An interesting comment to the "All the Single Ladies" essay

[MatureDJ]

I found this comment to be a wonderful exposition of the problem with the feminist, hypergamistic attitude, and why men are losing interest in marriage.

So, here's the thing.
The whole more women than men blahblah thing is right. And women having stupid standards is right, they're bringing it on themselves by only going after the same guys that they apparently all 'deserve'.But here's what you're missing, there are guys that are completely interested in marriage and long term relationships. You touched on the fact that they might not be earning more than you or whatever, which is true. What you DIDN'T touch on however, is that these kind of men refuse to accept a womans whoring past.
I'm 25 now, and I've been after a long term permanent relationship since I was about 18 or 19. A year isn't long term, and that's about the best a lot of girls this age can do. But these girls, with their desire to chase the tiny percentage of guys that they feel they deserve, are lessening their worth to a guy who is interested in them for more than a quick fling.
I will not date a girl who has slept with 10 or more guys, period. This whole 'between 16 and your late 20's you should be single and free to experiment' is nonsense.
Sex is the highest form of expressing intimacy we have as a species, for now anyway. To be having sex outside of a long term and loving relationship is to lessen the worth of that single act. Why would anyone with half a brain work hard and put in effort to get someone in to bed when she's already given it up repeatedly for far less?

And this isn't patriarchy or sexist. Both sexes have a perceived value to the other, the whole income and education amongst other things are what women use to judge a man's value. In a similar context, how many people you've let sleep with you is part of what men use to judge a woman's value.

I would settle down and get married tomorrow if I found a woman who hadn't slept with everyone that came her way just because she felt like it at the time and didn't consider that every decision you make in your life affects the rest of it, forever. And obviously, who wanted a long term monogamous relationship and was trustworthy, which is seemingly a rare thing to find in women these days unfortunately. Women are too promiscuous, not only pre-maritally which is horrific enough, but also in marriage. Even my own mother left my father after having 2 children to then re-marry a mutual friend when I was a kid, for no reason other than she wanted to. I love my mum, we get on great, but that's unforgivable behaviour in my book. Men want wives for long term relationships, and wives are those who haven't ****ed half the town, or who are going to leave you. This is why they refer to the 50s vision of a housewife. It's not that they don't work, it's that in that society they were pressured to be faithful and loving lest society shun them.
Take that pressure away, and women will never naturally be faithful or monogamous of their own volition.

As feminism tries to push things further and further, and this whole thing keeps spiralling, I find myself detesting women as a whole more and more. Not on an individual basis, they're all people, but stereotypes and the how the majority act is obviously going to influence how you view people to some degree.

I'd love to hear your opinion on this, because this is a massive part of the issue that I think everyone completely disregards, or tries to write it off as 'well that's your fault you don't wanna marry a girl who's taken a thousand ****s' as if it's justifiable. And yes, I'm aware there's a double standard for men on this. Should you reply, I'll be happy to try and explain why that is, and whilst it's not justifying it or making it right (because it's not, it still makes them worse people), it's at least got a better reasoning behind it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/

Brilliant!

 

[Who Dares Win]

And then a flood of women and manginas struck him with any possible insult about his insecurity,masculinity, d1ck size and anything possible to hurt him.

Would happen the same here too, especially after some well known respected users enforced the "never hit a woman no matter what" bvllsh1t, the next one is condoning town slvts probably.
In a couple of months accept cvckolding will be a new way to measure how alpha you are or some other bvllsh1t that the matrix approves.

Anyway this guy is god damn true, nobody wants a wh0re as a wife, especially the top guys all women want, spoiled goods goes to man who can afford left overs only.

 

[zekko]

Here's my only problem with the comment.
These two quotes are completely contradictory:

"But these girls, with their desire to chase the tiny percentage of guys that they feel they deserve, are lessening their worth to a guy who is interested in them for more than a quick fling."

"If I found a woman who hadn't slept with everyone that came her way just because she felt like it at the time".

If women are only chasing a tiny percentage of men, how are they racking up so many sex partners? If they're only chasing a tiny percentage of men, how are they having sex with "everyone that came her way"?

But I agree with the general sentiment. No man wants to marry a wh0re. And men will be leery of marriage when women have shown they are too fickle to remain faithful.

This is why they refer to the 50s vision of a housewife. It's not that they don't work, it's that in that society they were pressured to be faithful and loving lest society shun them.
Take that pressure away, and women will never naturally be faithful or monogamous of their own volition.

This is the problem. If women are becoming more and more low quality in modern times, it's because kids these days are being raised without any morality. Children today are taught that morality is only relative, there is no right or wrong, and you must be tolerant of everyone else's lifestyles. They are taught that there are no absolutes, no black and white, and you have to accept other people's cultures as much as your own. In other words, nothing is true, nothing is right or wrong, do whatever you want to do.

People have made fun of me on this board before for talking about morality, but it's the lack of morality today that's the reason for the fall in quality of women - the vanity, the flaking (not keeping their word), the riding on the c0ck carousel, their lack of commitment to marriages, etc. Posters here may make fun of me again for talking about morality, but I think deep down they know I'm right.

 

[MatureDJ]

And men will be leery of marriage when women have shown they are too fickle to remain faithful.

Bingo! I've had such a precession of fickle women in my life, dumping me for no particular reason that I can detect, I wonder if the women I marry is just going to decide to dump me at some point - or worse, have an affair, trying to pawn some other man's spawn off on me! :box: I guess what I am saying is that if the price of a "relationship" is to be dumped later on, then why even bother (especially in light of the onerous divorce entanglements) - just live as a pump 'n dumper, using paid services during the dry patches!

People have made fun of me on this board before for talking about morality, but it's the lack of morality today that's the reason for the fall in quality of women - the vanity, the flaking (not keeping their word), the riding on the c0ck carousel, their lack of commitment to marriages, etc. Posters here may make fun of me again for talking about morality, but I think deep down they know I'm right.

Agreed.

 

[betheman]

Ive got a lot of female work colleagues who wil often open up and blab about their lives and relationships, Im losing count of the number of women who left marriages and conspired to engineer a reason for the break up, they married the guy "but I was never going to stay with him"!
they cant just be honest and tel the guy, they have to engineer a situation so they can blame him, society being what it is now and with influence of the media and femiminism, it will only get easier for women to promote this type of mindset, any guy who marries now, has the odds so stacked against him it unreal.

 

[sstype]

Back in the 50s......the housewife cheated discreetly and the husband f*cked his secretary and/or paid wh0re. Everyone was content, but bored.

