A naive beta male wonders why there’s a dearth of single men willing to marry the aging spinsters he knows.
why don’t I know any single men who could be fixed up with a well-educated woman in her late 30s?
Smart people say the stupidest shit sometimes.
This seems to be a common situation among our friends. We know single women whom we believe would be wonderful companions and mothers, but none of the single men whom they are seeking as partners.
Wonderful companions and motherhood potential don’t make dicks hard.
A friend in D.C. says “Single women nearing 40 have spent decades perfecting their adult selves.
That’s their problem, right there. Instead of spending decades perfecting their adult selves, they should have spent some time getting serious with a man while their bodies were still perfect.
Men of the same age are still stuck in their teenage personality.”
Bitterbitch snark for normal, natural male sexual desire for younger, hotter, tighter women.
What is the explanation for this phenomenon?
…finding an unpartnered adult male who is in possession of said good stuff seems to be impossible.
For mangy cougars. But for spry springboks, not at all impossible.
Separately, I’m wondering if the large quantity of involuntarily single-and-childless women shows poor life-planning strategies.
That Pill-lubed, anonymous urban living-facilitated cock carousel isn’t gonna ride itself!
These women have advanced education, great job skills, and good careers compared to the American average.
Yeah but do they have clear skin, pert tits, firm asses, and pussies that smell of lavender?
Inadvertently, our plucky White Knight shilling for his starving cougars stumbles upon a payout system that likely incentivizes the pursuit of alpha fux over settling for beta bux.
we must observe that [women’s] after-tax income is in nearly every case lower than if they’d had sex with a dermatologist or dentist in Massachusetts and collected child support.
Note to dermatologists and dentists: if you’re gonna bang a desperate aging beauty, wear your own condom and dispose of it in the toilet.
(Most of these women want two children, which, if properly planned, could easily offer a tax-free cash yield of $200,000/year via child support (multiply by 23 years in Massachusetts).) See this from the Practical Tips chapter:
In most states, the potential child support profits from a one-night encounter are roughly the same as the profits from a short-term marriage. … “Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.”
All women can be mercenary given strong enough incentives, but luckily (for men) most women still strive to have children within a marriage. Single momhood is not (yet) a desired life outcome for psychologically healthy women, despite its inglorious rise over the past forty years. What this means is that for the typical man, the odds of getting fleeced by a woman pulling the ol’ gotcha pregnancy maneuver are low.
Rich men do have something to worry about, especially rich men with Game, because women will lose all sense around them (like men do around barely legal sexpots) and are liable to think pregnancy and child support entrapment are reasonable first date objectives.
From the point of view of having the children that they want prior to the exhaustion of their fertility and from the point of view of financial security, these women would have been better off spending their 18-22-year-old years having sex with married men rather than attending college. That’s not to suggest that 18-year-old child support profiteer is the optimum lifestyle for every American woman, but the fact that it would yield a better outcome measured against their own goals than what the women we know have accomplished suggests that they pursued a pretty bad life strategy.
Here’s a better idea that isn’t compiled in the abstracted kookland of the homo spergonomicus mind:
Women who want kids should get married in their early 20s and start having them by their mid-late 20s, then spend some years at home raising them, afterwards returning to their careers soulfully satisfied and serenely accepting of the fact that they can’t have it all and motherhood necessarily means the corner office won’t be a realistic option for them. No “child support profiteer” shenanigans needed. (Any woman who seriously follows such a cold, sociopathic blueprint deserves all the pain and suffering she will inevitably receive in the romance market.)
Readers: Looking at the 35-45 age group, and restricting to people who have a college degree, above-median earnings, agreeable personality, and responsible habits, what’s the ratio of single women to single men?
Who cares? It’s like asking what’s the ratio of garden slugs to single men. The one will have no influence on the behavior of the other.
The first commenter to the original author’s blog post gets to the heart of it:
Men select for beauty and fertility; both of which are on the decline in the women you mention. They also select for low-conflict behavior, kindness, etc., which may or may not be found among the women you mention.
Reality is, that any guy who is 40 and has his act together, is going to date younger; especially with the horrible economy -there are lots of 28yo women without a clear path to career at this point.
A 37yo with possibly 2 years of fertility left should be looking not for 40 or 42, but for someone about 50 to 54 who is in good shape and still wants to have 1 or 2 kids.
Satanic feminists have lied to women for so long that simple truths like “don’t wait too long to marry and have kids because your fertility window is short and men won’t be interested in you when you’re older and uglier” are willfully ignored or twisted into nostrums of oppression that should be fought against and actively denied through the alchemy of embracing gogrrl, leaned in, cock-hopping, careerist lifestyles that ironically will leave women more miserable than if they had just submitted to the patriarchy’s price of admission.