TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

429
430

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

submitted by Cynewald

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40504076

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?


[–]10xdada104 points105 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock17 points18 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Damnnnn.

Evo psyche, anthropolgy, math, and terp theory.

♂

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla[M] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP bot isn't working ATM.

I updated OP with a point

/u/0xdada

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]askmrcia39 points40 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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] | Copy Link

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

[–]Lsegundo1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]10xdada6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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 ContributorRuleZeroDAD3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Phoenixtorment3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]aanarchist-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is one of the most retarded things i've ever read, and one of the most ignorant.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

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?

[–]SanJustSan11 points12 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

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".

[–]grewapair23 points24 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]darkmoon098 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thing is though they dropped the AF just as quick. Any man is disposable, they live in an abundance reality. No point getting bitter because they are trying to manipulate you, if that fails they won't even care and just try the next joe that fits their current criteria that comes along.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They don't ever fully drop the AF though. They shack up with a BB for his emotional and financial security primarily. She'll still miss and want the AF for the raw tingles he inspired.

[–]1empatheticapathetic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

From that story, they had a new AF every day. They liked the clothes he wore, the abs on his body, the haircut he had. They couldn't give a fuck about the person. You're saying in your comment you'd distrust women if you were rich. You are supposed to distrust women full stop. Welcome to the redpill.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]grewapair2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]RedDeadCred13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sounds great, tinder cock carousel, enough money for a high IQ sperm donor, late in life beta husband & open marriage, what is there not to be satisfied with?

[–]10xdada0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hah, sounds ideal for a high test woman on the spectrum.

Argument would be that the late in life beta husband in an open marriage will be a constant disappointment because really he's just another child to take care of. Key reason to have an open marriage is so that a woman can keep looking for an out to trade up.

There are rare long term swinger lifestyle couples who manage, but they are only about as common as romantic multi-decade marriages.

Given the effort/outcome, it makes more sense to just take his stuff.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I will need be.

But I don't ever want to drop out of the work force, so we won't combine finances.

Non monogamy doesn't have to mean swinging from the branches, some are more jealous then others, so its negotiable but ideally he should be a divorced dad so he won't want kids or be looking for what's new and shiny, cause I'm the greener pastures thank you.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours151 points152 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

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] 75 points76 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_Lutefisk70 points71 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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] 33 points34 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]aanarchist4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]RickTargaryen0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

but what if that 'guy she left at 27 to go find herself' was actually really fat? can you blame her? even if he was fantastic.. if hes fat and shes hot then it just wont ever work.

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

that was her decision, one she very clearly regrets. she made the wrong choice and is now paying the consequences for it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Boom - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtNX6hM8Lp4

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]aanarchist5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]aanarchist6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]satanicpriest134 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You might enjoy this, broadly fits with what you're saying - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtNX6hM8Lp4

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon179 points180 points  (60 children) | Copy Link

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] 54 points55 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock52 points53 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]rorrr12 points13 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]aanarchist12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]AmeriStasi-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about. Why would anyone want to deprive a young child of a mother. Their degree of empathy for children far outweighs our capabilities. I'm so fucking low on the empathy scale, I look for my polar opposite so I can find a good mother for my children. Pretty sure I'm not alone.

[–]aanarchist1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

you're low in empathy because you're a blue pill and the right side of your brain isn't functioning properly, you have a brain imbalance that you need to take steps to fix. idk if you're new to this subreddit but it's time to wake up and educate yourself, take the red pill and let the beta in you die once and for all.

[–]AmeriStasi0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Any such brain imbalance is genetic, don't be ridiculous. Most traits are. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Women are evolved to have more empathy towards children, because if they failed to do so, the children would die and those women would not reproduce as successfully. There are significant health problems in children's physical development if they don't get breast fed, for example. Literally IQ points get dropped if they're not breast fed for the first 6 months. You're job isn't to be a stay at home dad. Your job is to train your son how to be a man, after he stops being an infant. Until then, it's the mothers job. Here, learn from some historical conservative cultures about how to have a family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_haircut#Slavic_culture

The ritual first haircut (Polish: postrzyżyny) was a pre-Christian, all-Slavic tradition, though it survived in Poland well into the 18th century. This first haircut traditionally took place between the ages of 7 and 10, and was conducted by either the boy's father or a stranger, who would thus enter into the boy's family.[3] Before that age the boy's life was connected to his mother and he was treated as a child.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]rorrr-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

We're quickly approaching the age of automation, and minimum basic income looks inevitable, to me at least. All basic human needs (food/water/shelter/energy) will be covered by the machines. Food is already close to being 100% automated, a few farmers can feed thousands. With vertical farming you will need even fewer people.

So yes, right now many women rely on many men, but soon many women will rely on many machines and a few men that support these machines.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

UBI is a socialist wet dream. we're not even close. if you split 100% of the US tax revenues among the population, individuals wouldn't even get $10k back. that's nothing left for medicare, the military, social security, parks, the IRS, museums, or anything else... and individuals would still be in poverty.

that also forgets the market effect of adding $10k to everyone's pocket. when that happens, the price of everything will go up. prices are based on value, not cost.

[–]rorrr0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a socialist, quite the opposite, but as a programmer who keeps getting updated on the state of machine learning, we're close to automating most industries at the rate when new jobs will not be created nearly as fast. So our options will be UBI or starving population. The second one is not really an option.

We don't have to do the UBI with cash, it can be done with food stamps, rent stamps, internet/phone stamps.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

stamps are just another rationed fiat currency. it doesn't remove the underlying value. that's why socialism failed in eastern europe, cuba, and venezuela. and as sweden is already experimenting with UBI and ever increasing welfare, their financials are already going to shit and they've already crossed the threshold towards financial insolvency. norway is only surviving its increasing welfare because they have a trillion dollar energy fund that's well managed.

i agree with you that humans will increasingly become unemployable. but fundamentally, if you want to give everyone nice things, other things will have to give. for example, only providers will be allowed to procreate, while takers will be banned from childbearing. incentives to be a provider will have to be huge... if you get a nice cushy life from doing anything you want (or even nothing), most people will not work hard, or even at all. who the fuck wants to be a garbage man or petroleum engineer or undersea cable repairman when you get a nice cushy income just sitting on your ass?

[–]rorrr0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

You would be correct if the costs were roughly constant, but the automation will not only free up labor, it will increase productivity, increase efficiency, drive the costs down.

We're already at the point where we can give the food away for free and not go broke as a country. Granted, it will not be caviar and truffles at first, it will be some cheap proteins/greens/etc.

We're very close to solving the housing problem with massive-scale 3D printing and modularizing tall buildings.

So there you go, food is nearly free, shelter will be soon, and the stuff on top is just the nice-to-haves.

Healthcare is the first obvious nice-to-have, and it will get cheaper too with automation and technologies like CRISPR, Watson, automatic surgeons, and other machine-learning based tech.

I agree that statewide birth control will be inevitable, because living things tend to procreate until we run out of resources. But that will come later.

As for your last statement, I think you're overestimating the amount of welfare people will get. Even if you have your food-shelter-healthcare-internet needs covered, many people are still bored by just sitting and consuming TV/youtube. Many people want to create things, whether it be art, or inventions. Maybe I'm wrong about "many", but even if 90% sit in their ass and slowly die, 10% of the best of us will push the humanity forward.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are they being implanted in the donor's themselves or younger surrogates?

[–]Throwawaysteve12345629 points30 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 34 points35 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

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 EndorsedMattyAnon42 points43 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

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] 13 points14 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

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 EndorsedMattyAnon4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

But the amount of socialization to get there?

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

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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) | Copy Link

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

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

honestly that old marriage you described is extremely destructive to both genders. my parents are in that sort of marriage and they're both horrible people but they stay together, and that's mostly the reason i was ever blue pilled to begin with. the society should have been teaching their people the importance of female chastity for marriage so they don't ruin themselves for relationships, as well as men developing self mastery so that they think with their brain instead of their dick.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Female chastity implies male chastity.

Supposedly, Adam and Eve were incorporeal beings that upon eating from the tree of knowledge against god's command, were given the disease of death, the burden of sexual desire, and made into corporeal beings of matter descended to Earth. Their sin from then on became hereditary. Any descendant upon birth was infected with sin they must repent for in ascetic acts of piety. Again, supposedly, the people of the Old Testament were polygamous because they were creating the family tree that would lead to the birth of Jesus. However, the new Testament implied that no more descendants were necessary, making polygamy not allowed. Ignore your bodily pleasures and desires as long as you can, then die out as a species, in which the chaste/ascetic would escape their bodies and their souls return into the incorpeal forms of the heavens where humans originated.

The whole monogamous marriage and sex rules were just created for slight sinful outlets as we eventually die out. So if you're religious, and listen to one of the ~3 fathers of Christian theology (i.e. St. Augustine), a 'happy marriage' shouldn't be your concern. Your duty isn't bodily pleasure and happiness, it's religious devotion until death.

[–]aanarchist2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

i think i'm missing the gist of what you're saying.

[–]1neveragoodtime7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

see my reply to Matty below.

[–]dankvibez1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or the rise of the sex robots

[–]dankvibez8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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 EndorsedMattyAnon3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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".

[–]dankvibez1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]KnowBrainer4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]projects_dude11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

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 EndorsedMattyAnon33 points34 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Patriarchysaurus16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Endorsed ContributorAuvergnat19 points20 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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_xyyz16 points17 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

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_odor5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]10xdada6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]KV-n0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That dytopian shit will never materialize

it already has and peasants are even calling for more.

[–]lala_xyyz1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The numbers say otherwise. 30-40% of existing childless women of reproductive age in the developed countries won't have children, ever. The degenerate feminist gene is being weeded out of the gene pool. Meanwhile, fertility rates of the patriarchal alternatives are going through the roof. It's just a matter of time.

[–]aanarchist2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]aanarchist3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

If having kids with women under 30/40 isn't an option, and you're a dude who wants to have kids in his life, what option so you have? Guys might have the monopoly on commitment but women have the monopoly on starting a family. What do you do, get to 65 and die without ever having had a kid?

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

see your attitude is why women are getting worse and worse, she thinks a dude will take me no matter how much i slut it up so yolo. you're basically saying that you have the lesser hand than her, so you will play by her rules. what happens further down the line when cuckoldry is the social norm? you gonna raise some dipshits kids because you want to have a family? you still live in a gynocentric mindset. have standards for yourself, respect yourself, take the fucking red pill.

if a woman in her 30s is my only option, then she will have to be the breadwinner while i raise the child. i am not paying for chad's leftovers, nor do i trust a woman who took until her 30s to wise up to raise my son.

[–]1empatheticapathetic0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol I love your comments, no bullshit.

Personally I ain't bothered about kids so I'm not voicing any genuine concerns. Talking from the point of view of my older brother actually who took on a horrendous BPD post wall so he could have kids. Essentially she has ruined his life, I expect to hear she has stabbed him or something to that effect whenever I pick up the phone.

What if you get to 40 or whatever, your post wall Stacy is not a breadwinner, you have no other options, and you want a kid (again not me). What you gonna do? Wait until 45?

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i couldn't tell you what i'd do in that situation until i was actually in that moment having to make those decisions, until the time comes it's all theorycraft and speculation. personally i'd want to have my shit in order to be able to either afford a surrogate or to be able to attract a younger woman. if i didn't have the resources for that, at minimum the woman would have to have self knowledge and some level of self awareness, enough to at least submit to me. i literally can't do relationships with women who are completely ignorant of the world around them, i don't have it in me to put up with ignorance and stupidity in relationships. if i'm a poor dude and my only prospect is another woman from a shitty economic situation, it's half and half at most. being a male breadwinner just seems like an evolutionary disadvantage thinking about it. men are the true educators in the world and the education system is fucked because it's all stupid women teaching the children. you can't be a good father to your children when you have a post wall generic mother, and you're coming home from a job too tired to be a parent, that's a child guaranteed to be raised by the state and honestly i don't think people in the situation should be having children because of that.

regardless of who she is, my goal is to educate my own children and prepare them for the world they live in to the best of my abilities. most women have kids because of biological instinct alone, so once they have the kids they're satisfied. she has to be humble enough to understand why she is unworthy of being a stay at home mom, and why it's for the best that i take the lead in how to raise the child. that's a big if though, knowing that the majority of them are entitled shits who don't think beyond what they had for lunch, let alone caring about good parenting. truth is you're describing a no win scenario, cuz a child who isn't retarded will be asking a lot of questions, and any relationship dysfunctions will carry over to the child's psyche like it's gonna take a lot of work to red pill the child from an early age and to explain that you made the best of a bad situation, and that it's his responsibility to carry the torch for a better future, and to use his time wisely so that he doesn't get stuck in a situation where he has to have kids with an older woman with baggage. tldr help the child learn from your mistakes so that he doesn't make them. if you happen to have a daughter, well just teach her not to be a slut and to find a good man while she's young and she'll be fine.

