Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Marriage Is For Chumps’ Category

Although the old trope of the undersexed husband has been around for ages, it wasn’t quite accurate, at least until recently. General Social Survey warriors like Audacious E had dug up data showing that married couples have more sex than singles. (Forgive me for not finding the relevant post, I’m a lazy SOB).

I can recall objecting to the GSS sex frequency data on the grounds that it exaggerates the sexual wantonness of married couples compared to singles because the population of singles includes all the no-sex, fap-happy incels dragging down the sex frequency average for their group. I suggested this asexual albatross would conceal the incredibly-high, curve-busting sex frequency rates of unmarried alpha male cads who are following the “girlfriend and fling” formula for happiness.

While I can’t at the moment recall any posts I may have written confirming with data any factual basis for my objection, I can report that a recent study, via our resident gold star artist Captain Obvious, finds that there was a decline in sexual frequency among married or cohabiting American adults from 1989-2014.

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Regular guests of this brazen retreat won’t be surprised by the relative sexlessness of the Millennial generation, a screechy, androgynous, narcissistic generation which from nearly every vantage point appears to be the most useless lump of Americans to ever squib outta their mommas’ womb chutes.

Nor will readers be surprised by the finding that old farts who look like raisins with eyes have less sex than virile youts who can still flaunt their sexual dimorphism.

What’s interesting is mentioned in the last line: sex frequency is down over the period because there are more unpartnered people having no sex, and partnered couples are having less sex.

So….the incel demo is exploding. That would seem to confirm a CH observation of the sexual market; namely that the prolonged unmarried phase of courtship (aka the cock carousel) is supercharging female hypergamy. A lot of single in the city ladies are sharing HSMV men and leaving less charismatic beta males in the cold. That explains the male incels. The rise in female insols is explained by the concurrent rise in obesity (and aggro-feminism). Fat chicks and annoying chicks really do have less sex than slender, feminine babes, because men also exercise choice of mate.

The remaining mystery is why married and cohabiting sex frequency is decreasing. Captain Obvious writes,

Shitlib & Libertardian geeks and nerds at /. were sounding thoroughly Red-Pilled about this – talking about Phuckerbergbook, SSRIs, pr0n, the decline in earning power, an omnipresent sense of trepidation & cowardice & fear pervading much of the population, etc etc etc – and one dude even div0rced his wife over her iPhag Addiction: https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/03/07/2313232/americans-are-having-less-sex-than-20-years-ago-study-finds

Yes to all of that as causes for the sex frequency decline, but again I must humbly suggest that the primary causes are female obesity, female economic self-sufficiency, and the multigenerational drop in testosterone.

Female obesity: men are visually stimulated to bedroom action, and men really are disgusted by the sight of a female fatbody. Men, and especially White men with options, will fap to porn before bouncing dick-first into a fat chick’s belly brûlée. The obesity epidemic shows no signs of letting up, and that’s gotta have an effect on the national GCP (Gross Carnal Product).

Female economic self-sufficiency: women are aroused by powerful men with resources to spare on them, and they are turned off by powerless cash-strapped men. Women who are in less need of a man’s resources are also less sexually interested in men who don’t make substantially more than they make (or have other compensating traits). If husbands’ incomes have decreased relative to wives’ incomes, then there will be a shift toward wives desiring less sex from their husbands. It’s biomechanics all the way down.

Testosterone decline: this one is self-evident. Lower T means lower libido, for men but also for women. Since men are the initiators of sex (especially within the confines of a long term relationship), a low libido man will initiate less frequently, and his woman won’t take up the slack (women have a lot of pride about their ability to passively rouse their men to ardor, which is why they don’t like making the first move). If there’s lower T in women as well (a small amount of testosterone does affect female libido), then that would kill the passion just as quickly. Finally, low T men are just a plain turn-off to women. I have read studies which found women preferred the musky scent of sweaty shirts of men with high T.

All of this is leading to sex-starved husbands and the high divorce rate, because no matter how sacred your marital vows if hubby ain’t getting any his guilt about checking out of the marriage evaporates in a haze of 31 Redtube tabs.

Read Full Post »

Via Marginal Autism,

We show that promotions to top jobs dramatically increase women’s probability of divorce, but do not affect men’s marriages. This effect is causally estimated for top jobs in the political sector, where close electoral results deliver exogenous variation in promotions across job candidates. Descriptive evidence from job promotions to the position of CEO shows that private sector promotions result in the same gender inequality in the risk of divorce.

Commenters at the Cheap Chapulas grease truck have lots of theories to explain the results of this study, but it boils down to a basic understanding of female nature. When women advance in their careers, their husbands, should they not equally advance in theirs to keep up, are “left behind” on the occupational status ledger that women subconsciously consult when evaluating a man’s mate worth. (Among 463 other male mate value ledgers that women have at the ready.)

Female hypergamy is real, is different from male “dating up” (which is closer to polygamy in nature), and has consequences in the aggregate on marriage and divorce rates. Women want to look up to higher status men; men want to look *at* beautiful women. In our rapidly de-masculinizing, anti-White male, pro-tankgrrl culture, men are in a status free-fall. Knowing this is all you need to explain why women initiate 70% of divorces.

Read Full Post »

Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)

Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.

I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.

The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.

Recall the infamous CH maxim:

Options = Instability.

A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.

Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.

Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.

Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.

Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).

So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.

In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.

The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.

Vox adds to the debate an idea with which I have a rare disagreement,

It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.

Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.

Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.

*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.

If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.

Read Full Post »

I used to hang with a guy who was a natural ladykiller, and a borderline sociopath. He said what was on his mind, and that meant a lot of fights and a lot of fucks. I picked up some valuable lessons in human social dynamics from him.

He married young, before his pickup powers had gained steam and he realized the full extent of his talents. In time, he cheated with better looking mistresses. The marriage was doomed, but it managed to sputter along for a child-less six years. His wife turned into a spiteful witch hell-bent on revenge. When my natural buddy and I were out with friends, his now ex-wife would sometimes call at 11pm just to bitterly remind him of an unfulfilled issue with the post-divorce allocation of funds or assets.

Anyhow, one time his quasi-stalker ex-wife was invited to the same event he was at, along with his friends and myself. The time since hadn’t been kind to her; she had gained a few and looked to be wearing too much make-up.

She approached, and acid started to spit right away. He wasn’t one to air private laundry in public, so she vented for five minutes while he listened. When she paused to take an angry breath, he delivered a shiv so cold it could’ve turned her into a White Walker.

“If we were never married, I wouldn’t look twice at you today.”

The best shivs are the cuts that find our deepest buried fears, and expose them to the light.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Yup wants us to notice something very telling about Trump’s wives.

Trump’s had 3 wives.

1st wife: 14 years

2nd wife: 4 years

3rd wife: 11 years and counting.

Guess which wife was American.

😂 I’ll take “4 years” for $5.5 billion, Alex.

Read Full Post »

J.R.R. Tolkien was a deep thinker who knew the world of women as well as he did his fantasy worlds. Reader Modern Primitive draws attention to Tolkien’s fatherly letters of advice to his son, Michael Tolkien.

Don’t know if this has been posted yet but here’s some letters from Tolkien to his son vis a vie women and marriage.

http://glim.ru/personal/jrr_tolkien_42-45.html

Go from number 43. Tolkien seemed like a pretty red pilled dude, identifying many subjects and trends discussed here at the chateau, although it’s probably more that society in general was much more red pilled than we are today by way of not opting to put on its own blinders.

The Great Men of the past were more redpilled than the Weak Manlets of the present, because they were smarter and wiser, but also because they lived during times when their homogeneously glorious White society wasn’t actively crushing crimethinkers. First, here’s Tolkien on the danger posed to men of befriending women before be-fucking them:

‘Friendship’ then? In this fallen world the ‘friendship’ that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This ‘friendship’ has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a ‘friendship’ quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by ‘falling in love’. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want ‘friendship’, even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps.

FYI, Tolkien and CH are on the same page. Here’s an old Chateau post about the cruel impositions of impossible friendships between men and women.

The reason for the post title is this bit by Tolkien where he warns against pussy pedestalization.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It [pussy pedestalization] still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God’s way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a ‘love’ that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

The bolded parts are crucial. Pussy pedestalization, contrary to what White Knights for Her Faire Maiden profess as the benefits of their beta male worldview, can actually make a man more cynical about women, because he has her propped on a queenly throne for which she is ill-suited by the nature of her fallen sex to occupy.

Bonus Tolkien! The man expounds on sluts, careerist gogrrls, female practicality (and aversion to romanticism), the allure of badboys, and women’s greater predilection for monogamy.

You may meet in life (as in literature1) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don’t refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy ‘conquests’, or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of ‘love’. A young woman, even one ‘economically independent’, as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the ‘bottom drawer’ and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don’t be misled by the fact that they are more ‘sentimental’ in words – freer with ‘darling’, and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don’t really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can ‘reform’ men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk ‘bawdy’; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don’t find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. …. No good pretending. Men just ain’t, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed’ ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

A realtalker like Tolkien, if he lived today, would be banned from so many colleges and charged with violating so many feminist safe spaces that he’d land on the SPLC’s hate watch list. Which should tell you something. (Specifically, 2016 America is a shamefully effete den of faggotry and cuntery.)

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of reader BK, a link to an economic analysis of woman-coddling divorce laws.

CH, thought you would like this article – economist looks at how no consent divorces have changed savings rates and women’s leisure time – the result is that men are saving more to protect themselves and women are taking a lot more leisure time.

Quotes from the research paper:

By regulating when divorce can occur and how resources are divided when it does, divorce laws can affect people’s behavior and their wellbeing both during marriage and at divorce. Household survey data from the United States shows that the introduction of unilateral divorce in states that imposed an equal division of property is associated with higher household savings and lower female employment rates among couples that are already married.

This sounds like a legal backdoor to re-institute “barefoot and pregnant” as a family norm.

During the 1970s and 1980s, divorce laws were rewritten around the United States. Until then, mutual consent—the consent of both spouses—was often a requirement and upon divorce, property was assigned to the spouse who held the formal title to it; usually, this was the husband.

Then, profound state-level reforms brought about the so-called “unilateral divorce revolution.” Most couples now entered a legal system in which either spouse could obtain a divorce without the consent of the other and also keep a fraction of the marital assets, often close to fifty percent.

Here come the negative externalities! (which feminists always miss)

This study explores the impact of the reforms—unilateral divorce and equitable property division—on the economic behavior of couples.  In the US, these reforms affect no small number of people, as forty percent of married couples and about one-third of all people over their lifetimes are divorced. So how did the unilateral divorce revolution change the consumption, the labor supply decisions, and ultimately the wellbeing of married and divorced couples?

There are at least two ways in which we might expect the reforms to affect household behavior. First, because divorce is one of those events for which people cannot buy insurance, savings can act as self-insurance, allowing people to face some of the financial costs associated with marriage dissolution. Different ways of dividing property can affect the insurance role of savings. Second, even among couples that do not split up, a change in divorce laws can change a spouse’s options outside of the marriage. For instance, a property division regime change that favors one spouse can improve her position inside the marriage, particularly if she can obtain divorce without the other partner’s consent. This reallocation within marriage could result in changes in private consumption, savings, and labor supply.

Muh incentives and disincentives.

From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed.

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure.

How’s that oppressive patriarchy working out for you feminists? Heh.

At the same time, married couples save more because spouses’ individual incentives to save are distorted because they cannot choose how to allocate savings between man and woman in the increasingly likely event of a divorce. Because mandated equal division of property does not reflect the allocation of resources within marriage, it ultimately distorts household saving behavior.

Influenced by the specter of no consent divorce law, marriage has moved from a “build a nest egg” model to a “build an insurance against property loss” model.

So how do divorce laws, which were passed when men and women’s economic outcomes differed substantially, affect wellbeing today? Simulations from the model suggest that, as intended by the policymakers who promoted it, the equal division of property gave more assets to women in the sample compared with a title-based regime that would grant them about 40% of household wealth. Thus, for couples that married before the 1970s, the reforms likely achieved the goal of supporting women through divorce. However, their effect is more nuanced if we believe that today’s couples may have a different, more egalitarian, distribution of resources within marriage.

Here’s a thought: How about crafting equitable divorce law that isn’t deliberately intended to favor women? There must be a word for favoritism in the law…. oh yeah, injustice.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: