Here is the series of responses to Deti so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Today we will discuss:
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Deti has responded to my Part 3 post on luck here, here, and here. Here are a few snipped statements:
Most lucky people don’t know how lucky they are until their luck runs out. Derek’s luck just hasn’t run out yet. It might never run out. He’s fortunate; and like most fortunate people, he doesn’t know just how fortunate he is.
Best results for marriages are for college educated whites under age 25. Derek was lucky – he is a college educated white man and his wife is a college educated white woman. They met while in high school, and married before age 25. They got lucky. Or blessed. And his wife had the requisite character.
Lots of people aren’t so lucky. I know or have heard of thousands of young men, some of whom met all these criteria (college, white, under 25) (and even married pastor’s daughters!) who have had their lives ripped apart because their wives just didn’t want to be married anymore. And that’s just the women leaving because of “finances” or “grew apart”. That doesn’t count female cheaters.
Even though I have already proved mathematically that luck has nothing to do with it, I want to show additional data to support that proof. This should be unnecessary, but I suspect some people will appreciate a “proof” from a different perspective.
Let’s take a brief intermission and do a case study.
Lancaster County is a major population center with over half a million residents, making up a modest 0.17% of the entire United States population (placing it in the top 200 counties out of 3000+ and barely less than the entire state of Wyoming). It’s not some statistical backwater. It’s located an hour drive from Philadelphia—the largest population center in the state of Pennsylvania—and it is only 20 miles away from the state capital in Dauphin County. Here is where it lands compared to the wider marriage and divorce trends:[1]
There are a lot of marriages happening in Lancaster and not a lot of divorces. But what is the nature of those marriages? Here is a chart of female marriage age in 2023, from this data set:
Boy do they get married young in Lancaster. Abnormally young.
Conventional wisdom states that getting married young is a major risk factor for divorce, one of the highest. A quick google search for “Is getting married young risky?” yields numerous results confirming the conventional wisdom. But, that wisdom is wrong. Why? Because if marrying young was a big divorce risk, then the divorce rate in Lancaster should be astoundingly high. But it isn’t:
Despite having a nearly 3x higher rate of young marriages, Lancaster has half the divorce rate of Philly. In fact, we see that the younger people marry, the lower the divorce rate. That is not what conventional wisdom states!
In the case of Lancaster’s low marriage age, marriages far outstrip divorces (85:15) and this trend has been fairly consistent for decades. It is no statistical anomaly nor the result of luck or chance.
Just consider how warped that is compared to all the anecdotes that you’ve heard. For every divorce there are nearly six marriages. This is why churches are full of young couples with babies, who will themselves grow up to marry at an ‘absurd’ clip. The divorces just can’t keep up with the demand for marriages. Death, not divorce, is the leading cause of marital dissolution.
Marrying young only appears harmful because of statistical confounding. This is why the typical advice to avoid marriage—which neglects this fact—ends up being actively harmful advice. For years, I’ve been advising people to buck the trend. Remember when Boxer, believer in hypergamy, took issue with that? Here is what he wrote:
That was in 2018. I’m not sure why people are just now surprised to hear that hypergamy is a myth.
Oh, and Boxer disagreed with the Dalrockian Manosphere on what hypergamy is:
Hypergamy is an overused word in the sphere, but it is well-defined as the practice of women seeking to “marry up.” The hypergamous nature of human females is incredibly consistent. In every human society, from the beginning of recorded history, there has always been a general, instinctive drive by women to mate with someone in an equal or greater dominance-caste.
This is quite the contrast from the Dalrockian definition of hypergamy “women are only sexually attracted to men who are more attractive than they are.” But, lest you think this is someone inexperienced and naive:
When I was 18-19, I saw hypergamy up close, and I won’t forget it. While I occasionally got with chicks who were my age, it became clear that these girls were using me as a sexual stop-gap. I was useful, until the hot 26-year old guy with the law degree got serious.
Isn’t it interesting how anecdotes result in inconsistent and contradictory conclusions? This is why I’m using the much larger non-random sample in this case study.
The age-of-marriage confounding is simple to explain. If you get a bunch of low-risk people to marry younger than they would have otherwise, the result is a falling divorce rate in the younger age group. If you get a bunch of high-risk people to wait longer to marry, the result is a higher divorce rate in later age groups. In other words, the rate goes up or down depending on the variable quality of the people marrying in that age bracket. If you move them to a different age bracket, the positive or negative effect of their quality just moves with them. Age itself is not the cause of divorce.
But let’s look at the divorces more closely. Even there Lancaster’s distribution is unusual:
This chart shows how many years couples were married when they got divorced. Even failed marriages in Lancaster are far more successful, lasting much longer. Troubled couples in Lancaster are much more likely to wait until the kids have moved out to divorce![2] When you consider how many young marriages there are there, the fact that the early marriage divorce rate is significantly lower than average is even more astounding.
Such numbers are too extreme to be the result of chance or luck, and the sample size is too large to write this off as irrelevant. To wit:
..and also…
Good golly.
Shame you can’t screen for that.
Everyone but the lucky few get matched with someone devoid of character by wild happenstance.
Lancaster County is not a random sample. It’s not representative. It’s not something that occurred by wild happenstance.
It’s not rare.
That’s the point.
Unfortunately, I need more time.
Much of the “luck” we’re really talking about here is women having or developing the necessary character they should have had by about age 15. I’m convinced it really is, at bottom, about women’s lack of character.
Alright, well luck and character are two different things. They can’t simply be equated with the wave of a hand. But, fortunately, we will be discussing character shortly.
Footnotes
[1] Here is the data for the 2023 “Marriages:Divorces” ratios:
[2] 7% of divorces are “moved” from the 0-14 category into the 20+ category, with the center 15-19 category being mostly unchanged.
Marrying young only appears harmful because of statistical confounding. This is why the typical advice to avoid marriage—which neglects this fact—ends up being actively harmful advice. For years, I’ve been advising people to buck the trend. Remember when Boxer, believer in hypergamy, took issue with that? Here is what he wrote:
Boxer
Derek clearly doesn’t believe in hypergamy.
That was in 2018. I’m not sure why people are just now surprised to hear that hypergamy is a myth.
Oh, and Boxer, Roissy & Rollo(who put ”preselection” into the whole Kabash too) disagreed with the Dalrockian Manosphere on what hypergamy is:
Boxer
Hypergamy is an overused word in the sphere, but it is well-defined as the practice of women seeking to “marry up.” The hypergamous nature of human females is incredibly consistent. In every human society, from the beginning of recorded history, there has always been a general, instinctive drive by women to mate with someone in an equal or greater dominance-caste.
What about where Roissy & Rollo who put ”preselection” into the whole Kabash too, Derek?
As Rollo pointed out here:https://therationalmale.com/2014/12/08/hysteria/
December 8, 2014by Rollo Tomassi
Hysteria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES16IHsTQ9M
Prank Of The Week, Celebrity For A Day. Girls Go Crazy!
In light of the Feminine Imperative having itself capsized over the UVa rape fantasy retracted by Rolling Stone this month, I was reminded of this video and post by Heartiste (Roissy) a few years ago:
Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.
Heartiste goes on to make the prerequisite Game principle & application observations here, but there is a much larger dynamic in play. While the mall makes for a good setting to test this experiment, it is fairly isolated. A security detail gets assigned to “Thomas Eliot” and even some shops close in order to avoid a crowd panic, but could this dynamic be proven on a larger scale?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYU1a0lTTTw
The Ultimate Social Experiment: How a Fake Celebrity Fooled Times Square
This is a very interesting social experiment, particularly when compared to the now infamous (and staged) viral video of Shoshana Roberts walking around New York and enduring the attentions of men she found less than savory. Interesting because they’re essentially trolling for attention from the opposite sex with similar methods, and the results are telling about how each gender perspective generates and reacts to that attention.
Darryl Long made a comment on this topic, and I’ve been considering it for a while now:
On this topic of how women’s attraction changes across their lifetimes I don’t think any analysis is complete without looking at the phenomena of teen-idols. As a man who has sisters and daughters its clear that there is something biological going on with pubescent girls in a way that is radically different from boys. Boys may fantasize about a poster girl, but they never fall over themselves for heartthrobs like Bieber, or Lief Garret, and David Cassidy (in the old days). I’m amazed that many of these teen heartthrobs are more on the fair/effeminate side than masculine. They look like they have good genes, but the most important thing is that all the other girls like them. They are male figures that girls lend incredible status making them even more attractive.
Preselection is a very powerful motivator of women’s hypergamous decision making process. Even the perception of fame (or even the potential for it) is a prime motivator and incentive to lock down a man who presents the hypergamous optimal ideal – a guy who satisfies the sexiness her Alpha Fuxs hypergamous needs require and the long term security of provisioning potential from status-confirmed Beta Buxs.
Whether this “famous” guy actually embodies this ideal is irrelevant to a woman’s Id-centric psyche. When women are younger, tweens and teens, this self-convincing is much easier since girls lack any real world experience to reference with respect to what the guy really represents. A capacity for abstract thinking is something that develops as we mature, but the desire to optimize hypergamy is a limbic, instinctual drive for girls and no amount of reasoning can compete with the fantasy of a pre-fabricated idealized Hypergamy.
They want to believe it.
Thus we have hordes of girls and young women willing to go to behavioral lengths they would never consider with the mundane men they’re familiar with in order to just brush with the possibility of that hypergamous ideal. They will literally climb over one another to realize this.
In a Game sense, preselection (and prequalification or 3rd party endorsement) is a very powerful, instinctual impetus for women. Even in marginal, isolated social settings preselection is an overriding imperative:
Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. – Roissy
Derek now do you understand more about a lot of game works and why guys like Sharkey have his fanboys cheer him on at Spawnys in hopes it will lead to traffic and comments generator like GBFM?
Also, why has the PUAGame-”based” ”redpill”osphere outside of guys who want to be cheered on and who are afraid of being bested in debates and traffic and comments generation as they cry wolf like an ”innocent” little Satanic feminist wimminz about those who are better at those things?
Breaking news from 2 weeks ago.
It seems Jack from SF has been giving more lessons on nonsensical(Feeriker’s biggest complaint about SF)word salads to Kamala Harris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoAOx5iTzBM
Kamala Harris tours the Palisades fire area
FOX 11 Los Angeles
Also lessons from Coach Corey Jack Wayne on how to stay calm around nonsensical and illogical Beta Males like him & Sharkey and their fellow hummer-offering fanboys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-QQyxZNdG4
How To Stay Calm Around Beta Males
Coach Corey Jack Wayne(even though the story he tells here about their simp beta male behaviors seems like Sharkeys stories though FWIW)
2,509(you know how Corey Jack’s statics are w/o GBFM brah) views
Feb 24, 2025
Corey Jack, Jade, Oscar & Caroline discuss a viewer question
How To Stay Calm Around Beta Males like Jack and Sharkey
Assortative mating is, in evolutionary terms, proper neural functioning. So is mimicry.
Ah yes, Coach Corey Wayne….the guy with a “who farted?” look on his face and has a strong resemblance Harris’s VP candidate Tim Walz.
I remember a him talking about MGTOWs / Incels a few years back “All these men dropping out? Not bothering with women? He smiles “Good, more for meeee!”
This is “manhood” now ladies and gentlemen. All this”self improvement” is still about “getting hot babes to like you”
Calling yourself a coach (rolls eyes) again, is tug and tag back to “glory days of high school” when all real teen guy just want to do is “play football for the coach”
The song “Glory Days” by Springstein comes to mind, or a better image is of poor sad-sack Al Bundy from “Married With Children” always deflecting to how he “scored four touchdowns in one game” at Polk High back in the 1960’s. His happiest moments are on the toilet. This is manhood. Beer n fart jokes. Middle school / jr high toilet humor.
You throw Red Pill, Game and everything else into this goulash, microwave it….bam…..you’re a hit with the ladies! The only thing that matters.
And she had better have a low “N” count! She had better submit! She had better be 9/10 in the looks or she is not worth the wart on a hogs ass! Kick her to the curb!
What is even more sad is mem my age still acting like this. The average watcher of Rollo’s podcasts are now in their mid forties. Coach Corey Wayne answering emails from guy who are 45? 36! Really?????????
Still trying to “Game” your wife at that age……..better yet; maybe you should have never got married or maybe you actually should have not listened to any of these “experts”
Re: Coach Wayne, et. al.
Women are designed to respond positively to certain signals, which is why the “Thomas Elliot” scam that the Professor described worked so well (for the man).
How can you blame men and women for following their programming? We might mock those women for being so gullible, but those are precisely the behaviors that once served them well for thousands of years.
Deti likes to talk about how women have no character, but the behaviors they currently exhibit have always expressed themselves, but in a different environment those behaviors lead to positive outcomes.
Things like “Game” are just ways to trick women into an outcome that is bad for them by playing off their otherwise good instincts.
Every relationship takes a man and a woman. If a woman is behaving poorly, so is a man. We blame both, or we blame neither.
Deti wants to shut off a woman’s natural tendencies because the environment has changed, but this simply isn’t possible. You can’t undo thousands of years of evolutionary development because unscrupulous men found a way to game the system.
Women should be attracted to men who give off strong fitness signals, and they should find men who fail to give off these signals unattractive. It’s the natural way to filter the good from the bad. Selection of the fittest—not hypergamy—has been happening forever.
But it’s all broken now, and Coaches are not fixing it.
We can probably all agree that there is a systematic problem. The “system” is broken. There is no arranged marriage, so all the natural instincts that applied to arranged marriage—and the cultural enforcement of marriage—express themselves in truly horrible ways.
Blaming “women’s bad character” for the failure of an entire cultural system is myopic.
Here is the crux. A number of days ago, Cameron notes that society tried and failed to correct the behavior of cads. He suggested that we would have better luck trying to correct the behavior of the whores. But I disagree. Both whore and cad are driven by the same natural instinct that drives all men and women. In a properly function system, the system is the solution. The men and women in that system are not magically better people, they just have a different system under which to operate.
For example, every society has had prostitution and mistresses, but it was once highly regulated by society through social taboo. It was kept under control and its impact limited. Similarly, divorce was shunned and so only reserved for exceptional circumstances.
But we have none of that now. But we have the same natural tendency of women to be whores and men to be cads. The character of men and women is no better or worse than it always was.
As Cameron noted, you can’t fix the cad tendency in men. And, as I note, you can’t fix whore tendency in women. Those would involve changes in character. But you can make it unpalatable for them to choose that, to deter them from what their character wants them to do. We’re just not doing that.
Well, people’s character can change, but not through complaining about about others online. I suggest that there is a clue to be found in the OP Case Study. Is there anyone ready to hear it?