[–]accountrel60 points61 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

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!

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]accountrel15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_Garoo9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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_Lutefisk9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]pragmaticat5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 116 points117 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

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_Garoo41 points42 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

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 ContributorObio124 points25 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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.

Oops.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The superior males are going MGTOW.

[–]Dragon_Garoo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I love seeing tinder profiles from 40 something women that declare they are 'looking for something real' and 'not here for hookups' and 'I don't share, I'm not after someone's sloppy seconds.'

Ya. Good luck with that honey. You're on the wrong site and what man wants to waste his time with a 40 something? Seriously, in 5-10 years whatever beauty you have left is so long gone, dried up and raging with hot flashes, when you can always find a 20 something that wants you. You missed your chance. lol.

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tallsmarthandsome9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bartering is tax free, too

[–]0kool743 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]HardworkITrust35 points36 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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] 23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]grewapair11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]MustNotFfff0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

They could easily learn from the mistakes of women just a bit older than them. It's not like they're insulated from them.

[–]Lsegundo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

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 other problem with all these BP losers is women think all men are going to put up with their BS. The orbiters elevate her ego and convince her men are going to chase her no matter what she does. Some women couldn't grasp that I will next them and be talking to several new women by the middle of next week if they don't act properly.

[–]Philhelm1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] | Copy Link

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) | Copy Link

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.

[–]BullshittingNonsense5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]PremixedBox0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Will these women effectively die out (in the sense that they cant find a "good man" to latch onto)? Or do you think this problem will persist for a couple decades?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It persists. It isn't these specific women. It's feminism and the female imperative. We live in a social order of feminine primacy, Rollo's words, not mine. But he's right. Rational Male is on point.

Don't marry these women. Don't give them babies. That's the best medicine. Other than that, enjoy your life and grow into the man you've have dreamed of.

[–]aanarchist0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

college education is pretty much not worth it anymore. you come out stupider and poorer than you were going in, which is the opposite of why people originally made the decision to go in the first place. a degree is no longer good enough to get you in the door to where you want to be in life, so men being innovators make up the majority of entrepreneurs and small businesses who decided to make their living outside of mainstream "education". and frankly most people i've met who were all up in the college bs were pretty stupid and ignorant, the blue pill has a way of doing that to a person.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. At 19 I was a homeless junkie with 3 arrests under my belt. I went to rehab, got clean, went to community college, graduated with high honors, went to a great state school and graduated with a degree in Economics and a degree in Finance while also learning Mandarin. I paid my own way, borrowed what I had to and today at 29 I work a really great job that puts me in the top 1% of earners in our country. I wouldn't be here without education and college. I think it has to do with who the person is and what they can do for themselves - Going to college itself won't get you anything. You have to do well there, get involved, network, work hard to get your first job and keep improving after college. It's a lot of work, but definitely a great tool to get where you want to go.

[–]ATPsynthase120 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean I think this is a little fatalist. Sure, women are increasing in college enrollment, but how many of them are confined to early childhood education, social work, art history, or gender studies? I graduated with my BS in Biology and STEM fields are overwhelmingly male dominated due to the rigor and difficulty.

The education system is stacked against men from a very young age and represents one of the purest forms of overreach attributable to feminism.

This is due to a difference of values and expectations post high school. Where I grew up if you were a guy, once you hit 16, you were expected to be working part time. Girls didn't have to lift a finger. Once you turned 18 and graduated the only way going to college as a man was "okay" was if you were working full time and paying for it or had an academic scholarship. Girls on the other hand were expected to go get educated further and have a salaried job.

Because of this expectation I know a lot of guys with potential in high school who flat out never got to go to college because the minute they turned 18 their parents said "You're an adult now, here are all your bills we've been paying and you owe us 400 in rent per month if you want to live here." So they were strapped with the choice of work or be homeless. I know of one case like that where the guy was having to pay his parents for all his bills, rent, insurance, and food the minute he turned 18, and when his sister turned 18 a year later she got a new car.

It's just a difference of expectations, men become great because we are expected to rise to spite our situation, it just doesn't work that way for women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Look at the rates of unemployment or underemployment for men under 35. This is directly related to education being feminized. While you present personal evidence from the town where you grow up, it's anecdotal to assume that's what's driving men away from college. Long story short, your shit doesn't make sense. Drop out rates for men aren't increasing because of part time jobs.

