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:
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:
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.
Thus, at most, I’m saying that Jason “deserves” to be who he has chosen—or been forced—to be. That’s not blame, its a description of reality.
Based on who he is, the market has decided that he should be excluded. We would all rather it be different, but it isn’t. There is no sense in denying that fact. Wishful thinking benefits no one. It feels vicious, uncaring, and cruel, because the market isn’t something that can care or be kind. And it is a system that cannot be changed by an individual.
A man’s experience is largely driven by who he is and what he is made of.
Are there things that Jason could do that would potentially change his outcome? Possibly. But as I’ve noted, if he wants a young virgin, he’s far to old for that. It’s almost certainly not going to happen. The door has closed and the ship has sailed. In many cases, he’s stuck by whatever the market has decided for him. It’s not really about what he deserves, but what is realistic.
A man of Jason’s age and social status gets assortatively matched (if at all) to the kind of person Jason wouldn’t choose. And he’s almost certainly right not to make that choice.
I’ve suggested that the most important thing to improve his station would be to move out of California (where there are more men than women, where marriages don’t last as long, where people are less religious) and move to the East Coast (where there are more women than men, where marriages last longer, and where people are more religious). It is the only piece of advice I have ever offered him regarding his situation. And guess what? He’s made the choice—of his own free will—to run his life as he sees fit. Good for him. I don’t own him.
But he absolutely is getting what he should be getting, what he “deserves” to get according to whatever the market forces that make the decisions have decided he deserves. It’s just the cold truth.
Honestly, I’d think Jason would be happy that I don’t coddle him or give him false hope. Readers value his insights and value him for who he is. But we can’t promise or acquire him a wife. I’m not even promising that God has some sweet someone just lined up for him. Maybe he still does, but until that is revealed, we have to operate on the assumption that it won’t happen. It’s not about despair or blame, it’s about being realistic.
Jason isn’t Derek. Jason isn’t Scott. The marriage market assortatively paired (or not) each man the woman that was a close match (or to no one at all). That’s homophily. Derek couldn’t have married a woman like Scott’s wife, and Scott couldn’t have married a woman like Derek’s wife. They wouldn’t have been good fits. I also suspect that neither wife—no matter how good prospects they were—would want anything to do with the single men in the ‘sphere. There is no way they would ever be assortatively paired, and I’m fairly certain that the feeling would be mutual.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the single men and the single women is not that they don’t exist in plentiful numbers or that they can’t find each other, but that they don’t actually like each other. Jason should be single when the only women out there are not good fits for him and he for them! Even if they could get dates, any hypergamy or hypogamy would quickly result in a failed relationship.
It seems like we are not allowed to say this because it supposedly implies that it is the man’s fault. I’d suggest stop trying to assign blame. And in fact, that’s the problem with the myth of hypergamy. It’s fueled by the desire to paint women as villains, to assign them blame. This desire to blame shows up in Deti’s comment:
Look at Jason. According to Derek’s logic, Jason is alone because that’s what he deserves.
But I wonder if this is projection, because as an “ideas first” person, I’m not interested in assigning blame. Frankly, it may not even be something for which blame even can be assigned.
Just admit that the kind of person you want doesn’t exist for you and that you should be single because of it. You can’t force something impossible to happen just by wanting it. That’s wishful or magical thinking. Stop blaming women—and female hypergamy in particular—for your own condition.
The only advice I could give to Jason is to dismiss all advice given by women and married men”. (Ironically, this includes dismissing my own advice.) I agree with Vox Day’s assessment:
“In fact, one of the primary distinctions between a First World country and a Third World country is how the society is structured to either support and encourage Deltas [working class men] or to suppress and demoralize them. Monogamy and making sure that every Delta has his own wife to cherish and put on a pedestal, is almost certainly one of the primary drivers of civilization.”
All flourishing societies got there by limiting sexual options for women. The doctrine of the Church is a clear tell. When people like Jason get demoralized, his own society is soon coming to an end. All that neat indoor plumbing you use to enjoy is no longer maintained and everyone starts dying of diseases. The 2020s cough is a clear tell that this is already underway.
“In fact, one of the primary distinctions between a First World country and a Third World country is how the society is structured to either support and encourage Deltas [working class men] or to suppress and demoralize them. Monogamy and making sure that every Delta has his own wife to cherish and put on a pedestal, is almost certainly one of the primary drivers of civilization.”
That is actually a paraphrase from GBFM, who VOX has long admired{”I have great respect for Roissy, for Heartiste, and for Dalrock. I even have a tremendous amount of respect for GBFM. We are all part of the same great cultural battle for the mind and soul of the West, which has been deeply corrupted by Marxism, by equalitarianism, by secular humanism, by atheism, and by feminism. But the fact that GBFM’s heart may be more or less in the right place does not excuse the abandonment of the truth.
There is only one Christianity and that is the one defined by the Lordship, not merely the teachings, of Man’s Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Posted by VD at 3:24 AM https://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-response-to-gbfm.html } of Monogamy, female chastity, and Marriage were to lead women to be honored in society as Mothers and grandmothers as most MEN have a built-in desire to lift their woman’s status, no matter what the supposed tough guy RP® Genius Leaders of the sphere say as they fail with women again and again.
MR,
You think unmarried men give better advice than married men? It’s a good thing you told him to dismiss your own advice.
That’s correlation, not causation.
Peace,
DR
@Derek – Although you have said you can’t get into the evolutionary psychology stuff, because you can’t evaluate the science – in a sense this whole debate between you and your antagonists is unavoidably rooted in “pop” evolutionary psychology.
(As an obvious example, the stuff about “alpha” males etc is – biologically speaking – arbitrary, made-up, circularity.)
The Apostolau stuff suggests that human evolved in a context of *primarily* arranged marriages, so that is what our instincts work for – not modern conditions.
Another very relevant, and extremely tough (not to say brutal) minded perspective comes from a book I had a hand in helping with – Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket – which (with historical research) clarifies many things not described elsewhere.
One is that biologically there are and always have been “surplus men”. In historical and trad societies of all kinds, there were always a much higher proportion of “unmarried” (Not long term paired) men than women. This is to be expected from the biological rationale of sex as such (the reason for two sexes) and the rationale for men being different from women in terms of this functionality.
When one knows these extra perspectives (correctives) it is evident how much of the debate in which you are engaged is rooted in false assumptions that are regard as common sense or empirically derived.
One* major reason I so strongly reject the Manosphere Red Pill pseudo-realism (which prides itself on being tough minded!) is scientific: that it is – compared with a *Real* Ev Psych perspective – just dewy-eyed wishful-thinking sexual daydreams!
*The other reason is based on Christian values.
It was the Church which invented the concept of “spousal consent” in the High Middle Ages. It’s that unique concept inveted by Christianity, on which all modern heterosexual relationships are based on. Before that (and still in many non-Christian parts of the world) arranged marriages were the norm.
Honestly, I’d think Jason would be happy that I don’t coddle him or give him false hope.
THIS! Deti and others(even Dalrock and Vox) will say ”WE NEVER GAVE MEN FALSE HOPE!”
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/why-christians-needgame.8077
The answer to the question of why Christians need game is because Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible. Not all Christians have done this. For example, the Amish still follow strict gender roles including headship and submission. From what I can find they have a divorce rate less than 1%, and they are growing rapidly due to their high fertility rate. So if you are Amish, you probably don’t need to learn game. Of course if you are Amish you aren’t likely to be reading this either. For the rest of us, Christians need game because:
Abandoning the biblical frame of marriage kills the attraction wives feel for their husbands. Game will help get some of it back. If you insist on indulging in feminism even a little, you absolutely need to learn and practice game.
Game will help you stop rejecting and being ashamed of the Bible when it comes to men and women. Game will help you understand that your wife wants and needs to look up to you. She needs you to lead her and at times overrule her emotions with your strength of will and frame. It will also help you understand that women aren’t the morally superior sex that our foolish culture claims they are.
On the topic of wives being attracted to their husbands, the first thing most Christians need to learn from game is that it really is natural for wives to be attracted to their husbands. This of course flies in the face of modern Christian thought. Modern Christians view the urge for sex as a somewhat distasteful need that applies almost exclusively to men.
This is evident in the Christianese expression “hubba hubba”. For an example of this view, see the article Motivating Men to be Caring Communicators by Jay & Laura Laffoon:
Men lust after women. Women lust after being lusted after. Your wife wants you to want her. She desires to make herself desirable. Now we don’t mean lust as the world means lust- hubba hubba – we mean your woman needs to know that she is beautiful to you.
Note to my readers: Only follow the advice in the article quoted above if you want your wife to feel unloved.
Sheila Gregiore used the same expression in a recent blog post:
When a woman takes her shirt off at the end of the day, her husband immediately starts thinking sexy thoughts. When a man takes his shirt off, a woman tends to think, “Is he going to put that in the laundry hamper?” We don’t tend to think, to the same extent, “Oh, come get me, hubba hubba.” It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved, than it is in pure visual stimuli.
DAL’ nor the MEN in the comment section said ”maybe become Amish if game doesn’t work dude!” NO!”game will keep dat bitch under control and in lust for you” was what the AMEN section echoed through the halls of Toadhall and DAL’ hall.
Vox was just as bad as he thought it was good to scold MOSES,JESUS & GBFM in 2014 for being good, very good nice guys who just wanted to save marriage and Western civilization.
Hey VOX that thinks he can scold MOSES, JESUS, and GBFM for being good,very good nice guys who just wanted to save marriage and Western civilization, how did that promotion of gamey game with Dalrock work in saving marriage and Western civilizationlzololzlzlzlz go?
Should have followed the Scriptures like the Amish instead of the GOP and MENS & women’s fallen nature huh!?
This has always been my greatest frustration with the Red Pill: complain about what doesn’t work and then don’t do what you know for sure works.
It is possible to join sects like the Amish, but you’d have to make life altering personal decisions to do it. The men who want such good wives for themselves (or their children) are not willing to make those decisions because they don’t actually want it.
When I say men get what they “want” that is what I am talking about. They’ve made decisions in life that led them to this place, and they didn’t make the decisions that would have led them to a different place. Deep down they do not want to be like the Amish, or, for that matter, like me (or my parents, or my peers, or my peers’ parents, etc.). They’d like the status without being like the people who have it.
Can you imagine someone going “Derek has a great wife, maybe I should try to be like him.” It’s never going to happen, because they don’t want to be like me. And, consequently, they don’t actually want the kind of wife who could like someone like me.
Just imagine how much they dislike me and then imagine actually getting along with—let alone marrying—someone who didn’t agree with their dislike and disgust of me. Now, imagine how could such a woman with such supposed poor discrimination (as to actually like me!) somehow have stayed with me for so many years. Given the absolute truth of female hypergamy, why would any woman of quality stay with me for decades when women won’t date, marry, or stay with the higher quality man (i.e. my critics). It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
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.
Assortative mating ensures that the men in the ‘sphere will never marry someone like my wife or our peers’ wives or our peer’s fathers’ wives. The risk that they will marry young, have lots of kids, and never divorce is not something they have to worry about. They don’t have to fear that choice being forced upon them by being forced to marry women they don’t actually want.
[See: Bruce’s original comment here]
Bruce,
If you don’t mind my asking, are you married? Do you have children?
Peace,
DR
@Derek – Yes and yes.
But I am not giving advice, except about evolutionary bioscience!
However, (to amplify the point you made above) IF I did “advise” Manosphere types (including the self-identified Christians among them) – I would say again what I have so often said; which is that since (by revealed preference) patriarchal sexual relationships are of *primary* significance to them, such that they talk about it 24/7 and fit their religion around it and desire to reconstruct society accordingly; then it is an obvious fact that the largest, fastest-growing religion in the world (and now accessible throughout the entire West) offers you almost-exactly what they Say they want.
Why not become a traditional Muslim? – which has the added advantage of clearly and uncompromisingly recognizing the omnipotent/ omniscient One God (creator of everything from nothing) that is apparently So Much more important to nearly-all traditionalist Christians than is resurrection of that divine Man Jesus Christ; and that orthodox-traditional Christian theology (honestly interpreted) allows for no essential and transformative cosmic role for Jesus? (So they would not really be losing anything vital.)
I mean this seriously. So Many traditionalist and patriarchal Christians seem essentially to most-want almost-exactly what Islam actually provides – already and without need for radical change; that I find it hard to grasp why either they don’t realize this; or else, realizing it, don’t act upon it.
Or maybe they do not Really want what they Say they want (which is circling back towards Derek’s point)…
But, as I say, I’m certainly not giving sex/marriage advice; I’m just pointing-out an apparent incoherence.
Bruce,
If you don’t mind me asking, do you consider your marriage and children to be a result of luck? (This is the topic for tomorrow’s post)
This is likely the same reason they did not become Mormons (during their boom) and are not becoming Amish or Plain Mennonite (the only American ethnic group left which has above average—above replacement—fertility).
As you note, I believe that they don’t actually want what they say they want. It would seem self-evident that, by their own deeds, they rather obviously have other priorities that limit their chance of achieving their supposed primary objective.
Perhaps I will bring this up and see what they have to say (if anything).
I rarely give marriage advice, other than to say “don’t divorce and don’t remarry.”
Peace,
DR
Bruce,
Well, that was quick:
Not the answer I was hoping for. Not even, really, an answer at all, considering he completely misunderstood or misrepresented what we were saying.
Oh well.
On the other hand, he did confirm what I predicted:
I find it astounding that he thinks conversion to Islam wouldn’t solve any problems!
Peace,
DR
I don’t debate with people who are stupid or dishonest and invertedly misrepresent my clearly expressed views (what would be the point?); but the question of “reality” (used three times!) is presumably one of science, history and the like.
That is something that Ought to be discussable and where discussion Ought to be able to lead to mutually acceptable progress…
However I know from extensive (well publicized, in its day) personal experience that this is no longer the case, even among “scientists” and “academics” where it really used to happen, as recently as forty years ago (see my 2012 book Not Even Trying).
The problem is that Extremely Few people nowadays are genuinely interested in the truth of what they are pretending to discuss – their real major priorities are quite otherwise, usually covert, and sometimes denied.
I concluded a long time (15 years?) ago, that argument nowadays is futile, as a very strong generalization; and I have always regretted it when I neglected my own advice!
See my response.
I find it astounding that he thinks conversion to Islam wouldn’t solve any problems!
i know this will solve some problems for Deti, and Sharklys the number#2 manosphere troll fanboys like SurfDumb thoughlzlzlzlolzzzlolzzzzlzlzzlzl
Hey, Deti tell your idols Jack and Sharkly to stop dodging and evading the proof & TRUTH of bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins being the number#1 manosphere troll and to divert attention from them being in on it too as hurting MEN stories are used for ”research” data-collecting purposes!
I don’t see this at all except maybe Sharkly. I don’t see dalrock, deti, Jack, etc. as boasting and showing up other men.
Everyone knows about Sharkly’s massive ego and his neediness to be”correct”.
He fought with Scott pointlessly for 3+ years over growth hormones, exercising, and such.
He keeps arguing here( and ranting at Spawnys and SF about)with Derek about terms, Greek, Latin, and such for the same ego-massaging reasons.
His ire was raised against me after i first showed up at SF on 2021-02-17 he soon sent me an angry e-mail threatening me with blackmail over his misunderstanding of what ”original” GBFM meant(I.E. i thought the ”fighting” GBFM was no longer needed in the
supposed ”brotherly love and united” manosphere but after a few months i found out the ”brotherly love and united” manosphere didn’t exist.)”They’d be angry(by me telling them-he strongly hinted ) if they found out you weren’t GBFM.” i forgave Sharkly for that nonsense and threat, but then he pulled other stuff on me at his site and i finally understood why most avoid his site.i told him straight up i was done on November 30th, 2021 and then a few weeks later ”George” showed up at Spawnys and i quickly knew it was Sharkly barely disguising his seething contempt, hate, and general spite for MEN he saw as better than himself.
That list includes Dalrock,(of course)Scott, Oscar, TON, JASON and Derek.
But he also didn’t like i knew his idol bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins is a manosphere troll as told here:https://web.archive.org/web/20151030221738/https://unsettledchristianity.com/a-word-of-caution-on-biblical-gender-roles/ {the original site went down sometime in 2022)
”a word of caution on Biblical Gender Roles
Joel L. Watts October 28, 2015 31
Across facebook and social media there is a furor — a hatred — a chagrin.
But people are angry over nothing.
Nothing but a troll account.
It began a few years ago with the publication of a new website, biblicalgenderroles.com. This site is littered with promotion of spousal rape, spiritual and physical abuse, and the caricatures of Christian masculinity.
But, it is fake. It is run by a non-Christian who is a biblical studies scholar.
A few weeks ago, a long-standing presence on Facebook (Matt Perkins), was outed as this scholar.
If you cannot see this link, I am sorry. It just means you aren’t an admin of the SBLAAR group (unofficial) on Facebook. Here is a screenshot.
matt perkins larry solomon
A comment was almost immediately left:
I’ve just been informed back-channel of “Matt Perkins”‘s actual identity. I’m disappointed in the person, who is apparently an actual scholar trolling for data and trying to make a fool of people who bite. I’m not an admin of this page, but if this junk continues I will not hesitate to start letting people know that this page is unworthy of SBL. Not that it ever has been, but *this*…
In the conversation, it was noted that suddenly “Matt” had not only left the group, but Facebook as well.
From another comment:
The short version is that “Matt Perkins,” who founded the previous SBL page, and then became an admin for the current group, was outed as a fictional character and has disappeared.
He was pretending to be an evangelical from Greenville, SC. Instead,he appears to have been a religion scholar trolling around evangelical issues, perhaps for information for his own research. SBL members from SC could find no evidence of his existence. This morning, he posted a ridiculous Web article about “disciplining your wife.” I called him out for his pattern of trolling, and this afternoon he deleted the post and the Facebook account.
Different commentator:
I mean, think about it. When we called him out for not being a member, he handed the admin over to the two least qualified people, choosing fundies.
“Matt” had been banned by several groups for behaving in a fundamentalist and derogatory manner. The behavior and positions are too similar for separation.
The supposed author of the above website is named Larry Solomon, a pseudonym.
If you are taking issue with this site, that’s good and all — and there are Christians who believe this garbage — but the site is a way to collect data. This is unethical. Don’t get mad. Just ignore it.
Admittedly, some feel this way. Some Christians believe in slavery. These things aren’t inherent in the religion, btw. The purpose of this post – for those fundamentalists in SCCL – is to call attention to the trolling behavior of this scholar. My name is out there – I have some evidence. Yet, some would rather believe an over the top blog secretly held and written by an anonymous person is representative of anything. Good luck.”
And Jack who loves to post ”risque” pics even though he thinks PUAS and their game of easy sex are so sinful and he thinks hes better than them,i don’t remember Roissy=Heartiste, Rollo, or Roosh having multiple ”risque” pics on so many posts or even one in reality, in on quieting up about bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins is a manosphere troll as a post at https://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/ mysteriously got deleted(in April 2021) where Lexetlaw said bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins the manosphere troll had a porn showing and promoting site besides the g-rated one that even jack admitted exists, ask honest abe sharkly he’ll tell you.
P.S. Now you know why Sharkly says Derek,i, JASON & LIZ are manosphere trolls now too, yes? So he can still pretend he knows nothing of bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins being the number#1 manosphere troll and to divert attention from him being in on it too as hurting MEN stories are used for ”research” data-collecting purposes!
Derek has essentially already admitted women that who are all about sex are duh- all about sex.
Just like RP MEN who are all about sex, power, and authority and hierarchy are duh-all about sex, power and authority and hierarchylzlzlzlzlz
Also tell Jack he needs to republish Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10
Posted on 2021-09-20 but this time with more emphasis on how learning headship from an Onlyfans hypergamous gay porn star such as Mike Davis & MRS.Strapon will save Marriage and western civilization tell him to do as an X-over with bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins who being the number#1 manosphere troll with fellow troll & societal numb mind bot Sharkly as his translator of why ‘Christian Conservative ” Republicans® think the manosphere is a bunch of angst autistic wife-beater wanna-bes cuz of trolls like bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins and Sharkly violating DALS life and comment policy.
NATHAN: I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking (or words to that effect). I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. I have several questions about that. First (just to get it out of the way): do you or any of your more serious followers support marital corporal punishment? Why or why not?
DALROCK: I don’t support marital corporal punishment. I don’t think it is needed, and I also don’t see it as consistent with the instructions to husbands in the NT. I’m not sure exactly who my “serious followers” are, but I think the vast majority of my readers would be horrified if you told them they had an obligation to practice marital corporal punishment.
I added the comment rule because while the number of commenters who brought up the topic was small, when they did so it tended to derail all other discussion. This makes it both off topic and highly disruptive. Also, if I were going to troll the Christian men’s sphere this is exactly how I would troll it.
Compare that to when he banned Sharkly here:
Sharkly says: March 21, 2019 at 11:28 am Dalrock, Did my prior comment on this thread get lost in moderation? Or is it that I’m not to explicitly condemn the filthy acts of faggotry that these churchians pave the way for? If my comments are not welcomed here, just let me know, I’ll contribute elsewhere. [D: I binned it. I can’t tell if you are an intentional troll or just don’t understand what you are doing. Either way, it saves me work to move you from the moderation list to the blacklist, so I’ll take you up on your suggestion.]
See how now you know why Sharkly was really banned by DAL’?
Is this a duplicate comment?
Sshhh….Quiet i heard someone who is jealous of GBFM making their idols’ sites popular in 2021 speaking thusly:
surfdumb says:
21 February, 2025 at 12:49 am
Sharkly, believing someone to be intentionally disruptive is a big claim. I don’t know about his intentions, but if we are strictly talking writing styles only, then I want to say something I didn’t a couple of years ago when you told me about SS being full . The removal of his posts have made this a much more enjoyable site for my preferences of jealousy and envy, for whatever that’s worth to my and Sharkly’s egos.
Brian Sipe likes to sing with a shaved head and tshirt, while Steven Tyler likes a boa and lots of flair. So that’s news to me it’s a choice to write that way, and good to know. An adult man making a choice, so hopefully he won’t see my preference as an attack on his person, because I don’t see why my preferences should mean much.
But writing for so long like he’s done is a point of evidence it’s intentionally disruptive as I’m extremely jealous and envious of his nonchalant ways. I think most guys are in the sphere because of being chewed up and spit out by a feminist culture, but true, I don’t know of that about GBFM.
GBFM is in the sphere to point the blind that is sometimes called surf dumb,bee1234567890, and other lost in the desert wilderness of modern life- sheep to point them to JESUS & not to the Sharklys of the sphere who foam at the mouth ranting about women and their wife being a demon FYI.
JESUS is ”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, SurfDumb NOT excitedly listening to Sharkly say Derek is a servant of Satan or Jack and Scott is a fornicator or ripping on women.
i know you mainly don’t like i tremendously helped Sharkly’s site by taking it from 66K to 89K in just 8 months while it has only gotten 22.5K more page hits in nearly three years and a half. That is the main reason your idol Sharkly didn’t like i leaving laf443259520.
i helped Jack go from 360k to over 620k in 6 & a half months and over doubled his amount of comments from 7500(my first comment number) to over 16k, but keep talking crap about me dude it still won’t make you their main page hits grabbing commenter.
As demonstrated often at Derek’s site, he can write perfectly sensible comments when he chooses to. He just never chose to contribute in that way at Σ Frame or Spawny’s Space or at my site, in spite of repeated requests that he try to make more of his writing intelligible
Sharkly’s just asking me to return his site back to the top but i don’t go where i don’t want to,just like i comment like i want to or I’ll leave any place ,anywhere at any time,it is no big deal like it wasn’t with SF,laf443259520 and then Spawnys to me they were dying places anyway with posts that don’t match my honor nor personal policy of life nor God’s honor FWIW.
If my comments were not good at Σ Frame or laf443259520 then why are they still up SD(who knows not which he speaks of)?
Because Sharkly like Jack and bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins is lying of course while ”TRUE BELIEVERS” in MENS sin and adultery like SD, happily do their dirty work for them.
i knew that Sharkly, Jack, and bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins had planted you over here to mildly talk crap about me from the beginning, you need to tell them i would never go back to their sites i told Spawny/Cheque’d out months before i left i was leaving Spawnys over their ”open door” policy on trolls like Sharkly, Jack,bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins and bee1234567890.
I was going to say I have an “open door” policy on trolls, but I’m not sure if that is actually true. It’s untested.
Is this a duplicate comment?
NO!
It is a custom-revised comment for Deti.
Especially starting here”Derek has essentially already admitted women that who are all about sex are duh- all about sex.
Just like RP MEN who are all about sex, power, and authority and hierarchy are duh-all about sex, power and authority and hierarchylzlzlzlzlz
thedeti says:
20 February, 2025 at 7:24 pm
Dear Readers:
You can go over to Derek’s and read everything he’s written about what he believes to be “hypergamy”, and you can be here and read what I’ve written about hypergamy (women’s constant desire for “better” and their detonation of their assortative mating relationships because of that unrealized desire).
i thought Derek was talking about how most actual sexual relationships happen in general outside of bars/nightclubs, not ”women’s constant desire for “better” and their detonation of their assortative mating relationships because of that unrealized desire”
You can decide for yourselves whose positions are more in line with real life and conduct yourselves accordingly.
If we’re in a bar or nightclub with twenty or thirty-something women then clearly hypergamy/ AFBB rules the scene, but guys like Dalrock, Athol Kay, Deti & Jack keep bringing hypergamy/AFBB into marriage which is what Derek and all his data are about.
In other words Deti?
Derek isn’t a married gamer like Dalrock or Athol Kay or Keoni Galt/Dave from Hawaii, so don’t expect bar and nightclub dynamics of hypergamy/AFBB to be converted into marital dynamics from Derek, okay?
——————————————————
i’ll address Deti’s main point
No one has yet addressed my point, which is, for about the 17th time, men are OK with those pairings; and women are not. I’ve explained my position very clearly and explained its bases and have done so repeatedly.
Indeed. I’m on my third day of having this discussion. I’ve even accepted Derek’s core point (men and women are assortatively pairing up). No one has yet addressed my point, which is, for about the 17th time, men are OK with those pairings; and women are not. I’ve explained my position very clearly and explained its bases and have done so repeatedly.
Yeah, women are usually the ones that believe the hype of news and culture(& drives them to depression fast) like how that last East Coast snowstorm from yesterday and today was going to be a foot high in too many places back three days or so ago.
Here’s the science! As Roissy used to say:
https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/marketing-consumer-consumption-weather-gender
For him it rains, for her it pours: how weather and gender impact consumption
Feature | 7 January 2021
Marketers and business managers benefit from knowing why weather may be associated with increased consumption, and how this process may differ across men and women, according to UNSW Business School research
From the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, even the house we buy – many of our purchase decisions are influenced by the weather. The weather affects consumers’ mood, which influences buying behaviour and dictates where they purchase, what they are buying, and even how much they are willing to spend. The British Retail Consortium says the weather has the most significant influence on consumer behaviour after the economy. In the US, the weather affects around US$3 trillion ($3.9 trillion) worth of business in the private sector alone.
“We find that unpleasant weather conditions increase negative mood, and this increases hedonic consumption. Women experience a compounded weather-mood-consumption effect; i.e., a stronger mood response to unfavourable weather conditions and a higher likelihood of consuming hedonic goods in response to the negative weather-induced mood,” says A/Prof. Garg.
The most surprising finding was just how strong the gender effect was across both food and non-food goods, says A/Prof. Garg. For example, in experimental conditions, women reported a 60 per cent higher decline in mood in ‘bad’ compared to ‘good’ weather conditions than men. In turn, this negative mood led to an 80 per cent higher preference for chocolates and cookies. And in another study that captured actual weather conditions based on the temperature and precipitation conditions for everyone, women again reported an increased preference for hedonic food consumption by 80-100 per cent, in response to weather-induced negative mood.
“What we found was, again and again, this huge uptick in women experiencing negative effect because of negative weather changes and how they responded to it by increased hedonic consumption,” says A/Prof. Garg.
Deti as an intelligent longtime lawyer should know is of course the science! that proves MEN are happier and more content in general but here’s one study/article:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/men-end-happier-women-later-life-flna1c9451930
By By Jeanna Bryner
Less able to achieve their life goals, women end up unhappier than men later in life, even though they start out happier, a new survey of Americans suggests.
Early in adult life, women are more likely than men to fulfill their family life and financial aspirations, leading to greater overall happiness.
Later in life, however, the tables turn and men report coming closer to reaching their goals for consumer goods and family life. Men are more satisfied with their financial situation and family life, and are happier than women in later life, the study shows.
Here are some age milestones found in the study, detailed in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Happiness Studies:
41: Age at which men’s financial satisfaction exceeds women’s financial satisfaction.
48: Age at which men’s overall happiness exceeds women’s overall happiness.
64: Age at which men’s satisfaction with family life exceeds women’s satisfaction.
Marriage and money
In two nationally representative surveys of men and women in the United States, the researchers found that happiness and satisfaction with life boil down to the gap between what you want and what you have. And since both factors vary throughout life, so does a person’s respective sense of well-being.
It’s the shortfall between wanting a happy marriage and actually attaining it that translates into a cheery outlook in that part of one’s life.
“For men it’s less of a shortfall when they are older, because that’s when they tend to be married and when women have already experienced things like divorce and widowhood,” said lead researcher Anke Plagnol, a sociologist and economist at the University of Cambridge in England.
At age 39, men and women in the study showed about the same shortfall between their aspirations and attainments for a happy marriage. Even so, women’s satisfaction with family life stayed boosted until about age 64, as compared with men’s life satisfaction. Children could be the key to their fulfillment, Plagnol said.
“For women, often children are very important and more fulfilling than for men, so that can be something that sustains their satisfaction with family life,” she said.
Plagnol and researcher Richard Easterlin, an economist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found a similar phenomenon for a person’s financial satisfaction. Early in life, women are more likely to fulfill their aspirations for big-ticket material items, such as a home, car and vacation home. One reason for the material boon: Women in the United States tend to marry slightly older men at a young age.
“Usually people who are married have a better financial situation since often they have double incomes,” Plagnol said. “They also are more likely to fulfill their financial aspirations.”
MEN of course are more willing to make chicken salad out of chicken $#it than women is common knowledge(see how many tough independent women don’t sign up for outdoor jobs or LE for instance?) Throughout as you say yourself
History would include tradition. And collective human experience. And recent experiences and observations. And important writings. The Great Books, if you will.
You are speaking my language brother Deti😉
So why don’t you come over here and maybe drink an adult beverage with us ”Derek supporters” huh?
With a sturdy and brotherly love handshake, hug, and a pat on the back, And let bygones be bygones perhaps too bro?
Bruce,
I find that I concur with your comment. The only place I diverge is that I find value in interacting with the positions that people raise because it helps keep my mind sharp and hone my thinking skills. I don’t really “debate” in order to win an argument, but to satisfy myself that I have thought through every angle as much as possible.
It’s a different approach. Yours is good too. I’m glad you explained it. I especially agree with this:
I’ve noticed this a long time ago when I noticed the sheer number of people for which additional knowledge, argument, or testing is viewed as a threat, not as something helpful and constructive.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Is Staying Married A Matter Of Luck? - Derek L. Ramsey
The only place I diverge is that I find value in interacting with the positions that people raise because it helps keep my mind sharp and hone my thinking skills. I don’t really “debate” in order to win an argument, but to satisfy myself that I have thought through every angle as much as possible.”
This was the main reason i read the letter pages in Video Game and Computer magazines in the 80s,90s, and 2000s. To See how good was my knowledge against theirs and such like.Because theirs should be better than the average person as they read the Video Game and Computer magazines that i read too.
&
The problem is that Extremely Few people nowadays are genuinely interested in the truth of what they are pretending to discuss – their real major priorities are quite otherwise, usually covert, and sometimes denied.
I’ve noticed this a long time ago when I noticed the sheer number of people for which additional knowledge, argument, or testing is viewed as a threat, not as something helpful and constructive.”
Yo mean ”letting the cat out of the bag?” as most see it, especially in the manosphere(where they like to hide their ”magician tricks” as well as possible by deleting
unfavorable content & hiding behind their ” I LNOW NOTHING” Sgt.Schultz policy? like the churches they condemn left & right )
As for me being mentioned in this discussion.
Yes, according to “Christians of the American Protestant Real Man Variety”….I am getting exactly what I deserve. Why?
I didnt fall out of the womb with a 135 IQ. I didnt know my life “mission and purpose” by age four. I didnt accept “jesus” as my “lord and savior” until it was too late according to them. I dont speak Greek. I dont have a STEM degree. I dont like modern praise. I cannot bench press a house. I didnt have “test drives” and “spinning plates” nor did I learn the “secret language of women” or a “meet cute(s)”
Therefore. Men like me DESERVE to be single. According to their flawless logic
At the same time telling me “God wants the best for you” then backslapped with “God doesnt owe you a wife or marriage; you have free will” and then the cream on top “God knows exactly what you will do and wont do” (predestination)
So…..this leaves most men in the modern church STUCK. Hence they are leaving. As they should.
As for this statement in the sense that Derek phrased it?
It *stings* a bit but at LEAST its HONEST and ground in REALITY. Not “red pill lore” or “Game” or complex female socio-sexual babble; with a heaping of metrics, graphs, and stupid armchair psychological terms.
My life isnt too bad at this point. Considering what I did do, and what I was (lets not get into the drinking, drugs, and vile behaviors…..lying, thievery, and just being a miserable person).
There is NOTHING in the Bible or Christian faith that says ANYTHING about being a real man. Nothing has to be said. We have that embodied in Jesus. That’s the example.
Not afraid. Wise. Comforting. Personable. Righteous. Courageous. Smart. Loving. Knew his role and what He had to do. Always modeled a perfect relationship of doing the will of God, yet had a deep love of his friends. He was confident in just who He was and is. He didnt need to prove anything to anyone really. He was indeed the “I Am”
The world…..the supposed “leaders of the faith” of His day kept saying “just one more miracle, THEN we will believe”. Always trying to one up Him. Put Him down. Took what He said out of context (boy do I know that from the other forums)
Jesus always took it in stride because he really wanted none to perish. He really understood that there were “many rooms in my Fathers house” something the Red Pill Christian side has seemed to miss.
Only hits with the ladies, the high IQ, the good looking seem to allowed there. Hence why most reasonable men dont like them, dont believe them. Hardly an example of Christ and hardly an inspiration to follow