Red Pill ExampleWomen graduates 'desperately' freeze eggs over 'lack of men' (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Cynewald


Firstly, I have nothing against women going to University. But this article just shows the classic hamstering that go's off in a woman's head when she becomes 'highly educated'. It certainly changes their sexuality in that hypergamy proves right in every sphere yet again. It makes her super picky and too god damn big for her boots. Any man below her educational level is now defunct/off the radar and deemed a stupid, illiterate idiot (regardless if these men are of decent/high intelligence and are hard working men), the guys on her level (male classmates / young men at uni) are met with suspicion (unless they are of course Chad the Athlete or DJ McHandsome), and very few men are above her in terms of educational status, certainly not men in their late teens to late twenties. The news article itself is misleading, in that it makes out that any man who hasn't been to Uni is 'uneducated'. I just have to Lol at this. So attending 2 to 4 years of college and gaining diploma's, but not going to uni means your not educated as a man? What kind of Roastie wrote that?

*In the majority of cases the women, who were treated at eight IVF clinics in the US and Israel and interviewed between June 2014 to August 2016, said they could not find an educated man who was willing to commit to family life.

"Women lamented the 'missing men' in their lives, viewing egg freezing as a way to buy time while on the continuing - online - search for a committed partner," Prof Inhorn said.*

Yet more hamstering. 'Missing men?' I think you mean a guy that's not a white collar Chad, eh? Yes I'm right. Looking online? I guess the University-educated spectacled Eugene's that approached you in real life or asked you for a date in your student dorm just aren't hot and hunky enough. Que plenty of fish, instagram duck faces, the parrot tagline on her dating profile "where are all the good men gone" and the hunt for such a Chaddish guy - like 0.2% of the population.

One patient, Jessica Hepburn, told the BBC she spent over £70,000 on 11 cycles of IVF including other "add-ons" sold by fertility clinics as ways to boost the chances of pregnancy. She never had a baby.

She was too picky and her womb expired, as well as burning a gaping hole in her purse. She caused her own demise. Was she young, pretty and slim enough, and nice enough company to get that elusive high status male? Maybe she got fat and attracted nada? Not even low status betas would poke a fatty. Nature and time is a bitch, eh, love?

[–]10xdada 106 points107 points  (24 children)

There are game theory descriptions of the options women have, but for some reason they aren't taught broadly.

There is the "optimal stopping" theorem, variations on the "secretary problem," among others.

We know a woman's smv shoots up and then fades quickly. She has the most selection power/options between about 18-23, and then her selection power fades until about 35, when it drops off at the wall. The exceptions are actress/model category 99th pc. hotties, but they are outliers.

Optimal women's strategy is for an 18-23yo woman to lock down a fit 30something guy entering his peak earning years. The longer she waits, the richer/older the guy has to be for her to be attracted.

The more education/status she gets, the smaller the pool of men she will want to choose from, but without any increased attractiveness for her based on that education and status. Smart women go to university to get access to high status men, not to become high-status women who self-disqualify 80% of the gene pool with an artificial social credential barrier.

The only way for educated women to get access to a broader selection of men is online, but these are not preselected or sorted the way they are in an undergrad university environment, so she might as well not have gone to school at all.

From an optimal stopping perspective (e.g. take the best of a sample after ~1/e of the total available candidates as some fraction of her tribal Dunbar number), before the internet the selection of men in an undergrad environment would top out in the mid tens (median of 50 guys who were serious contenders to have kids with, pick the best after testing ~18).

There were only so many a girl could meet, confirm preselection, and take for a monogamous test ride. When you add the internet, the total potential candidate number explodes into the hundreds, if not thousands. For her to optimally stop around ~1/e, she literally needs to suck hundreds of cocks "kiss hundreds of frogs" (most obvious euphemism ever) to know "for sure" that she's making the best decision.

If women have an instinctual understanding of optimal stopping, something hard wired that looks like how we discover it elsewhere in nature, the internet basically fucks them up completely by creating a contender pool so large that on an evolutionary-psychological level they cannot settle because they have no way she can make a sampling dent in all that conceivably available dick. They will always be haunted by an evolutionary urge to get back out there and exhaust their sample set and find the optimal stopping point (guy to breed with), but because of the perceived unlimited candidate availability the internet creates, that is not possible.

Online dating basically turns women into dead-eyed cockslaves through a potent mixture of overstimulating their evolutionary FOMO, and then supplying it with an endless stream of randoms. From a purely seratonin/dopamine supply perspective, Tinder will probably do for white people what crack cocaine did for black people. Imagine salmon swimming up a stream, but then suddenly someone builds a dam on it. The salmon keep running and trying to get up the thing because that's what they do, they don't know it's impossible because what do they know of engineering. They just keep trying until they die of exhaustion. Same with rats in cages where a button randomly dispenses food or drugs. With random rewards and no visible way of telling how much they are taking, they just keep hitting the thing until they die.

All you need to do as a guy is be 90th percentile on that stream of randoms, keep your needy sperg mouth shut, and your biggest problem will be how to manage an unlimited supply of dopamine zombie cum sluts.

Women freezing their eggs just makes that total candidate pool a lot larger, and guarantees they will be unhappy with their eventual "choice." The fertility industry is happy to take their money, but it's a decision a woman makes based on stupid beliefs, and nobody should be surprised when they are not satisfied with the results.

edit: bolded useful shit.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 17 points18 points  (1 child)


Evo psyche, anthropolgy, math, and terp theory.

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla[M] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

TRP bot isn't working ATM.

I updated OP with a point


[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (8 children)

Allow me to play the devil's advocate. These women don't have it easy, regardless of the strategy they choose. I'd say for men the optimal strat is Enjoy the Decline. I'd go so far as to say the same for women. Banging random dudes is, I presume, a lot of fun. By getting a boyfriend at 18-23 and settling down with a cool guy, who maybe also has provider qualities, they are forgoing a lot of fun. Are you even guaranteed to live another 30 years? To be fertile and give birth to healthy children? Most importantly, what is the probability of any given relationship she commits to actually working out, 25%? She's taking a huge gamble and forgoing a lot of short term benefits. She could do everything right, commit early, be a virgin, and still get bailed on by the guy in at least 50% of decision trees. Relationships are designed to fail because humans aren't monogamous. Perhaps she may as well Enjoy the Decline, and try to score that epsilon chance of some last minute providership later down the road if she can.

[–]askmrcia 37 points38 points  (2 children)

I think both of you guys made some really good points, but I'm going to respond to your comment.

It's very true that she will can get completely bailed on by some guy. However, with that said, from what I've experienced and from what alot of other men have seen, is that women are picking the wrong dudes in the first place to be in relationships with in the first place.

Now say that they do pick the correct choice of guy and get bored with the settle down lifestyle. Sleeping around like a whore because it's "fun" does affect that woman and how she will handle future relationships once she gets older.

It sounds like in this instance, women want it both ways. They want to sleep around like whores then they want to flick a switch and become marriage/mommy material.

You see how dangerous this game is? You're smart enough to know that this type of thinking does not work.

Let's look at it in another context. A guy has shitty financial habits in his 20s. Using credit cards and student loans to buy bottles in clubs or something, I don't know.

But then in his 30s or 40s he expects a bank to give him a low interest loan because he "changed" all of a sudden. Like the bank should just overlook the times he was bankrupt or kept racking up his debt. Not going to happen.

Can't have it both ways.

[–]motorku531 points points [recovered]

Women are picking the wrong dudes in the first place to be in relationships with in the first place

In other news, water is wet. My sister had a fucking meth addict as a boyfriend and they had baby.. Guess how that turned out. I'm not even blaming that guy, I'm blaming my sister for being a dumb ****. Although I'm sorry for that bady to have such shitty parents. No one deserves that

[–]Lsegundo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

haha right? Women go for bad boys so bring as much of that into your identity as is healthy. A friends sister opened up to me about 2 of her recent flings. This woman who is looking for a relationship gives it up to a guy she knows is a player. Result = he bangs her then never calls her back. Guy #2 is even better. She knew this guy for years as a total fuck up. He says some smooth shit and she ends up in his bed for a week. Then remembers he is a total fuck up.