I graduated with two degrees in finance and economics and i do well. Most men don't. Regardless of what women are going to study, the share of college degrees awarded to women vs. men over the next generation will continue to grow apart. It isn't fatalist, it's pretty predictable based on trends and the way schools are currently run.

This is due to a difference of values and expectations post high school.

You're just riffing here. Where does this theory come from? Did you research that this is why, or is it just a "hunch?"

[–]ATPsynthase120 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say a thing about "Drop out rates", I said I know a good portion of men who had potential to make something of themselves in college but were never afforded the opportunities because rather than sit in class all day, the community expected them to work. If you didn't you were considered a lazy deadbeat even if you had a 4.0 in your biochemical engineering major. It's a double standard where men get the shit stick.

Regardless of what women are going to study, the share of college degrees awarded to women vs. men over the next generation will continue to grow apart

My point is that it does not matter. Women tend to congregate in easy college majors with low employment rates and low salaries (education, social work, therapy, psychology, sociology etc). So who the fuck cares if there are suddenly 10000 more female college graduates with degrees that qualify them to teach pre-school or be a social worker? Those fields are so saturated that the degrees are useless in the job market and more importantly men have no desire to do these jobs.

If you look at the male dominant majors, they also correlate closely with the jobs with the highest employment demand, and highest major difficulty. math, computer science, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, accounting etc. all of the fields are male dominated and highly employable with low unemployment rates once your reach a certain level of education. Meaning, my biology degree is basically useless it's own, but when I graduate medical school in 4 years I'm guaranteed a job with a high paying salary until retirement.

You're just riffing here. Where does this theory come from? Did you research that this is why, or is it just a "hunch?"

And you're just feeding off of fear. If you're in college and you're not successful with your degree or you drop out, it's not because of women, it's because you either chose a stupid unemployable major or didn't have the drive/ability to thrive in a competitive academic environment. Nature weeds out the weak and higher education is no different.

[–]30fretibanezguy-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

"The education system is stacked against men from a very young age"

Explain? Literally anyone can get on a course to study whatever they want if they study the right subjects hard enough and get the right grades.

[–]CommanderBlurf8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Kids in institutional education may not realize that, all while their heads are filled with misandrist propaganda.

[–]aanarchist4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

besides that the format of education is geared towards females not males. women are perfectly fine sitting at a table all day listening to someone talk at them, men on the other hand get drugged with adhd meds because their male nature compels them to get up and get out, explore their world.

[–]Monsterzz1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I also believe it has a lot to do with the vast majority of women teachers and a shocking percentage of those teaching being misguided feminists who Strive for female superiority. Unknowingly or possibly purposely allowing their female students to succeed further than male students.

This is heavy speculation, a little bias, and impossible to prove.

[–]aanarchist1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

i can consider myself a bit biased as well but i remember being mistreated pretty hard despite being pretty well behaved. it was a combination of racism and sexism.

[–]Monsterzz5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I vividly remember being given a C in gym class because I misused this like inflatable see-saw in 4th grade. We had too many people on there. It was meant for 2 and there were 4 of us. 2 white boys, myself (Asian), and a middle eastern boy. The gym teacher (male) accused me and the middle eastern boy of misusing the equipment and made us sit out for 3 days of gym class and gave us a C and also made us write a page of what we did wrong. During those days we sat out there was another incident where 5 white girls were bouncing on the see saw and the teacher just told them to stop.

Fuck you Mr Simon you pedophile.

[–]aanarchist2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's part of the blue pill sickness. There was something special inside you that made you different, and people are good at seeing that so they'll go right for the throat when they see you. I'm very intelligent but I recall in one high school the councilor tried to get me held back cuz of "bad behavior". I had enough at one point and started causing some smoke in the system and they shut up real quick.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is hard to prove and maybe not on a mass scale, but I am 100% sure it happens often enough.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was going to reply but everyone who already has replied covered it.

You're free to think what you want but when you look at statistics the truth is apparent. In 20 years women will make up close to 70% of all bachelors degrees and probably closer to 80% of all advanced degrees. Women graduate high school at higher rates. Women get better grades. They go to college at higher rates. They graduate college at higher rates. They go to graduate school at higher rates. They graduated with advanced degrees at higher rates. And for the generation under 35, Women are better employed and make more money.

