-for-life couples. Whatever people on dating apps are doing—whether acting in a chaste manner or playing the harlot—it represents a minority outcome.
I hope to discuss this, and the other related topics that Deti has raised, in more detail next week.
On the Role of Divorced Men
There is a specific group of men who you can legitimately call lucky if they find a good wife. These are men who are on their second, third, or later marriage. By default, a large majority of those marriages will fail, especially with successive marriages. A betting man would, in an even bet, win a lot of money by always assuming that a divorced and remarried man would eventually divorce. Give the odds against their success, they are lucky if they manage not to get divorced.
This is one practical reason to support divorce and remarriage being forbidden in Christianity. This is why the Manosphere errs when it advises anything other than lifetime celibacy for divorced men, and how it errs when it allows divorced men, remarried men, or married men who don’t manage their households well to lead.
Men who are divorced should not be leading a ministry that teaches. So it is interesting that the modern statistics cohere with what Paul told Timothy, when he disallowed such men from being leaders.
At the manosphere-troll-site that thedeti linked to in the comments on the previous post, dummy Derek says:
Now if I were to argue like how Derek does, I’d point out that he is using Argumentum Ad Hominem to try to invalidate my writings and ideas based upon who I am. And if I were an eternal fool in the mold of Derek, I’d then claim that example then shows that everything he writes is based upon “logical fallacies” and that then we should conclude that everything Derek writes based upon fallacies is of course false. That’s how that fool operates.
…and…
So, the fool, Derek, is trying to say that because men like Jack and I have been divorced, we should not be allowed to offer our unpaid service to other Christian men through writing the things we do to counter his own unbiblical pedestalization, aggrandizement, and worship, of women.
No, it is not I, but the Apostle Paul, who says this. This is the same Paul that told a woman in Timothy’s church to be silent and not teach a man. Divorced men should also defer to the married men of the church, not be leading a ministry. Their ministries should be overseen by the married men of the church who have managed their households well. By contrast, consider Dalrock. His church’s elders had no idea who he was online, but at least Dalrock was purported to be a married man who managed his household well. He did nothing disobedient.
Notably, I don’t censor [Redacted]’s teachings (though I do censor his name, for reasons stated here), despite his disobedience. I even started a mirror of his site for when he inevitably gets banned from WordPress. The issue isn’t his ideas, which can stand or fall on their own merit. Rather, the issue is his disobedience. As I said yesterday, I have a high view of agency: if anything, he should be censoring himself.
The biblical stance is not an argument from authority or an ad hominem. It is about merit through the simple acknowledgment that divorced men have demonstrated—by their own actions and their results—that they are unable to manage their households well. It is “reaping what you sow” or “forgiveness doesn’t mean no consequences.”
The statistics just happen bear this out.
But even if you think it is unfair and that such men should be given a chance, the issue is to be resolved as a matter of personal obedience to scripture. If you don’t find scripture to be authoritative, then you can disregard what I’m saying.
Derek is the kind of stubborn fool who seemingly can’t admit that folks like Artisanal Toad have schooled him, until after they’re dead.
…
Furthermore, Paul didn’t say, “one and only one woman”. Derek is lying again. Paul said Bishops/Superintendents should be mias gynaikos andra meaning: (primary numeral one) a debate rages over whether that means “one” or “first” (woman or wife) (man or husband). So, Paul was either saying that a Church Bishop should be a “one woman man” or else still the husband of his first wife. He wasn’t saying that divorced men had to be silenced in the congregation like women, so that Derek’s Feminism would have less divorce-informed detractors. LOL
Someone didn’t do his research.
If you are going to engage in ad hominem personal attacks, at least get your facts right! I’ve made no secret of the debate [Redacted] mentions. Here is what I wrote just last year in “Ambiguity in the Bible“:
His interpretation of the Greek word (μιᾶς) as “first” instead of “one” directly and unambiguously implies that Paul approves of polygyny. I retorted that while “first” is a valid meaning in the lexicon, the meaning of “one” is mutually exclusive: it implies that Paul is categorically forbidding polygyny.
And so once again we are left with a problem. To understand what the Bible says, one must know how Paul meant by his use of that Greek word. If you get it wrong, your theology on polygyny—as well as the qualifications for a Christian pastor—will be critically incorrect. This is hardly a minor issue, but it is also a complex problem with no easy answer.
Of course, since Jesus and Paul forbid polygyny in their teachings on marriage, marital duties, divorce, and adultery, we know what Paul must have meant and so can avoid the ambiguity between “first” and “one.” There is no serious debate over whether the word was anything other than “one” because there is no reason to think Paul was promoting polygyny, a practice that had largely been abandoned by the 1st century AD. Thus, the demand that a leader be the husband of one wife would be a nonsensical requirement if it allowed a man to be divorced (i.e. not a husband of one wife). The only serious debate, IMO, is whether being married is an absolute mandatory requirement (vs. celibacy) to be a leader or speak with authority. But this “raging debate” is driven by Roman Catholics trying to interpret the passage to defend the non-biblical unmarried priesthood, an issue of church authority and not Greek grammar.
Critically, notice that Artisanal Toad said “a man still married to his first wife.” Even as we both understood that distinction between “first” and “one” was about whether to accept or reject polygyny, we both understood it to mean that divorce was a disqualification regardless of which word was chosen. [Redacted] should reconsider who has schooled whom.
[Redacted]—a (former?) Anabaptist—is probably aware that many Anabaptists have traditionally rejected anyone from leadership who is divorced, for he must be “above reproach.” Anyone who thinks that I and the Anabaptists are liars should probably read more about my public argument here. See also this discussion on the wider context and James White’s comments on the two ecclesiastical offices—elders and deacons—here.I’m not surprised that a divorced man who is actively engaged in a self-proclaimed ministry that actively opposes the teachings of the church has decided that Paul didn’t forbid him from doing so. Did you expect a different result?
Fundamentally, the false information and advice that divorced men in the ‘sphere—Jack, [Redacted], Scott—have shared as fact has been clouded by their anecdotal experiences. Had they followed Paul’s precepts, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
UPDATE 1: Deti has responded to this post here, here, and here. As you read the comments in light of the OP, bear in mind Charlton’s warning:
UPDATE 2: Pay special attention to that rather clearly bolded and italicized part which indicates the part I think is relevant “in light of the OP.” Then notice the rather obvious and contextually critical “or” which unambiguously is not an “and.” Now ask yourself if this is even slightly accurate or instead a blatant misrepresentation:
As for “stupid or dishonest”—which Deti thinks is “stupid and dishonest”—that is Charlton’s more abrasive version of my “unable or unwilling” phrase that I use often for people who totally miss the point, especially—as with Deti—when they completely invert what is claimed. My version avoids the ad hominem, keeping things civil and allowing the debate partner to clarify whether he intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented my argument (multiple times now!).
Let’s make this very simple. “Stupid or dishonest” was clearly and unambiguously expressed and yet Deti, reading that, chose to recast it as “stupid and dishonest.” Nobody forced him to make this error. He misrepresented what was very clearly stated and as a result inverted the meaning of the statement into something that is mutually exclusive with the original. Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that.
So the only question remains is this: does he lack the basic skills required to comprehend what is so very clearly stated (My “unable”; Charlton’s “stupid”) or is he intentionally refusing to do so (My “unwilling”; Charlton’s “dishonest”). It must be one or the other, there is no other option. So which is it? What could make Deti switch an “or” to an “and” and then deny that he did it?
Programming note: If Deti runs off in a huff, I will likely continue to respond to his comments anyway. As with Charlton’s approach to refuse to debate, once a debate partner shows they are acting in bad faith, I will continue to engage with their material without worrying about engaging with them any longer.
UPDATE 3: This nonsense…
….where Deti had literally misrepresented Charlton and myself, provides a very clear example of how the Manosphere is so unable or unwilling to meaningfully engage with the material it purports to be most interested in. If a man has trouble distinguishing between “and” and “or”, doesn’t understand how switching them alters the meaning of the sentence, and then insists that he made no error by switching them up, he’s likely going to have major problems in a vastly more complex relationship with a woman.
If and when Deti admits that I did not call him either stupid or dishonest, I’ll post another update here.
All this ”luck” yelling comes down to the latter day ever-failing red pill going into its final stage of the black pill, as you said before about Deti:
https://www.groundswellproject.org/blog/who-are-the-incels/
In the BlackPill, no amount of personality, charm, or humour would work in a man’s favour unless he was perhaps bringing in some serious cash on top of it; it’s all pinned down to looks. I know while reading this, most people would have at least 5 men who quickly come to mind that are not objectively physically attractive yet who have successful relationships and live happy lives.
If life was as simple and easy as the Blackpill claims, most of us would be constantly dancing in the sun, falling in love all the time and never know loneliness or heartbreak.
Like all extremist groups and cults, the BlackPill offers an attractive answer, a solid worldview, ‘undisputed’ facts and logic that don’t care about your feelings. The BlackPill takes some genuine issues in society, such as the preferential treatment of beautiful people, the challenge of being physically unattractive and using dating apps, and creates a worldview where our entire social order and all of our human connections are truly predicated on appearance and status. It denies any claims to the contrary based on personal experience or anecdotes, it places itself on the side of science, love and connection are boiled down to rudimentary ideas of mating and biology. Women are seen as the winners in the BlackPill, the ones who can bask in the love and attention of every man and who are held up by feminism and female empowerment. They are viewed as lucky, while also viewed as shallow, cruel, often unintelligent and often without morality.
Does any of that sound like what’s been said over the last 4 years by supposed ”redpillers” Deti, Scott, Jack and Sharkey?
Sharkey has always been on the dark side of the red pill with his ”My ex-wife (”whose whole name I happily expose at ”my wife’s evil church” site for anyone who might want to help me get her ”corrected”, and RichardP actually called me out in early December at Spawnys in 2021 for it endangering my sons too, but I was having none of it as it sounded ”kooky” to me just as it would to elrushbo also pre-Trump winning in 2016-which made Limbaugh see the Genuine Conservativeness in DON that he three months earlier denied” .)must be executed for adultery, but NOT I because JESUS is the law of love for me, but for her, the law of MOSES applies dude.”
I keep hearing from Sparkles and back in September 2021 during the gay porn post at SF that one has to be ”helpful” in the manosphere yet other than ”THERE’S NO HOPE IN DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOTHING”from Deti and ”JUST BRING BACK STONING FOR ADULTERY AND DALAWD WILL RESTORE HEAVEN ON EARTH IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD” from Sharkey how are they ”helping”?
Maybe SurfDumb who finds much to be pleased & boastful about with the advice of ”THERE’S NO HOPE IN DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN NOTHING” and ”JUST BRING BACK STONING FOR ADULTERY AND DALAWD WILL RESTORE HEAVEN ON EARTH IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD” could tell us how that helps him as a married MAN that doesn’t like his ”meltdown” wife?
It is very close to how I have described it.
Derek L. Ramsey
Comment
I’m sure it is just luck. That’s how all of my friends and relatives have had such nearly universal success. A three-sigma statistical event. Pure luck. It definitely has nothing at all to do with the differences between all of them and the Red Pill sages, because that would imply that there is something about the sages that explains why they are having problems. That would be blaming men! And we all know that it’s entirely the fault of women.
Beyond the sarcasm, I’m making an important point. For something to be lucky, it has to be a rare, unlikely, or unexpected outcome. But my experience is not rare, nor exceptional, nor unexpected. It is, in fact, quite common. It’s so common, in fact, that the result appears to be (according to Red Pill hypotheses) an unpredicted multi-sigma statistical event, that is, not a matter of luck.
It’s like saying that it is luck when a different person living on the same 30-home street in a town “just happens” to win the lottery jackpot each day for a month. Nobody in their right mind would think this was due to luck. After just the second time a person on that street won, people would start to suspect fraud. But they’d know for sure after only the third time it happened: no need to wait for all 30 days to elapse.
When almost everyone is getting “lucky”—hundreds of people—it isn’t due to luck.
I didn’t get lucky. I and many others were just assortatively paired differently than the kind of men the ‘sphere collects.”
If Scott’s wife really divorced him after 14 years and they made him out to be an ”uberchad” then the sphere is really just scared that that means Derek is the king of ”uberchads”,just like Jack and Sparkles were scared $#itless that GBFM is the secret ingredient that made not only their sites super popular in 2021 but Dalrock between 2012 & 2015-as ”Dalrock’s popularitry” was(y)ned just as soon as GBFM AKA ”THE KING OF COMMENTERS” wasn’t there anymore just as it did at their sites snowballed into oblivion and they had to admit ”I was NOT responsible for the success of my own site?”(they are so ”in the moment”=impulsive,self-centered & egotistical that they easily forget that their site was barely making it before GBFM showed up) just as they now have to admit that ”Derek is the king of ”uberchads” instead of Scott, which like their darkened & defiled pill of choice is a bitter pill to swallow(JUST AS GBFM AKA BEING ”THE KING OF COMMENTERS” AND JESUS BEING”the [only] Way [to God] and the [real] Truth and the [real] Life; no one comes to the Father but through Him.”-John 14:6Amplified Bible is bitter tasting to them also as it wars with defiled earthly fallen flesh & evil lusts wrapped within their depraved minds, just as much as admitting that ”Derek is the king of ”uberchads” instead of Scott .”
Just ask MRS.Derek😉😊😎😇 as Derek tells it!
I say nothing of the sort.
i couldn’t believe all the ”Chad this, Chad that ” and ‘Simp this, Simp that”(the term chad was generally looked down upon because it meant ”looks matter more than any PUA techniques(which the supposed ”red pill” is based on, and ”simp” was being thrown mostly at guys still buying PUA BOOKS & ”boot camps and those still ”believing the Gospel according to ST.Dalrock as delivered unto him by the usurper Athol Kay through the teachings of Keoni Galt, the beloved married disciple of Roissy from Hawaii” around ’15 but by 2020 it was ”cool” in the RP® sphere, so they could try to save their sinking ship then, like you had to be a ”niceguyTM Republican® before Trump’s version of Vince Mcmahon became President then it is adios to phony-baloney ”niceguyTM Republicans®) stuff” talk in what i thought was the ”red pill” manosphere when i started reading it again thanks mainly to Brother Boxer and his two main commenters Derek & MOD that weren’t standard gatekeepers and tastemaker-approved cookie cutter commenters for ”consumers” like SD’s earthly lusts, who blames his ”consumer”-”based” church for his backfiring
on him consuming ways.
Why would any guy looking to ”improve” themselves come into this watered-down blackpilled ”redpill”osphere other than to listen to Deti and Sparkles rip (and foam at the mouth about) on women and blame it all on churches,” bad luck” and God?
They certainly wouldn’t want the goodness, brotherly love, and Spirit of Christmas as preached by MOSES, JESUS, GBFM, Derek, MOD & Liz right?
In other words?
MOSES, JESUS, GBFM, Derek, MOD & Liz we’re sent to those who ”like a man who is a dealer in search of fine and [a]precious pearls, Who, on finding a single pearl of great price, went and sold all he had and bought it.”
Not to the lovers of those rip-on women and blame it all on churches,” bad luck” and God!
My once friend here at least knows that he rejects ”the goodness, brotherly love, and Spirit of Christmas period which few admit to.
feeriker says:
21 February, 2025 at 5:01 pm
I think we’re done here.
Any further engagement is just giving him and the superior writing on his blog unwarranted attention d@mn it gets all the spotlight of what SF,af443259520& Spawnys once got before they blasphemed MOSES,JESUS,& GBFM AKA BEING ”THE KING OF COMMENTERS” for delivering too much ”the goodness, brotherly love, and Spirit of Christmas ”to everyone.
All of us who are regulars here and at Sigma Frame are regularly analyzed at Derek’s place. I really don’t understand the obsession at all, nor do I understand why he has offered us rent-free living space inside of his head. In any case I don’t bother responding on those rare occasions when I’m the focus of his attention (I’m amazed that he could ever be bored enough to focus on anything I say as I’m NOT anywhere near GBFM AKA ”THE KING OF COMMENTERS” league ) and rarely ever visit over there as my writing is not up to spec there. If I’m going to waste time lurking somewhere, there are many far more interesting sites on which to do it that excite my earthly defiled lusts like at bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins g@y porn site or maybe Mike Davis/wildside50’s gay porn site.
Like i already said MOSES, JESUS, GBFM, Derek, MOD & Liz we’re sent to those who ”like a man who is a dealer in search of fine and [a]precious pearls, Who, on finding a single pearl of great price, went and sold all he had and bought it.”
I’m amazed that he could ever be bored enough to focus on anything I say as I’m NOT anywhere near GBFM AKA BEING ”THE KING OF COMMENTERS” league )
That shouldn’t matter bro just do your best(for Jack, for Sparkles, for bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins even bro)!
i know it was either you(Sparkles fanboy) or Farm Boy (Jack fanboy)who gave my WP” credentials” to ”Akismet” who then had a blanket mod on me from Sunday, February 6th to Monday August 14th 2023 when i told ”akismet” that that guaranteed i was NEVER going back to SF or laf and suddenly way went the ”akismet” ban how is that ”Feeriker” is it? Or is it Kash Patel or pre-Kash Patel AKA James Comey?
professorGBFMtm says:14 August, 2023 at 4:39 pm
i was told by an agent of the underground OG MGTOW= OG GBFM group about this FB from our old friend who saw my ’08CHATEAU comment here about PPS as well as him&you trying to lure me back there.
”P.S. Seeing how the number of single men is growing, and marriage is becoming archaic and a practically unwise pursuit, one of the dilemmas I’m facing right now as a blogger is whether to continue focusing on men who are struggling with vetting / marriage / managing wives as I have done in the past, or to focus on the larger problem in society, which is the lack of masculinity and the lack of faith shown in men’s feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and not knowing what to do with themselves when women / marriage / family is not an option.
Readers are welcome to comment about any vision they may have for future writing projects.
P.P.S. This is the last post on the theme of Cultural Demise. Thanks to Thedeti for contributing 2 posts to this theme, and to all the readers who shared their thoughts and insights in the comments. The next theme will be Charisma and Chemistry.”
For the record FB(is it?)who wants me to reinvigorate his site like i once did:My main probs with him/the site are:
1.”Seeing how the number of single men is growing, and marriage is becoming archaic and a practically unwise pursuit”-this is new to him or anyone else?
2.How he treated ROISSY,LIZ,ELSPETH&DEREK NOT myself!-which why you need to tell him”Well, this kind of principle generalizes. If you build up lots frustrations due to transgressions from others, lots of negativity is accumulated over time. And what might this negativity do? It eats at you. It makes you act in ways that you shouldn’t.” Farm Boy.
3.i wasn’t that interested in his site to begin with,i was there to see how his ”continuation” of Dalrock was going& to interact with the old gang-namely TON,LIZ&DETI.
4.i don’t need or want his school marm-like atmosphere nor where he didn’t learn much from guys like NOVASeeker,DETI or SCOTT nor myself.
Speaking of which:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomenon
”1
pluralphenomena : an observable fact or event
2
pluralphenomena
a
: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition
b
: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon
c
: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation
3
a
: a rare or significant fact or event
b
pluralphenomenons : an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence”
Study: Men And Women Have Different Regrets
{You know that GBFM had been gone (again) for a while before this yes?}
Study: Men And Women Have Different Regrets
March 2, 2017 by CH
*scraaaaatch*
*freeze frame*
Let me tell you why I preen so much. Because ¡SCIENCE! can’t stop slobbing the CH knob!
The Chateau was out there early laying realtalk on the stubborn ears of the eunuchracy about the male enthusiasm for no strings attached sexual release and the opposite female preference for sex swaddled in the comforting confines of commitment.
Now a study had rediscovered the wisdom of the ancients: Women regret one night stands, men regret not having more one night stands.
Feminists have striven for decades to emancipate women sexually, but when it comes to casual promiscuity, the female of the species is still more straight-laced than the male. And evolution is to blame.
The prime lie of feminism is that women are sexually and romantically wired like men. Therefore, the feminist goal of liberating female sexuality from any and all constraints will run headlong into the reality that women don’t do well pursuing the same sexual liberation that men take to more instinctively.
Only one in three women said they were happy about their casual sex experience, compared to more than 50 per cent of men.
However far more men regret saying no to a one night stand than women. Eight in 10 women said they were glad that they had said no to a recent opportunity for casual sex, compared to just 43 per cent of men.
FYI any aspiring womanizer should read this as evidence that it’s the smart move to push a woman for sex sooner rather than later. Waiting too long allows more time for her to rationalize reasons not to sleep with you. Use a Trump tactic and “flood her zone” (double entendre intended).
(The 43% of men who regretted their one night stands were the ones fucking fatties.)
“We’re not saying that there aren’t men who regret casual sex,” added Prof Kennair. “But it is far more common for women to regret saying yes. They are also less unequivocally happy about the experience.
“Women regretted having a one-night stand the most, but they weren’t sorry about saying no at all.”
High cock count sluts have that tell-tale thousand cock stare for a reason: they’re wracked with regret and a gnawing feeling of worthlessness.
Men in the study were also found to enjoy the actual sex more, with more men saying they had achieved orgasm than women.
Feminists BTFO……..by literally thousands of years of common human knowledge about sex differences!
“Due to selective pressure from the big difference in parental investment, one would expect men and women to regret different aspects of casual sex decisions: having casual sex with the wrong partner versus missing a casual sexual opportunity,” the authors conclude in the study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.
Men can theoretically father thousands of children and are only limited by the supply of willing, fertile women. In the past those who could reproduce freely could have so many children that it would not matter if some did not survive.
The “scatter-gun” strategy means that the quality of a sexual partner for men does not have to be as high as for women, the study suggests. Men who moved from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.
When Whites and Asians evolved in their high paternal investment environments outside of Africa and its particular selection pressures, the men picked up a stronger discriminatory taste in women because they would be sticking around to help raise their kids. So this evo psych assertion needs trimming to account for race differences in male mate acquisition. Black men honestly will fuck anything, and that simply doesn’t apply to nonblacks to the same degree.
However for women, partner quality is far more important and adding additional sexual partners does not increase their chance of reproductive success.
The BLEEDING obvious.
“Many social scientists expect that in sexually egalitarian cultures such as Norway, these sex differences would disappear. They do not. This fact makes the findings on sex differences in sexual regret in modern Norwegian people so fascinating scientifically.”
Nordic Feminism is a luxury of a decadent people who can afford to entertain lies and fantastical interpretations of human nature.
The researchers conclude that cultural changes since the 1960s have not altered underlying gender differences in how men and women view sex.
The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic human ideals.
| 213 Comments
213 Responses
da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozoon March 2, 2017 at 12:41pm
Her: “So was this just a one night stand for you?”
Da GBFM: “No–it was a one night doggystyle lzlzozozlzlzoozoz”
mendo on March 2, 2017 at 12:51 pm
That needs to be on a shirt
With a graphic on the back, like those Do Not Trespass signs
da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozoon March 2, 2017 at 11:34 pm
HER: I regret coming over that one night.
DA GBFM: I regret not coming in your face.
da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozoon March 2, 2017 at 11:36 pm
HER: I regret that I wasted my years as one of your harem.
DA GBFM: I regret I wasted my years with one harem.
da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozoon March 2, 2017 at 11:42 pm
GBFM: A cock in hand is worth two in the tush.
da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozoon March 2, 2017 at 11:43 pm
GBFM: After she orgasms first, da GBFM always says “Don’t worry the best is yet to cum.”
on March 3, 2017 at 7:00 amPublius
Lolzozozoz joyous times when da GBFM is at the top of every thread.
So much winning.
Liked by 1 person
BONUS museum quality GBFM comment.:
on March 2, 2017 at 12:42 pm
Her: “So was this just a one night stand for you?”
Da GBFM: “Noooo, of course not sweety-–it was a one night doggystyle lzlzozozlzlzoozoz”
ALL that needs to be said after all this time FB & Jack!?
Does it Feeriker, or is it Kash Patel or is it James Comey?
Now you know you shouldn’t have helped and cheered on Sparkles as he attacked the goodness, brotherly love, and Spirit of Christmas as preached by MOSES, JESUS, GBFM, Derek, MOD & Liz right?LOL
As his site will never be more than an obscure curiosity of nonsense, leftist blankslatism and tomfoolery in a fundamentalist way now.
Don’t worry it was really over around Feburary 21st 2021 when he sent me that e-mail threatening me with blackmail dude so it had nothing really to do with your cheering on of Sparkles as he attacked the goodness, brotherly love, and Spirit of Christmas SMH
Remember what I wrote in “Constructive Criticism, Part 6?”
Ironically, thanks to you—because my “obsessed” self wouldn’t have noticed—we can add Feeriker to the list.
It’s not that hard to understand. Anyone here could probably explain it for me. I’d bet Surfdumb knows, as he is very observant.
It’s not that hard to understand. Anyone here could probably explain it for me.I’d bet Surfdumb knows, as he is very observant.
This is why he should be ashamed of himself for encouraging and cheering on the worst in Sparkles’s Machiavellian “the end justifies the means” behavior personality and ”debate”-style as he runs down even poor ‘ole prone to fornicating with ”other” MENS daughters Jack and Scott let alone Derek and Oscar, does he NOT care about Sparkles’s sons at least hearing how evil their Mother supposedly is?
The answer is obviously NO!
To me, the tradcon RP® Genius Leaders and their yes-MEN fanboys like SD & Feeriker symbolize just show how pitiful & out-of-touch they are with most MEN-especially younger MEN-who already know how most marriages with the average hypergamous woman usually turn out from just seeing it within their Family & Friends Family which guys like Deti, Jack & Sparkles act like are hidden from them by Daleftists, Daanti-MAGAists & DaFeminists.
i wonder if SD likes these shorter comments like this one which is what i usually did at Spawnys but he the fool doesn’t remember because he is blinded by jealousy for what i have like Sparkles and Jack who wish they could bottle it and make tremendous amounts of money like their idols Trump and Musk.
Luck? Sure, there can be a sprinkle of that in a marriage. I’ve seen it with my late parents.
My father (RIP) would have said about the word “luck” in his marriage. “Luck through hard work and dedication”
Growing up, in my area. It was considered a”poor” on a norm. My family was considered rich because we had a new home. I had new clothing every year for school. We had a vacation to Florida usually every other year (1980’s). Was it a first-class vacation? No. It was cheap motels (Days Inn kind of place). We only flew once from Albany to West Palm Beach. Usually we drove.
Luck? Sure. A bit. The timing of their marriage? The times they were married in? The culture at large where I lived? There were lots of poor where I grew up. People who lived in mobile homes with outhouses. Fellow students in my elementary school who actually had families that hunted for extra food (deer season / pheasant season). Fellow peers who had heat by woodstove only. A few didnt even have a telephone.
Yet…..
They all had parents who were married. No one I knew came from a divorced home in that area. They were not religious or church-going familes (the area I grew up has some of the lowest church attendance rates in the USA….as does Appalachia btw.
In the end, the couples understood that “they needed each other, for better or for worse” because of economics, the kids and in the end…..there were no other options. Dad might have worked in lumbering during the summer. Mom might have worked at the local fast food place during the summer tourist season. These people were not and should not be idolized as “salt of the earth” types, nor were the smartest people either. But, they usually had some horse sense that it was better off together than apart.
As for luck? I wont ever rule that out in a marriage, but that luck one gets usually comes from a lot of sweat, dedication and a “what else is there” mindset.
Dad also used to say “Scout (my nickname growing up), the reason why worry kills more people than work is because most people worry more than work”
Derek,
I am having trouble with my wordpress account and the new one I created so I can’t really address the comments at SS over there.
It seems easier to move our discussion to this thread since the 4month old one is filled with nested comments.
I do need to read the links in the OP. Not being a nag but it would help if you could include brief summaries of the studies you link to. I realize this makes more work for you. In the OP (not the comments) you show a table that looks like a meta analysis with sample sizes, skew of data and it looks like someone ran a student T-test. The words of the post suggest it’s an assortive pairing study. Yes I can follow the link but I hate to go down rabbit holes and you seem to understand the material.
I’m going to write separate comments to try to get all my thoughts out.
“Much of the heterogamous sorting takes place before couples take the relationship offline.
It is clear from the comments I’ve read—such as those recently by Deti—that the interpretation of that data to support any definition of hypergamy (besides non-implemented desire) is surface-level at best.”
My understanding of the Dalrockians (that’s really what we mean by “manosphere”) is that non-implemented desire IS the issue. Deti has said this a million times – women are marrying men that they aren’t attracted to and there ARE men that they are attracted to. That there is heterogamous assortive pairing occuring, even if it is rapid, is beside the point.
I don’t believe for a second, that even in the dating market of the young, 20% of men are sharing 80% of women and the remaing 80% of men are competing over the bottom 20%.
There’s also their consistent observation that with women having 5,10,15 different sex partners before marriage the odds of having experience with top 20, 10, 5 percenters are high.
I don’t think heterogamous assortive pairing addresses what I mostly see the Dalrockians talking about.
“There is no real “American culture.” That is an abstraction, an approximation, not a depiction of reality or truth. ………… You absolutely are part of a subculture, even if you don’t know what it is or acknowledge it. The people you have interacted with throughout your life have not been randomly selected, nor do they represent the whole culture (which doesn’t actually exist)….. etc.
Mass media has created a generic American culture. My observations began in my large high school (earlier really) that consisted of a broad demographic racially/ethnically, regional origin (everyone moves to my home state from somewhere else), economically (ghetto/trailer park, working class, upper middle class), varying religion and no-religion, etc. How did I create my biased environment? By not dropping out of high school? By my very diverse (Catholic doctors, WASP lawyers, Appalachian hillbillies) moving to the town in the 1950s. I didn’t make my observations with a certain HS clique – it was the pattern of the whole school.
And the patterns continued at other large institutions where – yes – I chose to go there so I “created my selective environment” this was not associating with specific groups at these large institutions.
So then how do you declare “hypergamy is a myth” based on the Jefferson City High study when that study was in a bubble, was a particular, selected environment and not the generic American culture which doesn’t exist? Whether it’s data or anecdotal observations, your point about “bubbles” is the same.