The only thing that matters is giving tingles. She will hamster away everything else, at least temporarily.

[–]10xdada 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Fair assessment, with a refinement to your point. That last epsilon chance guy is necessarily inferior to at least one of her prior ones that occurred, and if the early guy she committed to at 23 didn't work out, she gets his stuff at his peak earning years and with some SMV gas left in the tank at 28.

Given the distribution of quality among us random dudes she will end up with, let's say it's normally distributed, how many 1-2 sigma guys in a sample of a field of thousands will she actually miss out on if she commits optimally at 23 to a 0.5-1 sigma guy?

I'd argue that the less selection power a woman has when she makes a choice necessarily shapes how satisfied she will be with it. That epsilon guy will be chosen with limited bargaining power, and while she may be grateful for it briefly, her lack of leverage will sour into regret.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRuleZeroDAD 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That last epsilon chance guy is necessarily inferior to at least one of her prior ones that occurred

Empirical evidence of the "Alpha Widow" effect.

[–]Phoenixtorment 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The vast majority of relationships ending is done by... the women. So that 50% decision tree you speak of is nonsense.

Also you are comparing the enjoyment of casual sex that men experience with how women experience it. They are different.

The 'missing out on fun' is a myth.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 2 points3 points  (9 children)

There are game theory descriptions of the options women have, but for some reason they aren't taught broadly. There is the "optimal stopping" theorem, variations on the "secretary problem," among others.

So something like a flowchart a smart woman would follow to get the best mate and get out of the game at exactly the right time?

[–]SanJustSan 11 points12 points  (8 children)

There's a TED talk on a similar subject...

I can't remember the exact ins and outs but it's something along the lines of: Mathematically speaking, a woman's best chance of finding an optimal partner is to play the field until she's 25 when she should opt to settle with the first person she meets who's better than anyone she met before the age of 25".

[–]grewapair 24 points25 points  (6 children)

This is exactly what my two female cousins did. I grew up lower middle class but went to a private university, almost unheard of in my part of town. When I graduated, I was broke, my family was broke, so for one month, I went to live with these two female cousins who lived by the beach in LA.

They were literally fucking every broke male model they met. Every night, they brought home a different guy. My cousins both had low paying glamour jobs and their parents were sending them checks every month to live on.

After one week of living with them, their mom and dad called them up and told them the checks had to stop because they (their parents) were filing for bankruptcy. The mom read them the riot act: they were heretofore to date only RICH men, and stop using any other criteria, because the money was about to run out and either they moved back home or found men to support them.

The girls went and bought bikinis during my second week and went to beaches in Orange County where rich guys lived, and they just laid on the beach for one weekend handing out their numbers to anyone who asked who appeared to be earning enough money.

They handed out their numbers to a bunch of rich men, had these two rich guys over on my third week of living with them, one bald, one fat, both rich. These were girls who were dating nothing but models previously.

They each moved in with those two guys before the girls money ran out and they couldn't afford to live on their own any longer. Married them both. That was more than 30 years ago: still married to them.

I was just sort of shocked that this all happened within a 4 week period I was with them. It was like someone threw a switch. Guys they had ZERO interest in suddenly moved to the front of the line, and all those broke losers they had dated never heard from them again.

[–]darkmoon09 10 points11 points  (3 children)

This should be the ultimate AFBB post. It's astonishing how coldly and nonchalant women can "switch" from onw type of man another at the drop of a dime. If i ever become rich i will forever distrust any women who shows any interest becuase im always going to presume that they're looking for a meal ticket, knowing that they're out there fucking fucking guys who are broke as jokes but look like models so they inspire the tingles.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Thats an insane story. Did that fuck you up or were you already redpilled?

[–]grewapair 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I saw it as a special case, and hadn't realized that many other women would be the same way. Plus my aunt, their mom, is extremely direct and assertive, so I saw it as mostly her idea. Little did I know all women are the same.

[–]RedDeadCred 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Too bad she got pumped and dumped by the quarterback in college and no man can ever compare to the sexual value he possessed at that time.

It's a great strategy for a woman to seduce a beta into financing her life but it won't bring her happiness.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 152 points153 points  (14 children)

Can't get married? Boo fucking hoo. No proposal? Oh how sad. Not going to be having kids? Well nature has a way of weeding out those who don't fit the niche.

More proof that other than beta males, girls are victims of feminism. One chick I met last month is 34 and wants another fuck trophy to match the one she has now. Where it's the father? He was working all the time and never around, so she cheated, got the kid and house. The guy she hooked up with after the father is a drunk, keeps coming back, acts like a spoiled brat, gets kicked out again. She saw me as a way out, I saw her for what she is, used up.

It's nearly the same story as a girl I knew in high school who contacted me three years ago. She has her drunk too. Holy shit the years of sun have devastated poor Kimberly's face. Still has a nice body, but man her face is wrinkled like an aerial view of Berlin 1945.

That is the future for girls who do stupid shit.

The girls who think they're above 99% of men don't even get the fuck trophy, unless they trap someone.

Good job feminism, you ruined Kim's and Katie's lives with your mantra of you go girl. Meanwhile sex is easy for me to get, they throw it at me trying to land a man with something they can leech. Little Jessica is an evolutionary dead end now thanks to feminism. I'd be sad if my life hasn't been fucked over by the same shit. Hey, they have to live with the consequences of their actions/choices just like we do, they have it happen later in life though. You washed equality, well that's a taste of it.

[–][deleted] 77 points78 points  (1 child)

A-fucking-men brother.

Poor women! That guy you left when you were 27 to go "find yourself" just had his second child. Meanwhile, you're 35 and childless and lamenting men for not being high status enough for you. Tough life!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Exactly! They can do whatever you want in life, but everything has a consequence. Wanna eat fast food every meal? Well don't complain when you can't make rent and your fat as fuck

[–]Mail_Order_Lutefisk 72 points73 points  (5 children)

More proof that other than beta males, girls are victims of feminism.

Females are huge victims. I've witnessed it firsthand with professional women I know. Standards are super high and the numbers are stacked against them. Any talk of "settling" is dismissed immediately and there is deep rooted animosity against the "lower educated" women who married all of contemporaries of the professional women.

A few years back I was with my son at Starbucks. I saw some 60-ish year old lady knitting. She asked me if she could hold my son while I waited for my drink. Harmless enough so I said "sure." She proceeds to dump her life story on me about how she didn't have kids and emphasized over and over that it was her choice and she was happy with it, yet in her face you could see tremendous pain. The kind of pain that one has when their friends are talking about grandkids and have retired and started travelling as a couple while you are sitting in a Starbucks, knitting, by yourself, hoping to have a brief glimpse of grandmotherhood by holding strangers' kids. A lady like that should be out on the speaking scene explaining where she went wrong, but instead, she just sat there, knitting and hamstering away. It was remarkable.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Any talk of "settling" is dismissed immediately

Because they've spent their entire lives being programmed with the "You can have it ALL!" mantra, and society has done its best to subsidize that mantra into a reality for these people.

[–]aanarchist 4 points5 points  (2 children)

bro i wouldn't even let a woman like that touch my son, she's seething with toxic energy. if you were less of a man she would have started draining you, children on the other hand don't have the frame necessary to protect themselves.

the sad thing is it's those women who could really impact the world by being open and honest with the world over how badly they fucked up and how not to become her. she could be a hero of modern times and loved in her community, instead she chooses exactly what she chose that led her to where she is now, ignorance.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

The window for women to find partners in life is far smaller than that of a man. Men can date below their age anywhere down to 18, women don't necessarily have this luxury for the same reason as they can't settle for a man without a social status as high as theirs.

[–]aanarchist 8 points9 points  (0 children)

i think social status in women is overblown. her status generally only goes as far as her youth, unless she's like a man and actually does alpha shit that makes her well respected in her community. there is no such thing as female status, as most of them live the life of an object rather than a conscious individual.

[–]aanarchist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

think of it as nature selecting for women who are capable of any semblance of logic or rational thought, of humility etc etc. women who went full retard on the narcissism to the point where they wasted their entire life on consumerism, well they don't really have a place in a world where true freedom exists.

[–]satanicpriest13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

After hours of /pol/ and Physical_removal, I lose all hope for our work. Then I come here and see a positive spin on it. Cheers bros, we will thrive so long as we stock to what we do.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 182 points183 points  (60 children)

It makes her super picky and too god damn big for her boots

The pickiness is all just an excuse to ride the CC: "I can't find a man to commit to me...... ooooo hello Chad!"

By freezing her eggs, she's free to not grow up, not settle down, and not to be "wife material" until she's 30...35...40... whenever really.

But this would look bad on women, so they (as always) find a way to turn it around and blame men for HER choices.... or are we to believe that she is staying a chaste little virgin while she cries about the lack of "well educated" betas .... men? That she has no offers of marriage? That there isn't a single man around who will have her?

Nah... she's banging Chad for as long as possible, so that Billy Beta doesn't get a pre-wall girl at 29.... he now gets a post-wall woman at 39.

The age of the beta is truly over, live your lives accordingly gentlemen.

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points  (17 children)

until they find out IVF success rates the hard way:

948 eggs were thawed for a patient’s own use, then of these 420 were fertilised. Of these, only 155 were actually transferred to a woman. And of these only 19 pregnancies resulted. And the key question: how many live births were there from the original 948 thawed eggs? Just nine. That’s a success rate of 0.95 per cent! Presumably the other ten miscarried.

In 2014, 852 donated eggs were thawed. 481 were fertilised. The number of pregnancies was 37 but this time there were 20 births. So, 20 births from 852 thawed donated eggs (ie. the ones that were successfully thawed – we have not been given figures for eggs that were not successfully thawed).

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 52 points53 points  (15 children)

It's almost as if IVF wasnt supposed to be.

[–]rorrr 15 points16 points  (14 children)

That's a bad, likely religious, argument. The technology is getting better, sooner or later IVF will work close to 100% of the time. Just a few months ago we just had an artificial womb to grow a baby sheep.

Those women who claim that they don't need men to have children may sound stupid today, but it will also happen.

None of that should bother you. The times are changing, marriage has become toxic, sexbots are coming, genetics/bioinformatics are revolutionizing biology, the male-female dynamic will change so much, and so soon, you will be surprised.

[–]aanarchist 12 points13 points  (3 children)

i think it's gonna be the other way around with men choosing to be single fathers without women and women continuing to be unhappy and self destructive. women will always need men, that's just how it is.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

Those women who claim that they don't need men to have children may sound stupid today, but it will also happen.

except women are not providers. 84% of women want to be stay-at-home moms. this is why over 30% of single mothers are in poverty, but single fathers are only half that. single mothers are shit at disciplining children too, spawning drastically higher average # of children than couples, and they're practically criminal factories... 70% of all prison inmates came from single mothers.

so while women will not need men to spawn a child, they still depend on men, either directly or through taxes for provisioning.

[–]Throwawaysteve123456 30 points31 points  (0 children)

This is such a good point. Women who make the no quality men argument seem to be fucking more of them than anyone else. This is like the 'why do men always use me for sex' argument.

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (14 children)

The age of the beta is truly over, live your lives accordingly gentlemen.

I don't know that it truly existed except in our imaginations

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 45 points46 points  (9 children)

Yeah, this is a good point.

Certainly married women were taking out more than they put in. But at least the man didn't live at threatpoint of losing his family on a woman's say-so.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (8 children)

In that context sure. But the amount of socialization to get there? They understand only all or nothing. which is the problem with all terrorists.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 5 points6 points  (7 children)

But the amount of socialization to get there?

Are you saying that we owe women for all the time they spend partying?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Not sure how you got that. No, I mean socialization as in cultural indoctrination. I was talking about the OLD church, similar to what you see in mid east today. Women as actual property of the man. Paul the Apostles view of women ( I think I got the apostle right)

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 9 points10 points  (5 children)

The old christian form of marriage was an outlet for those who couldnt remain chaste (celibate). Chastity was seen as superior to marriage. But if you cant hold your urge in, bond yourself for life in the name of god and have sex for purely procreative purposes. But if you have an urge for pleasure, your body belongs to her and her body belongs to you. Neither can deny sexual access to the other to prevent adultery. Only mutual chastity is allowed in marriage. Sex for pleasure within marriage was seen as a forgiveable sin as opposed to adultery which is an unforgiveable one.

Divorce and extra marital fairs isnt allowed even if your partner consents. The marital bond is not a contract between two people, it's a contract with god (covenant?), and thus not yours to revise. Any pre-marital or extra matrital affiars, regardless of consent is adultery.

A little something I learned when reading St. Augustine's letters.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

you understand why its always the man's fault, no matter who started the problem, right?

[–]neveragoodtime 5 points6 points  (1 child)

It did, but only when it was socially and religiously enforced.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

see my reply to Matty below.

[–]dankvibez 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It did exist. Religions/societal norms/traditions basically existed because they wanted to create a place for the beta in society. Now being a good member of society doesn't guarantee sex, which is how feminism will ultimately be the downfall of civilization.

[–]dankvibez 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I think you have it the other way around. Pickyness isn't used as an excuse to ride the CC.

She has become picky because of the CC. At some point a really horny chad messaged her on a dating app/website of sorts and asked "wanna fuck". She accepted this, and now believes that she is of that caliber. "Well jeez, I had these guys who put no investment into me have sex with me for a few nights, but I can't find any that want to commit".

The problem is women think that because chad will have sex with them, they are of his level. Not realizing that Chad is willing to go down a few levels for extremely low investment, show up and fuck sex.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 6 points7 points  (1 child)

The problem is women think that because chad will have sex with them, they are of his level.

This is an illusion caused by the equality myth. Along with "you can be a manslut, why can't I sleep around too?". They deliberately and wilfully obscure biology behind "equality".

[–]dankvibez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, they just don't understand our biology differs greatly. All this stupid "we are all equal" stuff is going way too far.

[–]KnowBrainer 4 points5 points  (2 children)

If women ever discovered we don't actually fall for their bull crap, but instead just ignore it or play along...

[–]projects_dude 10 points11 points  (10 children)

This reads like yet another sympathy drumming fluff piece to blow up the "so called" suffering women have of there not being any "good men".

Flip the coin to the other side, Sperm banks. And the truth is clear. All it is is a cover up for wanting Chad's offspring.

A few years ago I had to give an impromptu presentation for a public speaking class that was majority female. The class loved it! Was it my impressive speaking skills after only 3 weeks (https://youtu.be/dy_DASt7hDs?t=11s)

...or maybe it was our friend exhibit A "Raul" 6'3 who sired 100+ children. http://archive.is/IHNvp

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 34 points35 points  (8 children)

So who the fuck is paying to raise these children? Not Raul/Chad. And not the mother, that's for fucking sure.

So it's the government... ie all the other men who are out there earning money.

The government has cucked us all.

[–]Patriarchysaurus 19 points20 points  (1 child)

It actually kind of seems like an opt-in government eugenics program.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat 18 points19 points  (5 children)

As I've predicted before, if the western world doesn't collapse, our future will be one where:

  • Women get surrogates for pregnancies using their own frozen eggs, and purchased sperm from male stars, models and other top men.
  • They raise these kids alone or in "lesbian" couples.
  • Single men pay collectively for raising the kids through the combination of Universal Basic Income + high tax to fund it + subsidies to single mums for raising kids, which basically averages out to single men paying it all.
  • The "progressive" culture currently in place enforced to raise boys that will accept the proposition above, by default.

[–]lala_xyyz 18 points19 points  (4 children)

That dytopian shit will never materialize. What will happen is that most of those dumb "educated" hoes will self-select into extinction, and the fertility-positive patriarchal cultures (Islam, Orthodoxy, traditionalist Christianity, sub-Saharan Africans..) will drown the dumb Westerners in numbers, imposing their own values. In fact, that's already happening. Sooner or later abortions, egg freezing, divorce, homo marriages and other retarded instruments of feminism against nuclear family will become illegal as well, and this travesty will be finally over. And those protesting the change will be crushed like bugs.

[–]foot_odor 5 points6 points  (1 child)

This is so obvious I don't even understand why it's not stated more often here. All this progressive bullshit is an evolutional dead-end and demographics (or war?) will make sure patriarchal values take the lead again.

[–]10xdada 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It needs to be stated succinctly, but not like "14 words" succinctly.

The best way to cause another civilization to recede and even die out would be to infect it with feminism and cultural marxism. Worked against us.

[–]aanarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

doesn't matter if she got a tall dudes genetic material, single motherhood still gonna lead to the child's ruin, especially being mixed in with her retard dna.

[–]Bing400 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Idk, 29 is no longer a girl

[–]aanarchist 4 points5 points  (4 children)

that's scary if women are gonna delay that shit even beyond their 40s. i can't see anyone but the lowest and thirstiest of dudes settling for someone like that, especially with how saturated society is slowly becoming with red pill awareness.

[–]accountrel 63 points64 points  (6 children)

This isn't an issue of "missing men" it's an issue of women choosing the wrong men to shack-up with during peak fertility. Then when they are ready to start a family they say, "Where did all the good men go?" and "How come nobody every told me?"

More importantly TRPers know not to deal with these women.

In truth there is no shortage of eligible men - just a shortage of those willing to deal with and marry women of this day and age.

It's crazy how the media frames this as an issue with men. What BS!

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 15 points16 points  (4 children)

This isn't an issue of "missing men" it's an issue of women choosing the wrong men to shack-up with during peak fertility.

I doubt its even that, more just that the window that modern Western society expects from anyone born Baby Boomer or later makes no sense with the biological clocks of men or women. It only worked for the baby boomers because they had the best economic conditions in centuries, but as soon as the good times ended, the whole damn system falls apart

[–]accountrel 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Can you explain further? You mean that men and women are waiting too long to have kids?

The way I see it... in my circle of friends I've heard people say countless times, "She broke-up with him... why? She won't find anyone better!"

The next relationships she has are disasters. These girls are playing the field, exercising hypergamy and SMV. That's what they want and what they've been taught by feminists.

When they hit a SMV decline or The Wall we hear about "Where are the eligible men?" AND get blamed for this. Fuck that! :)

Western society has ingrained in girls they can "have it all." For reproduction that's just not the case.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Dont get me wrong, hypergamy is definitely real, I just think TRP plays it up way too much. It works better as a circlejerk topic for do-nothing MGTOWs on here than as a theory that describes the real world really, really well.

What I see driving this is more that women wait way too late in life to lock up a mate, way too many of them are fat because of shitty diet (yes it is a personal choice, but the lack of public awareness about the issues is making it seem less of a problem than it really is, so I do feel for them. Even if you take a roomful of average beta guys who think fat acceptance is the right thing to do, I guarantee almost none of them will still be into fucking a girl that looks like a marshmallow). Women only have a short window of time to attract a long term mate in their lives, and if they essentially waste 40% of their dice rolls while getting an education, or essentially 100% of their dice rolls because theyre massively overweight, the clock is going to run out on them. more often than otherwise would have been in the past.

Im just saying this because it fits better with what Ive actually seen in real life. Ive actually seen examples where women marry down status wise quite a bit, but a fat chick is still disadvantaged quite a bit in life because she is fat. Its a tighter, more predictive theory that works better with other really well established theories like natural selection.

If you dont believe me, think about this, take a look at the top 5 countries worldwide for mgtow interest, and then take a look at the rates of adult obesity by country.

Isnt that funny?

[–]Dragon_Garoo 11 points12 points  (1 child)

No, it's a fact that women should actually be getting pregnant and being happy raising a family; which all the studies show actually makes women happier. Instead, they go for the CC and then slip in value, but still think they can lock down a guy in their 30's. They can, but often not the guy they think they deserve, so they put it off a bit longer...

[–]Mail_Order_Lutefisk 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Correct. No matter what the "you can have it all" faction says to young women, there is nothing in the middle class or upper middle class business world comparable to watching your own flesh and blood take his or her first steps or say his or her first words. No one, while sitting on their death bed, is going to think "wow, getting the books closed for Ford after that tumultuous 2017 was really a crowning accomplishment in my life."

That's the fundamental problem with modern feminism. You can't do a year end audit, consult on a huge project, close a major cross border deal or litigate a bet the company case and still have enough hours in the day to cook dinner for junior and tuck him in, but the ideological drivers of the movement are all academics who have never had a real job so they simply don't understand the fate they are shipping young women off to. These professors have no idea of how hard the modern corporate world is, especially with the prevalence of portable email and remote desktops, like Citrix. People in these upper middle class jobs are on call 24/7 and that is simply incongruent with a normal and healthy family life.

[–]pragmaticat 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Exactly, it's kind of like how there's supposedly a shortage of skilled tech workers in the US. Really there's a shortage of people with experience in overly specific criteria X, Y, and Z and willing to work for under $52,000 a year.

[–][deleted] 114 points115 points  (42 children)

This is the beginning of this issue, remember. Men are going to continue to make up a smaller % of college graduates in the west for the next couple of decades at least. The education system is stacked against men from a very young age and represents one of the purest forms of overreach attributable to feminism.

The only kicker is that these women won't have high status men to attach themselves to. That's what they mean by "educated." It's like a German car to them. They don't want to be seen in a ford (with a blue-collar man), so they bide their time hoping that mercedes comes along ("educated" man). The #'s will get worse for these women 10 years from now and feminism will push for more $$$ from daddy government to fund their single-motherhoods. You'll see more and more "educated" women as single mothers, making good $$ and still receiving $$ from the government.

Enjoy the decline...

[–]Dragon_Garoo 41 points42 points  (4 children)

I can't find the youtube video, but Jordan Peterson tells a group of Ph.D students, that they're essentially fucked, because they have a super small selection group. It's female nature to ONLY date up. Too bad they don't believe their own crap about equality.

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Exactly this. Which is why feminism was never about equality. Men have been marrying "down" for millennia, but when contemporary feminists finally achieved career and educational equality they turned around and demanded superior (or "equal" men).

Obviously, that's not equality. Equality would be marrying "down" just as men did throughout history.

So why won't women marry "down"?

Because all women will forever and always be attracted to superior males. Just like all men are forever and always attracted to fertile, young women. This behavior is the result of billions of years of evolution. That attraction between superior, successful males and young attractive and fertile women is at the core of human pair bonding and reproduction. Somebody obviously forgot to explain that to them.

(Never mind the obvious duplicity of women bemoaning male standards of beauty, while treating their own standards of requisite male accomplishment as a sacred right).

Ultimately, these accomplished women attempted to leverage their definition of feminist "equality" for a social "leg up". They found themselves not only older (and less attractive), but facing a diminished pool of superior males. In doing so, they abandoned the core dynamics of attraction inherent to our species. Their class jumping expectations not only failed them, but they removed themselves from evolution in the process.


[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, women can't marry down because a "husband" is a status symbol to be flaunted to the rest of society to prove her worth. There's a high amount of covert competition between women, observable even amongst "bffs," that requires them to have the highest status male possible as a means of social proof of their worth/beauty/etc...

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points  (2 children)

Get good at working off the books boys. Strangle the welfare state.

[–]Tallsmarthandsome 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Bartering is tax free, too

[–]0kool74 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm a firm believer that if you can cheat the IRS and get away with it, cheat 'em for every single penny you can.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Compulsory schooling and current college setup is an outdated institution. They are now using their monopoly on credentials to screw people over. Online classes and private sector credentials and webcam courses are the future.

[–]HardworkITrust 32 points33 points  (5 children)

I think we are living in one of the greatest time periods for men and are completely missing it or turning a blind eye to it. Post feminism women are now reaching the wall and unable to secure a man. Making men all the more valuable. This works in our favour as we are the gatekeepers of relationships and women are the gatekeepers of sex. Women now getting desperate will do the only thing they know how and put out some sex to get a man. While men go ahead fuck and then just turn around and leave.

Women continue to complain while men get what they biologically need without string attached.

The unfortunate kicker here is unless you're rich (parents wealth) or 9.99/10 Chad your 20s aren't going to be that enjoyable well at least your early 20s.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Agree. 20's can still be fun and easy if you lift, women don't care about $$ at that point really, in my experience.

I agree, if we want to fuck to our heart's content, now is a good time to be alive. If you long for a family or kids, you're fucked and it's truly a dice roll.

[–]grewapair 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Yes, men are more valuable if you want to be beta bux for a post wall hag, but I don't see any RP threads devoted to finding someone post wall to be used by after you marry her. I have friends who made that mistake and the disrespect for the guy just seethes out of that woman.

Take it from someone who dated one (and trust me, you only date one), they've been so used to being lunged at by 50 men an hour for the past 15 years that they don't realize there's a wall and they've hit it.

The reason these women haven't found anyone is there is NO WAY they will lower their standards for 6/6/6 minimum. Not gonna happen.

As for women in their lower 20s, they assume this will never happen to them. Until it's too late.

[–]Philhelm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

More accurately, it's great for the top 20%, and terrible for the bottom 80% (and for keeping the wheels turning).

[–]redditphoneacct points points [recovered]

This is a guarantee. As this trend progresses, you see more feminist articles about why single-morherhood is actually the best thing ever....and why the government should pay for it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100% agree with you sir. It's the way it is and it's why so many of us say enjoy the decline.

No point in being salty forever over it. The best among us can observe the trend, see the changes coming and adapt ourselves and our lives accordingly.

[–]BullshittingNonsense 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Hahaha even more reason to keep fucking around as a 24 year old college grad!

[–]LynxEveryone 45 points46 points  (12 children)

Wow, World War 3 came and went already and now there's a shortage of men?

Oh, it's just hypergamy. Never mind.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 11 points12 points  (9 children)

Im kinda looking forward to it. Even if theres a draft, I just refuse to report, wait things out in the stockade, and enjoy the world being flipped back on its head once 2-3 percent of the worlds men have been put through the meat grinder.

[–]TheBloodEagleX 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Wouldn't your SMV in a way drop though and you forever have some negative view attributed to you (coward maybe)? Don't women care a whole lot about perception? Wouldn't the veterans (who ever does survive) be the alphas?

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Women care a ton about perception, but they have the attention span of a goldfish. Id be more worried about the WWI-style mob violence against men not in uniform, but I doubt that would be a problem if I just showed up and informed them of my refusal to fight.

Unfortunately it wont matter in the slightest how alpha a guy is if he comes home missing legs or arms. I know for a fact from an older relative that even the WW2 amputees were reduced to selling pencils on the street to support themselves. Think about it, that might have been the most prosperous society in all of human history to live in, but they still threw away damaged men like it was nothing.

On a slight tangent, have you ever seen the movie Stalag 17?

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Lol, that whole "support the troops" is bullshit. You know how many vets are homeless, have wages garnished for child support (persmission of the military), and are divorced raped, and can't get their cheating spouses punished? You know how many male soldiers are sexually assualted but are constantly told to take SHARP classes and protect the wimminz from labor and 'rapists'? The government and corporations hand out welfare and scholarships to single-mother/3rd world trash, but doesn't give the slightest fuck about its soldiers that they supposedly cherish. Soldiers are just cannon fodder.

[–]Philhelm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Soldiers who survive a war are just a liability to the government.

[–]TheBloodEagleX 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sadly that's the reality of it and see your point. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "universe" not caring about any outcome, if it's fair or not, or "right" or "wrong", like how you mention the veterans still being damaged "goods" and struggling.

Ah no, I haven't. I just looked it up and I'll watch it with my father; we really enjoy similar films like it.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're more worried about pussy perception than fighting conjured wars for the elite that invent and fund the enemies that you're fighting for profit, you've got bigger problems to worry about.

[–]Blaat1985 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The world turning into a nuclear wasteland is nothing to look forward to.

[–]galtsays 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No men? No problem! Who needs guns when you have SJWs, social media, huffington post and CNN on our side!

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points  (33 children)

This is a trend that I saw coming over a year ago and called it out. This will be a huge business in the future as women refuse to date down in terms of income and the supply of guys who make more than them is shrinking

Of course, it's still the mans fault

[–]perplexedm 37 points38 points  (1 child)

Leaving this here:


[–]1empatheticapathetic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The closing caption there "this is the future you wanted ladies" reminds me of the Scorpion and the turtle/frog parable, with the frog being society in this case.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (8 children)

Of course, it's still the mans fault

Was just thinking the same thing. Notice how fem-centric media is? The women here are the victims. Nevermind that masses of men who will go without ever having a family life or raising kids going forward because they weren't a high enough status symbol (ahem, i mean "educated").

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (7 children)

Exactly. Thing is I've seen articles of this sort for years now. Almost never do they ask the straightforward question: "Why don't these high earning women simply do what men have done for generations: find a decent partner, even if it means dating down the economic ladder?"

I understand that the hypergamous tendencies always exist, but these articles don't even pretend to do a good job at offering up any sort of legitimate analysis of the issue.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because to women, it's not even an option. Disney princess syndrome. They don't view men as meaningful, loving and loyal companions. They don't even view us as mates. We're FUCKING TROPHIES brother. We are their achievement, so they can look at their moms/sisters/friends/social media and say: "Look what I got!"

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

It's not that women refuse to date down... it's just that the relationship has a very small chance of working out if they do.

Example... I dated a guy who wasn't "educated" in the typical sense i.e. he didn't have a university education. But, he was intelligent. He paid attention to politics and was very hard working at his job (sales) with ambitions of becoming a manager. I was happy with that. I was very attracted to him.

But as time went on... our differences in education level brought tension into the relationship. I could tell he resented me for making more money than he did. The natural female/male gender role balance was off. Eventually, he stopped putting effort into the relationship/started acting like an asshat and I had to call it quits.

I just think men are happier when they're the breadwinner. Educated women realize this and their standards change. It's more about compatibility than being shallow.

[–]cYcBgJ 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The entire focus on money in this thread is stupid.
The first thing you did when explaining why you dated him was list off his hard working attitude, ambitions and intelligence.
I dated anything from women in my field to women with no ambition at all and never thought about those things as major factors for the relationship.

What you did is explain how you weren't actually dating down even though he made less money and wasn't as educated as you, what men do is actually not care about dating down in these regards.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What you did is explain how you weren't actually dating down even though he made less money and wasn't as educated as you

And then she continued on to BLAME HIM ENTIRELY for the relationships demise. Even TRP women blame shift and scape goat.

[–]cptspiffy points points [recovered]

I just think men are happier when they're the breadwinner.

Well, since we're getting all anecdotal.. my wife's large paycheck is one of the few things I don't have a problem with.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is about women refusing to date down. You're an exception, not the rule. If it wasn't the case, articles like these wouldn't exist, would they? NOWHERE in any of these pieces (almost always written by women) do the authors suggest dating men who didn't go to University. Why is that? Why?

[–]IAMApsychopathAMA 14 points15 points  (3 children)

I have a different outlook, these women are being actively rejected by men they approach, the article barely mentions this(they cant find men willing to date them in their level) but my theory is the more educated men usually don't make the dumb decision of tying yourself down with a woman that's not worth the money or time.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

You are wrong for assuming these women are approaching men regularly. Maybe on dating apps or online, but the reason they are single is because they are ENTITLED. They want a man who is attractive and earns more than they do - but the problem is when that women is earning 6 figures the number of men who fit that bill shrinks dramatically.

Even moreso is that, as you were alluding to, those top % men are smart and have the world at their fingertips. They will be more difficult to tie down as they have options - and those options are usually better than a middle aged woman tied to a high stress career.

[–]IAMApsychopathAMA 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Smart college graduates arent rare by any means especially if you're one yourself, in general if you are at the highest level of education for your age, you know people that are similar, but as a pretty young guy my experience so far goes that the smarter a guy is the less shit they'll go through for a girl and girls will eventually start to chase them, because the men at this level already are experienced, they have been betrayed multiple times by women and adopted a rp/abstinence policy

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not college education but overall status which includes education, money, prestige, etc.

I think you are reflecting your personal experience on the world and not looking at the actual trends

[–]grewapair 6 points7 points  (3 children)

the supply of guys who make more than them

and who have a six pack and are 6 feet tall and ...

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

haha very true. The ever growing list of things a guy MUST be is growing and that pool of men are shrinking.

Must be:

-Taller than me -Make more $$$ than me -Better educated than me -In better physical shape than me

Yea, good luck. Feminism really did a number on women this generation

[–]PremixedBox 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You're forgetting: caring, loving, humble, nice, insanely hot, muscular, acts like a man, ... ad nauseam.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These factors do change by region though. If you live in the south then acting like a man is important but muscularity isnt at all. If you live in Chicago or Cali its vice versa.

[–]1ozaku7 5 points6 points  (13 children)

I can only expect that Chad's sperm will become worth thousands and thousands of bucks, without any requirement of alimony from his side, because purely his status and genetics are already more than what she could ever wish AND get. So basically, if it goes this way, biology and the evolution theory are working pretty well in the modern age.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (8 children)

The end result will either be a complete disruption of the family unit with women getting pregnant without a husband, or babies being grown in labs.

Forget global warming - our declining fertility rate is a much more serious issue that we will have to confront in less than 2 generations

[–]KV-n 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Forget global warming - our declining fertility rate is a much more serious issue that we will have to confront in less than 2 generations

why? on the contrary, fewer humans = more natural resources and shit for everyone.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. As humans get older and live longer it will be imperative that a new generation can replace and support them - especially to continue financing programs like medicare, social security, etc. If you live in America or the west then resources are already abundant. A low birth rate means replacing your youth with labor from the 3rd world. Ask Europe how that is working out

[–]cptspiffy points points [recovered]

This result will not obtain, because the courts will eventually allow women to open records and track down their Chads for child support. A few high-profile cases like that and it'll all be over.

[–]1ozaku7 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Well, this would only work through a sperm bank where you should get immunity over that kind of crap.

[–]cptspiffy points points [recovered]

Right, and I'm saying that, if things continue as they have been going, that immunity will eventually be disregarded in favor of womyn's rights to Chad's money.

Everything else has gone by the wayside, why would that remain sacred?

[–]1ozaku7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Que Chads getting raped for their babies and the state doing nothing about it.

[–]AllahHatesFags 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Every woman is competing for the top tier Chads because they all feel entitled to lock down a Chad who's making six figures regardless of what they have to offer. Even the disgusting ham planets feel the deserve an attractive husband who is making six figures. But the top tier men are wising up to the game. Chad isn't going to marry a post-wall CC rider with an astronomical n-count when he can keep spinning plates and fucking younger pussy. These horrible entitled bitches have earned their pending cat lady status; they made their beds, now they can lie in them, alone.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Most people would be shocked to learn that for most of human history, 14 year old girls were pregnant. They got pregnant again at 14 years and 9 months.

Now, women certainly have the right to go to school, start careers, and fuck Jerkboys til they hit the wall.

And men also have the right to ignore these hags and let them morph into seacows with cat colonies. Maybe there will be a beta waiting, Maybe not.

That's realtalk

[–]NeoreactionSafe 18 points19 points  (2 children)


  • "Come on guys... man up."


It's amusing how Feminists think.

Some guys react by thinking "I'm the one who hasn't been good enough".

Even guys on the Red Pill believe such things.

Fortunately it's not a universal belief... not part of our orthodoxy... yet.


[–]sourdieselfuel 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The funny part is, if you flipped the script and told women to come on and "Man up" and date down below their perceived SMV the response would be incredulous laughter. Same goes if you told them to "Woman up" and get back in the kitchen.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 3 points4 points  (0 children)


I think the point is that the Red Pill is a "disillusionment" process.


Enjoy the Destruction of the Blue Pill mythology.

"Kill the Beta".

The correct way to view this is to "destroy" their "Man Up" myth by comparing it to Truth.

The Truth is Natural Law and that means Gender Polarity.



  • Men love women, women love children, children love puppies.


Does the man ever worry if he isn't "good enough" for his puppy?

His children?

His wife?

No... not a chance... not if he is masculine.


That's why I stress returning to core principles.

One can know "Right" and "Wrong" action if you know the Natural Laws upon while those are based.

Without such "grounding" one becomes lost... this leads to moral relativism.


[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 29 points30 points  (48 children)

said they could not find an educated man Chad who was willing to commit to family life.

Fixed it for them.

"Women lamented the 'missing men Chads' in their lives, viewing egg freezing as a way to buy time while on the continuing - online - search for a committed partner Chad," Prof Inhorn said.*

I see this article both ways.

From my experience, the notion that most women in their early to mid 20s are single cock carousel riders with no boyfriend is a false one. Most women I know in their early to mid 20s all have boyfriends. It's rare to find a higher SMV woman in her early-to-mid 20s that is single these days. Most of them have boyfriends that they are content with, and most of them live together. However that does not mean that the said woman is not a CC rider, and that does not mean they are willing to marry said boyfriend, and that does not mean they are not looking for someone better.

It's one thing for a girl to have a boyfriend. It's another thing for her to have a fiance/husband. Yes, she may be content with the man as a boyfriend, but would she be OK marrying him? That's another story. Chances are while she is content with him as a boyfriend, the thought of marriage scares her because she is not the ideal man she has dreamt of marrying her entire life since she was a little girl. Every girl is brainwashed by fairy tales and Disney that they are entitled to a Prince Charming and will marry one someday. So they will always be on the lookout for one. Her current boyfriend just may as well be a placeholder - one who can provide for her both financially and emotionally and with intimacy until Prince Charming comes along.

This is generally the case for girls in their early to mid 20s. Late 20s and Early 30s? Most of these women are single and moreso reflect the women in the article. Single because they were too picky and held out for their Prince Charming for too long.

[–]neveragoodtime 9 points10 points  (3 children)

You have it right, but I would turn it around. The girl may have reservations about her boyfriend, but if he asked she would say yes, see how it goes, and then divorce rape him if it gets tough. Not many girls see a husband as any less disposable than a boyfriend, but they get breakup cash and prizes.

So the issue is their boyfriends really don't see them as marriage material, and never move forward with a proposal. That's the key piece that all these whining girls miss. It doesn't matter what you want, it only matters who wants you. No good men? Here's 100 Prince Charming's to choose from, but none of them want to wife you up or have your kids. Good luck with your IVF.

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Lot of truth here.

It is the extension of the maxim "She isn't yours, it's just your turn". Lots of these girls with boyfriends, it's just their turn. Sometimes their turn lasts several years but it can end at any moment, even with marriage.

In previous generations marriages stuck together because the vows actually meant something and societies enforced the vows. "For richer or poorer, better or worse". That's the issue these days. Women only want to stay around their man when times are good. As soon as shit hits the fan they either bail or start looking for a branch to swing to. That is why marriage is toxic, because even men who have their shit together will still hit rough patches. You always have to strive to keep shit together at all costs or your turn will end and she will leave. Fuck that shit.

[–]1ozaku7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In any case, it's not as much of a Blue Sin to marry, as long as you have a legally valid prenup stating that everything yours will remain yours and everything hers will remain hers, and only signing birth certificates after DNA tests prove that the child is yours.

Gambling that the kid is yours and signing a stupid piece of paper may turn out to be the most expensive mistake you will ever make. But with this, the entire marriage doesn't make sense anymore, does it.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well at least we know to do the same when their shit hits the fan (infertile, psycho etc). No sticking around on a bad option despite how much they "love us".

[–]youkickmyd0g 7 points8 points  (13 children)

New requirement to avoid girls wanting to date long term on opportunity is requiring them have a year of their own living expenses. In all honesty I expect to be single forever (marriage criteria virgin, cohabitation criteria self-sustainability). I know what you're talking about, girls with boyfriends. I live in an expensive city with lots of rich betas and also rent control... so many hot girls on Tinder with work phones, weird. No doubt these guys are convenient welfare programs.

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 11 points12 points  (12 children)

I think the whole "Most higher SMV women are single cock carousel riders who don't want to commit to a man and just want to have as much fun for as long as possible as a single woman" is one of the bigger myths pushed on TRP.

Pretty much every higher SMV woman I have come across since coming to TRP over 3 years ago has a boyfriend. Not just a boyfriend but one they cohabitate with. It's very very very rare to see a woman with an SMV higher than 5 or 6 who is single.

Because they have a boyfriend doesn't mean they won't cheat on him, it doesn't mean they won't branch swing, it doesn't mean you can't seduce her, it just means that she is going to be a tougher nut to crack and in most cases it's not worth the effort.

[–]1ozaku7 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I see where you're coming from. Only the high SMV women here in Europe have a boyfriend too. It's only the fucked up ones that don't have a man, or simply can't hold onto one, and those are exactly the easy chicks aka CC riders and Tinder swipers. The higher quality ones stick with one man, and most of the time it's a high quality man too.

Just take into account that relationships are not based on what you call them, but on what it in reality looks like. One can say she has a boyfriend, but that relationship might be completely dead and sooner or later she would either break up, or stay out of comfort and swing to a new man once he proves to make her life more exciting than the idiot she's currently with. Be honest, how many couples did you meet that were horrible to each other and still called one another husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend? It doesn't make sense, the value lies in the name, not in the interactions. That's why you approach even if the person is taken. Cheating women blaming their infidelity on their man is again nothing but confirmation that women are submissive and need leadership, because as much as a child without a leader alone in the woods, it will get lost. Bore her, lose her.

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 15 points16 points  (0 children)

A lot of women have boyfriends just so they can say they have one. To many women, being single is a bad thing because it implies to others that no one wants them. Since a woman's self value is based on how desirable they are, being single is one of the worst things that can happen to their ego and self esteem.

That's how it works. Women will latch onto their best current male option. Keyword: Current. As soon as a better option enters the picture, she will act like she never really loved her current boyfriend, was never attracted to him, and say he was toxic and a bad guy all around.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 5 points6 points  (1 child)

"Hot singles" is a fantasy perpetuated by online scams, PUAs , and dating apps to lure in men for their data and money. The vast majority of the hot singles are in high school and college, expensive escorts, groupies for bands, or are 'sugar babies' for the rich and famous. Once they're out of school they start coupling up. Most men are out of school and not rich and famous, deduce from there.

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly and therefore I don't get the myth pushed on TRP that most higher value women in their early to mid 20s are single by choice because they would rather party, ride the CC, "find themselves" and live it up, and then commit to a man later once they hit the wall and are ready to settle down.

This just is not true. Most women have boyfriends because they feel like they need one, just like they feel like they need a designer purse. If nothing else, he will be an accessory to show off, and also a provider.

[–]Westernhagen 9 points10 points  (2 children)

If she has a number of "monogamous" relationships in a row in her 20s, then yes she is a carousel rider who is having as much fun as possible while single. She's just taking multiple cocks one at a time instead of at the same time.

[–]1ozaku7 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Then what does that make me, a vagina diver?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Where do you live? I too think the cock carousel thing is too dogmatic here but in general it is true until about 24/25

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Right now I live in Kentucky but have also lived in Seattle, Las Vegas, Des Moines, Orlando, Los Angeles, Dallas. It's the same everywhere - most higher SMV women have boyfriends.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

eh, while that might be the case it certainly is becoming less prevalent - especially with career focused women. It should also be noted that riding the CC as its called here isnt mutually exclusive from dating around. It should also be noted that high SMV can be pretty subjective. 'Classier' hot women who were in sororities and came from decent money? More likely to try to lock in relationships with high status men. Instagram type celebrities? More likely to care less so

[–]youkickmyd0g 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Career women have boyfriends... doesn't mean they're not also on the CC. Boyfriend is just a title and host to extract resources from, look good on IG with. When a better guy is willing to commit to her then she's willing to dump his ass in a second. New guy probably wouldn't even know about her good guy provider boyfriend, thus fall into the truth of the situation... if she'll do it to the last guy, she'll do it to him. We all know she will, no doubt girls lie.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (25 children)

More like entitled. Disney has been around forever, this phenomenon hasn't. I live in a major city - this is how women there think.

Is he less educated than me? Pass Did he go to a worse school than me? Pass Is his job less prestigious than mine? Pass Are the above all similar to me? Pass unless he is an absolute stud

Any of them are deal breakers. Women value themselves like they value men and not how men value women. This is the beginning of the false have it all lie of feminism. The only way these career women will find a husband is if they settle. But the ironic point is they aren't settling, as a 33 year old corporate woman that guy willing to tie you down IS your dating value

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 15 points16 points  (20 children)

You aren't wrong.

I've lived in small towns, mid sized cities and major cities since graduating college. I've seen it all. From my experience you have two types of women:

  1. Career women, as you described. The ones who value their career above all else. They have the mindset of a man and value themselves like a man would. Their self worth is determined by their career and accomplishments. The problem here is that men don't give a shit. A woman's career and accomplishments do not factor into her SMV in any way, shape or form. A woman's SMV is simply how hot she is. That's it. Most of the women described in the article are career women who put their career first and believe they deserve no less than a CEO who also has the sculpted physique of a Greek God.

  2. Parasites. These women are the ones who simply wait around looking for a host to latch on to. I work part time at a bar restaurant and most of the women I work with there are parasites. They have no drive or goals in life. Some go to college but aren't really determined to finish, others never went. These women exist simply looking for a man to host them. Not just any men - these women have standards - but the qualifications like education, wealth, accomplishments, etc. don't really matter, what matters most is tingles. I work with an HB9 who is a classic example. Has been in college for 6 years and she still hasn't graduated. Why? Because her boyfriend pays the rent, pays the bills, pays for everything for her. She only has to work 2 nights a week at the bar. Her boyfriend is nothing special - no college, works a part time dead end job in retail - but hey, he has a motorcycle, he has muscles, he has tattoos - all that matters.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Dude essentially sounds like alpha bucks if he's also paying her rent.

In point one you say her career doesn't matter to us regarding attraction. But then you call the women in part 2 parasites, who essentially are living out the idea that career doesn't matter, and you say that they have no goals or ambition. So what? You're shitting on both models of existence. What would you personally prefer?

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 4 points5 points  (5 children)

It is absolutely not alpha to pay the rent of a woman you are not married to.

I think you are not seeing the big picture. Women in Example 2 are the way they are because they have a boyfriend giving them a free ride. Therefore they can afford to not finish college, to not work, to life a lazy unproductive lifestyle because the boyfriend is enabling them to.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 5 points6 points  (4 children)

You're saying two different things here then. Dude is beta for paying rent but she is with him because he has a motorcycle, muscles and tattoos. Why would you point that out if you considered him a beta then?

He is alpha bucks to her because he's Chad and also providing for her. Doesn't matter if he's a millionaire, he's providing for all her needs AND gives her tingles.

But that wasn't the point of the comment anyway. How would you prefer women to be for yourself? Career orientated but monogamous? The career portion is irrelevant you say. Without ambition but monogamous? They need something to give it up for you, either tingles or money. So what exactly are you commenting on?

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You are being obtuse at this point.

You should know that there are "natural" Chads out there that are Chads NOT because they are red pilled, but because they exhibit a lot of traits that Chad has naturally. However they are still suspect to blue pilled behavior as well.

A lot of pro athletes fit this bill. Johnny Manziel is a prime example. Guy won the Heisman Trophy, NFL player, but still was suckered into oneitis over one girl which ruined whatever chance he had at an NFL career. Now he is engaged to some Instagram ho.

[–]1empatheticapathetic 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I don't know what that has to do with my question.

You're either unable or unwilling to answer my question. So don't worry about it.

[–]askmrcia 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I know many and I mean many girls like you described with the one you work with.

Same story. Girl has a ton of attention on social media, somehow able to have enough money to travel and party every weekend despite having a job that doesn't pay well.

Boyfriend's buy them all kinds of stuff and sometimes their parents as well.

[–]KIaptrap 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I bought my fuckbuddy a case for Nintendo switch because she let me borrow it to play through Zelda: BoTW.


[–]1empatheticapathetic 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Pays for her

Let's her get fucked by other men

Yep a beta bux cuckold. Have you proposed yet?

[–]KIaptrap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, free head and a playthrough of a 60 dollar game on a 300 dollar console for a 20$ case doesn't seem terrible to me.

But then again, I don't own people, nor seek to. I fuck whom I want when I want when they also choose to fuck me. I didn't say girlfriend or fiancé did I?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So how can her BF pay for himself and her if he only has a part time job in retail. Inheritance?

[–]KIaptrap 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Not in all cases.

I have an HB8 that would fuck me in 20 minutes.

I do not call her. Why? She has no financial value. I don't need my woman to be an astronaut or CEO, but she lacks drive for any sort of financial success.

That absolutely is a factor I look at and value.

[–]RedDeadCred 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Nah honestly you don't call her cause of your own insecurities, whatever they may be. If you knew truly, because of ecperience, that you could have an hb 8 over and give her some dick that would compare to the best she could ever have then you would not have your attitude. No hate but don't front.

[–]TunkaTun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another thing is that what man wants to deal with the personality of a career woman? I know I don't, because you know that woman is going to be SUPER high maintenance and is going to shit test and nag to the extreme. It's not worth it.

[–]1OneRedYear 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Betas want to be valued like women. For their personality and human qualities and not by success traits.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

That's a good take, probably why many betas lacked strong father figures. Should also be noted that women are mainly valued on appearance - something Beta's dont want

[–]1OneRedYear 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's exactly why I said success traits. for a woman appearance is a success trait. Having a functioning womb is also success trait. A beta doesn't really want to be judged on male or female success traits but wants the value those traits bring.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting way to frame it. I think you're probably right about that.

[–]Tie5o11 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think this is dependent on where you live.

Do you live in a more rural or suburban area- then I believe your experience to be true.

In the major cities, I think it is common to find more "single" young women. Now, by single, they are constantly dating and may be spinning plates themselves. Many young women are in a relationship, but quite a few less than suburban or rural places.

[–]askmrcia 3 points4 points  (1 child)

This comment can easily be its own post because this is exactly what I've noticed as well. Girls in their early 20s have boyfriends and if they are single, they are not single for more than two weeks maybe three. But best believe them being single, they have a ton of options with/without tinder.

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Women use boyfriends like they would a purse or an outfit. It's a prop for them. They like to show them off and hang off his arm.

Women have multiple male options that they could commit to at any time. If they are single, they are choosing to be.

Most women are not single because they are always competing with other women, and one way to do that is to compete with other women using their boyfriends.

[–]_elgato 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The 39-year-old from London had been sure her then-boyfriend was "the one", adding: "I didn't have to think about whether I wanted children. I didn't not want them and I knew that he did want them." When she realised the man she thought would father her children was not coming back, she says she was left "shocked". "I don't think I realised that there was a swathe of us eligible alpha females who were outnumbering our male counterparts."


"My bf left me because I am too alpha"

[–]1OneRedSock 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Any man below her educational level is now defunct

Cross-culturally, women date laterally or up and men date laterally or down, in regards to socioeconomic indicators. While some cultures will show differing strengths of this correlation, the statistical reality of this correlation cannot be ignored. You must have one sex going up and one going down, otherwise it doesn't work. Women are typically marrying men roughly ~5 years older than them, who's education and career success are equal to or greater than the woman's.

The higher women go in their educations and careers, the less men will be visible at the top -- because that's simply how hierarchies work. And the less men they see equal or above them, the less attractive options they'll see. As time goes, you will see more and more women lamenting the lack of available "good men"; this will be due to the confluence of the following:

1) Comparatively higher rates of women graduating from higher education due to the feminized education systems.

2) Quotas that dictate women are chosen simply by the fact that they're women.

3) Men who simply check out of the system (MGTOW) and men who don't buy into the system (TRP).

Since men are statistically more willing to date laterally or down, there will always be more options theoretically (again, that's how hierarchies work) -- however, artificial inflation of this due to things like forced quotas can limit the pool. The best way to increase your pool of available women is to go for the highest education you can and always look to achieve further career success; the best way to seal the deal is to know how women operate (TRP knowledge).

Again, enjoy the decline. The irony being that there would simply be more "good men" if women actually began considering how much of a detriment the current education system is to young men. Men are responding to a feminism that completely ignores how much men contribute to society, and it's not going to be to the benefit of women.

[–]1ozaku7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I wouldn't date a woman that doesn't have a degree, proper job or mental stability on the long-term. So while I would go up, so do my demands from a woman.

[–]Kalepsis 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That's honestly not surprising. Society in general is growing more intelligent, meaning that even the less desirable provider-type males are starting to see through their games.

"Oh, you're gonna have as much fun as you can with hot dumb guys while you're young, then come crawling up to my wallet when you need financial stability and a pushover to raise the other guy's kid? Nah, I'd rather waste my life on my career, nice cars, video games and porn than on you."

I think, especially since the internet took over the entire courting process, that more and more betas, now completely shunned, are discovering MGTOW all on their own, women are starting to realize that, and they're pissed that they have to spend their lives in careers like men.

[–]SilverGryphon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

they could not find an educated man who was willing to commit to family life

Educated men are the least likely to commit to family life or only commit in their mid 30's. The wall hits men way later than women so they are not in a hurry to marry Even when it hits them, they are not hit hard as women.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The definition of solopsism. These women are unable to contemplate the fact that they themselves aren't worthy of the alpha men or there. In their minds, because Brad Pitt won't commit to her, she is the victim.

[–]stoicsoul87 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It's laughable these so called "woke" women are oblivious to the level of social engineering they're a part of.

Beta males will survive with the help of porn and video games. Beta Males have a headstart in coping with loneliness. The way women are dominating education coupled with female centric hiring policies, in 20 years the western world is going to be a total cesspool of alpha widows.

This is the beginning of the golden era for high SMV men.

[–]--Edog-- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are engineering their own demise.

[–]Gulfs 6 points7 points  (1 child)

After 3 years of Uni from 2013-16 I can tell you it's a breeding ground for leftist pro refugee pro Muslim bullshit. The left dominates academia with lies

[–]HierophantGreen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What have muslim refugees have to do with the topic? It's more the feminist ideology and its "need no man independent stronk woman" that is the problem don't you think? And that feminist narrative is shared by the right wingers too.

[–]LOST_TALE[🍰] 10 points11 points  (0 children)


promote mgtow to decline their access to settling down with beta bucks.

[–]AnonymousHomoSapian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No can have their cake and eat it too. Life is about making choices and sacrifices.

[–]bankruptmorals 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Article written by the BBC. Enough said

[–]LordThunderbolt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Read the article this morning and was gonna post it here for laughs.

[–]Throwit174 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with the sentiment of the post, but goodness gracious, please learn proper grammar. Writing in the way you do about this issue really detracts from the point you are trying to make.

[–]Nicolay77 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is actually very good.

The likelihood of any of them reproducing approaches zero with each day that goes by.

Sadly, real evolution is very, very, very slow.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

When people say that evolution has stopped I laugh.

Highly educated women have few or no children, in effect their genes die off. Future generations will have fewer women with drive, ambition and zeal since those who have it today aren't passing on their genes. Just think about that for a moment, they're being completely wiped out from time. Whether this translates into more men also not having the same level or drive, and whether the West is progressively becoming stupider is up for debate. But it is happening.

Most men living in the West don't realize the potential they have in mating. There are literally hundreds of millions of women around the world who would give their limb to mate with such men. Mind you by mate I don't mean true love or even lust, I mean purely having children. For many women outside the West this is a dream come true. This is why many betas are marrying Asian, Latin American and East European women straight from their countries.

Feminism is a death sentence for the alpha female, and a crippling blow to Western civilization in general.

[–]P36hawk 3 points4 points  (1 child)

This is literally the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy Just imagine what will happen when we only have inbred genes and low intelligent people running around with high tech machines doing 90% of all the work.

[–]Teufelhunden1979 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not even low status betas would poke a fatty.

Are you sure about that?

[–]Bing400 1 point2 points  (0 children)

20/80, straight from the horse's mouth

"I don't think I realised that there was a swathe of us eligible alpha females who were outnumbering our male counterparts."

[–]JCL207 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Hey long time lurker here, just to clarify in the Uk university is what Americans call college, it's higher education after high school generally from the ages of 18-21 or so-you get a bachelors from it just like college

[–]grewapair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Americans use both terms "College" and "University" interchangeably.

load more comments (20 replies)