Additionally, young boys are pumped full of medications to "fix" them because of the female primacy involved in our education system. These boys go on to get involved in drugs and alcohol at a higher rate, drop out of school at a significantly higher rate, and commit suicide or go to jail at significantly higher rates. Yet in schools, we still speak about "empowering" girls, while treating boys just like criminals for being boys. We warn them about masculinity and how bad it is. So yeah, it's stacked against them.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Men never "married down" in the past, they married "secretaries" aka their educated social contemporaries from private women colleges.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

False. I wrote a dissertation on the drivers of social mobility in the west when I got a degree in economics. Historically, men marrying women of lower classes was one of the biggest reasons for people to move up class wise. All facts back this up. I have no idea what you're referencing or where that theory comes from.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't contradict what I said at all "A driver of social mobility" meaning the only avenue open for social mobility among women was marriage I didn't dispute that, social climbing existed sure but social mobility was not as common like in our society. Fathers and mothers were not letting their upper class daughters marry the local mechanic/butcher now where they? getting married was their only option, so if their male peers were marrying down "all the time" who was left to marry them? career climbing was not a thing for women those "secretaries" were their social class peers..

[–]LynxEveryone44 points45 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

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

Oh, it's just hypergamy. Never mind.

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick12 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]TheBloodEagleX5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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?

[–]cherryCanSuckMyDick10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Philhelm2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheBloodEagleX2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Blaat19851 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Philhelm0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually, what will happen is that women will be conscripted too, so the numbers of dead and maimed women will counterbalance the male casualties and everyone will be back at square one. Still, better legless than fat, I'd say.

[–]galtsays2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 62 points63 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]perplexedm37 points38 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Leaving this here:

https://imgur.com/gwnDlR9

[–]1empatheticapathetic3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 34 points35 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

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] 15 points16 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

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) | Copy Link

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] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]cYcBgJ6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] | Copy Link

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] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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?

[–]IAMApsychopathAMA15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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] 11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]IAMApsychopathAMA1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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) | Copy Link

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

[–]grewapair6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

the supply of guys who make more than them

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

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]PremixedBox2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1ozaku78 points9 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

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] 17 points18 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

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-n3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]redrummilf-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

True democracy ha ha. How bout you make social security a progressive tax instead of a regressive one. And put some fucking income caps on the payout. And stop all the fucking single mom handouts. Do that and things will be just fine with the current birth rate.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You still will need people growing the economy and taking new jobs. It's a major issue that is currently crippling parts of Japan

[–]FRedington points points [recovered] | Copy Link

China (PRC) has 2-billion people; India has 1-billion; Africa 1.2-billion; Indonesia 257-million; philippines 100-million.

These nations have rapidly growing populations and are moving toward 1st world nation status. This means that demographically they will have a higher likelihood of having a larger number [in absolute numbers] of genius grade individuals that the US at 320-million population. Those genius grade individuals are going to eat our lunch in development and production of high value goods (patents are a thing) and entertainment things (copyright is a thing). The Oligarchy thinks that it matters not where things come from because they own the worldwide companies that make that stuff too. The local (USA) politicians believe they have to cripple the middle class in the US to assure falling wages until a sizable fraction of genious grade individuals worldwide are identified and trained in US universities and take that shit home to their home countries without the middle class base at exists in the US.

The US is rapidly moving toward a theocracy with science on the shit end of the stick where flat earth is the value system and global warming is "just a theory". -- In short: Enjoy the Decline. Within a genderation, two at most (that's 50 years for the double digits still reading this) the US will be at the level of economic development, average IQ, and level of education as Argentina.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree man. The era of American dominance is approaching an end and will likely be taken by India or China. They have booming populations, arent afraid to work, and are tech savvy. You wont see that same effort from the average buzzfeed reading American youth today.

[–]PremixedBox1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We are already at the point in education where its starting to become more uniformed and privatized. Look up Common Core and look at all the Universities and bigger schools.

[–]cptspiffy points points [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

[–]1ozaku71 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]cptspiffy points points [recovered] | Copy Link

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?

[–]1ozaku71 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AllahHatesFags23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]NeoreactionSafe20 points21 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

 

  • "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.

 

[–]sourdieselfuel12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]NeoreactionSafe4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

 

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.

Remember?

 

  • 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 Contributormallardcove29 points30 points  (48 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1neveragoodtime8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1ozaku75 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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".