It was a time when hypocrisy ruled. It wasn't better -- it just "sounded" better. You know, like Jesus referred to those "whited sepulchres," that were whitewashed outside, but inside housed corruption. Sad but true.

Nothing's changed fellas other than the "low quality" men and women are now out in the open. Plus we don't bother repressing bad behavior as much but not like that worked anyways otherwise we wouldn't have needed the sexual revolution.

 

[Die Hard]

A lot of UNpragmatic horsesh!t in this thread...

Lots of women "lack morality". What you gonna do about it? Whine and get frustrated without any result? You can point out their "lack of morality", you can argue about it, meticulously analyze it and present an undeniable solid plea that explains exactly how and why those women are "wrong" and why they should not act the way they do.

In the end, they will still lack morality and continue to behave exactly the way they always have... You cannot change them! You can change yourself, however... I hate the idea that the chick I'm banging has banged a multitude of other guys, it disgusts me. However, I can't change the fact that they do! I can only change my perception of that fact, meaning I just stop caring and basically let go of morality myself. When you don't care about morality, you won't be bothered my the lack of it in others... It implies you yourself become a person who lacks morality. Sad reality...but it is what it is...

In order to be succesful in this game, you need to become a bastard. Perhaps not TOTALLY, but at least a great deal more than you currently are. Because the sad truth is, lots of women are dirty bastards. In order to deal with them, you need to become a bastard yourself. If you're not willing or capable of doing that, you condemn yourself to frustration and misery...

The alpha male in a group of silverback gorillas get to fvck all the females and the other males are not allowed to touch his mates. Otherwise he'll beat them up or deny them food or whatever. What a mean bully he is!! Basically, he's a goddamn dictator, lol. But he IS the alpha male and he is VERY happy. He doesn't give a flying fvck about the happiness of the others, he wants all life's privileges for himself and will do whatever neccesary to ensure he gets them. He is completely amoral and isn't bothered by a conscience. But he is very happy!

All these women who lack morality are happy as well. They get a multitude of d!cks shoved into them and they love it. You guys with your moral standards, you despise these cvnts and denounce their lack of morality. But you are the ones feeling frustrated and miserable over your love life... Those cvnts, they live happy lifes... You can't beat them, but you CAN join them and become an amoral bastard yourself. It goes against our pride, our values etc. We don't WANT to be amoral bastards, we would despise ourselves if we were ever to turn into such a person. But the pragmatic reality is: you will eventually be happier as an amoral bastard than you are now...

And the irony is, if you really do become a true alpha male, many of those amoral cvnts will stop fvcking other guys coz they are infatuated with YOU and don't want to lose you, coz you are better and more desirable than the other guys. You beat the bytches at their own game... Will their monogamy to you be genuine? I'd say so... Sure, if she meets a guy who appears more alpha than you, she'll probably leave you for him. She only "loves" you and stays monogamus to you for as long as she perceives you as her best option. How fvcking amoral...how goddamn unfair!! It is what it is, though... Nothing is permanent, she truly loved you at the time she perceived you as her best option, though. You just can't expect more than that! She won't keep loving you out of a sense of "fairness" while some other guy actually is much more desirable to her. The human conscience is overrated... You don't get what you deserve, you don't get what is "fair"... You get what you take! And in order to take what you want, you often have to manipulate others, be amoral, do injustice to other people, ignore your conscience, be a bastard...

Is it her free will that makes her love you and stay monogamous to you? Is it her free choice? Or is that just the illusion she is under, while in reality, it is all the result of you pushing her buttons? It is the latter...

Suppose you get yourself a totally realistic robot with skin, warmth etc. It is programmed to interpret only two phrases: 1. "You're a bytch" 2. "You're nice". When it hears the first phrase, it's facial expression will become "mean" and the robot's power will be turned off automatically. When it hears the second phrase, it's facial expression will become "sweet" (starts smiling and seductively blinking her eyes at you) and it will svck your d!ck. It has no will of it's own, it's just programmed to respond with certain behavior to certain input from you. Real women are basically no different... You treat them the right way (applying "game"), you get the desired results from them. You treat them the wrong way (like a chump), you don't get the desired results from them. Free will is just as much of an illusion as "objective morality". People don't treat you good or "moral", because you deserve it. They do so because they're wired and conditioned to respond in a certain way to certain behavioral input from other people. Genuine love and monogamy don't really exist...you create it in the other person.

We're all fvcking robots.... The trick is to realize this, adjust your behavior accordingly so you will maximize your succes and hapiness, then try to forget the realization. See George Orwell's "1984" and the term doublethink:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

I'm not a silverback gorila without a conscience. However, I often consciously put myself in a temporary state of being a primitive ape without much of a conscience, that only focusses on getting what it desires. After I enter that state, I forget the fact that I consciously put myself into it and just immerse myself in it. I no longer play a role, I become the role... This is when I'm at the top of my game and my succes with women is at it's highest.

 

[don't]

Women are individuals, just like we are. They make mistakes, just like we do. They have needs, hormones, and pressures, just like we do. If you want a traditional type of wife, best look to Asia, bud.

 

[ebracer05]

If women are only chasing a tiny percentage of men, how are they racking up so many sex partners? If they're only chasing a tiny percentage of men, how are they having sex with "everyone that came her way"?

But I agree with the general sentiment. No man wants to marry a wh0re. And men will be leery of marriage when women have shown they are too fickle to remain faithful.

People have made fun of me on this board before for talking about morality, but it's the lack of morality today that's the reason for the fall in quality of women - the vanity, the flaking (not keeping their word), the riding on the c0ck carousel, their lack of commitment to marriages, etc. Posters here may make fun of me again for talking about morality, but I think deep down they know I'm right.

Zekko, you are spot on. Spot on.

However, the reason why women are racking up such high number is exactly because of what Danger said. I will say that there are exceptions to this 90/10 proportion... there are plenty of beta dudes who get action every now and then, but I think when people refer to that proportion they're referring to the mean rather than the deviations.

But. That's not the point. There are 2 big problems in society that are responsible for the problem the OP's reference so eloquently described. The first one is morality, as you said. People in general have no moral compass today. They are entirely self serving and want to rationalize their "morality" upon their desires rather than mold their desires around morality. Morality isn't something dynamic and capricious. I have never read a good piece of philosophy that has ever given me any reason to consider that truth is anything other than absolute and that morality follows truth. Naysayers would do well to take the time to both read and at least try to understand Immanuel Kant.

When a society has no moral compass, it becomes entirely self serving and frankly, dangerous. Why do you think we have the governmental system established the way we do. What did Thomas Hobbes say about the absolute vitality in the establishment of a social contract? Uninhibited nature is brutish and something that none of us want to experience. Morality in this case is the inhibitor. It is the motive force that keeps us from pursuing desires that represent nothing more than short term gains and long term losses. Do you all really think that just because something is desirable or pleasurable in this moment that it is the best thing to do? That sort of attitude gives zero regard to future consequences and is a lifestyle of continuously robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And we wonder why females AND males are so screwed up!

The second point is that our society has delayed marriage so far beyond the onset of our natural sexual development. The OP's responder is doing more than identifying an incongruency in the societal view of men and women, he's identifying a literal fight against nature.

Men don't want a slut (I know Rollo says that men don't care if a woman is a slut as long as she's his slut, but I believe I disagree). The OP's responder says he resents women who have taken a cavalier attitude towards the most intimate activity possible between men and women. He makes several observations that I emphatically agree with.

However, he doesn't provide a remedy. Rollo has cited a page before that attempts to link a woman's lifetime number of sexual partners to the probability that she will be unfaithful in the bond of marriage. That page also provided several colorful bar graphs that shows how the median age of marriage has increased dramatically for men and women since the 1950s.

Of course women cheated in the 1950's. Women have always cheated. Did you know that some historians call the stereotypically pure "Victorian Era" the "Era of Pornography"? There will always be people who make bad decisions. But again, as I said in the beginning, I'm not talking about deviations from the mean, I'm talking about the mean. Expecting men and women to wait until their mid to late 20's to get married and not have sex is just stupid. It really is. As sexual as we understand women to be and given that they begin puberty before males do, what in the world do we think is going to happen if as a man, we want to marry a woman, but we want to marry a woman with few or no previous sexual partners. But we want to delay that event until 10+ years after they have been living inside a body surging with biochemicals telling them they need to have sex, living in a society that tells them they need to have sex, and dealing with guys like the guys on this website who understand attraction and are very good at "gaming" women. Well, as I said, what in the world do you think is going to happen?

This is one of those instances where you can't have your cake and eat it too. I personally hate the way that kids grow up today, I don't think they are required to take 1/10th of the personal responsibility they otherwise should be taking and we make life way too easy for them. Then they get to college or the "real world" where things suddenly matter, or maybe it doesn't even matter then. But at some point it will matter and they don't know how to deal with things.

100 years ago, I think kids grew up much better because we didn't have modern luxuries we could use to "protect them" from the perils of real life. Well you know what, if males were brought up today under social conditions that required them to deal with the perils of real life, I have a strong feelings things would be a whole lot different in the world, and a 16 year old would be in a much better place to evaluate a woman as a potential life partner. I don't know that I've met any 16 year old as long as I've been alive that I would say that about, and I really think it's all a function of society.

I could keep ranting about all of this, but quite frankly, I have better things to do today. /Rant.

 

[Lexington]

I think the "good old days" is a steaming pile of h0rse****. Society was no more morally upstanding 40-50 years ago than it is today. When was America more moral? Back in the 60s when Jim Crow laws were in full effect? How about the early 1900s when we denied voting rights to half the population? When the Great Depression was raging? The 1800s, no big deal.....just a little slavery and imperialism.

Today we are more free, more technologically advanced and have more opportunities than at any point in history. The problem with freedom and opportunity is that you are free to do exactly what you want with those things! So you are free to fvck up or you are free to make wise, well-reasoned choices.

People got married early and had kids back in the 40s and 50s because they were strongly compelled to do so. Women had to find a husband in order to be supported. It was considered immoral for a man to sleep around and to have sex outside of a marriage as well.

If you want an old fashioned stay-at-home Mom, those can still be found. Why don't you just move to some place like Lynchburg, Virginia? Lots of chaste Christian girls there. They go to Church every Sunday, don't drink, don't party and they're definitely not fvcking around. Trust me, there are plenty of prude, "good girls" out there....not just in the South!

I'm not even convinced freaky business wasn't going on back in the day. I think it was happening but it was just kept on the DL. Today, we're just more open about it. And because we live in a time of Twitter, cell phone cameras, 24/7 news cycles etc. sh*t just gets out more. Back in the day, Kennedy was f*cking Marilyn Monroe and 19 year old interns....it just wasn't blown up in the media.

Seeing as this is a website dedicated to "pickup" and "seduction" I think it's safe to say that a lot of guys here aren't just looking for a wife, kids and household pet. They want to plow every hot piece of ass they come across. And there's nothing wrong with that so long as both parties are consenting adults.

Personally I think this sexual freedom movement is a good thing. It means that I can go to any decent bar in Brooklyn, go mack on a few girls and have a decent chance of getting laid either that night or within a week or 2. You can't dance if you don't have a willing partner....

 

[backbreaker]

i have spent ab out the last hour reading hte comments on that. quite facinating.

honestly, the OP is entitled to his opinion as is the guy he quoted, i just don't agree with it.

I just do not particuarly care how many men a woman has slept with. to me that's along the same lines as a woman being particular about hte exact type of job a man has. It's just not something i can make myself care about. I just don't. On one hand it might show how someone was indecisive and preciousness, on the other hand i was not the same person nor had the exact same outlook on life when i was 18 then i do at 28 and I would be cheif hypocrite to expect a woman to do the same. Plus I don't sexuality as a moral issue. If i a woman is single and is attracted to a guy i expect her to have sex with him. In fact on this very forum men tens of dozens of times a day are told that if a woman has not had sex with you she isn't interested in you but yet when looking for a wife i have to somehow be attracted to a woman who won't **** me lol? doesn't make sense to me.


I think men and women both have the problem of trying to over analyze the war between the sexes. I think in the last 30 years too many women have tried to become men only to realize that men dont' want to date men they want to date women. I am a pretty intelligent person but some things are best when you don't over analyze them as is sex and relationships. when you start talking about "am i settling" or "the 80/20 split" that's just too much. **** technically i settled my wife settled, my wife couldn't a good meal if it were my last on earth lol, she can't cook, and coming from a family where both of my grandmothers are cooks and one was a professional cook for her entire career, being able to hold your own in the kitchen is kinda a big deal, but so what. i can cook and at the end of the day i still eat very well (and healthy). there just comes a point where it's paralysis by analysis and i think this article is that. just accecpt the fact that you ****ed up you dumped a good man and live with your mistakes and move on.


the one thing i do take from that and do wish to talk about is the unrealistic standards that some women seem to have. Crystal a girl i had dated for 6 months and honestly i liked enough at one point to even conisder breaking one of the DJ cardinal rules; to never move to accommodate a woman, as she was moving to NY and i was getting ready to move i just did not know where though it ended up being del mar, left me beucase she didn't "feel that i was committed to her" because i did not go see her mom with her for thanksgiving in louisiana, got sick while she was down there and i bull **** you not took that as an omen that she needed to move on. needless to say she's still single though now 6 years older. when i met my wife and we had not really started dating yet, but it was clear she liked me and i liked her but i had other plates, one of her friends was telling her not to "settle for me" because she could do better than a black man, though i was cute and good looking she didn't have to stoop "that low". never mind that I'm not 30 and easily in the top 1% of incomer earners int he country, have zero debt and I'm quite handsome if I may say so myself. she's still single too and my wife no longer talks to her.

for women that ignorant, in both cases, i have zero remorse when the game that is the game chews them up and spit them out. they set the rules of the game and then cry when they don't win.

women in general hvae over valued what's in between their legs. some men look at these women and say you kmnow what, if these are my options, what is the tangiable reason for getting married? why should i just to have sex? i can't say I blame them.


in my single years and i spun plates i've.. i'm not going to say dated, i spun lawyers, accountants, women who had post graduate degrees, and mind you i have never stepped foot on a college campus unless to go to a football or basketball game. I'm man enough to admit that I did so in part becuase some of me wanted to prove to myself that I fit in with the crowd. To prove to people that I was smart and that I could command a smart woman.


After a few of these women, in all off the top of my head, 4 or 5, women i would classify as the intellectuals though still pretty attractive, I avoided them like the plague. to me they were worse than strippers.. okay maybe not strippers that's a little too much. let's say waitresses. It's like dating my mother who has a masters degree and despite being a very attractive woman her entire life, men get a whiff of her feminist streak and run the other way. I always thought it was me growing up. It wasn't me **** half the time i wasn't even there I was at my dad's. And when I was I was isolated in my room, I took care of myself as my mom was always working. It was her lol.


Men don't want to date men. My wife is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, and if she put her mind to it, i am sure there is not much she could not do, but she just does not desire to do that. for a lack of a better term she's pretty simple minded. she loves working out, loves horses and loves her family. She reads things that she finds interesting but does not read things just so say she read them. She learns things that are practical for her to learn, like french and Italian as she lived in both countries for a while before moving here. she doesn't learn things that aren't practical for her to learn. She is a very beautiful woman and she is smart enough to where if she tired to she could do a lot but she understood, unlike a lot of feminist minded women, that she did not want to do "alot". She wanted to ride and be around horses and she wanted a family, in that order.

Anyway, women set the rules of the game not men. Women are the ones making the unrealistic exceptions from men. It's not good enough to have a 35 dollar an hour factory job with the union anymore even HB 7's think they can do better. Then when they can't, they blame it on men for there not being enough men meet her unrealistic requirements.


what exactly IS the feminist movement anyway? women will never be at the very top with most men not because they aren't smart or good enough but they will never make the sacrifices most men make to get there. I don't know or have known one woman who is willing to tolerate even the smallest amount of risk int heir everyday lives including my own mother. my mother freaks out if she does not have at least a few hundred to tithe to church, does this really strike you as the type of mindset who is going to put it all on the whim and go for broke? and mind you this is a woman with a masters degree. so if it's not really about being at the top than what is it really about? basically, when you get down tot he nuts and bolts of it, women don't want to be at the top they just want to do what men, have the fun men have, put off things that men put off and get away with it. but they aren't and never will be men.

you remember that "cute" little gingle "anything you can do I can do better" no you can't yets i can no you can't yes i can with the girl saying yes i can? really, you can't. not because you suck but you just can't. My wife will never be able to bench press what I bench press regardless of how hard shed tired because she doesn't have the same amount as testosterone as I have. at the same time I will never be able to walk (nor care to) walk as elaqutantly in 6 inch heels as she can. nor will i ever have the child rearing abailities she seems to natrually posses, where the patience comes from that women have with kids i will never know but i don't have that **** lol. there are times with my own son when he decides just to be particuarly difficult that i have to say here you do what you do because he's about to get spanked. and you know what there is nothing wrong with that. society has evolved for millions of years like that. This idea that every gender should be able to do everything equally well is hog wash.

I think the "good old days" is a steaming pile of h0rse****. Society was no more morally upstanding 40-50 years ago than it is today. When was America more moral? Back in the 60s when Jim Crow laws were in full effect? How about the early 1900s when we denied voting rights to half the population? When the Great Depression was raging? The 1800s, no big deal.....just a little slavery and imperialism.

you are one of the smarter posters here. I get a kick out of peple who want to talk about the good old days. yeah if you were a white male maybe. Yes women didn't **** a lot of men but also half the country could not vote and own a business in the right side of town without it being burned down. I have a grandmother who is 100% mute, 100% blind and has one eye missing due to her being gang raped and beaten within inches of her death as a y oung child by a group of morally outstanding white males. i call her my grandmother but she's actually my great grandmother. not only did she live she is now 106 years old. it's because of her me and my younger brother can be in a room and have a full conversation in sign language and understand exactly what each are saying as if they were speaking in plain english.

peolple were just as self serving as they were then as they are now. The only things that have changed are the rules of the game and the players, but the game itself has not changed.

 

[backbreaker]

My biggest problem is with the shamers. The people who would shame men for having a standard.

Women know damn well what they are doing when they h0r around in their 20's and wait til they find their "soul-mate" at 30.

The 30 something man who has his life together, but didn't get a lot of action in his 20's has EVERY right to say "fvk that" when women or men try to shame him into marrying some "reformed" slut.

Again, just as every woman has a right to live as they see fit, men also have every right to respond accordingly.

The whole concept of getting sex with a girl quickly as opposed to "beta game" of waiting forever is EXACTLY BECAUSE WE KNOW that women are h0ring around with a lot of men.

That does not invalidate the idea that men can desire and hold out for something other than a h0r. The best way to do that is to find a good girl while they are young and before they have been rammed by the alpha army.

but if you are not an alpha male what makes you thinks he will not still get rammed by the alpha army if you find her early lol?

i dated a girl well, not dated ****ed a girl in my younger 20's who a guy married when he was 17 years old and she was i want to say 17 as well. biggest *** dumpster i have ever met.

rather you catch them when they are 18 or 28 or 38 a woman still craves a man, the best man she can get, and will make whatever rationzations in her mind it wil take for that to take place. even if it means cheating.


see, i dont' want to say the problem with you because you are a good dude, but the problem with your thought process is that you understand you are fighting a 2012 war but you still want to use rules from 1952, and that's not going to cut it. we adapt, we evolve. women did not **** around a lot in the 50's. that is true, but that is not because women did not find men attractive and did not want to have sex with men they saw, it was because they knew that literally the one thing that gave them value in society was in between their legs and they held on to that like a dude playing spades and he only has 1 spade and it's the big joker. the only value that a woman had in the 50's to a man who say was a 20% er so to speak was her looks and her sex and the off chance her family had any money. that's a pretty damn good incentive to keep the number of men you fvck to a min. your life and your future childrens lives literally are hanging in the balance.

the rules of enaggement have changed. not beucase we are a less moral soceity but becuase women have more options, more rights, more opinions, more everything. women don't need us as breadwinners so now women are no longer tied to making sure that their virginity or male past is kept to a min. what you and others try to make a moral issue is actually a very economic one. it has very little to do with morality.

becuase women now are more free to do what they want, they, themselves, qualify what men they want with sex, whereas in the past that was not the case for the aforementioned reasons. now women can and they do. so now, the socially prudent man who dates, would be wise to only keep women who are sexually interested in him at the table.

people who do not understand this dynamic are oft abused when it comes to relationships. all it takes is a womanj to say something along the lines of " i'm old fashioned" or "i want to take it slow" and here comes all the 40 and 50 year old women who pat you on the pat to tell you how much of a gentlemen you are neither you nor them understanding that the rules that worked 30 years ago are not revelant today. then the same women who are patting you on the bat are telling you that she just wasn't the "right one" when she goes off and has sex with some dude she meets at a get together the same night she met him.

sex has nothing to do with morality. at least, not in 2012 it does not. the feminist revolution has made sex a causal issue. rather or not you chose to accept this fact of life does not make it less a fact. women fvck who they find attractive in 2012. they have no reason not to. society doesn't give a **** as a whole, and there are no real long term repercussions for having casual sex. The quicker you addacpt to the new rules of enegagement the better off you are.

Women know damn well what they are doing when they h0r around in their 20's and wait til they find their "soul-mate" at 30.

the one thing about the article that gets me is the fact that she is in her 40's has by her own admission, had countless serious relationships, even had a guy she dated for 3 years she left for no good reason, yet shames guys for doing the same thing. guys must commit but it's okay for women to have fun play the field, not take things serious. you can't have it both ways.

when i was single i got the LTR / mrriage talk quite a few times and at the end of the day i could try to justify it, but you know what.. i just didn't wanna. at least at the time. i had spent years sacrificing putting things off, all the while not a girl even woudl return a call just to go out to eat so i could get out the house for once, and now that i have made something of myself every woman i know is screaming to me commit or be dammed a "player" by society. lol these women weren't anywhere in sight when i was doing what i was doing, they were all out making moves, going to parties, going to clubs, sleepign with artist and musicans, and now that you want to try to settle down i have to give all that up lol fvck you.

 

[backbreaker]

You can't guarantee she will not be rammed by the alpha army, but that's not the point.

The point is, I don't want one that has ALREADY been rammed. At least with the first one you have a chance of her not becoming a h0r,w ith the second one, she is already there!!!!

Sure, she may become one, but that's fine, I'll just find another and keep fvkin h0rs in the meantime.

Look, you don't give up just because the game is hard. You don't say "hey, she may become a h0r, so I give up". You keep your standards and you don't enter into a marriage contract with a proven h0r. Why take the risk? Why purchase something with such high risk when you can just get it for free?

what i am saying is what tangiable asset does a woman in 2012 not having sex with any man before she met you brings to the table?

so a woman who is 24 years old who dated a few guys on the football eam while in high school and went to parties and had fun and maybe had sex with 5 or 6 guys in 4 or 5 years in college, even though she now has a degree and a decnet job and for hte most part seems tobe quite normal, is a *****? to me that is worse than the then the woman who is yapping about all men being players and deadbeats. it's an unrealistic viewpoint and it's it's not even really necessary.

make no mistake i'm not saying that a woman should not be held accountable for her actions, i'm saying sex, just sex in itself is not really an action i view as being one she has to account for. kids, yes, passed marriages she fvcked up sure. just sex with a few guys in a few years? hardly.

how is a woman's sexual past with what she did with guys that are not you, before she met you revelant to how she is going to act in the future? how can you blame a girl who in her mind is doing all the necessary steps she is taking to try to get her a man in the rules of engagement that are out there in 2012? this is how you get a man in 2012. to get a good man you are going ot have to **** him. i consider mseyfl a catch and when i was single i had a few women who tried to make me wait. rather ir not it was for religiuos or moral or non attraction reasons can be debated, but the result was the same, ithrew away all their numbers. why would i waste time with a girl who won't have sex with me when i have girls that will be more than happy to? a girl has to get in where she fits in if she wants a good man. that means having sex.



you go on your mythical journey for these virgin harlots you speak of. i'll be on the side of the road in my car to take you back when you get tired of walking.

 

[ebracer05]

I agree with you 100% Danger.

Backbreaker, I think you're making a mistake in your thinking. The feminist movement didn't turn sex in to a casual issue. The only thing that turned sex in to a casual issue was men devaluation of a woman's virginity.

Backbreaker is, unfortunately IMO, correct about the "rules of engagement" in 2012. Societies attitues towards sex are the way they are and its so blatently obvious.

But Danger is right about something that I don't think very many of you guys have given any level of consideration:

A woman who has limited partners is more able to pair-bond after sex.

Hell, there was a whole thread dedicated to women's first love, and they leave a huge impact on a woman. That ALONE should be a great reason to find someone who hasn't taken on the army.

Point is, the more c0ck riding a woman does, the less likely she is to see her man as something special. He's just another d1ck to ride on except he probably has more toys than the others (at least she hopes so).

As an alpha guy, this should be of supreme importance. Just because the game is hard doesn't mean we should quit.

But at the end of the day, the whole reason women act the way they do is because men accept it, either implicitly or explicitly. I don't think it would be good for society to start repressing women or anything like that, but the reason things were as Backbreaker described in the 1950's was because men had STANDARDS and understood what that meant. They had a value expectation from women, in general, and were willing to walk away from women that did not meet that expectation.

Do you think guys today have any sort of value expection from a woman beyond what they think of her face and figure? That's the whole reason why this website exists!!!!

Like, so many of the problems and issues guys are having here all stem from the SAME problem. Men don't know how to be men! They don't respect themselves. They don't honor themselves. They don't realize their value and place they have in the world. This isn't some chauvanistic BS or statement of supremacy, it's a statement of worth and validity. There is nothing in the world wrong with being a man. I don't believe men are any better than women, but I emphatically believe we are NOT worse.

It's okay, and I would say necessary, for men as a group to have a level of standard that they are willing to accept from women. IMO there are marriage worthy women and sex worthy women. Just as much as a man decides whether he's going to be an alpha or a beta by the actions he takes, a woman will decide whether she's going to marriage or sex worthy by the actions she takes. That is just as much a fundamental function of life, even in 2012, as any of the other sexual dynamics that we have to deal with. I would say one of the biggest reason guys are running away from the idea of marriage today is because they have, by and large, not enforced a value standard on women that makes them generally marriage worthy. The actions speak for themselves. When a woman has had several sex partners and her ability to pair bond monogmously is reduced, her valuation of her partner, her proclivities towards unfaithfulness, well what in the world do you think men are going to do? Why in the world would any sensible guy do that to himself? The problem isn't with the idea of marriage in general (I guess there will always be some guys who do not want to be monogamous, even if its with a good woman), it's with the application. But something most people don't understand is that poor application of a concept does not mean the concept is flawed. If a scientist conducts a study about a theory but sets it up poorly, the study tells you absolutely NOTHING. It doesn't give any substantive information. And the fact that so many people are poorly applying the concept of marriage does not imply that the institution is flawed, but rather, that the problems embodied in this discussion are very real and relevant.

No one, particularly women, wants to be held accountable for the decisions they make. But we have blame here too as men, because we've allowed the crap we have to deal with to exist in the first place. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with letting women have opinions, own property, vote, God forbid, make decisions eek... They can go ahead and do all of that stuff. But the only reason why they hold such a majority position in the sexual market place right now is because man have placed their vagina's in such an over valued position while at the same time diminishing their own value. It's not right. And unless this schema doesn't change among the general masses of men (I mean, they can keep overvaluing sex, I think, and as long as they kept proper perspective of their own value things would get remarkably better), there will continue to be a very strong shortage in marriage worthy women. There will always be sex worthy women. But that's not what everyone's looking for.

 

[goodfoot]

True, guys will do anything for pu$$y and it makes these chicks way too egotistical. They don't do better because men don't demand it from them. All they have to do is post a FB pic of their t!ts or a$$ and 30 guys are gonna like the picture and comment. I always noticed that when I have a girlfriend, other girls are suddenly more attracted to me. It's because I'm getting regular sex and I'm not on the prowl, women wonder why I'm not looking at them. It gives me higher value.

 

[scrouds]

what i am saying is what tangiable asset does a woman in 2012 not having sex with any man before she met you brings to the table?

A much greater ability to fully and completely emotionally bond with you for the rest of her file. A much better shot at having a marriage that works, that doesn't end in divorce.

Basically she has much greater odds of being a faithful, devoted wife that will stick with you thick and thin, with a better ability to stick with you through thick and thin, till death do you part, not hop on the hypergamy train for greener pastures if things go south.

Its not guaranteed for sure, but a man that plays the odds does better. I know I don't have to explain odds to a professional gambler.

 

[backbreaker]

i'm seeing a lot of posts from people who seemed to have crushed the red pill into half, and downed one half of the pill because the other half was too big. that is some AFC babble if i have ever seen it.

not hop on the hypergamy train for greener pastures if things go south.

see, the difference between myself and maybe, MatureDJ or rollo or a number of people here, is that i have no interest in the least bit in trying to reform soceity. I am not nor never will be a reformer. I am a surviver. I figure out the rules to whatever the game is at the time and I thrive in that game. I have no interest in trying to fight the good fight truth be told. I am interesting in getting blow jobs and climaxing. Now that i am married i am interested in my wife staying attracted to me. i'd rather read a good book about cicero than get too caught up in what all the 25 year old avg looking females of america are doing.

the problem with you and with Danger, well not you, i am not going to get in an all out arguement, one can have a heated debate without throwing tantrums, but your mindset is that you refuse to take ownership of your place on the food chain.

you treat the "hypergamy train" like it's something that you aren't apart of. if a woman marries you and thinks you are ambitious and going to be successful and you do not live up to that and she wonders she's a slut or a *****, and you can or cannot agree with that but i don't care if you do agree or not agree with it, all i am interested in is making sure it doesn't happen to me. and you do that by simply staying your girls best option.

instead of looking at the entire game and saying okay this is where i fit in and taking ownership and trying to figure out how to max your potential in the game, becuase you aren't at the top of the leaderboard you throw a tantrum and toss out the entire game and it's rules and hope to find another woman who does not play by these rules using some moralistic reasoning stating that you want a woman who "isn't that" when the whole damn country if not damn near the entire modern world, is like that. there are plenty of guys here that aren't millionaires or aren't models that have very good looking women, hell some more than one that are very faithful tot hem. i looka t y father and while he has his issues, my dad has never had a woman ever cheat on him in his life that he married and that's 4 women lol. my dad is by no means rich, definition of middle class, maybe makes 60k a year, he's handsome in particular to be his age but he's not gorge clooney. every last woman he has ever dated /married, ironically execpt my mother, had a past.

if my wife gained 30 pounds and refused to lose it or stop putting out at a level i was comfortable with and tried to make me accept that **** i'd cut her a check and be gone and would not think twice about it. i tried the marriage bit, it didn't work but i'm not putting upw tih this **** lol, here's your check thanks for playing. l'ol i don't give a damn how different she is if my **** doesn't get hard or she won't put out it doesn't matter how faithful she is. what i am saying is i am just as bad as are most people when they really look at themselves i just own my **** unlike some. very very few would stay in a relatioship that does not benefit them. if she got in a car accident and was deformed, i could not leave her i love her too much and that's different, but just, being uninterested in making sure you stay hot for me or taking care of me? i have to go.
`
just because you don't like the rules of the game, doesn't mean there aren't rules.

and anyone w2ho has spun a reasonable amount of plates would tell you that no a woman who does not have a sexual past does not make her any more or less relationship material. that mindset reeks of someone who doesn't have a lot of experience with the opposite sex. in the last 10 years i've dated 3 girls who were extremely late bloomers, and 2 of the three were easily the most bat **** crazy girls i ever dated. just like you when i met crystal, who had only had 1 BF ever and had only had sex with one man in her life, as she was a very very late bloomer, had just lost a bunch of weight, and her figure just really hit stride, i thought i had a keeper. she got me or so i thoguth, she wasn 't used or abused.. lol and after we had sex there was zero doubt in my mind she wasn't lying she was clueless. 6 months later, after her crying over silly **** like me not answering the phone.. lol because i'm in fvcking surgery mind you, or taking every night i don't want her over my house as a personal insult or a clear sign i was cheating on her, i was happy when she "had enough" of me and was single again.


what you and others do not realize is that what it works both ways. a girl who hasn't a lot of boyfriends, doesn't really know how to be a girlfriend.

you are holding out for this pie in the sky woman that does not exist. there is no one. there are good plates and bad plates. there are some good paltes that are better than good and some very good paltes that you might like to keep spinning but there are no one's. if you think there are "ones' you are on the wrong damn forum i assure you.

i've been dating/married to my wife now for about 4 years. there is zero doubt in my mind she has not cheated, hasn't even considered it. none. she goes out for ladies night every once in a while and won't even dance with guys for fear one of her friends would tell me about it as she thinks a few of them like me and would try to use it against her. faithful as a 16 year old virgin in the middle ages lol. and she's told me she's cheated on guys in the past, well one guy, in the past. she isn't faithful becuase she's morally superior to other girls i have dated. she's a good girl who has a good head on her shoulders but there is no doubt in my mind if i stopped holding up my end of the bargain she'd have one foot out the door. but she hasn't cheated on me and won't, becuase i know how to deal with women and i know how to pull her strings. and i could leave her and i could get another girl that i thought was suitable and there would be no doubt in my mind if she made it that far with me, to where i was exclusive, she won't think of cheating, not beyucase she is morally superior to every other woman on earth, but beucase i know how to deal with my woman.

 

[ebracer05]

Backbreaker, I agree that you are correct as far as the game you are playing goes and I don't doubt that is how a large portion of the world works. But just like with any other thing, be it business, college, or relationships, if you don't like the way the game is played, you either assert a different set of rules and win or lose by their merits, or you don't play.

I don't want the sort of relationship you describe that you have with your life. It's conditioned on a lot of BS that I don't think, without becoming too moralistic or self righteous, humans should accept.

What you need to understand is that not everyone has the same outlook as you. I get that not everyone has the same objectives that I do. But just because I have different objectives that other guys doesn't mean that my goals are flawed.

I realize this statement is treading in to territory you guys would say represents "blue pill" thinking, and I don't think it is because I understand it's not a realistic portrait of reality, however - what I'm looking for is a relationship that is conditioned upon mutual commitment to a higher purpose rather whether I keep myself in top physical shape or make a lot of money.

The things I do like that, keeping myself in good shape, preparing myself for a great job, getting a better education than the vast majority of people in the world, all of the accomplishments in my life... they're mine. I don't do them for some girl. I mean, I was doing a lot of that stuff when I was single and too busy studying law to waste my time on low quality women. It's not like I didn't date or have any interest in women, but I was and am busy building the foundation for the rest of my life, and that's wayyyy more important than some transient girl.

I keep saying this, but the reason why women are not capable of making allegiances to ideals like commitment, in the "till death do us part" sort of way is because of the BS that men have created. Men have accepted this behavior from women implicitly and explicitly and as a result, have normalized it.

A much greater ability to fully and completely emotionally bond with you for the rest of her file. A much better shot at having a marriage that works, that doesn't end in divorce.

Basically she has much greater odds of being a faithful, devoted wife that will stick with you thick and thin, with a better ability to stick with you through thick and thin, till death do you part, not hop on the hypergamy train for greener pastures if things go south.

Its not guaranteed for sure, but a man that plays the odds does better. I know I don't have to explain odds to a professional gambler.

That really says it all right there. Men used to have an expectation from women because they realized the value in the this sort of relationship and realized that, conditioned upon mutual commitment is superior to a relationship conditioned upon something susceptible to change. But men are not judicious in their mate selection process and do not have standards representative of the supremely high level of commitment that marriage represents. And out of this, the behavior of women has matched the lack of expectation from men. And I really think this is where a lot of guys err in their thinking. Women are the way they are, not because they have something magical we can stick our penises in to, but because men overvalued their vagina's and undervalued themselves. I mean, this is a principle that's fundamental to things as simple as dog training. If you have a behavior that is unacceptable but don't enforce its unacceptability, it doesn't matter. You might as well have never deemed it unacceptable because your actions matter significantly more than whatever your opinion is, and your actions granted a license that your words will not be able to revoke.

See, I'm not just some guy who goes out looking for the simplest way to ejaculate in the presence of a pretty woman. If that was my goal, I would totally agree with you Backbreaker. But that isn't my goal and so I don't. I look at this as more of a meta problem of men and women, and quite honestly, even though I have a reformist attitude, I don't think this is anything that's going to change because guys blog about it on the internet and a smart moderator puts a blog up. Guys from this board have a hard time even going out and approaching women, even in bars and night clubs where it's socially acceptable. How many field reports do you read on here from guys, even guys who might not even really get it, that are going out and getting laid? Seriously, I don't think you've succeeded because you got a date with a girl you met online and nothing happened, or you found a girl at a night club and made out with her or grinded on her for a little bit. That right there indicates a terribly high degree of not having standards and even personal respect.

Are we here trying to get better with women because we want to kiss that hot chick in the bar or because we want her pants off in one of our places? Personally, I don't care one bit about the kiss.

So, yea, I don't think things are going to change regardless of what anyone says or writes on the internet. It's going to take something serious, a bad economic collapse or something that forces men to literally sink or swim. A crisis of sorts that separates those who are able to step up to the challenge from those who can't. And unless or until that happens, you're right, this is the game.

I think there are always exceptions to the rule, but this is the game. The problem is all of the compounding problems created by the dynamics the game establishes. It shouldn't be like this. People shouldn't have the baggage that they have, particularly women. Guys can (or should be able to) get over things much easier than women. Sex with a woman, no matter how alpha you are, creates a bond between her and the guy that is d@mn near impossible to erase. Good luck with that. You can be as alpha as you want to, but you can't erase memories, you can't take back the feelings that she's had for other people before you that greatly diminish the significance of the feelings she has for you. It's not that previous sexual experience totally destroys the dynamics of a potential relationship, but you are totally undervaluing its significance. So what if she hasn't cheated on you? Is that the only measure you have by which to evaluate your relationship? You can't get in to her mind and read her thoughts dude. Yea, she may love you and everything, but your dealing with a damaged system, on both ends, it's just the guys can repair themselves much more easily and simply than women. What you aren't considering is that your relationship is not operating at baseline. All of the previous sexual experience from your women dropped the baseline lower and lower every time. The question isn't whether it can still be good, it obvious can be. The question is whether it can be the best.

And the more you p1ss in the bathwater, the less "good" it becomes. This is the dark side to 2012 game. There's a contradiction when you purport yourself to be "alpha" but don't give consideration to the emotional baggage your women has from all of the guys she has previous had sex with. And I really don't believe it disappears. It may diminish, but if you are really an "alpha" guy, are you going to be happy about the fact that whether intentionally or not, there are comparisons taking place inside the head of your women about everything about you, sexually and non sexually. The images and feelings she still has inside of her about her past loves, her past attachments, her past bonds. Do you know how bonds work in physics? Look up the concept under physical stress of a solid object called the Modulus of elasticity. The more you stress a bond, the easier it is to break in the future. The greater you deform a solid, the easier it is to deform it again in the future. Why in the world do we think an emotional bond is going to function any differently.

What we're doing as men, when we adopt that attitude, is saying that it's okay with us that our women have this type of baggage and we are not the "only one", the first, the primary, "the man" in her life. And that may sound antiquated to some of you guys, but if your dismiss it, it's either because you have Backbreakers mentality where you just want to get some, or because like Danger said, the game is hard and you don't want to play a hard game.

 

[zekko]

Im losing count of the number of women who left marriages and conspired to engineer a reason for the break up, they married the guy "but I was never going to stay with him"!

Right, women don't have to take marriage vows as seriously as men do. They can go into it without much worry, because hey, if it doesn't work out, they can check out and collect their cash and prizes. Men, on the other hand, run the risk of financial ruin if the marriage fails, especially if there are child support payments involved.

In the end, they will still lack morality and continue to behave exactly the way they always have... You cannot change them! You can change yourself, however... I hate the idea that the chick I'm banging has banged a multitude of other guys, it disgusts me. However, I can't change the fact that they do! I can only change my perception of that fact, meaning I just stop caring and basically let go of morality myself. When you don't care about morality, you won't be bothered my the lack of it in others... It implies you yourself become a person who lacks morality. Sad reality...but it is what it is...

What kind of man casts aside his principles, convictions, and standards just so he can get laid more? That's not just putting the pvssy on the pedestal, that's making pvssy the pedestal, the ground, the sky, and everything else.

Which is more AFC? Buying a girl some flowers because you like her, or dumping all your convictions and acting like an @sshole so you can get some of that almighty pvssy?

The second point is that our society has delayed marriage so far beyond the onset of our natural sexual development.

Yeah, it's really getting ridiculous. Not only marriage is delayed, but also responsible adulthood. Depending on what kind of degree you get, and if you take a few years to work to save for college, you could spend 1/3 or even 1/2 your life preparing to enter society and real adulthood. Is life so complicated that you need to be in school until you're 28? Maybe they need to change the way the whole education system is structured.

I think the "good old days" is a steaming pile of h0rse****. Society was no more morally upstanding 40-50 years ago than it is today. When was America more moral? Back in the 60s when Jim Crow laws were in full effect?

I don't believe in the "good old days" concept either. There is no time in history that I am aware of when humanity was wholly virtuous. We've gotten better at some things (like discrimination), but we've lost a lot, too. Our society has improved in some ways, but a lot of our values have fizzled, also.

A woman who has limited partners is more able to pair-bond after sex.

It's hard to argue with that study that shows that the more sex partners a woman has, the less likely she is to be faithful.

I've never been one to demand a virgin, but I don't want the town bike either. You don't make a ho a housewife.

There seems to be two competing schools of thought on keeping a woman:
1) It doesn't matter what kind of woman she is (they're all interchangeable), she'll stick with you as long as you are alpha enough.
and
2) You have to pick the right woman.
I really think both are important. You have to get a good woman who believes in traditional values, who isn't a raging slvt. And you have to work to keep your value up so you remain her best option.
Do both. And you still might fail.

 

[Lexington]

I disagree with this moralistic thinking. There's an old saying, "it's easy to be a saint when you live in paradise." It's easy to get all high and mighty and think, "oh people back then were so much more committed and serious about relationships." But that wasn't because they were morally superior....it was because they HAD to be.

The simple fact of the matter is that the romantic/sexual marketplace has changed and certain factors that compelled men and women to commit to marriage are no longer there. Now, we can b*tch and moan about the fact that things change or we can accept that change is constant and that society is always changing. Remember, monogamous marriages based on love is a relatively recent thing in human history.

There are a few factors that have changed the nature of the game:

1) Women are financially independent - until quite recently, they had limited opportunities to make money. There is a long history as to why this is the case but that's not really vital to the point. Whereas marriage was a huge priority for women 50-60 years ago, it simply isn't today. The fact is that today, it is economically unfeasible to return to the time when most women stayed at home. We live in an increasingly competitive world and we simply cannot afford to have half the population not contributing to the economy.

2) Birth control- Until relatively recently in human history, women (and men) could have paid a terrible price for fvcking around. For women, it would mean they got pregnant and they would be shunned by society. It was a ticket to a horrible life. For a man, it could mean a terrible blow to his honor and reputation if he knocked up a girl and didn't raise the kid. The condom is also a relatively recent invention....which is also a very big deal.

3) Women aren't as dependent on men for security/protection- think about how society was a few hundred years ago. There was no reliable system of law and order in most countries. Women could be raped or abducted and you couldn't put your trust in law enforcement to protect them. Heck, it wasn't even safe for a woman to walk around alone at night. Thus, they needed the protection of a man.

4)Casual sex is now acceptable- This is a good thing for both men and women. Very few guys here advocate waiting until marriage for sex. Very few guys here encourage marrying the first girl you get into a relationship. In fact we encourage "plate spinning" and getting as much @ss as we can. We wouldn't be able to do this if every girl closed her legs until you bought her a ring.

Those are just a few factors I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more variables, but the point is that the structure of society has changed significantly. Things like "good" and "bad" are abstractions and value judgements. Arguing over them is nothing more than mental masturbation. Things are different than they were.

You can try and change them back to the way they were, but you're swimming against the current.