You know the misogynistic drill. Men get better with age or sth. They will hit their prime at 40, because that is when they will become wealthy and succesful, attracting loads of 18-20yo FEEEMOIDS. While stacys will become postwall hags that nobody wants.

But, what does reality say?

Unamrried men are a very, VERY unhappy demographic. The percent of men who are so rich they can have sugarbabies is incredibly low. Just look at wealth distribution. The average male could never. And average means most. Even a financially stable male cannot afford that, as being a cashcow is ESSPENSIVE AF.

Truth is, if they do not settle down and be a HVM spouse, there are two options for them.

1.) Be a part of the 1-2%, become extremely rich by having incredible luck and a privileged background so they can afford to finance a sugarbaby- who ofc won't be loyal because- why?

2.) Be a lonely and invisible average Joe who cries on the internet about women, telling himself that he will enter his prime anytime now as he races towards 45, then 50, then 55, while alcoholism gets worse and pills just keep popping.

Reality is that single women are the happiest demographic, while single men just... rot.

Their entire idology is a lie, from the false statement that a traditional family makes women happy, to the false claims about female and male SMV with age.

Oh and, EVEN if women have less sex appeal with age, fuck does that matter? Males are in most cases nothing but an energy drain, yet they act like that pathetic worm between their legs makes them a real prize to behold. It does not work that way.