So here’s my issues with the Jefferson City High study.
I have a hard time believing that 83% of students responded with accurate information on intimate details of their sex lives, not just if and how many but specific names. I have a hard time believing that almost 3/4 of girls responded accurately about the same. That nearly 30% of the student body were girls that would accurately record the details /names.
I have no idea what the data would look like if more brown dots (the girls?) appeared and some of the blue dots (boys?) disappeared. Since I didn’t get past differential equations, I don’t know enough about “short cycles” and fraud detection. You could be right, unintentionally wrong, or intentionally pulling the wool over my eyes – I couldn’t tell the difference. Likewise you could invoke Bayesian stats and I’d have no clue.
As noted in the other comment, Jefferson HIgh is one of your selected bubbles and this is ONE high school in the early mid 90s.
Not central but the “alpha male” who shares some of his girls is something the sphere has ALWAYS described. This is why they call them “soft harems” – women go to other guys. The “alpha females” were described as “skanks” back in our day.
So I don’t really care for this idea that the manosphere men somehow are responsible for their problems based on some sort of instinctive assortive pairing. It sounds about as deterministic as the writings of HDB blogger “Jayman.” I think it’s a big stretch to jump from the STATISTICAL observation that people mate up with people of similar characteristics to speculating that certain people created their situation by being magically drawn to problem people. Scott was promiscuous but was instinctively drawn to a virgin Church of Christ bride that would somehow later commit adultery?
This leads to ignoring socially relevant phenomena which need to be addressed. Let’s reverse the sexes and I’ll be glad to criticize a common failing of men. A broad demographic of men are addicted to pornography and it’s a bad, sinful and marriage damaging thing. So the women married to these men somehow assortively paired with men who would later become porn addicts and that’s just these women’s natural place in the market?
You see, we then ignore socially relevant phenomena that need to be addressed. That’s what I see the Dalrockians as saying. I don’t believe that 20% of men are taking 80% ofwomen or that average women all end up with 80+% guys. But I think they are describing socially relevant things that need to be studied.
I’m all for sociologists studying this sort of thing. I for one would be very relieved to find that average women are attracted to average men.
So I don’t really care for this idea that the manosphere men somehow are responsible for their problems based on some sort of instinctive assortive pairing.
CAM
Derek is NOT saying they are responsible for it.
Derek better explains this in this post(the post before this one) using MOD as an example:https://derekramsey.com/2025/02/20/a-note-on-hypergamy/
Here is what I’m speaking on:
”In an unexpected surprise to me, the discourse over at Spawny’s Space—regarding Hypergamy—has improved since I wrote and published “Hypergamy is a myth, part 2” yesterday morning. Some interesting counterpoints have been raised. I’ll probably spend some time talking about them in a future post.
But, first, I want to address one comment:</em
Deti
Comment
Look at Jason. According to Derek’s logic, Jason is alone because that’s what he deserves. That’s what the market has decided he should get. Right? That’s what Derek says.
I wonder if Derek will tell Jason that on the blog, “to his face”.’
This is an excellent comment, with just one problem.
Assortative mating has no motivation. It’s not a living, breathing thing. Thus, no one is “deserving” of anything. It is an amoral or neutral process. It’s—descriptively speaking—what happens, not what should—prescriptively speaking—happen. In other words, it is “correlation does not imply causation.”
By saying that he should have this outcome, I don’t mean that it is the “proper” outcome, rather I mean that it is the “probable” (or even logical) outcome.
This is why I said this:
Derek L. Ramsey
Hypergamy Is A Myth, Part 2
If they find themselves always alone or with women who are experienced, cheaters, or prone to divorce, it’s because that’s who the market says they should be paired with. They can blame the world for being cruel—and it is—but ultimately the world is just giving them what they “want.”
…
Assortative mating is vicious and uncaring.
It’s nothing personal, it’s just the way it is. Assortative mating is the most coldly fair and dispassionate system there is, giving each man what the process says they are entitled to receive.
Honestly, I’d be surprised if Jason disagreed with my contention that the market has decided his fate for him and that he’s getting what it has decreed for him according to who he is. For the most part, he’s likely gotten what he should have expected to get, and should expect that to continue.
Outcomes are not random. If Jason were different, he’d have a different result. But he doesn’t because he’s not a different person. He’s Jason. If that sounds tautological, that’s because it is. Men in his state just don’t get wives.
Notice that I put “want” in quotation marks. If he were me, he’d be married with kids. But he’s not me, he’s Jason. He loves a certain culture and certain music. He loves the outdoors. He lives on the left coast. He’s his own man. Jason isn’t married because he is Jason. Any man who is comfortable with who he is is already getting what he “wants.” If he “wanted” something different, he would have chosen something different! He got where he was by his own choices.
I have a high view of agency. Many people think that I’m blaming men, but that’s not it at all. I’m simply saying that each man should acknowledge that he is ultimately responsible for his own outcomes, for better or worse. I respect Jason’s agency, which is why I credit him with his outcomes. I don’t blame the system, I respect his manhood enough to acknowledge that his life path has taken him where it has. But, and this is key, it’s not a judgment of him as a person.
I would never say that Jason deserves this state. That’s a moral judgment. I would only say that a combination of his life choices (things within his control) and external circumstances (things beyond his control) have led him inexorably to this place. I believe he has realized that there is little he can do to change that at this point. It is what it is.”
See what Derek is saying now how it is somewhat similar to the SMP/MMP but in more non-sphere(such as our old FAVE Novaseeker) scholarly Derek-speak?
Yes Professor, it just seems strange to me to apply this amoral “force of nature” to the individual men with bad outcomes. Think of “Porn Pill Apostle” (Prof – you really cracked me up with that one!). His issue and a common one is a no sex marriage. It’s hard to know if “free market forces” caused this as how can one know if he was attracted to the type of woman who would later become the “frigid wife” type. And it seems assigning things to assortive mating market forces can encourage us to overlook socially relevant phenomena and the importance of inculcating what Deti calls “character” both in men and women.
“His issue and a common one is a no sex marriage. If “free market forces” caused this as how can one know if he was attracted to the type of woman who would later become the “frigid wife” type.”
I think I’m going to write about the next week or the following week.
And it seems assigning things to assortive mating market forces can encourage us to overlook socially relevant phenomena and the importance of inculcating what Deti calls “character” both in men and women.
Can you provide an example of what you mean?
Sure Derek. Off the top of my head let’s pick male pornography use. If we just chalk it up to “women assortively pair with men who are high risk for porn use” we can overlook the socially relevant phenomena of male porn use and its effects on marriages and families.
One more comment about the Jefferson City High study.
That study seems to have been done to study STD transmission models. I have seen multiple social science studies that obtain radically different results depending on methodology, how the questions are asked, etc. The intent of the study an affect these things.
“It’s just luck!”
..and also…
“It’s about character!”
Good golly.
Shame you can’t screen for that.
Everyone but the lucky few get matched with someone devoid of character by wild happenstance.
Hi Liz. Hope Mike and the boys and your DiL are well.
Since so many of us really had no clue what to look for and just responded to a seemingly normal girl showing us interest it can really seem like “luck” in hindsight. Guys (and girls) can have zero clue what’s in store as people change and sometimes put on an act during courtship (at the very least we are on our “best behavior” early in a relationship). About half my HS friends (male and female) are divorced and most of these marriages were to normal, middle class people they met in college with, even in hindsight, no obvious red flags. It really does look like a toss of the dice (not even a weighted one!) even though it’s not really “luck.” My wife had lots of “red flags” in the sense that she came from a single mother with an 9th grade education, was abused as a child, never knew her father – and yet we made it when so many of my lower-risk factor friends’ upper middle class wives’ divorced their husbands. The “dice” in our marriage were, statistically speaking, weighted towards divorce
I think by character Deti means that people need to have the character to stick it out and uphold their commitments. Men and women. There’s no point to marriage if it’s not permanent.
Hi Cameron! Good to “see” you. 🙂
Heh, we’re doing well…Mike is on disability for his neck (I’ve mentioned it but some folks don’t know, it has been a couple of years since he has been unable to fly).
Family is doing good though, overall.
🙂
Didn’t he recommend you get a divorce lawyer? He has repeated (ad nauseam) his wife is lucky he didn’t leave, he would leave if (insert something here), et al.
Depends on the day I guess.
’nuff said.
Liz,
Jason and I have pointed out that the ‘sphere has a disproportionate number of self-proclaimed INTJs. The ‘sphere definitely has a type.
Just read this comment that I found yesterday and tell me it doesn’t sound like any number of blog posts or husband-to-wife ultimatums:
All that talk of establishing strict boundaries, limits, betrayals and scarring sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it?
“Get a divorce lawyer, because as soon as that boundary is crossed, it’s over.”
Peace,
DR
There is one piece of advice I’d give to women, but it applies to everyone to one extent of the other. If you constantly look for problems , you will find them. I’ve spoke many many many times about habit patterns. We fall into our habits. So if a woman makes it a habit to complain about her spouse all the time, she is going to see flaws. All. The. Time. That is why coffee clutch hen groups tend to have “epidemics” of divorce.
Looking for good things does…exactly the opposite.
Being on the all grievance all the time channel isn’t beneficial for anyone.
I am done with that. That sums up the best advice I can give anyone. Form habits that are helpful to your relationships, not harmful.
Liz,
You’ve absolutely nailed it.
Peace,
DR
“Second, roughly two-thirds of men are too old for dating apps to be effective.”
That is feminist logic.
MR,
This may be the most absurd thing you have ever said. Math is not feminist, but if it were, that would mean patriarchy is wishful thinking. Think about what you say before you say it!
When men and women start dating and marrying, a majority of women (around 60%) are of the no-divorce, till-death-do-us-part type. As they get scooped up, they are permanently off the market. Meanwhile, as age goes up, the number of divorced-or-divorcing type women goes up. But, more importantly, the proportion of the divorcing type goes up. By age 30, perhaps only one in ten women are of the no-divorce type, if not lower.
Two-thirds of men on dating apps are 30 or older. The chance of them finding a no-divorce wife in their age range is very, very low. At best, a small fraction of men will succeed. This is not, by any definition, effective for those men.
And, of course, all of this neglects the fact that assortative mating means that even if two “till-death-do-us-part” types of men and women pair up, if they are not assortatively paired, their marriage may well end in divorce for that reason alone! The reality is that after age 30 significantly less than one-in-ten women are actually compatible with any given man, further reducing his odds of success.
Dating apps are a terrible deal for men, and they emphasize the most detrimental aspects of the dating marketplace. They also distort the default perception on dating and marriage, making it seems far worse than it actually is.
Peace,
DR
“the no-divorce, till-death-do-us-part type”
Does this mean women who are of the belief that marriage is for life or do you mean women who are of the low risk of divorce demographic? I assume you mean the latter.
I thought maybe MR was referring to the shaming by (feminist?) women of older men who try to date younger women. I guess this is a big thing now where (older) women argue against older men pursuing much younger women. The prime example in pop culture is Leonardo DiCaprio only dating women half his age. I know of men in real life doing this (including a non-rich, non-silver fox 60 year old married to a 30 year old girl) but obviously they’re outliers.
The actual existing research on dating apps shows that on average 50 years old men peak at the highest amount of unsolicited messages from women of all ages on dating apps. That is why they are participating there in the first place.
Most of these men are married BTW as it happens to be the case in this age group. Being married is a strong predictor for reproductive value in men. These men are successful there BECAUSE they are married.
Feminists have a certain (non-biblical) narrative of the mating market and that narrative is based on the assumption that men above 30 have very few and sub-par mating options. This mistake is based on overestimating reproductive value of men under 30 and also grossly overestimating reproductive value of women above 30.
This is also the reason why high-school and college studies are useless, because the males (age 16-24) participating in these have literally no reproductive value.
MR,
Let’s ponder the ramifications of what you have said.
“On average 50 years old men peak at the highest amount of unsolicited messages from women of all ages on dating apps. That is why they are participating there in the first place.”
If you are correct, then this is evidence that wealth and status, not sexual attraction is driving “hypergamy.” The Dalrockian Manosphere’s definition of hypergamy once again does not replicate and the traditional definition holds sway. Here is a relevant preview from tomorrow’s post:
These men are successful there BECAUSE they are married.
Let me get this straight. Not only are there too many men (56%) chasing too few women (39%) on dating apps, but the few women (39%) that are there are chasing older married men (<10%) who should be off-limits. When I said dating apps are a terrible deal for single virgin men, I apparently catastrophically underestimated just how bad it actually is.
Your claim, if true, agrees with today's post "Reasons for Divorce“: infidelity among married men is a very serious problem. Infidelity, not female hypergamy, is driving high divorce rates.
Furthermore, if women on dating apps are going after married men, then that only proves my central claim that there are very, very few good marital prospects on those apps, regardless of the age of a man. As I’ve stated, most women who will marry for life are gone by age 30 and only a tiny proportion of women on dating apps are high quality.
Feminists have a certain (non-biblical) narrative of the mating market and that narrative is based on the assumption that men above 30 have very few and sub-par mating options. This mistake is based on overestimating reproductive value of men under 30 and also grossly overestimating reproductive value of women above 30.
So you were talking about married men, while I was talking about never married men who want a virgin to marry for life. So, let’s address your point directly then, shall we? The average difference in age between a husband and wife has been consistent for centuries. In modern times, the average age of marriage has increased, but the average age gap has remained unchanged. Dating apps have not changed this. So, what you describe—20s women chasing 50s men—cannot be true, unless dating apps are not representative of the majority of relationships. Which is it?
There is another flaw in your argument. My statistics on “luck” pertain to the 60% of first time marriages that do not end in divorce. What relevance do married men on dating apps have with virgin men seeking their first marriage to a virgin woman who is seeking her first marriage? Your point would seem to be irrelevant, as neither the women seeking married men nor the married men are in that category. What concerns the Dalrockian Manosphere is the fate of single men to find a wife (or married men to keep one).
This is also the reason why high-school and college studies are useless, because the males (age 16-24) participating in these have literally no reproductive value.
Ah, but the women do have reproductive value and they are mating with those “no reproductive value” men, thus removing themselves from the “virgin to marry for life” category. So my point still stands: you better marry young if you want to marry a virgin for life. Even adjusting for marital age gaps, men should be marrying in their 20s. The longer they wait, the worse their chances until luck truly does play a dominate role.
Cameron told me that women are not indiscriminate whores, but your assertion is that young women—by mating with men with no reproductive value—are indiscriminately whoring. Which of you is correct? I’m getting conflicting messages. You can’t both be right, and I’d like to know.
This is a central issue to hypergamy. If women are indiscriminate in who they choose to mate with, then hypergamy isn’t based on sexual attraction. Deti seems to think I’m an idiot because I tend to agree with the majority position that hypergamy isn’t a matter of sexual attraction. So the answer to this question is important.
Peace,
DR
Also Derek, I wanted to address your question from the other thread.
“With that comment, I might be able to rest my case. You just cited another highly selected group as proof of the sphere, yet that subculture has little bearing on other subcultures.
Can you even comprehend what life is like for an Asian vs. Black person?”
I wasn’t trying to prove the sphere by ghetto culture. Merely trying to show that you could bias studies for or against the sphere hypothesis by choice of subculture studied with e.g. Mennonites vs. the ghetto being the extreme.
Actually I do know the differences in their life. My early school years we lived in the ghetto of east Gainesville, Florida where our next door neighbors would butcher slimy turtles out of the urban canals for their dinner. Then we moved back to my home town where I continued in elementary and middle school in the ghetto (where my sister currently teaches) and my high school was the only one at the north end of the county which includes the very extensive ghetto as well as the local rednecks and the rich beach kids. Florida also has a fair number of both south and east Asians and I now live in an area with a large Hmong population who, despite some initial dysfunctionality in the 1980s appear to have adapted to American life and have pretty high functioning family life.
I know of men in real life doing this (including a non-rich, non-silver fox 60 year old married to a 30 year old girl) but obviously they’re outliers.
This is why i don’t tell MEN they can be like me when i got up with my woman to get one i actually can talk with and be around as much as possible as when i was a young boy too is how i thought and so it was as an adult also.
In other words?
i can be her whole family and community if need be😉😊😎😇
Contrast that with the majority of manosphere MEN who think the ”Patriarchal” community, church, and society that doesn’t exist should be her family and community as they just come in to boink her, give her permission to go the bathroom😉 as MOD says and for dinner.
But being almost a woman’s whole family and community if need be was modeled for me by my parents, my mother was more than happy to just be around him and after that me, and my brother most of the time. And that’s why i knew how to do it or how it worked at the young age of 7yo with my first GF(who made it very clear she wanted to be with me as much as possible which wasn’t much actually just an hour at recess-I did at one time try to get our desks put near each other though)-it was in my genes and environment, it sure as h#ck wasn’t ”luck” or a random chance to me!
Cameron,
I’m going to try to condense my replies to your comments in one thread down here, starting with these: here, here, here. Let me know if I failed to respond to anything you really wanted me to respond to in those comments.
“Not being a nag but it would help if you could include brief summaries of the studies you link to.”
I’ll keep this in mind for the future.
Part of the problem is that it is incredibly hard for me to publish every day. I can pump out a lot of material pretty quickly, but it all adds up. Each set of major comments I make costs me time I would have been spending writing articles. Summaries mean I might have to reduce the frequency of my posts (which are already only on weekdays). There is an obvious tradeoff between quality and quantity.
I so rarely get substantive engagement with what I write, that I generally only spend time writing whatever I feel like writing. It’s hard to take requests when most of it will go unread! Just look at how many months it took from when I wrote that original article until you commented on it.
The words of the post suggest it’s an assortive pairing study
As you now know, it’s a study on disease transmission. I suspect this helps explain why students were a bit freer in their disclosures. It’s hard to say how accurate it is.
But, much of what we know about these issues is based on anecdotes. In particular, the Red Pill is based on small anecdotes. That study is based on a larger collection of anecdotes, but all survey-based studies are suspect. The point is this: if we are to be skeptical of that study, we need also to be suspect of what the Red Pill teaches. If we reject such studies out-of-hand, we should do the same for the Red Pill if we were being honest from an epistemological standpoint.
I don’t want you to take too much out of that Jefferson High study. The meta study I referenced in “Hypergamy is a myth” is presumably much stronger data. I don’t rely on the Jefferson study in order to conclude that Hypergamy is a myth. It’s a nice supplement, but I freely acknowledge its weaknesses. In fact, I’d like to know if there is proof that it is fraudulant or not.
(And I post these things with the understanding that someone might prove my argument invalid. That’s intentional.)
The Jefferson study is an indication that something is wrong with Red Pill wisdom. It’s evidence, not proof. Or put another way, if posit a Red Pill Hypothesis, this study does not support it. That’s the theme, so far, of my recent posts: Red Pill wisdom hasn’t been replicated. Generally speaking, if we can replicate the hypothesis, we reject it.
I find the study—on disease transmission—interesting for what we can reason about it regarding relationships in general.
“I couldn’t tell the difference”
This is why I don’t want you reading more into it than you should. Treat what I’m saying as interesting but not conclusive. Keep it in mind, but don’t blindly embrace it as fact. Ideally, we’d search for an alternative that refutes it, and compare them.
I’ve enjoyed our conversation because you’ve raised interesting counterpoints and you seem to more-or-less understand the material. Over at SS, there are too many “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and “Satan’s tool” dismissals, which are not helpful nor substantive. Saying something like “that study has methodological problems and here is why…” is much more constructive.
“As noted in the other comment, Jefferson HIgh is one of your selected bubbles and this is ONE high school in the early mid 90s.”
I don’t think this criticism hurts my position. Perhaps I’ll try to explain more about this later, when I reply to the example you gave of your experience in Gainsville.
Peace,
DR
See my reply here
Another thing i forgot to comment on before:
Men who are divorced should not be leading a ministry that teaches. So it is interesting that the modern statistics cohere with what Paul told Timothy, when he disallowed such men from being leaders.
Sparkles
Comment
At the manosphere-troll-site that thedeti linked to in the comments on the previous post, dummy Derek says:
At least two divorced men—Jack (here) and Sparkles (here and here)—call their public writings and leadership their “ministry” despite Paul stating that the leaders and teachers of the church need to be married to one and only one woman.
Now if I were to argue like how Derek does, I’d point out that he is using Argumentum Ad Hominem to try to invalidate my writings and ideas based upon who I am. And if I were an eternal fool in the mold of Derek, I’d then claim that example then shows that everything he writes is based upon “logical fallacies” and that then we should conclude that everything Derek writes based upon fallacies is of course false. That’s how that fool operates.
…and…
Sparkles
So, the fool, Derek, is trying to say that because men like Jack and I have been divorced, we should not be allowed to offer our unpaid service to other Christian men through writing the things we do to counter his own unbiblical pedestalization, aggrandizement, and worship, of women.
What Sparkles is really decrying here is that he, Jack, and other such ”Patriarchal””MEN” let their wives imitate Satan in rebellion against God, society, children, and ”God’s holy order of Patriarchy” while the ”king of all ”uberchads”Derek and His ” highly Knowledgeable & sociable professor” as Sparkles has it has NEVER done no such thing as like Sparkles prototype deputy Barney Fife at any sign of a woman being in rebellion against
God, society, children, and ”God’s holy order of Patriarchy” WE instead ”NIP IT IN THE BUD” as said here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSyueBoC9mE
Barney Nip It montage
In that video above, you’ll see Sparkles idol and personal hero Barney Fife ranting about ”NIPPING IT IN THE BUD”but NEVER actually doing it like Sparkles , Jack, and other such ”Patriarchal””MEN” DON’T, yet hate on those who do, I.E. the ”king of all ”uberchads”Derek and His ” highly Knowledgeable & sociable professor”!
the also,by the way , ” highly Knowledgeable & sociable professor” DR.CHARLTON explains the Cosmic, Satan VS. God version of this today at his own excellent and ”superior writing” blog below :https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2025/02/what-prevents-war-in-heaven-or.html
The phrase war in Heaven is common enough, sometimes used to describe a rebellion of Lucifer and the demons against God, and a subsequent war among spiritual beings with Michael the Archangel leading the forces on God’s side*.
Yet, if we really think about it, “war in Heaven” is nonsense, an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
Because – if there is war, then it isn’t Heaven. And if there is a Heaven, then there cannot be war in it, nor even the possibility of war.
*(If the war of God and angels versus demonic rebels did indeed happen in the time before Christ; and I believe something of that sort did happen, albeit it was and still is probably continuous, rather than a finite war – then it was not a war in Heaven. It was/is a war in the First Creation which was not and cannot be Heaven – not a war in Jesus Christ’s Second Creation.)
Heaven did not exist, and was not even claimed to exist, until Jesus Christ. It was Jesus that “made” Heaven, and made Heaven a possible destination for Men.
But the “trouble” was and still is, that Jesus made Heaven on the other side of death; Jesus insisted that Men must die (as did he) and be “born-again” in order to dwell in Heaven.
This has never been popular!
People do not want to wait until after death. They want Heaven here and now! – or as soon as possible. They want to dwell in Heaven as they are, and not as they become after death. They want Heaven on Earth.
Why then did Jesus insist that Men must die? Why not abolish death?
Well, if we assume Jesus was both good and competent; then we must assume that death was necessary for Heaven: necessary for Heaven to exist; necessary for Men to live-forever and go to Heaven; necessary in order that Heaven actually be Heaven.
And this can be understood by considering how war in Heaven is prevented.
While some kind of powerful government could suppress dissent, detect and punish rebels etc – this would not be Heaven. (Being a thwarted, or brainwashed, rebel is not a Heavenly state!)”
”Being a thwarted, or brainwashed, rebel is not a Heavenly state!”
Zlolzzzlollzzzz Isn’t that what the ”good guy” RP® Genius Leaders say they were and are ”brainwashed” as they are highly skilled leaders of rebellion while keeping tight-lipped at their churches in fear of the supposed ”bluepilled in rebellion preachers ”who have nothing on the expertise of leading in rebellion like the supposed ”good guy” RP® Genius Leaders who spent 15 years or so at a time allowing and leading the rebellion from their wives while claiming it was NOT their responsibility to prevent it, but it was instead the”bluepilled in rebellion preachers ” responsibility to prevent it, does that even make sense?If it doesn’t it supposedly just means you’re NOT a Genius like the RP® servants of Satan leaders of the satanic feminism rebellion against God are.
Everyone interested can continue to keep up with the continuing saga of the ”king of all ”uberchads”Derek and His ” highly Knowledgeable & sociable professor” versus the RP® servants of Satan who happily & RedPilly® lead their wives, society, children, and ”God’s holy order of Patriarchy’ in rebellion against God, society, children, and ”God’s holy order of Patriarchy” here at DEREKS!- same ”king of all ”uberchads”Derek and His ” highly Knowledgeable & sociable professor” time and blog every day, post and week!
Cameron,
This is my response to your comments here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
I wasn’t trying to prove the sphere by ghetto culture. Merely trying to show that you could bias studies for or against the sphere hypothesis by choice of subculture studied with e.g. Mennonites vs. the ghetto being the extreme.
Actually I do know the differences in their life. My early school years we lived in the ghetto of east Gainesville, Florida…
…[Asians] have pretty high functioning family life.
Assortative mating, selecton bias, bubbles, and subcultures refer to the same concept. Behind assortative mating is homophily: “the tendency of people to form relationships with others who are similar to them.” People group by their similarities in almost all facets of life. It takes will and effort to do otherwise. Now, in your example, one ‘bubble’ supports the Dalrockian Manosphere, but another ‘bubble’ does not. This only goes to show that what the Red Pill’s knowledge and applicability is, at minimum, restricted in scope to only those bubbles in which it is useful. Outside of those areas, such as with Mennonites-adjacent cultures, it would be actively harmful. Per your example, you seem to have witnessed how results differ according to various cultures, locales, and races.
About half my HS friends (male and female) are divorced and most of these marriages were to normal, middle class people they met in college with, even in hindsight, no obvious red flags.
To be fair, most people have no idea what red flags look like, and in the case of blankslatist intentionally delude themselves according to their ideology. But I also think that both genetics and environmental social factors play a huge role. Liz’s illustrates that precisely:
Shame you can’t screen for [character]. Everyone but the lucky few get matched with someone devoid of character by wild happenstance.
The tendancy for people to attribute differences to “luck” is rooted in blankslatism. The Red Pill would be a much better ideology if it wasn’t also blankslatist. Consider Deti’s broad generalizations that seem to treat individuals as interchangeable cogs. Behind “you got lucky” is the blankslatist notion that if two people were switched at birth and somehow put into each other’s shoes, the outcomes would have been reversed. But there is no reason to believe this. An individual’s outcomes are highly dependent on who they are and this can’t simply be transferred to another person.
I don’t know you so I can’t explain why you have made it with your wife when others did not. Perhaps she is Asian or White. Maybe she has a high IQ and is highly educated. Maybe you married young. Maybe she didn’t have a lot of prior sexual experience. But, ultimately, it is as Jason says time and time again. A marriage won’t end in divorce if the participants decide to make it work no matter what. It’s a choice they can make and the right person will make it. That’s why “vetting” only fudges the odds. But, maybe you really did beat the odds. It does happen.
I think by character Deti means that people need to have the character to stick it out and uphold their commitments. Men and women. There’s no point to marriage if it’s not permanent.
I can’t disagree with that. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that Deti’s problem is that he has no way of identifying if a woman has that character, and he seems to imply that there is no way for us to do so.
It just seems strange to me to apply this amoral “force of nature” to the individual men with bad outcomes.
So I don’t really care for this idea that the manosphere men somehow are responsible for their problems based on some sort of instinctive assortive pairing.
It’s not necessarily instinctual.
Divorce and divorce risk is multicausual. There are strong genetic components that predisposes a person towards or against divorce. There are also many environmental effects that can influence a person (e.g. who a woman’s friends are). In many cases, these things work together and can’t really be untangled (e.g. your genes influence the environment you choose and your environment influences how your genes are expressed). Some men really do make terrible choices, but others are just subject to bad luck (i.e. thinks happen to them). I call this amoral because assortative mating is too complex to be labeled with moral significance. You can look at individual experiences and label some of those moral (or not), but you can’t really describe assortative mating in those terms. So while not technically a “force of nature” I don’t see how we can avoid thinking about it that way.
The problem I have is that most people are largely ignorant about this. Any understanding is subconscious. People just naturally find people that are similar to themselves and reject people that are different. It’s the natural human condition. People don’t have to be told how to do it, whether you call it instinctual or not. If you look at it from the perspective of statistics, you see people consistently with similar backgrounds and experiences and future outcomes pair up, seemingly without reason. It’s not actually without reason, but it’s hard to identify how people assortatively pair to accurately.
That’s why I found the Jefferson High study so interesting.
It sounds about as deterministic as the writings of HDB blogger “Jayman.”
I’ve talked with Jayman about a couple of these types of topics. For example, he believes being overweight is more-or-less 100% genetic, and he has an interesting argument. But most people acknowledge, as I do, that these things are complex and multivariate.
I think it’s a big stretch to jump from the STATISTICAL observation that people mate up with people of similar characteristics to speculating that certain people created their situation by being magically drawn to problem people.
I don’t think it is magical. I think it’s a combination of factors, but ultimately whether environmental or genetic, people make predictable choices. Nothing is completely deterministic, but it’s also not random. And in some cases, things are a lot more deterministic than people are comfortable admitting. If I know your IQ, I can make a number of general predictions about your life, and my predictions will be pretty accurate.
Scott was promiscuous but was instinctively drawn to a virgin Church of Christ bride that would somehow later commit adultery?
I’m not sure what Scott’s situation is currently, but at the very least, he has been separated from his wife for at least part of 2024. Whether they’ve divorced or not has not been made public. But the fact is, he’s been divorced in the past, so his odds of a failed second marriage was the most likely outcome from the moment he married her, regardless of her situation. Statistics predicted what would happen to him even before he was looked up to as an example by many in and out of the ‘sphere.
I for one would be very relieved to find that average women are attracted to average men.
Well men are not women. What a man says when he thinks “I’m attracted to an average woman” is just not how a woman thinks. I think it’s silly to view women as if they were men. When a man marries a woman, he’s marrying someone who doesn’t view attraction the same way that he does. We can describe and predict precisely how a woman views physical intimacy over time, and it isn’t how men view it. Even what counts as “attractive” isn’t the same for both sexes.
A broad demographic of men are addicted to pornography and it’s a bad, sinful and marriage damaging thing. So the women married to these men somehow assortively paired with men who would later become porn addicts and that’s just these women’s natural place in the market?
The whole “women like bad boys” says exactly this. Some women seem to inexplicibly go after bad boys even after previous experiences yield horrible results. How do you explain that? Was it their fault for choosing them? Was it something in their programming? What the “women like bad boys” meme shows is that people will make predictable choices. I can’t say whether this is deterministic, the result of free choice, or (more likely) some combination. I can only say that it happens and is predictable. It is not random. That means that at some level, women are getting what they “want.”
If we just chalk it up to “women assortively pair with men who are high risk for porn use” we can overlook the socially relevant phenomena of male porn use and its effects on marriages and families.
Do men and women have agency? Are they responsible for their choices? Or is it just the result of happenstance?
But, even if we assumed that women were automatons, I still don’t think that this would mean we were overlooking the detrimental effects of porn use on marriages and families. We can separate how much women’s choices influence their likely outcome without determining cause-and-effect or assigning blame.
Mass media has created a generic American culture.
If anything this causes the illusion that people are interchangeable, as if differences don’t matter. It is quite possible that belief in a generic culture leads to higher divorce as people mistakingly avoid assortative paring.
So then how do you declare “hypergamy is a myth” based on the Jefferson City High study when that study was in a bubble, was a particular, selected environment and not the generic American culture which doesn’t exist? Whether it’s data or anecdotal observations, your point about “bubbles” is the same.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you objecting to what I said or saying that I’m being inconsistent? I’m not sure I understand.
Hypergamy is a myth because women don’t actually date or marry above their station in any meaningful numbers. The Jefferson study is just another minor confirmation of that.
non-implemented desire IS the issue. Deti has said this a million times – women are marrying men that they aren’t attracted to and there ARE men that they are attracted to. That there is heterogamous assortive pairing occuring, even if it is rapid, is beside the point.
I don’t think heterogamous assortive pairing addresses what I mostly see the Dalrockians talking about.
But Deti—a man—defines attraction as purely sexual. But women don’t view attraction in a purely sexual way. It seems to me a critical mistake to say that the reason women divorce is “non-implemented desire.” It would seem to reveal a critical lack of understanding in what drives women’s choices. Moreover, if you ask women why they are divorcing, that isn’t the reason they give. (Read my post tomorrow which discusses this, and tell me what you think.)
Assortative pairing says that people will be attracted to people that are similar to themselves. I’m not sure how you can say that it is beside the point. Perhaps you can clarify?
Peace,
DR
“Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you objecting to what I said or saying that I’m being inconsistent? I’m not sure I understand.”
It seems that your response to anecdotes is that these are selected “bubbles” – particular environments that we “create” (not the best word). Yes, it seems you are being inconsistent. If there’s no “median” or “general” American environment that we can speak of then it seems we can’t say anything about these topics. That would include dismissing any studies since they are “bubbles” and not 21st century American environment. So I don’t see how any anecotes, even by thousands of men, or any studies can say anything. Even if we got data for every person in America, you could say that the data can be sliced, diced and parsed into any number of bubbles and that our conclusions may or may not hold true.
If my high school was a bubble then so is Jefferson City High.
sorry – “being INCONSISTENT”
I have a very hard time with your comment boxes on my device – sorry for the frequent misspellings.
Fixed
I don’t know you so I can’t explain why you have made it with your wife when others did not. Perhaps she is Asian or White. Maybe she has a high IQ and is highly educated. Maybe you married young. Maybe she didn’t have a lot of prior sexual experience.
i can speak a little here for my friend Cameron, he and his wife love the same kind of things and doing them together,i.e. Video Games as teens and he actually liked being around her and talking to her, hence why i like CAM, LIZ & yourself Derek so much as y’all have led similar lives as i have,i stay with my woman and Family, NOT with the whims and currents of culture as i see with the trendy RP® Genius Leaders looking for anything that catches their fancy like ”risque” pics and such.
i mainly like MOD (and in earlier times, EARL & RAY) for him standing alone independently fighting against the mobs of fools who preach foolish things like ”game”, similar to myself.
So it is mostly true like the studies say, WE all like people WE find similar to ourselves over those WE don’t.
Professor (and Cameron),
Thanks for the information. I do see what you are saying.
And when people do this, it leads them into the situation where everyone in the group tends to confirm the same things, whether or not they are actually true. I’m not saying that they agree on everything, but they agree on some things and those things that they do agree on are what determine membership in the group. People who reject those core things generally get kicked out (like on most blogs) or leave on their own (like on this blog).
Did you notice at SS how people—like Feeriker—couldn’t understand why I might be interested in their conversation?
The assumption is that I should have my own group and be totally uninterested in some other group. It’s rampant tribalism. Even the slightest interest in some other tribe is treated as obsession and subsequently shunned.
Remember when Jack thought I should stick to my own “domain of authority?” Remember when Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas thought I was obsessed with him? Recall when Catacomb Resident couldn’t understand why I didn’t simply ignore his tribe? Now Feeriker has called me obsessed for seemingly the same reason.
This is classic tribal shunning behavior (what leftists call “othering”). They see me as a complete outsider who does not belong, an uninvited guest. They find someone who isn’t aggressively tribal to be an oddball, someone to be ridiculed and avoided.
(Ironically, independence and a refusal to be tribal is a Sigma male trait. To hear Jack of Sigma Frame complain about my Sigma behavior is… hilarious.)
Why don’t they see this strong tendancy among humans towards heavy group selection? Why don’t they see that this applies just as strongly to the selection of women? Who they are determines who is allowed in their circle, and just as they are rejecting me, they also reject large swathes of women.
Cameron, do you understand what I am saying?
Now you know why I put “want” in quotes. Are these men getting what they deserve? Are they getting what they want? They are obviously setting up their own tribal echo chamber, heavily selecting for what they want to hear. So are they to blame for the bad things that happen to them as a result of their stubborness? Should I feel bad for them when they reject the very people who might actually be able to help?
How much agency do you think they have?
If I write long or substantive comments, they tell me that these are long screeds and polemics that I should only write on my blog. If I write short comments, they tell me that these are not substantial enough and it means I’m a troll or a coward. Notice that I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. These criticisms are clearly not leveled at me in good faith. This alone should explain why I don’t cater to their demands.
The fact is, they don’t want me making long or short comments. They don’t want me making comments at all. They want me out of their tribal spaces. You can see that, I can see that. Only the socially deficient wouldn’t understand the obvious social signals. The difference is that I ignore simple-minded tribalism. I’m not compliant.
Tribalism—assortative pairing, selection bias, bubbles, subcultures—is precisely why Dalrockian Manosphere men are in the situation they are in. It’s why I say they get what they “want.” As Deti demonstrated (see below), they are not interested in the pursuit of truth, just as Charlton stated:
If Feeriker wants me to comment there and subject myself to the mob, where was he at when Deti lied about me, got the mob all riled up, and they almost banned me? Short comments are, literally, the only thing keeping the mob from asking for my head on a platter. I wouldn’t be suprised if they banned me anyway. You know, for “lying” (even though Deti wasn’t banned for lying).
Deti can’t admit when he’s wrong. He just demonstrated that this past week when he made a basic reading comprehension error that even a child could have understand. He thinks pointing out his error is “perseverating.” And nobody called him out! That’s why commenting there isn’t productive: it isn’t an intellectually honest environment (“stupid or dishonest”).
Can you imagine commenting at a place where I might say “You are A or B” and the response is “How dare you call me A and B!” and then when I reply “I didn’t say A and B, I said A or B. What you said completely changes the meaning of what I said.” Then he replies “Stop perseverating. I didn’t misrepresent you. I quoted you exactly. You are obviously a troll. Now I’m done talking to you.”
How would you describe this exchange?
(This is a simplification of what actually happened. What actually happened was even more ridiculous than that)
So, Feeriker, if you want me to comment there, you should consider that the level of intellectual discourse there is too often below that of a 9th grader. No 9th grader I know confuses “and” and “or” and then denies that switching these is a problem.
Honestly, Thank God for Cameron, who isn’t playing these kinds of games for stupid prizes.
Peace,
DR
As an amiable I don’t enjoy arguing with people, particularly when it gets ugly.
It’s the internet but you develop camaraderie. Just like with Liz and Elspeth here.
Cameron,
I’m not sure if that is simple commentary on my comment, an allusion to SS, or your way of saying goodbye. Regardless of which one, while I can never promise not to debate, I will try to keep it civil and to publicly retract that which needs retracting. That’s why I thank you for your conversation and your earlier correction.
And speaking of playing ugly games for stupid prizes, here:
Here is what I said yesterday, ~7 hours before the above was written:
Were these comments (here and here) from the 17th and 18th somehow unclear too?
Is there an epidemic that prevents the most basic and simple reading comprehension?
What advantage is gained from “invertedly misrepresenting my clearly expressed views?” Is it, as Charlton asks, stupidity or dishonesty? Is there another explanation? I’m open to suggestions.
I hold to a very simple stance, as described here…
…and I suggest that every man—the primary audience to which I speak—do the same.
Peace,
DR
”I’m open to putting down the Red Pill. You just need to supply theories that explain what I’m seeing and hearing better than the RP does.”
Its easier all the time to see why that site has lost some of it’s best regulars over the years huh?
For a site all about being supposedly a group of ”friends” as one guy(Sparkles) who got the first comment ever deleted there was told by Cheque d’Out in May 2021.
It’s NOT that ”open” to even them let alone ”outsiders”.Which is why nearly a handful of us here left it,as WE did the another(SF) supposedly ”open” and prides itself on G-rated civility that only exists in the level of insults there and NOT in reality site.
In other words?As the PC RP® sphere continues to sink into oblivion it must now runoff anyone NOT properly in line with its Political Correctness as thought crimnals.Which meant it was only natural they would condemn GBFM as he is the prototype of the rare ”Sigma” attributes,even decades before he ever entered the overall larger MGTOW/Roissyosphere in 2010.
”(Ironically, independence and a refusal to be tribal is a Sigma male trait. To hear Jack of Sigma Frame complain about my Sigma behavior as well as GBFMS is… hilariouslzlolzzzlollzzzz.)”
YEP!
Hence why Derek & GBFM were meant even perhaps pre-destined to be ”independent alliance” Brother partners before they ever knew about the other😉😁😎😇
This is a loaded statement.
I showed that the Red Pill teaching on hypergamy was directly contradicted by multiple sources of data. I took the hypothesis, tested it, and falsified it according to the principles of science and reason.
I showed that the claim that being successful in marriage was a matter of luck was directly contradicted by multiple sources of data. I took the hypothesis, tested it, and falsified it according to the principles of science and reason.
This demand for an alternative is exactly what Jack did, do you remember? It has been common in the Dalrockian Manosphere for whatever I have to say to be rejected unless I meet some arbitrary demands (other than evidence, logic, and reason). It’s a form of gaslighting and non sequitur: “I’m not debunking your proof, but you can’t be right, because you didn’t give an alternative.”
When a person demands that an alternative be provided prior to engaging with counterarguments, this shifts the burden of proof. The assumption at SS is that the Red Pill is true and that I have the burden not only to show that it is false, but to provide some true alternative as well. This is logically fallacious, because the latter has no bearing on the evaluation of the former. (The embedded fallacy is why the original statement is loaded)
In essence, the demand creates a false dilemma, as if choosing between alternatives is somehow required, rather than simply evaluating the truth or fiction of a thing all on its own. But “I don’t have an alternative,” “I have an alternative, but it doesn’t matter in this context,” “I have an alternative, but you already rejected it out-of-hand,” or “the alternative is self-evident once you remove what isn’t correct” are all considered, rather arbitrarily, to be unacceptable responses.
In essence, his demand for an alternative proves that he is not open to putting down the Red Pill. He’s closed to it, because he’s put unrelated and irrelevant external conditions on it.
His claim to openness is loaded. It is conditional. It’s like saying “I love free speech, but free speech is conditional based on what I do and don’t like you to say.” But it stops being free speech when it becomes conditional “free” speech.
What theory and explanation of what he sees and hears is better than exposing the falsehood in what he thinks he sees and hears? Refuting the Red Pill directly is the single best way to address what he sees and hears. Don’t underestimate the power of knowing what something isn’t, of removing the veil.
The first step to seeing an alternative is to remove the veil that was obscuring your vision. You have to, pardon the idiom, take the Red Pill, if you want to see the alternative clearly.
Oh that’s just commentary. Yes I do have camaraderie with deti et. al. because I have great compassion for what they are feeling just like a feel great compassion for Jason. I also don’t care for it when people start saying other people are stupid, dishonest, etc. Sometimes people make mistakes, overlook previous comments, etc. This format of disjointed discussion lends itself to that. I could easily do this and I guess I’d be stupid. Deti is a lawyer. He’s not stupid. Or if he is I must be really stupid. However, I am not chastising you – it is your blog. I just think that when it gets ugly, then no one will listen to each other.
I saw that comment by Ch’d Out and I am confused. “Twat” is always something that men call women. I didn’t assume he was even referring to you.
Cameron,
I’d be confused too if this wasn’t such a common occurrence. Did you see the comments by Deti, Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas, and Feeriker?
I’m the only subject in that paragraph, and I can’t see any indication that he was talking about anyone else. I’m not British, but it sure seems like he was saying that I’m “a stupid or obnoxious person” in an intentionally vulgar way. It doesn’t appear very ambiguous.
Sometimes people make mistakes, overlook previous comments, etc.
I get that, but doesn’t that just kick the “stupid or dishonest” can a bit farther down the road? Someone can make a mistake because they are stupid (by not understanding what they read) or dishonest (by intentionally misrepresenting or by intentionally refusing to try to understand).
As you note, I find it incredibly hard to believe that these grown men are unintentionally making mistakes that not even children would make, so “stupid” doesn’t seem to fit at all. That only leaves one other option: intention.
Perhaps we can add this option: “mistaken.” But if you are going to make such a complete set of personal attacks (“evasive”, “disingenuous”, “wibblings”, “twat”), how can you call it a mere mistake? It’s straight up libelous! You can’t tell me there is no intention, it’s not even qualified!
Charlton said “Extremely Few people nowadays are genuinely interested in the truth of what they are pretending to discuss.” Wouldn’t this libel qualify? If so, then such pretending is, by definition, dishonest.
Peace,
DR
Ch’d Out seems to stay largely out of these spats and just lets deti and [Editor: Name Redacted] do their thing on SS. Since he first wrote “with all due respect to Derek” I assumed perhaps the “wibblings of a twat” remark were referring to something in the video he posted in the comment.
I don’t know. I’m a big proponent of the Principle of Charity. So, I’m always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I’m really struggling with this one.
Something similar has happened before:
Oh, I know the word I was looking for: credulous. The folk at SS are either stupid, dishonest, or credulous (that doesn’t quite fit either….). This is not a valid excuse either, but it might actually be the correct explanation.
Pingback: Reasons for Divorce - Derek L. Ramsey
I’m de-lurking mainly because I saw Cameron here. Hi, Cameron! I hope you and yours are well. Before I say something funny and relevant, you might find it interesting that I have grown burnt out on my web-scouring for middle grade material for my bi-annual FL history class and am just writing my own book! Fun stuff.
On topic: As one half of a 31-year, very happy marital union, that statistically should have crashed and burned based on almost every measurable metric, we have been comically tagged by our elders to lead a marriage class that is mostly full of couples who are statistically much more likely to remain married, although a few are struggling.
We will never-ever-in-a-million-years NOT be convinced that a marriage touched by God’s grace is liberated from the whims of chance or other statistical realities.
I am retreating into invisibility.
*Hey Liz!* ((hugs))
Hi Elpseth! Good to see you here! I hope SAM and the girls are doing well.
That’s pretty cool about the book. My sis loves Florida history but unfortunately, it’s not taught in her school – she teaches AP US History. Her student pass rates are extremely high.
Things are good up here. Just had one of several stretches of sub-zero weather but today it was in the 40s and it felt sweltering 🙂 My mom and sis text and complain every time it gets below 60. I do miss the beach and saltwater fishing. I think the really big deal up here is the availability of affordable housing compared to Florida.
That’s ironic about the marriage class – I’m sure you’ll do great. We are maritally stable, and my main focus is on my wife’s sanctification – to truly love someone is to will the best for them.
I’m hoping to get back down there this spring to take the kids to see mom and sis.
Hey Elspeth!! 🤗
((hugs back at ya))
…I too retreat back into invisibility
I strongly agree.
“We will never-ever-in-a-million-years NOT be convinced”
Fixed
Pingback: A Case Study on Marriage - Derek L. Ramsey
Good to see Liz and Elspeth on here again.
In the DJ culture I’m in here in LA, all the DJs my age are married, on their second or third marriage or are “living with someone”
One DJ has been married since 1989. Kids grown and gone. Wife works in real estate (gasp! she has a career!) He has been a full time vinyl DJ and mixer since the mid 1990’s. He’s pretty well known. I wont drop his name on here.
I asked him offhand once “How did you stay married? Pretty impressive you have a marriage of almost 40 years!”
He didnt say “Jesus” or “Im Red Pill you see, and I have flow, and confidence and I follow rules and lore”
He just said “My wife and I actually LIKE each other and we have a sense of humor. We also understood when we married (she got pregnant) that we would stick by each other because no one was going to help us. My parents were mad / disappointed that I got a girl pregnant at age 19 and her family thought me being a DJ / musician was not a good career”
Luck, timing? Both on the same page? Both accepted that they had to grow up and grow up quick?
They are a looks match. They own a nice home. They also trust each other…..and let me assure you, women are not throwing themselves at him when he spins.
Nice story. Good for them!
> all the DJs my age are married, on their second or third marriage or are “living with someone”
> One DJ has been married since 1989.
The “artist” is an archetype of man who doesn’t marry in the 21st century, because he has too much choice in women due to his social standing. Many women have this archetype in their sexual history, because they failed at locking them down. Afterwards they have to settle for someone “less” and regret it later.
So who was lucky? The woman was, because she managed to baby-trap a DJ at age 19.
Is this a model to recommend to a young man? Absolutely not. This model also very typical for bygone era of the 1950s to 1980s because in the 2020s this “accident” would simply be aborted and the relationship dissolved.
As for “putting down the Red Pill”
I will be happy to do that.
Red Pill, like the term “alpha / beta” and the like is a blanket term that perhaps meant one thing decades ago, but now has morphed into something unrecognizable.
In that movie “The Matrix” when that phrase “red pill / blue pill” entered the lexicon; it wasnt setup on the basis of “female nature”
The movie wasnt about that, nor the term used in that manner at that time.
Rollo told us all in 2020 or thereabouts we all had to give and thank GAME. He said nothing about Red Pill. He morphed the two words….meaning “they could mean the same thing”
Which blows up their stances on most things . Red Pill today, and for awhile is basically Game.
When “Game” fell apart for the foolishness that it was about a decade ago or thereabouts…..everyone just started calling Game “Red Pill”
It has no meaning now, its just the same thing over and over again “women like this” and “hate that” loaded up with smears aimed at fellow men who actually dont need it, or men who call it out for what it is.
Speaking of Red Pill terminology, last night I told my son that I was a Sigma and he told me that I wasn’t anymore, because “we’ve changed the meaning of the word.” It doesn’t mean Sigma anymore, it means what the old Alpha meant, and I’m no alpha!
Gotta love those Zoomers.
One viable alternative to the Red Pill is stepping outside the bubble and accepting that the Red Pill can be wrong all on its own without respect to alternatives.
Pingback: Cooldown - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: What is Hypergamy? (Part 1) - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: What Is Hypergamy? (Part 2) - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: America and Firearms - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Tell Me What I Want, What I Really... - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Hypergamy or Adultery - Derek L. Ramsey