The Hazards Of Long Term Relationships

It’s no hard sell to convince most people of the benefits of long term relationships. The intimacy, the shared experiences, the knowing winks and nods in crowded rooms, the quasi-telepathic unspoken understanding, and the cosmically unfathomable depth of love that seems to stop time — there is no better feeling in the world than sex with a woman you love who loves you back with equal fervor. The moment you slip into your lover and simultaneously lock eyes with her is an unparalleled intensity of pleasure that no one night stand, fling or fuck buddy, however passionate, can match.

But it is not an unalloyed good. With the tremendous good comes the risk of treacherous bad, always conniving and usurping to corrode your love and the presumed impregnable strength of your relationship. You must be on guard against these foul subverters at all times if you want to avoid the saddest fate of avoidable heartbreak.

LTRs will make you and her fat and lazy.

The same feeling of comfort and contentment that long term relationships gives to lovers mischievously robs them of the things that helped bring them together in the first place. Satisfaction quickly morphs into self-satisfaction, and the double-edged sword of comfortable monogamy turns its poison-dipped blade on its wielders. Food becomes central to your shared life, sustenance for the heart as well as the body. The powerfully endorphic love you share blinds both of you to encroaching dilapidation — a few pounds here, an aloof demurral to exercise there, an apathetic dismissal of a suggestion for a night on the town — and pretty soon she’s getting fat and sloppy and you’re getting boring. Your dick shrivels, her pussy desiccates. Soon, even the love follows the same tragic descent.

Prevention is simple, if laborious. Mentally frame any relationship as a continual process of falling in love, and every night together as a first date. This will, of course, be easier to do if you have inspiration. Such inspiration comes primarily in the form of your girl keeping herself as hot as she was when she passively wooed you that night you approached her. A woman, as the sex naturally inclined to embracing the herd mentality, will quickly fall in line with a stringent exercise and eating program if you make yourself an example to her. You do this not only by flaunting your self-discipline and your masculine physique, but by allowing other women to flirt with you and to engage the women around you with a charming effrontery that dances along the line between seductive impudence and naive chatter. Pepper conversations with subtle references to your exercise progress and the high you get from feeling and looking so good. Don’t be afraid to be a little cocky.

As the man, you have to lead in this department. If you let yourself go, physically and mentally, she will either follow suit or she will lap you around the race track, in preparation for the day, coming soon, when she cheats on you or leaves you for the man worthy of her 0.7 waist-hip ratio and 21 BMI. Either result is death for the LTR that means anything. You stop wanting to have sex with her or she stops wanting to have sex with you.

LTRs make Jack and Jill dull lovers.

Creativity is the KY that lubes the limbic system. You remember how clever you sounded when you started dating her, and how much effort she put into dressing sexily and acting womanly? The things in our control that make us sexy are a function of our creativity. Over time, your cleverness atrophies from disuse, and her careful consideration of dress and feminine manners dissipates. You become a machine beeping trivialities and trite observations, and she becomes a billowy sweatshirt-wearing task master. You and her are in love, and love eventually subdues the pressure to impress.

A little bit of pressure keeps a relationship fun and fueled on its own momentum. Stay desirable to women besides your lover, and she will be sure to keep herself maximally attractive to you. Don’t fall into dispiriting patterns like taking vacation in the same locales, eating at the same restaurants, buying the same styles year in and year out, gossiping about the same bullshit that 7 billion other dullards gossip about. Again, as the man, you must lead here. Start with the sex. Instead of the usual routine kiss on the cheek when you come home from work, sidle up behind her when she’s in the kitchen, hike her skirt and fuck her from behind. Fuck her in the park. Fuck her on a boat. Fuck her at the top of a ferris wheel. One night of crazy fucking like this is worth ten years of couples therapy.

LTRs will make you and her codependent.

The lament is universal, a staple of sitcoms. “I don’t see my buddy anymore now that he’s got the ol’ ball and chain.” Love is dangerous in one important respect — it will divert a man from his mission(s) in life. His attention now solely focused on his lover, the hobbies, ambitions, social circle and side projects that made him so attractive to her begin to wither under the onslaught of the time-consuming LTR. Like a centrifuge, his self-made identity spins and jettisons away from him, to be replaced by the newly forged identity within the LTR.

Now you can’t do anything without her, and she you. In the beginning, this is a necessary process to build the level of trust and bonding that distinguishes the LTR from any run of the mill fling. But it morphs into a hermetic pair-bond cocoon, a soft escapable prison that shields from the outside world more than it protects. Increasingly consanguineous, the LTR alienates friends and slackens ambitions.

You will have to learn to make time for friends or hobbies in a way you never did as a single man, when friends just appeared and stuff happened. Try to recapture the spontaneity of the single life, and don’t sweat it when your lover wants to do the same with her own friends. Time apart with separate social groups, doing different things, is a battle cry asserting individuality and independence. A woman as much admires and desires the independent man as she fears and envies him. You will never see a brighter twinkle in a lover’s eyes than when, coming home from a night out with your buddies, you regale her with tales of manly impropriety, but then, just when her heartbeat has reached a fevered cadence, you offhandedly muse that you thought about her during the night.

LTRs are monogamous.

Monogamy. The word rouses yearning and trepidation in the male mind at once. A romantic blessing! Or is it a prison? Back and forth it goes, until the typical man resolves the issue by refusing to choose, allowing the choice to be made for him by dwindling options and headstrong harpies.

There is no doubt that men are programmed down to the cilia in their cells to desire sex with a multiplicity of attractive, fertile women. Variety is the spice of life, spread the seed, hogamus higamus etc. Some men have stronger urges to variety than other men, but in all men it is there in lesser or greater degree. The LTR, filled with the bounty of love, nevertheless thwarts a man’s genetic script to seed the wombs of many seed-able women.

For men with low compunction to promiscuity (provider betas), the monogamous relationship is a sweetheart deal: they give up something they weren’t all that gung-ho to pursue anyhow, for something that brings them much joy. Men with a raging libido and a wandering eye (caddish alphas) more or less suffer indignities under the LTR regime, and their predatory lust must be either squelched or sated, the former apt to inflict psychological and testicular distress while the latter a sure destruction of the intimate love that cannot tolerate infidelity except in the most feral societies.

The problem, all too familiar to readers of this blog, arises from the fact that the LTR-pursuing betas are less likely to tingle the ginas of LTR-loving women than the lustful alphas who must be dragged kicking and screaming into monogamous obligation. What a cruel joke nature has played on us all! To tempt men and women with a prize they both want, but to establish a set of playing rules that subverts the very prize to be won, and handicaps the players most invested in the game.

Many PUAs and gurus claim that this circle can be squared; that is, that the skilled seducer can have his cake and eat it, too. He can enjoy the love expressed in an LTR while getting some action on the side.

I have heard these stories, and even seen it play out in real life. But my opinion remains negative on the enterprise. For the overwhelmingly majority of men, from high to low station, game to gameless, it is an unrealistic and mostly unattainable trick to lock in a lover for the long haul while openly satisfying his sexual need for variety. Sooner or later, it will come to a head; the LTR will evaporate into divorce or loveless airs as the repeated insult of open infidelity scours his lover’s emotional bond, or the mistresses will remain discreet behind a wall of lies and resigned toleration by the put-upon woman, the way the French do it.

Naturally, the more alpha a man is, the greater his chances to pull off this pseudo-polygamous hat trick, owing primarily to the fact that women are quicker to forgive the vices of an alpha lover than a beta lover. But even alpha has its limits, and a woman who was once enthralled by her lover’s sexy but risky enticements will someday age both psychologically and chronologically, lose her estrogenic steam, and collapse under the weight of the betrayals. A man can love more than one woman at once, but a woman cannot love more than one man at once. She, at best, can only sex more than one man concurrently. She, ultimately, finds the fullness of her love manifest in the singular, unshared love of one man to whom she is faithfully devoted.

And so for this last part I have no answer. You, as a man, will have to choose what is more important to you: transcendent, unpolluted love, or visceral sexual pleasure. You may attempt to hide your mistresses, and that may work for a while, but it may also not work, and you will have to live with the little lies of omission for as long as you and your lover are together. Some men, particularly the ones most desired by women, are devoid of the moral sense, or sustain a cartoonish, wilted version of it, and can live side by side with lies and not give it a moment’s doubt or self-reflection.

You can also try your hand at an open relationship, wherein your lover knows you seek novel pussy on the side and you, presumably, allow her to do the same with novel cock. But realistically, most men will not be able to abide a lover’s infidelity, no matter how contractually agreed upon. The thought alone of a girlfriend or wife fucking another man, however many mistresses that man himself may indulge, will drive him to a fever. Men by nature and given a free choice would collect concubines and prefer those lovers guarded by eunuchs, not by virile male competitors.

Finally, there is the long shot of the one-way open relationship, aka the royal harem. She remains sexually and emotionally loyal to you, while you get to screw around whenever the feeling hits you. No lies, no subterfuge; everything is out in the open. In my experience, this can be done if your game is incredibly tight, BUT…

It won’t work forever. It won’t even work for a year. A few months is closer to the reality, and odds are it will end in a huge flame-out rather than a genial handshake. Some top PUAs love to crow about their ability to tie down girls into one-way open LTRs, and I have no reason to speculate about their honesty, but I do doubt many of these master seducers are pulling anything like this for more than a few months at a time. (Exceptions exist, but seriously, how long did Stephane Hemon’s threesome LTR last?) Women are certainly capable of swooning unreasonably for a truly charismatic alpha male, and agreeing to arrangements against their interests which in regards to any lesser man would strike women as laughable propositions, but to play kept woman in a real harem rather than a de facto harem shrouded in the mists of plausible deniability, exciting and drama-fueled as it is, is a contrivance guaranteed to end badly when the intoxication of labial lust wears off.

No matter how hot, young and vivacious your LTR lover is, your eye will someday wander, because it is in your nature as a man to want to fuck every sweet piece of ass who crosses your line of vision. To accommodate this visceral desire, you can abdicate the pursuit of LTRs and stay a single poon hound, you can enjoy an LTR while shooting for strange under cover of night, or you can make peace with your urges and learn to abide them unsatisfied as part of the LTR deal. Many men — most men, in fact — accept the latter, and do so without too much regret. The trade-offs, it seems, are worth it.

The choice is less a moral one than a practical one, inasmuch as animal desires supposedly bequeathed us by god can’t be said to have moral underpinnings. What do you prioritize? What gives you the greatest happiness? There’s your answer.

Read Full Post »

Why Most Libertarians Stupidly Embrace Open Borders

A core principle of libertarianism is the free movement of labor. On paper, this principle sounds admirable, even workable. That damned paper! Libertarians would have to betray a lot of what they believe in to accept that restrictions on the free movement of labor are advantageous, economically and culturally, for a nation’s well-being. Thus, they don’t. Instead, they pull an ostrich and ignore the negative externalities that mass immigration has brought to the USA. Free movement of labor is such an entrenched free market concept that many libertarians have taken to arguing that open borders is a natural, and moral, extension of the principle.

But when does free movement of labor across national borders as a concept break down? Three heretofore largely unexamined premises should enlighten those who believe the concept is trustworthy.

1. As Milton Friedman said, open borders and the welfare state cannot coexist. If one country offers a generous welfare package to all and sundry that immigrants cannot get in their own countries, they will happily cross unguarded borders to take advantage of the manna from government heaven. Who pays for this manna? Why, you, the productive libertardian citizen. There’s a word for your kind. Sucker.

2. Population group differences in human capital are real. If country A is filled with highly productive and intelligent citizens on average, and countries B, C and D are filled with less productive and less intelligent citizens on average, what do you think will happen when the bulk of countries’ B, C and D least productive citizens emigrate to country A? A libertarian in good standing will argue that those B, C and D immigrants will do the crappy jobs that need doing, and the natives who are displaced from those jobs will be incentivized to educate themselves and get better paying and higher status jobs. Hey great! Except what happens if those displaced native citizens, due to innate limitations, CAN’T DO MORE CHALLENGING JOBS? What you’ll get is what we are seeing today: a structural increase in the chronic unemployment rate. Bootstrap philosophy has been thoroughly discredited by the advancing scientific knowledge in genetics.

3. Evidence suggests political ideology is genetically imbued and thus mostly immutable. Latin Americans — specifically those of Amerindian ethnicity — consistently vote 2/3rds for Democrats and more state intervention. What do libertardians think will happen to their precious policy proposals when a 2/3rds majority of 50 million illegal migrants, continuing in perpetuity with their children and children’s children, vote for politicians who believe in the exact opposite of what libertarians believe? Does this really need spelling out?

Why do I give libertarians so much shit? I share an affinity with their worldview, so when they fuck up it inspires me to level the hammer of Thor on their blockheads. It’s like how you give your brother way more shit for fucking up than you would a stranger. Being of your blood, he should know better.

Read Full Post »

An Old Chateau Concept Confirmed By Science

Years ago, the writers of this blog made the bold and controversial assertion that female economic empowerment and growing government largesse were helping to fuel the desire of women to ride the alpha cock carousel in their 20s, only to settle down with a beta provider later in life when their sexual peak had been passed.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

This blog = perceptive. Prophetic, even. Now science has come around to the Chateau point of view with a new study that shows women with money problems prefer softer, beta men who would make good resource provider candidates.

Those [women] primed to worry about their finances showed the least interest in the macho men, the Royal Society journal Biology Letters reports.

This, according to the Australian researchers, suggests that when money is short women are attracted to gentler types, who are seen as good providers and more likely to stick around when times are tough.

The macho men, however, were most attractive to the women made to worry about their health.

This may be because masculinity can be a sign of good genes – and a man who will give a woman strong and healthy children.

The researchers concluded there are evolutionary advantages in a woman’s taste in men being flexible.

This would allow women ‘to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as pathogen outbreak or a famine’, they said.

Or to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as the introduction of the Pill, feminism and economic self-sufficiency.

So here we have scientific evidence proving a core Chateau concept that women who are materially comfortable — as many women became after their assault on the workforce and colleges beginning in the 1970s — are less likely to seek out beta providers and more likely to indulge their hypergamous drives and sex it up with studly alpha cads; that is, until Father Time cruelly etches the first of his brandings on delicate, feminine faces. This would go a long way to explaining why age of first marriage has been steadily climbing since 1970; more years devoted to schooling to make the middle class money, yes, but also more years to slut it up with the high status alphas women truly desire but don’t need for material resource procurement.

Women who missed the big feminist bandwagon of the last 40 years and didn’t go to college or make a decent salary are the ones who pine for gentle, beta herbs to take them under their wing and provide a home, food and shopping money. So feminism has indeed been a boon for alpha males who want sex on the cheap with a harem of hypergamous concubines, and a living hell for betas who have been left out in the cold, waiting their turn for the ladies to age into their late 20s and 30s before getting a chance to drop on bended knee for the last ditch lock-up.

Also of note: Women who worried about health problems were attracted to the masculine studs. So if you are an alpha male with game and a goal to bed as many women as possible before kicking off, your best bet is to target hypochondriac careerist chicks.

If you are a beta male who would love nothing more than to snuggle after gently executed missionary sex and debate which color to paint the foyer, your best bet is to target in-shape athletic women who come from poor families and have crappy jobs.

Best,

Yours in politically incorrect but bracingly truthful dating advice.

Read Full Post »

Diversity + Proximity = War

In the clearest illustration yet of this infamous Chateau maxim, a new study is out showing how increased diversity in the form of bordered territory is leading to more war.

Wars steadily increase for over a century, fed by more borders and cheaper conflict.

New research by the University of Warwick and Humboldt University shows that the frequency of wars between states increased steadily from 1870 to 2001 by 2% a year on average. The research argues that conflict is being fed by economic growth and the proliferation of new borders.

We may think the world enjoyed periods of relative freedom from war between the Cold War and 9/11 but the new research by Professor Mark Harrison from at the University of Warwick’s the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, and Professor Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University, shows that the number of conflicts between pairs of states rose steadily from 6 per year on average between 1870 and 1913 to 17 per year in the period of the two World Wars, 31 per year in the Cold War, and 36 per year in the 1990s.

Professor Mark Harrison from the University of Warwick said: “The number of conflicts has been rising on a stable trend. Because of two world wars, the pattern is obviously disturbed between 1914 and 1945 but remarkably, after 1945 the frequency of wars resumed its upward course on pretty much the same path as before 1913.”

One of the key drivers is the number of countries, which has risen dramatically – from 47 in 1870 to 187 in 2001.

People like to form into competing groups. This natural impulse is encoded in every human being’s DNA. It is a deeply embedded encoding, and can’t be excised. It can only be controlled by authoritarian measures, i.e. ultimately at the point of a gun. More 20th century borders is likely the manifestation of these ancient desires seeking to congeal into ever smaller, and thus more closely related, human tribes, and now being free to do so. It should be no surprise to a realist of human nature that more borders would lead to more war.

Naturally, the hopelessly naive among you might ask, “Why not just dissolve borders like we are doing here in the USA? Fewer borders should mean less war, right?” Incorrect. What instead will happen — and what we are seeing happening today in the USA — is a chaotic scramble — a BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE — to form de facto borders within the essentially borderless nation. (The modern USA is the closest approximation we have to an essentially borderless nation ruled by a legitimate government. There is no way to explain the unsupervised migration of 50 million Mexicans in 30 years that starts with the premise that we have a working border mechanism in place.)

De facto internal borders are based on race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, and social status, just as hard borders. La Raza is an internal border. The Congressional Black Caucus is an internal border. Journalism is an internal border (80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats). Cosmopolitan elites are an internal border. Schools are an internal border (ever notice how students congregate in a lunchroom cafeteria? How about the quickness with which urban white elites set off for the decidedly less diverse suburbs when the kids reach schooling age?). J-Date is an internal border. NASCAR is an internal border. Libertardian blogs are an internal border. Gay Pride and Puerto Rican Day parades are internal borders. Gerrymandered districts are internal borders. Neighborhoods are internal borders. Of course, one notable group has no recognized internal border at all. And we know what happens to undefended, borderless lands: they get overrun.

Active wars of bloodshed might not be the result of such internal border-making (though don’t count your ammo before it’s fired), but all the political machinations and propaganda of hot wars are there in spades in our relatively bloodless diversity wars. The only thing missing is the stack of dead, uniformed bodies. “Uniformed” being the operative word here.

A country as (formerly) gifted with human capital as the USA can live with a little bit of diversity. But like every other nation on earth, beholden as we all are to our Darwinian overlord, it can’t live with a lot of it. We’ll soon find that out.

Read Full Post »

Is Female Careerism A Form Of Infidelity?

Reader Sidewinder writes:

While some degree of the female fascination/obsession with credentials can be explained as projecting onto themselves what they find desirable in men, I think there’s more to it than that. Not all, but a sizeable percentage of intelligent women become obsessed with their school or work. Maybe its just self-centeredness, but many women place their “career” to such a high level of importance that it almost becomes the primary component of their identity. Having read a good deal of marriage therapy literature the past year, some therapists have classified this female career obsession as a form of infidelity to the family and marrage. And its no coincidence that the vast majority of female infidelity takes place in connection with her workplace.

I wonder if in addition to projection, this obsession stems from an unconscious recognition of their declining attractiveness. Its like the 40 year old women at the gym: while they know that men aren’t especially attracted to muscular, hard-bodied women, its really the best option for them considering the alternative of sagging cellulite. Maybe girls latch on to school and work in their 20s because they feel its the only thing they can do to try to mitigate their inevitable declining looks as they approach their 30s and 40s.

Paging Penelope Trunk…

I agree that there is something “off” about women who are excessively devoted to their careers and to obtaining an acronymic parade of pointless credentials. Careerist shrikes are some of the most unpleasant, unfeminine women to be around. They must have more androgen receptors than normal women to be so grating to the male sensibility. Sure, they can fuck like Viagra-laced male pornstars, but as soon as you relieve yourself in them you will feel a second powerful urge to escape their aggro nastiness.

Sidewinder hits on an angle not much discussed in the media (obvi). Women who place their careers front and center are committing a kind of betrayal of their sex’s biological and psychological imperatives. It’s like a big middle finger to everything that distinguishes the feminine from the masculine, the yin from the yang. It’s quite possible that the worst offenders — the 14 hour day lawyercunts and the graduate school hermits — embrace the male-oriented rat race and achievement spectacle because it offers a welcome distraction from either spinsterly loneliness or boring beta male partners who, while intellectually are rationalized as good matches, do not viscerally excite them.

Maybe, too, these careerist chicks see their jobs as a way to enter the world of the alpha male, to have a taste of what it would be like to be part of his life. The office cubes and doormen and glassy skyscrapers have given legions of plain janes the daily stimulation to mentally masturbate fantasy romances with the alpha males who run their companies or the alpha salesmen who greet them at the front desk with a twinkle in their eyes.

Perhaps, as Sidewinder also noted, female careerism presents the illusion of a safe harbor from the approaching wall. When a woman’s SMV inevitably craters in her 40s, her career might be all she has to lift her spirits, especially if she has no husband she loves, no kids, or even just one kid who spends most of his time playing CoD or robbing convenience stores. Women with larger families don’t seem to dread the coming apocalypse of their beauty as much as the quasi-barren SWPLs seem to do, who start using expensive anti-wrinkle creams at age twelve.

The dumbfuck feminists will naturally ask, “Why doesn’t this same theory apply to men? Aren’t they escaping sad love lives by retreating to their careers?”

Don’t you know it’s different for guys? Unlike women, men are evolutionarily programmed to be resource providers for women. It is not a betrayal of a man’s innate purpose in life to ambitiously pursue achievement and accolades. In fact, just the opposite; it’s an affirmation of that ancient purpose. A man turning his back on raising his status is akin to a woman letting herself get fat and slovenly.

The women for whom career success is their comfort and their purpose are some sort of weird, monstrous amalgam of man and woman, halfway between both worlds, their sexual polarity askew. These types tend to attract either intense short term flings with alphas or plodding marriages with dweeby, effete kitchen bitches.

Additionally, it can be argued that a sexual market which favors easy sex (for alpha males only) and a marriage market increasingly against men’s interests pushes women into the careerist mindset, because subconsciously they realize that the guarantee of a strong male provider that was once their birthright is now a sucker’s bet, and one they have convinced themselves they don’t even want. Women, sensing the change in the rules, have responded by storming the state college citadels to earn their communications and women’s studies degrees by the boatload.

Of course, as I always remind the women reading here who complain about the change in the game…

Ladies, you get the men you created.

Read Full Post »

An Alpha Male And His Women

On this Father’s Day, it makes to sense to honor the lives of men who have forsaken the path of beta domestication, fat mortgages and fat wives to live the swinging single life of the harem king.

Hugh Grant, middle-aged alpha male, canoodles with one two seven college coeds. His face is the picture of unbridled joy. This is one happy man. You will never see this kind of blissed-out look on the faces of men married for years to the same aging wives. Only young, fresh pussy can inspire such a glow.

The photo comes from an article by a 40-something careerist spinster who bemoans the fact that she can’t find love with the men she wants. In her words:

when I look around at my girlfriends – bright, attractive, successful, fabulous women in their 40s who are single – I sincerely begin to wonder: Is there even one solvent, kind, desirable, heterosexual single man in his 40s left in Britain?

My friends and I have a horrible suspicion that the answer is no.

The topic was much debated when I went on a detox holiday in Morocco at Easter with nine single women, ranging in age from mid-30s to late-40s and all looking for love.

At first I thought it would be an oestrogen-infused nightmare, but as I got to know the women, all well-educated and successful (including bankers, a lawyer, a top fashion buyer, a media executive and an art historian), we bonded over our inability to find our male match.

Some of the bankers confessed to resorting to affairs with married men at work, which was depressing, but mostly we concluded we were unable to find what we were looking for because like-minded men of our age didn’t exist.

Like most delusional, over-educated termagants, she believes her accomplishments and intelligence — those things that are more naturally suited to the domain of men — entitle her to a fabulously successful, good-looking and kind alpha male in his 40s. She is heartbroken to discover that most men her age want nothing to do with her, or her similarly situated klatsch of Cosmo readers. One of her friends moans:

My friend Lizzie, a 43-year-old art director, says it was a real surprise to start dating at 40 after her marriage ended.

‘I’ve always had boyfriends before, but I’ve been single for three years now, as I’m not so attractive a proposition any more. I’ve had a child and have responsibility, which these immature men of our age see as terrifying baggage – which is hypocritical when many of them have ex-wives who are bringing up their kids.’

Yes, the reason could only be “immaturity” why men don’t want to date aging single moms. Maybe the reason why men “see” your kid from a previous marriage as baggage is because… wait for it…

it is baggage!

The hamster is in overdrive in this one, his wee tongue hanging out, gasping for breath, the axel on his wheel coming off.

The author has even coined a cleverless gibe to describe these age appropriate men who dare to follow their hearts and date much younger women: “kidults”. She wonders why these older men — who BY RIGHTS should be dating HER, don’t you know it’s how things are done in polite society — treat her with such perfunctory disdain and act as if they are the prize. Well, lady, I got news for ya. When you have aged out of your prime attractiveness years (15-25), the men you want to date ARE the prize, compared to you.

On and on she bitches, with one insult after another hurled at the impertinent men who dare to pass her over for the younger, hotter competition. “Misogynist”. “Hateful”. “Arrogant”. “Vile presumption”. “Secretly hate women”. “Dysfunctional”. Such a colorful repertoire of psychological projection to soothe the butthurt ego. Unfortunately for her, the cold machinations of the sexual marketplace do not operate by adjectival decree. No, the answer why she goes unloved by the men she desires is much, much simpler:

Read Full Post »

Why Are Later Marriages Less Likely To End In Divorce?

Because older divorcées have fewer options in the dating market.

Picture two married couples. Couple A got married at 21. Couple B got married at 31. Assume for the sake of simplicity that the spouses in each marriage are the same age, and neither one has had children.

At year three, Couple A stops having sex on a regular basis. Arguments become a daily feature. The wife begins pulling a beta valentine on her hubbie’s ass because she is turned off by his gradual betatization. They are now age 24, and divorce is whispered. Both of them survey their options should the unthinkable happen. Both realize, based on subconsciously acknowledged experience in the real world, that they could find new lovers in short order should the marriage fail. Divorce proceedings, while a testament to failure, don’t inspire them with fear and dread. There are green fields just past that horizon.

At year three, Couple B suffers the same fate as Couple A. The marriage has lost its allure. But this time, the response to impending divorce is different. The now 34 year old wife has stopped receiving glances from men when she walks around town to do errands. She senses, though she will never admit it even to herself, that her salad days are over and being single would not be the fun adventure it was when she was 21. The husband also believes (wrongly) that he has fewer options, because his marriage has made him rusty and dependent upon regular female companionship. He has doubts in himself and can’t imagine life as a single man. Both dread the repercussions of divorce and what it means to be thrust into a cutthroat dating market for which they are ill-prepared. So instead of divorce, they grit their teeth and he retreats to porn and poker while she has an illicit affair with her boss.

So there you have it.

Options = instability.

This is the kind of psychological analysis that you just won’t glean from a dry social survey that is prone to false information, particularly from female respondents.

Read Full Post »