[–]youkickmyd0g6 points7 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove15 points16 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1ozaku75 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_warlock6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"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 Contributormallardcove2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Westernhagen12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1ozaku75 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then what does that make me, a vagina diver?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]youkickmyd0g1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]youkickmyd0g0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I really meant it in the sense I know what you mean, not judging on what they tell me (they used to always tell me, no longer... quite the opposite!). I mean that I see them taking advantage of their boyfriend's resources and probably getting their fun on the side... I end up with a lot of students on home for break, but I know at least one former plat attained a boyfriend while she was my plate and remained so (I met the guy...) and I can only assume other girls I've been with have (eg. they never spent the night).... with ya! Those are literally my LTR criteria after participating in the CC. All other girls cheat or are using sex to get a richer lifestyle, more dining out ect with boyfriend's money and time.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove16 points17 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic9 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1empatheticapathetic4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Endorsed Contributormallardcove-3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, more like you are being obtuse and viewing everything in a black and white lens with no gray areas.

[–]345plates3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah you never answered the question. I too got confused with your post. On one hand you're shitting on women for valuing their career and being able to take care of themselves. On the other hand you're saying a woman is a parasite if she doesn't care about her career. So what should the ideal woman be doing? Sounds like to me you're saying a woman should get a high paying job and go for the poorest guy.

[–]askmrcia2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]KIaptrap2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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

Am I BETA BUCKS?

[–]1empatheticapathetic2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Pays for her

Let's her get fucked by other men

Yep a beta bux cuckold. Have you proposed yet?

[–]KIaptrap1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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?

[–]KIaptrap0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But also, scrolling though your post history, you seem rather incel, or at the minimum, depressed.

Seek help man. Truly, I mean that.

[–]1empatheticapathetic3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My response was a joke, I assumed you got that based on your response. And yeah I'm working on my shit.

[–]KIaptrap5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sarcasm doesn't interpret well over text.

My apologies.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]KIaptrap1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]RedDeadCred0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]KIaptrap0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, I don't call this woman because she very literally has zero going on in her life.

[–]TunkaTun0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1OneRedYear5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]1OneRedYear3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_timbers000 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Tie5o115 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]askmrcia2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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 Contributormallardcove5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1OneRedSock18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–]1ozaku76 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Kalepsis5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]SilverGryphon8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]stoicsoul876 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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) | Copy Link

Yes, they are engineering their own demise.

[–]Gulfs5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]HierophantGreen2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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_TALE10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

self-removal

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

[–]AnonymousHomoSapian5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]bankruptmorals4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Article written by the BBC. Enough said

[–]LordThunderbolt2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Throwit1742 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Nicolay772 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]P36hawk2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

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.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, this is the end of the alpha female. Right now Western women don't select for intelligence because wealth is high. Poorer nations place a greater importance on males who are highly educated, because such males have greater access to resources.

Once the wealth in the West is transferred to China, poverty and collapse will force women to choose intelligent males again for resources. The proportion will slowly increase over time.

Machines will do automated work, but economics will create new jobs and industries that only human beings are capable of. True AI is centuries away.

[–]Teufelhunden19793 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not even low status betas would poke a fatty.

Are you sure about that?

[–]JCL2070 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]grewapair1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wrote something really long but then read it and realized that it was stupid. Anyway, being in academia myself, her actions are a direct result of the elevation of stress. Dont worry, it will pass as they age. True power is in observing, not acting. Let it be and dont make a fuss about it, its just plain stupid)

[–]2kevin320 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"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.

We're showcasing many such online dating profiles of carousel riders looking for a provider over at r-WhereAreAllTheGoodMen.

[–]AmeriStasi0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that's how you spell queue lol. But what do I know. Or would it be cue. I think you meant cue. Not like a line.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

One does not simply read a BBC article and expect it to be factually accurate.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes me want to invest in an IVF company.

[–]psycrabbit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit, this redpill stuff could actually be true! starts chugging the redpills

[–]JAlexo3600 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Powerful and resourceful men have always married women often with no influence, poor. If a man was this picky with women, and some are, but normally he's immediately label as an asshole.

These women are becoming way too picky and it is not men that suffer but them. Lol freezing their eggs, they kind of forget that while they do it they are also aging. The more they age the less attractive they are and the less suitors they'll have available; so they can freeze how many eggs they want, and later probably use them to cook some omelets or something, while they find out that no man is choosing them any longer.

[–]motivationboost0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

@Cynewald who the fuck are you? All of your submitted posts are full of shit. In one you're 22 and in another 40.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter